John McCain is Anti-Choice

John McCain is ardently anti-choice — he wants to make abortion illegal and overturn Roe v. Wade. These positions put him out of step with mainstream voters and will hurt him in the general election.

McCain has voted consistently against women's health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• John
• McCain
• Anti-Choice
• Abortion
• Planned
• Parenthood
• election
• president

[naught07]

Whats with all these damn hypoctical "Christians" agianst abortion seriously???? There is nothing wrong with it. Seriously. Its Peoples Choice to have an aborition its peoples RIGHTS! Damn republicans keep on trying to take our Rights Away!!! And Mccain Sucks!! he is another Bush

DONT VOTE JOHN W MCCAIN!!!!!!!!

VOTE BARACK OBAMA!!!! FOR A BETTER CHANGE

[TFarache]

Then why try to find a cure for AIDS, feed poor children or stop the genocide in Darfur? Why not just let them die? I think the whole overpopulation idea is racism against non-white peoples.

[JimmyFaust]

@kweer58 One thing about anti-choicers is that they can pack so much stupidity into so few words. 1) Fetuses are not babies. 2) There are reasons other than "socio-economic" to have an abortion. 3) Anti-choicers should also have to finish the sentence, thuthfully: "because we are ignorant hypocrites who care more about a bundle of cells than a suffering child" 4) The personal choices of others are none of your fucking business. Why don't you go force someone to donate blood or a kidney?

[MisterPrice1]

Well, their arguments are just as ridiculous as those of the ignorant. But I'm not going to stop using terms that make sense to me just because someone is misappropriating them. Ignorant and manipulative people will likely be around for a while, unfortunately.

[Beskargam]

I'm not referring to ignorant people that do it, I'm talking about cynical, manipulatively-minded people that draw such comparisons to attempt to gain support from the ignorant.

[MisterPrice1]

People will do that, but if they do it out of ignorance of what the terms pro-life and pro-choice really mean, then they're just ignorant.

[Beskargam]

I thought that as well until I came across people (on both sides of the issue) that tried to draw comparisons between their stance on the issue and fundamental American values.

[MisterPrice1]

I agree with that, but I think most rational people know exactly what the titles refer to and don't take it beyond that.

[Beskargam]

Yeah, and that's exactly why I don't refer to it as "pro-life". Of course, pro-life would actually be even more misleading, since being truly pro-life would encompass being pro-universal healthcare, anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-euthanasia.

But the real problem is the association that the labels create. After all, what kind of person is really against choice or life in general? But if you're not pro-choice, you're clearly against choice, and if you're not pro-life, you're against life.

[MisterPrice1]

Well, it's much simpler just to call it 'pro-choice' because everyone knows what choice people are talking about. I guess you can make a similar argument in support of the 'pro-life' label, because everyone knows that it means the life of the unborn, not the life of the mother.

[Beskargam]

Exactly: they support the ability of women to make a choice about a specific topic, they don't necessarily support the ability of individuals to make choices about everything (which is what pro-choice actually sounds like). That's why I call it misleading. As for justified liberty, make a case for it being justifiable to be able to make the call about whether or not another human entity gets to continue living.

[MisterPrice1]

I think pro-choice is not misleading at all: pro-choice individuals support a woman's choice in deciding whether or not a pregnancy will be terminated. In such terms, it is not misleading. Pro-life, on the other hand, I find to greatly misleading because it is actually supporting an anti-life position, by advocating a position that lessens the justified liberty of a woman and thus lessening her quality of life.