Blog: I'm pro-life. And I'm voting for Hillary. Here's why. by Shannon Dingle

[ehrnst]

Last edited Mon Aug 1, 2016, 03:44 PM - Edit history (3)

Edited to add: Please note: "pro life" is in the title of the blog post I am sharing. I did not write the blog post. I understand and acknowlege that 'Pro-life' is not an accurate descriptor of the ideology behind the political label of "pro-life." I am sharing this post because it is written by someone anti-choice who has come to realize that the **Democratic party** is the party truly reducing abortions by addressing the social and economic issues that lead women to decide that they cannot have a child, helping women who do have children, enriching the lives of disabled children like hers - and NOT the GOP, dispite all of it's talk of "the sanctity of life." I do not agree with her assesment of Planned Parenthood, or her opinion of legal abortion, but she has the insight that we truly wish all those who have in the past made opposition to abortion their litmus test for a candidate. In fact, she makes the distinctions "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" when talking about the candidates, and refers to Demcrats championing "pro-life' issues.

(Lest I sound as if I’m ignoring Hillary’s pro-choice record, I assure you I am not. I expect that anyone reading this is well-versed in her public statements over the years. I’m just pointing out, like this article does, that if you’re looking for a genuinely anti-abortion candidate, then Trump isn’t your guy any more than Hillary is your girl.)

But it’s on the other pro-life issues that I find Trump the most lacking and Hillary the far superior candidate. In other words, my stance isn’t a choice between the lesser of two evils. I’m not simply voting against Trump. If so, I’d be abstaining on principle (which is a valid choice, no matter what some may argue) or considering a third party candidate. I don't consider it morally appropriate to vote against someone; in my personal convinctions, I must be able to vote for the person I choose on the ballot. So if I were a NeverTrumper and a NeverHillary, then I'd choose someone else or abstain. Those are viable options, even if someone tries to bully you into believing they aren't. But I find enough I can affirm and identify with in the positions and record of Hillary Clinton, so my stance to be with her isn’t based in an opposition to Trump. Aside for abortion – which I do care about deeply – I see the Democrats as the party that champions other pro-life issues more effectively and consistently. This is why I changed my registration to unaffiliate with any party several years ago, after having been a Republican for years, based largely on my abortion stance.
....................................

Hillary’s history with people with disabilities shows her esteem for their lives. Our family has directly benefited from IDEA, the federal law requiring the inclusion of children with disabilities in public schools. She was not only involved in its reauthorization but served as a pioneer to pave the way for it in the first place. Hillary began her law career before IDEA or its predecessor Public Law 94-132 had been passed, yet one of her earliest projects with the Children’s Defense Fund was advocating for kids with special needs to have a place in the classroom. Beyond that, she has spoken out about the need to end the sheltered workshop models for the employment of adults with disabilities, which is absolutely needed but often ignored. Work provides dignity, and to me, ensuring that those with disabilities can both work and be paid a fair wage is a pro-life issue. Beyond that, her proposals about autism services and research are cutting edge and reflect true listening to adults with autism instead of focusing on causes and cures, which we’ve unsuccessfully done for years. Her pledged support for the Disability Integration Act, furthermore, shows that adults with disabilities are on her radar (with long term care in the DNC platform this year), which shows a distinctly different value for these lives than what we’re seeing from any candidate before her and, in particular, from Trump.

..............................................

So when I can identify one party standing – maybe – for the lives of those who are yet to be born while I see the other party showing value for lives after they’re born, I hate the choice to be made. But I don’t see how I can say “Jesus loves you” to anyone living while saying, in essence, “but my faith says the lives of those unborn trump the love I’m willing to show you in my political decisions.” That’s what I feel like I would be saying if I chose to vote for a candidate who claims now to be anti-abortion over another candidate who has shown more post-birth pro-life sentiment. What is our Christian witness to those who have been born when we insist that the lives of the unborn matter more in our votes than their lives do?

http://www.shannondingle.com/blog//im-pro-life-and-im-voting-for-hillary-heres-why

[HERVEPA]

1. I am pro-life and pro-choice. You are just anti-choice. Thr pro-life term is disingenuous at best.

[Frances]

2. Sorry, I don't have a clue as to what you are saying

[HERVEPA]

7. Pro-life is a garbage term as applied by the anti-choice people.

It implies that those of us who are pro-choice are not pro-life. We are pro-life, especially concerned qith quality of life of babies and children, rather than fetuses.

[ehrnst]

3. The author of the blog is referring to the political position she identifies with

In the way that saying you are "pro-choice" is not about wanting choices in beer, it's about supporting the right to legal abortion.

When someone says that they are pro-life, I (and pretty much everyone else knows) immediately know what their stance on legal abortion is.

The audience for this post are those who identify politically with the 'pro-life' stance, which is opposition to the right to legal abortion.

The time and place for debating the accuracy of the 'pro-life' label is elsewhere, with different people than the ones she is convincing.

And I am not the author of the post - it is a blog that someone else wrote.

[HERVEPA]

8. Please don't tell me where I should be posting my comment.

Pro-life is a loaded term that the anti-choice people came up with many years ago because they were trying to make their position sound humane and those of pro-choice people inhumane.

[ehrnst]

12. I am not anti-choice. I am pro-choice

And you are preaching to the choir. I am not endorsing the label - I freaking worked at NARAL national, so I fully aware of what the pro-life label means, and don't need to be schooled on this. OK? I don't think anyone else on DU needs to be schooled on that either. I understand the urge to correct someone on a board who is anti-choice, and calling it 'pro-life' but I am not one of those people. I don't think anyone at DU needs to be schooled on the term.

This is the title of the blog post - and the fact that she says "pro-life' (yes, yes, yes, I know and I know that you know that it's not really accurate in describing the true position that is associated with that political label OK? ) and "voting for Hillary" is why the post is so important.

I have shared this blog post with several state NARAL staffers, and they are HAPPY THAT I DID. They are happy that the message that the GOP is not in any way shape or form reducing abortion, or helping women who choose to have a child, especially if that child is disabled, is landing, finally, and a person who identifies herself as 'pro-life' is going to get the attention of others who may feel the way she does - that Trump and the GOP are going to be worse for women and families.

I hope that clarifies things, and the purpose of sharing this person's blog.

[HERVEPA]

13. I was not attempting to school you.

However there are plenty of people on DU who do not realize that the "pro-life" BS term was coined for the reason I stated.
You are free to state your opinion here, of course, and so am I.
As an FYI, I have been a Planned Parenthood volunteer escort for 25 years. putting my body on the line, and I am totally familiar with what the antis are all about.

[ehrnst]

15. If you read the post - she makes some pretty realistic distinctions

Good to meet you - I have been involved in clinic escorting in DC, so yes, I too am totally familiar with what the anti's are all about.

She makes the distinction that "pro-life" issues are championed by the Democrats - who she acknowledges are "pro-choice," because they address the issues that make women feel that they cannot have a child, and therefore are correctly defined as pursuing 'pro-life' issues.

She also states that if someone is looking for an "anti-abortion" candidate, Trump is not it.

I think you thought that I somehow was representing the 'pro-life' political label as something other than anti-choice, and that is not accurate.

Interestingly, this blogger explores that in detail and schools others (who call themselves 'pro-life') as to who really reduces the number of abortions, and implements policies that support women and families - Democrats. Hillary in particular.

This is what I have been trying to say to anti's for years, and she gets it. And she's telling other anti-choice people that they should take a look at what a real 'pro-life' - for all stages of life once a woman decides to have a child - candidate looks like.

Finally one of them gets it, and she's spreading the word. One of them gets that to reduce abortions, you must make childbearing and child rearing, especially kids with disabilities, something that has the full support of our policies. You can't be claim to pro-birth, while being anti-affordable healthcare, which she points out is the hippocracy of the GOP.

[HERVEPA]

18. Thank you for your thoughtful post!

[DFW]

4. "Pro-life?"

Unless someone is vegan and an active crusader against the death penalty, I don't give the term much weight.

[ehrnst]

10. That is the title of the blog.

Because "I'm pro-life (which we all know is a misleading label, and all of us here all think that the more accurate term is 'anti-choice) and I'm voting for Hillary" was too long for the form field.

I thought that it was clear that this is not my blog, and that I am certainly not arguing the case for anti-choice being called Pro-life, but apparently some here are not getting that.

I personally think that the substance of the blog post was worth sharing, and did not expect it to be derailed with an argument about the validity of a political label that has been discussed for years and that we all agree on.

For the record: I am pro-choice. I do not think that 'pro-life' accurately describes the POLITICAL LABEL of 'pro-life.'

[liberalnarb]

5. If someone supports attacking a woman's right to control her body, then that persons endorsement

doesn't mean jack to me. Sorry.

[HERVEPA]

6. Correct.

[ehrnst]

9. A vote is a vote.

And someone making the case to any voter that might consider jumping the fence for Hillary is useful.

I don't think that we have the luxury of turning up our noses at why someone is voting for Hillary, or encourages others to.

[ehrnst]

11. Attention: I do not think that 'pro-life' accurately describes the political label in the blog

I am not the author of the blog. The title of the blog post was created by Shannon Dingle, who is speaking to other people show share her politicial view that abortion should not be legal.

I am pro-choice. I belive that people who are against legal abortion should be called anti-choice, or pro-forced childbearing.

The point of sharing this blog post was not to imply that anti-choice people should be calling themselves 'pro-life.'

The point of sharing this blog post was not to imply that anyone should be pandering to the anti-choice crowd.

The point of sharing this post was that someone who opposes legal abortion has determined that Hillary and the Democratic party are actually 'pro-life' in the full sense that they are reducing abortion by addressing the reasons that women often feel they cannot have a child, UNLIKE the GOP.

THIS is what I have been saying to anti-choice people FOR YEARS, that if they want to reduce abortions, then they need to be voting DEMOCRAT.

THIS WOMAN ACTUALLY GETS IT AND IS WORKING TO CONVINCE OTHER ANTI-CHOICE PEOPLE TO LEAVE THE GOP.

[pnwmom]

14. I don't know why some DUers love to distract from an OP's point. Thank you for posting

this blog.

I don't know what the blogger's religion is, but I think her views are typical of a lot of liberal Catholics, who may view themselves as pro-life, but don't think concerns about life issues end at birth. And who don't want to impose their religious beliefs on others.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. I would also like to thank you for sharing this. Choice has been a huge part of the GOP's wedge

politics. It's just nice to see a Repub display some nuance of thinking and genuine compassion for others outside of the abortion issue.

[ehrnst]

17. I find it interesting that she left the GOP because of the hippocracy.

You can't be 'pro-birth' at the same time you cut medicare, food stamps and affordable health care for those who decide to have children.

She's the mom of some disabled kids, so she has seen firsthand the problems with all those GOP politicians who champion the sanctity of life from ejaculation all the way up through birth.