Vote Pro-Life, Literally
Marvin Richardson used to be known as Marvin Pro-Life Richardson, but Idaho election officials would not allow his middle name to appear on the ballot. So he legally changed his name to “Pro-Life.” Now that he has no other name, the ballot will contain an option to vote for Pro-Life. Pro-Life intends to run for the highest office possible in Idaho in every major election and says he would be happy with 5% of the vote.
Evidently, some serious pro-lifers are worried that Pro-Life will invalidate some voters’ ballots who intend to vote for a real pro-life candidate but also can’t help but check a box next to the phrase Pro-Life. I don’t imagine that this is a very far-fetched scenario. In my experience (incomplete and biased as it is), some of the least-informed voters I have ever met have been ardently pro-life. More than any other issue, abortion issues attract mindless, uncritical, uninformed support in elections.
That isn’t to say that all pro-life voters are idiots; far from it. But for such a complex moral and legal question, it has been reduced to bumper stickers and catch phrases more than almost any other issue in the recent history of American politics. And that is a shame, because there need to be continuing discussions about abortion, but they cannot be dominated by the dogmatic or uninformed masses.
This whole idea of someone changing his name to Pro-Life could almost be an April Fools’ Day joke, but it is not. I came across the reference on a very interesting blog, relying on intellect, with this post: “Hello, my name is Pro-Life.”
The real story from CBS is here, just to make sure.
Unfortunately the abortion debate is largely characterized by bumper sticker catch phrases on both sides — I am always a little embarrassed when I meet pro-choice high school girls who can’t formulate an argument deeper than “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!” Abortion is such a controversial subject that everyone wants to get in on the discussion, even if they aren’t informed enough to articulate why they feel the way they do.
Unfortunately, the abortion debate exists to benefit politicians…
I agree that people need to be able to articulate what their position is and also why they hold that position, expecially on such a controversial topic. Otherwise you end up with those sometimes annoying and sometimes cheesy bumper stickers and catch phrases.
I think it’s going a bit far to change your name to “Pro-Life” and probably doesn’t give him much credibility with many people – he just comes across as a nutt job even if you do agree with him on the issue of abortion.
Having said that …..I agree that such a critical issue shouldn’t be reduced to catch phrases and cheesy slogans (keep your rosaries off my ovaries??? people really say that??? sheesh!) on either side of the debate. But I also can’t help thinking that so many people have reduced a human life to “medical waste” and that to me is a far more offensive thing.
Personally, I use the issues regarding life (both ends of the spectrum – abortion to euthenasia because someone is too old or too sick to deal with) as the first weeding out among candidates. If a candidate doesn’t value life (either at the beginning or the end) then what exactly do they value?
You are also correct in that there needs to be much more informed communication on this issue but unfortunately it is generally those in support of abortion who are less willing to communicate openly, honestly and without malice. Don’t jump on me – I know there are some crazy radical militant nut jobs out there who are pro-life who do that side of the issue no favors by speaking out either.
jipmeister, it is a mistake to assume that those who are pro-choice are necessarily so because they do not value life.
“But I also can’t help thinking that so many people have reduced a human life to “medical waste” and that to me is a far more offensive thing.”
I agree with this (for the most part), but I don’t consider myself a part of the “pro-life” group — narrow-minded, religious-conservative sycophants.
So, what does that make me? I’m not anti-life, but I’m not pro-choice either.
I’ve always attempted to take a stance from a humanitarian perspective. That allows me to argue from “speculative” points of view and for the prospect of human life — in my opinion, what is best for humanity. Because the definition of “human life” is essentially an argument over scientific semantics. I won’t get caught up in that “medical” trap, because a zygote and a fetus aren’t “human lives” — and I know that.
Let’s not go down the pro-life – pro-choice “value of life” route, eh?
“Unfortunately, the abortion debate exists to benefit politicians…”
Wow, that is incredibly true. I think most reasonable politicians on both sides agree that the sort of abortion compromise that we have right now is the only viable solution. It is a pipe dream to believe that abortion will ever be competely illegal in this country (or anything close to that) and it is equally a pipe dream for radical pro-choice advocates to think that abortion will ever be completely unregulated and available.
Meanwhile, though, they continue to use the rhetoric of “life” to drum up support, especially from among the religious right.
Well put, my friend.
It seems to me that those who consider themselves pro-choice do value human life. They value the quality of life of those who are already living breathing human beings. When it comes to that standard, there is a sizable number of people on the pro-life side of the issue who do not seem to value human life absolutely. When was the last time a pro-choice advocate murdered a pro-life preacher? Or bombed a church? Or even picketed outside of a church?
Pro-life activists don’t all hold life absolutely sacred. If they are willing to kill physicians who are trying to help their patients and destroy the facilities where such procedures, sometimes life saving, are performed, then they are hypocrites who don’t really value life as much as they say they do.
I think it’s fair to say those type of people are radical extremist, outside the mainstream. Nonetheless, it shows the political aspect of the issue.
krjohns, I agree with you and those are the types of people that I referred to as the radical militant, blah blah nutt jobs – there’s definitely something wrong with someone holding a “respect life” sign in one hand and a shot gun or bomb in the other.
I realize both sides of the issue have more than their fair share of lunatics.
Every time someone posts a topic that mentions abortion, the comments always skirt dangerously around engaging the core issue itself. Please don’t go there, though. :-p It is never productive, and the abortion debate is tired. It is so so tired.
As long as we are just skirting, though, of course people with pro-choice opinions value life. That is never in question, except with a few absolutely insane people out there. The debate is never about valuing “human life” (whatever that is) or not valuing it; the debate is always about when definable human life begins and what should society do to protect it along the way.
Actually, David, I don’t think it’s always about when life begins… but I’ll respect your request not to go there. :-)
Ha, thanks. It is extremely hard for people to have an extended rational discussion on such an emotionally charged issue as this in an open forum like Political Cartel. I think most of us feel like we’ve “been there and done that.”