Litmus Test. Or: Paternalism and politics

So, I realized a while ago that I am a single issue voter. Or that I have an issue that is a total deal-breaker. (I realized it when John McCain decided he needed the social conservative base enough to make Sarah Palin his running-mate.)

Here it is: I can never vote for someone who thinks abortion should be illegal.

The bottom bottom line on that for me is that that person values potential life more than ACTUAL FEMALE LIFE. As an actual living female, that is deeply offensive to me. Did I say deeply? I meant massively, humungously, a gaping chasm, an abyss filled with o-fecking-fense.

Here's what I hear when some one says they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: "You are not competent to make decisions for yourself." Or, "there, there, sweetheart - we'll tell you what to think, feel, and do, and you'll be so much happier and better off. Or not - but we don't really care."

To be entirely honest, blunt even: I think there are enough people on this earth. And while I think babies are cute and agree that children are our future (duh), I can't say that I think anyone can decide whether any specific person needs to grow any specific cluster o'cells into a human. Including me. And including you.

At first I felt shallow and possibly lazy when I realized how this one issue colored all my voting decisions. Was I just taking a shortcut? Pro-choice = good; pro-life (hello? you better be against the death penalty, too, if you insist on that sobriquet!) = bad. Put the candidate in a neat little box, and I don't have to think about it any more.

But I've decided that what pro-choice means to me is that the candidate respects me, feels I can make rational decisions about my life, and thinks that I am worth more than a cell cluster. Since I agree, that makes it much easier for me to feel comfortable with voting for him or her.

So for me, it's paternalism=bad; respect=good. And that's my litmus test.

Capice?

'm out.