Is it hypocritcal to...

[Miles]

say you're pro-life but support pro-choice candidates?

I got into a Twitter argument with a pro-life news editor about my support for Landrieu. What strikes me is how rigid these guys are. In Landrieu's case, she has a better pro-life record than most Democrats, but its still pro-choice. If pro-life advocates are gonna win people over, I don't see why they assume everyone is a single-issue voter on this.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Take stock of what you, as someone who, as I recall, is pro-life, believe about abortion. Then ask yourself why people with similar views might think its important.

[IceSpear]

A lot of pro-lifers are single issue voters, so that isn't surprising. But since there's more to politics than abortion, it isn't hypocritical at all. I voted for Bob Casey even though I'm staunchly pro-choice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If you're someone who believes, uncompromisingly, that abortion is the equivalent to the Holocaust or mass murder, then technically it is hypocritical, but that of course is where I really start to question if someone is putting things in perspective.

[Potatoe]

Well, it's hard to find a politician you can 100% agree with, since I'd support people like Casey or Bayh, even though they differ from me quite a bit.

[TNF]

Take stock of what you, as someone who, as I recall, is pro-life, believe about abortion. Then ask yourself why people with similar views might think its important.

Essentially this. I'm not sure if I would call it hypocritical, but I would totally understand why one would think it hypocritical for a self-described pro-life person to support pro-choice candidates for office. (Of course as someone who self-identifies as pro-choice, I wouldn't rule out backing a pro-life candidate if that candidate was significantly to the left on economic issues, but as that's about as likely as a pro-choice Republican being nominated for President at some point in the next two decades, I'm not too worried about having to make that decision )

[bedstuy]

No.  Voting requires voting for people that you disagree with.  On this particular issue, pro-choice candidates may in practice result in a more pro-life outcome.  Many pro-lifers support dead-end unconstitutional legislation for one thing.  So, voting for them won't help the pro-life cause materially. 

More to the point, many pro-lifers oppose access to contraception and the morning-after pill.  That is in practice pro-abortion.  That's reason enough to vote for a pro-choice candidate, because the baseline is largely unchangeable because of the Supreme Court.

[ingemann]

If you're someone who believes, uncompromisingly, that abortion is the equivalent to the Holocaust or mass murder, then technically it is hypocritical, but that of course is where I really start to question if someone is putting things in perspective.

If you believe that abortion in USA is the equivalent to the Holocaust or mass murder, the only moral act would be begin to murder abortion doctors in attempt to terrorise them until no one are willing to set an practic anymore or try to start an armed revolution against the state. Of course they don't really believe that (beside the crazies who really do those things), it's only rhetoric.

So for the question Mardi Gras Miles ask; no I don't think it's hypocritical. In fact I would say that most pro-abortion politicians do more to limit the number of abortion in the real world than anti-abortion politicians does, plus the former also seem to care about the child after it's born.

[SWE]

No, you're not likely to find a politician you agree with 100% and you shouldn't vote on a single issue.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If you're someone who believes, uncompromisingly, that abortion is the equivalent to the Holocaust or mass murder, then technically it is hypocritical, but that of course is where I really start to question if someone is putting things in perspective.

If you believe that abortion in USA is the equivalent to the Holocaust or mass murder, the only moral act would be begin to murder abortion doctors in attempt to terrorise them until no one are willing to set an practic anymore or try to start an armed revolution against the state. Of course they don't really believe that (beside the crazies who really do those things), it's only rhetoric.

So for the question Mardi Gras Miles ask; no I don't think it's hypocritical. In fact I would say that most pro-abortion politicians do more to limit the number of abortion in the real world than anti-abortion politicians does, plus the former also seem to care about the child after it's born.

Bear in mind that not everyone thinks bloodshed is a sound remedy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Short answer, no.

Even for a single issue voter, one reason why it wouldn't be is that of a strategic approach. Supporting Pro-choice Republican candidates in deep blue states to facilitate a pro-life Senate Judiciary Chairman for instance as an example.

[H. Ross Peron]

No especially if one accounts for the likelihood of passing restrictions on abortion as opposed to the other proposals of the candidate and which policies you believe would actually reduce the number of abortions

[ElectionsGuy]

No, you're not likely to find a politician you agree with 100% and you shouldn't vote on a single issue.

This, and if your a one-issue voter on anything, it shouldn't be abortion.

[Deus Naturae]

Depends on your rationale. Generally speaking, no.