I would guess that you're not realizing a lot of posts because of your characterizations of abortions as a "holocaust". I think you'd have done better to ask which candidate will support or not support the law that is currently on the books. I'd personally be shocked if that didn't derail the thread into a rehash of the morality issues regarding abortion.

As to your question....... I don't believe either Senator Obama nor Senator McCain would attempt to change the law as it stands. It's a sticky wicket and one that is certain to bring up peripheral issues of a religious nature.

McSame will flipflop as much as possible. Hes a snake, a boa mabey. Abortion could be classified as murder depending upon one's beliefs, but how is it genocide?

I don't believe in abortion, but I don't feel it's the government's place to decide what's best for a pregnant mother.

However, If a woman is making a habit of having abortions (2 or more), then "Yes", the government should intervene and sterilize them like a stray dog.

Once is conceivably a mistake due to poor judgement or planning, twice is murder. With all the planned parenting and sex education classes nowadays, there's no excuse for having unwanted children.

Don't forget however, that certain religious beliefs prohibit the use of contraception, and utilization of that knowledge...thus further contributing to the very problem they so vehemently oppose...

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Gazrok]

Threads like this ones are screaming propaganda, still in a nation and in this time an age people can no stay away from sticking their head in women issues.

They just can not get away from wanting to put a padlock on woman uterus and have them regulated by the government.

How about castrating all those males that get the woman pregnant, I bet we can save all those littler fetuses, blaming the woman uterus and deeming then evil is nothing but gender racism.

Males reproduction parts are weapons of mass destruction you know and the reason woman get pregnant too in case you missed the reproduction course in school, well I can not blame you probably the courses were to evil for you to attend.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Don't forget however, that certain religious beliefs prohibit the use of contraception, and utilization of that knowledge...thus further contributing to the very problem they so vehemently oppose...

I understand where you're coming from Gazrock, but they're forgetting yet another option.. abstinence.

If they cannot procreate responsibly, then the choice is simple, don't. There's no logical reason to have a dozen kids that you cannot afford to feed, clothe, or care for properly.

As you said, it takes two to Tango....

While the woman is tasked with carrying the fetus to term, it seems a bit unrealistic and immoral to completely remove the male from any decision/responsibility regarding the matter, and future of the would-be child. That's just one of the factors making it such a controversial issue. While I agree with you that it is a matter of choice, I don't agree with the assessment that it's a "women's issue". I feel it's a choice both would-be parents need to make. I will agree that the woman's choice (due to her role) carries more weight, but the father's wishes should not be completely disregarded, if he wishes to weigh in on the matter and assume responsibility.

I understand where you're coming from Gazrock, but they're forgetting yet another option.. abstinence.

If they cannot procreate responsibly, then the choice is simple, don't. There's no logical reason to have a dozen kids that you cannot afford to feed, clothe, or care for properly.

That's great in theory, however as much as we want to deny it, we're animals of nature and somewhat subject to our internal instincts, and one of those instincts is to pro-create. It's difficult to tell teenagers not to have sex, when mass-media and mother nature are sending them a completely different message. While we'd like to think that everyone should be able to control their urges, the simple matter is that warring hormones tend to win out, especially when supported by society at large.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Gazrok]

Is a problem with that Gazrok in today society most of the time the will be father will have no role in the life of the pregnant woman, but in our society the woman is forced to carry the stigma of being the one that make the mistake and if she gets an abortion then she is evil and a baby killer.

While the male gets away most of the time free of charge, unless the woman decides to take her pregnancy to full term and then engage the court system to force the unwilling father to pay for the mistake, still the woman is still look at as the bad one.

I would agree with that assessment Marg. Sad, but true.
Which is why, when a woman is not looking to get pregnant, and the male wants to engage in unprotected sex, she needs to put her foot down and say, "No way." The guy does tend to get off scott-free, and he knows it. That's why you see these unmarried teen guys on Jerry Springer who've impregnated 8 women or more....

That's why I added my caveat that if the man wants to take a responsibility in the decision of abortion, then he needs to be heard out, but if he doesn't seek it, then it then becomes her choice alone.

The flip side of this, is when the woman gets pregnant, doesn't tell the man, and then gets an abortion. However, one could argue in that having unprotected sex, he was aware of the consequences, and thus had a responsibility to see whether or not she became pregnant.

The United States has diploma mills and people get away with 'graduating'. It's not so much if Obama of McCain will stop the abortion. It's the choice of the mothers, really. And the holocaust we truly fail to see are the countless lives that are lost to war, disease and other freak accidents that don't make sensational headlines via the media.

I agree Gazrok.

pikypiky, the problem is that when it comes to abortion in our nation that is a relgious agenda and an easy target to make into an issue.

Originally posted by Gazrok
That's great in theory, however as much as we want to deny it, we're animals of nature and somewhat subject to our internal instincts, and one of those instincts is to pro-create. It's difficult to tell teenagers not to have sex, when mass-media and mother nature are sending them a completely different message. While we'd like to think that everyone should be able to control their urges, the simple matter is that warring hormones tend to win out, especially when supported by society at large.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Gazrok]

We may still be animals, but that doesn't mean we need to act like them. Raging hormones and peer pressure are real factors, but the ultimate choice lies with the individual.

If you know you cannot take care of a child, the least you can do is practice birth control whether your religion forbids it or not. I'm sure their religion does not look fondly upon abortions either.

In a sense, I couldn't really care less about this topic and personally find it as a rather miniscule, who-cares, what's-the-big-deal, type of issue.

I don't think that abortion is what's causing the nation and world to be in turmoil. I don't even consider it as a form of violence.

However, if abortion were to be outlawed, I'd rather see it be each individual state's choice to outlaw or not, rather than a nationwide ban.