Will Obama or Mccain stop the American Abortion Holocaust ?

It seems that John McCain And Barack Obama are not that much different when it comes to the abortion issue. Obama is pro-choice and McCain say's he is pro-life but i am beginning to question this because of his past flip flopping on issues.

i think this blog article say's alot about both Presidential candidates and both video's are a must see imo.

Since 1973, way over 40 MILLION innocent babies have been chopped up and slaughtered in the American abortion mills.

shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com...
Shattered Paradigm: Over 40 Million Dead Babies - Will Either Obama Or McCain Stop The American Abortion Holocaust?

if you watched both video's... could you please tell me how either of these two would be good for this country ?

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.

reply to post by argentus


the blog article is the one characterizing these abortions as a 'holocaust' and i think the term fits imo. this is a form of genocide and murder. would you prefer it be sugar coated ?

i dont believe that McCain or especially Obama will attempt to change the law as it stands. according to the article Mccain has said he doesnt care about social issues. it's obvious to me that his current pro-life stance is just to get the Christian vote ?

maybe i am wrong about McCain i dont know. he could appoint conservatives to the supreme court ?





[edit on 15-6-2008 by easynow]

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?

reply to post by easynow


Well that is about the most slanted article I've ever seen!

Since 1973, way over 40 MILLION innocent babies have been chopped up and slaughtered in the American abortion mills.

"Chopped up" at "mills?" Please. Regardlesss of where one sits on the political fence, no sane human thinks of babies as lumber to be chopped up at the mill.....

But John McCain insists he is pro-life now. Sort of.

Of course McCain isn't 100% pro-life. We live in a changing world. There are living creatures being born and dying all over the planet every minute of every day. Do you really think it's a good idea for 16-20 year olds to have kids (which is what a lot of abortions are)?? The statistics clearly show that kids having kids is a bad idea.

If people really want to change society, they should go to school, join the military, travel the world, start a business.... in other words...... LEARN about the world. THEN have kids once you are more mature and experienced. That would do society far more good than writing silly blogs depicting americans as heartless brain sucking baby killers...

reply to post by Scramjet76

Well that is about the most slanted article I've ever seen!

yes, but most pro-life extremists would agree with the direction of the 'slant'

Regardlesss of where one sits on the political fence, no sane human thinks of babies as lumber to be chopped up at the mill

the analogy may be extreme but i think the point here is that the abortion process has become routine and repetitive to the point that it has become an assembly line of death.

Of course McCain isn't 100% pro-life.

i agree and i dont see how any candidate could be. the problem that i have is neither candidate has any real plan to reduce abortions, either by education or inspiration.

i can see the abortion numbers rising to all time highs with Obama or McCain because of the lack of leadership skills and/or commitment to reducing unwanted pregnancy's.

If people really want to change society, they should go to school, join the military, travel the world, start a business.... in other words...... LEARN about the world. THEN have kids once you are more mature and experienced.

i agree but is either candidate saying any of this ?

That would do society far more good than writing silly blogs depicting americans as heartless brain sucking baby killers

yes time could be better spent for sure , and i hope the next president will spend some time on it.

if you watched both video's... could you please tell me how either of these two would be good for this country ?

Do you really think that Abortion is the biggest problem facing our nation?
Seriously?

Our Constitutional rights have been eroded, we're in the middle of a Recession with signs of it worsening, we're in a gas crisis, in an unwinnable war of ideology in the Middle East, and you're most worried about a religious morality issue?

For the rest of the world, abortion is (and has been for ages) a non-issue...i.e. if you are against abortion, don't have one. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs or your assessment on when life begins, etc.

Though I will agree that neither man is good for this country.

As for abortion rates, you may want to check the statistics, as they've actually been on a rather dramatic decrease within the past few years.

Those who study abortion aren't sure why there's been a continued decline, but some, such as economics professor Ted Joyce of Baruch College in New York City, say it's likely a combination of factors such as better contraception, greater awareness about teen pregnancy and even welfare reform.

www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Gazrok]

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]

reply to post by Scramjet76


How will the kids stop learning to have sex at a young age then? For every action there is a reaction. If you are big enough to have sex then you should be big enough to follow through with your commitment. There are exceptions, if a girl got raped and had a baby then it should be her choice to take it and raise it or have an abortion.

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.

reply to post by Gazrok

Do you really think that Abortion is the biggest problem facing our nation?
Seriously?

where in this thread did i say abortion was the biggest problem facing our nation ?

if killing babies is not an important issue to you then you need to check the morals and values bank because your running low on them.

Our Constitutional rights have been eroded, we're in the middle of a Recession with signs of it worsening, we're in a gas crisis, in an unwinnable war of ideology in the Middle East, and you're most worried about a religious morality issue?

it's not a religious morality issue ...it's a human morality issue. if you cant understand the difference you should not be discussing this.