Obama's Extreme Stand on Abortion

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
One of the issues that was discussed last night was abortion. We now know the candidate's opinions on when life begins, and their stances. McCain is pro-life, and believes that life begins at conception. Obama is pro-choice and said the answer to that question was "above his pay grade". He states that his pro-choice stance does not mean he is pro-abortion.

But Obama's voting record tells a different tale. He has strongly opposed the Supreme Court ban against partial birth abortion, a particulary disgusting procedure. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And he has stated that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" by a pregnancy, another odd perspective for a prospective leader of the free world.
www.washingtonpost.com...


Obama has tried to mitigate his stance by announcing that he is in favor of methods that would reduce the overall number of abortions. But that is nothing more than pandering. He also made a false statement last night when he said that under Bush, the number of abortions has not been lowered.
www.factcheck.org...



+14 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I hate that abortion is even a political issue. stay out of other people's business. If you don't want an abortion, then you don't get one. Don't try and make that decision for somebody else.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation, how we treat the most defenseless among us. We are not a disposable society when it comes to life.

Edit: Regardless of whether it should be an issue, the fact that he supports partial birth abortion says a lot about his makeup, imo.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jsobecky]


+7 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation, how we treat the most defenseless among us. We are not a disposable society when it comes to life.


oh please...spare me ...we ARE a disposable society when it comes to life. wars for oil, letting homeless people die on the streets because it would cost too much money. putting families with kids out on the streets because interest rates on their home loans can't be re-negotiated. people in this country without money are simply told to go away and don't bother anybody.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation, how we treat the most defenseless among us. We are not a disposable society when it comes to life.


Oh the old moral fiber.

Since, as you suggest, make law with "moral fiber" as our guide, it would be helpful if you could define that for us?

Then please tell us who's morality we should use as a baseline?

I would also like to know if "moral fiber" should be a part of our foreign policy? Let's say how do we apply this "moral fiber".

Perhaps we should paint it on the tip of our bombs as they kill thousands of innocents, many of whom are actual walking around babies.

Or shall we use this "moral fiber" with arbitrary discretion when it can be pimped as a convenient abstract emotional tool?

You know, I was in the middle of posting my opinion that you really are saying nothing new here. According to Gallup:


Americans (53%) consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves "pro-life."


And both candidate's stance is neither new or contradictory to their party's ideology.

But you had to use the old moral fiber and in the process destroying any of this thread's credibility.

Moral Fibre. You're funny



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
I hate that abortion is even a political issue. stay out of other people's business. If you don't want an abortion, then you don't get one. Don't try and make that decision for somebody else.


I agree. Keep medical procedures like abortions out of politics. Wasn't the United States of America founded on, "Freedom of Choice" ?
Somewhere along the line, politicians have swept that little phrase under the carpet.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
He also made a false statement last night when he said that under Bush, the number of abortions has not been lowered.
www.factcheck.org...


Was it false? Your source is from three years ago, and it's based upon what is now five year old data (2003 numbers).

Also, the chart shows the "rate per 1000 women", not the actual total number of abortions performed. I know that population has increased over the last eight years; so it seems possible that while the rate per 1000 may have dipped, the total number may have increased.

Your source doesn't seem adequate to support the accusation that "He made a false statement" without more recent data.

[edit on 8/17/08 by redmage]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Obama has tried to mitigate his stance by announcing that he is in favor of methods that would reduce the overall number of abortions. But that is nothing more than pandering. He also made a false statement last night when he said that under Bush, the number of abortions has not been lowered.
www.factcheck.org...


You're not on your game today:



U.S. abortion rate falls, study finds
Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:32am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1976, with about 20 percent of pregnancies being terminated by abortion, the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute reported on Thursday.

Its survey of all known abortion providers found the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, probably due to a combination of better access to contraception and less access to abortion providers, the group said.

Reuters


You better get your moral fiber for breakfast!



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by jsobecky
It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation, how we treat the most defenseless among us. We are not a disposable society when it comes to life.


Oh the old moral fiber.

Since, as you suggest, make law with "moral fiber" as our guide, it would be helpful if you could define that for us?

Then please tell us who's morality we should use as a baseline?

I would also like to know if "moral fiber" should be a part of our foreign policy? Let's say how do we apply this "moral fiber".

Perhaps we should paint it on the tip of our bombs as they kill thousands of innocents, many of whom are actual walking around babies.

Or shall we use this "moral fiber" with arbitrary discretion when it can be pimped as a convenient abstract emotional tool?

You know, I was in the middle of posting my opinion that you really are saying nothing new here. According to Gallup:


Americans (53%) consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves "pro-life."


And both candidate's stance is neither new or contradictory to their party's ideology.

But you had to use the old moral fiber and in the process destroying any of this thread's credibility.

Moral Fibre. You're funny


It's obvious that some of you don't understand values, priciples, or morals.

You try to minimize them by poking fun at their very existence.

I don't know what guides you in your life, but I know what guides me. And those principles include the Golden Rule and protection of the least among us.

Now you want to try to mitigate this with ridiculous amalgams like "Perhaps we should paint it on the tip of our bombs as they kill thousands of innocents, many of whom are actual walking around babies."

You do not appreciate the value of life in our own society and yet you pretend to make foreign policy judgments?

Absurd. Appealing to emotion and hysteria. Your foundation is built upon shifting sands. And a pathetic attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

I pity people like you.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
One of the issues that was discussed last night was abortion. We now know the candidate's opinions on when life begins, and their stances. McCain is pro-life, and believes that life begins at conception. Obama is pro-choice and said the answer to that question was "above his pay grade". He states that his pro-choice stance does not mean he is pro-abortion.

But Obama's voting record tells a different tale. He has strongly opposed the Supreme Court ban against partial birth abortion, a particulary disgusting procedure. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And he has stated that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" by a pregnancy, another odd perspective for a prospective leader of the free world.
www.washingtonpost.com...


Obama has tried to mitigate his stance by announcing that he is in favor of methods that would reduce the overall number of abortions. But that is nothing more than pandering. He also made a false statement last night when he said that under Bush, the number of abortions has not been lowered.
www.factcheck.org...



Agreed. He looked the weaker of the two tonight at the Saddleback getogether. He'll need to be a lot stronger in the debates or McCain is going to clean his clock.

Personally, regardless of my feelings, I don't think I have the right to decide for others.

It should be a State's right and that should be the end of it. I'm old enough to remember when that was the way it was. Roe V Wade is bad law, it deprives the male of any rights. It is in violation of equal rights, therefore it is unconstitutional.

OTOH, if certain states vote for it, then that's their right, regardless of how others feel.

I can remember charter flights from all over the US to New York back in the early 70's and everyone aboard was either a young pregnant woman and/or her boyfriend/husband.

NOW sponsored those flights and gave cut rate deals on the combo flight and abortion. I had many friends who took those flights. Nearly all regretted it later in life.

If you just wanted to go to New York City, it was cheaper to book with them than the regular airlines. They made it very easy to chose abortion.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


First of all, the only thing that minimizes morality is when it is applied capriciously.

All I am saying to you is if your are going to use you moral compass to create social law then use it universally. By picking and choosing you appear a hypocrite. A life is a life. Even if I were to concede that life begins at conception, it wouldn't make it any more or less important than any other human beings anywhere in the world.

I did however misunderstand your point. Even so, I managed to do more for the accuracy of your OP than you ever managed.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I would hardly call Obama's stance on abortion 'extreme'. He is, as some may have noticed, opposed to abortion. He doesn't think it's a great idea.

He is, however, pro-freedom on this subject.

His stand on partial-birth abortions is that an exception must be made in any bans if the health of the mother is at risk. We need to remember that.

Roe V Wade may not be perfect, but it is a substantial improvement over the way it was pre... not quite so many young women dying at the hands of butchers or coat hangers. Which also kills the fetus, btw.

Note also that sustaining freedom on the part of women does not preclude any discussions with anybody. The whole "right of the man" argument is a fallacy. If a woman does not feel safe discussing the option with the man involved, who has the right to force her to do so? Oh yeah, nobody.

Obama hit it on the head with his stance that we as a culture need to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place... that's the best way to lower the abortion rate. This means realistic, effective sex ed and easily obtained, effective birth control.

The idea that sex ed and birth control will cause teenagers to have "the sex" is another fallacy. They'll have "it" anyway. If they know something about what's going on, and have access to some effective birth control, there would be fewer infected and/or pregnant teens around.

I find it endlessly fascinating how so many of the "right to life" proponents are all concerned about a mass of cells, but not so concerned when they look ahead at the conditions into which the child will be born. And too frequently abused. So I guess the welfare of a mass of cells outweighs the welfare of the ultimate child sometimes.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by jsobecky
Obama has tried to mitigate his stance by announcing that he is in favor of methods that would reduce the overall number of abortions. But that is nothing more than pandering. He also made a false statement last night when he said that under Bush, the number of abortions has not been lowered.
www.factcheck.org...


You're not on your game today:



U.S. abortion rate falls, study finds
Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:32am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1976, with about 20 percent of pregnancies being terminated by abortion, the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute reported on Thursday.

Its survey of all known abortion providers found the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, probably due to a combination of better access to contraception and less access to abortion providers, the group said.

Reuters


You better get your moral fiber for breakfast!


so i guess in your world, there was no abortion before it became legal with roe v. wade.

my mother who was a nurse back in the early 40's, worked for a doctor in a small town located in illinois. abortion back then was carried out very discreetly. a young girl would come in to see the doctor for "female problems" the doctor at that time used a small light to see if the fertilized egg had attached to the womb wall. if it did he would simply hold that light close enough to the developing egg to heat it up enough to destroy it. the girl would go back home with the information that she would experience some slight bleeding for the next few days, and after that she would be back to normal. this was carried out with full knowledge by the girls mother and the doctor, but not always the girl. all this was kept quiet because of the shame of becoming pregnant before marriage.

in other words, there has been abortion all along, its just out in the open now. but anti-abortionists want the shame, ridicule, and punishment of women to come back. and that's the way born-again christians like it



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
All I am saying to you is if your are going to use you moral compass to create social law then use it universally.


No, that's not "all you're saying". You attempted to poke fun at the word morality by painting it as "old-fashioned" "traditional" "out-of-touch", etc.

And whether you want to admit it or not, morality does play a big factor in legislation. What else are we to be guided by? *You*? Ha!



I see, you know what I am saying better than I do?
You must obviously think I am a pregnant woman, and as such, you show no hesitation to speak on my behalf.

And morals do play an overwhelming role in our society and laws. Thankfully we don't all have to check with you as to where those morals should lie. In fact we don't have to take any one person arrogant belief that they some how are endowed with the ability to extrapolate from their own ego how the rest should live our lives.
That's why we have elections, and as a result abortion is legal. Be sure to tell us how we are all wrong and you are right.



[edit on 8/17/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 



Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I would hardly call Obama's stance on abortion 'extreme'. He is, as some may have noticed, opposed to abortion. He doesn't think it's a great idea.

He is, however, pro-freedom on this subject.

His stand on partial-birth abortions is that an exception must be made in any bans if the health of the mother is at risk. We need to remember that.


Bull. He strongly opposed the Supreme Court's ban on it. He also opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act


Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Obama hit it on the head with his stance that we as a culture need to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place... that's the best way to lower the abortion rate. This means realistic, effective sex ed and easily obtained, effective birth control.


Oh, please. He only started saying that after Amy Sullivan told him to. It's just an attempt to suck up to pro-lifers, is all.




Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I find it endlessly fascinating how so many of the "right to life" proponents are all concerned about a mass of cells, but not so concerned when they look ahead at the conditions into which the child will be born. And too frequently abused. So I guess the welfare of a mass of cells outweighs the welfare of the ultimate child sometimes.


You're endless fascinated with a fallacy. PROVE that absurd, inflammatory, false statement. You'll find more right-to-lifers staffing charity and faith-based organizations that you will abortionists.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Comments removed by author.

This thread went down the wrong track way too fast. :shk:

[edit on 8/17/08 by redmage]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


It is correct that you don't have to check with me. I said as much when I said we don't have to check with any ONE person, which you conveniently left out of your quote.

Now heed this, I'm not your pal, you haven't the faintest idea of who I may be, and most of all do not insult my family again. I may at best have been sarcastic but I did none of the above things.

If this is how you are sticking to your pledge, with personal insults and attacks to another persons family, you might want to reconsider taking your own pledge. And you lecture people about moral fiber.

[edit on 8/17/2008 by schrodingers dog]





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join