Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Extreme Stand on Abortion

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
+23 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation,

No, it speaks to the "look at me" nature of contemporary political discussion.

Abortion has become a political issue because it is of high controversy and attracts a large percentage of people into an emotionally divisive issue. Those who turn a highly personal and insurmountably difficult personal decision into a political wedge to divide people are beyond contempt -- in my opinion.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Above his pay grade means that he's not a moral philosopher. He's not a scientist.

He is not qualified to make a credible statement about rather or not life begins at conception.


I don't see how this is a bad answer at all.

Leaving the decision up to those who have spent their entire lives trying to understand it seems more appropriate to me.

Abortion isnt somethig you can draw a black and white line in the sand and say "yay or nya"

in my opinion.



"Just say no to abortion being a choice" is the new "Just say no to dugs"

Is abortion bad? Yes.
Are drugs bad? Yes.

The war on drugs has done nothing but make drugs more prevalant.

Place a ban or a war on abortion will have the same profound effect. It'll drive everything under ground. You won't solve the problem, you'll just remove it from every day view.

If your true intentions are solving the problem - and not just ridding your vision of it.....then you have to attack the problem at its source.

find out why women are choosing abortions

and offer them common sense alternatives.


That was Obama's response.
And i whole-heartedly agree.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
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.


First, I'm not so sure about that. You are thinking way back and not looking at it logically. It was legal and as medically safe as possible in a few states before Roe V Wade and it was available for over a decade. We'll never go back to coat hangers. Roe V Wade by it's very definition is unconstitutional.

What Roe V Wade did was to enforce it on those who didn't want it. Forced on those who didn't want to have their tax dollars go for what they considered murder.

It should go back to State's Rights as the Constitution clearly states. It's not a power enumerated so it become's a State's Right issue. Some can vote for it, as happened before and they certainly would again, and some can vote not to have it in their state. It's called freedom of choice and a very few should not be allowed to force it on an entire nation.

The death penalty is a perfect example of this in action. Each state can chose. As it has worked out, those states that don't have it have more murders. Guess the criminals aren't as stupid as some often think.

The right of the Father is a fallacy? Sorry, won't wash. Fathers have equal rights. That's the way the Constitution works. Fathers are certainly held responsible for their actions and are liable for the consequences, but you want to say they don't have rights? Show me any other law that even remotely resembles that sort of one sided legal quicksand.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q Level
It was legal and as medically safe as possible in a few states before Roe V Wade and it was available for over a decade.


Right. And we still had coat-hangers and back street butchers. If this is legal in only a few states, the women who are unable to travel to those states and stay for a period of time will be faced with coat hangers, butchers or a child they do not want.



We'll never go back to coat hangers.


I hope you are right. History shows it is very definitely possible, however.



Roe V Wade by it's very definition is unconstitutional.


I'm not so sure about this. It is the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure freedom of the citizenry. There is plenty of precedent for this, and I believe it is one of the few areas where the federal government should intrude. Some of these federally mandated freedoms:

Freedom to vote
Freedom to work
Freedom to have a house
Freedom to enter public-access property

All of these are federally enforced freedoms. I believe

Freedom to procreate or not.

should be one as well.



What Roe V Wade did was to enforce it on those who didn't want it. Forced on those who didn't want to have their tax dollars go for what they considered murder.


You have a point here, the well-discussed one of tax dollars going for things the citizen that pays them does not support.

Some of my tax dollars are going to fight a war of aggression in a foreign nation, resulting in many what I consider murders.

So if someone should not have to pay taxes to support what they consider murder (abortion) then that means I don't have to to support what I consider murder (war of aggression).

Also, and I admit I'm not 100% sure of this, does RvW mandate tax dollars going to support abortion? My impression is (it's been a while since I studied the ruling in detail) that that decision merely says states cannot outlaw abortion. I don't recall anything about paying for it in that decision.



As it has worked out, those states that don't have it have more murders.


Are you certain that the presence/absence of a death penalty is the most influential factor here? What about firearm ownership? Where a potential criminal knows they may very well face an armed citizen, etc.



The right of the Father is a fallacy?


Hmmm, OK, I see where I was unclear... It is not my intent to say the father has no rights. However, if a woman feels unsafe, as in fearing danger of a physical nature, she should not be forced by a government entity to divulge pregnancy or abortion plans to the father.

Any relationship that is working at all will have the father and mother talking, possibly fighting, possibly disagreeing, but at least communicating.

It is not the place of any government to force a woman to endanger herself.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I don't believe in abortion and have had some girlfriends that had wanted to abort my children. I had to accept the fact that it was their choice and I didn't have much voice. (yes I did voice my opinion) Was it moral, probably not. However, I can't judge them for their decision. I leave that to God whether it was right or not.


Morality is the way one justifies the action and if people agree with that justification. Even when the majority thinks that something is moral, you will still find people who say different. Morality changes with time and over generations.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


However, I can't judge them for their decision. I leave that to God whether it was right or not.


Very nicely put, jam!!

:applause:

Thats the same argument Obama makes

Just in different words.

[edit on 8/17/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
mr.old.school excellent point!


I didn't find Obama's stance extreme at all! I (also against abortion) leave that choice to the women who find themselves in that predicament. I want the choice for myself to procreate or not and each woman should make that choice for herself. Obama was humble, and honest.

For those who find abortion morally reprehensible, I strongly suggest you don't have one!



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


I agree, in a nation that economical down fall and war spending is draining every American's pocket with the sell out of our nations future to foreign countries abortion seems like a joke to even be part of any political candidate agenda.

Nothing but BS to stay away from the real issues eating away this nation.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It seems that some in the pro-life movement are actually ready to see through all the emotional and divisive saber rattling, and do in fact believe that Mr. Obama was sincere and was not trying to "suck up" to pro-lifers. They also can see that the idea of abortion-reduction, is one that these two seemingly diametrically opposed groups can find common ground. I imagine that those in the more extreme religious right of the Republican party, will resist this state of affairs, and lash out bibles in hand at their fellow man.



August 12th, 2008

Democratic abortion platform wins points from some pro-lifers

Post a comment (4)
Posted by: Ed Stoddard
Tags: Tales from the Trail: 2008, 2008 elections, abortion, Barack Obama, John McCain, religion

DALLAS - The Democratic Party remains staunchly behind a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

But the platform statement on the issue that will be adopted at the party’s presidential nominating convention in Denver later this month has been well received by some pro-life Christians, who applaud its emphasis on abortion reduction.

On a conference call Tuesday with journalists, several leading evangelical and Catholic activists welcomed the stress on abortion reduction as the “common ground” between those who support abortion rights and those who oppose them (camps which describe themselves as pro-choice and pro-life).

A draft of the platform circulating last week — which insiders say has had few changes — said “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court ruling granting women a constitutional right to abortion) and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.”

But it also recognized the role of health care, education and “caring adoption programs” in reducing “the need for abortions.”

The language seems to be more of a change of emphasis than a radical change from past positions.

But it does strike a chord with some centrist evangelicals and Catholics who feel the pro-life and Republican Party aim of overturning Roe V. Wade has been futile and has not reduced abortions or offered support to low income women who may choose to terminate their pregnancies for economic reasons.

Joel Hunter, a prominent evangelical mega-pastor from Florida who describes himself as a “completely pro-life” conservative Christian and registered Republican, hailed the shift in emphasis as “courageous and historic.”

Jim Wallis, a leading figure on the religious left, said he saw it as “sorely needed common ground.”

“We could truly make reducing the abortion rate in America a non-partisan issue and a bipartisan cause. It is a common-sense approach,” he said in an earlier statement.

Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, also welcomed the move.

Their positive reaction to the platform’s language points to a broader shift among U.S. evangelical and other Christian movements to a wider “agenda of life” that includes a helping hand to the poor.

Not everyone in the anti-abortion rights camp is happy with the language. For many conservative Christians abortion is the taking of an innocent life, period.

Tom McClusky, the vice-president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, a conservative lobby group with strong evangelical ties, told Reuters that he didn’t really see how the Democratic Party’s take on the question had changed.

Abortion remains one of the most divisive and emotive issues in U.S. politics and it is a divide that has tended to follow partisan fault lines.

John McCain, the Republican candidate for the Nov. 4 presidential election, has long opposed abortion rights; his Democratic opponent Barack Obama strongly supports abortion rights.

How the Democratic shift will affect the presidential election is difficult to judge. Will it give Obama a gap to poach some support from evangelical Republicans who are lukewarm on McCain? Or will it harden the resolve of abortion rights opponents?

Reuters


It seems that this "abortion-reduction", as much as some might like to dismiss it, has been widely welcomed, and even hailed by some in the Evangelical segment of the Republican party as "courageous and historic."

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



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Abortion topic should never enter into politics.

The greatest gift God ever gave Mankind was Free Will.
No one has the right to take that gift away.
No one.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Said like a true Christian. (assuming of course you consider yourself christian)

Thank you sir/madam for your input.
Religious zealots of the world: I would aim your attention to John 8:7


It in every way relates to the Stance that Barack Obama takes on abortion.

He has no stance on ABORTION - because Christ tells him not to.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Oh boy an Op-Ed piece!

Here's some information on him "supporting" partial birth abortion:


In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.


Source

Edit: Better bold the important part since people will try and skirt around it

[edit on 17-8-2008 by davion]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by davion
 



In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding.


So. By that logic, we should prosecute gun makers and automobile manufacturers every single time one of their products is used to harm or kill someone.


Empty arguments.

:shk:



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


This is such a stupid issue.

Seriously, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research...WHO CARES!!

If America didn't have such a high Christian population, then we wouldn't be so easily distracted by such petty issues. Especially when our "leaders"
Know perfectly well that they can use those above issues to fire up the ignorant mobs, so that they completely miss the problems tearing America apart...

THOSE ISSUES ARE ONLY DISTRACTIONS.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
----------------
----------------


This is a tough question. how do you answer without immediately disinfranchising about half of the voters on either side. I would think long and hard before my answer, and it would proly be something like this...

Well being that this is a subject that warrants much debate from either side i would say this...The fact that I'm running for the highest office of the government should not be prdicated on whether or not I'm for or against something that I feel shouldn't have been allowed to be decided by appointed committies that are given to personal bias because of either idealogical or religious beliefs.

This is a very personal choice that whether right or wrong should be made by those who are responsible adults. I know there are those who would not vote for me if I say I'm for it, and also those who would vote for me if I were to support it.

That being the case, I will decline to answer and only tell you this...my father was a Muslim, but in due course I learned of the Christian faith and that is what I identify with as my religion. Should that make you feel uncomfortable because you don't believe in God? No. Because i also believe in separation of church and state, and I promise you that I will not make my decisions based on any kind of religious views, but upon that which is best for the American people through consult with advisers from every viewpoint and political affiliation possible.

So again, I decline to answer that question on the grounds that I'm an American citizen, and have the right to personal beliefs without threat of sanction because of those same beliefs.

Can I have a YEZ?


-----------------
-----------------



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:55 PM
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.

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]


As a man, I personally don't approve of abortion but I also understand I have absolutely no right to prevent a woman from getting one. The religious reich and the right wing see this as a black and white issue and it is not.
Nobody has the right to FORCE a woman to carry a child to term, which carries many risks, and FORCE the woman to pay for the expense of carrying that child to term, etc...



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Isn't it fun when the government tells you what you can't do with your own body?




Please, abortion shouldn't be political or involved with religion once so ever. It's about CHOICE and FREEDOM.

The government loves you when you're a fetus but when you're all grown up, they simply don't give a F..ironic isn't it?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)


/\/\/\/\Incase you didnt know what Obama likes /\/\/\/\

Pretty shocking that someone can support this, I didnt even know what it was until i googled it,I can't believethat this is done. truly awful


I am 100% pro-life, if you are going to have sex then prengnancy is always a possability, if you dont like it use a condom. Life isn't disposable.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Killing is wrong. Whether it's a political enemy, a baby, a dog, a man, or a woman. Killing is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. No argument. End of story.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
The OP made Obama seem more appealing to me and solidified my desire to vote for him. So thanks for that.






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join