Originally posted by jsobecky
It speaks to our moral fiber as a nation,
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.
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.
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.
As it has worked out, those states that don't have it have more murders.
The right of the Father is a fallacy?
However, I can't judge them for their decision. I leave that to God whether it was right or not.
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?
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.
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.
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]
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)