Obama's Abortion Stance

[Calgaryborn]

I was aware that Obama supported partial birth abortion. That is offensive in and of itself. But I wasn't aware that he even goes as far as denying human rights to premature infants:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...lYjkyNmY=&w=MA==

I know some here don't want abortion to be a decisive election issue but, when are we going to start valuing human life? How important is it to you that your candidate holds similar views to you in regards to the sanctity of life?
Nobody thinks McCain's views on abortion will lead to a change in the Roe verses Wade decision. Any Supreme court canidate he presents will have to go through two Democrat controlled houses. Conversely an Obama presidency would very likely strengthen support for partial birth abortion laws and if his own party doesn't stand against him premature babies across the USA may be at jeopardy.

[SportsJunky]

It is important to me that Obama takes this stance. To me it is the only reasonable stance to take on this issue.

[MarchHare]

From the linked article:

For [Obama], the Constitution exists primarily in order to guarantee the right to abortion, and other rights of human persons — born and alive — are secondary.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Obama thinks. What a terrible piece of "journalism", but that's not exactly surprising considering the source was the NRO.

[flylock shox]

If you support abortion in all its forms, you really should find yourself some footage of a partial birth abortion being performed. I defy anyone to watch one of those and not feel that it's fundamentally wrong.

[SportsJunky]

It really is terribly one sided reporting. This, though, shows that Obama may have wanted more time or clarification by voting "present".

There was no legal conflict between this bill and the right to legal abortion, but Barack Obama was still uneasy with the idea. He and 11 other senators would vote “present” in a strategy worked out with Planned Parenthood lobbyists (“present” votes in the Illinois senate essentially count as “no” votes). The bill would pass the Senate easily with a bipartisan majority, only to die in a House committee.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

If you support abortion in all its forms, you really should find yourself some footage of a partial birth abortion being performed. I defy anyone to watch one of those and not feel that it's fundamentally wrong.

Are you a vegetarian? If not, have you ever watched a video of cattle being slaughtered?

I think everyone -- on both sides of the abortion debate -- can agree that the practice itself is distasteful. Unfortunately, legal abortions are a necessary evil in society. Just like the narcotics and prostitution trades, demand for pregnancy termination services will always exist. Better those services be provided in a safe and sanitary environment by trained medical professionals than by shady characters with coat hangers in the proverbial back alley.

[MarchHare]

It really is terribly one sided reporting.

It's the Nation Review; they've never made any claim to be a source of unbiased journalism, but rather the mouthpiece of the American far-right. The likelihood of getting a fair article about abortion from NRO is about the same as getting a balanced piece about free-market capitalism from The Daily Worker.

[Devils'Advocate]

I agree with all above that said this was absolute garbage journalism.

It claims: "The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous."

Many disagree with that assessment. Especially Barrack Obama. If you read his comments from the Senate floor... particularly the part where he says that he supports THE GOAL OF THE LEGISLATION... you would see that this article was complete hogwash. He didn't like the wording of the legislation as written. He feared that it was ambiguous and would lead to judges misinterpreting it and leading to an outright ban on abortion.

This bill was sponsored by and partially written by Rick Santorum, who knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he and the other Republican senators put the ambiguous language in there. They were hoping they could put this wedge in and hope that judges would just keep driving that wedge until Roe vs Wade was overturned.

So they will take Obama and tarnish him by saying that he is for killing infants (and cute kittens... and puppy dogs.... etc) when he has said on record AND on the senate floor that he SUPPORTS the GOALS of the legislation.

[Azure]

How come we need a new thread for this?

[SportsJunky]

I'm guessing because the OP wants to stir up some ****.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you a vegetarian? If not, have you ever watched a video of cattle being slaughtered?

I think everyone -- on both sides of the abortion debate -- can agree that the practice itself is distasteful. Unfortunately, legal abortions are a necessary evil in society. Just like the narcotics and prostitution trades, demand for pregnancy termination services will always exist. Better those services be provided in a safe and sanitary environment by trained medical professionals than by shady characters with coat hangers in the proverbial back alley.

No, and Yes. Frankly, if I had to kill my own beef, I wouldn't eat it.

And I agree with you, to an extent. The reason abortion is so hotly debated is not only because it is a moral issue (I would say that it is the moral issue), but because it exemplifies both a clear moral dilemma and a legal paradox. At some point, no matter what side of the debate you're on, you have to hold your nose and act. However the fact that drug trafficking and prostitution and abortion exist, or that there is a market for such services, does not absolve providers of those services from judgment on moral grounds.

With abortion, reasonable argument among those whose positions are not absolute always comes down to "where do you draw the line?" My reaction is, if you've ever seen a partial birth abortion, you'd draw the line well before things got to that stage.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I'm guessing because the OP wants to stir up some ****.

Pretty much.

[Sainters7]

So how many pages are we thinkin this thread's gonna be by the weekend? I'm sayin 7 anyways. I'm really glad we needed a new thread on this, it totally hasn't been beaten to death on here enough already. I'm gonna start one about if Iginla deserves to be captain...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

So how many pages are we thinkin this thread's gonna be by the weekend? I'm sayin 7 anyways. I'm really glad we needed a new thread on this, it totally hasn't been beaten to death on here enough already. I'm gonna start one about if Iginla deserves to be captain...

I suppose that beats the alternative...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I'm guessing because the OP wants to stir up some ****.

Nothing wrong with someone posting something like this, but it belongs in the election thread.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

So how many pages are we thinkin this thread's gonna be by the weekend? I'm sayin 7 anyways. I'm really glad we needed a new thread on this, it totally hasn't been beaten to death on here enough already. I'm gonna start one about if Iginla deserves to be captain...

And then we'll wait for HotHotHeat to start a thread about China and then wait for the regular people to chime in with the same stuff over, and over and over again!

[troutman]

Yes, the Republican party clearly values human life.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you a vegetarian? If not, have you ever watched a video of cattle being slaughtered?

I think everyone -- on both sides of the abortion debate -- can agree that the practice itself is distasteful. Unfortunately, legal abortions are a necessary evil in society. Just like the narcotics and prostitution trades, demand for pregnancy termination services will always exist. Better those services be provided in a safe and sanitary environment by trained medical professionals than by shady characters with coat hangers in the proverbial back alley.

This is how I feel too...but I have a real problem when people throw their support behind partial birth abortion simply because it is still abortion. When is partial birth abortion necessary? Serious question.

Abortion, to me, is not a black and white issue. There are degrees at which I find it acceptable and necessary. There are degrees at which I think it's a very lazy and irresponsible form of birth control. I don't see why there shouldn't be restrictions on those kinds of abortions. Can someone explain why other than the normal "It's my body my choice" garbage that gets spewed?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Can someone explain why other than the normal "It's my body my choice" garbage that gets spewed?

I don't know if that's really "garbage", but anyway...

If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, what are you gonna do? Lock her up and chain her down? What do you do with the baby you have at the end? Give it to someone else?

I'm not asking that question from a pro/anti standpoint. It is a real question. What do you do if it is outlawed?

[Azure]

If she doesn't want to be pregnant, maybe she should go through the proper procedures to not 'get' pregnant.