Obama's Abortion Stance

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama has repeatedly said that he doesn't know whether or not life begins at conception. So in essence, he doesn't know whether or not he is 'aborting' a human life or not.

I didn't know that he performed abortions. Must be a very talented man to be a Senator and an MD.

I don't know whether or not life begins at conception. However, I'm not going to tell people that they can't have abortions simply because I don't know.

If my GF somehow got pregnant, despite barely getting the bills paid as it is, despite us not being serious enough to settle down together and raise a child, I would most certainly be against her having an abortion. Mostly because "I don't know" if life starts at conception... and I wouldn't want to take that chance. PERSONALLY. I'm a vegetarian for much the same reason... I don't know if cows are sentient, but I'll give wide berth to that possibility. Since "I don't know" I have changed my personal behaviors. But I'm not going to lobby the government to ban meat based totally on my lack of knowledge. Similarly, I'm not going to lobby the government on banning abortions based on my lack of ability to determine when an organism is deserving of rights.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I didn't know that he performed abortions. Must be a very talented man to be a Senator and an MD.

I don't know whether or not life begins at conception. However, I'm not going to tell people that they can't have abortions simply because I don't know.

Do medical doctors even have 'evidence' either way? Seems to me that if they would, all this wouldn't be discussed right now.

See, I have the exact opposite reasoning. If I don't 'know' whether or not life begins at conception, I wouldn't allow people to take the chance to possibly 'terminate' life.

Just like you don't eat meat because you don't know whether or not cows are sentient, but you don't want to take that chance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do medical doctors even have 'evidence' either way? Seems to me that if they would, all this wouldn't be discussed right now.

See, I have the exact opposite reasoning. If I don't 'know' whether or not life begins at conception, I wouldn't allow people to take the chance to possibly 'terminate' life.

Just like you don't eat meat because you don't know whether or not cows are sentient, but you don't want to take that chance.

Of course they have evidence either way.

At conception there's a cell and that cell can (given the right conditions) divide and eventually become a baby, so clearly it's alive.

Is it human? Well of course it is, take a DNA test it is clearly a human cell.

Is it self aware? Well of course not, that would require a nervous system and there is none, there's just one cell. Each of my skin cells could, given the right condition, could become a new person, but I don't mourn the loss of millions of them every day.

And even newborns I don't think are self aware, every parent knows the point where their kid stopped reacting to the reflection as if it was another baby and touched their own nose instead of the "other baby's" nose.

The brain isn't anywhere near being "done" when the baby is born.

It all comes down to the details and what you define as "alive".

To me it's probably a question of suffering. Can the embryo suffer? At what point? How much? Those are questions they probably have pretty good answers to.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/200...his-pay-grade/

Bad answer. Very bad answer.

Uh... his whole answer is below:

OBAMA: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground -- and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. ... I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. Have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That I think can make a genuine difference."

If you don't think that's a good answer, I'm not sure what to say. It's a very balanced and nuanced answer that lays out very clearly his philosophy as a pro-choice candidate. I also agree with most of what he says--you may not, and you may prefer McCain's much more digestible soundbite that "I am a pro-life candidate." But you should at least consider the whole statement in context. I think the crucial part is near the bottom--and it's something I strongly agree with. If you make it more possible for a woman to keep a child, more of them will as a practical matter.

EDIT: Note also that Obama is in favour of a ban on late term abortions IF there is an exception for the mother's health. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

EDIT: Note also that Obama is in favour of a ban on late term abortions IF there is an exception for the mother's health. Seems pretty clear to me.

Unless of course there is a 'bigger' picture to all of these votes...

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Not very clear to me. Seems to me his is very pro-choice, even with late-term abortions.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not very clear to me. Seems to me his is very pro-choice, even with late-term abortions.

Those were attempts to ban it outright.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Unless of course there is a 'bigger' picture to all of these votes...




Not very clear to me. Seems to me his is very pro-choice, even with late-term abortions.

Yeah, those didn't include that kind-of-important exception for the health of the mother.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Those were attempts to ban it outright.

I realize that. But Obama voted in favor of giving the mother the 'choice' as to whether or not she wants a late-term abortion.

Has NOTHING to do with the mothers health being at risk. Many of his 'present' votes, from what I can tell, where done because the legislation was written to define a 'black and white' answer. Obviously, given what he has said, Obama clearly doesn't think it is a black and white issue. He doesn't even know whether or not life begins at conception.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I realize that. But Obama voted in favor of giving the mother the 'choice' as to whether or not she wants a late-term abortion.

Has NOTHING to do with the mothers health being at risk. Many of his 'present' votes, from what I can tell, where done because the legislation was written to define a 'black and white' answer. Obviously, given what he has said, Obama clearly doesn't think it is a black and white issue. He doesn't even know whether or not life begins at conception.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. These pieces of legislation are usually introduced in order to get a foot in the door for a ban of abortions outright. As a result they are vaguely worded (and use non-medically recognized terminology) and often (and this was the case here) contain no wording offering a mother an exemption if her health is at risk. In addition, they often leave open a number of critical questions: what is "late term"? Late second trimester? 24 weeks? 20 weeks? 18 weeks?

And so these pieces of legislation are not being introduced because of their own merits but because they're seen as the first step in a long-term strategy of banning abortions outright. As a pro-choice candidate, Obama is correct to resist them and demand that the language be clarified. That's the right thing to do given his beliefs. Just because his beliefs aren't yours doesn't mean he's doing something wrong.

Also, this notion that mothers are running around getting late-term abortions willy-nilly is just silly. It just isn't happening. We've gone over the statistics in depth, but I'll reiterate--less than 1% of abortions are done after the 20th week. Many hospitals (including the one my daughter was born at) have a policy that after the 20th week abortions are only done to save the life of the mother.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

First of all, I have to say, I personally don't think it's cool that you decided to throw this type of grenade at the CP community with your OP and then disappear for 48 hours. Sure, people have lives, but when you are going to post something so blatantly an attempt to inflame people, you need to be around to defend it, in my opinion. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Well said. Tough to take this thread seriously when you start something then run away.

Also, a good chunk of us on CP are Canadian and cannot even vote for either candidate. I am guessing with the name Calgary Born and stating they live in Creston (BC?) this person is also Canadian.

It's a heated issue but why do we have to bring in US politics?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Well said. Tough to take this thread seriously when you start something then run away.

Also, a good chunk of us on CP are Canadian and cannot even vote for either candidate. I am guessing with the name Calgary Born and stating they live in Creston (BC?) this person is also Canadian.

It's a heated issue but why do we have to bring in US politics?

Well, I'm Canadian and can't vote for either candidate--but am stuck living in the U.S. for now, and so I do sometimes feel that American politics is the most pressing thing for me. You make a good point, though--and I think sometimes Canadians overestimate or even misunderstand the effect that any particular American election will have on affairs in Canada.

For me, American politics just makes me miss Canada more. I grew up in a province full of people who disagreed with me on almost everything--but it was so much easier to have civilized dialogue with one's political opposition. Here, everything's soundbites and attack ads. Candidates even get attacked for having a position on an issue that's "too nuanced"--because it doesn't make for good sound bites. It's reached a point of complete absurdity, and the fact that I don't get to vote makes me throw my hands up even more.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well, as an American who finds very little productive conversation with my peers here, I appreciate those who are willing to discuss these things here Canadian or not.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Well said. Tough to take this thread seriously when you start something then run away.

Also, a good chunk of us on CP are Canadian and cannot even vote for either candidate. I am guessing with the name Calgary Born and stating they live in Creston (BC?) this person is also Canadian.

It's a heated issue but why do we have to bring in US politics?

Because Canadian politics are boring?

The moronic American politicians are much more entertaining to talk about.

[Antithesis]

I think American politics is interesting too, and I love talking about it. I'm glad this hasn't turned into the thread the OP wanted it to. I'll be watching the coverage of the election this year - it'll piss my wife off, too, haha, but I tell her it's like the Olympics, I have to watch.

[Calgaryborn]

Well Obama has been caught in a lie. He did vote down or a least vote present(to squash the bill) a bill that protected newly born children from being left to die and that bill did contain the provision the federal bill contained limiting it to those babies outside of the womb:

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-...bortion/84059/

Although Obama is the one who has repeatedly lied on this issue he let his spokespeople do the confessing and come up with an excuse.

The last time Obama told this lie was last night on a CNN interview after his segment at the Saddleback church. I'm guesssing CNN will ignore the story now that Obama has had to come clean.

Edited to add another link that documents the evidence and quotes Obama saying everyone else was lying:

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

[Russic]

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...

.... creepy

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well Obama has been caught in a lie. He did vote down or a least vote present(to squash the bill) a bill that protected newly born children from being left to die and that bill did contain the provision the federal bill contained limiting it to those babies outside of the womb:

I'm no expert on US politics.

What exactly does voting present mean? Is it the same as abstaining?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm no expert on US politics.

What exactly does voting present mean? Is it the same as abstaining?

I'm guessing but, I'm no export either. It had the effect of stalling the bill and sending it back to commitee which in effect killed it.

[mikey_the_redneck]

More unwanted or unplanned kids means more social/money problems for everyone. If a poor/hooker/drug addict/teenager/immature/######ed person is not ready for a child, I say it's their choice to abort the pregnancy. People want abortions for a reason, because they do not have the means to raise a child.

[The Ditch]

Exactly, like there isn't enough poverty and bad family situations out there that we are going to force people to have unwanted children.