Obama's Abortion Stance

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Well said, IFF. Bi-partisan politics is dragging and simple issue.

On a side-note, I am confused if this thread started as an Anti-Obama or Anti-abortion thread.

I believe the answer is "anti-abortion used to promote an anti-Obama stance."

[ernie]

I don't really want to wade into the debate at all. It's been had over and over again and no one ever really changes their mind. The best thing that can be said is research the topic to know what everything means/is, search your heart and beliefs and come to your decision. In the end the fact is there is a bunch of stuff that goes on in a country that i find morally reprehensible (abortion may or may not be one of those things) yet they happen, there are reasons why they happen, and it is unlikely to be changed.

However, I will relate our experiences with a recent pregnancy that thankfully resulted in a beautiful baby boy born at ~38 weeks. About 12 weeks into the pregancy my wife began to experience some pretty heavy bleeding. It would happen for a day or two than quit for a week. Start again. etc. She was put on strict bed rest for 7/8 weeks. We seemingly lived in the ulatrasound rooms at the hospital. When it wasn't settling down with a few weeks of bed rest we had the discussion with the doctor about what may happen if this continues. She said that likely the fetus would not even come close to term (24 weeks is the absolute minimum for survival right now and only in facilities that have the best of the best otherwise it is 27 weeks). If the fetus died it had to be removed as it could cause sepsis. If the fetus went into distress it could cause severe bleeding and a life threatening situation for mom in which case a late term abortion would be the recommended and decided upon course of action. And when I'm talking severre bleeding I'm talking a matter of minutes before mom's life could be at risk (i.e. if the bleeding hadn't stopped as it thankfully did after we had the discussion, my wife would have been admitted to hospital for the duration of the pregnancy for the safety of the fetus if it got old enough to be viable and for the safety of mom even if it didn't).

As previously noted, partial birth abortion is only one type of late term abortion and the term used by activists. It also should be noted that Diation and Extraction is not the preferred method of performing such an abortion in Canada. In Canada, what normally happens is an "induced labour abortion" and it is used in cases where the mothers life is at risk or in cases where the fetus has significant abnormalties that it will not survive (amniocentesis can not be done until week 20). In Canada, 0.4 % abortions take place after 20 weeks and the large majority of those are for the safety of the mother. It is a rare event that such a late abortion occurs for other reasons.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

ernie,

great post--and congratulations on your baby boy. I can't even imagine what that must have been like for you and your wife. I'm glad it ended well, but that must have been an ordeal.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well, I should relate the situation in Kansas I guess so you guys can understand where I'm coming from on the late term thing.

I don't know the exact gestational cutoff, but third trimester abortions are allowed in Kansas. The stipulations are that the mother's health has to be in danger. This has to be supported by a second doctor who cannot have financial ties to the abortionist.

Wichita is a abortion issue hotbed because of this law. Some of you have probably heard of Dr. George Tiller...ie Tiller the Killer. He alledgedly has performed thousands of late term abortions where the second opinion was either from someone not qualified (like a podiatrist maybe) or from a colleague that he clearly has financial ties to. Now the issue has been that the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that medical record privacy supercedes the abortion law. So none of his records can be used to prosecute him.

Now, I don't know where the truth lies in all of this. Pro-life maniacs who live here will say and do absolutely anything if they think it will advance the cause so you can't believe anything they say. On the other hand, radical pro choicers who exist here as well, though in far less numbers, will support ANY abortion. All I know is that the former state Attorney General spent 3 years arguing to try and get this doctor's records so he could prosecute him, even he lied! He argued that he wanted to prosecute rapists of underage girls and wanted to use the records for that purpose.

Point is, a good abortion law has been rendered utterly useless. Tough, tough issue that hinges on the honesty and ethics of people which we all know can vary wildly.

[Gozer]

I am repulsed by partial birth abortion, and it is one of many reasons I oppose Obama.

Originally Posted by biased bible thumpers finding anything to support their agenda

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

My issue with abortion starts when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Luckily doctors are more concerned with terminating the life of the infant, rather than terminating the pregnancy.

[Gozer]

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.

Yes. The whole "sanctity of human life" stuff didn't really bother me about slaughtering cattle.

Why not legalize professional hitmen too? It would lead to less "collateral damage" from attempted murders, and less people attempting murder would be hurt. They have rights too.

[mykalberta]

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE, the below is meant as my opinon on the matter...

There is no question Abortion isnt murder.

The question is do you want to live in a society that condones killing its preborn youth. Not even the most primative mamal alive purposefully chooses to kill its preborn youth.

For me, if its still in the womb, then its not alive, until it breathes its first breath, then its alive.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

...There is no question Abortion isnt murder...[because] its not alive

Arbitrary labeling is the easiest way to condone such acts.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE, the below is meant as my opinon on the matter...

There is no question Abortion isnt murder.

The question is do you want to live in a society that condones killing its preborn youth. Not even the most primative mamal alive purposefully chooses to kill its preborn youth.

For me, if its still in the womb, then its not alive, until it breathes its first breath, then its alive.

And science, which the far left who supports ideas like yours adheres to in every other situation, completely disagrees.

It is interesting that radical pro-choicers (not calling you that) are some of the same people who cite science in the fight against anything religion related, in the environmental arena and others...yet on this issue they completely ignore it.

[peter12]

I think that there is a terribly complicated intersection of rights here that needs to be decided outside of the realm of courts and legislatures.

A woman's right to choose is a biological necessity. That is something that must always be kept in mind, that at certain points a woman faces economic, social and kinship barriers to a successful pregnancy.

However, there are some very nasty sides from a right to life perspective. At some point during a pregnancy, a fetus must be assumed to have reached the point where it is deserving of life. This is of course very fuzzy as I believe that the right to life is the most prominent of all the civil liberties we enjoy. Now if it were up to me, I would have abortions stopped or at least not subsidized past the first trimester, when it is believed that the baby is responding to outside stimulus, with the possibility of feeling pain. To me, this comes dangerously close to violating the sanctity of the individual and is thus against the entire Western philosophical perspective.

Also, I have a huge problem when abortion is credited as a possible weeding out of criminal elements in society. That's called eugenics.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Arbitrary labeling is the easiest way to condone such acts.

What labelling, I dont consider something not breathing to be alive - whether there is a slight % that it could live on its own for me doesnt matter.

I personally think that people get bogged down in this partial birth thing to somehow make themselves feel better.

Dont get me wrong, I dont like that fact that it happens in our society, infact I think its a serious condemnation of humanity that as the most advanced mamal on the planet we choose to kill our own unborn, in fact its sickening. However I think its also sickening that women under 18 get pregnant and that rape and incest happens so you have to draw a line somewhere.

That fact aside, I dont believe at any phase that its murder until its born. And any religious group that says its a sin is just bold faced lying in an attempt to garner more funding (when someone is considered alive is pretty clear in the bible). Its one of the big reason I dont go to church while still adamantly believing and attempting to live my life in accordance with the King James bible.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE, the below is meant as my opinon on the matter...

There is no question Abortion isnt murder.

The question is do you want to live in a society that condones killing its preborn youth. Not even the most primative mamal alive purposefully chooses to kill its preborn youth.

For me, if its still in the womb, then its not alive, until it breathes its first breath, then its alive.

So if, hypothetically speaking, you and your wife, who is nine months pregnant, were happily anticipating the birth of your first-born son, and I were to walk up and sock her in the belly, and the only damage (other than momentary pain on your wife's part) was the death of the fetus, you would see me as someone who had committed a simple assault, rather than a murder?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

So if, hypothetically speaking, you and your wife, who is nine months pregnant, were happily anticipating the birth of your first-born son, and I were to walk up and sock her in the belly, and the only damage (other than momentary pain on your wife's part) was the death of the fetus, you would see me as someone who had committed a simple assault, rather than a murder?

Good post.

A situation happened here last spring. A 19 year old man who had got a 14 year old girl pregnant (consentual sex) decided when she was 9 months pregnant that he didn't want to be charged with statuatory rape so he killed the 14 year old.

In my mind, that's clearly 2 murders because he killed the girl expressly to prevent the birth of the child. In fact, I don't see how someone can disagree with that at all....and it has zero to do with the bible in my view.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I personally think that people get bogged down in this partial birth thing to somehow make themselves feel better.

Please expand on that.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

However I think its also sickening that women under 18 get pregnant and that rape and incest happens so you have to draw a line somewhere.

Wow! The "raping your children is worse" argument.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

A woman's right to choose is a biological necessity.

???

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

???

Pregnancy can be fatal to the mother. There has to be legal abortion at some level to provide for this and other issues like incest and rape.

Although, I remember reading once that less that 3% of all rapes and incestual activity result in pregnancy.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

A woman's right to choose is a biological necessity.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Pregnancy can be fatal to the mother.

That was not his argument. Even if it was, that sounds like more of a medical dilemma that a mother's "right to choose."

Originally Posted by peter12

A woman's right to choose is a biological necessity. That is something that must always be kept in mind, that at certain points a woman faces economic, social and kinship barriers to a successful pregnancy.

I understand his point to be something to the effect of "my dad and my boyfriend won't like that I'm having this other guy's kid."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That was not his argument. Even if it was, that sounds like more of a medical dilemma that a mother's "right to choose."




I understand his point to be something to the effect of "my dad and my boyfriend won't like that I'm having this other guy's kid."

I think from an evolutionary perspective women have evolved to make find the best mate (obviously). The resources put into having a child and the actual reproductive process itself are far greater than the mans, she is gambling on a lot more. A woman almost has to depend on a man or family to support her extensively during a pregnancy and the infancy of the child. If that support isn't there, she almost has to abort for the wellbeing of future reproductive activities.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That was not his argument. Even if it was, that sounds like more of a medical dilemma that a mother's "right to choose."




I understand his point to be something to the effect of "my dad and my boyfriend won't like that I'm having this other guy's kid."

The fact that you minimize what peter12 rightly points to as kinship barriers indicates to me that your view is very much in keeping with abortion opponents on the right, who a) oppose abortion and b) oppose government funding to give children born into poverty or difficult circumstances that may disadvantage them in life. I think opposing all abortions is a very legitimate point of view, though a private one and not one that the government should be involved in. But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"? In North America there is no state-funded day care, which means that having a baby pushes a working mother into either unemployment (and thus welfare) or into a situation where she must spend in some cities upward of 1500 dollars a month to place her infant in full time care so she can work. To make matters worse, the only workplace protection she receives in the U.S. (Canada is slightly better in this regard) is that she can't be fired for having a baby and taking time off. She receives no compensation for that time off, no paid leave, and only the cold comfort of a tax break which if you are in the lower income brackets doesn't mean a whole lot.

So how about this: I'll agree that abortions should be limited by the government if you agree to the obvious caveat: that raising children is a collective responsibility that we all share and that the state thus make having a child an easier financial burden to bear for working mothers by paying for day care, giving women subsidized maternity leave and requiring employers to offer the remainder as a mandatory benefit. Also, some winter jackets for the poorest families wouldn't hurt.

This isn't just an "individual responsibility" issue. There's a duty to the collective here as well. To believe the first point and not the second is a morally empty position in my view.