Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

The reason why the fight is futile is even where it is illegal people still do it at the same rate.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

The reason why the fight is futile is even where it is illegal people still do it at the same rate.

civil rights are not an adequate comparison. The choice between treating people as anything other than equal is different than trying to determine and affix human rights to a fetus that we cannot clearly claim is a human being. The issue is further muddled because of the rights of the mother carrying said fetus.

Civil rights and Abortion are two very different things.

As to your scenario...Really the only thing McCain CAN do is appoint SC judges. There is nothing else he can and will do wrt abortion laws and RvW.

And I can agree with the bolded part above. I know Obama votes are 'Pro-choice' votes. But I don't agree that since he isn't voting "Pro-life" that it is assumed that he doesn't share the same principle when it comes to the issue of abortion. As a Christian and a father I tend to think that in principle, he would feel the same as I and disagree IN PRINCIPLE with abortion too..that would be interesting to find out. AFAIK BHO is of the mindset that he is unclear whether life begins at conception...so take that for what you will.

EDIT: oops quoted wrong person

 

[hellokeith]

It is impossible to know what McCain truly believes. I don't know enough about him in this area to make a judgment. I do know that he is a "maverick" in some very real ways, so my guess is that whether or not he truly believes a human conceptus deserves legal personhood is not his motivation for this answer. More likely, it is an olive-branch to pro-life Republicans who don't want to vote for him. And, perhaps, it is plausible deniability for when he announces his VP nominee who is pro-abortion. An astute commentator made the observation that a centrist or moderately-left VP pick would help McCain far worse than it would hurt him, since most conservatives/republicans have already decided if they will or won't vote for him. A pro-abortion VP pick on McCain's side could bring much of the center/undecided and some of the moderate-left away from Obama, which guarantees an Obama loss with only a few % difference in this tight race.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
It is impossible to know what McCain truly believes. I don't know enough about him in this area to make a judgment. I do know that he is a "maverick" in some very real ways, so my guess is that whether or not he truly believes a human conceptus deserves legal personhood is not his motivation for this answer. More likely, it is an olive-branch to pro-life Republicans who don't want to vote for him. And, perhaps, it is plausible deniability for when he announces his VP nominee who is pro-abortion. An astute commentator made the observation that a centrist or moderately-left VP pick would help McCain far worse than it would hurt him, since most conservatives/republicans have already decided if they will or won't vote for him. A pro-abortion VP pick on McCain's side could bring much of the center/undecided and some of the moderate-left away from Obama, which guarantees an Obama loss with only a few % difference in this tight race.

Hehehe...so McCain is throwing the religious right under the bus??

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: hellokeith
It is impossible to know what McCain truly believes. I don't know enough about him in this area to make a judgment. I do know that he is a "maverick" in some very real ways, so my guess is that whether or not he truly believes a human conceptus deserves legal personhood is not his motivation for this answer. More likely, it is an olive-branch to pro-life Republicans who don't want to vote for him. And, perhaps, it is plausible deniability for when he announces his VP nominee who is pro-abortion. An astute commentator made the observation that a centrist or moderately-left VP pick would help McCain far worse than it would hurt him, since most conservatives/republicans have already decided if they will or won't vote for him. A pro-abortion VP pick on McCain's side could bring much of the center/undecided and some of the moderate-left away from Obama, which guarantees an Obama loss with only a few % difference in this tight race.

Hehehe...so McCain is throwing the religious right under the bus??

The first matrix was way better than the next 2.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Stud you started this with an agenda...period.

Only a fool would not see that from your OP.

The fact is when life begins is irrelevant.

If life is designated at conception, or a month into pregnancy, abortion is still legal and if that option is exercised the fetus is just as dead.

That choice is up to one person and one person only....there one that the fetus depends on like a parasite....the mother.

if it ain't in you go got no right to say shit.

What is the limit on your POV? 6 months before delivery? 3? Maybe a day? While in labor? The head is out? When the big toe is still in?

at the point when a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb would be a good point.

At that point it only needs an opportunity, but again the ONLY person who should be allowed to make the decision if it should have that opportunity is the mother or the "host" since that is what she is.....like it or not.

Fetuses can't survive on their own outside the womb at six-months term. But with special medical support (respirator, feeding tube, etc), they can often be brought to full-term.

"Viability" is usually interpreted as the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, even if that requires special support. The problem I have with that definition of viability is that it's pretty clear (to me, at any rate) that in 10 or 20 years we'll routinely be able to bring a fertilized egg to term outside the womb. So if "viability" is tied to medical technology, restricting abortions only to pre-viability fetuses will eventually mean that all abortions are illegal (since all fetuses will be viable).

So I think we need to come up with laws tied to the state of development of the fetus. Maybe that means something very similar to what Roe v Wade now states: 1st trimester, go ahead (in most cases). Early 2nd trimester, generally permit abortions. Late 2nd trimester, generally don't allow abortions. Mid-2nd trimester, complicated. 3rd trimester, no abortions allowed (in most cases).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Conky
And since I am getting ready to sleep and can't wait for another moveon.org prescribed opinion....

I have absolutely nothing against gays or "teh gays" as you so jovially call them or hope to push that shit on me. Your attempt to label me is stupid, weak, and just shows your frustration.

No need for labels. You've proven yourself stupid and your argument weak on your own.

Originally posted by: Conky
You are a broken moveon.org type record that can only repeat the simple things they have planted in your in your mind like "Iraq wasn't behind 9/11" or whatever it takes to distract the attention of simple minded folks and make you send them money, lol.

This accusation coming from an obvious hack that regurgitates what Fox News, right wing talk radio, and anti-Obama chain letter Email tells you to say? You are the simple-minded folk.

Originally posted by: Conky
I am not a fan of McCain but, as is true with most American elections, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Obama is just stupid and ridiculous... more and more people are figuring this out daily. McCain is not my choice as President but compared to Obama... jeez, Barack is not worthy of comment. Even Jesse Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.

Obama is stupid, eh? That's rich. Seriously. He graduated from Columbia and Harvard.

Originally posted by: Conky
And I want a president that cares about this country and I gotta say... at least McCain really cares about this country. Obama... who knows what that elitist idiot wants or cares about other than being emperor of the world?

Again you prove your idiocy. McCain has turned 180 in his stance on so many issues simply to win the nomination. Oh, and he is worth FAR more than Obama.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it is life once it's viable outside the womb... I'm strongly, strongly against 3rd term abortions.

I'm going to have to disagree. My wife is in her 2nd trimester and I can place my hand on her belly and feel TONS of activity going on in there from the baby. I'm talking body parts visibly moving along the inside of the belly which you can see under her skin. Not only that, but it responds to my poking the belly as well.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: KIRBYEEThe question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway?

Strangely enough, Obama didn't agree with you, at least before he started running for President.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html">That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.</a>

Whether one agrees with abortion or not... that act Obama sponsored is fvcked up. The baby was born due to a failed abortion. It should be treated as a person.

I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

What do you mean spin it? I WISH Obama were a hardcore liberal. That would be amazing. It is very disappointing to me that he's such a centrist. Unfortunately, that's still the case.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

What do you mean spin it? I WISH Obama were a hardcore liberal. That would be amazing. It is very disappointing to me that he's such a centrist. Unfortunately, that's still the case.

LOL. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[between]

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: KIRBYEEThe question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway?

Strangely enough, Obama didn't agree with you, at least before he started running for President.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html">That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.</a>

Whether one agrees with abortion or not... that act Obama sponsored is fvcked up. The baby was born due to a failed abortion. It should be treated as a person.

I think no matter how hard the Obama water boys here @ ATP&N try to spin it, this is the most damning evidence that Obama is just another hardcore liberal. I dont understand how ANYONE who says they oppose abortion "personally" can vote to have a LIVING BABY OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB KILLED.

Absolutely disgusting.

Don't believe the dishonest description of the bill presented in this hatchet-job article. Read the bill for yourself (go back a couple of pages in the thread) and you'll discover it doesn't "simply prohibit the killing of a baby born alive."

The fact that you accept on faith the grossly inaccurate characterizations made in this article, without tracking down the actual text of the bill and determining for yourself what the bill actually says, is a pretty damning indictment of your intellectual prowess.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why is abortion such a big deal to some people?

An unborn baby has no rights, it's not a citizen. Abortion must be legal.

Too bad your mom didn't think like that.

Take a highschool level biology course in human reproduction and you will never look at abortion the same way.

if you understood anything about biology, you would probably never think the way you do.

There is no concensus definition for life, according to science--PERIOD. However, it sure-as-shit does not occur at conception. When you consider that the probability of birth after conception is around 30%, how can anyone consider that life?

Modern medicine raises those numbers significantly, but wouldn't the fundies be required to leave modern medicine, or science, out of the equation when they try to futily define a biological phenomenon through moral/sky fairy-based means?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Conky
All quotes are taking from the rather liberal LA Times, with the link furnished here: http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...8aug17,0,3145888.story

Obama said: "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." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions.

McCain, however, immediately responded that a baby's rights begin at conception. Perhaps seeking to tamp down alarm among conservatives over his recent comment that he's open to a running mate who favors abortion rights, he continued: "I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

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

Here's the part I find simply hilarious... Obama, being the highly educated Harvard graduate, doesn't know what the average highschool student knows about human reproduction.

Human life begins at conception, and this is strictly speaking from a scientific point of view.

Barack, despite making far more money than the average highschool science teacher, claims this is "above my pay grade".

The beautiful part is that McCain doesn't flinch on this question and answers it like a highschool freshman would.

Hi! I'm back!

How does Human life begin at conception both the sperm and egg where alive before conception?

They will teach you this in freshman science class.

Jeez, I really hope you were joking and are not just completely stupid.

you are probably dumber than others may think you are.


This is a miraculous achievement.

Freshman "Biology" in Our Lady of the Sacred Christian Fetus High school certainly has no basis in science education, let me assure you

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

so it doesn't bother you that these "moral issues" are nothing more than fodder for political candidates to get the brainless to vote?

Most people that actually pay attention to politics know that the elected don't give a damn about these issues--especially abortion--and that they are simply hot button issues to draw out the rednecks and illiterates to vote. No pro-life candidate has done a single thing that will overturn Roe V Wade, and fundamentally, it is Un-American to reverse progressive thinking.

This is why even the most patriotic fundamentalist candidates will not overturn a decision that speaks to the heart of the American constitution: freedom of choice. and the infrastructure in place will not allow such a disastrous event to occur.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My argument is that I don't support McCain because I honestly think he'll actually do anything about abortion. I support him because he disagrees with the procedure out of principle, which Obama does not.

Effectiveness is secondary to me.

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

so it doesn't bother you that these "moral issues" are nothing more than fodder for political candidates to get the brainless to vote?

Most people that actually pay attention to politics know that the elected don't give a damn about these issues--especially abortion--and that they are simply hot button issues to draw out the rednecks and illiterates to vote. No pro-life candidate has done a single thing that will overturn Roe V Wade, and fundamentally, it is Un-American to reverse progressive thinking.

This is why even the most patriotic fundamentalist candidates will not overturn a decision that speaks to the heart of the American constitution: freedom of choice. and the infrastructure in place will not allow such a disastrous event to occur.

Bush signed the act banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. That's a pretty good start for me.

Freedom of choice is protected by the constitution. Freedom to choose to murder is not.

Un-American? I thought liberals thought patriotism was a tool of manipulation.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

The reason why the fight is futile is even where it is illegal people still do it at the same rate.

civil rights are not an adequate comparison. The choice between treating people as anything other than equal is different than trying to determine and affix human rights to a fetus that we cannot clearly claim is a human being. The issue is further muddled because of the rights of the mother carrying said fetus.

Civil rights and Abortion are two very different things.

As to your scenario...Really the only thing McCain CAN do is appoint SC judges. There is nothing else he can and will do wrt abortion laws and RvW.

And I can agree with the bolded part above. I know Obama votes are 'Pro-choice' votes. But I don't agree that since he isn't voting "Pro-life" that it is assumed that he doesn't share the same principle when it comes to the issue of abortion. As a Christian and a father I tend to think that in principle, he would feel the same as I and disagree IN PRINCIPLE with abortion too..that would be interesting to find out. AFAIK BHO is of the mindset that he is unclear whether life begins at conception...so take that for what you will.

EDIT: oops quoted wrong person

Whether it's an adequate comparison or not, my point is that the futility of a fight doesn't determine the rightness or wrongness of waging it. If your cause is just and right, it doesn't matter whether you win or not. If the enemy is evil, destructive, and abhorrent, you must fight it with no heed of the odds. I'm sure the American revolution seemed futile.

I admit that sounds a bit theatrical, but that's my principle.

McCain can also sign abortion-limiting bills into law, like Bush did. I don't know if Obama has made his position on abortion abundantly clear, but McCain has. If Obama were to impress upon me that he were more against abortion than McCain, then I'd consider voting for him. But he's a democrat, and for the moment I'll maintain the stereotype that democrats tend to be pro-choice.

 

[ayabe]

Yes, yes let's elevate wedge issues once again to the forefront, more distractions from the masters of manipulation.

ANYONE, who votes solely on a candidates abortion stance is a fool of the highest order. If abortion were made illegal tomorrow we would still be in the same boat as we are today, it changes NOTHING. But this isn't going to change, it's settled law, and YOUR politicians can continue to blow smoke up your ass about it, but it's a done deal.

So please come join the rest of us in trying to solve the real problems we face and quit allowing your emotions to be manipulated by devious politicians and their religious enablers.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it.

So - I guess I am in the same boat as eskimo in trying to understand why such principles matter so much when you realize that the fight is futile?

I guess a better representation of your principles on this issue is that you are against federally sanctioned/protected abortion.


But state sanctioned abortion and abortion laws are OK.

Well, I don't consider the fight futile. The fight against slavery might've seemed futile at one point. So might've women's suffrage. Admittedly, however, the fight may be even more difficult, because the victim is largely intangible, sometimes almost abstract (as in the humanity-at-conception argument).

Scenario: Let's assume I will vote no matter what for either McCain or Obama. McCain I know will not enact any real measure to curb abortions or Roe v. Wade, but I know he disagrees with it in principle. On the other hand, I have Obama, who certainly won't enact a similar measure, and in fact may move in the opposite direction, because he agrees with it in principle.

The choice to me, as a person who believes in principle that abortion is wrong, is clear.

I guess another point of view is this: Right now, I'm looking to get an accurate picture of the principles, not the stated positions, of these two men. My vote reflects on the conclusion I come to. Talk, especially among politicians, is cheap.

I'm going home for the day fellas.

The reason why the fight is futile is even where it is illegal people still do it at the same rate.

civil rights are not an adequate comparison. The choice between treating people as anything other than equal is different than trying to determine and affix human rights to a fetus that we cannot clearly claim is a human being. The issue is further muddled because of the rights of the mother carrying said fetus.

Civil rights and Abortion are two very different things.

As to your scenario...Really the only thing McCain CAN do is appoint SC judges. There is nothing else he can and will do wrt abortion laws and RvW.

And I can agree with the bolded part above. I know Obama votes are 'Pro-choice' votes. But I don't agree that since he isn't voting "Pro-life" that it is assumed that he doesn't share the same principle when it comes to the issue of abortion. As a Christian and a father I tend to think that in principle, he would feel the same as I and disagree IN PRINCIPLE with abortion too..that would be interesting to find out. AFAIK BHO is of the mindset that he is unclear whether life begins at conception...so take that for what you will.

EDIT: oops quoted wrong person

Whether it's an adequate comparison or not, my point is that the futility of a fight doesn't determine the rightness or wrongness of waging it. If your cause is just and right, it doesn't matter whether you win or not. If the enemy is evil, destructive, and abhorrent, you must fight it with no heed of the odds. I'm sure the American revolution seemed futile.

I admit that sounds a bit theatrical, but that's my principle.

McCain can also sign abortion-limiting bills into law, like Bush did. I don't know if Obama has made his position on abortion abundantly clear, but McCain has. If Obama were to impress upon me that he were more against abortion than McCain, then I'd consider voting for him. But he's a democrat, and for the moment I'll maintain the stereotype that democrats tend to be pro-choice.

Maybe that made sense if "all other things were equal" and the only thing separating these candidates was their stance on abortion. But given the clusterfuck of republican policy that has led us these last 8 years, everything is not equal, and the reps need to get the hell out of the white house. More innocent full grown people died in iraq than unborn undeveloped undifferentiated cells were flushed from women's bodies in America.

As has been pointed out time and again, a born person has more rights, and MUST, than an unborn, if only for practical reasons. Otherwise why is there almost universal and unanimous support for a woman's right to chose to abort when her health is threatened by the pregnancy? Clearly when it comes down to the line, 90% of people side with the mother over the fetus. Why? Maybe because they recognize that her rights trump the fetus's? That the life of a grown woman is inherently worth more than the "life" inside her? And if this is recognized when her life is in danger, then it is still the case when her life is not in danger.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'm pro-choice but I'm not stupid enough to vote based on this issue alone...nor would I if I were pro-life. Our country has far greater concerns right now than abortion.

:thumbsup:

The funniest things about the anti-abortion crowd's devotion to their cause at the exclusion of all other issues are that:
- the Republican party they've depended on for their agenda has done zip-zero-nada about it during the last 8 years they've been power, and
- reversing Roe v. Wade would, at this point, do nothing to stop women from having abortions. The issue would simply revert back to the states, where public opinion support pro-choice in even the reddest of red states. See SD's vote in 2006.

So anyone who thinks that McCain is the 'lesser of 2 evils' based on the abortion issue is sadly misguided. Should he use this angle to become 'emperor of the world,' he will do nothing to forward the agenda, just as Bush has done nothing.

It has little to do with the ability of Republicans to roll back abortion laws. It's about principle.

If someone believes that abortion for convenience is murder, then pro-choice people are supporting murder. If Obama is pro-choice, and hence supports murder, then what difference do the rest of his viewpoints make?

I'm not saying I'm this kind of hardliner. I'm just pointing out that it makes perfect sense, if you believe abortion is murder, to put it above every other lesser issue. It seems to me a logical progression from premise to conclusion. Whether or not it's wisely-made, I'll not opine.

Incidentally, I read your post about a 1st trimester cutoff point, and I'd wholeheartedly support such a standard.

But if, as you say, "It's about principle," how could you support a standard that allows a mother to abort in the first trimester without showing "legitimate cause?" You just said you believe abortion for convenience is murder. How can you support what you believe is murder?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.

This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.

I don't see it with respect to any issue. I see it as a prerequisite to my paying attention to you as a serious presidential contender.

For me, it's like saying, "I'm in favor of welfare reform, and paying $1,000,000 annually to Atreus21 because he's super awesome. And by the way, I eat human liver with my coffee every morning." If you don't have a basic set of values, it doesn't matter what your other positions are, because the foundation from which you extrapolate those positions is suspect.

Incidentally, when you refer to all of my other issues, abortion is really my only one. It's the only issue about which I'm certain I'm right. Most other issues, namely capital punishment, I puss out on.

Certainty is a dangerous thing. So let's dovetail this with another point: Are you "certain" or do you merely "strongly believe?" If you maintain you're "certain," is that the same thing as saying it's impossible that you're wrong?

To see where I'm going with this, can you think of examples of people who are/were filled with certainty, but are/were wrong? And if so, what makes your certainty any better - any less subject to being wrong - than anyone else's?