The Governess Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I just read this article, titled "Obama's Abortion Extremism". I thought it was a well written article, but wanted to see what you all thought. Is everything in this article true or is this just another example of political spin (which I am so sick of at this point in time)? Is the article blowing things out of proportion? And if you are pro-life (or on the fence about abortion rights) and voting for Obama, how do you reconcile those beliefs with what is presented here? I am posting this not to cause a huge debate, but because I am very torn on how I should be voting. I am pro-life but do not want to base my vote solely on this issue. However, this article implies that Obama goes much farther than your typical pro-choice candidate, and I would love to hear from other people who have struggled with this issue who are willing to share the reasoning behind their voting decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) I find that to be a really extreme and strange article. It contains a LOT of spin and buzz words. I don't think the Republicans are going to make it illegal. They had the chance when they had the majority in Congress and the Presidency. I might be willing to vote pro-life but I WILL NOT support Birth Control being included so I won't vote based on abortion. Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy in Indy Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I only skimmed the article, but I think it's pretty accurate. I am pro-life and it is a defining issue for me. If a candidate will not protect the life of a child, how can I trust him/her to protect my life--in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing lioness Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I just wrote a blog article titled "One Issue and the State of the Nation" I'm not a one- issue voter, though I do believe that the legislation that allows and encourages infanticide takes us from being a country that values life, liberty and justice for all (not that we are but there is the hope of that, which is why people flock to the U.S. in droves) to one that embraces the culture of death. You might find this interesting: http://WWW.youtube.Com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo I hesitate to even respond given the snarky, rude remarks of late rather than the respectful discourse that I look forward to here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) You might find this interesting: http://WWW.youtube.Com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo I found that misleading That has been addressed http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php Illinois ALREADY had laws against that, Obama just voted against a *repeat* law that attacked Roe V. Wade. Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I just wrote a blog article titled "One Issue and the State of the Nation" I'm not a one- issue voter, though I do believe that the legislation that allows and encourages infanticide takes us from being a country that values life, liberty and justice for all (not that we are but there is the hope of that, which is why people flock to the U.S. in droves) to one that embraces the culture of death. You might find this interesting: http://WWW.youtube.Com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo I hesitate to even respond given the snarky, rude remarks of late rather than the respectful discourse that I look forward to here. Thank You sssooo much for posting this.....I've wanted to post it for a long time but was scared to death to. I would love to know how you can explain this away? Obama was the only one that voted against the Infant Protection Act. Hillary and all the other Dems supported it! Good for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I found that misleading That has been addressed http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php You need a more credible fact other that the guys own website. Can you find a more credible link? Than barackobama.com? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Sorry, title should read "Here's the Proof"... He voted NO http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You need a more credible fact other that the guys own website. Can you find a more credible link? Than barackobama.com? You mean his own website giving *his* explanation and information is not a credible source for why he did something a certain way?? Why not? If we are discussing someone and why they voted a certain way on a certain issue why is their website not a credible source? Besides, the OP asked for information. The candidate's website isn't any less of a credible source than an organization with an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing lioness Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/obamarecord0608.pdf http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama is 100% against pro-life legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You mean his own website giving *his* explanation and information is not a credible source for why he did something a certain way?? Why not? If we are discussing someone and why they voted a certain way on a certain issue why is their website not a credible source? Besides, the OP asked for information. The candidate's website isn't any less of a credible source than an organization with an agenda. And it isn't any more. Regardless of the candidate. All candidates spin it (whatever "it" is) to get elected. asta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Sorry, title should read "Here's the Proof"... He voted NO http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf His website states he voted no. That is the STATE bill that his website said he voted against. He wasn't in the Senate during the Federal version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 And it isn't any more. Regardless of the candidate. All candidates spin it (whatever "it" is) to get elected. asta :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 And it isn't any more. Regardless of the candidate. All candidates spin it (whatever "it" is) to get elected. asta They do spin it, everyone does. That is why I am not bothering to get another source. Another source would just quote Obama, might as well save a step. *L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 His website states he voted no. That is the STATE bill that his website said he voted against. He wasn't in the Senate during the Federal version. Oh, I wonder why on the document it says "Senate"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Oh, I wonder why on the document it says "Senate"? He was an Illinois *state* Senator. http://www.nrlc.org/federal/Born_Alive_Infants/InfantProtectionActPass.html The Federal version was from 2002, Obama wasn't in the Federal Senate at that time. No one is denying he voted against the state version, he says he did on his website. He also said he would have voted FOR the Federal version. I am not completely against the pro-life agenda, I am just concerned that it has gone too far. I can't support limiting birth control. Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerstone Classical Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 http://bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/obamarecord0608.pdf http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama is 100% against pro-life legislation. Which is one reason why I and millions of other women will be voting for him. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) http://bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx It looks like all the Democrats voted against a Federal Law. :) I don't know why people do the things they do..it was already passed Federally, why did they do a state version? I am not opposed to that law. I would support it but I have no idea what was going on with that vote either. Why would someone vote against something that was already passed as a Federal Law? Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) THis is the FOCA act Obama has stated he will sign "first thing." FOCA Act He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.'' ~ Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University "The fact is that Sen. Barack Obama has never voted to support any measure that would, in itself, lead to any reduction in the number of abortions performed. He also appears never to have failed to support any provision -- however radical -- that would expand access to abortion. He even opposes a ban on partial birth abortions."~ Al Mohler in this article. Edited October 15, 2008 by NevadaRabbit fixing broken link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why would someone vote against something that was already passed as a Federal Law? Perhaps to make/drive home the point that he is completely, totally opposed to it? ...as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. ... The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. ~George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Actual FOCA http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020: I do think the health/life of the mother should be considered. Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Perhaps to make/drive home the point that he is completely, totally opposed to it? ...as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. ... The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. ~George Who is "George" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Who is "George" Sorry - I quoted him earlier and forgot it was in a separate post. Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, author of the Witherspoon Inst. article the OP referenced. Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Oh... Why does he get to speak for Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Oh... Why does he get to speak for Obama? Who said that? The OP's question was about George's article. That's what I'm talking about too. If we only accept what the candidate himself says, then that goes for McCain too. OR we can rationally discuss what others say about the candidates, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Who said that? The OP's question was about George's article. That's what I'm talking about too. If we only accept what the candidate himself says, then that goes for McCain too. OR we can rationally discuss what others say about the candidates, too. You are right, that is what the OP's question was about. :) Well, I still find it to be extreme and full of spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You are right, that is what the OP's question was about. :) Well, I still find it to be extreme and full of spin. The language is appealing to those of us who are pro-life. :) The facts are supported. Can you point us to sources that show Obama to be other than 100% supportive of abortion throughout pregnancy and in the event of botched abortion/delivery prior to viability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) The language is appealing to those of us who are pro-life. :) The facts are supported. Can you point us to sources that show Obama to be other than 100% supportive of abortion throughout pregnancy and in the event of botched abortion/delivery prior to viability? nakking... It is still full of hyperbolic commentary that is just beyond the pale in accusatory language No one would support what that guy is saying, and Obama never said those things. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother.I don't find that to be rational. What sort of lunatic actually thinks such infants don't deserve any sort of care? Darn them to heck anyone that thinks that way. But Obama said he would have voted FOR the Federal Version of the Bill. So..what that guy says about Obama's motives and what Obama says about Obama's motives differ, who should I believe? Well..I don't actually believe Obama thinks that way. I have a hard time believe any sane person feels that way. I have been in the NICU praying my heart out, I know the implications and if I had the choice I would take a baby from such a situation home in a heartbeat. But I don't believe what that guy is saying. Edited October 15, 2008 by Sis Oh...I didn't realise D-word was censored for being naughty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vida Winter Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Which is one reason why I and millions of other women will be voting for him. :) Wow. I find that hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmamainva Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Wow. I find that hard to believe. Why is it so hard to believe? Millions of women are pro-choice. I happen to be one of them, too. And, yes, I'm sure we're not the only two pro-choice homeschoolers out there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vida Winter Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Please read this article by Kathrine Jean Lopez of National Review: Lives Depend on Your Vote http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODE0MGFkNWU4ZjZlODFiYjllODRlZmMzMzNkOTQyMTE= ~D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katrina Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why is it so hard to believe? Millions of women are pro-choice. I happen to be one of them, too. And, yes, I'm sure we're not the only two pro-choice homeschoolers out there either. Count me, so that makes three. :grouphug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Please read this article by Kathrine Jean Lopez of National Review: Lives Depend on Your Vote http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODE0MGFkNWU4ZjZlODFiYjllODRlZmMzMzNkOTQyMTE= ~D I don't intend to be confrontational -but- I read the article and it reaffirms my commitment to preserve the rights of women. I am more than my uterus, and my right to guard my health and well-being is being attacked. If I was a one-issue voter (which I am not), this alone would seal my vote for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Count me, so that makes three. :grouphug: I'll be 4!:iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I'll be 4!:iagree: I make 5 :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmamainva Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I don't intend to be confrontational -but- I read the article and it reaffirms my commitment to preserve the rights of women. I am more than my uterus, and my right to guard my health and well-being is being attacked. If I was a one-issue voter (which I am not), this alone would seal my vote for Obama. :iagree: I could post numerous articles from Planned Parenthood to support that view, if anyone's interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why is it so hard to believe? Millions of women are pro-choice. I happen to be one of them, too. And, yes, I'm sure we're not the only two pro-choice homeschoolers out there either. Maybe we should start a "group" :tongue_smilie: I will go even further and add that I'm not the only pro-choice homeschooler and church member out there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tibbyl Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vida Winter Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Yeah, I think you should all start a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFP Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean too Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You can see his Senate voting record here:http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=481 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilyK Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am more than my uterus, and my right to guard my health and well-being is being attacked. Of course you are more than your uterus. I am also more than my daughter, but that does not give me the right to end her life. Your right to your health and well-being are protected by law. The life of the unborn at this time is not. Both can be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractalgal Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 . Of course you are more than your uterus. I am also more than my daughter, but that does not give me the right to end her life. Your right to your health and well-being are protected by law. The life of the unborn at this time is not. Both can be protected. :iagree: If abortion protects women, what about the life of the unborn daughter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am pro-choice as well. I have a daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherE Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 . Of course you are more than your uterus. I am also more than my daughter, but that does not give me the right to end her life. Your right to your health and well-being are protected by law. The life of the unborn at this time is not. Both can be protected. A recent Supreme Court ruling leads me to believe differently. I don't want to get into a "when does a fertilized egg becomes a person" argument, but if I were in a burning house and had to make the choice between saving my "born" daughter, and a test tube filled to the brim with "potential" daughters (embryos), I wouldn't hesitate to grab my post-born daughter's hand. I don't equate the person that is my daughter with the potential personhood of a blastocyst, or an embryo. Potential life from the product of conception is supported by a woman's body. If you take away that woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her body you *are* reducing her to a uterus. Again, I don't want to get into the entire personhood argument. This is just the view from my perspective. I understand that many in the pro-life camp view any product of conception at any time during gestation to be a full-person that should be given the rights of an individual. And that is what makes this issue such a difficult one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractalgal Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am pro-choice as well. I have a daughter. I think you missed the point of my question. How does abortion protect women if you are aborting an unborn daughter who would become a woman eventually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) I think you missed the point of my question. How does abortion protect women if you are aborting an unborn daughter who would become a woman eventually? How would I tell my daughter she had to carry a child conceived from rape? How would my dh tell our daughter that the life of an unborn child was just as valuable as her mom's so she had to grow up without her mommy? How would I tell my dd that I wouldn't take her to get birth control? How would I tell my dd that no matter how much she wants a child that IVF is wrong? There are a million issues within this one issue. It isn't like we are sitting here plotting having abortions ourselves. Many pro-choice people wouldn't have an abortion. Edited October 16, 2008 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Potential life from the product of conception is supported by a woman's body. If you take away that woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her body you *are* reducing her to a uterus. Again, I don't want to get into the entire personhood argument. This is just the view from my perspective. I understand that many in the pro-life camp view any product of conception at any time during gestation to be a full-person that should be given the rights of an individual. And that is what makes this issue such a difficult one. since I already have a plethora of posts about this, I'll try to keep it short :) Y'all are concerned about 'reducing women to a uterus' and we're concerned about you reducing a human to 'products of conception' or a 'buncha cells.' I don't view just ANY product of conception as a full person --only that organism that meets the scientific definition of a developing human: alive, diploid, and taxonomically human. I'm not necessarily 'pro-life' --i can think of times when a person can be justifiably killed. i am, however, pro-Human Rights. For all humans. I disagree that just because you acknowledge another individual has rights, your inability to act against them in a no-holds-barred way doesn't reduce you to anything. Just because I can't legally kill the salesman on my property doesn't mean I'm 'reduced' to a punching bag --it simply means I have a duty and obligation to the other people around me. I thought i remember a similar point in the selective service thread ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts