Jump to content

Menu
Giving You and Your Child a Road Map to the Best Possible Education
The Well-Trained Mind Community

Witherspoon Institute article on Obama

The Governess
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Governess

The Governess

Posted
Posted

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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (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 by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laughing lioness

laughing lioness

Posted
Posted

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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (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 by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cornerstone Classical

Cornerstone Classical

Posted
Posted
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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted
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
asta

asta

Posted
Posted
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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (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 by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

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 by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NevadaRabbit

NevadaRabbit

Posted
Posted (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 by NevadaRabbit
fixing broken link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NevadaRabbit

NevadaRabbit

Posted
Posted

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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted
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
NevadaRabbit

NevadaRabbit

Posted
Posted
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
NevadaRabbit

NevadaRabbit

Posted
Posted
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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted
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
NevadaRabbit

NevadaRabbit

Posted
Posted
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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (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 by Sis
Oh...I didn't realise D-word was censored for being naughty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AnotherE

AnotherE

Posted
Posted
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
hsmamainva

hsmamainva

Posted
Posted
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
Academy of Jedi Arts

Academy of Jedi Arts

Posted
Posted
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
LilyK

LilyK

Posted
Posted
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
fractalgal

fractalgal

Posted
Posted
.

 

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
AnotherE

AnotherE

Posted
Posted
.

 

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
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Posted
Posted (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 by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peek a Boo

Peek a Boo

Posted
Posted
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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...