Barack Obama Dodges on Abortion
January 25th, 2008 at 01:20am Mark Noonan
Very weak, Senator, very weak:
For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. What role do you think the President should play in creating national abortion policies?
I don’t know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it’s very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.
Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn’t have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don’t think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves. (emphasis added)
The “health” exception is the “keep it abortion on demand” exception, because “health” is a subjective judgement - might as well ban bank robbery exception cases where the bank robber’s “health” might require him to do so. This is Obama trying to have it both ways - an appearance of a moral stance on abortion which is actually a wink and a nod to the pro-abortion fanatics that nothing will be done by a President Obama to interfere with abortion on demand.
As for how women take these decisions - we’d be on firmer ground here if we had a waiting period prior to abortions and a full disclosure law…in other words, if we could force the abortionist to tell the truth about abortion and then give the woman 24 hours to think it over, then we’d be sure that abortions are being done only after some thought. As it is right now, abortionists are free to lie any way they like about abortion, and a woman who is in a panic can be hustled from street to abortion and back to the street in a couple hours. Barack Obama doesn’t tell us if he’s in favor of waiting periods and full disclosure - but I doubt we’ll find him on the right side of this issue, as the pro-abortion fanatics have long ago laid down the marker for Democrats: be in favor of pro-abortion fanaticism or get out of the race.
If this is Obama’s attempt to reach out to religious believers - especially conservative religious believers - then its a complete waste of time, as Obama isn’t saying anything that Hillary or, indeed, the head of NARAL wouldn’t say.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Life Issues
48 Comments
1. Presidential election 200&hellip | January 25th, 2008 at 1:38 am
[...] Obama Dodges on Abortion January 25th, 2008 unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptVery weak, Senator, very weak: For [...]
2. Barack Obama » Bara&hellip | January 25th, 2008 at 2:29 am
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today on Barack Obama Dodges on AbortionHere’s a quick excerptVery weak, Senator, very weak: For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. … [...]
3. keefer | January 25th, 2008 at 4:46 am
I noticed the other day that, while the lefties insist on being called “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion,” they call us pro-lifers “anti-abortion” activists.
Abortion is murder, and those who participate should be treated as murderers. Except, of course, in libretardTHC’s case–his parents would’ve been acquitted, had they done the right thing…
4. keefer | January 25th, 2008 at 4:57 am
OT: Why no outrage from the NAGs on how women are treated in Muslim countries?
5. TiredofLibBullShit | January 25th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Why should the NAGs bitch about Muslims?
They did not bitch about Bill Clinton and how he treated Monica! Remember, the NAGs said that a man in a position of power over women, if he pursues the women, even though consensual, is sexual harassment.
If all the Muslims are Republican, then they will have reason.
Why is abortion an issue? Really….
6. plainjane | January 25th, 2008 at 6:40 am
January 25th, 2008 at 01:20am Mark Noonan
The “health” exception is the “keep it abortion on demand” exception, because “health” is a subjective judgement…
Mark, true chauvinistic pig argument since you will never be the one to die during pregnancy. You don’t think young families agonize over this decision. You don’t think young fathers wonder how they will properly raise four kids on their own. This is the trouble with a typical Repug. You think you know what is best for all. Now you believe it is ok to take over the role as a doctor observer and wedge yourself between a young woman and her physician.
Roe v Wade was probably decided incorrectly. It was not a privacy issue. It should have been decided by review of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. How can you have a law, abortions illegal in all circumstances, that applies to only one group of individuals? Where is the equal protection? Where is the equal justice?
7. js | January 25th, 2008 at 6:52 am
These ole boys are in election mode. You cant really trust anything they say. If the guys are in Texas, the walk like a cowboy, then next week in Cali, they break out the surf board. Its not realistic to judge a politician by his words on the campain trail.
Whats his record look like?
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
“Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases.” (Aug 2007)
“Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion.” (Apr 2007)
“Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)”
“Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006) ”
“Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004) ”
“Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004) ”
“Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998) ”
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Its pretty obvious. This guy doesnt care about human life. Every thing he has done lead to guaranteeing that 1.5 million deaths by abortion are going to keep happening every year. Obama just wants to be President. He doesnt give a sh!& about anything else.
8. liberalT | January 25th, 2008 at 7:22 am
oh please Mark - so now you are trying to equate women who could die with out an abortions due to health reasons with bank robbers? The two are completely different. Also - do you really think that the majority of women getting abortions are doing because its fun for them? You don’t think that the majority of them its a very serious decision?
Plus Mark - there are no bank robbers - they are illegal so therefore there can’t be any. And plus - I asked your dad he said he calculated the chance of there being bank robbers is almost zero. Plus Jesus told me too.
9. js | January 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
lib;
You are lying.
We know it wasnt Jesus. If it were Jesus, His Holy Spirit would be convicting you of all your past sin’s, and you wouldnt have time to post here for a few years.
And realize;
There are bank robbers, that is why it is illegal.
Womens wages might be a problem, but it is illegal to discriminate against them because of being women.
Farts are not illegal, thats why little farts like you keep popping up on the Internet.
Most Cities have leash laws, but they still have a dog catcher.
10. neocon | January 25th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Can’t he just vote “present”?
11. Joe | January 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
js:
“These ole boys are in election mode. You cant really trust anything they say. If the guys are in Texas, the walk like a cowboy, then next week in Cali, they break out the surf board. Its not realistic to judge a politician by his words on the campain trail.”
Are you talking about Mitt Romney?????
12. js | January 25th, 2008 at 9:27 am
12. Joe
Oh cmon.
Do you see that name posted anywhere besides your post on this page?
13. Magnum Serpentine | January 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mark
As I have said before, people do not care what the candidates feel about abortion. maybe a few do.
As you read the neutral polls, you will see that people care about the Economy and what a candidates stance is on that. Abortion ranks in the high 20’s on list of things that are important. For a comparison, Environmental concerns rank about 8. The Iraqi war ranks 3rd. Education is about 10 If I remember right. (Housing issues, jobs, prices, recession are others that were higher than Education)
On another note, I invite you all to check out my blog.
Thank you.
14. js | January 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
14. Magnum Serpentine | January 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mark
As I have said before, people do not care
—————————————————
So who said you even have a clue? Anyone can manipulate questions in Polls, omit topics, and tipify poll results to accomodate specific agenda’s.
You can darn right bet 80% of america is pissed because of the price of living is far outgrowing thier incomes, but they still love thier kids and will do anything to protect and care for them.
What makes you think murdering 1.5 million living humans every year is “not” worth talking about!!
15. Mark Noonan | January 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
liberalT,
I’m sorry to say this - but if you don’t start actually reading what is written and commenting on it, then I’ll have to ask you not to comment here anymore. You’re just a bunch of insults, and it is getting rather tiresome.
16. Mark Noonan | January 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Magnum,
Do you know what is means if 1% of the voters care deeply about an issue? It means that 1.2 million people think that their issue is the most important thing in the whole, wide world…and if those 1.2 million people turn out to be distributed in the right States, then that issue could be the deciding factor in a race where, supposedly, that issue was small beans.
A State like Pennsylvania is reliably Democrat -but it is also reliably pro-life…what PP and other abortion groups are trying to do is motivate enough pro-abortion people to counterbalance the pro-life people who will come out in force in order to try and settle who will pick the Justices who will either uphold or overturn Roe between 2009 and 2013.
This is really rather simple stuff, and you’re missing it - you’re starting to get like liberalT, and its annoying as all get out.
17. SteaM | January 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Mark,
LibT’s comments do sound more like sarcasm albiet the kind that might offend someone who is religious. However those sarcastic comments are no different than the ones your regular conservative (or anti-liberal) posters put up here all the time.
18. Mark Noonan | January 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am
SteaM,
No - this:
Bears no relation to anything I wrote - he’s either a complete idiot, or someone who is deliberately mischaracterising what I say in order to have an excuse for another string of insults.
I’ll not have it anymore - for liberalT, its shape up, or ship out.
19. Aztec | January 25th, 2008 at 11:45 am
When Obama says
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues.
What is unclear about his position? Other than you feel women are uncapable of making the proper decision about these matters.
20. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
keefer,
I’ve covered this assertion in some detail elsewhere, as I assume you know. Since you’ve stated so clearly that “those who participate should be treated as murderers” then I can reasonably assume that you would therefore support the prosecution of the mother who delivers the victim to the scene of the offense for the offense as well. True? If not, I would greatly appreciate your explanation of why not. Thanks.
21. Tractatus | January 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Bears no relation to anything I wrote
Uh-huh:
The “health” exception is the “keep it abortion on demand” exception, because “health” is a subjective judgement - might as well ban bank robbery exception cases where the bank robber’s “health” might require him to do so.
Granted, you aren’t exactly blessed with the gift of metaphor. And you so frequently make mind-bogglingly absurd pronouncements that it can be difficult to tell if you’re going for reductio ad absurdum or being serious with a given statement (that “you can’t have democracy without Catholicism” gem, for example–deliberate overstatement or serious viewpoint?). But perhaps, just perhaps, he got the impression that you were comparing a woman getting an abortion with a bank robber from the part (helpfully bolded above) where you compared a woman getting an abortion to a bank robber.
22. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Diana,
For those who would cave to the demands of the mother on this issue are the ones who should be held accountable. They are the ones that need to be instructing the mother that she needs to go ahead and have her baby, instead of commiting murder.
For instance - a mother would go to her nearest abortion clinic where she would get the abortion done, and she goes up to the doctor and says:
Mother: Dr. Blackmun - A would like to get an abortion?
Dr. Blackmun - No, honey, I can’t.
Mother - “But I don’t want this baby, the boys won’t like me if I have a baby”
Dr. Blackmun - “You should find you a nice young man who will be nice to you, take care of you, and not do things like that - maybe even get married some day - You see, you need to learn to be a good mommy and not do things like that.”
See?
We need to shut down all these stupid abortion clinics and turn them into God-fearing places.
–Jeremiah–
23. BARRASSO | January 25th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Such silly arguments from anti abortion types. If there were a x-tian god and he was putting souls in fetuses at conception, then he would obviously have a backup plan since the majority of fertilized eggs fail to come to term naturally. Therefore aborted fetuses get a do-over. It’s in the bible people, under Mulligans: 3:16.
24. js | January 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
hogwash diana
if a mother knows it is a crime, and she commits to it, she should pay
society is numb to the pain of those millions of lives that are aborted every day, 365 days a year, for decades now
yet let some pety controversy draws the nation into a year long trial for OJ Simpson for the killing of 2 people
our priorities are jacked up bad when we can diminish the value of millions of dead people that never got the chance to take a breath
why do they hide the truth so much? have you ever seen a partial birth abortion? that is a living being, a human being, being indiscriminantly riped apart, with its mothers permission
no, maybe they dont deserve a life sentence or the death sentence, but if the punishment doesnt fit the crime, whats the use? 5-10 should be the bare minimum
25. SteaM | January 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
js
Put the brakes on for a minute and think about this. As far as you guys know I am pretty much an athiest, liberal, far-left, and a democrat. I want Obama to be the next president. I want the war to end immediately so that the Iraqis can figure out what to do with their own country.
Ok, so now you know my where I am as far as labels go.
I also believe in reducing abortions. I support that conquest and mission. I think it is practical to wish for that and I think it goes beyond political affiliations in regards to who supports that concept. Christian, athiest, republican or democrat. Many of whom would support that.
It’s how to reduce them that we debate about. But more than that we also debate about whether it should be illegal or not.
But we can ultimately scrap the idea of making it illegal if it suddenly becomes a non-issue.
But for now it is an issue because there are so many abortions that do happen.
So, the bottom line is that we can agree on the point that we want to reduce abortions.
How do we reduce abortions?
Hand out condoms, educate people on how to use them, make them available, and make it private and comfortable to get them and use them. The problem here is some people think that encourages people to have sex. They think it encourages people to have pre-marital sex and encourages irresponsible behaviour. It is a sin. It goes against God’s will or his word. They want to teach abstinence. But that won’t work and you have to come to that conclusion because it is unfortunately a fact of life since it is in our nature to enjoy and want to have sex. Besides we all know that kids will do something that they are told not to do. That’s the natural reaction to being told to never ever ever do something. As soon as that person who tells you to not have sex before marriage… etc … as soon as they turn around and leave that kid is going to be thinking… oh, I gotta try this and see what the big deal is.
So we need to have more education. If you know how to use a condom, feel guilt-free in the process, feel comfortable getting them, and are aware of the fact that sex can lead to disease and pregnancy THEN you might avoid having sex but if and when you do you will be responsible enough to use a condom. If you don’t use a condom, and it is natural to make a mistake in the heat of the moment with hormones raging, it is not a horrible thing that is going to ruin your life. Why not? Because you can go to a pharmacy, take a deep breath, admit you made a stupid mistake one night when you were drunk or upset or whatever, and you got pregnant. You can get the morning after pill and all is well. You learn your lesson or you don’t. But, the ulitmate point here is that you avoid having to get an abortion. Or you can decide on your own to have the baby and put it up for adoption. Also avoiding abortion.
But, some people fight this concept by fighting the handing out of condoms to kids. Fighting the avilablilty of morning after pills to teens without their parents knowing.
There are too many people, and I say this sincerely not to offend people, that fight against things that would avoid the need for abortions 100% from accidental pregnancies except whereas it is for the health of the mom or from a rape etc. You fight this because you have good reasons but they hurt rather than help.
And so we go back and forth on whether to make it illegal instead of finding common ground in the area of sex education and birth control. Give a child the tools he/she needs to understand why he/she should be careful with sex. Give them the tools they need to make a solid desicion in the event that they make a mistake. Give them the support, not the guilt. Be a friend sometimes not just a parent.
26. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
SteaM,
It’s all good and well, to want to warn children of the dangers involved with having pre-marital sex, I believe strongly that they should, but it doesn’t belong in school, my friend, that job is solely the responsibility of the parents; and teaching them from God’s Word, and what He says, which is the best teaching they can find. Furthermore, any parent or parents that deny their children THESE tools, are not giving their children a very bright future. Education is impossible without the bible.
Also, when somebody breaks the law, they should be held accountable, in this case, it would be for murder. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life, therefore, it is called - Murder.
No different than the taking of a full grown adult’s life.
It is such a strange world we live in, there are people out there that stalk young men and women, and then brutally rape and murder them…and yet, our justice system won’t punish them. Why?
When you don’t punish people for their wrong doing, then you only encourage more of the same. Thus, civil society is impossible, and it will only get worse as time goes along.
Some will say? “The Law of Torah seems harsh.”
lol! If it seems “harsh” to you…you’re only able to recognize that harshness because we live in a society that has been shaped by over 2,000 years of reflection upon, and experience with the principles of justice and mercy in that very same law.
Today isn’t like it was then, the people then, were punished for their wrong doing, and thusly, kept chaos from breaking out. Just like when Israel, and Judah sacrificed their sons and daughters to Molech in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, in a raging inferno, millions upon millions of innocent little children, after God had explicitly commanded them not too. So, through God’s wrath, He ordered them completely destroyed from the face of the earth.
Those were the people they called the Pagans, and they angered God.
What about today? Today, we murder little babies to idolize two things - sex and money. $800,000,000 each year is profited from the abortion industry, 1.5 million innocent lives lost. Completely gone, never to be brought back again. What a shame!
In order for America to keep in God’s favor, we must stop the abortion industry. PERIOD!
–Jeremiah–
27. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Jeremiah,
So, you’re saying that a pregnant woman who has an abortion is not an accessory to the murder? If that’s what you’re saying, how can you possibly deny the woman’s responsibility given the fact that no abortion can happen without the active assistance of the woman?
28. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
If that’s what you’re saying, how can you possibly deny the woman’s responsibility given the fact that no abortion can happen without the active assistance of the woman?
Diana,
Here’s what I’m saying…
1. Illegalize abortion.
2. Turn the abortion clinics into birthing and counsel clinics.
Thus, these mothers will have a place to go to, that will help them mentally as well as physically to bear her child. And these clinics will remain under government surveillance to make sure that no abortion takes place, just to be on the safe side. If caught doing an abortion? We sock it to ‘em.
We could dramatically decrease the number of abortions in this effort.
–Jeremiah–
29. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Jeremiah,
Please expand on what you mean by “sock it to ‘em” and who is the recipient of the “sock”. You can rest assured that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It existed prior to Roe v. Wade, exists now and will exist if Roe were to be struck down. So, who is charged with exactly what crime?
30. TiredofLibBullSh** | January 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
If abortion is not murder, then why are criminals being charged with two murders after killing a pregnant woman; or when a pregnant woman loses her baby and survives as a result of a violent crime????????
There have been many cases as I posted here on another thread.
BTW, Diana you are dodging again.
31. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
and who is the recipient of the “sock”.
The birthing (fomerly Abortion) clinic.
Whoever provided the abortion for this young girl.
We sock them with about a 23$ million dollar fine, thus, it would affect the entire clinic, which would cover all those who participated in the abortion.
Take every last penny the woman has.
Make sure that there are consequences in the event of an abortion.
It existed prior to Roe v. Wade, exists now and will exist if Roe were to be struck down.
True, but we won’t have the absurd 1,500,000. In other words, we would be saving more lives than losing them. We won’t be losing millions of children to the asinine complaints of “inconvenience.” That type of non-sense. Only the insane will abort their children…and we will even try to stop those.
–Jeremiah–
32. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
TiredofLibBullSh**,
What am I dodging? I accept the premise:
Abortion is murder.
Someone murders by committing abortion. Who gets prosecuted? I say, at minimum, the person who performs the abortion and the mother. What do you say?
Jeremiah,
Therefore, if you’re only going to impose a civil fine against a business entity, it’s not the crime of murder.
33. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Diana,
If I had my way … I’d just like to see how much crime there would be, because if I had my way, there would be no need for fines or prisons.
–Jeremiah–
34. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Jeremiah,
I’m sorry, but that’s not really an answer. If abortion is murder, it’s murder.
35. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
If abortion is murder, it?s murder.
Yes, ‘it is.’ and I would treat it as such.
–Jeremiah–
36. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Jeremiah,
Then who gets charged with murder?
37. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Then who gets charged with murder?
Diana,
Now who normally gets charged with murder?
Anyone who has an instrument of murder in their hands, and actually uses it to murder.
If the mother goes to see a “doctor” and asks him to perform an abortion on her, then he is held responsible. Because that’s his whole point of being in business, is just waiting to murder an unborn child - in this case, the “doctor” is charged with murder.
We can’t make an excuse on the mother’s behalf just so he can continue the Holocaust.
Now, in the event that a mother bears her child and throws her baby in a trash bin (aborts), then she is charged with the murder.
In both cases, justice is served, because the one doing the actual murder is held accountable and brought to justice. In both cases, I would rule the death penalty.
–Jeremiah–
38. Diana Powe | January 25th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Jeremiah,
So, the fact that the only way the murder would have taken place is that the mother brought the murder victim to the scene of the murder and paid for the murder means that she isn’t charged with the murder? If the murder victim was her one-day old child and she brought it to the same person who smothered it with a pillow and then she threw the body in a trash bin, would you only charge that person that used the pillow with the murder? I don’t know of any jurisdiction in the United States that wouldn’t charge both of them. So, what changes about the crime when the victim is inside the mother’s body?
39. js | January 25th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
26. SteaM
Oh cmon SteaM.
You said think about it, but did you?
We have been going through futile excercises is Sexed for decades. We increased our funding of it after HIV. First Ladies and Presidents from Nixon on acted on this whole thing, for what?
If we havent learned that it doesnt work, then we are destined to bang our heads against the walls forever. I think the definition of doing the same thing over and over with the same results is part of the definition for mental insanity. Regular humans learn most of the time that doing the same thing will get the same results.
If we want to stop abortions you have to stop them. Half steps will never get the job done. The reason abortions flourish is because they are legal. If women knew that if the became pregnant, that they would face prison for having an abortion, a very high percentage of them would carry full term and have their babies. They can adopt the child out.
With our current laws, a womans plans for an education is more important that the life that she carries. Its easier for them to murder thier child than it is for them to change thier plans because they want to have unprotected sex.
But who is standing up for truth and justice for the millions of aborted humans? What lawyers defends thier rights? Are the plans and ambitions of people who create these millions of lives more precious than the very human lives they destroy? No Way.
Nobody too away the most fundamental choice a woman has. Say no. We try to teach children to say no to drugs. We need to teach them to say no to sex as well. Its not candy in the store, its a human life and a lifetime responsiblity and abortion is not the answer.
Jail is the answer. Its a punishment that bites hard. A crime against an innocent that cannot protect its own self, a crime perpetrated by the one person entrusted to give it protection until its strong enough to protect its own self. Its a human being.
The answer is in Truth and Justice. Anything else is tyrany.
40. Jeremiah | January 25th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Diana,
If your older brother put your younger brother in a sack, brought him to you, and asked you to kill him, would you do it?
Of course you wouldn’t!
So what happens when you say, ‘no’?
You still have a brother!
OK, what if everybody done other people this way, for a sum of money, and it’s “a-ok”?
How are you going to get it stopped?
Does money “justify” murder?
Does intent “justify” murder?
NO! Nothing justifies murder! Under ANY circumstances!
I see where you’re coming from!!
So, yes, you’re right, they should both be charged with murder!!
–Jeremiah–
41. Mark Noonan | January 25th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Tract,
Geesh - ok, I’ll draw you a picture.
“Health” is a subjective word - anyone can say it means whatever they want. In regards to late-term abortion, all someone would have to say is that their mental “health” requires them to have the procedure and off they go and there’s no way one can dispute that. What the “health” exception does, in operation, is retain abortion on demand as the legal paradigm in the United States. So, when I wrote what I wrote, what I’m saying is that a bank robber could also say that his “health” requires that he rob a bank and under the logic of the “health” exception, he’d have a rock solid case.
What we can, and should, put into any restriction on abortion is a “life” exception - an abortion must be allowed if its a matter of the woman losing her life by carrying the child to term.
And, also, you can’t have democracy without Catholicism - and you really should sit down for a while a think about that. Its the absolute, indisputable truth - once you understand just whence comes our modern definition of a citizen.
42. FmrMarine | January 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
diana;
except for one or two reasons abortions are the MURDER of a child.
YES…….the mother should be charged as well as the abortionist.
Abortions should be sort of like a search warrant…reviewed and ok’d by a judge.
43. FmrMarine | January 26th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
A good article on abortion
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/saving_the_trees_and_killing_t_1.html
44. Jeremiah | January 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
FmrMarine,
Very good article!
–Jeremiah–
45. Tractatus | January 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
So, when I wrote what I wrote, what I’m saying is that a bank robber could also say that his “health” requires that he rob a bank and under the logic of the “health” exception, he’d have a rock solid case.
And, also, you can’t have democracy without Catholicism - and you really should sit down for a while a think about that. Its the absolute, indisputable truth - once you understand just whence comes our modern definition of a citizen.
See what I mean? Both of the above statements are, on the face, reductio ad absurdum. They’re utterly silly, but I see that you are being completely earnest in making both of them.
So, Mark…what, exactly, does robbing a bank have to do with “health?” Abortion is clearly a health issue, a medical issue. There are all sorts of health ramifications potentially involved. Robbing a bank? Not so much. Yet you cling to that terrible metaphor because you think it proves something. But at least you’re admitting that you compared a woman getting an abortion to a bank robber, whereas before you were trying to pretend that you didn’t. I guess that’s a start.
This “no democracy without Catholicism” schtick is hilarious, though. It’s “absolute, indisputable truth” not because of any supporting evidence (which, as per usual, you don’t provide) but because you want it to be, and for you, that’s good enough. If you want it to be true, then it’s true. See, it’s stuff like this that makes me really hope you run for office. I’d love to see you try to push this stuff outside of a rinky-dink unintentional comedy blog. It’d be fantastic watching you crash and burn trying to get people to buy into this ridiculous world view of yours.
46. Jeremiah | January 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Abortion is clearly a health issue, a medical issue. There are all sorts of health ramifications potentially involved
Yep, sure is. Namely, the life of the child is at stake. Numbskull.
–Jeremiah–
47. Mark Noonan | January 26th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Tract,
You’re a bit too much of “brick wall” intellectually, and I don’t have much a mind to keep butting my head up against it.
48. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Regarding my post 26, all I get in response is that teaching people personal responsibility followed up with free public education (ya know, because in some cases parents just don’t teach their kids to be responible for any number of reasons).
“Make it illegal!”
“Throw them in jail!”
What a bunch of lunacy. Diana has, as always, a good point. Because some of you would want it to be illegal and suggest that, if they are caught, a woman has an abortion that she should get the death penalty or rot in prison for life.
Are you suggesting that a woman should be put to death for having an abortion? Are you content with killing someone for their actions which you do not agree with?
I am so glad that I broke away from my Southern Baptist life and went athiest. You people are insane and terrible hypocrites.