Obama, Notre Dame and Abortion

[Traveler]

It appears to me that Obama got away with appearing to want compromise when the exact opposite is the actual truth. In this search for common ground and compromise – let’s compromise and end partial birth abortions.

Obama says to think compromise – Where does he propose to start? Is no restrictions what-so-ever to any abortion anywhere anytime what he means by compromise and having an open mind?

The Traveler

[the Ogre]

It appears to me that Obama got away with appearing to want compromise when the exact opposite is the actual truth. In this search for common ground and compromise – let’s compromise and end partial birth abortions.

Obama says to think compromise – Where does he propose to start? Is no restrictions what-so-ever to any abortion anywhere anytime what he means by compromise and having an open mind?

The Traveler

Traveler:

I read his speech, too. I don't think he wants compromise. I think he wants people to use less antagonistic language. I could be missing something and most likely am. I think he feels that opposing sides often share commonalities, but because the language people choose is so polemic there is no way to come to together to talk.

I TA'd a class where the professor was very liberal. I'm a moderate and so the professor used me to sometimes bridge the gap between her and many of the very conservative students (ENGL 1010 and ENGL 202H and UVU). Often, it was a choice of language to help calm things down.

With that in mind, I do not think any amount of moderate language is going to over-come the suspicions both sides harbor.

Personally, I understand every-side of the abortion debate, but my opinion stands firm: abortion, except for the exceptions the church allows, is murder. I do not think anyone is going to demonstrably change their opinions either, even if people adopt more civil tones of voice.

I think calling pro-choicers murderers and baby-killers is what he is trying to avoid.

[HEthePrimate]

Well, it seems to me that the extremists are framing the whole abortion debate. At the one extreme, some people say abortion is child murder. At the other extreme, some people say the fetus is "merely" part of a woman's body until birth. Fortunately (IMO), the LDS Church falls somewhere in the middle, allowing for abortion in certain circumstances, but trying to avoid it when possible.

I think what President Obama was trying to say was simply this: "We're going to disagree on some things--let's stop demonizing each other. Let's get a civil dialogue going."

Thing is, I don't think he would have said a word about abortion had not the protesters made such a stink.

HEP

[bytor2112]

Well, it seems to me that the extremists are framing the whole abortion debate. At the one extreme, some people say abortion is child murder. At the other extreme, some people say the fetus is "merely" part of a woman's body until birth. Fortunately (IMO), the LDS Church falls somewhere in the middle, allowing for abortion in certain circumstances, but trying to avoid it when possible.

I think what President Obama was trying to say was simply this: "We're going to disagree on some things--let's stop demonizing each other. Let's get a civil dialogue going."

Thing is, I don't think he would have said a word about abortion had not the protesters made such a stink.

HEP

President Obama has some very radical views regarding abortion and he was speaking at a Catholic University. The Catholics are very pro-life......so it stands to reason that this would be an issue. That being said it is quite an honor to have the President speak....regardless of who it is.

The Church doesn't fall in the middle. They are pretty cut and dry. Abortion is a grave sin and should only be performed in certain instances....not AVOIDING it in other than issues of health of the mother, rape and incest will place someone's membership in the church at stake. Abortion is an abomination and is used primary as a means of ridding an inconvenient pregnancy. (source: Planned Parenthood) Funny, how it has become the litmus test for Democratic candidates for office and the Women' lib movement.

[ADoyle90815]

President Obama has some very radical views regarding abortion and he was speaking at a Catholic University. The Catholics are very pro-life......so it stands to reason that this would be an issue. That being said it is quite an honor to have the President speak....regardless of who it is.

The Church doesn't fall in the middle. They are pretty cut and dry. Abortion is a grave sin and should only be performed in certain instances....not AVOIDING it in other than issues of health of the mother, rape and incest will place someone's membership in the church at stake. Abortion is an abomination and is used primary as a means of ridding an inconvenient pregnancy. (source: Planned Parenthood) Funny, how it has become the litmus test for Democratic candidates for office and the Women' lib movement.

Actually, it's the Catholic church that is very pro-life, to the point where they wouldn't allow it under any circumstance, but I'm not completely sure. Many Catholics don't believe in any form of birth control, especially ones which would prevent implantation of a fertilized egg so they have larger families. As LDS families often are larger than average, I mistakenly thought that the church was against birth control as well, but I now understand that it's up to the couple and God.

[Traveler]

Can anyone think of a time when Obama has asked those that speak in favor of abortion to not demonize their opposition. When he has spoken to a gathering in favor of abortion. Can anyone provide a link?

The Traveler

[the Ogre]

Can anyone think of a time when Obama has asked those that speak in favor of abortion to not demonize their opposition. When he has spoken to a gathering in favor of abortion. Can anyone provide a link?

The Traveler

No you are quite right, he is more interesting in conservative "toning-down" the rhetoric. It would be nice to not be labeled misogynist just because of my opinion regarding abortion.

[Maxel]

I read his speech, too. I don't think he wants compromise.

Agreed. Regarding abortion, I get the feeling he wants to paint it as a humane act that doesn't violate anyone's rights; as only a "heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions"- and not acutally morally reprehensible. (Obama's Notre Dame Speech) It seems Obama's main purpose for introducing abortion is to highlight his own version of compromise: try to please everyone. His example:

"So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

So, reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and reinforce the conscience clause to shut the pro-lifers up, while giving women the "right" to an abortion. Morally irresponsible; philosophical ecumenicalism leads to spirital ruin.

More and more lately, when I see Obama talk I see a man who is very skilled in the art of speaking, whose aims are not to reinforce this country's traditional infrastructure (socially, moraly, economically, or govenmentally) but to advance the agenda of him and other ideologues- an agenda that runs counter to the traditional, God-given values this country was founded upon.

One last thing... He makes it painfully obvious to anyone who knows God's laws that he isn't intent on following them. He cites the Golden Rule that exists within all religions, that "binds people of all faiths and no faith together" and sets this as the standard for the dialogue that should exist between faiths. The 'Golden Rule' does exist in Christianity, (Matthew 22:39), but it clearly defined as the second greatest law- the first being to "love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and all they soul, and with all they mind" (v. 37). We are told that, if we love God, we are to keep His commandments (John 14:15). In effect, Obama is chastising thos who haven't acquiesced to the demands of the minority's sordid demand of "equal rights" on unconstitutional grounds.

[MarginOfError]

With all due respect, I think you are all painted by your biases and unwilling to look at the world from another perspective. I personally find Obama’s views on the subject much more empathetic and charitable than any of yours thus far.

You say that you don’t believe Obama wants compromise, and I say that your only claim that to justify your own unwillingness to compromise. I honestly think most here are determined on an absolutist solution that fits your own chosen moral structure. I think this is dangerous, reckless, and counter-productive. The truth is this: there can be no compromise while the bitterness and spitefulness continue. There will be no compromise until individuals attempt to understand the reasoning behind another’s line of thinking. But I rarely see any capacity for such understanding demonstrated here. Regardless of whether your point of view is “right” or “true,” you cannot persuade others without being able to understand and appreciate their point of view, even if you disagree with them.

One thing that I think a lot of people here don’t understand is that there is a difference between pro-life and anti-abortion—there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. One can be pro-life and still believe abortion should be legal. One can be pro-choice, and still find abortion morally reprehensible. (See this article link: Can a pro-choice president lead a pro-life majority? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine) The terms are not in any way mutually exclusive, as politicians would have you believe. It amazes me that anyone who reads or listens to anything Obama has said can still describe him as “pro-abortion.” He has stated rather plainly that he wants to see the number of abortions decrease.

I’ve pulled a couple of quotes from President Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope that I think illustrate quite well what he hopes to see in our country. I believe that Obama does want compromise, and I believe he understands that no compromise is possible until we open honest and calm dialogues, and until we dial down the rhetoric and the hateful, exclusionary speech. Something we all, including myself, need to be better at.

What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do, such rules of engagement may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material worlds over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Almost by definition, faith and reason operate in different domains and involve different paths to discerning truth.

Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there’s no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters.

But I don’t think so. They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way—in their own lives, at least—to make peace with their neighbors, and themselves. I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son different, who thinks that discrimination is wrong but doesn’t see what the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his own son. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just as tired of the drug dealers in front of those buildings as he is of the bankers who won’t give him a loan to expand his business. There’s the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager’s abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurses’ assistants and Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they’ll have enough money to support the children that they did bring into the world.

[Just_A_Guy]

Very well.

Obama is not in favor of the murder of children.

He is only in favor of the negligent homicide of children.

(/sarcasm)

There is room for toning down rhetoric elsewhere, but Obama's stance on abortion is morally repugnant. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Very well.

Obama is not in favor of the murder of children.

He is only in favor of the negligent homicide of children.

(/sarcasm)

There is room for toning down rhetoric elsewhere, but Obama's stance on abortion is morally repugnant. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

So if Obama’s stance that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare needs to be denounced, what are you pulling for? Illegal, unsafe, and prevalent? (I can dish out the sarcasm too)

The point it, you try to depict Obama to be this monster that revels in each and every abortion; as someone that celebrates every time one takes place. This is a fallacious caricature you create and is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes it impossible to have any kind of intelligent and productive conversation about the issue. You would be able to more effectively work for whatever your goal is if you were less combative in your speech.

[Islander]

Why are we arguing about this. Obama is a "nominal" Christian just like Bill Clinton was a Christian and many other people in America today. He HAS to be (or at least call himself one) with a name like Barak Hussein Obama in the US. He had no choice other than to associate himself with Christians or he would get nowhere politically. A gamble that paid off, obviously as he managed himself to get elected to the highest office in the land in what is perhaps the shortest political career in history. Even his reported hero; JFK, served the people of New England for 13 yers before getting elected President. Obama is a "Sunday" Christian. He stood before the world and denied the Christian heritage of America so I am not surprised he is pro-abortion.

The fact is that it means very little these days to call oneself "Christian." You can, after all, be a serial killer and call yourself Christian, a drug addict, homosexual, an abortion nurse. You can be what you are, do what you please and call yourself a Christian on Sunday.

[Just_A_Guy]

So if Obama’s stance that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare needs to be denounced, what are you pulling for? Illegal, unsafe, and prevalent? (I can dish out the sarcasm too)

If that were all Obama's stance were, I might be able to find room for compromise.

But that isn't all Obama's stance is. Read the link. He voted against born-alive legislation--twice. The first explanation he offered was a lie. The second was legally spurious, and, as former president of the Harvard Law Review, he would have known it. And I believe we've had this discussion before.

The guy's a radical, even by pro choice standards; and I'm not going to sweep that under the rug just because most of this country's moderates don't want to admit they were snookered.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[the Ogre]

I'm not going to sweep that under the rug just because most of this country's moderates don't want to admit they were snookered.

I'm a moderate and I wasn't snookered. I didn't vote for him.

As far as radicalness, I think Hannity and Rush are far more radical, just like Keith Oberman is far more liberal than the president. I do not think Obama is particularly moderate like Clinton sort of was, I think the country is just exhausted by the failures of the spend-o-holic conservatives and just wanted a new face even if they knew the new face would spend even more. Honestly, regarding fiscal-conservatism, Bush-Cheney was a joke and McCain deserved to be ignored by the nation as a whole by simply associating with them.

You want someone to blame, blame the idiocy of the Republican Party Leadership for nominating yet again another old man who lacked the ability to communicate like they did with Bob Dole.

[Maxel]

Regarding abortion:

With all due respect, I think you are all painted by your biases and unwilling to look at the world from another perspective.

All right, you got me (me, at least- I can't speak for anyone else). I was trying to hide it, but wasn't good enough. I have a very strong bias towards a certain philosophy and a certain set of rules. I have an agenda.

I honestly think most here are determined on an absolutist solution that fits your own chosen moral structure.

Again, guilty. I personally am an absolutist who believes in certain absolute truths that structure the universe. I also feel that departing from those fundamental truths lead nations and people to ruin. This is my chosen moral structure that I base upon a silly test I once did.

[/facetiousness]

In all seriousness, I see your words, MoE, as an attack against the approach to this issue that the Church espouses. I know that's not your words' intended use (or perhaps most obvious one), but I have come to my own opinions only after serious reflection, weighing the options and opinions, and prayer. Ultimately, I base my own opinions upon what I feel God's own opinions are. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's how I do it. Not the most 'scientific' or 'intellectual' approach to it- but it's worked for me in the past, and I'm hoping it works for this issue as well.

The truth is this... There will be no compromise until individuals attempt to understand the reasoning behind another’s line of thinking. But I rarely see any capacity for such understanding demonstrated here. Regardless of whether your point of view is “right” or “true,” you cannot persuade others without being able to understand and appreciate their point of view, even if you disagree with them.

D&C 6:21

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

It is those who hold to the vain traditions and philosophies of men that do not understand those that are quickened by the Spirit of God, not the other way around. Besides, this issue is a moral one; its premises are simple to comprehend. The most charitable defense of the pro-choice stance I have heard is actually Obama's in his most previous speech (explaining that making the decision of an abortion is a difficult one with moral ramifications). Moral issues aren't solved by rationl arguments, unless the arguments carry enough emotional or moral weight to convince one party to change its stance.

I have to ask though- why should we even want a compromise in this situation? What's the matter with the laws as they are?

Edited May 20, 2009 by Maxel

[Guest]

Actually, it's the Catholic church that is very pro-life, to the point where they wouldn't allow it under any circumstance, but I'm not completely sure. Many Catholics don't believe in any form of birth control, especially ones which would prevent implantation of a fertilized egg so they have larger families. As LDS families often are larger than average, I mistakenly thought that the church was against birth control as well, but I now understand that it's up to the couple and God.

You are not quite accurate on this one. Catholics hold the same views as the LDS church regarding abortion. It is a sin unless the life of the mother is on the balance. And they consider rape and incest as putting the mother's life on the balance.

Catholics do not condone ARTIFICIAL birth control. They believe in natural birth control - rhythm method, abstinence, and the like.

I believe that rape and incest is a crime against the mother and not the child. Therefore, the life of the child should not be automatically forfeit. Unless the situation escalates such that the life of the mother is at stake (physical and psychological) then this is covered by the first premise where abortion is justifiable when the life of the mother is on the balance.

Edited May 20, 2009 by anatess

[Guest]

With Abortion, there is no such thing as compromise.

It is either Life Begins at Conception or Not. It cannot be both.

The current law as it stands is BOGUS. Because it was enacted by the Supreme Court in the guise of "Medical Privacy" which completely bypassed the "Life Begins at Conception or Not" that is at the crux of the issue. It was NEVER voted on. Not in Congress, nor by the People.

Each State had a law on abortion voted on by the people. The Supreme Court squashed all of them. And that's the TRAGEDY of this whole thing.

[MarginOfError]

If that were all Obama's stance were, I might be able to find room for compromise.

But that isn't all Obama's stance is. Read the link. He voted against born-alive legislation--twice. The first explanation he offered was a lie. The second was legally spurious, and, as former president of the Harvard Law Review, he would have known it. And I believe we've had this discussion before.

The guy's a radical, even by pro choice standards; and I'm not going to sweep that under the rug just because most of this country's moderates don't want to admit they were snookered.

I did read the link. But you chose to ignore the fact that both bills were bad legislation. There are enough poorly written laws on the books, we don't need to add to the chaos. We should be trying to write legislation that makes sense.

I can't think of any abortion legislation that was (or is) worth voting for, including the current Freedom of Choice Act. The answer to a bad problem is not bad legislation.

[MarginOfError]

Regarding abortion:

All right, you got me (me, at least- I can't speak for anyone else). I was trying to hide it, but wasn't good enough. I have a very strong bias towards a certain philosophy and a certain set of rules. I have an agenda.

Subscribing to that philosophy and to those rules does not preclude one from voting pro-choice. It only means that the individual has concluded that to have, arrange, pay for, etc an abortion is contrary to the will of God. One may believe that a person ought to have a legal right to abortion while hoping that they don't exercise that right.

Again, guilty. I personally am an absolutist who believes in certain absolute truths that structure the universe. I also feel that departing from those fundamental truths lead nations and people to ruin. This is my chosen moral structure that I base upon a silly test I once did.

[/facetiousness]

In all seriousness, I see your words, MoE, as an attack against the approach to this issue that the Church espouses.

I've not attacked the Church's approach to this issue at all. The Church's approach to this issue is that people are free and encouraged to vote their conscience. Those who violate the laws of man are tried by the government. Those who violate God's laws are disciplined by God's servants. And by the Church's own statement on abortion, "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."

I know that's not your words' intended use (or perhaps most obvious one), but I have come to my own opinions only after serious reflection, weighing the options and opinions, and prayer. Ultimately, I base my own opinions upon what I feel God's own opinions are. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's how I do it. Not the most 'scientific' or 'intellectual' approach to it- but it's worked for me in the past, and I'm hoping it works for this issue as well.

And that is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote the way you feel. You'll get no objection from me on your conclusion or how you came to that conclusion. However, if you expect that to be a valid persuasive argument to society at large about why abortion should be illegalize, restricted, or regulated, you're going to be rebuffed continually.

D&C 6:21

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

It is those who hold to the vain traditions and philosophies of men that do not understand those that are quickened by the Spirit of God, not the other way around. Besides, this issue is a moral one; its premises are simple to comprehend.

But only in your moral framework. The premises, and therfore the conclusions, are entirely different from another moral framework. Which is why peaceful dialog is required to understand.

The most charitable defense of the pro-choice stance I have heard is actually Obama's in his most previous speech (explaining that making the decision of an abortion is a difficult one with moral ramifications).

He's been saying this for a long long time.

Moral issues aren't solved by rationl arguments, unless the arguments carry enough emotional or moral weight to convince one party to change its stance.

But rational and tempered discussion will help the various parties (there aren't just two) understand what is important to each other and why. That is when sensible compromises and agreements can be found.

I have to ask though- why should we even want a compromise in this situation? What's the matter with the laws as they are?

A very sensible question. I, personally, have no desire to see the laws change until reasonable and balanced legislation can be written that appeals to a vast majority of Americans. Anytime legislation that causes heated debate and results in a near 50/50 split is, in my opinion, not worth passing.

[Just_A_Guy]

I did read the link. But you chose to ignore the fact that both bills were bad legislation. There are enough poorly written laws on the books, we don't need to add to the chaos. We should be trying to write legislation that makes sense.

I can't think of any abortion legislation that was (or is) worth voting for, including the current Freedom of Choice Act. The answer to a bad problem is not bad legislation.

What was wrong with it?

The only problem I can see is that it required physicians to try to save all fetuses that came out moving and breathing; rather than only saving the ones that they (who aren't in the business of saving life anyway) deem "viable".

Obama's stated intention, as of 2001, was to preserve abortion rights of women. The only other rationale I can see is to preserve the financial viability of abortion clinics by not forcing them to maintain the equipment and personnel typically employed to care for preemies.

Neither, in my opinion, is a legitimate excuse for permitting "doctors" to dump living, breathing, moving children on a shelf and waiting for them to die.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

With Abortion, there is no such thing as compromise.

It is either Life Begins at Conception or Not. It cannot be both.

The current law as it stands is BOGUS. Because it was enacted by the Supreme Court in the guise of "Medical Privacy" which completely bypassed the "Life Begins at Conception or Not" that is at the crux of the issue. It was NEVER voted on. Not in Congress, nor by the People.

Each State had a law on abortion voted on by the people. The Supreme Court squashed all of them. And that's the TRAGEDY of this whole thing.

That is one view of what abortion is about. It happens to be a view that I believe misses the point. In fact, in LDS literature, there is plenty of evidence to reasonably and comfortable conclude that life does not begin at conception. (See this article for good references. There is no clear LDS doctrine for when life begins and it is entirely plausible that life begins at a different stage for each fetus.

Furthermore, the "when does life begin" is not an argument the Supreme Court, or any man-made court, can decide. Why, then, should we expect the government systems that rule a society of believers and non-believers alike be based on the creeds of only the believers.

Lastly, I would point out that if the Lord were to reveal on Tuesday, May 26th, that life begins during the 17th week of pregnancy, I'm pretty certain the Church would still oppose elective abortions even before the moment of quickening. This is because abortion is wrong not because it destroys life, but because elective abortion fails to respect the sacred powers of procreation that have been entrusted us.

I might also mention that abortion, according to LDS doctrine, is not murder nor is it considered shedding innocent blood. I refer to you a previous post of mine for this explanation.

And it is not necessarily a tragedy that the Supreme Court overrules a set of laws that preferences one belief system over another. The decision even admitted that the court was unable to answer that question and deferred that question to the sciences to determine, with the implication that if science could determine when life began, then government would be required to recognize individual rights at that time.

[MarginOfError]

What was wrong with it?

The only problem I can see is that it required physicians to try to save all fetuses that came out moving and breathing; rather than only saving the ones that they (who aren't in the business of saving life anyway) deem "viable".

Obama's stated intention, as of 2001, was to preserve abortion rights of women. The only other rationale I can see is to preserve the financial viability of abortion clinics by not forcing them to maintain the equipment and personnel typically employed to care for preemies.

Neither, in my opinion, is a legitimate excuse for permitting "doctors" to dump living, breathing, moving children on a shelf and waiting for them to die.

For starters, it is an unnecessary law. It says that any fetus that is born alive has rights. That was already pretty well established. Next, it provides a very loose definition of life. The fetus could be dead, but if the umbilical cord pulses, then the child must be considered alive and has to have rights acknowledged. It depended heavily on the 'or' conjunction all to promote a definition of life that was never in question. Depending on who has presented the new legislation, it isn't entirely unreasonable to assume an ulterior motive and agenda.

[Just_A_Guy]

For starters, it is an unnecessary law. It says that any fetus that is born alive has rights.

The problem with that being . . .

That was already pretty well established.

At least the right not to be dumped naked on a countertop in an empty room and left for dead, evidently, was not recognized universally for all born-alive fetuses.

Next, it provides a very loose definition of life. The fetus could be dead, but if the umbilical cord pulses, then the child must be considered alive and has to have rights acknowledged. It depended heavily on the 'or' conjunction all to promote a definition of life that was never in question. Depending on who has presented the new legislation, it isn't entirely unreasonable to assume an ulterior motive and agenda.

Again . . . so, what? If it really were a backdoor assault on Roe, the first attempt to apply it beyond its stated parameters would have gone to court quickly; and the attempt would have been shut down. (Courts can limit the application of an unconstitutional law without completely nullifying the law. In fact, it's a canon of statutory interpretation that if at all possible, courts should attempt to read and apply statutes in such a way as to make them pass constitutional muster.)

[MarginOfError]

The problem with that being . . .

At least the right not to be dumped naked on a countertop in an empty room and left for dead, evidently, was not recognized universally for all born-alive fetuses.

Again . . . so, what? If it really were a backdoor assault on Roe, the first attempt to apply it beyond its stated parameters would have gone to court quickly; and the attempt would have been shut down. (Courts can limit the application of an unconstitutional law without completely nullifying the law. In fact, it's a canon of statutory interpretation that if at all possible, courts should attempt to read and apply statutes in such a way as to make them pass constitutional muster.)

Very well, we disagree. Based on all of the evidence compiled, I still have a hard time using this issue to justify that Obama enjoys infanticide. I think you are among many who use that as a convenient justification to paint him as a purely evil person with no heart because it fits the description you want him to have. And it is that kind of dialog that prevents any progress being made in any direction on this issue. All camps are entrenching themselves and making themselves more an more inaccessible, and so nothing gets done. As long as this continues, nothing will ever change. So if you're going to continue to do what you're doing, I hope you're happy with the status quo.

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE, the issue isn't whether he enjoys it. I doubt (to invoke Godwin) that Hitler got his jollies trudging through Auschwitz, either. The issue, when all is said and done, is whether Obama knowingly and intentionally enables the practice. He obviously did.

I'd be worried about my comments harming the pro-life cause, if I thought Obama was willing to compromise. But I don't think he is. The guy will talk 'til the cows come home, but he's going to do what he wants to do--which, incidentally, is why I'm not too concerned about the prospect of him sitting down and talking with Iran, Syria, or anyone else (he's not going to use American resources to push the Jews into the sea just because Ahmadinejad tells him he should).

If the president wanted to reduce the number of abortions, he'd have included substantial measures to that end in his 2010 budget. Aside from "modest" increases in contraceptive funding and a new post-delivery visitation program, he didn't--no adoption subsidies that I'm aware of; no beefed-up counseling on abortion alternatives.

"Progress", for pro-lifers, would involve making nice and appealing to President Obama's better nature. But the evidence is that, on this issue, Obama has no better nature. That's simply a fact that must be taken into consideration when formulating a political strategy.

And, yes; it's also demonization. The guy is willing to trade the lives of living, breathing children in order to assure his constituents' right to consequence-free sex, for cripe's sake. Outrage and social opprobrium are perfectly in order.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy