Obama reverses abortion policy

[Irvine511]

i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.

 

[financeguy]

i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.

I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability. You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world. They are AT LEAST equally to blame for the high abortion rate in many Western countries, if not more so.

(Sorry if I'm not being 'intentionally antagonistic and hysterical' enough ).

 

[anitram]

Let's not stop with the woman. What about the doctor? What about the woman's boyfriend, husband, friend, mother, or whoever took her to the doctor and home? Aiding and abetting a murder, that's some serious jail time we're talking here.

 

[martha]

i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.

Another unanswered question, dear.

 

[AliEnvy]

I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability. You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world. They are AT LEAST equally to blame for the high abortion rate in many Western countries, if not more so.

The nature of the relationship with the father and whether or not he would support raising the child are huge factors in a woman's decision.

Men can also take charge of their own fertility.

 

[BVS]

I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability.

Unfortunately many on the pro-life side flat out reject this idea...

 

[AliEnvy]

Unfortunately many on the pro-life side flat out reject this idea...

People in that category are more interested in restricting and controlling the behaviour of women than they are in protecting the welfare of babies.

 

[Alan Jamison]

I think the focus should be (as I've said repeatedly) on sex-ed and, yes, publicly funded contraceptive availability.

Why should I have to pay for other people's irresponsibility (and immoral living, for that matter)? The key here is abstinence education, beginning in middle school.

You're absolutely right to put the focus on the fathers also, many fathers pay for abortions because they don't want the hassle of bringing a child into the world.

"Hassle" of bringing a child into the world? MY LORD THAT MAKES ME ANGRY JUST READING THAT.

If these fathers were committed to their women before sexual relations, they wouldn't have to worry about abortion.

Never mind, this topic infuriates me.

 

[indra]

I think people who are opposed to abortion shouldn't have one.

 

[yolland]

Can you elaborate on the consequences?

...Equally important is to respect other people's views on the value of life and taking proactive measures to minimize unwanted pregnancy and otherwise enabling women wherever possible to choose life - without coercion.

The consequences--again, in a context where abortion is illegal--would be many, many more single mothers, with all the socioeconomic disadvantages that brings for both women and children. Because I'm pro-choice, I do support a woman's right to *choose* keeping and raising her child herself; I couldn't support barring single people from adopting either, given the huge numbers of foster children waiting to be adopted; and I'm fully aware that many single parents do a better job of raising their children than many two-parent families do (my own mother was a single parent for most of my younger siblings' childhoods, as well as the tail end of mine, though I wouldn't wish what she had to go through to make that work on anyone). But obviously many women choose abortion because they're absolutely unwilling to raise a child alone and they're just as unwilling to go through carrying and bearing one if it's not going to be theirs. And while it's hard for me to imagine a situation where I personally would have either of those feelings for long, I do understand why many women do, and it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them: No, your obligation is to suck it up and accept your destiny as a biological vending machine, since you can't find it in you to experience life in utero as a blessing worth sacrificing for. That's both because I believe it is wrong, period, to force women to bear children, and because I feel the consequence of greatly increased numbers of single mothers (which I think would be inevitable) would be bad for society in general.

Actually holding those "views on the value of life," and physically living them out through your own blood, sweat and tears, in the dignity of knowing that what you chose to do is what you truly believe in--that makes all the difference in the world. But short of somehow reducing pregnancy to a socially (and physically, financially, and professionally) inconsequential experience, I don't see how you're ever going to arrive at a place where many women won't be deeply unwilling to carry and bear a baby they didn't want. So yes, those women will most likely choose to have an abortion--or, if you forbid them that, then realize that most of them aren't going to warmly embrace adoption as an 'alternative.' Because why hand anyone else the only 'compensation' you'll ever get for going through all that; why let people who've never walked in those shoes take away what feels like the best shot you've got at reclaiming the respect that was denied to you. Abortion is an alternative to going through with a pregnancy, adoption is an alternative to raising a child yourself; they are really two different things.

 

[nathan1977]

i want to know how we're going to prosecute these murderers. like, let's say a mother tried to murder her baby, but was stopped from doing so. would she go to jail? or would she have to give birth first, and then go to jail? where then does the baby go? with the father? with the grandparents?

we're talking about murder, people. i want specifics.

What are people doing about the murders of thousands in Iraq? Whether or not it's prosecuted, or the intent involved (which is really what we are discussing here) does not change what it is. If it takes a shocking term to remind us that we aren't exactly dealing with wart removal, so be it.

I am also a proponent of sex-education. I have friends who are involved in Africa working with people who are spreading or contracting disease simply because of a lack of information. It is however a bit of a jump to go from funding information to funding abortions; there is rather a big difference.

 

[nathan1977]

I do understand why many women do, and it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them: No, your obligation is to suck it up and accept your destiny as a biological vending machine

In all of this, I'm curious if we're missing the connection between the choice to become sexually active (which, like it or not, for both men and women) carries with it an inherent connection to the biological result for which sex is intended. As a result, I'm wondering if there is a difference between a pregnancy that is a result of an irresponsible decision, and a pregnancy that is a result of rape or incest? "Destiny as a biological vending machine" is putting it a bit crassly, but there is a sense of responsibility that comes along with sexuality, precisely because of the result.

 

[yolland]

^ If it's the moral status of life in utero that makes abortion 'murder' for you, then why would you make exceptions for rape or incest? They're not the fetus' doing; either it innately possesses the right to live save for threatening death or grave bodily harm to its mother, or it doesn't. And if it's not the moral status of the fetus that makes abortion 'murder', then what is it? Distinguishing those particular exceptions makes it sound as if your real interest lies not in preventing 'murder', but rather in harnessing the power of the state to enforce some particular vision of sexual morality (one which happens to place the lion's share of moral accountability on women). And speaking of particular moral visions, you almost seem to be adopting the classic Catholic stance here: that perpetual openness to the possibility of conception is morally incumbent on anyone sexually active, that being what 'nature intended' our sex drives for--which logically ought to rule out contraception (even in marriage) as well as abortion, nonmarital sex, and homosexual sex, since all those constitute rejections of 'nature's plan' in supplying us with libidos. Using contraception could not be a morally valid, 'responsible' act if you actually accepted the premise that having sex means agreeing in principle to accept pregnancy as its price; rather, it would be an abdication of moral responsibility, 'trying to have your cake and eat it too'.

 

[A stor]

You know, there's an awful lot to be said here about the smugness of those who are dogging people who believe life starts at conception. There's a lot to be said about the automatic vitriol that even wondering whether the right to control one's own body includes the right to commit murder.

But I'm not interested in talking about that.

My wife and I miscarried late last year.

There are those who considered it seven-week old biological waste.

They were entitled to their opinion.

There were, however, those who felt that loss as deeply as anything they have ever experienced. Several of our friends also experienced miscarriages last year. We all experienced the same pain. It was a loss of life, of possibilities and opportunities unfulfilled. I would not wish that pain on anyone.

And I would be very careful about mocking those for whom life -- even in its early, formative stages -- is a sacred thing.

Because anyone who has been in the presence of death -- whether it is the death of a literal life, or merely the death of possibilities -- knows that it is not a moment to be taken lightly, nor casually considered.

Hi Nathan,

I am so sorry for your loss. My husband and I miscarried our second child six years ago. Believe me, I understand the pain of losing a child. I was 46 years old and quite surprised to be pregnant. Since, I was told after my first child, it would be very unlikely, I would ever conceive again. Cyst Disease on both ovaries, plus I was a very high risk pregnancy with Diabetes, at age 27, when I gave birth to my son. I was so sick the last two months of my pregnancy and I was in and out of the hospital, but he was worth every minute of it.

At age 46, I was thrilled to be pregnant again. And yes, I knew all of the risk, including Down's Syndrome. It wouldn't have mattered to our family. If our child would have had this and I could have carried him without grave health issues for me. We would have raised our baby. But, like your wife, my pregnancy ended right before the seventh week. The loss I experienced was like nothing ever, including losing a parent. It wasn't natural to have my child die before me.

For everyone else,

My point is. I am pro-life and there are too many abortions. Especially, in first world nations. I work in a OB-Gyn Clinic and some women do use abortion as a form of birth control. I am all for family planing. I do feel, as I have stated before, abortion should be legal, because for smaller numbers of women. Pregnancy can cause serious health or mental health issues. And I don't want to see these women take desperate measures. In regards to Africa, women and men need information on their own reproductive systems. Birth control and condoms should be made affordable to all. So children are planned. Abstinance is not working.

 

[anitram]

^ If it's the moral status of life in utero that makes abortion 'murder' for you, then why would you make exceptions for rape or incest? They're not the fetus' doing; either it innately possesses the right to live save for threatening death or grave bodily harm to its mother, or it doesn't. And if it's not the moral status of the fetus that makes abortion 'murder', then what is it? Distinguishing those particular exceptions makes it sound as if your real interest lies not in preventing 'murder', but rather in harnessing the power of the state to enforce some particular vision of sexual morality (one which happens to place the lion's share of moral accountability on women).

I miss 80sU2 on this topic because as much as I disagreed with him 100%, I believe that at least he took a principled (to him) and consistent approach and was deadset against abortion in all cases, even if it were a 12-year-old girl raped by her father.

Either it's murder or it's not.

 

[martha]

What are people doing about the murders of thousands in Iraq? Whether or not it's prosecuted, or the intent involved (which is really what we are discussing here) does not change what it is. If it takes a shocking term to remind us that we aren't exactly dealing with wart removal, so be it.

You still didn't answer his question.

 

[martha]

As a result, I'm wondering if there is a difference between a pregnancy that is a result of an irresponsible decision, and a pregnancy that is a result of rape or incest?

Is there?

 

[Galeongirl]

As a result, I'm wondering if there is a difference between a pregnancy that is a result of an irresponsible decision, and a pregnancy that is a result of rape or incest? .

Are you joking?


As far as I know there's a very big difference. because in the first place, the woman is actually partially to blame for the pregnancy.
The other two are forced.

 

[Irvine511]

(Sorry if I'm not being 'intentionally antagonistic and hysterical' enough ).

thank you for not using the m-word in this discussion.

 

[Irvine511]

Why should I have to pay for other people's irresponsibility (and immoral living, for that matter)? The key here is abstinence education, beginning in middle school.

you'll note that abstinence education doesn't work. it leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

If these fathers were committed to their women before sexual relations, they wouldn't have to worry about abortion.

because married people never have abortions? or because all abortions happen because people are sexually irresponsible? many abortions happen for medical reasons, and many people have abortions for reasons far above and beyond the simplistic scenario you've laid out here.

 

[Irvine511]

What are people doing about the murders of thousands in Iraq? Whether or not it's prosecuted, or the intent involved (which is really what we are discussing here) does not change what it is. If it takes a shocking term to remind us that we aren't exactly dealing with wart removal, so be it.

do you see the hypocrisy here? or at least the self-serving righteousness?

it makes you feel better to thump your chest and raise an accusatory finger and denounce someone as a murderer, but yet, you're not going to treat it as a crime? you're not going to prosecute those who (in your view) murder others? you're not going to have a punishment for those who are convicted of (in your view) murdering their unborn?

so what's the point then? other than making yourself feel righteous, what's the point of using the term "muder" in this situation.

i'm happy you support comprehensive sex education. i'm going to assume that you also support gay adoption as well.

 

[Irvine511]

^ If it's the moral status of life in utero that makes abortion 'murder' for you, then why would you make exceptions for rape or incest? They're not the fetus' doing; either it innately possesses the right to live save for threatening death or grave bodily harm to its mother, or it doesn't.

well stated. and it underscores the fact that people who want to make "exceptions" for things like rape, incest, etc., actually belie the suspicion that most of us have about the most ardent pro-life supporters -- it's really about controlling female sexuality than about the life of the fetus, and we saw that exemplified in an earlier post about being "committed" before "sexual relations" and how if just that would happen (if women would keep their damn legs shut until he puts a ring on it) then little babies wouldn't get murdered.

 

[Irvine511]

As far as I know there's a very big difference. because in the first place, the woman is actually partially to blame for the pregnancy.
The other two are forced.

so a baby is punishment for having sex?

sounds like a horror movie -- where the teenage girl has sex in the beginning of the movie, probably for the first time, and then the psychotic killer (Jason, Freddie, whoever) hacks her to pieces.

 

[coemgen]

I did a lot of independent research on this subject during the recent election and came to the firm conclusion that the Right Wing Republican way of dealing with the issue is simply wrong — and this is coming from someone who considers himself pro-life. The ironic truth is that if you want to see actual lives saved, the Democrats are where it's at.

This is true for two reasons, and they're tied together:

1. Poverty. According to numbers at Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States (numbers used by the National Right to Life), women living below the poverty level are four times more likely to have abortions. 75 percent of women who have abortions say at least one reason of doing so is because they feel they won't be able to afford the child (a true poverty, indeed).

Which party focuses on the poor? Which party caters to the wealthy? There's even a staggering truth to these numbers. Yes, abortion has been on the decline for years, but guess what president saw the largest decline in abortions? Clinton. (see chart years 1993-2000) Why? Because the Democrats tend to lift people out of poverty.

2. The second reason why the Democrats are saving lives is a new one. There's a sea change in the party on the issue. A. You have Obama, who even in "The Audacity of Hope," which was written years ago, said we must take a multi-pronged approach to reducing abortions — even though he's pro-choice. On its own, this is huge for a presidential candidate (now president) to say. B. Democrats for Life (yes, they exist) are gaining in numbers and influence and have an ambitious goal for reducing abortions by 95 percent in 10 years: Democrats For Life of America
C. The Democratic platform itself has been rewritten in part by two progressive pastors, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, to include a focus on abortion reduction: God's Politics - Jim Wallis blog, faith blog, religion, christian, christianity, politics, values
Again, on it's own, this is huge.

You add these three things up, and you get a movement, in my estimation at least. I'm excited about it. Even since becoming president, Obama has called for common ground on abortion. Again, things are changing: God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

 

[Irvine511]

I did a lot of independent research on this subject during the recent election and came to the firm conclusion that the Right Wing Republican way of dealing with the issue is simply wrong — and this is coming from someone who considers himself pro-life. The ironic truth is that if you want to see actual lives saved, the Democrats are where it's at.

This is true for two reasons, and they're tied together:

1. Poverty. According to numbers at Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States (numbers used by the National Right to Life), women living below the poverty level are four times more likely to have abortions. 75 percent of women who have abortions say at least one reason of doing so is because they feel they won't be able to afford the child (a true poverty, indeed).

Which party focuses on the poor? Which party caters to the wealthy? There's even a staggering truth to these numbers. Yes, abortion has been on the decline for years, but guess what president saw the largest decline in abortions? Clinton. (see chart years 1993-2000) Why? Because the Democrats tend to lift people out of poverty.

2. The second reason why the Democrats are saving lives is a new one. There's a sea change in the party on the issue. A. You have Obama, who even in "The Audacity of Hope," which was written years ago, said we must take a multi-pronged approach to reducing abortions — even though he's pro-choice. On its own, this is huge for a presidential candidate (now president) to say. B. Democrats for Life (yes, they exist) are gaining in numbers and influence and have an ambitious goal for reducing abortions by 95 percent in 10 years: Democrats For Life of America
C. The Democratic platform itself has been rewritten in part by two progressive pastors, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, to include a focus on abortion reduction: God's Politics - Jim Wallis blog, faith blog, religion, christian, christianity, politics, values
Again, on it's own, this is huge.

You add these three things up, and you get a movement, in my estimation at least. I'm excited about it. Even since becoming president, Obama has called for common ground on abortion. Again, things are changing: God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

seems to me to be a post much, much more concerned with "life" than somehow finding the courage to call a slut a woman a murderer to their face.

 

[coemgen]

seems to me to be a post much, much more concerned with "life" than somehow finding the courage to call a slut a woman a murderer to their face.

I've gotten a lot of heat from my mom (who is coming around a little and seeing what I'm talking about now) and some Right Wing women at my church (not everyone there is Right Wing). However, after looking at all of this, I'm completely convinced, as a Christian, the Right Wing way is wrong. Christ wasn't about changing laws. He was about, and is about, changing people's conditions — certainly their hearts. I don't see changing Roe V. Wade doing this.

The funny thing, too, is that so many people who are giving me crap think I'm treating Obama as our nation's savior, when they felt the same way about Bush eight years ago. The irony is with abortion as their No. 1 issue, they fail to recognize that Bush had the Congress and the judges to put a dent in Roe V. Wade and he did NOTHING along these lines. Where's the uproar among pro-life conservative Christians? It's not there. Why? Because they've placed the party above the faith and it's disgusting to me. Many Right Wing Christians also are failing to recognize the historic steps being taken by Democrats in terms of abortion reduction. They've demonized the other side for so long that they can't see it as good — no matter how many lives will be saved.

Yes, this stuff upsets me. The good thing is things are changing.

 

[martha]

The emphasis on reducing the need for abortion is key.

 

[bonoz]

The abortion issue is one I am very divided on. I personally don't believe in abortion and I would never get one - I'm not a girl btw. On one hand I believe that people should have complete liberty to make their own decisions. Who am I to push MY beliefs on everyone else? this is America, a supposed free country, free to make decisions you want with your life.

But on the other hand there's a potential human being, who could possibly do such things as find a cure for cancer or invent something better than sliced bread, being murdered.

But I guess in the end there are far worse things happening in the world, such as all the wars and violence.

Like I said.. I'm really split on the whole thing.

 

[bonoz]

so a baby is punishment for having sex?

sounds like a horror movie -- where the teenage girl has sex in the beginning of the movie, probably for the first time, and then the psychotic killer (Jason, Freddie, whoever) hacks her to pieces.

Looking at it from nature's perspective I don't know if sex was meant to be used as a reproduction schematic. Delete condoms and other contraceptives from this world, and having joyous sex will become a part of history.

 

[AliEnvy]

You add these three things up, and you get a movement, in my estimation at least. I'm excited about it.

We also have a sexy anthem to go along with the sea change.