2600 in 2006

I took some time before replying to this. It's better that way, IMHO.

 

For me, Palin's general ignorance about how the government is supposed to work is a big problem. Her "first amendment rights being infringed by negative media" comment is absolutely scary! Think about the implications of that.

 

And it gets worse:

 

Palin would absolutely support those who would overturn Row V Wade. I have a wife and daughters and there is no way I could look them in the eye, pretend I understand the position they could be in, and support legislating their decisions for them. Some of us believe life begins at conception, others believe it's at birth, still others go for viability, and some of us just don't care. I personally am in the viability camp.

 

The hard reality on this is that we don't have a solid answer for that. A coupla cells isn't a person. There isn't a self there, in the sense of how we think of people. If there is no self, we don't have murder. On the other hand, I'm confident that we have a person in the third trimester for sure! That's viable too, double whammy!

 

Science has brought us closer to knowing, and theology has brought us ways to cope with not knowing. We really don't know though, and that puts this matter in the realm of choice. In particular, it's the womans choice! Without some very solid, mutually agreed upon realization of when we have a person and when we don't, this then is one of those choice things we all have to make and then live with.

 

Legislating the matter isn't a solution. Any woman, who does not want to have the baby, simply won't. She could end both lives, and that's that. Putting the matter into the black markets again, won't help us either. Better to focus on all the ways we know how to avoid the problem in the first place. If we face the problem, we do it early to avoid it as much as possible. I'm up for that, as I'm not up for abortions period. The fewer the better, and maybe someday we won't have to have them happen at all!

 

That's the sensible way to do things, because it leaves people free to choose how their lives go. It's a common goal too.

 

These people, who just want it outlawed, will let the world burn, if they think that's even a remote possibility. This is not defensible, and frankly, this view held by our President, is a dangerous one. National Security could literally be put at risk over something like this, and that's a disqualifier right there.

 

So that's one answer to legislate choices away. I've another:

 

Palin has connections with Dominionists. Dominionists seek to control society in that they want their belief systems to trump the others, and the only real reason I've seen to justify this is they happen to think theirs is the "right" one! They want to saturate the political process, democratic process, the courts and the media, such that they can make majority decisions toward this goal. That's not how Americans do things. You can't just buy consensus, and we don't pass laws because "Pastor Bob says God says so."

 

Palin supports both of these movements, and to a degree they are connected. Maybe I'll just say she supports these people and call it good.

 

If she had more power, these people would have more power, and that would diminish our ability to exercise our choice of religion.

 

Enough of that.

 

On the matter of hate.

 

I am deeply disturbed at her fanning the flames of bigotry in rallies, without talking people down. Now, McCain did this! He went down that road, saw what could happen, and stepped up and did the right thing! Got flack over it too! In this nation, I find it difficult to believe we even have this discussion, when it's a settled matter that bigotry and racism are not ok. They are not defensible, we know it and most of our law reflects it.

 

To sum that up, it's a wink and nod toward hate. This too is unacceptable in our leaders. We are better than that.

 

On a related note, many of these dominionists consider gay a sin. Focus on the Family poured half a million dollars into a campaign in CA aimed at amending a state consitiution to take rights away from people! We don't do that either, and the ACLU and others will eventually toss that one out as it's not really a proper amendment. Now, I think that's gross generally. The idea of marriage is not pleasing to me either, but it's not MY marriage, nor is it MY bedroom, so I know I can just deal. Our leaders need to do the same, and we as citizens need to do the same.

 

That matter is hot right now, with lots of debate and we are struggling with acceptance, just as we did women voting, blacks, etc... It will pass, but it won't pass, if we choose to elect leaders like Palin.

 

And that brings me to character.

 

I don't think a solid case can be made for Pailin to be a person of good character, given the above matters surrounding her. I think a case for ignorance can be made, but... that's not really an excuse for allowing her to lead. I do think it's an excuse for character, but ONLY UNTIL THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO HER ATTENTION, at which point any solid, but ignorant person of good character, is going to step up, do some learning, some growth and get over it, just like the rest of us solid people, of good character did.

 

These are basic things that many adults struggle with. No question. I'm not going to fault somebody for being sucked in there somewhere, really struggling with their life choices in terms of belief, and the reality of things. We are just people, and we all try to be better people. However, our leaders set the bar, they are the example, they are people we look up to, respect, and strive to match their example. Leaders are not perfect either. However, imperfect they may be, they need to be demonstrating the core elements of good character or they will take us all down a bad road already traveled. This is how I see Palin.

 

I don't have to agree with somebody to respect them, even follow them. Those differences can be significant too! An example would be my pro-life friends! They advocate for that, and I advocate for choice only, and I share advocacy with them for women to not have abortions. That's our common ground. Nobody I know, that has good character, would ever consider actually legislating that choice!

 

No woman I know, who has any measure of self-respect, would legislate that choice.

 

This is how it is supposed to work. We disagree on things, and we keep the society permissive so that people can make their life choices and live their lives out in the best way they can. I'll go to the mat for that, even with somebody I don't agree with, or like very much. I think it's reasonable to expect the same in like kind.

Palin would absolutely support those who would overturn Row V Wade. I have a wife and daughters and there is no way I could look them in the eye, pretend I understand the position they could be in, and support legislating their decisions for them. Some of us believe life begins at conception, others believe it's at birth, still others go for viability, and some of us just don't care. I personally am in the viability camp.

 

I would say that a viable fetus is pretty clearly and unambiguously a person, and there is no legitimate basis for denying a born baby (wanted or not) full Constitutional rights. When in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama made clear a belief that if someone wants to kill through neglect an unwanted baby that was born during an attempted abortion, he should be allowed to do so. I've seen nothing to indicate that belief has changed.

 

Further, a belief that Roe v. Wade is bad law does not imply that all abortion should be outlawed. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that matters not articulated in the Constitution are to be determined by state governments. The Supreme Court made an outrageous stretch when it concluded that: (1) women have a broad fundamental right to have an abortion, even though such right had never been widely acknowledged previously, and (2) the enforcement of that right was a legitimate function of the federal government. The notion that judges should have the power to arbitrarily decide what rights are to be enforced by the federal government against states poses dangers far beyond the abortion issue.

 

Science has brought us closer to knowing, and theology has brought us ways to cope with not knowing. We really don't know though, and that puts this matter in the realm of choice. In particular, it's the womans choice! Without some very solid, mutually agreed upon realization of when we have a person and when we don't, this then is one of those choice things we all have to make and then live with.

 

I accept that there is some ambiguity with early-term pregnancies. I see no basis, however, for claiming that e.g. a 24-week fetus is anything other than a baby, or for claiming that late-term abortion is anything other than homicide (justifiable in only in narrow circumstances, as with any other form of homicide). Given that 4d ultrasound technology is widely available, I find it hard to regard those who would seek to rationalize most late-term abortions as anything other than accessories to murder. If they are ignorant of the personhood of late-term fetuses, it is because they deliberately choose to remain so.

 

Legislating the matter isn't a solution. Any woman, who does not want to have the baby, simply won't. She could end both lives, and that's that. Putting the matter into the black markets again, won't help us either. Better to focus on all the ways we know how to avoid the problem in the first place. If we face the problem, we do it early to avoid it as much as possible. I'm up for that, as I'm not up for abortions period. The fewer the better, and maybe someday we won't have to have them happen at all!

 

The solution is a return to the practice of encouraging irrevocable anonymous adoption. It used to be that when a girl got pregnant with no prospects for marriage nor substantial independent income, she would give up the baby. Period. Once the baby had been born and given to a waiting couple, the girl could then return to living her life without being saddled by responsibilities for which she was not yet ready. The girl had no right to change her mind later, and the adopting couple had no need to worry that the biological parents might reappear to disrupt their lives or even take their baby.

 

Is there any way in which irrevocable anonymous adoption is not the best course of action for everyone concerned in 99.9% of cases? Unwanted pregnancies would be enough of a burden that girls and women would make real effort to avoid them, but they would pose only a limited disruption to the mothers' lives.

 

That's the sensible way to do things, because it leaves people free to choose how their lives go. It's a common goal too.

 

If you acknowledge that a 36-week fetus is a person, and yet still think a woman should be allowed to have one killed, how are you not justifying murder? If you want to suggest that it's not clear that a two-week embryo is fully a baby, I could go along with that. But in cases where it is clear, what reason is there to allow abortion?

 

These people, who just want it outlawed, will let the world burn, if they think that's even a remote possibility. This is not defensible, and frankly, this view held by our President, is a dangerous one. National Security could literally be put at risk over something like this, and that's a disqualifier right there.

 

Has governor Palin called for a federal ban on abortion? I am unaware of her having done so.

 

Palin has connections with Dominionists. Dominionists seek to control society in that they want their belief systems to trump the others, and the only real reason I've seen to justify this is they happen to think theirs is the "right" one! They want to saturate the political process, democratic process, the courts and the media, such that they can make majority decisions toward this goal. That's not how Americans do things. You can't just buy consensus, and we don't pass laws because "Pastor Bob says God says so."

 

Could you point me to some evidence of that? Obama has for decades attended a church led by Reverent Wright, who preaches openly anti-American beliefs. Are you suggesting that Palin's connections with Dominionists are stronger than Obama's connections to anti-American "Black Liberation Theology"?

 

I am deeply disturbed at her fanning the flames of bigotry in rallies, without talking people down. Now, McCain did this! He went down that road, saw what could happen, and stepped up and did the right thing! Got flack over it too! In this nation, I find it difficult to believe we even have this discussion, when it's a settled matter that bigotry and racism are not ok. They are not defensible, we know it and most of our law reflects it.

 

Can you be somewhat more specific? If you are suggesting that a few miscellaneous people shouted out hateful things and she declined to acknowledge them, what of it? In many cases, acknowledging hecklers (whether positively or negatively) gives them more attention than they deserve, so a decision to ignore some hecklers should not be taken as any sort of endorsement thereof.

 

To sum that up, it's a wink and nod toward hate. This too is unacceptable in our leaders. We are better than that.

 

Would attending for decades the church of Reverend Wright not constitute far more of an endorsement of the hatred he spouted forth? I acknowledge that many people will continue to attend a church out of habit even if they come to have some disagreements with the preacher's sermons, but if Reverent Wright were to start preaching in my church it certainly wouldn't take me twenty years to find another.

 

On a related note, many of these dominionists consider gay a sin. Focus on the Family poured half a million dollars into a campaign in CA aimed at amending a state consitiution to take rights away from people!

 

What gays are seeking with 'gay marriage' is the ability to compel other people to acknowledge their relationships. I haven't seen any particular opposition to letting people designate anyone they choose of either sex to exercise privileges such as medical visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc. What the opponents of 'gay marriage' oppose is gays having the ability to demand that other people acknowledge their relationship in ways those other people would otherwise decline to do.

 

How many societies can you name, from any period of history, which have (1) lasted at least 100 years, (2) contained at least 1,000 people, and (3) have not required that any marriage involve exactly one male principal? I am aware of one (it provides that two brothers may marry the same woman). The concept that a marriage must involve exactly one male principal predates any known religion, so it can hardly be regarded as an invention by religious zealots.

 

I'll address the rest of your post later. Thanks for writing.

What gays are seeking with 'gay marriage' is the ability to compel other people to acknowledge their relationships.

...

What the opponents of 'gay marriage' oppose is gays having the ability to demand that other people acknowledge their relationship in ways those other people would otherwise decline to do.

How is any person compelled? How are you?

 

Only the government is compelled to acknowledge and give them even rights due to their marriage as "normal" couples.

 

How many societies can you name, from any period of history, which have (1) lasted at least 100 years, (2) contained at least 1,000 people, and (3) have not required that any marriage involve exactly one male principal? I am aware of one (it provides that two brothers may marry the same woman). The concept that a marriage must involve exactly one male principal predates any known religion, so it can hardly be regarded as an invention by religious zealots.

Right.

 

Perviously a marriage was meant to secure the lifes of the partners. The man would care for the woman, the woman would care for the children and the children would care for their parents. Those rules where important in ancient societies.

 

Today marriage is meant to be a matter of love between two people.

 

So I cannot see anything wrong if two men or two women who love each other marry.

Before I go farther down the road on Dominisim, I need to know we can still be friends after that. There is going to be some rough stuff said, and perhaps it does not need to be said at all to answer the core question we have arrived at; namely, "Is Palin an appropriate leader?".

 

I like most people here. In fact, I enjoy the diversity very much. I don't want to impact that, because I also really enjoy the conversation too. You let me know, and I'll go away nicely, with no worries.

 

I think we are safe on gay and abortion, so...

 

On abortion, it's more complex than most paint it out to be. Advances in science have pushed back viability quite a bit. However, such viability does require enabling technology to be realized, meaning we have a person who can stand alone, but still needs help. Just not always from the mother.

 

Also, getting to that viability does pose a significant risk to the mother, and here's the thing: It's her body, her life choice, not ours. She does have the control on this, in that she could elect to end both lives. That's harsh, but that is how it is. I consider my body a soverign place. It's MINE. I'm sure most all women and gay people, for that matter, think exactly the same way.

 

I'm not inclined to legislate those life choices. Take it a different way. Say we are on a cliff, and a rope is all that seperates us from death. Does everybody on the rope have the right to live? Who chooses who to cut off, or how many to cut off so the remainder survive? The answers to those questions lie with those people on the rope, do they not?

 

What if there was a LAW saying that we must cut the lowest off, and continue in succession, or failure to do so would result in a charge of murder? Seems kind of goofy doesn't it? Some of us would choose to end our lives, some would not. Others might agree mutually to share the risk. It all depends. Also, we don't know if death is certian either. Perhaps they would live anyway, the perception of danger being greater than it really is.

 

With the mother and child, their lives are intertwined. Removing the child early, because it could be viable, might kill the mother, might leave her unable to have other children, etc... All of that could be done and still we see the child die too.

 

My point in this isn't to invalidate your beliefs in this matter. It is to highlight the fact that we don't have solid, absolute kinds of answers where we could then make laws that are justified.

 

I'm anti-abortion. In fact, EVERYBODY I've ever met is this way. Nobody wants abortions to happen, so let's just make that clear right now.

 

The ambiguity in these things, as well as the interconnected lives, and to a degree the scenarios under which we get here, all mean tough choices for people. The earlier the choice is made, the better all around too.

 

Say my wife is raped, and becomes pregnant. Do we really want a law that says she must have the child, and that we must either care for it or have somebody adopt it?

 

What about the girl, who gets slipped a date drug, wakes up potentially pregnant, with her whole future potentially changing? Do we really want to deny her the options we know we can bring to the table for her? She could take the morning after pill, or the very early abortion pill and be done with it, early, and ideally whole, not harmed and maybe a bit wiser about how she does things and with whom? The clowns that did it, see some jail for the exact same reason.

 

Mother faced with a very strong chance of death, should she carry a child to term. Maybe it's a tube pregnancy, or she has some problem where going to term could kill her. So, we know we could grant viability in some cases, at a personal cost, or we could abort too, if she wants to live. Risks abound in these scenarios, and who really wants to legislate that? I don't. It's the kind of thing we do to animals, not people.

 

These are very tough choices. Nobody wants to be in the position to have to make them. Nobody wants to be forced to make the wrong one.

 

I hear personal responsibility brought up a lot, as if women were walking around just asking for the dilemma. Perhaps some of them are, but I think men could be held to the same standard being able to get the personal gratification without the risk.

 

What I don't hear so much about is redemption. Say we've got somebody going down a bad path, and they get a second chance at doing it right? Don't we want that, just in case it's us? I do. Legislating moral choices for people denies this, or criminalizes this.

 

I can tell you that any woman I know and love has my absolute support in these things. I trust them, because that's who they are and their station in live more or less demands they give these matters consideration, and said consideration has real and personal consequences! Sorry, but that more or less makes it not my call.

 

You believe what you believe, and you are entitled to that. Have you ever considered the simple reality that most all discussions of this kind are phrased as questions for a reason? That reason is simple: We don't have definitive boundaries because we don't have definitive understanding! Where we have that, we have absolutely no business trying to put it in to the law.

 

Others do not believe as you do, and until we have a greater understanding than we do right now, we have only choices!

 

And this, not some pro-abortion stance, is why I feel compelled to support choice. Given the ugly nature of it, and the personal responsibility that must be factored in, I also support complete and total education, early and often. The last thing we need is a bunch of taboos getting in the way of people making rational choices. It's a trinity of solutions really. We educate, we empower, and we then realize many more good choices than we do bad.

 

One other thing too. For all the discussion about the rights of the unborn, how come we don't see more pro-life organizations working to provide options that make sense, as hard as they work to deny choices?

 

Seems to me, greater acceptance of the reality of the situation means open discussion on all sides, and if we are gonna push for the lowest number of abortions possible (and that is the only realistic goal, given people will do it law or not), then education and prevention must also be followed with post birth options as well. Then the scope of choices and the field for advocacy about them is complete!

 

Anybody that doesn't want to abort, has the max number of options, and anybody that does, does it early, and does it being fully aware of the alternatives on the table. We will get more solid choices from that, than we will any other way. At the least, I could live with that, knowing there are checks and balances pressuring people to think it through and get it done in the best way they can.

 

Getting back to Palin then. She courted the Religious Right, who have made it extremely clear this is their goal. That's support! There isn't any real discussion on this point, or she would have spoke with more complexity about the matter, just as the others who do support choice are compelled to do. They must do this because an honest and thoughtful answer is always more than "ban it, it's murder / wrong / ungodly, etc...".

 

Anybody, who would push to appoint more conservative justices to the court, knowing some of the ones we have now are interested in overturning that decision, clearly and unabashedly supports legislating other peoples choices for them. And with me, that's just not indiciative of the kind of leadership we should have, if we are to step up and really honor the idea of this nation being a free nation, and not some theocracy.

"What gays are seeking with 'gay marriage' is the ability to compel other people to acknowledge their relationships. "

 

No.

 

What they want is the same access to the rights and responsibilities everybody has when they choose to join lives. That's it.

 

How they marry, who marries them and what they do in their bedroom is really their business. For what it's worth, this is exactly why SCOTUS struck down the sodomy laws. If you have two concenting adults, then there is no harm, and we make laws to address matters of harm and property. We don't make laws because we don't like somebody, or think they are gross.

 

My marriage is between my wife and I. This is true for any set of partners.

 

We went through this with mixed race marriages. Lots of people were not inclined to recognize their relationship, and lots of people eventually got told to suck it up and keep to themselves about it. This matter is no different. And given how the younger generations appear to take it, won't stand all that long either. Younger people don't want to hear about this, in general, PERIOD. They are past it, leaving just us older generations to either pass on, or learn to deal.

 

Only a matter of time.

 

The reality on marriage is that the government does it, not the church. We can go get a license, and be married by a judge, or have a pagan ceremony and that marriage is as valid as a full boat church blessed one is, in the eyes of the government and with regard to public matters.

 

This is what the gay people want. They will use their churches, they will have their friends recognize it, and more importantly, the government will recognize it, allowing them to do the things that everybody does when they choose to join their lives.

 

And just like the interracial marriages, the rest of us can just STFU, like we should anyway.

 

IMHO, this is a mistake positioning the churches as some authority on marriage. It isn't the law, and we grapple with this over and over and over as some of us are always offended at what others among us believe. We have public lives where we have to deal with money, taxes, death, etc... and we have personal lives.

 

The church is about our personal lives, not our public lives, unless we want them to. Marriage is exactly like this, but for the fact that we have not really gone back and thought about just who actually marries us, and why they do so.

 

I suspect this will change over some time too.

 

Would be much better to differentiate the two. One can be married to another, and the government does not discriminate on that, just like it's not supposed to discriminate on any of the things we can't change. Sex, gender, race, height, beauty, etc...

 

The church then acknowledges that marriage, if it's important for those so married to have it do so, and that's the end of it right there.

 

All the problems solved, everybody is happy.

 

In fact, if anyone isn't happy with that, they have a control issue, plain and simple. If any of us has a problem with what's going on in the bedroom of somebody else, we know too much for one thing, and we want to make them conform to some behavioral standard we choose to conform to, and the reality is they simply don't have to do that, given that there is no demonstrable harm that results from said behavior.

 

Kids from gay parents don't end up gay because of that. Gay people are not harmed by gay sex, anymore than straight people are harmed by sex. We know these things. The problem simply is acceptance of these things. That's the control issue.

 

I've had to deal with mine. Go do some digging on this forum for a good explanation of how that works. I've posted on the matter before, it's ugly, but it's doable.

 

There is no excuse for passing a law simply to avoid having to endure a measure of personal growth, and that's all this matter ends up being in the end.

On the rallies, it's very simple.

 

The statements were made, she heard them, was made aware of them, and did not repudiate them. There was enough of that to hit the news, and that counts as being "heard", and where national matters are concerned, strong examples should be the norm. McCain understood this and repudiated the statements. He also closed with dignity and respect for his opponent. (I give him good, high marks for that too.)

 

Palin has not done this, and didn't do it when it was appropriate to do so.

 

We don't allow those kinds of things to stand. There is no casual charge of a member of Congress being a terrorist, nor to kill him, or imply that his race is somehow at issue. These things are not defensible.

 

A casual, ordinary person doing this could probably be characterized as bad form, outside the norm, and self-marginalized enough to be a non-issue. There is a case for some inexperience in public matters coming into play too. Say both of these are in play, meaning we clearly see Palin as not being the kind of person who would endorse these things. Fair enough. I can see that and maybe even buy that.

 

So then, what business does an ordinary, casual person have running the nation?

 

See how that works? It's not good for her either way. And it's extremely difficult to overlook the reporting on the incidents, and repudiations made, and not note the lack of hers. It would have been so easy, and it would have meant a lot, given the national attention those statements and gestures received.

 

Why not do the right thing? I would have. Most people I know would have. Some I know would have moved the mic, and dealt with it right then and there, with a simple, "we don't do that here".

 

Not dealing with it, points to either profound ignorance, or some level of acceptance. Which is it?

Rather than get bogged down in details of all the abortion scenarios, let me make a few principles clear:

 

-1- One can reasonably debate what protections should be given to a two-week embryo. A 39-week fetus is another matter.

 

-2- It is lawful to commit homicide when it is reasonably necessary to protect oneself or another innocent from death or severe bodily harm. I see no reason abortion should be an exception.

 

-3- With regard to redemption, a girl who gets pregnant with a baby for which she cannot reasonably provide can give the baby up for adoption and then get on with her life. What more redemption should she need>

 

-4- Why should abortion, a 'right' which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, be more protected than, e.g., the right to keep and bear arms which is explicitly mentioned?

1. So we essentially agree! The earlier the better. Add in as many preventative options, and post birth options and we are golden!

 

3. I think we better ask the woman that. Having to sustain a life, as a result of some crime is probably not as simple as let's just give it up after it's done. There is bonding, the personal stigma associated with carrying a baby to term and other things that most likely we men would not find all that palatable.

 

4. SCOTUS recently defined gun ownership as an individual right. Until that decision, that was a matter of significant debate. For me personally, my body is a "PRIVATE" area. I would expect any woman to feel the same way. If it's inside, we call the shots, period. I've no issue with that, and besides, given we can get movement toward earlier the better, why not just do that and leave the rest alone?

 

Seems to me, given strong education, alternatives and empowerment, abortion can be cut to a very small fraction of what it is now. Additionally, the norms we set during that time might seriously move the conversation forward.

 

That's common ground, and I am personally interested in productive movement that way. Remember, if we make it law, abortions will still absolutely happen. If a loved woman of mine ended up in the rape dilemma and wanted to abort, it would absolutely happen, with my support, law or no, so why bother? Those of us that feel that way, simply will. Those that see it your way, simply will to.

 

Meaning, we really need to get to the problem early, so that the greatest number of positive outcomes are possible, and that's where I remain on the matter.

 

Law is not the only tool we have for regulating behavior. There is money, physics, norms and law. The takeaway here is that law is not absolute. Passing a law to take away what is really a choice, because of physics, is a denial of our physical realities and would then be bad law. I don't like bad laws. Much prefer effective and solid laws.

 

...and since you agree that debate is defensible at the early stages, it's game set match. Solve it early, and everybody goes home as happy as is possible, all things considered!

Actually it is all pretty easy, as soon as science (and NOT religion etc.!) has answered the follwing questions:

What defines a human life? And based on that, when does a human life start?

 

There will no clear cut line, but at least a good reference. Currently science can only give a broadestimation, but this is good enough for at least some decissions.

 

For me, a two week old embryo is nothing more than a bunch of cells which just happen contain the construction plan for a human life. So any abortion in that early stage is completely Ok for me.

 

At week 39 things have changed dramatically, but still it is debatable if it already is a human life (depending on how you make the definition above).

 

As long as I cannot decide this question, I would usually decide for the new life then (with a few execptions, like endangering the mother's life or very serious handicaps).

 

But the very, very, very first thing to do, should be very good and early sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Fight the reasons, then the symptoms will go away!

 

Weird enough, those who are most against this, are often those who are most against abortion too.

Yeah, I can't figure that out either.

 

I know we can cut the numbers just huge, if we work on education. Empowerment brings with it some control too. That's contraceptives and other science related things. And alternatives are important. More women will carry, if there are more options, or at the least more availability to them.

 

Agreed on the science. We just are not there yet. Science will tell us where the person begins, and will cut risk to the mother, and provide education, and empowerment options. The closer we look at the problem, the better this all becomes.

 

I don't support abortion. I don't know anybody that does. It's just choice that remains important in light of the lack of understanding we have, and the risks.

 

The most common objection to education and empowerment is the argument that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and given that there is no reason for promoting these things. If everybody would just see it that way, then we have almost no abortion problem! Of course, that's not gonna work, given only a fraction of us hold that faith. It is that which drives both positions though, most of the time.

Agreed on the science. We just are not there yet. Science will tell us where the person begins, and will cut risk to the mother, and provide education, and empowerment options. The closer we look at the problem, the better this all becomes.

Science may not be "there" and probably never completely will. But we can define as much as we know now. Somewhere between week X and Y human life begins. Before week X science is sure it is not human life and after week Y science is sure it is.

 

Therefore an abortion before week X should generally be accepted, between X and Y it has to be restricted (the more, the closer we get to week Y) and after week Y is is not acceptable.

 

The most common objection to education and empowerment is the argument that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and given that there is no reason for promoting these things. If everybody would just see it that way, then we have almost no abortion problem! Of course, that's not gonna work, given only a fraction of us hold that faith. It is that which drives both positions though, most of the time.

We are talking about legal rights here, religion should under no circumstances gain any influence here. It's a private matter, which has to be respected by the society. But it has to respect that the law has to stay independend from any religion. Else it becomes arbitrary.

Actually it is all pretty easy, as soon as science (and NOT religion etc.!) has answered the follwing questions:

What defines a human life? And based on that, when does a human life start?

Doubt that would help, look how they keep trying to get Creationism to be taught in a science class.

Ugh...

 

I went to one of those schools in my youth. Let's just say it wasn't pretty seeing a fairly rational teen clash with that stuff.

 

Agreed Thomas. The law is a tough thing. It's as much work defending it, as it is working on new elements of it. You are the first in a while to use the word arbitrary in that context. That's really the crux of the matter, IMHO.

Therefore an abortion before week X should generally be accepted, between X and Y it has to be restricted (the more, the closer we get to week Y) and after week Y is is not acceptable.

 

Seems reasonable. Obama thinks abortion should be legal at any stage, for any reason, even after an unwanted child is fully born. How is that not extremist?

Obama thinks abortion should be legal at any stage, for any reason, even after an unwanted child is fully born.

Somehow I doubt Obama will confirm this. Actually I am sure, no sane person would think like that (unless you count the death penalty as late abortion).

 

To say it polite: You sound very, very radically "biased" here.

Somehow I doubt Obama will confirm this.

He has opposed legislation to protect infants who were born in failed abortion attempts.

He has opposed legislation to protect infants who were born in failed abortion attempts.

Huh?

 

Just because I do not support one thing, I automatically support the most (negatively) extreme opposite thing?

Just because I do not support one thing, I automatically support the most (negatively) extreme opposite thing?

 

Well, yes, you're either black or white and Obama most obviously is black.

Isn't it important to also state WHY he was opposed to that legislation?

 

I just did some digging on this one, as it was disturbing to me. Here's what I learned:

 

The law already contained the protection necessary:

 

(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; [...] Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.

 

(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

 

 

Obama was opposed to making redundant law, with potential language issues and some redefinition of what we consider to be a "person". This was a mixed bag, and the limited framing of "Obama opposed protections" isn't really getting at the issue.