Nurse Who Exposed Infanticide-Based Abortions: Obama Lied During Debate

[Dee Dee Warren]

Before giving the link and excerpt, I need to be very clear. I do not think Christians should vote for Obama because of his stance on abortion. If you are a Christian and do, I am not doubting your Christianity but I do think you are wrong. If you right now are planning on voting for him I hope to change your mind. In either way, I am not intending on judging anyone, so I want to be really clear on this. I do not wish to put a wall between fellowship or relationships.

The Chicago-area nurse who exposed the practice of life-birth abortions that led to the bill Barack Obama repeatedly opposed in the Illinois legislature says Obama lied about his record during the final presidential debate. Jill Stanek says Obama again misrepresented his position and record before the American people.

As LifeNews.com reported, John McCain took Obama to task during the debate when the topic turned to abortion.

"Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that," McCain said.

Obama responded to the charge by repeating his claim that he voted against the bill because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy.

However, as Stanek explains, Obama voted for an amendment to the bill to mitigate those concerns and subsequently voted against the legislation anyway.

Stanek said the bill, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, "simply stated all born alive babies became legally protected persons immediately upon birth, no matter what gestational age and no matter if unwanted abortion survivors."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4456.html

He lied folks. As far as the rhetoric that he wants to limit the number of abortions, his actions do not bear that out. He has spoken to Planned Parenthood in support of partial birth abortion. He does not seek at ALL to build any bridges with pro-lifers to reduce abortions, but instead panders to the radical feminist fringe and refuses to even call pro-lifers anything but the inflammatory anti-choice.

Please watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

and please reconsider your support for him if you are pro-life.

[JonLanceBarker]

:bump:

[$cirisme]

However, as Stanek explains, Obama voted for an amendment to the bill to mitigate those concerns and subsequently voted against the legislation anyway.

So? Just because he voted for an amendment doesn't mean that the amendment passed. If the bill had passed, then I agree, he should have voted for it. But the way this is worded is very awkward and it makes me very suspicious of the nurse's claims.

I tried to research it further at the Illinois' General Assembly site (http://ilga.gov) to see if such an amendment really passed or if it didn't pass, but I can't find the bill. Does anybody know what the bill number is?

[$cirisme]

Oh, I think it's this bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=3910&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93#actions).

The bill shows an amendment that seems to be similar to what was stated in the post, but the site has no voting info at all.

Can anybody give more details on if this is the bill in question? It seems like there are several bills that go by the same name, I also found one for 2007/2008 that goes by the same/similar name.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

DDW. Robert George has written on this. Stanek is a nurse that found a baby left for dead in a soiled linen closet.

[Dee Dee Warren]

So? Just because he voted for an amendment doesn't mean that the amendment passed. If the bill had passed, then I agree, he should have voted for it. But the way this is worded is very awkward and it makes me very suspicious of the nurse's claims.

I tried to research it further at the Illinois' General Assembly site (http://ilga.gov) to see if such an amendment really passed or if it didn't pass, but I can't find the bill. Does anybody know what the bill number is?

I do not know the bill number unfortunately. But from what I understand, he said he would have voted for a bill that was worded like the Federal Bill, and even when such a bill was presented, he voted against it. The wording in the article may be ackward,but in the video I think she is quite clear. I also think his statements for PP warrant some serious concern.

[Dee Dee Warren]

DDW. Robert George has written on this. Stanek is a nurse that found a baby left for dead in a soiled linen closet.

I know who Stanek is. Did you view the video? I really hope everyone who is participating in this thread views the video as well, reading the article isn't enough.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh, I think it's this bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=3910&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93#actions).

The bill shows an amendment that seems to be similar to what was stated in the post, but the site has no voting info at all.

Can anybody give more details on if this is the bill in question? It seems like there are several bills that go by the same name, I also found one for 2007/2008 that goes by the same/similar name.

I am sorry I don't have that information. Perhaps if you write LifeNews they have it? I have some other info on this squirreled away, maybe it has some of the information you are asking for. I will look when I get a chance.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Not yet DDW. I have a podcast playing I'm listening to at the time before I head off to work.

[$cirisme]

Here's a site with way more info then I ever cared to know about the issue. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html)

Ultimately, it seems to come down to that since it's a state law, Obama wanted to have protections not only just about federal law (including Roe v Wade) but also state law. That seems like a reasonable request to me.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Here is another angle though that I wanted to bring out.

"simply stated all born alive babies became legally protected persons immediately upon birth, no matter what gestational age and no matter if unwanted abortion survivors."

Let's just stick with that wording. Obama has said and represented to Planned Parenthood that wording would impinge Roe v. Wade.

Is that true? I don't believe so. I do not see how anyone could vote against it. As the video pointed out, it had bipartisan support and NARAL who is a rabid abortion advocacy group remained neutral. They would not have done so if there was any reasonable chance at all this would impinge on Roe v. Wade.

My personal opinion. Obama is not honest in this area. He claimed he voted against it because it might impinge on Roe to curry favour with that crowd. I do not believe he believe it would. I cannot prove that with anything other than common sense and that he is a smart man. But yes,that is simply my own opinion. I believe it is reasonable.

Obviously I am willing to be shown it is unreasonable. Over the past few days I have changed my mind on the importance of Ayers. I find that to be a tempest in a teapot now after hearing Obama's explanation.

I have listened to Obama's explanation of these issues and find them wanting. I am still sick over his flippancy that this issue is "above his pay grade."

[JonLanceBarker]

If it really is "above his pay grade," why does he feel the need to support abortion...even partial-birth abortion?

Seems to me that if it was "above his pay grade," he'd be staunchly pro-life.

[$cirisme]

I do not know the bill number unfortunately. But from what I understand, he said he would have voted for a bill that was worded like the Federal Bill, and even when such a bill was presented, he voted against it.


I think the nurse is being disingenuous. He didn't give one reason that he voted against the bill in the debate, he gave several.

Secondly, he never said in the debate that he would vote for the bill if it was worded exactly like the Federal bill.

I think saying things like "he lied in the debate" and twisting things is horribly underhanded and dirty. The guy is pro-choice. This is not a secret or a surprise to anyone. You wouldn't vote for him whether he lied or didn't lie, so making up lies about him is dumb and it only undermines our cause against abortion.

And that makes me spitting mad.

Transcript:


OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

From the NYTimes Transcript of 3rd Prez debate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/third-presidential-debate.html)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I briefly read that page and will read it more thoroughly later. There are two issues now as I see it. I would like to deal with them both but the first one first. Did he lie? It seems that the site backs up that he did.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

The second issue is whether he had a reasonable reason to vote against the bill. I would like to deal with the first issue first, and then move on to the second. I think they are distinct and apart. It disturbs though that he is now giving a different explanation that he originally did. Anyone's smelly detector should go up when that happens.

[$cirisme]

I briefly read that page and will read it more thoroughly later. There are two issues now as I see it. I would like to deal with them both but the first one first. Did he lie? It seems that the site backs up that he did.

Not in the debate, per your thread title.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think the nurse is being disingenuous. He didn't give one reason that he voted against the bill in the debate, he gave several.

Actually I think that FactCheck says his story has changed. At the time that video was shot, he did give the reason she said.



Secondly, he never said in the debate that he would vote for the bill if it was worded exactly like the Federal bill.

It seems like Factcheck is saying that is what he said, but I only skimmed it.


I think saying things like "he lied in the debate" and twisting things is horribly underhanded and dirty. The guy is pro-choice. This is not a secret or a surprise to anyone. You wouldn't vote for him whether he lied or didn't lie, so making up lies about him is dumb and it only undermines our cause against abortion.

Whoa back up here a second. First, it is true he is pro-choice. However many pro-choice people supported this bill. I do not believe that most pro-choice people would support not giving an abortion survivor medical care, so that is a surprise, at least to me. You are correct, I wouldn't vote for him either way. However, everything I have posted is in good faith, if it is shown that this is inaccurate, I will be the first to say it. Your sentence seems to imply that I am making up lies, though it could be that the subject was implicitly changed to mean that the authors of the pieces were the ones making up lies.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Not in the debate, per your thread title.

Good point, let me read the debate and the original original. I didn't write the thread title, I copied it from the article. Let me re-read the debate and the article to see if they were wrong in the title. I didn't catch that specificity. I was thinking along the lines of the ads that were put out denying what she said.

When I said now there are two issues, I was referring to the factcheck article. It seems that the factcheck article raises several issues as did your earlier post as to whether or not he voted reasonably given his paradigm.

[$cirisme]

Good point, let me read the debate and the original original. I didn't write the thread title, I copied it from the article.

Then, as I said, I'm completely disgusted as that is ridiculous twisting. This only damages the cause of pro-lifers everywhere. We can't claim to take the moral high ground when they take the moral low ground.

[Dee Dee Warren]

From Factcheck on the second issue, here is an interesting excerpt:

While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

I think I understand his second comments, and within his paradigm, they likely are reasonable (again within his paradigm which is how things must be judged). I have to think about it some more. His first comments, no, I don't think they are reasonable at all. In fact, my initial impression is that they are horrid.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Then, as I said, I'm completely disgusted as that is ridiculous twisting. This only damages the cause of pro-lifers everywhere. We can't claim to take the moral high ground when they take the moral low ground.

Perhaps it is. Let me re-read the material. As I said, my own fast reading skimmed over "during debate" as my mind was thinking of the various ads that were made over this issue, and when one thinks they know how a sentence is giong to end or has a context already in mind it is easy to miss those nuances.

[$cirisme]

Perhaps it is. Let me re-read the material. As I said, my own fast reading skimmed over "during debate" as my mind was thinking of the various ads that were made over this issue, and when one thinks they know how a sentence is giong to end or has a context already in mind it is easy to miss those nuances.

I don't understand this. So the title came from you and not them?

This seems pretty simple to me. Because it pretty simple. Either they claimed he lied during the debate or they didn't. If they did, they are wrong and you should join me in condenming them for undermining our pro-life movement.

Or they didn't and you misquoted them, in which case you should change the title and move on.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Let me hone in on the sentence that concerned me:


However, as Stanek explains, Obama voted for an amendment to the bill to mitigate those concerns and subsequently voted against the legislation anyway.

This is where it seemed that Obama was not forthright on this issue. This seems to state that he had concerns. He voted on a change of wording that would alleviate those concerns. That wording was passed. He then voted against the bill that had the wording that he helped craft to alleviate his own concerns.

That seems highly problematic, and that is the part I was focusing on. I now see that a great deal made claims about the debate. My bad for not seeing that as it was right there, but that is the part that I honed it on and that has bothered me.

[Kenny]

I think it sucks that he voted against that bill (though I’m not convinced that he lied in the debate.).

But I also think that Democratic social policies are more likely to decrease the number of abortions in the long run than are Republican social policies. I think that abortion should be illegal, but I also don’t think that’s a battle we’re going to win anytime soon (even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will just throw the issue back to the states), nor do I think that investing most our energies into fighting that battle is our best strategy for actually decreasing the number of abortions.

Now, I could be wrong about the above empirical and strategic claims. But I think that a pro-life person who thinks that those claims are true can, in good conscience, vote for Obama, especially if he is convinced, as I am, that Obama has it right on a wide array of other morally important social issues.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't understand this. So the title came from you and not them?

No it is their title. I rarely change titles when I post articles. You could click the link and see for yourself.

58872




This seems pretty simple to me. Because it pretty simple. Either they claimed he lied during the debate or they didn't.

They did claim he lied during the debate.


If they did, they are wrong and you should join me in condenming them for undermining our pro-life movement.

I will read the debate transcript and the article to see if they are wrong. If they are, I will certainly join you.



Or they didn't and you misquoted them, in which case you should change the title and move on.

I didn't misquote them. I changed nothing except to choose an extract that would fit within our rules. In an earlier post I showed the sentence that caught my attention. That is what I honed in on, and where my concern lies.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think it sucks that he voted against that bill (though I’m not convinced that he lied in the debate.).

But I also think that Democratic social policies are more likely to decrease the number of abortions in the long run than are Republican social policies. I think that abortion should be illegal, but I also don’t think that’s a battle we’re going to win anytime soon (even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will just throw the issue back to the states), nor do I think that investing most our energies into fighting that battle our best strategy for actually decreasing the number of abortions.

Now, I could be wrong about the above empirical and strategic claims. But I think that a pro-life person who thinks that those claims are true can, in good conscience, vote for Obama, especially if he is convinced, as I am, that Obama has it right on a wide array of other morally important social issues.

It is a matter of conscience. I cannot in good conscience vote for an abortion supporter. I understand your reasons, and I do not condemn you for them. I do wish to change minds though.

I do not believe Obama is interested in unifying to decrease abortions. I believe his choice of words as a politician of "anti-choice" says volumes.

[Kenny]

I do not believe Obama is interested in unifying to decrease abortions. I believe his choice of words as a politician of "anti-choice" says volumes.

I agree. His radically pro-choice views are something that gives me pause in voting for him. On balance though, it is not enough to make me not vote for him in light of all the other considerations in play.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I agree. His radically pro-choice views are something that gives me pause in voting for him. On balance though, it is not enough to make me not vote for him in light of all the other considerations in play.

Totally different thread, but let's say for sake of argument that I could in good conscience vote for him for the reasons you stated. The fact is that I don't believe his policies would reduce the number the abortions. And honestly, just in my gut as my individual vibe which we all have about people, I do not believe he really cares one way or another. I think it is a political talking point and nothing more. Having those is not unique to him. All politicians do it unfortunately. They say things people want to hear. Bush did it all the time. But I don't believe the man. And I think I have reasonable reason not to - within his own paradigm, I do not believe he has any reasonable reason to want to reduce abortions. There is nothing morally wrong with them. And if I were a woman who shared his paradigm on abortion, I would be royally pissed for him to even say that abortions should be reduced as that is making a value judgment on abortion which ultimately undermines the moral standing of Roe v. Wade.

[Dee Dee Warren]

In the FactCheck article, there is this link

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm

which is from a pro-life site but contains a lot of facts that can be verified or disproven. There is also a contact number and email address.

How about this? How about we go line by line through that LifeNews article and give an analysis as to his truthfulness, and if it is incorrect, then send a copy of our concerns to that National Right to Life writer and LifeNews. It appears the National Right to Life article is more specific:

Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.



In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a video recorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was "lying" in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 -- documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.

They don't appear to mention any Presidential debate. Just judging between the two pieces, it appears at first blush that the LifeNews article is wrong. I am still looking into it, but I am more than willing to join anyone in correcting misinformation in the Pro-Life community.

The National Right to Life Piece is interesting. Kenny I wish you would read it and reconsider your vote.

[Kenny]

And I think I have reasonable reason not to - within his own paradigm, I do not believe he has any reasonable reason to want to reduce abortions. There is nothing morally wrong with them.

Does he ever say anywhere that he thinks there is nothing morally wrong with abortions? One can consistently and on in a principled way think that abortion is immoral in most cases but also think that it should not be illegal. I disagree with that stance, but I don’t think it’s a ridiculous one at all.

Furthermore, one can also think that certain actions are not wrong, but that there are still good reasons to reduce the number of performances of them. One might think, for example, that it would be better that women not find themselves in situations in which they were even in a position to consider having an abortion because such situations are painful ones, even if one things that abortions themselves are morally permissible. Or one might still think that the performance of an abortion involves the tragic loss of a person’s life without thinking that its performance is immoral (someone who was moved by Thomson’s defense of abortion article might think this way).


And if I were a woman who shared his paradigm on abortion, I would be royally pissed for him to even say that abortions should be reduced as that is making a value judgment on abortion which ultimately undermines the moral standing of Roe v. Wade.

That doesn’t follow at all, for the reasons I noted above.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Does he ever say anywhere that he thinks there is nothing morally wrong with abortions? One can consistently and on in a principled way think that abortion is immoral in most cases but also think that it should not be illegal. I disagree with that stance, but I don’t think it’s a ridiculous one at all.

Does he ever anywhere say that he thinks there is? I think considering his rhetoric and support of planned parenthood, who absolutely does not think there is anything morally wrong with abortions, speaks for itself.

Now your statement above is not precise enough. Perhaps that is my fault in just using the general term "immoral." I did so as to not be inflammatory but I thought that the specific type of immorality I was referring to would be obvious.

Of course not all immoral things should be illegal. Say gluttony for example. But when I say abortion is immoral, I am speaking of a different kind of immorality. If it is immoral in the way pro-lifers believe, then absolutely Obama does not believe it to be immoral.


Furthermore, one can also think that certain actions are not wrong, but that there are still good reasons to reduce the number of performances of them. One might think, for example, that it would be better that women not find themselves in situations in which they were even in a position to consider having an abortion because such situations are painful ones, even if one things that abortions themselves are morally permissible.

That will not work Kenny because the whole premise of abortion is that it is the women's right to choose and it is up to the woman to weight the consequences.



Or one might still think that the performance of an abortion involves the tragic loss of a person’s life without thinking that its performance is immoral (someone who was moved by Thomson’s defense of abortion article might think this way).

I am not familiar (at least I don't think so) of the defense you are referring to, but at first blush with just the information you stated, I find that monstrous. More information might change that impression.


That doesn’t follow at all, for the reasons I noted above.

You have never been a radical feminist. I have. I can assure you that the radical feminist mindset that Obama caters to would find the idea that abortions should be reduced offensive.

You see, one thing I have found in my forty-one years now, nearly anything can be justified or explained away in isolation. But in looking at the issue writ large through a christian lens, I believe that people in general (not the radicals) want to reduce abortions because they innately know it is wrong.

[Kenny]

Kenny I wish you would read it and reconsider your vote.

I will take a look at it. Though, honestly, being convinced that he lied about his vote is not likely to make me change my mind about voting for him. I’d be disappointed in him, but I’ve gotten quite used to being lied to by politicians by now – that’s what politicians do.

I don’t vote based on my assessment of a politician’s character or even his views – not directly. I’m a pragmatic voter in that I’m more concerned with which states of affairs I think that a certain politician’s being elected is most likely to bring about (and of course a politician’s character and his views factor into that assessment, but it’s that assessment that is the dotted line for me).

In fact, just a week or so ago at the University of Notre Dame (where I am in graduate school) there was a debate about whether or not Catholics could in good conscience vote for Obama given his “pro-abortion” (to quote what the ad for the debate said) views. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to the debate, but I’m told that the anti-Obama guy gave the following analogy: Suppose there was a candidate who supported legalizing domestic abuse but who had policies which were such that were those policies implemented, the incidents of domestic abuse would go down. Would we vote for such a candidate? My answer is, all else being equal, “Yes”. I care more about what happens in the world than I do what’s on the books, and I care more about what a candidate will bring about in the world than I do whether or not he is slimeball with awful views.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I will take a look at it. Though, honestly, being convinced that he lied about his vote is not likely to make me change my mind about voting for him. I’d be disappointed in him, but I’ve gotten quite used to being lied to by politicians by now – that’s what politicians do.

I don’t vote based on my assessment of a politician’s character or even his views – not directly. I’m a pragmatic voter in that I’m more concerned with which states of affairs I think that a certain politician’s being elected is most likely to bring about (and of course a politician’s character and his views factor into that assessment, but it’s that assessment that is the dotted line for me).

In fact, just a week or so ago at the University of Notre Dame (where I am in graduate school) there was a debate about whether or not Catholics could in good conscience vote for Obama given his “pro-abortion” (to quote what the ad for the debate said) views. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to the debate, but I’m told that the anti-Obama guy gave the following analogy: Suppose there was a candidate who supported legalizing domestic abuse but who had policies which were such that were those policies implemented, the incidents of domestic abuse would go down. Would we vote for such a candidate? My answer is, all else being equal, “Yes”. I care more about what happens in the world than I do what’s on the books, and I care more about what a candidate will bring about in the world than I do whether or not he is slimeball with awful views.

We just fundamentally disagree then I guess on certain presuppositions. I think I could make a Biblical case that my presuppositions are more Biblical, but I don't won't to go there. We all fall short, and politics are volatile enough without arguing for which position is more Biblical. I don't have energy and I find that I say things wrong and get people mad at me when I don't mean to.

I think you will find the piece interesting even if it doesn't change your mind. I am still exploring the issue of whether he lied. Cirisme certainly has given me pause on the LifeNews article. This article seems to be more in line with what I was getting at, and that was the response ads and more informal statements (i.e. not the presidential debates themselves).

[Kenny]

Does he ever anywhere say that he thinks there is?

Not that I know.


Now your statement above is not precise enough. Perhaps that is my fault in just using the general term "immoral." I did so as to not be inflammatory but I thought that the specific type of immorality I was referring to would be obvious.

Well, it’s not obvious. But I disagree with that position anyway, and since this is the pro-life forum, I don’t want to put up a bunch of arguments one could give for that position (since, in effect, they would be arguments for a pro-choice position).


That will not work Kenny because the whole premise of abortion is that it is the women's right to choose and it is up to the woman to weight the consequences.

Well, that’s what some pro-choicers think. But that’s not the only position out there according to which abortion should be legal. And even those who think that way might still think that it would be better for a woman not to find herself in that position in the first place, and that for that reason, there should be social policies in place that reduce the statistical likelihood that women will find themselves in that position.


I am not familiar (at least I don't think so) of the defense you are referring to, but at first blush with just the information you stated, I find that monstrous. More information might change that impression.

Here’s some info on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion. I think every one who’s interested in seriously debating the issue of abortion should get a hold of that article and read it (it’s in numerous anthologies, but if you have trouble finding it, PM me and I may be able to help you get a hold of a copy). I disagree with its conclusion, of course, but I think it’s the most sophisticated defense of abortion out there, and those who are debating the issue of abortion should be familiar with it. And (though I certainly won’t push this here), even though that article did not convince me that abortion is permissible in most cases, it did convince me that abortion is permissible (or at least shouldn’t be illegal) in rape cases.


You have never been a radical feminist. I have. I can assure you that the radical feminist mindset that Obama caters to would find the idea that abortions should be reduced offensive.

They might. But there are more sensible pro-choice positions out there than those you would get from radical feminists (of course, that’s not saying much).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Not that I know.



Well, it’s not obvious. But I disagree with that position anyway, and since this is the pro-life forum, I don’t want to put up a bunch of arguments one could give for that position (since, in effect, they would be arguments for a pro-choice position).



Well, that’s what some pro-choicer’s think. But that’s not the only position out there according to which abortion should be legal. And even those who think that way might still think that it would be better for a woman not to find herself in that position in the first place, and that for that reason, there should be social policies in place that reduce the statistical likelihood that women will find themselves in that position.



Here’s some info on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion. I think every one who’s interested in seriously debating the issue of abortion should get a hold of that article and read it (it’s in numerous anthologies, but if you have trouble finding it, PM me and I may be able to help you get a hold of a copy). I disagree with its conclusion, of course, but I think it’s the most sophisticated defense of abortion out there, and those who are debating the issue of abortion should be familiar with it. And (though I certainly won’t push this here), even though that article did not convince me that abortion is permissible, it did convince me that abortion is permissible (or at least shouldn’t be illegal) in rape cases.



They might. But there are more sensible pro-choice positions out there than those you would get from radical feminists (of course, that’s not saying much).

Really quickly as I am finding myself once again getting tied up at TWeb and ignoring less enjoyable tasks that I have to do, I am familiar with that defense, I wasn't aware of the author's name. If you had said "violinist" I would have known what you meant. The Christian Research Journal has a great rebuttal to that argument. I could track down the issue if you like.

[Kenny]

We just fundamentally disagree then I guess on certain presuppositions. I think I could make a Biblical case that my presuppositions are more Biblical, but I don't won't to go there. We all fall short, and politics are volatile enough without arguing for which position is more Biblical. I don't have energy and I find that I say things wrong and get people mad at me when I don't mean to.

I think you will find the piece interesting even if it doesn't change your mind. I am still exploring the issue of whether he lied. Cirisme certainly has given me pause on the LifeNews article. This article seems to be more in line with what I was getting at, and that was the response ads and more informal statements (i.e. not the presidential debates themselves).

Okay Dee Dee. I appreciate your tone and objectivity on this. We can agree to disagree here.

[Kenny]

Really quickly as I am finding myself once again getting tied up at TWeb and ignoring less enjoyable tasks that I have to do, I am familiar with that defense, I wasn't aware of the author's name. If you had said "violinist" I would have known what you meant. The Christian Research Journal has a great rebuttal to that argument. I could track down the issue if you like.

Cool. Sure, if you find the issue, I'd be interested in seeing what they have to say.

Edited to add: Speaking of less enjoyable tasks, I need to stop posting and start grading a bunch of undergrad papers on the topic of -- you guessed it -- abortion. Ugg.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I will dig through my magazine collection. I am interested in re-reading it myself,it has been some time.

[$cirisme]

No it is their title. I rarely change titles when I post articles. You could click the link and see for yourself.

Ok, I just didn't understand what you were saying then. Thanks.

[Glenn P]

I think it sucks that he voted against that bill (though I’m not convinced that he lied in the debate.).

But I also think that Democratic social policies are more likely to decrease the number of abortions in the long run than are Republican social policies. I think that abortion should be illegal, but I also don’t think that’s a battle we’re going to win anytime soon (even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will just throw the issue back to the states), nor do I think that investing most our energies into fighting that battle is our best strategy for actually decreasing the number of abortions.

Now, I could be wrong about the above empirical and strategic claims. But I think that a pro-life person who thinks that those claims are true can, in good conscience, vote for Obama, especially if he is convinced, as I am, that Obama has it right on a wide array of other morally important social issues.
I think the Democrat outlook, as outlined above, is utterly evil down to its core.

Everyone get your "GODWIN!!!!!!" smilies ready because I'm about to make a Nazi comparison. Would we accept the following from Adolph Hitler?

"I'm interested in protecting Jews, really I am. I don't want to se them die. Therefore they should stay out of Europe, otherwise I will kill them. If they come here they will die, and I really don't want that, because I am compassionate."

Only a moral retard would be swayed by this. Likewise, you should not be swayed by a position that says:

"We really want fewer abortions. Therefore we want to reduce the number of cases in which we will butcher babies. Any babies that are conceived in circumstances like [INSERT CIRCUMSTANCES HERE] are fair game to be slaughtered, and we agree with that. Since we don't want to slaughter them, don't bring children into those circumstances."


Getting people to thinking that they are more concerned about unborn children while using reasoning like this is a real trick. They made suckers of you.

[$cirisme]

Getting people to thinking that they are more concerned about unborn children while using reasoning like this is a real trick. They made suckers of you.

I think that is really unfair. Kenny is looking at two candidates and asks, "Which one do I think will have as an outcome fewer abortions?"

Given that most pro-life candidates (except for a few, like Palin or Paul) really only pay lip service to the pro-life agenda, I think that is a rational way to look at things. You have every right to disagree with that way of looking at things, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you and is interested not in theories or ideas but in actual numbers of children being slaughtered is deceived or is under any false idea for where a candidate stands.

Ultimately, the difference is that you're looking at the theory. You see something that is allowed and shouldn't be, so you naturally support the path that you think leads to it not being allowed anymore.

Kenny is looking at the specific babies being killed. He believes that is wrong and is looking at it from the perspective of how to get that number down to as close to zero as humanly possible.

You're both wrong. We need to fight the battle to make abortion illegal, but we also need to do everything we possibly can do to reduce the number of abortions too. The Church has long been good on the first issue, but has done almost nothing significant in the second. And, personally, I think that is more morally imperative because it always produces immediate personally measurable results.

Will God look better on you because you voted for McCain but didn't help a lost young girl? I don't think so. But our actions betray us.

[Glenn P]

I think that is really unfair. Kenny is looking at two candidates and asks, "Which one do I think will have as an outcome fewer abortions?"

Given that most pro-life candidates (except for a few, like Palin or Paul) really only pay lip service to the pro-life agenda, I think that is a rational way to look at things. You have every right to disagree with that way of looking at things, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you and is interested not in theories or ideas but in actual numbers of children being slaughtered is deceived or is under any false idea for where a candidate stands.I did not say otherwise.

Ultimately, the difference is that you're looking at the theory. You see something that is allowed and shouldn't be, so you naturally support the path that you think leads to it not being allowed anymore.

Kenny is looking at the specific babies being killed. He believes that is wrong and is looking at it from the perspective of how to get that number down to as close to zero as humanly possible.I support what? Wait a sec, are you assuming that I am advocating a different candidate because of that person's approach to abortion? I don't think there IS a good candidate.

Nor am I saying - as you assumed without even asking - that anyone is deceived about where any candidate stands. I'm just talking about the kind of moral revulsion we should have towards the thinking that Kenny described, and the fact that people are being suckered into finding it appealing.

You're both wrong. We need to fight the battle to make abortion illegal, but we also need to do everything we possibly can do to reduce the number of abortions too.In this context you haven't any place saying "you're both wrong," since I haven't even verbally lent support to the view that we shouldn't try to reduce cases where people would want abortions.

Will God look better on you because you voted for McCain but didn't help a lost young girl? I don't think so. But our actions betray us.
McCain? I didn't even mention the guy. Who's voting for McCain?

[$cirisme]

Just as an addition to the above about our priorities being out of whack.

I'm very good friends with the director of a crisis pregnancy center. They live on a very shoestring budget. It took them years to buy a "4d" ultrasound imaging machine that shows unborn babies in 3d. (nothing like the old sonograms where's it's all black and you have to squint and squirm to see... here's an example of it (http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/06-29_4DUltrasoundAt22Weeks.jpg))

It took them a couple years to get that because it cost something like $40,000.

Yet, in the exact same town, a church decided to build a brand new $32 million dollar video campus. The high definition projector was $90,000. The SCREEN cost $40,000. The light bulbs for the projector alone are $35,000 and last ~2 years.

I can't think of a better example of how badly messed up our priorities are. It's not that what the church did was wrong, it's that universally, the American Church rails for more laws, but doesn't give a pittance to those that can actually do something today and now. Railing for better laws is not wrong, but not doing something that you can do right now is.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The Church has long been good on the first issue, but has done almost nothing significant in the second.

Cir, I used to think that but am becoming more convinced that is a myth. I can say it is a myth for the multiple churches I know of and/or been involved to. Although I don't go there, the largest church in Florida has spent large sums buying houses to house unwed pregnant women so that they feel like they can have their baby and help them get an education to be skilled. That same church has adopted over a thousand children out of the foster child system. The guy who did the "God Speaks" billboards attends that church and has sold merchandise with the God Speaks stuff on it and all the profits went to that cause. They were thrifty in buying fixer-uppers and then the church body donated their skillz to renovate.

The smaller churches have been involved according to their means in similar ways. I do not believe that second premise.

Greg Koukl adopted a baby that was going to be aborted. I know many people that have done this. There is a lady in Florida who was well-known for standing outside the clinics saying "I will adopt your baby. Please don't do this." The RCC is very active here in that regard. Maybe my experiences are an exception. I don't think so though (which is one reason why I mentioned Koukl as he is across the country in California).

Nearly every church I have been involved with speaks more on the second premise than the first. (mostly because I think they are chicken about getting their tax exempt status yanked btw, but in any event that has been my experience - we are urged to do things to prevent abortion more than we are to vote against it via candidates)

[$cirisme]

I did not say otherwise.
I support what? Wait a sec, are you assuming that I am advocating a different candidate because of that person's approach to abortion? I don't think there IS a good candidate.

You told me you supported Ron Paul who, being an OB/GYN, is fanatically pro-life. I do too.

Did you change your position?


Nor am I saying - as you assumed without even asking - that anyone is deceived about where any candidate stands. I'm just talking about the kind of moral revulsion we should have towards the thinking that Kenny described, and the fact that people are being suckered into finding it appealing.

You called him a sucker, that certainly implies a certain level of deception.

But even if it doesn't, Kenny never said he found Obama's position appealing. Just a practical way to reduce abortions in the real world. Your attacks really are inappropriate.


In this context you haven't any place saying "you're both wrong," since I haven't even verbally lent support to the view that we shouldn't try to reduce cases where people would want abortions.

So I fail to see why you are so outraged at Kenny.


McCain? I didn't even mention the guy. Who's voting for McCain?

I was speaking generally. That obviously wasn't directed to you since you can't (afaik) vote in the US election.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Just as an addition to the above about our priorities being out of whack.

I'm very good friends with the director of a crisis pregnancy center. They live on a very shoestring budget. It took them years to buy a "4d" ultrasound imaging machine that shows unborn babies in 3d. (nothing like the old sonograms where's it's all black and you have to squint and squirm to see... here's an example of it (http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/06-29_4DUltrasoundAt22Weeks.jpg))

It took them a couple years to get that because it cost something like $40,000.

Yet, in the exact same town, a church decided to build a brand new $32 million dollar video campus. The high definition projector was $90,000. The SCREEN cost $40,000. The light bulbs for the projector alone are $35,000 and last ~2 years.

I can't think of a better example of how badly messed up our priorities are. It's not that what the church did was wrong, it's that universally, the American Church rails for more laws, but doesn't give a pittance to those that can actually do something today and now. Railing for better laws is not wrong, but not doing something that you can do right now is.

Like I said, the megachurch that I know a lot about in a different county would have done the opposite. My experience has been different. Maybe its regional. I don't know. Maybe we have more abortion centers so it is more in focus.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think Kenny is wrong, but I am trying a couple of things. One, I want to give it more thought. Two, the climate is way too hot right now to really discuss it. Perhaps early next year I would like to explain why I think he is wrong when the election emotions are not an issue. Plus I have to be in the right frame of mine cause I tend to get way too inflammatory on this issue as my passions overtake me.

Those of you who know my story I hope can grant me a little leeway on that count. I cannot discuss this issue without crying for my lost children.

[Kenny]

Everyone get your "GODWIN!!!!!!" smilies ready because I'm about to make a Nazi comparison. Would we accept the following from Adolph Hitler?

No.


"We really want fewer abortions. Therefore we want to reduce the number of cases in which we will butcher babies. Any babies that are conceived in circumstances like [INSERT CIRCUMSTANCES HERE] are fair game to be slaughtered, and we agree with that. Since we don't want to slaughter them, don't bring children into those circumstances."

Given that abortion is going to stay legal for a long time (no matter what we do), I think it is a good idea to try to bring about states of affairs in which less people are killed by it in the mean time.

Look it at it in this way: There are two buttons in front of you. If you push button A, some laws restricting abortions will be passed, but abortion will stay legal and the number of abortions will stay the same (or maybe even go up). You push button B and the current legal situation concerning abortion will stay the same, but the number of abortions will go down. Which button should you push? I say B. Even if you say A, I don’t think you can say that someone who would push B is using morally bankrupt reasoning.


Getting people to thinking that they are more concerned about unborn children while using reasoning like this is a real trick. They made suckers of you.

Jack, I’m sick of people using this kind of polemical tone when they discuss these issues with good natured people. If this is how you’re going to play it, I’m not going to play along.

[Glenn P]

You told me you supported Ron Paul who, being an OB/GYN, is fanatically pro-life. I do too.

Did you change your position?I meant a CURRENT candidate....


You called him a sucker, that certainly implies a certain level of deception.

But even if it doesn't, Kenny never said he found Obama's position appealing. Just a practical way to reduce abortions in the real world. Your attacks really are inappropriate.I meant sucker in the sense of being duped into supporting someone who should not be supported. I didn't say that Kenny has been fooled about where Obama stands on the status of the unborn.

So I fail to see why you are so outraged at Kenny.I'm not outraged at Kenny. I think you're trying to attribute such to me to make me seem unreasonable.

[Kenny]

We need to fight the battle to make abortion illegal, but we also need to do everything we possibly can do to reduce the number of abortions too.

I agree.

[Glenn P]

No.

Given that abortion is going to stay legal for a long time (no matter what we do), I think it is a good idea to try to bring about states of affairs in which less people are killed by it in the mean time.So do I, but never by supporting those who are happy to fund abortion further if "need" be. I really think that supporting that approach in the name of supporting pro-life goals really is to have fallen for it. it ends up in people supporting things that perpetuate the long term state of affairs where abortion is just as legal as it is now.

Jack, I’m sick of people using this kind of polemical tone when they discuss these issues with good natured people. If this is how you’re going to play it, I’m not going to play along.
See above. Would you prefer if I said you've been "fooled," "manipulated" or perhaps "tricked"? Surely it can't be against the rules of debate etiquette to explain that this is what I think.

[Glenn P]

I agree.Supporting Obama works against this, because it actively opposes doing what we can to make abortion illegal.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Kenny let me just through something out there. This is really just kind of a free thought thing.

There is an assumption in your reasoning that abortion is made illegal will be made so by slow progress. But it didn't become legal that way. I believe there is a critical mass of outright resistance that must be reached and that capitulating on pragmatic grounds is actually resulting in more deaths as it is harder for that critical mass to be reached.

So since we can't know really which way in total will save the most amount of children we should stand fast and not give in. Again this is pretty inchoate, but is part of my thought process.

Here is an analogy. Terrorists are holding hostages for demands. Giving in to the demands will save some lives as we work on trying to slowly shift the world attitude to rid itself of terrorism. But in reality, perhaps we save more lives and shift opinions faster by refusing to give in at all.

I think that analogy is pretty good as far as analogies go.

Another analogy might be the Civil War. How long would people have been enslaved if people simply worked to reduce the number of slaves? As long as slavery is allowed it is indoctrinating society at large into thinking that it is okay. It is the same with abortion. There is more at stake than just what a spreadsheet can calculate. Instilling the right mindset in one right person that is in history at the right point can have the proverbial butterfly effect that might not happen if a culture of tolerance of abortion is bred.

I believe there are some things that cannot be comprimised not just for the sake of being unyielding but because we dilute our message that will result in the critical mass of overthrow. When bad ideas fall, they fall very fast.

I do understand your position. But I do think it is wrong. And more specifically with Obama, I do not believe he will reduce the number of abortions and his rabid rhetoric and support of partial birth abortion etc will hinder future efforts that would save even more lives.

[Glenn P]

Just as an addition to the above about our priorities being out of whack.

I'm very good friends with the director of a crisis pregnancy center. They live on a very shoestring budget. It took them years to buy a "4d" ultrasound imaging machine that shows unborn babies in 3d. (nothing like the old sonograms where's it's all black and you have to squint and squirm to see... here's an example of it (http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/06-29_4DUltrasoundAt22Weeks.jpg))

It took them a couple years to get that because it cost something like $40,000.

Yet, in the exact same town, a church decided to build a brand new $32 million dollar video campus. The high definition projector was $90,000. The SCREEN cost $40,000. The light bulbs for the projector alone are $35,000 and last ~2 years.

I can't think of a better example of how badly messed up our priorities are. It's not that what the church did was wrong, it's that universally, the American Church rails for more laws, but doesn't give a pittance to those that can actually do something today and now. Railing for better laws is not wrong, but not doing something that you can do right now is.I have come to see this as a bit of an anti-church myth. There are stupid examples yes of course. But in general my experience is that Christians, both individually and in churches, are just as willing to offer support to young and needy mothers as they are to see abortion criminalized.

I could, of course, be mistaken, but I am now a bit deaf to the cries that the conservative Christians just want to legislate to their heart's content without actually helping those in harm's way in practical ways.

[liquidkaleidosc]

My mother used to work in a crisis pregnancy center, helping young women who were pregnant.

This matter of partial-birth abortion, and abortion in general, is what particularly disgusts me against Obama, more than anything else.

Of course, there is a far worse situation in China, with their one-child policy and, as far as I know, fully legal (and sometimes compulsory) abortion:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/in-china-woman-forced-to-have-abortion-goes/69127/

[Kenny]

So do I, but never by supporting those who are happy to fund abortion further if "need" be.

Double effect. Sometimes doing the best thing overall involves living with some of the unintended consequences.


I really think that supporting that approach in the name of supporting pro-life goals really is to have fallen for it. it ends up in people supporting things that perpetuate the long term state of affairs where abortion is just as legal as it is now.

That is something to take into consideration. I think we need to work both to reduce the number of abortions happening in the immediate future and to try to make abortion illegal, and sometimes those two goals may pull against each other. Then it’s a strategic matter to decide which goal should be given the greater priority at the moment.


See above. Would you prefer if I said you've been "fooled," "manipulated" or perhaps "tricked"?

Yes. That’s a bit nicer than calling someone a “sucker.”

[Dee Dee Warren]

My mother used to work in a crisis pregnancy center, helping young women who were pregnant.

This matter of partial-birth abortion, and abortion in general, is what particularly disgusts me against Obama, more than anything else.

Of course, there is a far worse situation in China, with their one-child policy and, as far as I know, fully legal (and sometimes compulsory) abortion:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/in-china-woman-forced-to-have-abortion-goes/69127/

I forgot about the partial birth abortion position for a bit. Even though the current partial birth abortion ban really doesn't have any real teeth at all Obama has vowed to get it overturned.

Again, please I am not meaning any condemnation here, but can you support such a man? We all know what partial birth abortion here. He doesn't even want to reduce abortions by making that really illegal AFAIK.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Double effect. Sometimes doing the best thing overall involves living with some of the unintended consequences.

Then don't you err on the side of standing firm on a known principle?


That is something to take into consideration. I think we need to work both to reduce the number of abortions happening in the immediate future and to try to make abortion illegal, and sometimes those two goals may pull against each other. Then it’s a strategic matter to decide which goal should be given the greater priority at the moment.

That is what I am getting at. I actually think we are hamstringing ourselves for temporary panaceas that are actually working against our goal.

There are some more moderate Democrats that perhaps my points might not be so strong against, but I don't find Obama moderate at all with abortion and I do not believe we will help children and our cause at all by supporting him, and in fact, actively harm it. If there was a more moderate person in focus, I might think differently. Obama is no moderate in this issue.

[Glenn P]

Double effect. Sometimes doing the best thing overall involves living with some of the unintended consequences.You've got the double effect backwards here.

The doctrine of double effect is that an act can still be the right thing to do even if it has bad consequences. (You know that already of course, I'm just re-stating it so I can set up the contrast).

What you're advocating, on the other hand, is doing something questionable because you think it will have good consequences. So this isn't s double-effect scenario at all. You're prepared to endorse people who would advocate horrific principles and put them into practice, because you think (although let'[s face it, neither of us is sure) that there may be a good consequence in the number of abortions.


That is something to take into consideration. I think we need to work both to reduce the number of abortions happening in the immediate future and to try to make abortion illegal, and sometimes those two goals may pull against each other. Then it’s a strategic matter to decide which goal should be given the greater priority at the moment.How about the goal that will bring the result quicker. Reinforcing the social norm that abortion is permissible but undesirable by voting for people who advocate just that principle is not the way forward. And that's what happens when people like that get elected.


Yes. That’s a bit nicer than calling someone a “sucker.”As you wish. You got tricked.

[Kenny]

Kenny let me just through something out there. This is really just kind of a free thought thing.

There is an assumption in your reasoning that abortion is made illegal will be made so by slow progress. But it didn't become legal that way. I believe there is a critical mass of outright resistance that must be reached and that capitulating on pragmatic grounds is actually resulting in more deaths as it is harder for that critical mass to be reached.

So since we can't know really which way in total will save the most amount of children we should stand fast and not give in. Again this is pretty inchoate, but is part of my thought process.

Here is an analogy. Terrorists are holding hostages for demands. Giving in to the demands will save some lives as we work on trying to slowly shift the world attitude to rid itself of terrorism. But in reality, perhaps we save more lives and shift opinions faster by refusing to give in at all.

I think that analogy is pretty good as far as analogies go.

Another analogy might be the Civil War. How long would people have been enslaved if people simply worked to reduce the number of slaves? As long as slavery is allowed it is indoctrinating society at large into thinking that it is okay. It is the same with abortion. There is more at stake than just what a spreadsheet can calculate. Instilling the right mindset in one right person that is in history at the right point can have the proverbial butterfly effect that might not happen if a culture of tolerance of abortion is bred.

I believe there are some things that cannot be comprimised not just for the sake of being unyielding but because we dilute our message that will result in the critical mass of overthrow. When bad ideas fall, they fall very fast.

I do understand your position. But I do think it is wrong. And more specifically with Obama, I do not believe he will reduce the number of abortions and his rabid rhetoric and support of partial birth abortion etc will hinder future efforts that would save even more lives.

I’ll think about that. Part of what is in the background for me here too is that I think there are a lot of other morally significant issues on the table in this election and on almost every other such issue, I agree with Obama – and they are issues that Obama is likely to make a difference concerning. And the abortion issue, as far as the legal situation is concerned, is one that seems to be pretty intractable at the moment, no matter who is elected.

You do make a good point about the long term situation and the fact that bad ideas do fall fast. But working to sway public opinion on the issue so that it will someday become illegal doesn’t have to involve (and maybe even strategically shouldn’t involve) doing everything we can in the short term to make it illegal.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now I have to ask you if I post again for a few days to tell me to go clean my room :) I am goofing off here and ignoring other responsibilities.

[Kenny]

Then don't you err on the side of standing firm on a known principle?

Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not equivalent to failing to stand firm on a pro-life stance.


That is what I am getting at. I actually think we are hamstringing ourselves for temporary panaceas that are actually working against our goal.

Maybe. But I think we probably need to work harder in the sphere of public opinion on the issue before we’ll have any hope of bringing about change in the legal sphere. In the mean time, it might be better to work more on the short term goal of reducing the overall number of abortions.

[Kenny]

You've got the double effect backwards here.

The doctrine of double effect is that an act can still be the right thing to do even if it has bad consequences. (You know that already of course, I'm just re-stating it so I can set up the contrast).

Yeah, under the conditions that the act itself is not immoral, that the bad consequences are unintended, that they are not a means to the good consequences of the act, and the good consequences outweigh the bad ones.


What you're advocating, on the other hand, is doing something questionable because you think it will have good consequences.

Well no. I don’t think that voting for a particular candidate who has a bad view is a morally bad action. If it were, then we probably just shouldn’t vote.


You're prepared to endorse people who would advocate horrific principles and put them into practice, because you think (although let'[s face it, neither of us is sure) that there may be a good consequence in the number of abortions.

Voting for a candidate is hardly to endorse all of his views or even to endorse him as person.


How about the goal that will bring the result quicker. Reinforcing the social norm that abortion is permissible but undesirable by voting for people who advocate just that principle is not the way forward.

I think we can vote for people who advocate such a principle and argue against it at the same time.


As you wish. You got tricked.

I like you Jack. So just don’t act like a jerk toward me and we’ll be cool.

[Kenny]

Now I have to ask you if I post again for a few days to tell me to go clean my room :) I am goofing off here and ignoring other responsibilities.

Me too. Instead of arguing about abortion, I should be grading papers on abortion.

[$cirisme]

I meant sucker in the sense of being duped into supporting someone who should not be supported. I didn't say that Kenny has been fooled about where Obama stands on the status of the unborn.

Duped means deceived, Theo.


I'm not outraged at Kenny. I think you're trying to attribute such to me to make me seem unreasonable.

No, your stupid Hitler analogy did that already.

[$cirisme]

Like I said, the megachurch that I know a lot about in a different county would have done the opposite. My experience has been different. Maybe its regional. I don't know. Maybe we have more abortion centers so it is more in focus.

Good. But we also need to be saying it in the same breath as "abortion should be illegal". It all goes hand in hand, in words, in deeds.

I am glad to hear about the churches in your area. Hopefully that is a revival that will spread to here.

[Glenn P]

cirisme, I've explained my position well enough for Kenny. Maybe you need a few more letters after your name.

And the Hitler analogy was fine. I think Kenny saw that too.

[$cirisme]

cirisme, I've explained my position well enough for Kenny. Maybe you need a few more letters after your name.

I've not read any of your further posts. I really lost interest with your posts, as usual.

[Kenny]

cirisme, I've explained my position well enough for Kenny. Maybe you need a few more letters after your name.

And the Hitler analogy was fine. I think Kenny saw that too.

I thought the Hitler analogy was a bad one.

[Glenn P]

I thought the Hitler analogy was a bad one.
You disagreed that they were analogous, but being fair you see that IF abortion is what we say it is AND if Obama's reasoning is what I take it to be, then it works.

You got all pissed because I used the word "suckers," but surely you understood the analogy.

And cirisme, do you often reply to people without reading them?

[$cirisme]

And cirisme, do you often reply to people without reading them?

Apparently, you do. I said I didn't read any further posts from you.

[Kenny]

You disagreed that they were analogous, but being fair you see that IF abortion is what we say it is AND if Obama's reasoning is what I take it to be, then it works.

I agree with the conditionals. I still think the analogy was bad one.


You got all pissed because I used the word "suckers,"

Not so much getting pissed as asking that certain ground rules be respected.

EDIT: No, actually I take it back. I still don't think the analogy works even on the supposition that Obama's reasoning is as you take it to be. Because I was talking about what who we should vote for, not whether Obama's reasoning was morally acceptable.

[Chocobear]

The fact that Obama would refuse to vote for this bill, and then lie about why he refused to vote in favor of the bill, only further proves (to me, anyway) that he is an evil, hard-hearted monster.

Yet another reason why I refuse to support him, and why I'm sickened by the thought that some Christians do and that people have been fooled into believing that he is a "good and kind" man. Good and kind men don't fight for a woman's so-called "right" to murder their child!!!

[Kenny]

Yet another reason why I refuse to support him, and why I'm sickened by the thought that some Christians do and that people have been fooled into believing that he is a "good and kind" man. Good and kind men don't fight for a woman's so-called "right" to murder their child!!!

I have become convinced that abortion is a much more complex issue than many people make it out to be. While I come down firmly on the pro-life side and think that we should passionately defend that side, I also think it is an issue on which good natured and reasonable people can disagree.

[liquidkaleidosc]

I forgot about the partial birth abortion position for a bit. Even though the current partial birth abortion ban really doesn't have any real teeth at all Obama has vowed to get it overturned.

Again, please I am not meaning any condemnation here, but can you support such a man? We all know what partial birth abortion here. He doesn't even want to reduce abortions by making that really illegal AFAIK.

Are you asking me whether I can support such a man? I don't know, honestly, but I think it would rather stretch my capability for evil if I did. I watched my son being born. I know what partial-birth abortion is. The very thought of it can make me very angry.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh no it was rhetorical, sorry.

I am sorry I will be a bit scarce from the thread for a bit. Really behind on work and have a migraine today.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have become convinced that abortion is a much more complex issue than many people make it out to be. While I come down firmly on the pro-life side and think that we should passionately defend that side, I also think it is an issue on which good natured and reasonable people can disagree.

hi Kenny, I am trying to argue it more good-naturedly, and I agree that good-natured people can disagree, I don't think reasonable people when being reasonable can disagree. I really don't. But reasonable people often are too busy with so much that life is throwing at them to have the time to really ponder the issue. It isn't laziness, it is life is so fast right now if you know what I mean. Information comes at us so fast, and it is hard to process it all.

I believe that reasonable people, not just Christians, cannot remain true to reason and support abortion on demand. But humans have an amazing ability for cognitive dissonance.

(caveat, your position of the 14 days thing, yes I think reasonable people can disagree on that - I am referring more to the issue writ large)

And with that, you must do your job and shoe my behind off this thread for a while. I am glad we had a nice discussion. That is an achievement for me on this issue in which I tend to get quite volatile.

[$cirisme]

Kenny has been banned by me for 1 week by his request... fyi

[Chocobear]

Here's more information on the many excuses Obama has offered for refusing to support the Born Alive Act.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

I wonder: Could Obama or any one of his supporters look into the eyes of a child who has, by some miracle, survived an abortion and say that Obama's vote against the bill was the right choice?

I want to challenge those of you who support Obama to think long and hard about the following questions. I'm asking these questions because I want those of you who are Christian to take a good, close look at Obama. I do not doubt your faith, I'm not judging you, and I'm not trying to put you through a guilt trip. But like dizzle I feel, in my heart, that no Christian should vote for a man who would oppose a bill that would ensure that children who survive abortions would be taken care of. I simply cannot reconcile Obama's decision with what the Word of God says. Furthermore, I believe that his decision to vote against the bill (as well as his excuses) reveal a great deal about what kind of man we're dealing with.

Here are the questions:

Do you still believe that Obama is a man of integrity, even though he voted against the Born Alive Protection Act and lied about why he did it?

Would Jesus fight such a bill? Would He refuse to acknowledge that the baby who survived an abortion is a person, who is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? How would He respond to the knowledge that babies were being left on shelves to die?

Obama claimed that there was no proof that this monstrous act was being done to survivors of abortion, and that "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee." My questions are: What would the people who testified about this act have to gain by lying? And, given the fact that "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions," don't you think it's possible that the actions of the hospital staff weren't documented because what they were doing was illegal?

Are you still comfortable with the idea of this man becoming our next president, after reading this information?

[Chocobear]

More information, courtesy of FactCheck.org.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html