Obama Dances Around Abortion.
- Click to play
Originally published August 19th, 2008, by Richard Okelberry at KVNU For the People (www.KVNUFTP.com)
On August 15th, during a unique Presidential debate at the Saddleback Church in California both Obama and McCain were asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights?” While McCain’s answer was short and simple, “at conception,” Obama found himself in the same position as the far majority of Democratic candidates, dancing around the issue. The reason for this is simple, while Republicans may be beholden to the religious right, Democrats don’t dare go against the powerful Pro-Choice segment of their party. Even though 70% of Americans believe that at the very least partial birth abortion should be abolished, candidates like Obama are forced by pro-choice advocates to hold the line on allowing abortion at any term if the health of the mother might be at risk.
It is easy to illustrate this by looking at contemporary political ads where Republicans will readily announce their pro-life stance compared to Democrats will almost never take such a stance unless they absolutely need to. Democratic candidates know that they must walk a fine line and therefore often find themselves engaging in illogical rhetoric that seems only designed to confuse the issue while somehow holding up their own position as being more compassionate than pro-life positions.
While hard line pro-choice advocates would want people to believe that abortion is no different than trimming a fingernail, politicians have a much more difficult time taking such a stance. This forces Democrats into a no-win situation where they have to admit as Obama did in this interview that abortion is a powerful moral issue and not simply a lifestyle choice for women. By doing so they give credibility to the argument that an unborn child is a human life that must be preserved. The only counter for this is to argue that the woman’s health and privacy is somehow more important than that of the child. To be clear, while Obama claims that he would like to see abortions reduced through increased social programs, he still supports the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy at 8 and a half months, by running a rod into the skull of the unborn child that could easily survive outside of the womb, simply because the woman has expressed feelings of depression. Even though Obama states in this debate that he is against late term abortion he knows full well that an exception for the “health” (not the life as it used to be) of the mother is nothing more than a loophole that allows abortions even until the moment before natural birth.
Of course you will never hear Obama take a pronounce stance on this issue. Instead he will simply shrug off the responsibility for his voting record on the issue by saying that such a decision is “beyond my pay grade.” Unfortunately for America, there is no higher pay grade than that of the President of the United States of America. While many will argue about when human life begins, most are against abortion on demand because even the most feeble minded can recognize human life occurs sometime in the womb. Ultimately the decision about whether to allow late term abortions should be one of triage, where the attending physician must decide which life is more viable. With all things being equal, I would always side with protecting the life of the child over the mother’s. To me it is no different than having to decide who gets the last spot in a lifeboat on a sinking ship, a child or a full grown woman.
Supporting such atrocities by saying it’s the woman’s choice does not shed the guilt of politicians who have overseen the death of over 40 million babies since Roe v. Wade. In a free society we are all responsible for not just our actions but also our beliefs, because we each can have a profound impact on others; even viable babies waiting helplessly to be born. Watch the video of Obama’s answer to this question and ask yourself, what does he “believe?”
44 comments to Obama Dances Around Abortion Issue
- Tyson
August 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm · Reply · Edit | Delete | Spam
I may get punched over this, but I will not begrudge a mother choosing to live if abortion is the only option for survival.
Other than that kind of situation I think that adoption is the best route that should be taken if the child is unwanted.
But abortion is a symptom of a bigger problem… maybe allowing condom lessons in schools would be a better compromise for the pro-lifers. The ratio of abortions to fornicators might just drop if kids avoid pregnancy in the first place.
I am not “pro-choice” (whatever that means), but neither am I a hard-line, unmovable “pro-life” either.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm ·
I may get punched over this, but I will not begrudge a mother choosing to live if abortion is the only option for survival.
Other than that kind of situation I think that adoption is the best route that should be taken if the child is unwanted.
But abortion is a symptom of a bigger problem… maybe allowing condom lessons in schools would be a better compromise for the pro-lifers. The ratio of abortions to fornicators might just drop if kids avoid pregnancy in the first place.
I am not “pro-choice” (whatever that means), but neither am I a hard-line, unmovable “pro-life” either.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pm ·
Its always blown me away that people that think we should offer appeal after appeal to Murderers, rapiest, childmilesters, and finding every right in the book for Terrorist. are the same people that dont believe a completly inocent person has no right what so ever. The ones who are arguing that no crime is worth Capital punishment. But hand out capital punishment at will to the only people that can lay clam to never doing anything wrong what so ever. Sad!
August 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm ·
The truth is, moderate women of both parties do not want to see this option entirely removed. Another truth is: pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Many of us have never (hope to never) avail ourselves of that option. But knowing some who have had to make that difficult, agonizing decision, we also know it needs to remain legal and safe. McCain and Obama were speaking to a slice of the political pie. I say McCain was pandering to this crowd. But he knows what I say is true: abortion must remain legal and safe. Both candidates want to walk this line very carefully.
By all means let’s talk about improved sex education and availability of contraception including coverage by health insurance.
Of course, the next extreme suggestion put forth by this radical minority is that contraception is the same as abortion.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:32 pm ·
Well said, bekkjeann
And this is a pretty “pronounced stance” on the issue, if you ask me:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=53376
(No, jess, I didn’t use TinyURL)
August 20th, 2008 at 7:36 am ·
Richard,
So Richard, if I understand correctly, McSame is the only candidate with the temerity to suggest that he is better qualified to make family decisions for Mr. and Mrs Okelberry than Mr. and Mrs Okelberry.
You are clearly coming from a religious perspective. Its a trick question.
Obama’s answer was perfect because it reflected the simplest answer, men/politicians have ZERO business answering the question.
Its so very simple. Its about choice.
Everyone is against abortion. The ONLY question is WHO should choose.
Got it? If you are still not sure, go ask Mrs Okelberry to explain it to you.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am ·
No Cliff, you do not understand me correctly. I will make this simple. No-one ever speaking of choice has once considered that an 8 month old baby might deserve a choice and might be deserving of the same HUMAN RIGHTS that we afford the worst of offenders in out society.
It is clear that you are attempting to make this personal by invoking my wife. She is currently 7 months pregnant, an in her mind nothing is more revolting than sucking that moving child from within her. What you don’t seem to understand is that those that protect and revere human life in all forms truly have no choice by virtue of their convictions. Now I understand that early in a pregnancy, intelligent minds can disagree with what constitutes early life. But I have absolutely no sympathy for an individual that would condone the sacrificial slaughter of a child that is so far developed that it could easily survive on its own if we would just cut the cord simply because a young girl isn’t feeling herself that day. That type of person in my mind is the greatest form of human perversion and ranks with the most sadistic murderers, rapists and pedophiles. Are you that kind of a person, Cliff?
I am only stating the obvious, if Obama continues to call for the “Health” of a woman to be considered and not the “Life” of a woman before late term abortions can be preformed, it is likely that he will eventually lose this race. People will see the difference in him and 70% of the population can’t be that wrong that he will be able to persuade them differently. He will lose because he will show himself to be a man that will put his own political ambitions and the need to support certain party factions, over the life of a single child. He will not survive the uprising against him.
As for my religion Cliff, I am a Lutheran. I wear my beliefs and convictions proudly. They are part of who I am and are not something that I can simply undress. While those same convictions, do not call for me to establish God’s Church within the halls of Government, The do cause me to speak out when atrocities are committed. In fact a large number of cases brought by the ACLU against school prayer were brought by Lutherans. We, unlike some faiths have respect for the concept of separation of church and state. Remember, at one point in Germany it was also legal to shove a Jew into an oven. I wonder if you would have spoken out back then or would have argued about the “Choice” of the person to shove the Jew. I can hear it now, “everyone is against shoving Jews into ovens, the ONLY question is WHO should choose which JEWS?
Stay tuned… I am only getting started… But now I must go care for one of my un-aborted children.
- M
August 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am ·
I always laugh at conservatives who rail against Democrats because of the abortion issue. Yet, the Republicans have been the majority for some time now and have done nothing to change that law. I can’t even remember Bush even talking about it in his entire 8 year run. So, who’s really pro-choice here?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am ·
Typical inflammatory rhetoric. Do you wonder why these discussions seem to be dominated by men who have never been pregnant, born a child, or had to make an agonizing decision?
“…because a young girl isn’t feeling herself that day.”
You clearly have no idea of the mental process involved for a woman making this decision. Your glibness proves your ignorance.
I repeat “moderate” women of both parties want this option to remain legal and safe. And politically, the Republicans are well aware of this, and they don’t REALLY want to cross that line. But yes, they will continue to pander.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am ·
M, you make an excellent point. You are exactly right.
Also note, my previous comment was for Richard O. just prior to you.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:17 am ·
M, Here is a list of statement and their dates of various statements Bush has made on abortion. It is followed by a link to the full quotes. While many conservatives have come to realize that abortion will only be overturned by either a constitutional declaration of human rights for the unborn or a shift in seating on the Supreme Court most are still willing to address the issue at any given opportunity and use their opposition to it as part of their campaigns.
• Build a culture of life. (Feb 2005)
• Partial birth abortion is a brutal practice to be banned. (Oct 2004)
• Not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion. (Oct 2004)
• First president to fund embryonic stem cell research. (Oct 2004)
• Kerry voted no on partial-birth abortion ban. (Oct 2004)
• Must make a place for the unborn child. (Sep 2004)
• Kerry’s abortion stance shows the wrong priorities. (Jul 2004)
• Supports adult stem-cell research but limits on embryos. (Jun 2003)
• No funds to international groups that offer abortion. (Jan 2001)
• Accepts FDA approval of RU-486 but concerned about overuse. (Oct 2000)
• Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall. (Oct 2000)
• Approval of RU-486 is wrong. (Sep 2000)
• Good people can disagree; but let’s value life. (Aug 2000)
• Every child born and unborn ought to be protected. (Jun 2000)
• Welcome all children; supports adoption tax credits. (Apr 2000)
• Supports GOP abortion plank but disagrees on exceptions. (Feb 2000)
• No Republican will allow partial-birth abortion. (Feb 2000)
• Ideal: Value every life; but many steps to get there. (Jun 1999)
• Supports Parental Notification Law for minor girls. (Jun 1999)
• Ban partial-birth; ban taxpayer funding. (Mar 1999)
• Encourage fewer abortions via adoption & abstinence. (Jul 1998)28 Quotes by Bush on Abortion: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm
August 20th, 2008 at 9:26 am ·
M- I may be mistaken, but the Democrats seem to have control of both the Senate and the House. What exactly do you mean by, “The Republicans have been the majority for some time now” ???
Richard- I loved both of your posts. Cliff is completely wrong by assuming that your objections to abortion “clearly come from a religious perspective. I don’t think that just a religious zealot would have reason to find abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, immoral. And what’s more, why should Richard’s religious background undermine the legitimacy of his argument? Someone attempts to separate himself from his convictions in order to better conform politically is not respectable; convictions should be a part of our political experience, whether they are religiously founded or not. Without genuine conviction, we create a cultural, or political religion that is ingenuine. Hey Richard, I agree with you on this issue, and I am proud to say that my “religious perspective” contributes a great deal to my leanings- what better way to understand the value of life? Afterall, if we leave everything up for science to define, we get an even more ridiculous perspective… afterall, a fetus is only a fetus, even when it is removed partially from the birth canal and its head punctured and compressed in order to induce death… oops, I mean “termination,” science says “death” is an inappropriate term, it obviously is entirely different.
I also find it deplorable that some politicians seem to feel more compassion for a criminal or terrorist than an unborn child. Cliff seems to make an absurd argument here. First he implies that a religious perspective is illegitimate, most likely because a religious perspective is subjective and/or too personal. Yet Obama’s approach seems to be the correct one, even though it doesn’t represent the 70% of Americans who most likely oppose it. So then where is Obama coming from? He certainly didn’t make much sense earlier when asked to answer the question, “at what point does a baby get human rights?” Should seem simple enough, but Obama’s answer sure wasn’t, and it was clear to most of us that he was afraid to explain his true convictions.
Cliff, why do politicians have “zero” business dealing with this issue. If you believe it is about life, than it does concern legislators, afterall, life is protected by the Constitution. To be honest, you seem to be doing more explaining for Obama than he was able to do for himself. Let’s get real, he choked on that one, and most everybody save his apologists, recognized it. Obama’s “simplest” of answers turned out to be a long and stuttering walk-about which never directly answered the question. Seems that “McSame” thought a little more about the issue beforehand than the “great Orator.”
If life is at stake, than “choice” isn’t really that important afterall. But hey, if you make a bad choice you have thousands of politicians who would be willing to let you off of the hook, just pray you aren’t an unborn “fetus,” you may not get the same courtesy.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am ·
It also interesting to note that Obama is “pro-choice” because he “believes in Roe vs. Wade,” yet opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage because it isn’t in the Constitution. As a constitutional scholar, how can Obama take such a stance. Roe v. Wade was one of the poorest rulings made by the Supreme Court and demonstrated truly unprecedented language supporting the unwritten rights to an abortion, now where is that in the Constitution? Yet a constitutional amendment is not truly “constitutional,” but abortion is somehow.
- Aaron Orgill
August 20th, 2008 at 9:57 am ·
M, your ignorance is overwhelming. Not only does abortion get talked about all the time, but the only way it gets overturned is by the Supreme Court, which takes an agonizingly long time to overhaul. If McCain is elected, enough conservatives may be placed on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which even many pro-choice liberals acknowledge is terrible law.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:58 am ·
Who is getting abortions in our country? 70% of them are single women between the ages of 20-34. 18% of them are there because they got pregnant despite using birth control. Which isn’t a huge surprise since condoms fail 5% of the time, and that number doubles among the inexperienced. These statistics lead one to believe that the great majority of abortions performed in this country are done as a means of birth control. The people that support that abortion platform are few and far between.
Which is why politicians dance around the issue. They want to get the virulent pro-choice vote while not losing the majority of Americans that are actually pretty conservative when it comes to abortion.
When people talk about “choice” it seems they forget that we are a nation governed by laws that restrict choices all the time. Clearly that cannot be the be-all-end-all argument for abortion.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am ·
Bekkieann, I hope that my previous post has illustrated that ‘M’ is not “exactly right.” As far as your statement about men not being a part of the decision process on abortion, this is a method long used by hard line abortionists to somehow marginalize men and remove them from the debate. It is typically a bigoted response because it attempts through discrimination to keep men from acting as advocates for an unborn child.
As far as my experience with child birth, it is true that I have never carried a child. However, I have helped my wife deliver 2 and will do it again this October. While, I do not know what the actual experience is like I can tell you that a pregnancy can cause hormonal imbalances that can lead to severe depression, and non-rational think. Under current law, this natural imbalance is considered a disorder and enables a woman to abort her child, even at full term. I invite you to research George Tiller an abortion doctor in Kansas that would sit down with his patient for a few minutes and determine without a degree in psychology that they were “depressed” and proceed to abort babies up to full term. Is this what you are supporting when you advocate for a woman’s right to choose?
YouTube Video on Tiller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYulgba5BPE
I notice that both you and ‘M’ failed to make a single argument for why an 8 month term child isn’t a human life. If you click on the image at the top of the post you can watch the entire interview with Obama. You will notice that Obama too refuses to answer the actual question, one that I ask you both now.
At what point does a baby get human rights?
Currently abortionists are arguing that even babies that survive a late term “procedure,” should be killed if the mother says so. Do agree with that stance as well?
I would like to get at least one person here to answer me this simple question. If an unborn fetus is not a human being then why is an abortion such a difficult decision for women to make as both Obama and Bekkieann have suggested? If it is nothing more that a lump of flesh or a gathering of cells, why do women who have abortions not treat the decision any different then deciding to have their hair cut are their nails done? The question is simple, if it is not a life, why the hubbub?
Take a stand, Bekkiann. What do you believe?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am ·
I find it funny that democrats would be tied up by this issue. It does not matter when you view a baby as attaining human rights in the case of abortion in order to save a mother’s life. Emergency responders have to prepare to face that kind of question between people who obviously have human rights. When there are many people to care for they have to be able to bypass people who obviously need help in order to help people who are more likely to be saved by their actions. If a baby has human rights at conception that does not preclude the possibility of abortion to protect the life of the mother. “No human rights for an infant” or “no abortion” is a false dichotomy.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am ·
Well said, David.
Yeah, according to Democrats, terrorists and illegal immigrants are protected by the Constitution, but an “unborn fetus” has no claim whatsoever.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am ·
Rich, do you really care to know what I think? Or do you just want to keep shouting your dogma about when human life begins. You can’t definitively answer that question yourself without referencing your religious beliefs.
An abortion is a difficult decision as is anything related to becoming pregnant and potentially becoming a mother. Many scenarios present themselves. You callously pretend to be ignorant that a woman could have mixed feelings for many issues than simply your one issue of when human life begins.
Most abortions are performed in the early term when the fetus clearly could not possibly survive outside the womb. Your pointed focus on late-term tells me you are more about sensationalizing than about rational debate.
I stand by what I said previously.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am ·
You may have stood by what you said Bekkieann, but you still have not answered the question. To be honest I was like you at one point in my life and felt that as a man had no right interfering with a woman’s “right to chose.” The very fact that I once held your position illustrates that my views are not merely “dogmatic.” Can you say the same? Can you say that you have seriously approached this issue from both sides? In fact I could argue that your view is the one tainted by dogmatic rhetoric, as illustrated by the fact that you still refuse to answer the question of when a baby gains human rights. To me this reason is clear; to do so would jeopardize your position. You would either have to say that at some point in the womb a fetus becomes a child or that it’s ok to kill a baby at full term. It’s a no win situation, and one that I would not cling to if I were you. Make a decision and stand by you convictions. What will it be?
As far as your statement, “An abortion is a difficult decision as is anything related to becoming pregnant and potentially becoming a mother.” This is simply not true, I have know many women that embrace pregnancy with joy. You appear to be arguing that it is the decision about motherhood and not about abortion that is difficult. By logical means, I can then argue that without the “choice” of abortion there would be no decision to make and thus no difficulty. For some strange reason, I have never known a woman deciding to become pregnant to be as distraught as a women deciding to become un-pregnant. Can you explain why?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am ·
I shutter to think what would happen if enuf religious nuts got together and got a president elected.
Ooops, they already did.
Okelberry. You and your kind piss me off so bad I had to write about it AND YOU over on OneUtah.
I wasted my whole morning.
Thanks Okelberry. Oh, and how do you feel about the baby-killer you helped elect?
If I were you, I’d keep my religious views to myself and on the couch on Election Day, less we end up with another mass-murderer.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pm ·
I find it extremely ironic when liberals claim that, when it comes to abortion, government should stay out of what is a family decision. This is the ONLY issue in which liberals don’t want the government to overrule the wishes of individual Americans. Cases in point: education, health care, banning trans fats and smoking, Social Security.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm ·
Wow Cliff, until now I assumed you were either a troll or an angry teenager (maybe both), but I was surprised to see that you are an adult and a contributor for OneUtah. Hey, just from one man to another, with all politics aside, you really embarrass yourself and your “kind” when you personally attack someone, offending not only the individual, but his wife and family, and his religion.
You wrote so eloquently on your blog, “Hey Okelberry. Who asked you? We are talking about presidetial candidates. No body cares about your personal religious beliefs so SHUT UP!”
Cliff, have you yet considered that maybe a great deal of people don’t care for your opinions, either? And that perhaps you are fortunate that you are given a forum to “spew” your hateful diatribes? Who do you think you are? It’s probably a good thing you are nestled somewhere far away from Mr. Okelberry because if it were me, and you spoke in such a manner about my wife and our family, you might find yourself in an unpleasant situation, to say the least.
It’s absurd that you ramble on here and on your blog, misspellings and all, mocking the “religious nuts” who dogmatically go about ruining your world, and in such an open-minded fashion, you tear another guy down, not on an intellectual level, but you attack him, his religion, and his family. Religious “nuts” get on my nerves as well, but I woudl rather put up with them than Liberals who believe themselves to be tolerant of other viewpoints, but instead would rather rid the world of any intellectual opposition by viciously attacking their opponents on a personal level.
You cite the First Amendment in your blog frequently when discussing freedom of relgion, well maybe it would be nice to review that same amendment and pay close attention to the part about “free speech.”
Maybe “religious nuts” openly oppose abortion. You and “your kind,” on the other hand, troll about looking to silence dissenters and shouting down opposition through insults and vicious diatribes.
Seriously, amigo, you need to get some manners before you go about trying to get other people to take you seriously.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm ·
You are wrong, Rich. I was once exactly where you are. I spent the first 30 years of my life as a devoted, faithful Mormon, and thus had all my opinions, right down to the exact talking points, handed to me on a silver platter. I needed only to parrot them back. Then something happened. I got a mind of my own. And in that enlightenment, I suddenly found it necessary to evaluate each and every belief and decide for myself where I stood. I have the beliefs I have today because of 30 additional years of personal study and growth. My beliefs are my own, not the dogma of a big organization that has much to gain by mind-control over its membership.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:38 pm ·
I’ve spoken with Rich about this several times, and unexpectedly, he and I don’t differ as greatly as most would think. He has a preference for more legal restrictions, with a focus on on reducing the number of abortions performed each year through better education (hope you don’t mind me putting words in your mouth there Rich, and correct me if I’m wrong), while I have preferences protect the legality of the procedure – as a woman’s right to choose – with a focus on reducing the number of abortions performed through better education (And yes, that includes the “controversial” notion of teaching teenagers how to use a condom – we teach them how to turn out of a skid in drivers ed…does this encourage them to drive recklessly? Doubt it very much). See where Rich and I come together on this? Yet somehow, the debate never gets that far.
This issue is an example of a polarized issue that often gets no where because of the ensuing polarized rhetoric (sorry to call you out Federal Farmer, but your comments here are a great example of unproductive speech on an issue very personal to everyone involved).
Recently, there was a bit of a back blow from liberal activists with the release of the Democratic Party Platform, and the phrasing of the passages on pro-choice legislation and abortion. To sum it up: Keep it legal and safe for women to choose, but refocus on education to reduce the number of abortions performed. Obama has also CLEARLY endorsed this attitude toward the issue.
But something Rich and I completely agree upon is the “preference” Rich eludes to in his post here, that in embracing this platform, many within my own party balked, claiming that Obama’s statements and now even the platform were “admitting” (my word, not theirs) that abortion was not something to be encouraged. In this way, Rich is correct. The majority of Americans (even many I know who have considered or even gone through with an abortion) would “admit” that abortion is something to be discouraged, from a moral standpoint, and not only because we have any knowledge of when life begins (we don’t, don’t fool yourself), but also the psychological effects of the procedure and even the health risks associated. More of a common sense “morality” than what we hear from the evangelicals and Federal Farmer. But certain factions of the Democratic Party (lets call them the Leftist equivalent of the Religious Right) fear such an admission or acknowledgment of public sentiment, assuming it will bolster the anti-choice factions of the Republican party. In turn, these same factions of the Republican Party turn to screaming jello at the slightest mention of this being a choice a woman should have the right to make, regardless of a generalized notion of morality. The only result is polarization, not progress.
At the end of the day, even those of us who are pro-choice need to acknowledge that there is merit to placing a focus on upfront education that could lead to a reduction in the number of abortions performed. And those on the other side need to acknowledge we cannot define the morality of the issue with a generalization, or a huge sweeping assumption. Women need to have this choice, and seek out abortion for many reasons (reasons too often trivialized by the generalizations from the right). And like it or not, those reasons are rarely consistent with the misleading dogma of the anti-choice movement (who are not all patriarchal men, an admission that needs to happen on the left).
But what Rich is getting at here is a valuable aspect of the debate. Minds will not be changed on this issue, and attitudes will not be altered. There will be though, whether we ever find it or not, a middle ground to be sought between those who believe abortion is wrong from a moral perspective, and those who believe abortion needs to remain a legal and medically safe option for women, and beyond that, it is between she and her doctor.
If we could all act like adults, we’ll find the middle ground.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm ·
“This issue is an example of a polarized issue that often gets no where because of the ensuing polarized rhetoric (sorry to call you out Federal Farmer, but your comments here are a great example of unproductive speech on an issue very personal to everyone involved).”
Jason, I assume you are referring to my previous post. Until now, each one of my posts have centered on the issue at hand. While I recognize that my previous post may have been harsh, I feel that Rich, his wife, and his religion were attacked by Cliff in an inappropriate manner. I apologize to you if I have “polarized” this debate, but I don’t think that Cliff has an excuse for treating Rich the way he did.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm ·
Well said Jason.
I agree, as I’ve said that there can be disagreement on whether a fetus of 6 weeks should be classified as a human life. I personally side with human life not simply because of my religious views but because there is no consensus within the scientific community on the issue which leads me to side conservatively, just in case. The argument is similar to those that support human caused global warming theories and argue that it’s better to do something about it than wait and see if the theories are right. It should also be stated that I don’t believe that abortion should be abolished completely. I believe that in rare case, when the life of the mother is at eminent risk and the fetus is not viable, an abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. A good example of this might be when a woman has diabetes and her condition has degraded to the point that she can no longer carry the child. Even then all effort should be given to the most viable life, whether it is the woman or the child. Now I know that many pro-choice advocates will disagree with this position. However, we are primarily talking about late term abortions where the child is viable and could live outside the womb and the mother’s LIFE is not in immediate danger. It is my opinion that Obama side stepped this issue by using the “health of the mother” clause for late term abortion. In essence he was trying to declare that he disagrees with lat term abortions but gives this wide loop hole for them to occur that can include simply telling your doctor you have the blues.
While this is a very hot issue, I hope that we all can engage in an adult conversation about the issue, like the one Jason and I have had where we can discover not only our differences but our common ground.
Also, thanks for backing me up FedFarmer. I’ve been debating whether or not to have my wife read Cliffs post. She certainly wouldn’t be a civil as me.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm ·
Thanks Rich. I’ve always enjoyed our discussions (although you’ll always be wrong about taxation policy, lol) and FF, I was referencing more your “terrorist” talk and the use of phrases like “your kind,” “trolling”, etc.
Not productive, nor conducive of intelligent debate.
- Aaron Orgill
August 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm ·
Cliff, I will take the religious nuts over you any day. You’re showing a great example of just how tolerant the Left is. Ironic that you would call Bush a baby-killer in this particular thread, without even brushing the actual topic of abortion itself. Did you have something to say actually related to the post, or do you just like the taste of your own bile?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm ·
Cliff Lyon,
It is interesting that you have repeatedly labeled my as some sort of religious zealot without even knowing. Certainly, almost every person that knows me, including Tom Grover, the ex-host at KVNU would disagree with you.
I would like to point out that you brought up the issue of religion, so I would like to point out that Obama has regularly made admissions of faith. Do you share the same distaste for him? Or are you simply looking for someone to take your frustrations out on?
I have read that you are well studied and belong to several groups including a Human Rights group. For fear of being told to “shut up” again I would like to give you a chance to answer this question if not personally as the Board Chair of The Human Rights Education Center of Utah.
When does a baby get Human Rights? A simple question for a man of your intellect and elevated position.
(Also Posted at OneUtah.org)
August 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm ·
Jason, I used “your kind” in referencing something that Cliff had thrown against Rich. In other words, I was recycling something he had used earlier to make my point. While I realize that I may have distracted from the issue, I wonder why Cliff isn’t given the same chastisement. Sorry, but Cliff set the parameters of the discussion after personally attacking Rich. Why aren’t you objecting to that?
- Dave
August 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm ·
I have been following this discussion with great interest. While I find bekkieann’s logic faulty, she is certainly passionate about her belief (position?) and is undoubtedly doing her best to present her view. Rich, while not entirely dispassionate, presents a far more reasoned discourse on the subject. While I don’t agree with Jason, I wouldn’t mind engaging in an ongoing debate, and my sense of the matter is that there would be respect for each other’s opinions. And, I’m always interested in reading FF’s thoughts on a variety of view.
However–I am chagrined by Cliff’s level of civil discourse (or lack thereof). Why is it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks? Cliff, I read your post and found it wanting. Or, to put it in a vein you may understand–You, sir, are a moron. Please don’t tell me you are an adult. Please don’t tell me you think your posts are worth reading. Please tell me there is more to you than the rantings of a puerile schoolyard bully.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pm ·
Gee, Dave. Thanks for the pat on the head. A bit condescending and dismissive dontcha think?
- Nephi
August 20th, 2008 at 5:11 pm ·
The discussion is really about choice and who that choice belongs.
I note, for example, that the top post is entirely conclusory in its stance that abortion equates to killing babies. Why, then, supply, all the other crap? If that is what you think, then so be it. You, Richard, can simply go over and line up with the anti-choice crowd – the same crowd that generally advocates killing people through execution.
The rest of us, on the other hand, will line up with the pro-choice crowd. These are the folks who recognize all the salient factors and support leaving the decision to those who are best in a position to consider and weigh those factors.
PS. Richard, get used to Obama – he will be your next president.
- Grumpy
August 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm ·
1. Careful Nephi, Obama is no longer a “sure thing”. His campaign is faultering, his vacation hurt him. Things are not NEARLY as locked up as myself and apparently you seem to think.
2. The vast majority of people who support a woman’s choice in abortion, are against late-term abortions. No one is PRO-Abortion.
3. Why doesn’t anyone consider the human rights of the person carrying the child ? How is one life somehow more important, more valuable than another ?
- Topgun
August 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm ·
Wow what a great debate! Amazing how you can tell the democrats and the republicans lining up with the party beliefs instead of thinking for themselves and reaching a logical conclusion on the issue. Talk about pandering and skirting the real issue bekkieann how can pro-choice not be pro-abortion. Why are you so anti. It’s obvious you think LDS are brainwashed and your hate shines through.
LMAO Cliff trying to debate, but not being able to pose a logical defense. I say get a few more pundents I love hearing them.
Nephi, Obama is a joke! Watch him plunge in the polls the more he talks the more people realize he hates america, and believes america is to blame for everything that is wrong true or not. Just like all of the people in his circle of influence.
- Topgun
August 20th, 2008 at 8:19 pm ·
Grumpy, is that a real question?
“Why doesn’t anyone consider the human rights of the person carrying the child ? How is one life somehow more important, more valuable than another ?”
You have to be joking, its one thing to kill another, it is something completely different to tell that person you don’t have the right to take anothers life and if you do you will have to deal with the consequences. If they are pregnant due to rape, mischief, accident ect. and not in a position to care for the baby they can always give it up for adoption.
If your girlfriend gets pregnant and you don’t want the baby and so you decide to kill your girlfriend you will be charged with 2 counts of murder! And rightfully so.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:50 pm ·
Cliff,
I thank you for coming on KVNU For the People tonight.
I am glad that we could agree on a baby at 8.5 months term in the womb deserves the same human rights as everyone else. I am sorry if the discussion became a bit heated. Hot topic like this often involves more emotion then they should.
I rarely do this but thought I would tell you a bit about myself and allow you to “categorize” me as you see fit. I certainly don’t believe that your depiction as a zealot “Church Boy” is accurate and would like to set the record straight by giving you laundry lists of my beliefs. While I will admit that some of my stances political or otherwise are influenced by my religious views they rarely are my sole influence.
I believe in an ordered, Universe where nothing is by chance or chaotic. This is supported by not only my religious views on creation but also my belief in Evolution, natural selection, string theory and it’s unifying “M” theory. I should state that I believe natural selection is limited and controlled by a series of over riding rules, much like those found in physics. These rules and the complex equations that govern them are only now becoming apparent to geneticists.
It is well established that I am against abortion. This view too is influenced as I have said by both secular and non-secular views and is something that I arrived at after years of accepting the pro-choice stance.
I am against Capitol Punishment. Religiously I believe that I cannot forgive someone while putting them to death and logically I consider that far too many innocent people must die to serve this imperfect form of punishment. Also, I believe it is cruel and refuse to be a part of it.
I supported the war but not because of WMD’s or Terror but because I had spent years following the terrible things that Hussein was doing to his people. History will place him with the great sadistic dictators. For the same reason I supported Clinton’s war in Bosnia. I am a retired disable veteran that served during war time and take any cause for war very seriously.
I did not vote for Bush and am a full fledged Independent that finds corruption in both parties.
I disagree with organized school prayer but support the rights of student to pray individually.
I disagree with religious displays on public property, even when that property is “leased.”
I recently sent a letter to Governor Hunstman, Jr.n arguing that it was necessary that Utah’s liquor laws be normalized to relieve the feeling of religious discrimination among non-Mormons in the state.
I support the right of gay couples to marry, but would prefer that the government get out of the business of sanctioning the religious institution and convert all “marriage” to civil unions. Under this system anyone could bind their wealth to one other person regardless of gender or prior relation. Barring this conversion I believe the right of gays to marry will ultimately be established through the Supreme Court as a protection of religious freedom and anti-establishment ruling.
While you have regularly referred to me a moron, I have an I.Q. of 145, only 5 points shy of being a certified genius. This is a fact that don’t regularly reveal but seems fitting here. I also have a talent for art and photography, producing al of my own art work for my site and was the only high school student to win the coveted, National Kodak Medallion of Excellence in consecutive years for photography.
I am 39 years old and have 2 children with one on the way. A fact that you may not be impressed with but one I am most proud of because it gives me the greatest sense of meaning and purpose in my life.
While I could go on, I hope this gives you a clearer picture of me.
- Gordon
August 20th, 2008 at 9:04 pm ·
I find it terribly ironic (emphasis on the terrible) that under the laws of our society, if
a woman with a newborn baby decided she did not want it, and she hired someone to kill the child, they would both be facing murder charges. However, if she makes that decision just prior to the child’s birth (no matter how late), she can have the child killed, with no repercussions. Religion or morality aside, where is the reason in that?That said, I do believe that women should have access to safe, legal abortions (especially in rape and incest situations, or when the mother’s life is jeopardized). I am deeply saddened when women (or couples) use abortion for convenience, or in lieu of birth control. For late-term abortion, I can’t imagine why adoption wouldn’t be a much better option for a woman who doesn’t want her baby. (Ask a childless couple, or those who have gone to great lengths and expense to adopt “unwanted” babies how they feel about abortion.)
Cliff made a point on the radio broadcast of how a couple should be allowed to make the choices concerning their families, without government interference. May I suggest that one true function of government is the protection of the helpless, and if that couple choose to abuse one of their children, they will face the legal consequences. Who is more helpless than a child who is in his mother’s womb. Is it so unreasonable to ask that we come to some legal consensus on when and how to protect our viable, but unborn children?
That is why we need to know how our presidential candidates stand on this important issue (without the typical political song and dance).
- Eric
August 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am ·
I’m adopted and am a proponent of more adoption education. Every day I wake up I’m thankful that desperate mother chose to give me something more than what she could give and not snuff out my life before it got started.
There are so many wonderful people in the world who for whatever reason struggle bearing children. I understand that for many of them, they can spend years on waiting lists trying to adopt.
My last point on this…what if Ghandi’s mom had chosen to abort him? Or George Washington’s mom? Or Abraham Lincoln’s mom? Or what if Mother Teresa’s mom had decided to have little Teresa aborted? Of course you can make the argument the other way…what if Hitler’s mom had decided to abort little Adolf? However, I believe this world has produced more great men and women than it has evil.
My view…once everything has been put in motion (at the point of conception) that fetus deserves a chance at life. Science and biology back me up on this, not just religion.
-EricF
August 21st, 2008 at 10:32 am ·
i’ve been reluctant to join in this thread at all. i only read the first comment – and tyson hit the nail ON THE HEAD.
“But abortion is a symptom of a bigger problem… maybe allowing condom lessons in schools would be a better compromise for the pro-lifers. The ratio of abortions to fornicators might just drop if kids avoid pregnancy in the first place.”
he is ABSOLUTELY right. we shouldn’t be arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong. i think we can all agree that abortion is almost never a good thing. what we should be doing is figuring out how we can prevent people being put in the situation where this seems like a viable option.
sex education is critical. and it’s critical at an early age – probably at about 7 years old. of course, it’s important that it’s age-appropriate education, but it’s important that kids know from a very early age the CONSEQUENCES of their actions. when parents are up front about the consequences of a decision, no matter what the topic is, kids are more likely to make informed choices.
teaching kids about drugs and sex in a healthy manner does NOT make them more likely to try it out. It’s never easy to talk to your kids about sex – but who should they hear it from if not from their parents?
teaching kids about sex in a healthy manner does NOT make them more likely to try it out. the key there is to teach that sex is a normal, healthy, adult activity and not something to be shared with just anyone, anytime, anywhere. kids need to know they can talk to their parents about sex.often times, religion gets in the way. parents don’t know how to NOT make a big deal out of sex. so their kids think it’s taboo…consequences aren’t discussed…and curious kids try it out. many parents don’t do their job when it comes to teaching their kids about sex.
sex education is the KEY and is a partial answer to the abortion debate.
oh and i have to throw this in: murderers of women who are pregnant are prosecuted for TWO homicides as a prosecutorial tactic. it’s newsworthy and has a significant shock value. i don’t think it’s a good argument for pro-lifers.
here’s my bottom line: abortion sucks. it’s probably wrong. adoption should be the first choice if keeping the baby isn’t an option. but who am i to make that decision? i have to support the right to choose even though i might be wrong.
- Tim Carter
August 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am ·
Americans vote with their dollars. Whatever side of the issue you are on you support it with your dollars. I think it is very telling to see the rabid ‘pro-lifers’ and ‘pro-choicers’ lined up in front of Sams Club and Wal- Mart on Black Friday. I get a big kick out of the hypocracy. You are only supporting what you hate the most.
- Aaron Orgill
August 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm ·
I love to see what happens when you say “abortion” in a crowded room (or on a crowded blog). The Joker just should have done that in The Dark Knight and the whole movie would have lasted 15 minutes.
- Tom M
August 21st, 2008 at 6:57 pm ·
Don’t you know women’s rights all end after choosing to have sex? Oh, sorry, that only applies to men…
Well, news flash, it’s his body too. How about some serious and real equal rights for those of you who claim to support such. Do any of you really support slavery today? But many of you do, if you continue to support terminating all of a man rights after he chooses to have sex, while giving women hundreds of continuing rights and choices after that point.
As an ethical society we must have equal rights for women as for men (Professor Alan Millard, “Equality, a Man’s Claim”). Right now, women’s rights far exceed men’s rights. that’s not equality, but supremacy. Our media and schools actually teach this illogical crap and brainwash men to swallow it too.
No, a man can’t make a woman have an abortion if he doesn’t want the child (many men are tricked or get unlucky…), but if her rights were to be equal then she could not be the sole chooser of whether to abort, have the baby, be the sole decision maker in keeping the child away from a good dad (remember, there are more bad moms than dads – DHHS, DoJ stats and many, many studies) or adopting out the child if dad wants the child…
bekkieann, shouldn’t women who don’t want their babies to be born stop complaining about all of since equality should dictate that all her rights ended once she decided to have sex with a guy? Men are told that they relinquished 100% of their rights after they had sex, so why not some fair play and true equality?
If any of you are really concerned about the best interest of women, men and children, you would most likely consider supporting equal choice for men:
http://www.glennsacks.com/30_years_after.htm
Consider real equality and fairness.
Our current twisted system is causing more problems for itself to “solve.’ if we continue in the present direction we will continue to have high unwed pregnancy rates and all the garbage to go with it – garbage in, garbage out…
If you think you are for equal rights, you might be in for a surprise when you find out all the garbage and supremacy rights most people support in the name of equal rights for men and women:
Be sure to also read the “about us” page.
Anti-feminist women are the best true equal rights advocates while men tend to be so protective of women that they destroy all hopes of equal rights for both genders. that is what our domestic violence industry and gender studies departments are all about – supremacy, excused abuse (for one side only) and slavery.August 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm ·
tom – i respectfully disagree with your claim that women have more rights than men. i think that some women have done some irreparable harm to our society, particularly by downplaying the importance of men and the impact they have on children.
i’m interested in your stat about more bad moms than bad dads – is that skewed because more kids actually live with their mothers, no matter what the situation is that led to their parents living apart?
i’d like to know the ratio of men who want to keep the baby and raise it compared to men who don’t care at all.
sorry, dude…just not a good argument.
Tags: Abortion, Obama, Saddleback Debate
National | rokelberry August 19, 2008
1 Comment to “Obama Dances Around Abortion.”
OneUtah: Cliff Lyon Launches Another Personal Attack | Utah Free Press — January 9, 2010 @ 12:14 pm