ANDERSON: When does life begin?

It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion….Normally, I can understand a lawyer’s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted. Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater found at: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/obama-would-evidently-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater/

I am pro-choice for the following reasons: 1: I believe most Americans recognize that there is a moral and ethical distinction to be made between the termination of a pregnancy and the wanton killing of a living, breathing human being. 2: I believe most Americans know that while a woman’s fertilized egg or blastocyst is genetically “human,” the resemblance to a person ends there. 3: The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy, and polls indicate that most American prefer that women still have that option. 4: The most emotional arguments against abortion hinge on religious beliefs: That a human pregnancy is somehow “sacred” or that a fertilized egg is imbued with some kind of “soul” or other supernatural characteristic. Since such relgious beliefs vary widely from person to person, all I can suggest is that pro-lifers are welcome to conduct their own reproductive lives as their conscience and religious beliefs dictate. They have absolutely NO right to demand that others do the same. 5: I consider a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to her right to self-determination. PERIOD. 6: In my lifetime alone, the human population of this planet has DOUBLED from over three billion to over six billion, and it could conceivable TRIPLE to nine billion by the time I'm 70. These are all people that will have to be clothed, fed, educated, housed, employed, transported, and have their medical and sanitary needs met. Inevitably more forests will be cleared to make room for it all, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to skyrocket, climate change will continue to spiral catastrophically out of control ... and TRUST ME, Jesus ain't gonna come descending out of the clouds to make it all better!

>>1: I believe most Americans recognize ....<< That is why many hesitate on abortion when they learn the facts of human development during pregnancy. There is a lot more "human" about babies during pregnancy then most pro-choice people like to admit. >>2: I believe most Americans know that while a woman’s ....<< If you think a baby is just a few cells until birth, you have either never studies the development of a child in a mother or care not to know because it would affect your opinion. Your implication here is a pregnancy, very early on, defines the fetus until delivery. That is just bad science. >>3: The vast majority of abortions take ....<< The article specifically called out partial birth abortions (which only happen later in term), or even more freightening, legislation to protect a child that is born alive accidently during an abortion and still killed. Barack does not support either. Again, you try and give yourself comfort thinking this is all about a few grouped cells, which it is not. >>4: The most emotional arguments against abortion ....<< Crazy. You could use your agrument for the following. It is a "religious and moral" question whether a black man should be considered "private property" or a human, therefore, it is not right for us to place our "values" on the slave owners of the South. In fact, this very logic was used during slavery. You are arguing that a human in the mother is "private property" and not human and it is a religious question for us to disagree. Frankly, I believe it is a human, and therefore, it is not just a religious question, it is a human rights question. Just like the civil rights leaders that came before us fighting for the rights of woman and minorities. They were also "sub-human" at some point in our history, and thankfully, with action, this has been corrected. >>5: I consider a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to her right to self-determination. PERIOD.<< Spoken like a true Southern plantation owner during slavery. They felt the right to own slaves was fundemental to the South's right to self governance. Others, eventually, disagreed. Once you take the stance this is a human life inside the mother, your stance makes no sense. To believe this is human life only takes a few hours of study (not even the Bible... just a scientific study of reproduction will work). A baby is still a baby even while in the mother. >>6: In my lifetime alone, ...<< Dangerous argument. Population control can used to kill lots of other "sub-humans" by others rationale. Soon you will be supporting genecide with these types of arguments. You just have to decide what "class" of human you are willing to kill next.

By all means PolishBear let's kill babies to save the planet just in case climate change (the liberal issue formerly known as global warming) is caused by man. Obama just recently said that "fatherhood does not end at conception" when addressing the issue of out of wedlock births in the black community. (What can one be a father of just after conception PolishBear?) Obama could have followed that up by at saying what everyone should be able to agree with. That a baby gets human rights at birth in the very least. Apparently because of Obama's support for allowing a baby accidently born during an abortion to be killed he could not even say that. It is beginning to look like there is much that is above Obama's pay grade.

It is extremely unlikely the issue of abortion will have much impact on this election. The people who rate it as an important issue were unlikely to vote for Obama in any case. To the vast majority of people it is an insignificant issue because it has an insignificant impact upon our society. To most people the decision innumerated in Roe vs. Wade set the correct standard. Early term abortions should be unrestricted. Late term abortions should be regulated. The attempt to focus the issue of abortion on one type of abortion procedure is only productive if your attempt is to demonize one side of the argument. Then the fanatic idea that all abortion, including the use of morning after pills, is murder becomes visceraly self satisfying. But it is not an attempt at dialogue. It is a means to end dialogue.

>> The attempt to focus the issue of abortion on one type of abortion procedure is only productive if your attempt is to demonize one side of the argument.<< Yikes, trying to discuss an important human rights issue is "demonizing"? That statement is an attempt to end discussion, not these statements. The fact that some believe a fetus is not human requires one to examine the scientific data about what is happening inside the mother's womb. It is just to decide "what line is crossed" before most will see a baby is now present. That is not demonizing, that is simply discussing some facts. If that demonizes someone, that is not the fault of the person trying to present the facts?? Partial birth abortion is a mid to late term procedure. Accidential birth is a very late term issue. Barack has taken stances on both, that makes it relevant. RvW is not the conclusion of this human rights discussion. There is a lot of law to be written around how we handle such items as late term abortions, accidental death, etc. I am disturbed why every US Senator could pass a law similar to the one in Illinois about accidental birth requiring medical attention, but Barack could not vote for it? This is not asking someone to become pro-life, it simply makes you wonder how far pro-choice one can become before becoming something else? Refusing to provide medical treatment to a baby accidentally born during a botched abortion seems to a cross a new line in "pro-choice" does it not? That makes it a worthwhile discussion in this election. What does this say about Barack Obama that he refused to vote for something that almost 95% of the house and senate approved (pro-choice or pro-life alike)? What is his new definition of what it means to be "pro-choice"? Where is he taking that thinking on this issue? Some might like Barack more due to this stance. I am just making the point it gives insight into the man either way. I believe it shows less about his true feeling on abortion and shows how far he will go to secure political support from certain groups. He knew this law would pass. His vote was symbolic. I find that insightful. He would make a synbolic jesture against a living baby to secure political favor with a certain voting block. That is fairly extreme.

Good talk radio try to turn that around on me rwmindy. But that isn't the implication of what I said. Most discussions of partial birth abortion or even abortion in general start and come to an end with one side shouting murder at the other. That discussion is impossible to have. (see Kuhner's Umlimited Abortion from friday.) My position is that Roe vs Wade actually strikes a reasonable balance on the issue when to grant the rights of a human being to the unborn. Not that it can't be discussed and re-argued in the future where the line should be drawn. It needs to be drawn somewhere and drawing it at conception is clearly wrong. It reduces the mother to nothing but chattel. Overall I consider the entire topic insignicifant on a national level and would prefer it to be handled by the states. It has no impact on how I vote or decide whom to vote for.

kc, I agree a conversation that only ends with shouting is not productive. I believe the abortion issue has been polarized by many parties. It is unfortunate because the lives of millions are at stack (mothers and babies) and progress could be made to the benefit of all involved (mother, child, community, etc.). Too often people in this debate seek "converts", while they could be seeking common ground in which everyone would benefit. I am as passionate about helping mothers as I am about helping their children. They are all important. My political point, however, was not the exact nature of abortion, but how Barack has taken this issue and done extremely strange things with it. Why does he go so far left on this issue while trying to present himself as a "centrist"? I am concerned he is more guided by political advancement (making him very similar to most politicians) than any real character or moral compass. That is too bad, because he presented himself to be more then that. However, I just cannot understand anyone whose moral compass allows a live baby not to receive medical care once born. That is just so extreme (for pro-life and pro-choice alike), it is mystifying why Barack would take that stance. It is "off the charts" for someone who claims to have both high character and great judgement.

I have no doubt Obama's position is not one of any great conviction but one of convienence. His political bread isn't buttered by those Mr. Anderson or anyone whose bread he butters. It's buttered by those who are pro abortion rights. I know nothing about the Born Alive Protection Act so make no comment on it. As a compromise between both positions I would suggest that laws to protect the unborn take into consideration the mother's intent whether or not to have the baby. This would allow pro-choice people to protect the rights of women and establish some guideline for unborn rights that is dependent on the mothers choice.

Abortion is NOT a gray area! Either you believe abortion is murder or not! Any Evangelical, Non-Denominational Christian, Catholic, etc. knows the correct answer is LIFE begins at conception. In those 20 church years, you had to have learned something. Barack, you danced around the issue and tried to hold on to that gray area! You might as well have said "No Comment." You were given a chance to redeem (save) yourself in the view of the public, and most importantly, in the view of our Lord, but made the wrong choice. You can still be redeemed, Peter did deny Him three times.

rainbow, murder is a legal term. There is to my knowledge only 1 legal system on the planet that considers abortion murder, sharia. Do you really want to emulate that legal code?

First off I am a Catholic and believe whole heartedly that abortion is wrong and birth begins at conception. Now I also believe that there is a legal issue here above any bible or any religion. I also believe Sen. Obama's comments was taken out of context and was based on law verses a religious belief. The bottom line here is do you want 4 more years of Bush or do you want change. I VOTE CHANGE