McCain's VP Pick?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so yes, obama and biden are very much in the mainstream of what americans have said is their position regarding abortion rights.

sarah palin on the other hand is not.

Originally Posted by Obama

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as along as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstituionality.

So you're saying the majority of america feels that doctors should not be placed with the "burden" of keeping babies alive when they are born alive.

I dare say the vast, vast majority of americans believe that human rights begin at birth. Obama fought to keep the term "previable" relevant even after a child was born.

You continue to gloss over this angle.

[wmbwinn]

Take partial-birth abortion, a gruesome procedure in which the fetus is delivered feet-first, its skull punctured and its brain suctioned out, thereby killing the fetus and collapsing the skull for easy delivery of the full body. Although he was not in the U.S. Senate when it voted to ban partial-birth abortions, Obama has nevertheless heavily criticized the legislation and the Supreme Court ruling that upheld its constitutionality. "Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure -- that it's not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong," Obama told those attending a 2007 Planned Parenthood meeting. But Americans overwhelmingly oppose partial birth abortion -- 70 percent in a 2003 Gallup poll -- so Obama's views put him in a distinct minority.

http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/609/68/

Anyway, I will let the interested reader read the rest of the links on that page I noted above (repeated here):

http://www.catholicleague.org/obama&infanticide.php

[wmbwinn]

Again, Mavdog, you and I don't really disagree on the details much as to our personal views.

But, the language and controversies are not simple things that can be explained in short pithy paragraphs...

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what? "80% of americans support abortion"???

that in itself is ludicrous.

the right wing wants to frame the abortion issue in such absolutes it borders on the absurd.

if a poll were taken that says "do you approve of abortions?", it would probably be over 90%, heck maybe 95%, saying no.

and shocking as it may be to you right wingers, I'd predict even the "evil" obama would be in that camp.

newsflash: people can support the right of a woman to have an abortion but still be anti-abortion.

it's just that the majority of americans understand that a woman's right to control her uterus is HER decision, not yours or mine. nor the governments.

so yes, the vast majority of americans support the right of a woman to get an abortion in the case of incest or rape, many americans who oppose a blanket right support these exceptions.

so clearly palin's views denying that right to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest are extreme when looked at versus the vast majority of americans.

I find that right wingers who are against abortion to be hypocritical: follow me on this.

No one has a problem if a woman use drugs or fertilization in order TO have a baby, but if she uses the same science to NOT have a baby it is a sin? How is it OK to play god in choosing when to have a child, yet that same playing god when choosing not to have a child is wrong. If you are against abortion by logic you should be against cesarean and any other artificial method of creating/birthing a child.

The whole abortion issue is smoke and mirrors, used to distract you from REAL issues. Think about how many Americans will really have to chose whether or not to have a child (or even consider that option.) That you let anyone tell you an issue that affects such a small amount of the actual populace should affect your vote makes you a sucker. There are so many bigger issues than whether or not a 17 year old girl in the inner city decides not to keep a child she couldn't raise.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I find that right wingers who are against abortion to be hypocritical: follow me on this.

No one has a problem if a woman use drugs or fertilization in order TO have a baby, but if she uses the same science to NOT have a baby it is a sin? How is it OK to play god in choosing when to have a child, yet that same playing god when choosing not to have a child is wrong. If you are against abortion by logic you should be against cesarean and any other artificial method of creating/birthing a child.

The whole abortion issue is smoke and mirrors, used to distract you from REAL issues. Think about how many Americans will really have to chose whether or not to have a child (or even consider that option.) That you let anyone tell you an issue that affects such a small amount of the actual populace should affect your vote makes you a sucker. There are so many bigger issues than whether or not a 17 year old girl in the inner city decides not to keep a child she couldn't raise.

This is one of the dumbest points I've ever read, in any setting. If you don't know anything about an issue just leave it to the people that do.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

This is one of the dumbest points I've ever read, in any setting. If you don't know anything about an issue just leave it to the people that do.

I have had an abortion asshole. Have you?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

and certainly suspicion about global warming isn't a "far right" issue either. The certainty of it and wanting to reduce our standard of living is a "far LEFT" position however.

reduction of our greenhouse emissions does NOT equate to a reduction in "our standard of living", and to state it as a given is just a scare tactic.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I have had an abortion asshole. Have you?

You adding abortion to your stand up routine or something?

Very classy.

Edit: For the record, the "very classy" comment is not what it appears here. I thought you were joking, because obviously you are a guy, and you worded that oddly.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So you're saying the majority of america feels that doctors should not be placed with the "burden" of keeping babies alive when they are born alive.

I dare say the vast, vast majority of americans believe that human rights begin at birth. Obama fought to keep the term "previable" relevant even after a child was born.

You continue to gloss over this angle.

no, I am saying that barack obama does not support infanticide.

the fact that he would not support the bills mentioned does not in any way validate the accusation that barack obama supports "infanticide", it just proves that he wouldn't support those particular pieces of legislation.

I agree that almost all americans believe that rights are bestowed at birth. the trick is to legislate those rights without taking rights away from the mother and/or medical professional.

in his opinion the legislation mentioned did not accomplish that balance.

that does not result in obama being a proponent of infanticide.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You adding abortion to your stand up routine or something?

Very classy.

Am I proud of it, no? But here is the thing, it was the wrong time for myself and my fiancé. We have recently announced our engagement. Oct 3RD 09. We hope to have children in the future, but for someone to tell me I am wrong or going to hell for choosing when to have a child is a load of crap I will not endure.

But I like how you just dismiss my points without actually explaining you opposition.

Are you saying a woman CAN use science to choose it TO have a child, but is wrong to use the same science to choose to have a child latter?

Are you also saying that politicians don't use issues like this and say... gay marriage (something that affects so few people) to distract the populace from real issues?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, I am saying that barack obama does not support infanticide.

the fact that he would not support the bills mentioned does not in any way validate the accusation that barack obama supports "infanticide", it just proves that he wouldn't support those particular pieces of legislation.

I agree that almost all americans believe that rights are bestowed at birth. the trick is to legislate those rights without taking rights away from the mother and/or medical professional.

in his opinion the legislation mentioned did not accomplish that balance.

that does not result in obama being a proponent of infanticide.

First of all, I agree that he does not necessarily support infanticide.

What he has never done is approve of a bill that would prevent it.

What he HAS done is speak against one such bill, and vote against two of them. The latter bill he voted against had neutrality language in it, stating specifically (and redundantly) that the issues addressed in the bill had no relevance to unborn children, in any way.

So sure, defend him on the technicality that he's not for it, just against the legislation that would prevent it.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Am I proud of it, no? But here is the thing, it was the wrong time for myself and my fiancé. We have recently announced our engagement. Oct 3RD 09. We hope to have children in the future, but for someone to tell me I am wrong or going to hell for choosing when to have a child is a load of crap I will not endure.

But I like how you just dismiss my points without actually explaining you opposition.

Are you saying a woman CAN use science to choose it TO have a child, but is wrong to use the same science to choose to have a child latter?

Are you also saying that politicians don't use issues like this and say... gay marriage (something that affects so few people) to distract the populace from real issues?

First of all, I'm not telling anyone anything about what is a sin, going to hell, whatever.

I dismissed your points because they don't make any sense. For those that oppose abortion it is not about "playing God". If that were the case they would be against any form of birth control as well. That opposition is because many people view an unborn child as a human. And killing humans is wrong, and against the law.

If you don't think it's a human, fine. That's usually the dividing line. But your use of the term "playing God" shows that you don't have an understanding of the issue.

And yes, obviously people use it, along with many other issues, for political reaons. That doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Your question of "how many people will face that choice" was comical. Thousands of abortions are performed every day in the U.S.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sorry william, I grew up in a small town.

and no, i'm not john mellancamp...

her extreme view of a women's right (no right to an abortion in rape/incest), her view on teaching creationism in public schools, her view against climate change...these are far right views imo not held by the vast majority of americans.

to try and portray palin as anywhere close to mainstream is ludicrous.

And that's precisely why I think, against all odds and with every advantage, this is going to another blown election for the Dems. While keeping the drumbeat of all these issues that they think are somehow relevant, it's hard to find many moderates who are afraid that electing McCain means teaching creationism and repeal of Roe versus Wade is imminent.

The public face of the Democratic Party over the last decade or so has gone so far left with the Michael Moore and Whoopie Goldbergs, and having Dean for DNC head is illustrative of just how far off of mainstream the party has gone. 2000 shouldn't have been close enough to steal.

Watching Dem leaders holding up a muffler supposedly off the Porsche in back of them and saying that's how the taxcuts will work, rich people get the car, you get the muffler. I was living in North Carolina at the time, I was in one of those Bennigan type restaurants eating at the bar when that little stunt came on. The guy sitting next to me, a blue collar guy, said he'd want the muffler because it beat the nothing he was getting now. We know what happened in the '02 elections.

'04? Lurch. Dressing him up, giving him a gun and getting him to walk around with some of the boys, taking him to a place serving chili dogs where he promptly grabbed it in the middle, tilted it and seemed amazed when the stuff started running out the end is not going to remake him into a regular guy.

Hillary Clinton suddenly feeling a need to start talking about how important her religion has been to her, didn't do much for me except putting a vision of a strategy meeting full of carefully coiffed and moisturized people saying, "Talk about religion. They seem to like that crap".

I'm not a hardcore Republican. I was pretty well set to vote Democratic in '04, if I would have had a shot at a reasonably centrist candidate who didn't have a wife that was like biting tinfoil on a filling. I wouldn't have minded Kerry if his handlers hadn't been so obviously trying to beat him into what people wanted.

Trying to beat up on Palin and all the McSame stuff isn't going to work. That works well if you want to turn the process into an echo chamber for the hardcore lefties. I don't see all the optimism over debating the issues winning the day that seems to be the current Dem hope.

In a 2+ year slog there is very little new information as far as the stance of the debaters on subjects. I have no idea why Palin has seemed to strike a chord with everyone, aside from a flavor of the month freshness and the natural admiration Americans have for a sneaky sucker punch wiping some smug off. Trying to beat her up at this point isn't going to make anyone change their opinion.

Obama was running against Obama. He damaged himself by overplaying Iraq, trying to explain the Wright stuff in a way that made Joe Sixpack and Cathy Cornstalk unable to picture themselves sitting in that pew for 20 years. Toss in Clinton and the joke Pelosi and Reed have made of Congress, his European triumphant tour ego orgy and we have a cakewalk flipped into a nail biter. He may still win, but if there is going to be a turd in the punchbowl, the odds are Biden or Obama will deposit it. Squalling about the race turning into a personality contest after Obama's run to this point is very O'Henry ironic.

[chumdawg]

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

First of all, I agree that he does not necessarily support infanticide.

What he has never done is approve of a bill that would prevent it.

What he HAS done is speak against one such bill, and vote against two of them. The latter bill he voted against had neutrality language in it, stating specifically (and redundantly) that the issues addressed in the bill had no relevance to unborn children, in any way.

So sure, defend him on the technicality that he's not for it, just against the legislation that would prevent it.

the problem (imo) is the issue has become so incredibly politicized.

take "partial birth abortions". did you know that the phrase was conjured up by the national right to life committee, not by medical professionals?

that the procedure was used for terminating 3rd trimester pregnancies where the doctor discovered the fetus had abnormalities that weren't apparent earlier in the pregnancy?

that the procedure was devised to protect the mother, as the typical procedure, dilation and extraction, is dangerous for the mother at that point late in gestation?

so now we have politicians pushing bills that will intervene in how doctors practice medicine, and politicians who support the woman's choice looking for back door attempts by the other side to limit the woman's right of choice, seeing conspiracy in all the bills offered by these politicians against the woman's right.

imo just let doctors practice medicine, and let women control their bodies.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

I am aware that Catholics oppose birth control. But the notion that all or even most pro-lifers are against abortion because of the "playing God" angle is absolutely false.

You can make a perfectly logical argument against abortion and for the rights of an unborn child without bringing religious beliefs into the discussion at all.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

First of all, I'm not telling anyone anything about what is a sin, going to hell, whatever.

I dismissed your points because they don't make any sense. For those that oppose abortion it is not about "playing God". If that were the case they would be against any form of birth control as well. That opposition is because many people view an unborn child as a human. And killing humans is wrong, and against the law.

If you don't think it's a human, fine. That's usually the dividing line. But your use of the term "playing God" shows that you don't have an understanding of the issue.

And yes, obviously people use it, along with many other issues, for political reaons. That doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Your question of "how many people will face that choice" was comical. Thousands of abortions are performed every day in the U.S.

Have you?

Look jthig there are many times I post on here and wish I hadn't used the user name I did. I never thought I would like this forum as much as I do.

And no I wasn't trying to stir up anyone.

I actually thought I had a point.

Right now I feel very exposed for my last few posts.

But my point is still somewhat valid. We make these laws to say it is wrong to use a science one way, as long as it goes along with our morals. But if the same science is used to advance our morals it is ok?

As a scociety we are so quick to condem someone for making a choice (that tears the soul apart) in one direction, but hell John and Kate plus 8, give them a tv show.

So many times on here I read an oppinon on this topic, I just think..."This guy has no idea what it is really like." "This guy has never had to make this decsion." And honestly if my girl (the love of my life) knew I was sharing these thoughts with you guys she would kill me, but goddamnit some of you are so quick to judge and so very hurtfull and definate with your oppinoins. If you knew me, would you call me a killer, would you be so quick to lump me into a catagory?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

what? they are against masturbation?

and people actually still go to church there?

incredible!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the problem (imo) is the issue has become so incredibly politicized.

take "partial birth abortions". did you know that the phrase was conjured up by the national right to life committee, not by medical professionals?

that the procedure was used for terminating 3rd trimester pregnancies where the doctor discovered the fetus had abnormalities that weren't apparent earlier in the pregnancy?

that the procedure was devised to protect the mother, as the typical procedure, dilation and extraction, is dangerous for the mother at that point late in gestation?

so now we have politicians pushing bills that will intervene in how doctors practice medicine, and politicians who support the woman's choice looking for back door attempts by the other side to limit the woman's right of choice, seeing conspiracy in all the bills offered by these politicians against the woman's right.

imo just let doctors practice medicine, and let women control their bodies.

That last line is a completely cop out. Doctors have regulations of all kinds of how they practice medicine and when and how they are allowed to conduct prodecures. And the government places restrictions on all of our bodies. No one is free to do whatever they want with their bodies, to the literal extent.

What does it matter who coined the phrase? Partial birth abortion is a barbaric and unnatural practice, no matter what the justification.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Have you?

Look jthig there are many times I post on here and wish I hadn't used the user name I did. I never thought I would like this forum as much as I do.

And no I wasn't trying to stir up anyone.

I actually thought I had a point.

Right now I feel very exposed for my last few posts.

But my point is still somewhat valid. We make these laws to say it is wrong to use a science one way, as long as it goes along with our morals. But if the same science is used to advance our morals it is ok?

As a scociety we are so quick to condem someone for making a choice (that tears the soul apart) in one direction, but hell John and Kate plus 8, give them a tv show.

So many times on here I read an oppinon on this topic, I just think..."This guy has no idea what it is really like." "This guy has never had to make this decsion." And honestly if my girl (the love of my life) knew I was sharing these thoughts with you guys she would kill me, but goddamnit some of you are so quick to judge and so very hurtfull and definate with your oppinoins. If you knew me, would you call me a killer, would you be so quick to lump me into a catagory?

Well first of all, I have had to make that decision. I was 18 and just wrapping up my second semester of college when my daughter was born. And in no way do I think I'm better than you because of the decision I made. We simply share different beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.

Secondly, the issue is not about morals. Everyone agrees that killing is wrong. What it comes down to is whether or not you believe that abortion is killing a human. Many people do, and care passionately about the issue.

The only person I'm judging in this discussion is Obama, and his ultra-liberal voting track record on fringe abortion rights. That's all.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

That last line is a completely cop out. Doctors have regulations of all kinds of how they practice medicine and when and how they are allowed to conduct prodecures. And the government places restrictions on all of our bodies. No one is free to do whatever they want with their bodies, to the literal extent.

What does it matter who coined the phrase? Partial birth abortion is a barbaric and unnatural practice, no matter what the justification.

That is the whole problem. There probably should be a limit, but to conceed that would give an end around roe v. wade, The problem is no one would want to stop at just partial birth, and some of us can see through that.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

That is the whole problem. There probably should be a limit, but to conceed that would give an end around roe v. wade, The problem is no one would want to stop at just partial birth, and some of us can see through that.

Well, I agree that some people might try to backdoor legislation with attemps to repeal Roe vs Wade, but that's not the case here. Partial birth (not to be confused with the live birth issue that is a controversey with Obama) is currently banned, and has had no effects on other abortion rights.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

That last line is a completely cop out. Doctors have regulations of all kinds of how they practice medicine and when and how they are allowed to conduct prodecures. And the government places restrictions on all of our bodies. No one is free to do whatever they want with their bodies, to the literal extent.

tell me what other medical procedure doctors perform that is restricted like abortions?

regulating the prescriptions is not regulating medical procedures. regulating the doctors competency is not regulating medical procedures.

government shouldn't regulate what an adult does to themselves. are you saying that the state has the right to outlaw suicide too? it's nonsensical, if someone wants to kill themselves the state has the right to place them in jail?

What does it matter who coined the phrase? Partial birth abortion is a barbaric and unnatural practice, no matter what the justification.

yeah, the woman should just suffer thru a damaged cervix. who cares if she may be unable to have a child in the future, deny her the safest procedure because the nrlc says it's wrong.

as for "barbaric" and "unnatural", its a medical procedure! do we not perform any medical procedures like open heart surgery, after all it's "unnatural". I had my acl replaced, should I not have been allowed to have a new one because it's "unnatural"? do we not harvest organs from the deceased and give them to help the aflicted because the removal is "barbaric"?

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well, I agree that some people might try to back door legislation with attemps to repeal Roe vs Wade, but that's not the case here. Partial birth (not to be confused with the live birth issue that is a controversey with Obama) is currently banned, and has had no effects on other abortion rights.

Are you willing to conceed that you were wrong about me "not knowing what I was talking about?"

And no this has strayed off topic, but I have read some very ignorant, and almost hateful posts on this topic, (in a forum about my f******g basketball team, for Pete's sake)

I will agree this probably not the best way to express my very heartfelt view. But what was I going to do? Start a thread titled: You Guys Are Dicks About Abirtion.....?
I felt like this was the time I would get an audience for this. and again jthig, I really wish I was just another anonymous poster, not some one working on a bit.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

tell me what other medical procedure doctors perform that is restricted like abortions?

regulating the prescriptions is not regulating medical procedures. regulating the doctors competency is not regulating medical procedures.

government shouldn't regulate what an adult does to themselves. are you saying that the state has the right to outlaw suicide too? it's nonsensical, if someone wants to kill themselves the state has the right to place them in jail?



yeah, the woman should just suffer thru a damaged cervix. who cares if she may be unable to have a child in the future, deny her the safest procedure because the nrlc says it's wrong.

as for "barbaric" and "unnatural", its a medical procedure! do we not perform any medical procedures like open heart surgery, after all it's "unnatural". I had my acl replaced, should I not have been allowed to have a new one because it's "unnatural"? do we not harvest organs from the deceased and give them to help the aflicted because the removal is "barbaric"?

So you're comparing replacing an acl with partially delivering a viable baby, poking a hole in its skull and sucking its brains out.

You have now finally explained to me why you do not have an issue with Obama's stance on live birth abortion.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Are you willing to conceed that you were wrong about me "not knowing what I was talking about?"

And no this has strayed off topic, but I have read some very ignorant, and almost hateful posts on this topic, (in a forum about my f******g basketball team, for Pete's sake)

I will agree this probably not the best way to express my very heartfelt view. But what was I going to do? Start a thread titled: You Guys Are Dicks About Abirtion.....?
I felt like this was the time I would get an audience for this. and again jthig, I really wish I was just another anonymous poster, not some one working on a bit.

Well...no...because your post conveyed a lack of knowledge to the opposing view. Everyone knows their opinion and their side of an issue. What I meant was you seemed to lack an understanding of where the other side was coming from.

I guess I don't see where anyone in this thread has been judgmental about abortion in general.

But I definitely understand it being an emotional subject.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

reduction of our greenhouse emissions does NOT equate to a reduction in "our standard of living", and to state it as a given is just a scare tactic.

Your opinion. It's not the opinion of canada which has decided it's too expensive, nor the opinion of the european countries who have decided it's too expensive and is pushing those standards back. It's also not the opinion of great britain who have decided it's too expensive to be instituted now.

Emissions control is not free but a long shot.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You can make a perfectly logical argument against abortion and for the rights of an unborn child without bringing religious beliefs into the discussion at all.

You can also make a perfectly logical argument for abortion, but not without setting those same religious beliefs aside.

[Mavdog]

no one says it is "free", but it does not equate to a "reduction in our standard of living".

reducing air pollution, which our country has been doing for decades, hasn't been free either, yet it did not reduce our "standard of living".

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well...no...because your post conveyed a lack of knowledge to the opposing view. Everyone knows their opinion and their side of an issue. What I meant was you seemed to lack an understanding of where the other side was coming from.

I guess I don't see where anyone in this thread has been judgmental about abortion in general.

But I definitely understand it being an emotional subject.

I live everyday with the opposing point of view. In my heart and soul, and it something I have to live with. And this subject was tossed around with no regard in the previous thread of the same title and so many times on this forum .

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So you're comparing replacing an acl with partially delivering a viable baby, poking a hole in its skull and sucking its brains out.

You have now finally explained to me why you do not have an issue with Obama's stance on live birth abortion.

wow, now you think you can be a doctor, and you can also determine what is "viable".

you also presume that the mother's health is secondary to the fetus.

incredible. this is just what I was referencing with the politicizing of a medical/health issue.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wow, now you think you can be a doctor, and you can also determine what is "viable".

you also presume that the mother's health is secondary to the fetus.

incredible. this is just what I was referencing with the politicizing of a medical/health issue.

I'm not determining it. Partial birth abortions were regularly performed on viable babies, by the letter of the definition.

And yes, my wife considers her health secondary to our children's. That's not political. It all comes down to when you start considering your baby a baby.

[Mavdog]

you illustrate that you have not attempted to learn what the procedure is, but rely on political catch phrases.

a woman should not be required to suffer injury due to her pregnancy. that should be a choice that SHE makes, not some politician.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, I am saying that barack obama does not support infanticide.

the fact that he would not support the bills mentioned does not in any way validate the accusation that barack obama supports "infanticide", it just proves that he wouldn't support those particular pieces of legislation.

I agree that almost all americans believe that rights are bestowed at birth. the trick is to legislate those rights without taking rights away from the mother and/or medical professional.

in his opinion the legislation mentioned did not accomplish that balance.

that does not result in obama being a proponent of infanticide.

Yes, it is a sticky situation when the doctor has decided that it is "medically necessary to do an abortion for the psychological health of the patient" and then the darn baby comes out alive...

Now, the doctor is going to get sued for failure to protect the "psychological health" of the mother.

Now, the "tissue" considered less than a human with full civil rights is alive and has full civil rights....

Very sticky problem.

So, Obama's concern is this:
If the baby is now considered to have full civil rights and to be defined as a person, then why was the same baby up for abortion?

As soon as the law is passed that says the born alive baby has full rights as a person, then the logic going backwards is that the fetus which is the same baby should have had full legal civil rights as a person.

This is very sticky and disgusting problem.

So, Obama votes "present". Obama speaks out for the abortion rights movement wanting very much to avoid the conclusion that the only difference in the baby that was legally and medically supposed to be dead is still alive and by virtue of escaping the uterus and vagina and getting his/her whole body out of the "mother", that now that same "tissue" is a human.

Very disgusting arguement.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you illustrate that you have not attempted to learn what the procedure is, but rely on political catch phrases.

a woman should not be required to suffer injury due to her pregnancy. that should be a choice that SHE makes, not some politician.

I know exactly what the procedure is. But thanks for illustrating the typical elitest liberal thinking of "you must not know the issue, otherwise how could you disagree with me".

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

And that's precisely why I think, against all odds and with every advantage, this is going to another blown election for the Dems. While keeping the drumbeat of all these issues that they think are somehow relevant, it's hard to find many moderates who are afraid that electing McCain means teaching creationism and repeal of Roe versus Wade is imminent.

The public face of the Democratic Party over the last decade or so has gone so far left with the Michael Moore and Whoopie Goldbergs, and having Dean for DNC head is illustrative of just how far off of mainstream the party has gone. 2000 shouldn't have been close enough to steal.

Watching Dem leaders holding up a muffler supposedly off the Porsche in back of them and saying that's how the taxcuts will work, rich people get the car, you get the muffler. I was living in North Carolina at the time, I was in one of those Bennigan type restaurants eating at the bar when that little stunt came on. The guy sitting next to me, a blue collar guy, said he'd want the muffler because it beat the nothing he was getting now. We know what happened in the '02 elections.

'04? Lurch. Dressing him up, giving him a gun and getting him to walk around with some of the boys, taking him to a place serving chili dogs where he promptly grabbed it in the middle, tilted it and seemed amazed when the stuff started running out the end is not going to remake him into a regular guy.

Hillary Clinton suddenly feeling a need to start talking about how important her religion has been to her, didn't do much for me except putting a vision of a strategy meeting full of carefully coiffed and moisturized people saying, "Talk about religion. They seem to like that crap".

I'm not a hardcore Republican. I was pretty well set to vote Democratic in '04, if I would have had a shot at a reasonably centrist candidate who didn't have a wife that was like biting tinfoil on a filling. I wouldn't have minded Kerry if his handlers hadn't been so obviously trying to beat him into what people wanted.

Trying to beat up on Palin and all the McSame stuff isn't going to work. That works well if you want to turn the process into an echo chamber for the hardcore lefties. I don't see all the optimism over debating the issues winning the day that seems to be the current Dem hope.

In a 2+ year slog there is very little new information as far as the stance of the debaters on subjects. I have no idea why Palin has seemed to strike a chord with everyone, aside from a flavor of the month freshness and the natural admiration Americans have for a sneaky sucker punch wiping some smug off. Trying to beat her up at this point isn't going to make anyone change their opinion.

Obama was running against Obama. He damaged himself by overplaying Iraq, trying to explain the Wright stuff in a way that made Joe Sixpack and Cathy Cornstalk unable to picture themselves sitting in that pew for 20 years. Toss in Clinton and the joke Pelosi and Reed have made of Congress, his European triumphant tour ego orgy and we have a cakewalk flipped into a nail biter. He may still win, but if there is going to be a turd in the punchbowl, the odds are Biden or Obama will deposit it. Squalling about the race turning into a personality contest after Obama's run to this point is very O'Henry ironic.

Wow. That was an awesome post. Stay around here. It's nice to talk to someone who knows who O'Henry is and can say a ton in a few words. Nice post.

You have to spread some reputation around before giving it to aquaadverse again.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the problem (imo) is the issue has become so incredibly politicized.

take "partial birth abortions". did you know that the phrase was conjured up by the national right to life committee, not by medical professionals?

that the procedure was used for terminating 3rd trimester pregnancies where the doctor discovered the fetus had abnormalities that weren't apparent earlier in the pregnancy?

that the procedure was devised to protect the mother, as the typical procedure, dilation and extraction, is dangerous for the mother at that point late in gestation?

so now we have politicians pushing bills that will intervene in how doctors practice medicine, and politicians who support the woman's choice looking for back door attempts by the other side to limit the woman's right of choice, seeing conspiracy in all the bills offered by these politicians against the woman's right.

imo just let doctors practice medicine, and let women control their bodies.

If the fetus is alive that late in the process, then the abnormalities discovered are not inconsistent with life. You just have a mother that doesn't want a Down's syndrome baby.
The process of a partial birth abortion is a birth that is simply interrupted by intentionally killing the baby. The only "advantage" to the process for the "health" of the mother is that the baby's head is crushed to make it smaller to make passing the Down's syndrome baby's head pass easier.

There is absolutely no good medical excuse for a partial birth abortion. There is just a mother who doesn't want a Down's syndrome baby or a baby with some other abnormality which abnormality is consistent with life...

Besides, if we are talking about the "psychological health of the mother" then how in the heck is psychologically healthy to tell the doctor to do that horrific procedure in the last trimester? How do you live with yourself after that?

Now, before you flame me for that last question, limit the flaming to the topic at hand which is the partial birth abortion in the last trimester of a baby who is viable.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I know exactly what the procedure is. But thanks for illustrating the typical elitest liberal thinking of "you must not know the issue, otherwise how could you disagree with me".

How do you label the type of thinking that says "you must not know the issue, so why don't you leave it to the people who do"?

[jthig32]

Let me ask you this, Mavdog. All political ramifications aside; do you think a baby, born alive accidentally during an abortion procedure, should be cared for? Should measures be taken to ensure the child has every chance to live? Or should the circumstances surrounding the birth still give the mother and doctor the right to let the child die?

You can yes or no it, or explain your reasoning. I think I've gotten a sense of your stance on this based on some of your comments and I'm curious to see if I'm correct.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How do you label the type of thinking that says "you must not know the issue, so why don't you leave it to the people who do"?

Drivel.