‘Obama is pro-abortion NOT pro-choice.’

Robert George has written a wonderfully factual and chalenging article which clearly highlights Obama’s extreme views and proposals on the matter of abortion.

If you are an American voter, this is essential reading. It could also be helpful for anyone who has an interest in politics etc.

Take 10 minutes at some point today to read it here.

I also found this which is a bit over the top, but the point it makes is clear:

6 thoughts on “‘Obama is pro-abortion NOT pro-choice.’

  1. Abortion makes me so angry. Obama says he doesn’t want his daughter’s mistakes punished with a baby….why should an innocent baby be killed and punished for his daughter’s mistakes? I’m not a fan of abortion. It makes me sad and cross.

  2. The problem I find with that article and with a lot of articles about the “abortion debate” is that they miss out on what I see as the fundamental issue in the matter.

    Really, shouldn’t this be more of an argument about what constitutes a person rather than both sides attacking straw men? You can paint Obama, or indeed any pro-choicer, as a “feticide” committing baby killer, but that’s only if you yourself start with the assumption that life begins at conception.

    If life doesn’t begin at conception, then the line after which one actually should be considered a person becomes far more ambiguous to draw. I’m not opposed to research with embryonic stem cells, for one, or indeed many instances of abortion, because I don’t see a human embryo as possessing the same rights as a living, sentient person.

    Therefore, I guess it’s next best to consider the capacity of suffering for each outcome. Then it becomes an often serious negative impact on the life of the parent family, or the extinguishing of an unthinking, most likely unfeeling, foetus.

    Of course it’s far more complicated than that, and the whole argument falls apart if you believe that all human life, potential or otherwise, is sacred from the moment of conception – an idea that I see no basis for, other than an accepted doctrine and the need to draw a certain line and pick out a definite start point when there may not really be one.

    The whole last two paragraphs of that article really scream out what upsets me most about this issue. The haggard parallel with slavery that runs through the whole article, ending dramatically with an all-too familiar vision where “some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights” is a ridiculously plain example of what brings down this debate, but at the same time explains why there will never be a compromise. One side regards an embryo of any stage a fully fledged human being, whereas the other does not, and these stances largely result from different ways of interpreting moral questions.

    THAT is what this argument should be about. Not slinging about feticidal malignants who love baby-killing without remorse or respect for human life. Of course pro-choicers have respect for human life. It’s about how one decides what constitutes a human, and whether that can be defined by science, religious teaching (for want of a better word?), or if it can even be defined at all.

  3. ‘Life begins at conception.’ – that popular concept that our friend Mrs. Palin so strongly believes in.

    Don’t you agree that an embryo is an individual “thing” that is genetically different than the mother. It is not “part” of the mother, but only lives inside of the mother.

    In an embryo or fetus you can find the characteristics of living things.

    one or more cells….
    patterns of organization….
    use of energy….
    stable internal conditions….
    growth and change….
    reproduction….

    But I guess that still doesn’t sort out whether it’s wrong to kill it – we kill things that can do those things all the time.

    It’s just once we abandon the ‘life begins at conception concept’ (lbcc) then as you say, the argument is about when life actually begins. *name drop alert* I’ve actually discussed this very matter with head of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.

    You could draw the line at when the baby can live independently from it’s mother, if so then the current 24 week rule is obsolete. 22 weeks is the current record, and I’m sure as science advances it will get earlier and earlier. Obama wants the Mother to have the right to terminate a disabled baby up to the day before birth.

    You could draw the line at when it actually looks like a human. I keep having arguments with people from Amnesty who want my money and this woman said that she only thought a baby had rights once it was born, then she back tracked and said well errm at least when it actually looks like a human. 6 weeks it has an upper jaw, 7 weeks it has an eyelid, 8 Weeks it has arms, 9 weeks it has earlobes and fingers, 11 weeks – http://www.babycenter.com/i/m/stages/popups/11/index.jpg,
    THESE THINGS ARE GETTING TERMINATED DAILY!

    Let’s say we draw the line at 6 weeks – 42 days. That means that at 41 days the baby is not human and at 42 it suddenly becomes human. Wherever you draw the line there is going to be a real issue.

    There needs to be a dramatic change of thinking.

    I agree, the slavery example was not helpful – but are you getting me?

    There are a few really good documentaries out there which I’m sure you can download, and don’t worry, they aren’t made by Christians. I watched a good dispatches one and it’s shocking when you can actually see the little baby’s hands in the pool of blood in which they have just whisked.

    Banning abortion might would solve all the problems, there needs to be a real turn around in people’s attitudes.

    At the very least should people not have to actually understand what they are actually doing?

    Also – there is never any publicity about what negative effects an abortion can actually cause!

    -Heavy bleeding
    -Infections
    -Perforation of the uterus
    -Damage to internal organs
    -Scars on the uterus lining
    -Cervix injury
    -Anesthesia

    ALSO
    -Breast cancer: This is considered as major risk in abortion. About 50% of women are affected by this type of cancer after abortion.
    -Premature delivery: When you go through one or more induced abortion surgeries, there is a significantly increased risk of premature delivery in future. This kind of abortion risk is mainly associated with several complications like cerebral palsy, prematurity in brain, eye problems and several bowel diseases.
    -Infertility: This is a very rare case in the risks of abortion, where a woman might not get pregnancy in future.
    -Pelvic inflammatory diseases: This can be a life threatening risk for you after abortion, which can lead to infertility and ectopic pregnancy. About 5% of women suffer with pelvic inflammatory diseases.

    THEN THERE IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS

    Many women suffer with…
    -depression
    -acute feeling of grief and fear of disclosure
    -eating disorders
    -suicidal tendencies
    -anxiety
    -and also increased consumption of alcohol and drugs.

    hmmm…

  4. First off, this claim:

    About 50% of women are affected by breast cancer after abortion.

    is often thrown around and has been thoroughly discredited. Here’s two sources which I doubt anyone would dismiss as biased:

    The World Health Organization http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html

    and the American National Cancer Institute
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

    What IS true is that having a child earlier does indeed grant much protection from breast cancer in later life. What isn’t true is that there is a causal link with abortion. Whilst aborting one’s first child revokes the protection granted by this pregnancy, so would not getting pregnant in the first place.

    There is indeed an increase in the likelihood of premature delivery as a result of having a later abortion. This becomes a definite risk if MULTIPLE late abortions are carried out, and the morality and health risk of such procedures I accept is far more suspect and thus concede to your point about Obama’s support.

    HOWEVER, it must be noted that approximately 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, a time frame in which the medical community almost universally sees any significant risk to the woman’s physical health to have a likelihood of next to none.

    The reason why many of the side effects you’ve listed never get any publicity is because they don’t happen anymore. And why not? Because of legal abortion.

    -Heavy bleeding
    -Infections
    -Perforation of the uterus
    -Damage to internal organs
    -Scars on the uterus lining
    -Cervix injury
    -Anesthesia

    These WERE all really common consequences of abortion in the developed world. Operative word is in capitals. And illegal abortions certainly do take place, almost exclusively in countries where legal abortions are not offered, in fact information from the WHO has told me that an estimated 48% of all abortions in 2003 (most recent date I can find) were performed illegally. So people are still going to do it whether it’s legal or not. That’s not a cop out argument, as the numbers show the severity of the truth in it.

    Actually, that last point applies to the listed mental health risks too. Most of these issues result from pressures related to abortion, certainly. But they are vastly reduced by an informed, open, consensual attitude to the procedure, with the post-abortion counseling that is commonly offered following the procedure. Despite that, there is little significant evidence to draw a causal link between mental health and safe, legal abortion procedures, and several studies (links at the bottom) have rejected the notion outright.

    I think you really need to check your sources about a lot of these health-risks, because I can’t find anything credible that puts forth evidence for many of them. And please call me out if you feel the same way about my claims.

    With the deciding when life begins concept, what I really meant to say is that we CANNOT pick a start point for when we should consider one a human, because, like you point out, we wont find one. It’s hard for humans not to be precise and exact, we can’t deal with concepts that lack specifics. But then sometimes you need that to make a decision.

    We could be utilitarian about it and bring it down to suffering, which I think is actually quite fair, if crude in a lot of cases. If a developing fetus can’t feel anything, is it worth the consequences of the mother’s pain, and all the suffering an unintended pregnancy can bring about to preserve that which cannot yet suffer?

    Yeah that can sound cold. But if you’re talking about whether something should be a public issue, maybe you have to be, again, utilitarian about it and make the best decision for the most people. Posting pictures of a fetus looking like a tiny person doesn’t prove any points other than the fact that the debate can easily be distorted very human misconceptions.

    ———-

    Links
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/879853.stm

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDE133FF935A35757C0A966958260

    http://www.religioustolerance.org

    http://www.cancercouncil.com.au

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81

  5. I really hope that posted, I got an error message, but now I can see it but it has a “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” message at the bottom which I don’t think I’ve seen on this page before…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s