|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 26, 2009 20:47:09 GMT -8
Hume had some interesting thoughts on the Supreme Court vis a vis abortion on the "I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good" thread: Click here and scroll down. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2009 6:20:43 GMT -8
Obama on abortion and stem-cell research: Two thumbs wayyyyy downnnnnnn!  |
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 10, 2009 6:25:05 GMT -8
His views on these things cause me a LOT of pain. Sadly, the veil is firmly planted on his head.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 10, 2009 7:18:31 GMT -8
Is anyone really surprised? More is coming. I suspect that Obama will look to overturn a ban of partial birth abortions before his approval numbers go too low, and before the mid-term elections.
It is sad that he was able to convince enough people that he was a moderate on these kinds of issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Mar 10, 2009 17:10:43 GMT -8
I never thought he was a moderate on these kinds of issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 10, 2009 21:00:52 GMT -8
Well, he tried the "reduce abortions" pitch. An underhanded trick from the looks of it. But, yeah, after hearing his spineless comments on the issue of abortion to Rick Warren, I didn't expect anything else. You all realize that abortion is pretty much the one political topic that will get me thinking pretty black and white real quick, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 11, 2009 1:15:51 GMT -8
I never thought he was a moderate on these kinds of issues. Of course not. Obama was pretty clear about his positions before the election. Nobody can say he tried to obscure his position on these issues. As a matter of fact he openly elaborates his pro-choice and pro stem cell research position in his book "The Audacity of Hope" (which I finished reading a couple of days ago). That book was published in 2006 and out there for everyone to get. The positions he holds in that book are the positions he held in the campaign and the decisions he is talking now are only in accordance to those views. Nobody can say this comes as a surprise. After all, Obama's position on abortion has been criticized in this very thread before the election. Those Christians who voted Obama did it despite their disagreement with him in this sector. Now a different point: I have to give a nod to hume's take in the other thread. The power of the government is limited regarding the legal aspects of abortion. This leads me back to a point I have stated earlier in this thread: Even if we could change the law I don't believe such changes would really improve the situation. I'm convinced that those people who are desperate, will take desperate measures to abort even if it's illegal*, and I'm convinced that those who would really abstain from abortion just because it's against the law can be persuaded without the law too. I can only repeat that the solution in my opinion must come from the society. We need a different climate towards abortion. I don't mean a hostile one because we won't reach anyone through hostility. Black and white thinking (Josh) isn't helpful at all, even if one holds absolute positions. Did you hear the recent story of that 9-year old Brazilian girl? She was raped by her stepfather who got her pregnant of twins. As if that wasn't enough, her life was in danger according to health officials. They aborted. The reaction of the Catholic Church: Excommunication for the mother and the doctors. If that is the Christian answer to the problem then I'm at my wits' end. See the story here. (I chose foxnews because of its' supposedly conservative take on the issue. There are heaps of other sources though). *The close-down of abortion clinics won't cease the demand for abortions. That's the operative point. It means that a black market will rise and that the money will go into the hands of organized crime. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 11, 2009 8:10:03 GMT -8
Mo Wrote:
Not entirely correct. Some folks here seemed to believe that Obama was open to changing his mind. I don't know why they believed this, but they did.
On September 15, 2008 Nate wrote, in regards to Obama's stance on abortion:
"I disagree with Obama on this issue, but one of the things I appreciate about him is I feel like he would truly listen to my side of the issue, and be open to changing his mind. Also, just some food for thought. Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 we’ve had only 12 years of democratic presidency, compared to 23 on the republican side, and yet nothing has happened. (I thought of this all on my own, pretty insightful, I know ). So it doesn't appear voting for president based on this issue is very effective."
*bold mine
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 11, 2009 11:52:59 GMT -8
One other thing I would like to mention. In Quoting Nate, I realized that one of his points has backfired. Nate said "Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 we’ve had only 12 years of democratic presidency, compared to 23 on the republican side, and yet nothing has happened. (I thought of this all on my own, pretty insightful, I know ). So it doesn't appear voting for president based on this issue is very effective."
Well apparently who we choose as our President does effect this issue, and Obama's recent action make this point clearly. There is no doubt that John McCain, if elected, would not have followed the same path.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 11, 2009 12:38:14 GMT -8
Not entirely correct. Some folks here seemed to believe that Obama was open to changing his mind. I don't know why they believed this, but they did. On September 15, 2008 Nate wrote, in regards to Obama's stance on abortion: "I disagree with Obama on this issue, but one of the things I appreciate about him is I feel like he would truly listen to my side of the issue, and be open to changing his mind. Also, just some food for thought. Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 we’ve had only 12 years of democratic presidency, compared to 23 on the republican side, and yet nothing has happened. (I thought of this all on my own, pretty insightful, I know ). So it doesn't appear voting for president based on this issue is very effective."*bold mine The selected quote above all shows that Nate was well aware that Obama is pro-choice. And that's the point I was making. Furthermore he didn't say with a word that he expected Obama to change his mind. He merely said that he had the feeling Obama wouldn't reject his (Nate's) opinion without even listening and that he (Obama) is open for a change of mind. But to be open for something doesn't mean that one will do something. Just that one isn't ideologically stuck. Whether Obama is or isn't really open for a change of mind is something we can only speculate about. You may say he isn't and you're entitled to your opinion. But it's nothing more than a guess. None of us knows the guy personally. Can somebody fill me in about what Obama recently decided on the issue? |
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Mar 11, 2009 14:08:54 GMT -8
Moritz said: Did you hear the recent story of that 9-year old Brazilian girl? She was raped by her stepfather who got her pregnant of twins. As if that wasn't enough, her life was in danger according to health officials. They aborted. The reaction of the Catholic Church: Excommunication for the mother and the doctors. If that is the Christian answer to the problem then I'm at my wits' end.
This was an absolutely attrocious answer to the problem. It sort of makes you want to hit someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 11, 2009 14:16:13 GMT -8
It sort of makes you want to hit someone. doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2009 15:19:10 GMT -8
Who exactly do you want to hit- the doctor, the parents, the pope?  I don't think abortion is ever right except if it's clearly to save the mother's life* I don't know much about this situation, but I'm assuming that with a 9 year old it's physcially dangerous to go to full term? * In other words, I don't think rape is a sufficient reason to abort a fetus. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 11, 2009 16:42:48 GMT -8
If your point was that Obama's position on abortion is well documented, and no one could honestly have doubts about his pro-abortion stance, then I'm afraid you simply stated to obvious. In that sense I agree with you. As far as hoping that he changes his mind, well you know what they say about hope. If I hope in one hand, and...... Well perhaps you get the idea. If not I can send you a PM to complete the thought.  But hey "Hope" and "Change" was Obama's campaign theme. Perhaps we should all hope that he changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2009 16:49:12 GMT -8
For the record I want to make it clear that I personally was never under any illusions about Obama's policies on abortion. I just think his "consensus on reducing abortions" approach is underhanded.
And, mo, seeing the issue as (ultimately) black and white isn't an unproductive stance. In my opinion, it's the only ground to stand on if one wants to convince others to change their minds on the subject through reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 12, 2009 1:29:53 GMT -8
Who exactly do you want to hit- the doctor, the parents, the pope? I would start with the stepfather... I don't think abortion is ever right except if it's clearly to save the mother's life* * In other words, I don't think rape is a sufficient reason to abort a fetus. I'm not that radical. Abortion is never a good thing (in the true sense of the word), I agree. But sometimes there are situations in which one is faced with Hobson's choice. Just like you said in the "war-thread". When a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy or she has been raped, then her rights of physical integrity collide with those of the fetus. I already pointed out that my reasons for being against abortion contrast significantly from the Christian reasons. Here we have a situation where it shows. From where I stand, the position you have expressed looks utterly immoral*. But you might have sound reasons (of which I'm ignorant) to hold that position. So perhaps you can provide what the Bible says about abortion und the beginning of humaness. *If you now want to ask me "based on what standard" I invite you to reread our morality discussions, where I've elaborated my views at lenghts. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 12, 2009 1:47:09 GMT -8
For the record I want to make it clear that I personally was never under any illusions about Obama's policies on abortion. I just think his "consensus on reducing abortions" approach is underhanded. Can you elaborate this? I need information. I googled "obama + abortion" but only got coverage from the campaign time. What did he recently decide that upset you? And, mo, seeing the issue as (ultimately) black and white isn't an unproductive stance. In my opinion, it's the only ground to stand on if one wants to convince others to change their minds on the subject through reason. Black and white thinking is only effective for short term effects. A dichotome position helps you to clearly define your stand and to pull strongly in one direction. It seems more decided and often more effective in terms of immediate results. But black and white thinking is myopic and won't help you understand the complexity of reality. Hence it hinders you to spot the real sources of a problem and get to the root of it. No, black and white thinking is philosophically unwise and pragmatically foolish. It usually intensifies problems instead of solving them. |
|
