An open letter to Senator Obama

[WREGL3 0]

what i find funny is that this is seriously being discussed as a political issue. This is a moral decision and if a candidates view on this is why or why not you would vote for them ....well, that is pathetic.

Wow, we just completely severed morals and politics. Well then, we can let ourselves off the hook for slavery, for the Holocaust, for segregation, for racism, for literally whatever we find objectionable in the life of others. Afterall, if we need moral imperatives to take political action, it just shouldnt be taken...

Let me guess, your last name is Neitzsche right?

I never ever said that people don't need to have an use morals...I am saying that the candidates have none so if you think where they stand on an issue you consider moral is a good stance then vote for them. But I have the feeling that they are lying half the time about their moral stance on certain issue just to garner votes. That is all I am saying. I would love a candidate to have exactly the same morals as me ...no going to happen. And by the way i let myself off the hook for all of you crap above a long time ago.....seeing as how I had nothing to do with any of it.

War Eagle and have a great day.

[BamaGrad03 0]

But I have the feeling that they are lying half the time about their moral stance on certain issue just to garner votes. That is all I am saying.

I don't care what their morals are. I care how they are going to vote. Obama has shown that he's going to vote the worst way possible. Others have shown restraint in this matter. So it really does make a difference.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I have to say, I actually wrote Senator Obama on this matter. I said that I understood we disagreed on Roe v. Wade but asked him what other kinds of things could we possibly do aside from overturning that to bring some common sense to the issue and reduce abortions. I asked about possibly restricting it severely once we know it's reached a point of viability if outside the womb (currently around 20-24 weeks gestation), coming around on partial-birth abortion and his odd stance on children that survive abortion attempts or perhaps coming up with ways to address the lack of emotional and financial support women who seek abortions overwhelmingly cite as their reason for doing so.

Basically, the response was polite, but beyond mentioning making adoption easier, his responses were boilerplate NARAL talking points about education and access to health care. That was disappointing for someone who on other matters seems to be a person that thinks deeply about positions. That's not creative or innovative thinking. It's narrow-minded thinking. For someone who gets it on life issues when it comes to justice for people sentenced to death for crimes, it's rather inconsistent to boot.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I just don't see how continuing to support partial birth abortions gains you any politcal leverage. It's almost like they vote for it because they THINK that's what liberals do.

There's no moral, ethical, or logical backing for voting against the ban.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

Titan: What is your understanding of the bill he opposed?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Why can't a women decide what she does with her body?I may not agree,but its not my body.

[WinCrimson 61]

I just don't see how continuing to support partial birth abortions gains you any politcal leverage. It's almost like they vote for it because they THINK that's what liberals do.

Not every action should be done to gain political leverage. Agree?

If so, then the same could be applied to former Sen. Santorum of Pennsylvania. "I just don't see how being an overbearing social conservative gains you any political leverage. It's almost like he votes a certain way because he THINKS that's what conservatives do."

As it turns out, Santorum's out-of-the-mainstream views got him booted. And while I couldn't disagree with them more, I have no problem with him taking them. Does that make any sense?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Why can't a women decide what she does with her body?I may not agree,but its not my body.

She can. If she wants cosmetic surgery, wants her tubes tied or a hysterectomy or any number of other medical procedures that affect only her, have at it. But there are two bodies in play here: hers and the child's.

Simplistic sloganeering isn't going to cut it.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Titan: What is your understanding of the bill he opposed?

My understanding is that he was so afraid that attempting to save the life of the baby that survived the abortion attempt would somehow convey rights to fetuses that could possibly undermine Roe that he chose to vote against helping them. That's some cold s*** right there in my book.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

Titan: What is your understanding of the bill he opposed?

My understanding is that he was so afraid that attempting to save the life of the baby that survived the abortion attempt would somehow convey rights to fetuses that could possibly undermine Roe that he chose to vote against helping them. That's some cold s*** right there in my book.

What do you know about the specifics of the bill?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Titan: What is your understanding of the bill he opposed?

My understanding is that he was so afraid that attempting to save the life of the baby that survived the abortion attempt would somehow convey rights to fetuses that could possibly undermine Roe that he chose to vote against helping them. That's some cold s*** right there in my book.

What do you know about the specifics of the bill?

I read it a few weeks ago and it was on a site that was attempting to explain/justify his vote, but I can't say I remember a ton of specifics beyond what the bill purported to do and why he said he voted against it.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Ok after looking it up, the first Illinois bill (in 2001) that he voted "present" (effectively a "no" vote) on stated that a "homo sapiens" that was wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Obama explained his vote against it thusly:

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Problem is, this isn't a "pre-viable fetus" the bill was describing. It was a baby, completely out of the mother struggling now to survive.

In 2002 the Congress passed a similar bill that included language that specifically said, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section." The bill passed the Senate 98-0.

In 2003, another bill was introduced in Illinois and language was added to the bill that was verbatim the same as the one passed by Congress that I mentioned above. By this time, Obama was the chair of the Health and Human Services committee there. Obama kept the bill in limbo in committee, never bringing it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Later in his debate with Alan Keyes for the Senate seat, he was called on it and he said, "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

But he'd effectively killed just that exact bill.

I just don't get the man's thinking on this. It seems out of character. Or maybe it isn't.

[WinCrimson 61]

Why can't a women decide what she does with her body?I may not agree,but its not my body.

She can. If she wants cosmetic surgery, wants her tubes tied or a hysterectomy or any number of other medical procedures that affect only her, have at it. But there are two bodies in play here: hers and the child's.

Simplistic sloganeering isn't going to cut it.

Two people have consensual sex and an unintended pregnancy is the result. The woman is forced to carry this very burdensome mistake around for 9 months, endure labor, and be its source of food. The man is free to frolic if he wishes. The law doesn't require him to lend a helping hand outside of writing an occasional check to the woman he impregnated and the child they created. He'll carry on with his career, while the woman will apply the brakes to hers to provide for the baby. It's obvious that society has put men and women on an unleveled playing field on this issue...

Individuals own their bodies and everything growing inside them, be it a tumor or a fetus. With all due respect, I don't see how protecting a woman's opportunity to control her own medical decisions is a "simplistic slogan", TT.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Two people have consensual sex and an unintended pregnancy is the result. The woman is forced to carry this very burdensome mistake around for 9 months, endure labor, and be its source of food

Just to be clear: a woman freely chose to have sex knowing full well that pregnancy is a natural result of said activity and that even using birth control is not a 100% foolproof guarantee against it. She's also fully aware that if a pregnancy does occur, she is the one that will get pregnant.

And please for the sake of my sanity don't call a child a "burdensome mistake."

The man is free to frolic if he wishes. The law doesn't require him to lend a helping hand outside of writing an occasional check to the woman he impregnated and the child they created.

And this is something that should be corrected. He should at the very least be financially responsible for spreading his seed and creating a life.

He'll carry on with his career, while the woman will apply the brakes to hers to provide for the baby. It's obvious that society has put men and women on an unleveled playing field on this issue...

Newsflash: NATURE has put men and women on an unlevel playing field on the issue. Women get pregnant, men don't. It's not the fault of the child either way.

Individuals own their bodies and everything growing inside them, be it a tumor or a fetus. With all due respect, I don't see how protecting a woman's opportunity to control her own medical decisions is a "simplistic slogan", TT.

It is when what's growing inside of them is another human being. Not a wart. Not a tumor. Not a mole. A human being with its own heartbeat, brain activity, nervous system, blood type, DNA...the works. When you make statements about it being "a woman's body" and exercise in pseudo-intellectual gymnastics to act like there's not another being involved here, it's beyond simplistic. No one is trying to control women. We're just putting forth a time-honored principle that all Americans used to agree upon: Your rights end where another's rights begin.

Coming up with semantic games to deny them those rights doesn't make it ok.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Here is the language that was to be added to the bill in 2003 that Obama killed in committee:

Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

( As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

© Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fullt...=000500700K1.36

I don't know how it could be more clear.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

I haven't found the text to this bill, but the bill that seems to be the focus of attention was SB 1663, the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. In large part, it gives grounds to sue the doctor/hospital for the costs of supporting the surviving child.

For some reason I can't cut and paste from the PDF, but here's a discussion of the bill:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

On page 30, a Sen. O'Malley explains that the bill requires a second physician to be called in to rule on the question of viability. On page 31, Obama starts to discuss it. His primary concern is that it assumes that the attending physician would not meet his or her obligation to treat a live child that may result from an induced pregnancy abortion attempt. He did say if one assumes that a doctor would not meet that obligation, then perhaps the bill makes sense. But his position was that a live child that survived should get treatment from the attending physician, even though he opposed the particular bill.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Some people's "burdensome mistakes" are the joys of other people's lives. If you make a "burdensome mistake," please feel free to allow any number of families that are on never-ending waiting lists to adopt and love your "burdensome mistake."

I have friends that have children from:

Russia, pair of brothers.

Guatemala, a beautiful little girl that may end up getting Ethan a lil sister...

China, several families that have gone thru the time and cash and travel to adopt from China.

So please dont give us the "burdensome mistake" crap. Abortion is what happens when SELFISH LAZY @$$ PEOPLE dont get up off their rears and get effective pre-pregnancy birth control. It is America's elective surgery of choice because we are collectively a nation absorbed with only our-selves, our-feelings, our-inconveniences and dont really give a rat's patootie about anyone else, even our own child/children.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Why can't a women decide what she does with her body?I may not agree,but its not my body.

Why cant she....

Get real birth control from Wal-Greens, Wal-Mart, or freakin Target for that matter?

Keep her panties on?

Do something besides vaginal sex?

Have oral sex?

Have anal sex?

Have vibrator sex?

Have masturbatory sex?

Hell, have homosexual sex if you are that hard up?

Just say no?

Wait till the right time, after marriage?

etc, etc, etc

Do something other than vaginal intercourse?

You folks do realize that there is no Mean Ole Pregnancy Fairy out there roaming around trying to screw your life up right? You do realize that right? That babies come from VAGINAL sex?

Some of us have just lost patience with these very tired arguments that when analyzed really dont have much content in them. If a woman wants to control her own body, why cant she control it in such a way, and still have fun, that she wont get pregnant?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I haven't found the text to this bill, but the bill that seems to be the focus of attention was SB 1663, the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. In large part, it gives grounds to sue the doctor/hospital for the costs of supporting the surviving child.

For some reason I can't cut and paste from the PDF, but here's a discussion of the bill:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

On page 30, a Sen. O'Malley explains that the bill requires a second physician to be called in to rule on the question of viability. On page 31, Obama starts to discuss it. His primary concern is that it assumes that the attending physician would not meet his or her obligation to treat a live child that may result from an induced pregnancy abortion attempt. He did say if one assumes that a doctor would not meet that obligation, then perhaps the bill makes sense. But his position was that a live child that survived should get treatment from the attending physician, even though he opposed the particular bill.

That's the 2001 bill. And the reason is assumes the first doctor would meet such obligations is because people have testified that live survivors were discarded like so much trash and left to die.

Aside from all that, after the bill at the federal level passed in 2002, Illinois Republicans attempted to introduce another bill similar to it. And while in committee an amendment was added that gave very explicit definitions and made sure that no one could construe the bill to be conveying rights to an unborn fetus and so on. I pasted that amendment in my previous post. There's no excuse for not passing such a bill. None whatsoever.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Why can't a women decide what she does with her body?I may not agree,but its not my body.

Why cant she....

Get real birth control from Wal-Greens, Wal-Mart, or freakin Target for that matter?

Keep her panties on?

Do something besides vaginal sex?

Have oral sex?

Have anal sex?

Have vibrator sex?

Have masturbatory sex?

Hell, have homosexual sex if you are that hard up?

Just say no?

Wait till the right time, after marriage?

etc, etc, etc

Do something other than vaginal intercourse?

You folks do realize that there is no Mean Ole Pregnancy Fairy out there roaming around trying to screw your life up right? You do realize that right? That babies come from VAGINAL sex?

Some of us have just lost patience with these very tired arguments that when analyzed really dont have much content in them. If a woman wants to control her own body, why cant she control it in such a way, and still have fun, that she wont get pregnant?

And you were never 16-20 once?

[arnaldoabru 11]

The anti abortion people always get me about the rights of the unborn in the mothers tummy.After it is born they don't give a rat's ass about it.

Complete and utter bull****. The vast majority of the crisis pregnancy centers that attempt to help women either have their baby and be able to support themselves or make it easier for them to get pre-natal care and put the child up for adoption are run by "anti-abortion" people. The largest segment of people adopting said children comes from church-going people who oppose abortion. The Catholic church alone dwarfs almost all others in this regard.

Groups like Feminists For Life work with colleges to help create programs where a girl that has an unintended pregnancy doesn't have to choose between having the child and getting an education. They and Democrats For Life similarly work with government, private organizations and people of faith to not just protect the unborn legislatively, but to remove the primary things that drive women to believe that abortion is their only real choice: lack of financial and emotional support.

I could go on for days showing you the myriad ways in which pro-life groups and individuals step up to the plate without fanfare and self-congratulatory back patting from the white pastor of my church back in Nashville that after having 4 biological kids decided to adopt two African-American kids who were brothers to keep them from either being aborted or be consigned to a life with a drug-addicted mom or bounced in foster care to the families that adopt children from war torn areas of Africa or the unwanted girls in China. And their stories in turn affect hundreds of others who went to our church. There were dozens of families in my church that had kids of other races or a blend of biological and adopted kids. Many even adopted older children that were well into elementary school age.

One of my best friend's sister got pregnant as a teenager. Mercy Ministries in Nashville took her in for almost a year, helping her through pre-natal care and transitioning to becoming a mother, giving her life-skills and job placement and transportation and a place to live while doing it free of charge. Had she chosen to place the child up for adoption, they would have assisted her with all of the same plus the legal services needed to do it right and find a loving home for her child, also free of charge.

Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about. You're blathering weak and tired rhetoric to excuse the inexcusable. In the future, it would be helpful when discussing others and their attitudes that you actually understood the people you wish to profile with one or two pithy statements.

You mean the same Catholic church that doesn't allow birth control.Or the Christain organizations who forced Pres Bush to do away with funding for a program in Africa to help ditribute condoms to combat the spread of AIDS.

You would have been more honest to just say, "I was wrong and I have no real rebuttal." You skip right over the fact that your idiotic blanket statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny and launch into non-sequiturs.

Call me when you reach adulthood and can engage in big boy discussions.

What part of this idocy doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The anti abortion people always get me about the rights of the unborn in the mothers tummy.After it is born they don't give a rat's ass about it.

Complete and utter bull****. The vast majority of the crisis pregnancy centers that attempt to help women either have their baby and be able to support themselves or make it easier for them to get pre-natal care and put the child up for adoption are run by "anti-abortion" people. The largest segment of people adopting said children comes from church-going people who oppose abortion. The Catholic church alone dwarfs almost all others in this regard.

Groups like Feminists For Life work with colleges to help create programs where a girl that has an unintended pregnancy doesn't have to choose between having the child and getting an education. They and Democrats For Life similarly work with government, private organizations and people of faith to not just protect the unborn legislatively, but to remove the primary things that drive women to believe that abortion is their only real choice: lack of financial and emotional support.

I could go on for days showing you the myriad ways in which pro-life groups and individuals step up to the plate without fanfare and self-congratulatory back patting from the white pastor of my church back in Nashville that after having 4 biological kids decided to adopt two African-American kids who were brothers to keep them from either being aborted or be consigned to a life with a drug-addicted mom or bounced in foster care to the families that adopt children from war torn areas of Africa or the unwanted girls in China. And their stories in turn affect hundreds of others who went to our church. There were dozens of families in my church that had kids of other races or a blend of biological and adopted kids. Many even adopted older children that were well into elementary school age.

One of my best friend's sister got pregnant as a teenager. Mercy Ministries in Nashville took her in for almost a year, helping her through pre-natal care and transitioning to becoming a mother, giving her life-skills and job placement and transportation and a place to live while doing it free of charge. Had she chosen to place the child up for adoption, they would have assisted her with all of the same plus the legal services needed to do it right and find a loving home for her child, also free of charge.

Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about. You're blathering weak and tired rhetoric to excuse the inexcusable. In the future, it would be helpful when discussing others and their attitudes that you actually understood the people you wish to profile with one or two pithy statements.

You mean the same Catholic church that doesn't allow birth control.Or the Christain organizations who forced Pres Bush to do away with funding for a program in Africa to help ditribute condoms to combat the spread of AIDS.

You would have been more honest to just say, "I was wrong and I have no real rebuttal." You skip right over the fact that your idiotic blanket statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny and launch into non-sequiturs.

Call me when you reach adulthood and can engage in big boy discussions.

What part of this idocy doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

I thought that was fairly clear. You made a blanket statement about how those who are pro-life don't give a "rat's ass" about the baby once it's outside the womb and it was shot down without me breaking a sweat. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you need to engage the subject and not just spit out one-liners and NARAL talking points.

[WinCrimson 61]

Some people's "burdensome mistakes" are the joys of other people's lives. If you make a "burdensome mistake," please feel free to allow any number of families that are on never-ending waiting lists to adopt and love your "burdensome mistake."

I have friends that have children from:

Russia, pair of brothers.

Guatemala, a beautiful little girl that may end up getting Ethan a lil sister...

China, several families that have gone thru the time and cash and travel to adopt from China.

So please dont give us the "burdensome mistake" crap. Abortion is what happens when SELFISH LAZY @$$ PEOPLE dont get up off their rears and get effective pre-pregnancy birth control. It is America's elective surgery of choice because we are collectively a nation absorbed with only our-selves, our-feelings, our-inconveniences and dont really give a rat's patootie about anyone else, even our own child/children.

Don't take that comment too seriously. Looking back, I can see how some would interpret it to be a little harsh. That certainly wasn't my intention.

I'm a huge fan of kids. I can't WAIT to be a father to my own and even plan on adopting several. Please don't think that I'm an anti-child guy. Nothing could be farther from the truth...

What I meant was that a child out of wedlock, for the most part, is seen as a mistake before it's actually born. Is it a mistake at its high school graduation, prom night, etc? Of course not. However, that's how many of us see a child that belongs to an unwed mother. I have no problem whatsoever with her getting pregnant, but most choose to sneer, gasp, and gossip about her... thus, making the baby look like a mistake and the burden that goes along with carrying an extra 30 pounds.

As for this topic as a whole, this debate is going nowhere. This is one of the few issues where neither side is willing to budge and this thread is no different. I'd love to see the day where common ground is found. I dislike the idea of abortion as much as anybody, I'm just not willing to let the government impose its views on a very private issue that should be in the hands of the mother.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The argument here isn't even abortion. It's aborting a VIABLE LIVING FETUS.

What's wrong with enacting laws that require a 1st trimester abortion?

[WinCrimson 61]

I've already stated that I disagree with Obama on this.

What's wrong with laws requiring 1st trimester abortions? I'm going to give you the same answer if you asked me what's wrong with banning all abortions.