Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Campaign 2008 Enters the Abortion Fray

Abortion, that perennial campaign issue, has made its grand entrance into the 2008 presidential contest. As the Post's Jonathan Weisman noted in today's front page article, both John McCain and Barack Obama have made attempts to reach out to those whose views on the issue differ from their own.

Recent polling finds abortion ranked near the bottom of the campaign's top issues - just 2 percent named it their single most important consideration in a June Washington Post-ABC News poll - however, for a small, yet substantial, group of voters, differing views on abortion are a dealbreaker.

In an early August Time poll, one in five likely voters said they would not consider voting for a candidate who did not share their views on abortion, a figure slightly lower than the proportion holding views on U.S. policy toward Iraq as central to their vote (26 percent), but about even with those who consider gay marriage that important (22 percent).

Republicans in the Time poll (26 percent) were more apt to consider shared views on abortion a requirement for major office than were Democrats (18 percent) or independents (19 percent), and the proportion was higher still among white evangelical Protestants (30 percent). And among both GOPers and evangelicals, gay marriage rated more highly (33 and 38 percent respectively), while Democrats and independents were more likely to consider a candidate's views on Iraq policy essential (26 and 28 percent).

Overall, the nation is fairly evenly divided on the topic, with the "pro-choice" side the majority view by a narrow margin. In the June Post-ABC poll, 53 percent said abortion should be legal most or all of time; 44 percent said it should be illegal most or all of the time. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats said abortion should be legal in most cases, while about six in ten Republicans felt abortion should be illegal most of the time. Independents are split down the middle, with 52 percent supporting legal abortion in most or all cases. Opinions on this question have remained relatively stable in Post-ABC polling going back to the late 1990s.

In this year's contest, neither side of the debate appears to be more apt to call the issue central to their vote. In a May Gallup poll, 13 percent overall said a candidate must share their views on abortion, but those who consider themselves pro-life were only slightly more likely to say shared views were critical (15 percent) than those who called themselves pro-choice (11 percent), a smaller gap than in 2004 (when 28 percent of pro-lifers considered the issue critical while just 10 percent of pro-choice respondents did).

In the end, the candidates appear locked in a close fight on this issue. A July Post-ABC poll found that among those who see social issues as "very" or "extremely" important to their vote, 44 percent choose Obama, 38 percent McCain.

-Jennifer Agiesta and Kyle Dropp

By Jennifer Agiesta  |  August 20, 2008; 11:34 AM ET
Categories:  Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: For Most, Obama's VP Likely a Blank Slate
Next: More in-tune? Voters Lean Obama

Comments

The theme around abortion seems to be skewed towards the "womans right to choose", not "is the fetus" alive.

Science shows brainwaves within weeks after conception and a heartbeat within the first few months. The only difference between a fetus and a human baby is that you haven't seen it yet. A human fetus is more alive than coma patients at your local hospital. Is it OK to kill them? They have the same signs of life.

Posted by: Andrew | August 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Statistics show that when Republicans are in power, abortion rates and poverty rates increase. Abortion and poverty are inextricably linked. If you don’t like abortion, vote for the candidate whose policies are more likely to bring working-class income standards back up to where they once were. If you want to reduce violence in the womb, vote for Obama because he is the candidate most likely make parenthood affordable again. A McCain presidency will mean more poverty and more abortions for the working class. A vote for McCain is a vote for vacuums, a vote for scissors, a vote for the wholesale slaughter of the tiny human beings we should all be fighting to protect.

Posted by: Hilary Smith | August 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is an absolute. McCain is against a woman's right to choose. Obama for for a woman's right to choose.
Move on candidates. You're not going to move anybody to your position. Concentrate on the real issues a President can affect.

Thank you,
David Kurtz
Malibu, CA

Posted by: David kurtz | August 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

there is no way this election is going to be close. for folks to start to believe in the polling number is crazy. this is conditioning. polling is bs. jeesh. how much longer are people going to be manipulated. the republicans win this election and there is not out rage and folks rationalize by saying well it was always close get the government they deserve. the time is near where folks will have to decide on an individual basis what kind of civil disobedience is appropriate for them . come on folks open your eyes.

Posted by: skippy | August 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that many women support the Dems because of their view on abortion and more religious people support the Repubs for the same reason. How come values are not more important than other things like economy? Beats me.

Posted by: RoseTee | August 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Bush/Cheney/McCain! No More Years!!!

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Hilary, A typical democrat doesn't know what they are talking about. In actual fact, according to data released by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in January of this year, the abortion rate has fallen dramatically and is as low as it has been since 1974. The absolute number of abortions has also fallen to 1.2 million per year, a decline of 25 percent since a high in 1990.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWViMDZjMjc3ZTY4NzY0YzllMDQ3OTA0OWVjN2UzYmE=

Posted by: jj | August 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

You so called "Pro-Lifers" out there, ask yourself this question and answer HONESTLY:

Suppose your wife is pregnant with what would be your 3rd child.
The doctors learn that both your wife and the baby will die if she tries to give birth.
If they take the baby, then your wife will live.
What would you do?

And let's not make this a presidential topic. Everybody knows that no president is going to overturn R v W. These laws are enforced at the state level. If you really care about abortion rights, pay attention to your local governor and senate races!

Posted by: JG | August 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

TO: H.Smith -
Way to hijack the topic and attempt to redirect the subject. Typical.

*Fact* is, Obama SUPPORTS late-term abortion, even to the point of neglecting a baby who has survived an attempt to abort it, until that baby dies.

The ONLY difference between a late-term abortion baby and a prematurely birthed baby, is that you haven't seen the aborted one.

THAT'S the Fact, and THAT'S what Obama supports.

If you want to talk about his over-taxing of the American public in order to give 'my' hard-earned money to someone without a job, you really should post to another relevant article.

Posted by: TV | August 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary makes a great point.

I finally have a decent job. I knew that if I had gotten a girl pregnant priar to this I would have to either go for abortion or go for welfare.

I do not want to bring up a welfare child, that is not fair to the child or to the country.

I would never choose abortion if feeding the baby was not an issue.

That goes back to an deeper question...Is it better to live in pain, or to die?

Posted by: Tim | August 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I grew up in a religious environment, went through catholic school from grammar school through graduate school and still do not get the pro-life argument.

Posted by: iminvested | August 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't we be worrying about the economy, trade deficit, and financial growth rather than abortion right now? Let's fix the money problem and then we can get back to squabbling about issues such as these.

Posted by: Sam | August 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

JG, do you really think the hundreds of thousands of babies that are aborted every year in the U.S. are (even mostly) due to the excuse that the mother's health is in danger? What ignorance.

Posted by: Nikki | August 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Please put McCain in office so he can continue the same thing that Bush is doing now. I love getting the old "I love you and my country crap" from these master con men as we continue to go down. McCain will be the period at the end of the sentence for the USA. GO McCAIN!

Posted by: john | August 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

As strongly as I opposed less-than-emergency abortion on a moral basis, I equally oppose government interference in the woman's right to her own person/body.

If the government declares a fetus to be a person, with right to life, then a woman has the right to kill it in self defense because that person has invaded her body.

Yes, the bizarre idea that gov't should control a woman's body does justify looking at the above logically-derived corollary with wide-open eyes.


Posted by: John Donohue | August 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If McCain somehow happens to win this election, I want to see AT LEAST one million people mobilize to demonstrate in D.C. at the inaugeration. When Bush was intalled the first time there were so many demonstrators as the caravan went to the Whitehouse and eggs being thrown that the media didn't even cover it. Jimmy Carter walked the same route, Bush had to hide in the motorcade.

Posted by: Bill | August 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Statistics show that when Republicans are in power, abortion rates and poverty rates increase." -

Sorry, this is not the case. Times are bad now with Bush as President , but jobs were just as hard to come by 10 years ago under the Clinton regime, and jobs were more plentiful under Reagan a decade before, so it has little to do with the party in the white house. There is little sence in voting for Obama, who supports the violent late term abortion procedure to make "parenthood afordable again"??

Posted by: Kevin | August 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I think it's hilarious watching Obama go off script and turn into the blubbering inexperienced Snake Oil Salesman that he is.

Growing up amongst America hating racists: $1m.

Hiding your white roots whilst running as the first black American candidate: $100m.

Having your lies and inexperience handed to you on a silver platter by a little old white dude: PRICELESS.

Posted by: J. Dern | August 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

If McCain somehow happens to win this election, I want to see AT LEAST one million people mobilize to demonstrate in D.C. at the inaugeration"-

Sure, and the same goes if Obama manages to pull it off, but the news wouldn't report on any disruptions his coronation.

Posted by: Kevin | August 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Nothing says more about a candidate's support for big government than their stand on abortion. What could possibly be more intrusive than forced childbirth? It's the flipside of China's policy of forced abortion. Logically, any government that has the power to say "you can't" also has the power to say "you must."
Pro-Choice is the only sensible stand because the choice stays with the woman, not the government.

Posted by: Randy | August 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Too many people on this planet, anyway. I say we should be increasing the number of abortions. I'm honestly surprised that conservatives don't get behind this. Being against gun control and for capital punishment, it would make for a much more consistent pro-death platform.

Posted by: The Joker | August 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

American Media: Who’s that behind the curtain?


THE CHANGING WORLD OF INFORMATION RESOURCES

In the "old days" before the internet we were confined to the information fed to us by the media organizations - television, newspapers and magazines. Digging deeper into a story meant buying a lot of books or spending time at the public library, and most likely there would not be adequate research data available until months after the fact.

Things have changed. Thanks to a boundless archive of free information available on the internet, Americans who are willing to look for it can uncover the real story behind the groomed and edited news report issued by the media, in many cases within mere hours after the story is released.


AND NOW, A WORD FROM OUR SPONSER...

It should be noted that the American public is not the naïve flock of sheep it was back around September 11, 2001. Again thanks to the wealth of resources available on the internet, we have become savvy to the influence of government and corporate funding on media organizations. What was once called Mainstream Media [MSM] is now more appropriately tagged Corporate Media.

For those of you who are not aware of these influences, you owe it to yourself to do some research. Look into the funding sources of corporate media and how these sources influence the news we watch, read and hear, particularly politics. It’s a real eye-opener, trust me. While you’re at it, do some Googling for independent news sources. Compare their version of any given political news story to the version issued by mainstream/corporate media. The differences are glaring, if not stunning.

Mainstream Media journalism is biased according to the special interests of the political and corporate sponsors attached to that particular media source. News reports are carefully groomed and edited to comply with those special interests. Our government has become the biggest political influence on the media, with strong funding and sponsorship ties.

Media bias can be and is used to alter the reality of the world around us, covertly shaping our opinions and decisions to fit into the status quo. Propaganda, cover-ups, skewed facts, fabricated polls – powerful tools used by corporate media to manipulate and deceive the American public.

Posted by: MediaCop | August 20, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Andrew's point about fetal brain waves is one I often hear but do not understand. Respectfully, the notion that the existence of human life is determined only by biological factors seems to me to deny the existence of a soul and therefore the existence of God. If there were no soul, no being would be human and the soul is spiritual not biological. Therefore before one can say that a being is "human" you must know when the soul is implanted. Major religions are all over the map on this question and so are billions of people. There is no factual basis to decide.That is why it is wrong to force one group of people's views on ensoulment on the rest of the population makes no sense to me.

Posted by: pragmatist | August 20, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gubz6 He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Just how can he help the masses when he doesn't have the compassion to help his own brother? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: obiewan | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Let's stop misframing this issue. It is not an issue of when life begins. It is an issue of when the state may interfere in a private decision. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. I'm not in favor of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I think the Government should tells us when we can and cannot do them.

Posted by: Gasmonkey | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

To: John

Yes, and conjoined twins should be able to kill each other in "self defense" because they've "invaded" each other's bodies.

"logically-derived" indeed.

It's clear that you heard someone make that argument and bought it, hook line and sinker without ever really considering it.

Dabbler.

Posted by: K. Smith | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone vote for a man that supports late term abortions? I don't think abortion at any stage is right, but do a little research (everyone here has internet access)and see what they do to these innocent babies. Don't get me wrong- I'm no McCain fan, but anyone that can uphold murder and think it's OK should not be president.

Posted by: Lars | August 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

From JG:
"The doctors learn that both your wife and the baby will die if she tries to give birth. If they take the baby, then your wife will live. What would you do?"

In this rare case, (an example would be an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby cannot survive and continuing the pregnancy would kill both mother and child) ending the life of one to save one, when both would die otherwise, has always been acceptable. Thus, your point is irrelevant. No one is trying to outlaw Methotrexate shots.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

HOW COME A WOMAN CAN GO PAY A (SO CALLED) DOCTOR TO CHOP HER UNBORN CHILD INTO PIECE AND THROW HIM OR HER OUT LIKE TRASH AND HAVE THE FREEDOM TO GO HOME. A MAN KILLS A PREGNANT WOMEN AND GETS CHARGED WITH DOUBLE MURDER. I LOVE THE EQUALLITY WE LIVE IN!!! A WOMEN HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED, NOT TO MURDER A HUMAN LIFE.

Posted by: D.S. | August 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama's record in the IL senate says that a woman can choose to kill her child, well after that child has survived childbirth. Can you spell "Hitler?"
Obama is bad news.
Obama says he speaks for the "least of these."
Obama is a liar. He knows nothing of civil rights.

Woman's right to choose? Since when is a woman reduced to her womb? Feminazis are bigots.

Posted by: TL | August 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

mccain is official, pretending to be a moderate when hes just a conservative. OBAMA!!! A woman's right to choose is imperative, our welfare system is already strained, and forcing more unwanted children upon it is ridiculous. If you are against an abortion, then dont have one, dont stop anyone else. PRO- CHOICE

Posted by: Sachi | August 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"I'm honestly surprised that conservatives don't get behind this."

I agree with the irony. I've always been at a loss to figure how the democratic party, which has always prided itself on being THE ones to speak up in defence of the opressed, is the party which, more so than the republicans, supports abortion on demand and ends the life of ones who have no voice yet of their own.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It is perfectly clear that there there is not one single poster on this forum that is going to change his/her position based on any other poster. Let it go. There are, actualy, other issues.

Posted by: Andrew Long | August 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Here is Obama's stated position, if you are interested in reality.

"Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."

What really interests me is how many "Pro-Life" folks also support using our armed forces to kill innocent women and children ... "collatoral damage" in Iraq.

Let's be consistent out there, OK? And keep your morals on your own body.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it just typical of our materialistic society to say that the economy is more important than life itself? It has always been my hope that women would see that they are so much more than just themselves, but alas I guess that is not the case. I believe that abortion is very important in who gets elected. Who nominates Justices to the U. S. Supreme Court?

Posted by: Rob | August 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

When the issue is framed as a "woman's right to choose what happens to and with her body," the issue will be more balanced. For those who feel the need to frame the issue as "right to life" or "abortion" then don't have an abortion and teach your kids in your homes and churches that there are other options. Just don't try to legislate what constitutes life for me or most of those morally rational folks we know and love. For them, and the bible, life begins at first breath. The word from which spirit is derived (spiritus) means breath. That's where the truth lies.

Posted by: B. Krause | August 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Gasmonkey: "I'm not in favor of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I think the Government should tells us when we can and cannot do them."

The Government tells us what we can and can't do all the time when what we do infringes on the rights of others. Should the government then 'stay out' of issues such as rape? After all, not everyone thinks rape is wrong - who are we to outlaw something just because we have a different opinion - right?

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

John,

In what way is a fetus "invading a woman's body" when she herself chose to put it there? If women think they have a right to choose, then they have commitment issues. If you're gonna have sex, be prepared to have the baby. Period.

What annoys me is that the liberals think that the woman should get a "second chance" and get to rethink it. Well, personally, I think God should rethink whether some of you liberals have a right to be on this earth. After all, you apparently don't think that fetuses do.

Civil rights to unborn babies!!!

Posted by: Brian | August 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Since violent crime affects low-income Americans at a vastly higher rate than any other groups, if you want to stop violent crime, stop passing laws that outlaw violent crime. Give all the money you were spending on police to anti-poverty programs. Sure.

Posted by: Steve W. | August 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Krause:

"Breath" means respiration. (And the Bible is not a science book, either.) A zygote/embryo/fetus is carrying on the process of respiration, as well as the other 9 essential life processes:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Therefore, it is a living human. Yes, it is a human mass of cells, but killing it would be to kill a living, developing specimen of the species homo sapien. You want to debate it scientifically? You've just been shut down. Goodbye.

Posted by: bio-major | August 20, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

If detectable brain waves is our criterion for human life, best we learn to like veggies and beans. Not to mention finding some alternative presidential candidates.

Posted by: Paula | August 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Ms Smith, abortions have actually declined under this administration. Fact Checker pointed out Obama's mistake on this topic from the last forum.

Posted by: CT | August 20, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives stand from a viewpoint that an unborn fetus is a human child and deserves human rights. You have to first make a decision on that simple fact before we can compare ideoligies. Lets look at 99.9% of the abortion cases and stop looking at the .1%.

The woman "chose" to have sex. Sex is the ONLY means of becoming accidentally pregnant, thus the baby did not "invade" the womans body, the woman invited it in when she opened her legs. Someone has to stand up for the rights of the unborn (again depending on what viewpoint you share as to when the child is a human).

Do compare the death penalty to abortion. If you aren't intelligent enough to see the difference between an innocent baby that has done nothing but be concieved vs a man or woman who chose to kill / murder / rape others, then you need your head examined.

Seriously if you are incapable of making an intelligent post, you should posting. Spewing rhetoric just shows the lack of ability to conjure up an original thought.

Posted by: David | August 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

joker i agree that based on their pro-death corporatism policy it does seem logical that republicans would be the pro abortion candidate and Dems who stand for the under-dog would be protecting the unborn. But this is a crazy world. As the stats show there are pro-choice and pro-life in both parties. So a percentage of each party disagrees with their party on this issue. I just pray Americans someday see that they need to question every stance the parties make. As a pro-life Democrat i have the ability to look at each position they take and decide it for myself. The greatest problem for America is people following their parties views like sheep. If a Christian decides to vote Republican based on abortion they need to be true patriots and take everything else their party says with a grain of salt. Democrats need to do the same. Remember it was Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war. Now that we have seen another Texas politician took us to war for oil one has to wonder if the fact that in the 60's the Spratley Islands were considered one of the largest untapped oil reserves in the world how much that figured into US policy in Vietnam as colonizing Vietnam would have given us the best shot at that oil. My theory on the Democratic link to abortion was that all the corporate political investments go to Republicans cause they know they will choose corporate positions over the will of the people. The only moneyed sponsors the Dems could get were the Abortion industry, labor and trial lawyers. Now that Obama has broken the financing mold maybe abortion doesn't have to be so one sided in the Democratic party.

Posted by: dave | August 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I am 100% in agreement with the commentator above. this country is becoming more scary than it is dreamed of. This guys are bending the truth to sell a lie and repeating it so much to the point where most folks believe it. is sad. even with the internet in virtually every house, people don't like to research. and if researching proves to be too stunning or radical they leave it as a lie. I mean, "gasp" I hate to say this but 9/11. anyone who research this would see what kind of media cover ups we are referring to. and in deed perhaps all the presidents that we are given to choose are bounded to the same stops with different methods, some more obvious than others but the same finale. You guys out there, do independent media, dont trust anybody, think logically and with an open mind and the trust shall find you. all these guys have an agenda, and we are not in it. Inform, you research........

Posted by: MR.BUSH | August 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not your standard pro-choice candidate. He has opposed abortion legislation that not even NARAL opposed. Poster David Kurtz is right to a degree: most people are not going to change their minds about abortion in general. But there is a big difference between supporting "a woman's right to chose" and going out of your way to support partial birth abortion and oppose laws to protect babies that have survived an abortion. Most Americans are somwhere in the middle on abortion - some regulation would be a good idea, but not too much. Such a stance would be unexceptional for a Democrat and for most voters. Obama's position is very extremel. He's left of NARAL and Barbara Boxer on some abortion issues. This is why it's getting noticed.

Posted by: Steve W. | August 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Randy's point is well taken. McCain declared just this weekend that human rights begin at the moment of conception. If allowed to go unchallenged the logical outcome is that a woman must not be allowed to do anything that infringes on those rights. Smoking during pregnancy - human rights violation. Don’t get enough exercise – human rights violation. Don’t eat a healthy diet – human rights violation. Now what if that “human” is spontaneously aborted? Manslaughter? What if she did one of those others things? Murder? But I’ll take it one step farther; since a woman may not even know she’s carrying another human around for a few weeks – we must put all reproductive age women on mandatory birth control or have them submit to daily pregnancy tests. GMAFB

Posted by: LawrenceYu | August 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

JG - abortion laws WERE made at the state level - until 1972. That's exactly what RvW changed. That ruling overturned abortion restrictions in 50 states and has prevented any meaningful restrictions since. If RvW was overturned tomorrow, abortion would not be illegal in this country. States would simply be free to make their own laws on the issue.

Posted by: Steve W. | August 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Bio-Major

Based on your criteria, it is obvious we must stop using anti-bacterial killers, such as, for examplte anti-bacterial killers.

Posted by: Andrew Long | August 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I still don't understand how the Republican party, the party that wants LESS government interference - wants the government to intefere in what is most likely the most painful and personal of all decisions.

God help us all if we get ANOTHER term of Bush!

Posted by: pax vobiscum | August 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

What supercedes all of this discussion is that we as a country have decided that there is no absolute truth or standards of right and wrong. Ending a human life is no longer called what it is. Marriage is basically anything - how about a man and a cow? Who can say it is wrong when we are day by day throwing away the rule book? Abortion is ending a human life, plain and simple, but it is amazing that we leave that bit of information out of the discussion. I've heard that if I steal a bald eagle egg out of its nest I can be fined. Amazing how we protect an "unborn" eagle more than a child.

Posted by: Jim C. | August 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

LawrenceYu: "Now what if that “human” is spontaneously aborted? Manslaughter?"

Are you suggesting that not supporting the legalized killing of one's own offspring will lead to women being brought up on manslaughter charges if she has a miscarriage? Prior to RvW, were women put in jail? No - and no one (other than perhaps a few with radical views) are suggesting such things.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To Andrew Long: I am interested to know what anti-bacterial killers contain the complete DNA makeup of a human being?

And I don't think posting here will change anyone's mind either - yet here we both are...posting. Hmmm.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

LawrenceYu: When I was growing up women smoked and drank alcoholic beverages all the time. Their babies came out fine. That is far different than going to an abortion clinic where you know that the outcome is certain to be an end to life.

Posted by: Rob | August 20, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

A second thought. What would the poll show if you worded the question: Are you in favor or opposed to the absolute ban on abortion regardless of reason?

Rape? Incest? Doesn’t matter. Becasue to be logically and morally consistent you cannot make such a distinction.

Also, if that zygote’s life is so important why aren’t republicans clamoring for mandatory prenatal care in all insurance policies and doing everything possible to ensure every woman has access to such care? Yes, even the welfare mom?

Posted by: LawrenceYu | August 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

PL

We are all descended from bacteria, and we all contain their DNA - all of it. It's where we come from. Dr. Switzer (sp?) 75 years ago refused to step on an ant. Ants have done fine since, and so has H. spiens (so far, anyway, although the future doesn't look great).

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

OOOps - that was from me.

Posted by: Andrew Long | August 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

To LawrenceYu: What would a poll show if you worded the question "Are you in favor of legalized abortion, for any reason, up until the moment of birth?" Because, if you support Roe V Wade, that's actually what you're supporting. Read up on Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton, which defined a woman's 'health' so broadly that one can essentially abort at any time during a pregnancy for almost any reason, including economic 'health', social 'health', etc.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

This is a very touchy subject and one that I feel is taking far too much publicity for so few a people really concerned. If abortion is illegal, then the back alley abortionists will not only kill your fetus but may kill the mother or do irreparable harm to her. If my wife or daughter was raped and became pregnant, we would seek out a legal abortion. If my wife or daughter is in danger of losing her life to a pregnancy, we will seek out a legal abortion. Abortion is not a one way street. There are plenty of reasons to abort, and plenty not to abort. A case by case evaluation is in order. Now... can we move on to perhaps feeding our poor, better education system for our young, more tax breaks for the poor and not so many for the rich... and on, and on, and on...

Posted by: stickem | August 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

To Andrew Long: But the bacteria itself does not contain the DNA makeup of a human - unless there is some type of bacteria that I am not aware of?

I was really only going to post once and move on. Really I was.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Forcing a unwilling person to support another life (regardless of whether or not it can be considered "human") is slavery, pure and simple. We had a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery. Case closed.

Posted by: Edward | August 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

LawrenceYu. Yes, abortion should be opposed in all cases. In those cases where a pregnancy results because of rape, incest, whatever, counseling should be made available to the person that would explain that life is so important that it cannot be destroyed. That adoption is an option. I am learning something though with all these posts. All abortions are apparently the result of rape, incest, or a life or death matter for the woman and the child she is carrying.

Posted by: Rob | August 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Stickem: "If my wife or daughter was raped and became pregnant, we would seek out a legal abortion"

I gather you meant that your daughter or wife would *choose* to terminate the pregnancy in such circumstances. You seem to be speaking about what *you* would want them to do - and as the father/husband, remember, according to the law (as well as your argument for 'choice') you actually have no say in the matter

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The concept of "inalienable" or natural rights only applies to actual human beings not to potential ones, which is what fetuses are. Rights imply freedom for an individual to take a certain action independent of others. What independent action is a clump of cells in a woman's womb capable of?

Someone else's religious myths and superstitions about when life begins are irrelevent to a woman's freedom fo choose. It is she alone who possesses the unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of her own happiness. People who want to substitute religious dogma, sanctioned by the state, for a woman's independent judgement as to whether or not a baby is in her best interest do not make "great" Americans.

Posted by: Buzz Lightyear | August 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

rob wrote: "In those cases where a pregnancy results because of rape, incest, whatever, counseling should be made available to the person that would explain that life is so important that it cannot be destroyed. That adoption is an option."
******************
Adoption??? There aren't enough homes for the children without parents now. Will you do your part and adopt one? How about adopting a crack baby? You willing to do that?

And counseling is really gonna help that 15 year old mother feed the child, isn't it. You should take your nose out of your bible long enough to see what the real world is like. Are you having trouble feeding your children now? Do you even have any?

Posted by: rickmc11 | August 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Bio-Major:

If you were in my class, you would fail the exam. Please re-read your textbook (carefully) because you clearly don't understand the life processes you assigned to "zygotes/embryos/fetuses".

Posted by: Bio-Prof | August 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Buzz said it better than me. But I'll add this:

If you grant someone human rights you grant them all rights. You cannot choose to grant some and not others. Among those rights is the right to lead a life free of harm imposed upon you unwillingly by others. So when the mother smokes is she not doing harm? And if we know she’s doing harm is it not our moral obligation to intercede on behalf of the helpless? Where would it end?

Just turning your arguments back around on you and asking you to think beyond the single question to the logical outcome of your position. But, of course, you don’t want to do this because you know if you put it this way your support level will drop to practically zero.

Posted by: LawrenceYu | August 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

to pl feminist: We have discussed this as a family. If you re-read my post you'll see I said "we". I leave the "choice" to them, but they agree that it would be the best way. Their ruling, not mine. You see, in our family, we talk to each other, share our concerns and ideals, and respect the individuals choice.

Posted by: stickem | August 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pir-etUBKKU
(for those too lazy to look themselves-just note that its from a site called nohussein.org)
take opinions with a spoonful of salt but facts as absolute

Posted by: You | August 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The abortion argument needs to be removed from the political spectrum. It has become a cover for blatantly repugnant policies instituted by the Republican Party.

When John McCain says that he does not want to take money from either the rich or the poor in the form of taxes, he never addresses the money taken away from the poor everytime that their hard-earned dollars are devalued. There is a very high price that the poor pay in our country when inflation creeps upward and the minimum wage does not change. There is more than one way to "hurt" the lower and middle classes in our country. With those at the top now earning more than 1000 more than working poor, it is time to really look at what is happening in our tax code. We reduce the taxes on the wealthy, but we refuse to raise the minimum wage so that it keeps up with inflation. Something is wrong with this picture.

The abortion issue is painted by the religious right as a black and white issue. They do not know their Bibles despite the few "relevant" verses that they like to quote. There are some pretty graphic verses in the Bible where God directed that even women bearing children would be slaughtered. Nothing would be left alive.

In their haste to make abortion their cause celebre, they have failed to realize that this issue has no finite answer. Perhaps these people really would prefer that the mother lose her life rather than to have a life-saving abortion. Perhaps conceptions that occur at the hands of a cruel rapist should be left solely in God's hands. However, I for one am repulsed at the thought of another mom dying at the hands of unqualified persons in a dark room. Abortion is a very personal decision. Even though I agree with my Christian brothers and sisters who see the immorality with abortions, I also know that other people do not view abortion as evil.

Christ spent a lot of time talking about money matters and no time talking about abortion. He talked about suffering little children to come to Him. He did not talk about fetuses. It wasn't too long ago that the death rate of newborn children was very high. A stillborn baby is still a very sad thing.

I wonder where the statistics come from about 40 million abortions in this country since whenever. Tell me what has happened to the abortion rates under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Which President(s) witnessed a reduction of abortions during their terms in office. President Clinton had it right: "Abortions should be legal but rare." Those who attempt to criminalize or outlaw abortions might as well accept the consequences: abortions are going to happen - either in a publicly monitored facility or in a dark alley. It is your call.

How about Christians who smoke, drink strong alcoholic beverages, do not tithe, and commit other sins? Shouldn't these sins be dealt in a similar manner as abortion? Shouldn't a Christian who bears a false witness against his brother suffer at the hands of justice? I'll take Obama's brand of Christianity any day to that of John McCain. At least, Obama knows Jesus Christ by name. Obama knows the source of his salvation. He said it is Jesus. What a witness before millions. McCain never once mentioned Jesus by name -- in a Christian church of all places. There is absolutely nothing that the Christian right can do to change this grave error by John McCain.

Posted by: Earl C | August 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"The concept of "inalienable" or natural rights only applies to actual human beings not to potential ones, which is what fetuses are"

This same argument was used to justify slavery. The 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision declared that slavery could not be prohibited by Congress - that African Americans were not full persons and not afforded the same rights as "full persons."

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

To Buzz Lightyear & Lawrence Yu:
Good response! An to go further, we should ban McDonalds because the mother would be feeding too much fat to the fetus, ban all you can eat buffets because she might choose chicken fried steak smothered in cream gravy. We should station food police at all restaurants, have them weigh the food for anyone they may suspect as being pregnant and impose stiff fines on all food companies like Blue Bell for making too fatty foods available to pregnant women. Oh, yeah, and fine the factories and oil companies for creating so much pollution that will injure the pregnant mother and baby.

Posted by: stickem | August 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Buy that man {bio major} a cigar !

Therefore, it is a living human. Yes, it is a human mass of cells, but killing it would be to kill a living, developing specimen of the species homo sapien. You want to debate it scientifically? You've just been shut down. Goodbye.

Posted by: bio-major | August 20, 2008 3:43 PM


Posted by: rtfanning | August 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Re: keeping one's legs closed, do women magically impregnate themselves? Until David can respect a woman's right to make an impossibly difficult decision about her own body, or becomes biologically capable of carrying an embryo/fetus/child himself, he should simply keep his penis away from all women and their reproductive decisions, thank you very much.

Posted by: Duh. | August 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

To You:
You're gonna take a scenario that happened in one hospital and blow it out like it happens everywhere. Why don't you take some of the footage of anti-abortionists blowing up clinics and killing people for their cause. Beating or throwing rocks and baby bottles at women who went into those places? Fair is Fair!

Posted by: rickmc11 | August 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"So when the mother smokes is she not doing harm? And if we know she’s doing harm is it not our moral obligation to intercede on behalf of the helpless? Where would it end?"

Aren't parents who smoke like chimneys in front of their children, exposing them to second hand smoke, doing harm? Are the police arresting these parents? No? But suddenly, a smoking pregnant woman will be thrown in jail if she isn't allowed to terminate her pregnancy?

It's easy to ignore the actual issue by bringing up extreme 'what if' cases. Just MHO.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama's slide in the polls reminds me of the Far Side cartoon where the giant cockroach lying in an alley is talking to a bum saying: "I had it all: great job, great car, money, success, beautiful wife. Then one day someone shouted, 'Hey! He's just a big cockroach!'".

NObama '08

Posted by: Bob M. | August 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I actually agree with Hillary Clinton. I think all abortions are a tragedy. I think we should all use our resources to try for a 0% abortion rate. I also think we should do this in the context of our constitutional freedoms. (Why do conservatives hate freedom so much?)So until we can eliminate the exercise of abortion-by-choice we should opt to keep it legal.

Posted by: Gene | August 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The GOP platform position is that the right to life ends at birth.

Pro-gun, pro-death penalty, against providing national health care, wanting to dismantle Socail Security so the elderly can starve, pro-war.

Posted by: Prattle in Seattle | August 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Why is it when I drive in the HOV 2 lane I can't count my fetus. I'm sick and tired of this Sh#t. I blame Obama.

Posted by: HOV MOM | August 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

To my buddies Stickem, Buzz Lightyear & Lawrence Yu: Ok, since you like the extreme 'this will lead to xyz'... what about the flip side? For example - the argument that legalized abortion can lead to legalized infanticide? (just ask Steven Pinker)

Now of course, if I suggest this, it seems like I am avoiding the actual issue by bringing up hypothetical situations. Exactly.

What about the fact that prostitution is currently illegal (in most places) Talk about the government telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body! Sorry - I'm getting off topic.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Forcing a unwilling person to support another life (regardless of whether or not it can be considered "human") is slavery, pure and simple. We had a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery. Case closed.

Posted by: Edward | August 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP platform position is that the right to life ends at birth"

To turn that around - then the Democratic platform supports the rights of rapists and murders above those who are innocent of any crime. I'm sorry - their 'crime' is their place of residence.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

To: Andrew
A fetus does not have a developed cortex. The cortex performs the higher cognitive functioning of the brain... that's where we dream, create, imagine, feel emotion, problem solve, store memories. It is our highly evolved cortex that separates us from other species. Do remember Terry Schiavo? She lost most of her cortex. She was dead as a human being long before her stomach food line was removed. You are a Christian conservative... you have your opinion of when human life begins is solely based on your religious assumptions. Do not try to justify your argument with tidbits of science.


Posted by: AB68 | August 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Topic really comes in 2nd, what's lst, for most thinking voters, is that Barrack Hussein Obama, aka, BO, is the most un-qualified Presidential candidate ever nominated by a major political party in the modern history of the USA Presidential Election Process; then there are the numerous unanswered questions about BO, too many to list here; and not certain if we really want the product of Chicago's decades old political machine as our President? No thank you. NoObama.

Posted by: ltk01 | August 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I am firmly pro-choice. Always have been. Always will be.

However, it bothers me that people leave out McCain's FULL position on abortion: He has clearly stated that he believes it a state rights issue.

Such a position is based in federalism (go look in a dictionary if this word means nothing to you). An important aspect to our nation. It is even enshrined in one of the Amendments (don't know which one? Go find yourself a copy of the Constitution and read it. I have several times).

As for McCain's general opinion on abortion: He's entitled to it, even if I don't agree with him. As someone who understands how our legal/judicial system operates I am not concerned in any way about Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | August 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

to pl feminist: We're using tose far fetched scenarios to show you how far fetched your comments are. You make a good point. My point still remains, this is not the topics politicians should be discussing at this point. Numbers show the screamers for either side are small. so... let's get on with the issues that concern the majority of the people, not the moral majority who are really the moral minority.

Posted by: stickem | August 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Edward: Then you support abortion up until the moment of birth? If not - why? The woman is still a 'slave' according to your definition whether she is 2 months along or 7 months along.

The fetus did no enslave the woman - the fetus didn't just arrive in the womb on his/her own, yet the fetus is being punished... and I must argue that 9 months pregnancy itself is not slavery.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter when life begins, because we are free people, living in a free nation and we don't force people to share their bodies with other people, regardless of how worthy, innocent, deserving, or totally vulnerable that other person is. When you force one human being to share their body with another, for whatever reason, you are enslaving them. As far as I can tell, we decided a couple of hundred years ago that liberty was more important than life itself. There are lots of totalitarian regimes out there waiting to embrace those who feel otherwise.
I signed my organ donor card becuase it it the morally right thing to do. I'd give a kidney to a friend, and I'd gladly donate blood or bone marrow if someone I knew needed it, I'd probably even do the same for someone I didn't know. But I don't have a right to force someone else to do the same. Abortion is a question of individual conscience, not a question for the courts. For the sake of everyone's freedom it needs to stay that way.

Posted by: rumicat | August 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

ltk01:
Actually, Abraham Lincoln, a one term senator, was just as unqualified.
Harry S. Truman was a product of the Kansas City political machine (Pendergast). He was not too bad of a president, although the Japanese don't think so.
I'm not voting for Obama, mind you. Just a student of history. You, on the other hand, are obviously a McCain political staffer.

Posted by: Edward | August 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I like your signature,None of the Above 08. In fact, I'm starting a petition that states we want a box at the bottom of the ballot that says, "NONE OF THE ABOVE." Anyone interested in signing????

Posted by: rickmc11 | August 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Gasmonkey: "I'm not in favor of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I think the Government should tells us when we can and cannot do them."

The Government tells us what we can and can't do all the time when what we do infringes on the rights of others. Should the government then 'stay out' of issues such as rape? After all, not everyone thinks rape is wrong - who are we to outlaw something just because we have a different opinion - right?

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 3:37 PM
****************************************
Your argument is somewhat off here.

Having an abortion is NOT a crime.

Rape is a crime, not only against a specific individual but against society.

Have you ever seen court documents or case decisions related to criminal proceedings? Cases are referred to as "The People v. [whoever]". The People referring not to government but to society.

And in the US who represents "society"? The government.

It's not about a difference of opinion. One is a personal decision subject to differences of opinion. The other is a crime no matter what one's opinion might be.

Posted by: This makes no sense | August 20, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is both repugnant and unnecessary. But I challenge evangelicals and their ilk to disprove that their preoccupation with the issue is ultimately sexual... and not ethical (or religious). If they were serious about avoiding abortion at all costs, they would support sex education, effective birth control and in particular the "morning after" pill. No agonizing about when life begins, no beating heart, no mangled fetus.

Posted by: ladras | August 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"I must argue that 9 months pregnancy itself is not slavery."

PL Feminist, you're obviously overlooking the fact that a child can be adopted once it is born. My argument is that in the 9 month period leading up to birth the unborn child is entirely dependent upon the mother. If she is not willing to host the unborn child, she is indeed enslaved.
Don't like abortions? Don't get one. However, you WILL NOT legislate to my wife and I that we cannot terminate a pregnancy. My wife is not an oven for your children's future playmates to incubate in. It's her body and she doesn't want to go through nine months of pregnancy, why should she have to? It's our business and DNA, not anyone elses.

Posted by: Edward | August 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

to me there is a continuum. a cluster of cells without rights with the woman having all the rights in the matter. as the cluster of cells becomes a more complex life from 'its' rights grow and the rights of the woman loose weight until some point where the unborn has all the rights and the woman no has a say over the unborn. When is the line crossed? I dunno. Is why is so hard to pick a side. But imo, woman has more rights over a cluster of cells and unborn near term should be protected by the state. Hope that clears it up for everyone.LOL.

Posted by: skippy | August 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

. To This makes no sense:
"Having an abortion is NOT a crime."

Correct. I also argue, to the dismay of many who agree with my position, that abortion is not murder, since abortion is not illegal.

"Rape is a crime, not only against a specific individual but against society"
I realize that rape is illegal - my point was that one could argue that the government imposed morality by making it a crime.

"Have you ever seen court documents or case decisions related to criminal proceedings"
Yes.

"The other is a crime no matter what one's opinion might be."
I understand that rape is a crime, and abortion is not. My point was to those who say that abortion should not be illegal because it's imposing morality, or a difference of opinion. All laws are actually based on opinion. One could argue that abortion is more than a personal decision, but an infringement on the rights of another person and thus should not be legal.

Sorry to post and duck out (now you all can say I'm 'avoiding' responding!) but I must leave. Keep up the debate.

~ Pro-life, 7.5 months pregnant, feminist.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Look folks...this issue REALLY (for emphasis) comes down the right of a woman to NOT have her body OWNED by the state. That means liberation, liberty or whatever you want to refer to as this issue relates to women controlling what happens to their bodies.

From this police-state-in-the-making, American people DO NOT want to backslide into one of the communist countries that we're always pointing our fingers at.

This issue again shows that, when a party has no issues to run on, that party uses wedge issues to divide and divert the electorate to diffuse the possibility of loss. I don't need to point out which party that we're speaking of here, because it's self-explanatory.

Posted by: Here we go again | August 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Edward - you didn't respond to my question as to whether you support abortion up until birth. If not, why?

"If she is not willing to host the unborn child, she is indeed enslaved."

I'm sorry - but I cannot agree that we should allow the killing of another human being because this human resides in her womb through no fault of his/her own.
Unfortunately this sounds rather harsh and unfeeling, and in no way am I making light of pregnancy and the toll it can take on a woman....but no one would take me seriously in a forum such as this anyway. I really am leaving now.

Posted by: PL Feminist | August 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Most people seem to overlook the obvious. Some believe the fetus is a human. Some do not. We live in a free society, supposedly. We shouldn't force anyone to have an abortion as they do in China. We should not force anyone to NOT have an abortion as they do in Saudi Arabia. Let freedom reign.

Posted by: Gene | August 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The poll numbers are BS. Every time McCain screws up, his poll numbers go up. When Paris Hilton started punching back over McCains add, FOX started posting, "McCain up in the polls" all over the net. Obama's biggest problem is that alot of people don't have access to the net to find out about the real McCain. With the press covering up for him he comes off like a saint. I'm hoping McCain keeps it up with his stupid TV adds so he'll sink himself. One thing Obama has to stop doing is praising McCain's military service right after he trashes him. Obama shouldn't even bring McCain's military service up. I think their mentioning poll numbers because Obama's TV adds over the last three days have really hit McCain hard. There's a whole bunch of good stuff out there on McCain, all Obama has to do is use it.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Most people seem to overlook the obvious "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence.at what point does the unborn get protection under the Constitution to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
If you say never you conveniently overlook the the complexity of the life form as it approaches term. Now as a cluster of cells I agree with u, but at some point the unborn should be protected under the constitution. Now, when during the pregnancy ? I have not clue.But it sure makes sense to me that once the unborn meets some threshold it should be afforded the rights we all cherish. In my opinion of course.

Posted by: skippy | August 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade , which would then force x number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations," McCain to the San Francisco Chronicle. Of course now he's sings a different tune when he wants to be President....oh wait that WAS his postion when he was running in 2000..
Gay Marriage when he was running in 2000:

"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says, but of course THAT was the LAST time he ran....can we REALLY trust this fella to lead?? isn't that just another of at least 60 documented FLIP FLOPS??

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Once again the hypocricy of conservatives screaming for freedome and less government. Get goverment out of my body, please. Abortion was LEGALIZED to prevent back alley deaths. Conservatives want to bring back that kind of world because life is sacred. Unless you're a woman, an expendable troop in Iraq, or a minority.

Posted by: Torchy | August 20, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Just remember who spoke out first, loudest and clearest with the most leadership when Russia invaded Georgia when you vote in November.

http://milkavkaz.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=171ac547325a9b8b1b2f438ad73

Posted by: rt | August 20, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't understand the pro-life position! It is pretty simple:

1. Life is a gift

2. Hacking a baby to pieces moments before it appears in someone's arms is murder.

Posted by: gene from connersville | August 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I trust that all of the naive asses who refused to support Hillary Clinton's candidacy are happy now that Obama is already losing his momentum. This is what I greatly feared and predicted many times.

But you Obama supporters would have none of my reasoning. You accused me of being a "racist"--of being prejudiced against Obama because he is a young and idealistic black man. Such was never the case. Such is not the case. Barack Obama is a brilliant man. Should he be nominated, I will certainly vote for him. America desperately needs a change of direction in Washington.

I knew the Republicans would pull out all stops to smear and destroy Obama and I knew he was less capable of defending himself from their low blows than Hillary Clinton would have been. She has been dealing with right wing Christians and other American knuckle draggers for decades. By comparison, Obama is a lamb before the slaughter.

It is not too late for Hillary Clinton to become the nominee of the Democratic Party. She should consider that option still if Obama's poll numbers continue to slide.

D. Grant Haynes

Posted by: D. Grant Haynes | August 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Look folks...this issue REALLY (for emphasis) comes down the right of a woman to NOT have her body OWNED by the state. That means liberation, liberty or whatever you want to refer to as this issue relates to women controlling what happens to their bodies.

From this police-state-in-the-making, American people DO NOT want to backslide into one of the communist countries that we're always pointing our fingers at.

This issue again shows that, when a party has no issues to run on, that party uses wedge issues to divide and divert the electorate to diffuse the possibility of loss. I don't need to point out which party that we're speaking of here, because it's self-explanatory.

*****************************************

Tell me about it. This issue shouldn't even be used to pick a president. It's a no win situation. Pregnancy and abortion should be addressed through education and support groups. I think if it has to be done it should be done early. Real early. Passing laws against it makes people do real desperate things.

Posted by: Mike | August 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives profess to care about unborn babies, but support the anti-family policies of the right. I make my living caring for children with serious birth defects, largely attributable to poor pre-natal care, pollution, poverty, ignorance, lack of community support, corrupt insurance companies who don't deserve to be trusted with healthcare coverage, and ignorance. This is the sorry legacy of the Greedy Old Pharisees who set the Repulican agenda.
Conservatives should try to be more like Jesus and less likle the people who killed him.

Posted by: Wehring | August 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I trust that all of the naive asses who refused to support Hillary Clinton's candidacy are happy now that Obama is already losing his momentum. This is what I greatly feared and predicted many times.

But you Obama supporters would have none of my reasoning. You accused me of being a "racist"--of being prejudiced against Obama because he is a young and idealistic black man. Such was never the case. Such is not the case. Barack Obama is a brilliant man. Should he be nominated, I will certainly vote for him. America desperately needs a change of direction in Washington.

I knew the Republicans would pull out all stops to smear and destroy Obama and I knew he was less capable of defending himself from their low blows than Hillary Clinton would have been. She has been dealing with right wing Christians and other American knuckle draggers for decades. By comparison, Obama is a lamb before the slaughter.

It is not too late for Hillary Clinton to become the nominee of the Democratic Party. She should consider that option still if Obama's poll numbers continue to slide.

D. Grant Haynes


((((((((((((((((((((((

I don't think so. The only thing the GOP can come up with on Obama are lies. Now Hillary's a different story. She has a whole lot of baggage to dig through. The GOP would've took her out just like they did Bill. It sure would've been fun to watch.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 20, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Now D. Grant Haynes, the only reason Hillary could've stood up to McCain's low blows is because she and Bill are both masters of the low blow. I, for one, do not see that as a prerequisite for president. In fact, as I've posted earlier, BO shouldn't respond or even acknowledge the low blows. He needs to stick to the issues and how he will address them. Trading low blows is immature and yes, if Hillary had gotten the nod, she could have stood toe to toe with little Johnny and kept the circus alive. I get soap operas on TV, I don't need them in politics.

Posted by: stickem | August 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The Abortion argument will continue to gain momentum before Election Day. This is Obamanation worst nightmare! The one thing he feared the most. What we see happening is the unwrapping of Hussein Jr. This is what I call him. The reason Obama will be defeated in November? Answer. He is a flake. And I am a Black American. McCain 2008. It makes plain sense.

Posted by: Black Conservative | August 20, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

TO: PL Feminist

Your comments on abortion evade or ignore the essential difference between actual and potential. Slaves were actual people who were entitled to their rights, but arbitrarily denied them. By any objective definition a fetus is only a potential person in the same way an acorn is a potential tree but not the tree itself.

The enslavement of black men and women to work on plantations picking cotton for the benifit of others is a quintessential example of how the state used its power to violate individual rights instead of protecting them. Your religious belief that women should be compelled by the state to bare a child they don't want has the same premise as slavery, that individuals can be forced to sacrifice their personal lifes for someone else's benefit.

Your comments on abortion have a double irony. You label yourself "pro-life" but you're advocating that the living be sacrificed to the unborn. You cite the artifical definition of slaves as non people in the Dred Scott decision as justification to do the opposite and define fetuses as people to support a different form of slavery.

Posted by: Buzz Lightyear | August 21, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

The Pro Life Movement needs to look at the big picture. Please, read this.

People on both sides of the issue can argue who is right and who is wrong until they are blue in the face, but it is not going to help fix the problem.

Overturning Roe vrs Wade will not stop abortions in America. We had abortions before the ruling and we will have abortions after the ruling.

Addressing our declining economy, lack of education on the issue and our bodies, and lack of affordable healthcare and contraception is the only way to help reduce the amount of abortions in america.

As our economy continues to decline women who would never consider having an abortion are posed with tough questions like how am I going to feed an extra mouth, I am working two jobs already and dont spend any time with the kids I already have, I am loosing my home... where will we live, I dont have health insurance. We are already on public assistance, will we ever get out of it? Saving for college? I have to save $450,000 for my three kids to go to a state school... what low or middle income family can afford that? Women are foregoing buying contraceptives.... should I spend the $50 bucks on birth control pills or food for my family?

Last night over dinner I asked talked about some of these posts... and I angrily said, How can these people be so stupid, cant they see they are being Mainipulated? Republicans dont care about the poor and the middle class... they want to continue the economic policies of the current administration that is leading to women to have more and more abortions. He wisely said... you cant fault them for being passionate about their beliefs. The democrats are doing a poor job of pointing out the big picture.

So PLEASE, think about it. If you dont think the republican party is manipulating you.... remember back to the 2004 election when Bush all of a sudden announced he would like a constitutional ban on gay marriage. All of the Right Wing Conservative movement rallied behind him and voted for him... we havent heard a single thing about it since.

Now they are doing the same thing. Do you really think McCain is going to pick a pro choice VP? I seriously doubt it. He is dancing around it... making it seem like a possibility. When he announces a Pro life candidate, all of a sudden a man who was once distrusted by the movement will be the hero and savior to them all. Its pathetic.

Posted by: realamerican2 | August 21, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

The Pro Life Movement needs to look at the big picture. Please, read this.

People on both sides of the issue can argue who is right and who is wrong until they are blue in the face, but it is not going to help fix the problem.

Overturning Roe vrs Wade will not stop abortions in America. We had abortions before the ruling and we will have abortions after the ruling.

Addressing our declining economy, lack of education on the issue and our bodies, and lack of affordable healthcare and contraception is the only way to help reduce the amount of abortions in america.

As our economy continues to decline women who would never consider having an abortion are posed with tough questions like how am I going to feed an extra mouth, I am working two jobs already and dont spend any time with the kids I already have, I am loosing my home... where will we live, I dont have health insurance. We are already on public assistance, will we ever get out of it? Saving for college? I have to save $450,000 for my three kids to go to a state school... what low or middle income family can afford that? Women are foregoing buying contraceptives.... should I spend the $50 bucks on birth control pills or food for my family?

Last night over dinner I asked talked about some of these posts... and I angrily said, How can these people be so stupid, cant they see they are being Mainipulated? Republicans dont care about the poor and the middle class... they want to continue the economic policies of the current administration that is leading to women to have more and more abortions. He wisely said... you cant fault them for being passionate about their beliefs. The democrats are doing a poor job of pointing out the big picture.

So PLEASE, think about it. If you dont think the republican party is manipulating you.... remember back to the 2004 election when Bush all of a sudden announced he would like a constitutional ban on gay marriage. All of the Right Wing Conservative movement rallied behind him and voted for him... we havent heard a single thing about it since.

Now they are doing the same thing. Do you really think McCain is going to pick a pro choice VP? I seriously doubt it. He is dancing around it... making it seem like a possibility. When he announces a Pro life candidate, all of a sudden a man who was once distrusted by the movement will be the hero and savior to them all. Its pathetic.

Posted by: realamerican2 | August 21, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Abortion is a HUGE issue in Colorado this election, thanks to Amendment 48. If it passes, that measure would give fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons.

The Coalition for Secular Government ( http://www.seculargovernment.us ) just published an issue paper on it "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:

http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, including its effects on the legality of abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. And we offer a strong defense of abortion rights based on the biological facts of pregnancy.

Posted by: Diana Hsieh | August 21, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I am all for abortions in early stages of pregnancy.

But what I found troubling is that liberals will always cite the most extreme of possiblities to justify something that want to make openly available.

What if your daughter is raped, what if your wife is going to die if she carries a child to term etc etc. How many of the abortions performed on a daily basis are for rape or are done because the mother will die if she carries the child to term?

Your car could hit a telephone pole when you drive to work. That could happen, so lets take your car away for your own safety! That is just as logical as this abortion argument!

It would be an easy matter to create a way that abortions for rape, incest or medical reasons could be protected. But to use the most extreme and rare situation, to justify a daily occurance is just twisted logic.

I attack your logic, not a right to an abortion! You need to find a better argument!

Posted by: Heather | August 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Ahh yes abortion. Now THERE's an issue that's going to get the economy moving again! Or help end our dependence on oil! Or secure the nation's future.


And nevermind the thousands upon thousands of lives that will be lost in war if McCain is elected.


And nevermind that McCain is an adulterer and a divorcee, while Obama is a devoted family man.


The abortion debate highlights the complete and total hypocrisy of the Evangelical Christian movement.


Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I have personally always supported the pro-choice side because the zealotry of the anti abortion folks scares the heck out of me. When the morning after pill came out I thought this was a great answer to reducing unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions. But then people like right to life started calling this kind of contraception abortion to. Personally I think that is just ridiculous since it actually prevents the ovum from implanting so there is no pregnancy. As long as anti abortion people take these extreme positions I am going to keep voting pro-choice thanks!

Posted by: Rob P | August 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Unless there is another Andrew out there whose views are rather more Neanderthal than mine, some out there are getting me mixed up. In any event, having gotten sucked back into all this, let me point out that St Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and a zillion popes have all said God gives humans their soul at their first breath. And if these souls are not baptized before they die, they go to hell, as innocent as we may think them, because of original sin (although the current Pope, Benedict, has ordered a review of this doctrine - which review will take at least a generation (that's a pun, but true). Nobody is baptizing embryos, as far as I know.

Posted by: Andrew Long | August 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is between a woman and God. It's no one else's business.

To DS - a man should learn to keeps his pants zipped. A woman cannot get pregnant on her own.

Posted by: returntocommonsense | August 24, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company