• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama supports Partial Birth Abortion ( old news to us who follow him )

johnny_rebson said:
Not according to pro-choicers like Obama and Romney.
Click to expand...

the thread is about partial birth abortion, and Romney has "evolved" his position on abortion just as obama has "evolved" his position on gay marriage.:lamo
 
Bobcat said:
the thread is about partial birth abortion, and Romney has "evolved" his position on abortion just as obama has "evolved" his position on gay marriage.:lamo
Click to expand...

Romney has "evolved" (flip-flopped) on practically every issue. It's hard to tell if he's being geniune or if he's trying to score political points.
 
WI Crippler said:
So a orthopedic surgeon should not be able to recommend a hip replacement because they haven't dealt with osteoarthritis themselves?

If we are going to invalidate people's opinions on a matter, simply because they lack a first hand experience with something, we may as well shut this board down and free speech in general..
Click to expand...

Which part of: "Of course that opinion is still wrong, so I don't see why you have to present it in a dishonest way" do you find hard to understand?

While one can form a good opinion without first hand experience, first hand experience is still an important part of forming a good opinion.
 
nonpareil said:
No.

dsdfhjkd
Click to expand...

OK, so the unborn child has no rights--thats your position. got it. Is the unborn child alive? If yes, how does your position sync with the words, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
If no, you do not understand human biology.
 
Bobcat said:
OK, so the unborn child has no rights--thats your position. got it. Is the unborn child alive? If yes, how does your position sync with the words, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
If no, you do not understand human biology.
Click to expand...


My skin cells are alive, how does that sync with the words, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If you need to rehash this arguement, just visit the Abortion Forum and read to your heart's content.
 
Kandahar said:
As far as I know, so-called "partial-birth abortions" are almost exclusively done in very unusual circumstances: the mother or baby is likely to die, a major birth defect was discovered late in the pregnancy, the fetus is already dead and it needs to be extracted without damaging the woman's reproductive system, etc. Almost no one would choose to wait nine months and THEN have an abortion just because they could.
Click to expand...

This. Banning partial-birth abortion makes about as much sense as banning the use of defibrillators.
 
Cardinal said:
This. Banning partial-birth abortion makes about as much sense as banning the use of defibrillators.
Click to expand...

Not quite.


Banning partial birth abortions is like passing a law stating burglary is illegal on Tuesdays, but legal on the other 6 days of the week.
 
Cardinal said:
This. Banning partial-birth abortion makes about as much sense as banning the use of defibrillators.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a life-taking technique to a life-saving one.
 
nota bene said:
You're comparing a life-taking technique to a life-saving one.
Click to expand...

...unless the partial birth abortion is also a life-saving one.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Not quite.


Banning partial birth abortions is like passing a law stating burglary is illegal on Tuesdays, but legal on the other 6 days of the week.
Click to expand...

Well, that does actually bring up another point, which is the term "partial birth abortion" itself. This was applied by pro-life activists to politicize the procedure called intact dilation and extraction, which is used to save the life of the mother or in cases of extreme infant disfiguration. But by slapping the "abortion" label on it hopelessly extreme emotions cloud the topic.

By the way, I almost never enter abortion discussion because the question of when life starts is an unavoidable aspect of it and I don't like getting involved in debates with unquantifiable parameters. In other words, I don't particularly enjoy arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But in the case of intact dilation and extraction, we're not talking about a woman's right to choose, or whether she's emotionally or financially ready to take on being parent. Intact dilation extract is medical, and is unrelated to the abortion debate.
 
nonpareil said:
My skin cells are alive, how does that sync with the words, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If you need to rehash this arguement, just visit the Abortion Forum and read to your heart's content.
Click to expand...

So, you equate your skin cells with a living, but unborn, human being? Amazing.
 
greatar4 said:
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was not meant the hypocrisy of Obama, as you said he is been consistent on that issue.
Click to expand...
Except for that time he made the "that's above my pay grade" dodge in his interview with Rick Warren, of course.
 
Bobcat said:
So, you equate your skin cells with a living, but unborn, human being? Amazing.
Click to expand...

I said living skin cells are alive, are they not alive? If you think that's amazing, good for you. Maybe you will learn something.
 
nonpareil said:
I said living skin cells are alive, are they not alive? If you think that's amazing, good for you. Maybe you will learn something.
Click to expand...

yes, your skin cells are alive, you can kill them if you want by burning, cutting, freezing, acid, etc. Do you equate killing skin cells to killing an unborn child?
 
Bobcat said:
yes, your skin cells are alive, you can kill them if you want by burning, cutting, freezing, acid, etc. Do you equate killing skin cells to killing an unborn child?
Click to expand...

Depend on how you kill the skin cells. If you have to have an abortion to do it, and you want to call a fetus "an unborn child", sure. If you have other stupid questions, there's the Abortion Forum which has all the answers to these kind of tired old arguements.
 
cpwill said:
how about a - how did the president put it - "fetus outside the womb" who is crying for it's mother?
Click to expand...

Why don't you show us what he means with links and actuall context first? I'm afraid I don't trust you to put anyone's arguement in context if your life depends on it given your post history.
 
It's not that incredibly difficult - he said it in the context of children who were outside the womb, ie, they had been born in the process of a botched late-term abortion, and who were then abandoned to die.

But perhaps you can tell us. Once a child is outside the womb, is it a child deserving not to be killed then?
 
nonpareil said:
Depend on how you kill the skin cells. If you have to have an abortion to do it, and you want to call a fetus "an unborn child", sure. If you have other stupid questions, there's the Abortion Forum which has all the answers to these kind of tired old arguements.
Click to expand...

I guess where we differ is that you consider the skin cells of the unborn child to be skin cells belonging to the mother, and since they are hers she can do whatever she wants with them. Is that it?
 
cpwill said:
It's not that incredibly difficult - he said it in the context of children who were outside the womb, ie, they had been born in the process of a botched late-term abortion, and who were then abandoned to die.

But perhaps you can tell us. Once a child is outside the womb, is it a child deserving not to be killed then?
Click to expand...

I think that is what pro-choice means, kill inside or out of the womb, makes no difference. I honestly believe some pro-choicer's don't really know when a child is to old to kill.
 
Born Free said:
I think that is what pro-choice means, kill inside or out of the womb, makes no difference. I honestly believe some pro-choicer's don't really know when a child is to old to kill.
Click to expand...

I am completely against abortion past the 87th trimester.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
How many people - do you think - weigh in 'abortion views' when it comes to 'the things they want/need in a president'

If that is what people base their votes on - truly - I'd rather they didn't vote . . . the president alone has 0 weight on the abortion issue. He cannot executive order around existing laws and legislation. His opinion means little - so why does it weigh so heavily for some people?
Click to expand...

He seemed to executive order around immigration laws just fine.
 
Aberration said:
He seemed to executive order around immigration laws just fine.
Click to expand...

Not to mention he appoints Judges to vacant positions in the Supreme court and some lower Appeals and Federal courts. If we lose a single "conservative" justice while Obama is in office, you might as well take out the US Constitution and use as toilet paper because that is the only value it will have. Do I like and approve all conservative justices, no, but they are more likely to consider the US Constitution for a decision instead of Das Kapital. I personally think we need a few more "Moderate" justices, but fat chance of getting one of those except by accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom