Is President Obama Right in This?

celticlord said:

Who here can say that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice?

Who here can say that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally right choice?

Then say why or why not.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with a choice that is nobody's business but that of the person about to take it. Leave it to them and their version of what is morally right/wrong.

Hatuey said:

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with a choice that is nobody's business but that of the person about to take it.

Click to expand...

That is a moral statement. Your words are their own refutation.

It also does not answer the questions I posed.

If I can try and steer this back in the direction I was hoping to go, I would like to avoid debating abortion itself, and more stick to talking about the level of discourse involved in the debate.

That is a request, not a commandment kinda thing. It's interesting either way.

Wessexman said:

I think Catholicism is as strong a motivation as fundamentalist Christianity but ignoring that most pro-lifers are pro-choice. Pro the choice of the people in their states. They may want their state to ban abortion but they believe in choice, the choice of the state against a runaway federal gov't sticking its nose in where it isn't needed or allowed.

Click to expand...

States rights is such a load of bull**** it's almost funny when people bring it up like denying an individual the right to carry out a private matter should be left up to state governments and not the federal one.

celticlord said:

That is a moral statement.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Please stop with the non-sequiturs?

Hatuey said:

No it's not. Please stop with the non-sequiturs?

Click to expand...

You have only to answer the questions I posed. No more than this.

Hatuey said:

States rights is such a load of bull**** it's almost funny when people bring it up like denying an individual the right to carry out a private matter should be left up to state governments and not the federal one.

Click to expand...

Of course it should unless it is specifically given directly to the feds. That is the only way a federal constitution can work without becoming mere guidelines and endangering the necessary autonomy of the states. If the people don't like their abortion rules they should take it up with their states.

This just proves the point of people like Alexis De Tocqueville and Robert Nisbet who talked about how atomistic individualism and more libertine individual rights can sometimes be combined with aggressive statism of centralised nation states. In fact sometimes they build on each other.

I also noticed you did not respond to where I called you on referring to Catholics as fundamentalism which is a position that shows a great deal of ignorance on these issues.

Your question and phrasing are commendable.

While I prefer that debates on serious topics should always take place with respect on both sides, I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation in this case.

The reason for that is that anti-abortionists such as myself are forced to see the opposition as condoning and in many cases committing wholesale murder of innocents.

For many of us, a discussion with our opponents in this matter is a situation analogous to the event in which Heinrich Himmler, late in the second world war, had a meeting with a Jewish diplomat about the fate of European Jewry.

On almost any other topic, I find that I can at least consider some mode compromise. But how does one condone an acceptable level of murder?

I doubt that there is going to be peace between these two sides in this affair. One side must emerge with overwhelming victory and a certain popular mandate to establish a standard.

Oftencold said:

Your question and phrasing are commendable.

While I prefer that debates on serious topics should always take place with respect on both sides, I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation in this case.

The reason for that is that anti-abortionists such as myself are forced to see the opposition as condoning and in many cases committing wholesale murder of innocents.

For many of us, a discussion with our opponents in this matter is a situation analogous to the event in which Heinrich Himmler, late in the second world war, had a meeting with a Jewish diplomat about the fate of European Jewry.

On almost any other topic, I find that I can at least consider some mode compromise. But how does one condone an acceptable level of murder?

I doubt that there is going to be peace between these two sides in this affair. One side must emerge with overwhelming victory and a certain popular mandate to establish a standard.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that was a way I had never seen the debate explained, if you follow what I say. It can be hard at times to understand why the other side in a debate is the way they are. That really illuminated something that had never sunk in to me.

Hatuey said:

. . . .
He is and he isn't. As long as the majority of people behind the pro-life movements are Fundamentalist Christians then this will never be argued civilly. They simply do not care about people who do not follow their religious beliefs. . . .

Click to expand...

Ah! I must inform the Pastor that we need to start imposing strict controls on our charitable activities, to insure that our resources are only expended upon people who follow our religious beliefs, since of course we don't care about the rest.

And how odd of us that we as Christians are so stalwart in our support of the State of Israel, since it is primarily populated by people of a faith other than our own.

And when we pray for the relief of the suffering of persons in far off lands who have suffered catastrophes almost incomprehensible to us, we probably should remember to insert a disclaimer asking that all Divine Intercession be expended solely upon those survivors who are of our own faith.

Finally, in the matter before us, is it to be assumed the Christians are to be concerned only with abortions performed upon other Christians, or used to destroy the Unborn that would likely grow into new Christians?

Forgive me if I question the previous posters willingness to observe the world around him in lucidity, or to meditate upon what he observes rationally.

Redress said:

I suppose I should add that I agree with you guys mostly so far. I just cannot see this topic being debated in a civil manner. The moral and civil rights aspects run too strong for people to moderate their emotional response. It's too bad, because that is the very reason I and I suspect many others avoid any discussion of the topic. The arguments are going to get unpleasant, and I just don't want to take part in that level of unpleasantness, especially for an issue I have some moral ambiguity on.

Click to expand...

Part of what makes the debate so acrimonious, is that it is largely an either/or proposition.

To compare. If I was adamantly in favor of some version of slavery, and you were just as committed to abolishing that institution, we might still find common ground in at least improving the living and working conditions of slaves.

But the practice of elective abortion allows for little in the way "middle ground."

Oftencold said:

Part of what makes the debate so acrimonious, is that it is largely a n either/or proposition.

To compare. If I was adamantly in favor of some version of slavery, and you were just as committed to abolishing that institution, we might still find common ground in at least improving the living and working conditions of slaves.

But the practice of elective abortion allows for little in the way "middle ground."

Click to expand...

I think you where actually closer in your other post. Your side sees abortion as murder of innocents, while my side sees abortion rights as a personal freedom that the government should not intrude on. These are both strong positions and things we take as very very serious.

To give you an example from my side of the debate on abortion. I think of it as analogous of gun rights. Gun rights people get very emotional about the issue because we/they(I am not really a big gun rights person, so more "they" than "we") see it as representing a basic personal right. We think of abortion rights in that same light. When the government intrudes on basic personal rights, we get very bent out of shape.

Does that make sense?

Redress said:

I think you where actually closer in your other post. Your side sees abortion as murder of innocents, while my side sees abortion rights as a personal freedom that the government should not intrude on. These are both strong positions and things we take as very very serious.

To give you an example from my side of the debate on abortion. I think of it as analogous of gun rights. Gun rights people get very emotional about the issue because we/they(I am not really a big gun rights person, so more "they" than "we") see it as representing a basic personal right. We think of abortion rights in that same light. When the government intrudes on basic personal rights, we get very bent out of shape.

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

You certainly make sense.

I wish I knew of a way for there to be compromise in this matter. But I can see none.

Redress said:

Is there a real chance that we can debate abortion without seeing the other side as villains? Can we debate the topic without emotions overwhelming respect for those who disagree with us?

Click to expand...

I say no. If you are genuinely pro-life when it comes to abortion,that means you see the "fetus" as a living human being deserving of life then you do not want a compromise. You want the abominable act of abortion outlawed and perhaps offenders treated no different than someone who kills a baby outside the womb. If you are genuinely pro-abortion then you see the "fetus" as a toenail or some other appendage of the body that should be discarded on the whims of the mother and that the pro-life crowd is making a big deal out of nothing. Any compromise means caving to the other side's demands. If you are genuinely against abortion then compromise means allowing abortions and possibly funding pro-abortion groups, if you are genuinely pro-abortion then a compromise means not making it as easy for someone to get an abortion.

Personally anyone who does not respect the view of doctors who do not wish to perform abortion and seeks to undermine every law designed to curb abortions is not sincere when they say they wish to curb abortions. Its like saying you are anti-illegal immigration when want to grant amnesty to illegals, its like saying you are not racist when you are a member of the black panthers or the KKK, its like saying you are patriotic if you support globalism and outsourcing. Those things are a contradiction to each other.

Wessexman said:

Of course it should unless it is specifically given directly to the feds. That is the only way a federal constitution can work without becoming mere guidelines and endangering the necessary autonomy of the states. If the people don't like their abortion rules they should take it up with their states.

This just proves the point of people like Alexis De Tocqueville and Robert Nisbet who talked about how atomistic individualism and more libertine individual rights can sometimes be combined with aggressive statism of centralised nation states. In fact sometimes they build on each other.

Click to expand...

Boring diatribe ignored.

I also noticed you did not respond to where I called you on referring to Catholics as fundamentalism which is a position that shows a great deal of ignorance on these issues.

Click to expand...

The only ignorance here is the fact that you - like the simple country dweller that you are - can not comprehend sentences that apparently aren't written by dead guys hell bent on boring the **** out of us :

As long as the majority of people behind the pro-life movements are Fundamentalist Christian

Click to expand...

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants, 23.9% are Catholics, and 1.7% are Mormons (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and 1.6% to various other Christian denominations.[13] Christianity was introduced during the period of European colonization.

By the 2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches of the National Council of Churches, Roman Catholic Church is the largest single denomination with a membership of 67,117,016, and Southern Baptist Convention ranks second at 16,266,920.

Click to expand...

My statement stands. The majority of people behind the pro-life movement are FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS. If you don't like this then well. Not my fault. Deal with the statistics.

Ah! I must inform the Pastor that we need to start imposing strict controls on our charitable activities, to insure that our resources are only expended upon people who follow our religious beliefs, since of course we don't care about the rest.

And how odd of us that we as Christians are so stalwart in our support of the State of Israel, since it is primarily populated by people of a faith other than our own.

And when we pray for the relief of the suffering of persons in far off lands who have suffered catastrophes almost incomprehensible to us, we probably should remember to insert a disclaimer asking that all Divine Intercession be expended solely upon those survivors who are of our own faith.

Finally, in the matter before us, is it to be assumed the Christians are to be concerned only with abortions performed upon other Christians, or used to destroy the Unborn that would likely grow into new Christians?

Forgive me if I question the previous posters willingness to observe the world around him in lucidity, or to meditate upon what he observes rationally.

Click to expand...

Pssst. Did you read the context of my post? Or just hyperbole?

Redress said:

Is there a real chance that we can debate abortion without seeing the other side as villains? Can we debate the topic without emotions overwhelming respect for those who disagree with us?

Click to expand...

Impossible for a very simple reason. The two sides aren't talking about the same issue. It appears that way, but it's not. The anti-abortion crowd is actually anti-slut. So the discussion is centered around that. The pro-abortion group is centered around a woman's freedom to have an abortion. How can you get both sides to debate civilly when they won't even discuss the same topic?

Hatuey said:

Boring diatribe ignored.

Click to expand...

Your unwillingness to debate the subject when it gets tough is noted.

The only ignorance here is the fact that you - like the simple country dweller that you are -

Click to expand...

An attempt at personal insult, interesting but not an argument.

Personally I take it as a compliment from the likes of you.:cowboy:

can not comprehend sentences that apparently aren't written by dead guys hell bent on boring the **** out of us :

Click to expand...

I'm sure movies from living wankers are much more informative.

My statement stands. The majority of people behind the pro-life movement are FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS. If you don't like this then well. Not my fault. Deal with the statistics.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my point, it was that you pretend to know what you are talking about but you called Catholic fundamentalist Christians.:roll:

obvious Child said:

How can you get both sides to debate civilly when they won't even discuss the same topic?

Click to expand...

Call me crazy, but one side refraining from recasting the other side's arguments (especially in the pejorative) might be one way.

earthworm said:

No.
President Obama is whistling Dixie...:mrgreen:
As a people we are simply not that civilized.
Maybe 100 years from now ???

Click to expand...

This actually does have to do with civilization. There are just two different cultural directions here, pulling in opposite directions. On the one side, you have people who believe that killing children is wrong, that its always wrong, and that just because you are a mother, doesn't give you the right to subvert the rights of your baby. On the other side, are people that believe that whatever is going on inside a woman's body during a pregnancy is her business and if she wants to kill her child, the government shouldn't have the authority to stop her. It's her body, its her choice.

Frankly, I find abortion to be nauseatingly barbaric, not to mention intellectually unethical, and politically inconsistent (if not antithetical) with both human and civil rights. That said, I'm a bit of a cynical son of a bitch when it comes to this issue. If barbaric people are willfully protecting society from the spread of their DNA, maybe that's a good thing. Then again....

I've had too much experience with abortion not to despise it, but also too much experience not to despise the people who choose them. As human beings we make all kinds of terrible decisions in our lives and people that have had abortions, what they need is healing, compassion, and understanding, not condemnation. I compare abortion with the Rwandan genocides. There were so many people involved in that terrible situation that the government is allowing people caught up in the massacres to go free, so long as they admit what they have done, confess to their community, and demonstrate regret. Churches in the communities are working to foster the healing process through reconciliation and support. Good people can fall into the most barbaric behaviors when its all around them, when it seems like its' "OK". And they too become victims of their own potential for the barbaric. Many women suffer their entire lives with the unbearable shame of what they have done, and condemning them is just as bad as condemning the terrible things drug addicts and alcoholics have done in their past. People that have had abortions need the same support and understanding as recovering addicts.

Redress said:

Is there a real chance that we can debate abortion without seeing the other side as villains? Can we debate the topic without emotions overwhelming respect for those who disagree with us?

Click to expand...

Of course we can, but both sides have to be willing to sit down and listen to each others point of view. It does no good for lifers to scream 'baby killers' and 'murderers' and for the choicers to insult the lifers. That gets us nowhere. We can reduce the number of abortions if we work together, the trouble is, the lifers think the only solution is to ban abortion altogether. They dont see the bigger issues.

Felicity said:

Some can--most can't.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think we have established that.:roll:

Hatuey said:

Forgive me for thinking your high horse is full of ****.

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. Not all killing of human beings is called murder--a few of those quotes you have are about Obama's defense of allowing babies who survive an abortion and are alive outside the womb to die of neglect. Sorry--that IS murder of a born human being. I have always been careful to call abortion "legal killing" --which it is. I have, however, called it "morally murder"--but that's a different position altogether.:2wave:

Redress said:

Is there a real chance that we can debate abortion without seeing the other side as villains? Can we debate the topic without emotions overwhelming respect for those who disagree with us?

Click to expand...

In response to your questions, I would have to respond "no". It's clear, especially after reading all of the responses so far, that each side reduces the other to "villians" in most instances. It is also clear that emotions run so high in this topic that, in my opinion, people narrowly, if at all, show respect to another with an opposing view. Very few people seem to be willing to step back and allow another individual to have his or her view be their own; it always seems to come down to an attempt to "win" from both sides.

In response to the poll, I chose that I think we could do better, and I do. I just am less likely to believe we will until individuals can become more accepting of one another. I doubt my grandchildren (if I have any) will see that happen in their lifetime, which means I know it won't happen in mine.

-k

Redress said:

Is there a real chance that we can debate abortion without seeing the other side as villains? Can we debate the topic without emotions overwhelming respect for those who disagree with us?

Click to expand...

I really do believe that this issue can be discussed in a civil manner by ADULTS. People who resort to name calling and the like are not mature enough to discuss the philosophy behind the stances. It requires a person to open enough to facts to be able to listen to the evidence provided by the otherside and give it deserved weight. If one is a zealot, then reason will elude them and they have no business attempting a logical conversation.

tlmorg02 said:

I really do believe that this issue can be discussed in a civil manner by ADULTS. People who resort to name calling and the like are not mature enough to discuss the philosophy behind the stances. It requires a person to open enough to facts to be able to listen to the evidence provided by the otherside and give it deserved weight. If one is a zealot, then reason will elude them and they have no business attempting a logical conversation.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree entirely. I have had some pleasant discussions both in this thread, and in another one in the Breaking News section, with people who disagree with my stance on abortion rights.

But...as we talked about a bit in this thread, the big problem I think is that both sides are approaching the discussion from unassailable moral positions. Anti-abortion people feel that abortion is murder, and therefore clearly murder. Pro abortion rights people see abortion as a personal rights issue, and the government should not take away rights. With that separation of viewpoints, it makes it pretty much impossible to find common grounds. So we yell our points back and forth, without ever really being able to comprehend why those on the other side cannot see reason.

Redress said:

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree entirely. I have had some pleasant discussions both in this thread, and in another one in the Breaking News section, with people who disagree with my stance on abortion rights.

But...as we talked about a bit in this thread, the big problem I think is that both sides are approaching the discussion from unassailable moral positions. Anti-abortion people feel that abortion is murder, and therefore clearly murder. Pro abortion rights people see abortion as a personal rights issue, and the government should not take away rights. With that separation of viewpoints, it makes it pretty much impossible to find common grounds. So we yell our points back and forth, without ever really being able to comprehend why those on the other side cannot see reason.

Click to expand...

I always look at abortion in this regard, abortion is essentially murder. In reality, one is taking the life of a growing fetus. Still, I support abortion in the first trimester for the basic fact that the fetus is unable or unlikely, I should say, to survive outside of the mother's womb, therefor the fetuor zygote is not an independent life any more than a malignant tumor. Once past the second trimester the chances of the fetus surviving increase dramatically and the baby is in fact more of an independent life. The common ground between the two camps should revolve around preventing unwanted pregnancy and determing in what circumstances abortion is acceptable and unacceptable. Now there will undoubtedly be those fringe persons, who speak the loudest, that will not give an inch. The truth remains that the majority of Americans believe that in the case of rape or incest and to some extent in case of death of the mother, abortion should remain legal. Late-term abortions, however are not looked upon favorably and the majority of Americans agree that such procedures should be banned.

This topic is a hot one, but one in which people may discuss if one places themselves in the shoes of the otherside. In doing so you may find areas of the argument that may indeed be open for civil discussion.