Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Question about Obama's comments on abortion during debate


Heisenberg

Recommended Posts

Seeing as how the "partial birth abortion" has been a huge issue for many about Obama in this election.

I was confused when I heard Obama discuss this issue - What exactly is so radical about his view? It sure seemed to me that he did a good job of explaining his viewpoin and his reasoning for his vote while an Illinois State Senator.

I'm curious to see what I'm missing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is the issue IMO:

1. There are people who do not ever want another abortion to occur on this planet. Not under any circumstances, situations, or reasons. A vocal number of them belong to the Republican Party, and to some other parties like the Constitution Party.

2. Some people disagree with abortions on principle/ethical grounds, and simply don't want their tax dollars (or actually our tax dollars) to go to pay for anything abortion related. This group seems to realize that it's hard to control others behavior, but they simply want to make sure that the activities are not funded by the public.

3. Some people believe as Senator Obama outlined (with small variations).

4. Some people want abortions to be on a 24 hour, drive through, free basis, paid for entirely by the public.

I actually contend that (as a man) this would not be an issue at all if Men could (randomly) get pregnant (instead of their female partner). You would see a lot of people voting somewhere between 3-4, if we even discussed it as an issue at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as how the "partial birth abortion" has been a huge issue for many about Obama in this election.

I was confused when I heard Obama discuss this issue - What exactly is so radical about his view? It sure seemed to me that he did a good job of explaining his viewpoin and his reasoning for his vote while an Illinois State Senator.

I'm curious to see what I'm missing here.

Here are the facts:

MCCAIN: "Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois state Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born in a failed abortion. He voted against that."

OBAMA: "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true."

THE FACTS: As a state senator, Obama opposed three legislative efforts, in 2001, 2002 and 2003, to give legal protections to any aborted fetus that showed signs of life. The 2003 measure was virtually identical to a bill President Bush signed into law in 2002 — a bill that passed before Obama was in the U.S. Senate, but one that Obama said he would have supported. The state of Illinois already had a law to protect aborted fetuses born alive and considered able to survive. Among those opposed to the state effort was the Illinois State Medical Society, which argued that the bill would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and expand civil liability for doctors. Critics said the proposed legislation would have undermined the landmark Supreme Court case on abortion, Roe v. Wade, in ways the federal law would not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/debate_fact_check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I read the factcheck article correctly, the bill would have done nothing to protect the fetuses, since such protection was already the law in Illinois. Apparently there were additional, unexplained provisions in the law that would have weakened or limited access to abortions. So the Republicans proposed an unnecessary law with a hidden agenda, and also to play gotcha with anybody who voted against it. Obama voted "present", which I agree is a copout, to lessen the ability of Republicans to hammer him. Let me comment here that proposing laws to score cheap political points, and copping out with present" votes, is quite common in both parties.

Why would Obama support a federal version of a state law he opposed? Maybe the "virtually identical" federal law was missing the objectional provisions. Or maybe, because there existed no federal fetus protection law such as existed in IL, and Obama would have swallowed his objections if he had to so the law could pass.

Obviously personal biases come into play here, but I thought McCain went for cheap points and Obama exposed it quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually contend that (as a man) this would not be an issue at all if Men could (randomly) get pregnant (instead of their female partner). You would see a lot of people voting somewhere between 3-4, if we even discussed it as an issue at all.

I kinda agree with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I read the factcheck article correctly, the bill would have done nothing to protect the fetuses, since such protection was already the law in Illinois. Apparently there were additional, unexplained provisions in the law that would have weakened or limited access to abortions. So the Republicans proposed an unnecessary law with a hidden agenda, and also to play gotcha with anybody who voted against it. Obama voted "present", which I agree is a copout, to lessen the ability of Republicans to hammer him. Let me comment here that proposing laws to score cheap political points, and copping out with present" votes, is quite common in both parties.
Actually Obama voted under pressure from Planned Parenthood Federation (the biggest abortion provider in the USA).

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

NOW wanted him to vote against it, but PPF convinced him that voting "present" may lead others who might vote Yes to vote "present" like him in order to satisfy both sides.:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Obama voted under pressure from Planned Parenthood Federation (the biggest abortion provider in the USA).

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

NOW wanted him to vote against it, but PPF convinced him that voting "present" may lead others who might vote Yes to vote "present" like him in order to satisfy both sides.:2cents:

Actually, your link doesn't say that. You took facts and added your own interpretation.

Some people wanted him to vote "No". Some wanted him to vote "Present". Some wanted him to vote "Yes". The article does not address why he chose his vote that he made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, your link doesn't say that. You took facts and added your own interpretation.

Some people wanted him to vote "No". Some wanted him to vote "Present". Some wanted him to vote "Yes". The article does not address why he chose his vote that he made.

What?

He couldn't satisfy both groups (NOW and PPF) so he chose one. I don't think its illogical to conclude that he chose the option that he found more favorable.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I read the factcheck article correctly, the bill would have done nothing to protect the fetuses, since such protection was already the law in Illinois.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The IL law in place only protected the fetus IF there was a decision that the fetus was considered able to survive.

Essentially, that decision isn't part of the medical services provided for anybody else.

The IL in place set aborted fetus' into a different class as everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

He couldn't satisfy both groups (NOW and PPF) so he chose one. I don't think its illogical to conclude that he chose the option that he found more favorable.

Again, you have no idea why he voted a certain way. None of what you quoted says why either. And if it did, it would have no credibility.

If you find a quote from Obama to the effect that his vote was designed to please Planned Parenthood, then you'll have a point. Otherwise, to borrow a phase or two from John McCain, "that guy doesn't understand what constitutes causation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with BOTH of them on abortion.

If Obama really believed his view was correct, he should have had the stones to vote yes or no when given the chance.

The fact that he voted "present" shows either a lack of commitment to his view, or a pure political tack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would just overturn Roe v. Wade already and end this asinine debate about whether Americans should be able to get abortions in all 50 states or only in 30 of them.
I agree.

I think it is too big and too important of an issue to be handled as a blanket decision for such a large and diverse group of people. Handling it at a State level is definitely better.

Unfortunately when either side doesn't get the results they want at a state level, they resort to running it up to the SCOTUS.

Abortion = State

Gay Marriage = State

Defense = Federal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

I think it is too big and too important of an issue to be handled as a blanket decision for such a large and diverse group of people. Handling it at a State level is definitely better.

Unfortunately when either side doesn't get the results they want at a state level, they resort to running it up to the SCOTUS.

Abortion = State

Gay Marriage = State

Defense = Federal

Would that really make you happy if abortion were banned in less than half the states? I mean, seriously? Is that what this is an argument over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you have no idea why he voted a certain way. None of what you quoted says why either. And if it did, it would have no credibility.

If you find a quote from Obama to the effect that his vote was designed to please Planned Parenthood, then you'll have a point. Otherwise, to borrow a phase or two from John McCain, "that guy doesn't understand what constitutes causation".

If you want to keep picking nits go ahead. I can't help it if you can't see the forest for the trees.

It is clear that Planned Parenthood's strategy was for those legislators who they support to vote "present".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

I think it is too big and too important of an issue to be handled as a blanket decision for such a large and diverse group of people. Handling it at a State level is definitely better.

Unfortunately when either side doesn't get the results they want at a state level, they resort to running it up to the SCOTUS.

Abortion = State

Gay Marriage = State

Defense = Federal

we are almost in 100% agreement.

Abortion=state

Gay Marriage=church, and zero governemnt involved pro or con

Defense= Federal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with BOTH of them on abortion.

If Obama really believed his view was correct, he should have had the stones to vote yes or no when given the chance.

The fact that he voted "present" shows either a lack of commitment to his view, or a pure political tack.

I figure it was purely political. As was the proposed measure in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all' date=' it's obvious that neither candidate particularly enjoys discussing this issue.

But I thought Rachel Maddow made an interesting point. McCain sneering about "the health of the mother" exception is not going to win him a lot of points with women voters.[/quote']

Which is also why the Republican's national law against partial birth abortions falled and was hooked by the supreme court. It didn't contain an exception for the health of the mother. No political butter can be made from protecting the live of the mother... she's just the vessel. Protect that fetus!!!

I think the entire proceedure has been politisized like Terry Shivo's case was politicized. Folks, who have no medical background, have been told there are no medical reasons for these proceedures; and are thus reasonable and logically trying to get them banned.

Problem is these folks are wrong. Doctors don't perform operations for no reasons. I've got a neighbor who has had one of these terrible opperations. She's got a genetic problem which makes it difficult and dangerous to carry a healthy baby through the third trimester. She has to have all sorts of precautions when she's pregnant. She's got two healthy girls now and she and her husband have been trying for a third baby for more than a few years. Anyway her amnio determined that her baby had no brain stem. The brain stem controls involentary actions like breathing and heartbeat. The baby had zero chance of living after birth... Zero... Her choices were to carry it to term for another six weeks, have a dangerous birth, then watch her child die, knowing the baby could even die inside her or have the proceedure.

I can't imagine anybody would tell that woman she had to carry her dead child for another six weeks to satisify some detached unreasonble unfounded medical laymans distorted sence of justice.

And that's what we're talking about here.. Substitutiong folks who have no medical training unsubstantiated opionion; over top of doctors to the detriment of patients..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

I think it is too big and too important of an issue to be handled as a blanket decision for such a large and diverse group of people. Handling it at a State level is definitely better.

Unfortunately when either side doesn't get the results they want at a state level, they resort to running it up to the SCOTUS.

Abortion = State

Gay Marriage = State

Defense = Federal

Yeah I agree, why would you want to mandate our citizens have equal rights under the law, freedom of speech, right to assemble, or a right to have a doctors best abilities to help their patients....

Let's let states decide, after all wealthy people can just cross state lines and get the rights they want. We're only making decisions for the poor and underpriveledged anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it say that? Just curious.

Ahhh, the flaw in your logic my friend.

All powers NOT granted in the Constitution to the Federal Govt, then lye with the States.

Absence of it mentioned means the states get to decide. It WAS the beauty of the document. Too bad decisions like Roe undermine it.

And to reiterate, I am PRO CHOICE TO THE NTH degree. I just think Roe is terrible decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...