Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Talking abortion, finally
Bob Schieffer asks the question on a subject many undecided conservative voters want to hear about: abortion.
Their paraphrased responses:
John McCain: I want states to decide the abortion issue, not Roe v. Wade. I will not cease to protect the rights of the unborn.
Barack Obama: It’s a moral issue, that a woman should decide with her family and religious advisers. I support Roe v. Wade. I’m supportive of a ban on late-term abortion, with the exception of mother’s health and life.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: barack-obama, John-McCain
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top92 Comments to “Talking abortion, finally”
McCain ridiculed the health of the mother as a reason to permit abortion.
Report comment to moderator
We could finally see the major difference between the two with this question. I think McCain did a good job of parsing Obama’s words a few times, like in this response, pointing out the vagueness of the “health of the mother” condition.
Along the same lines, when Schieffer asked if either would have a litmus test for SCOTUS appointments, McCain’ was the clearer answer. He escpecially gained a few points by mentioning why he voted for the liberal appointees while Obama voted against the conservative ones: qualification vs ideology.
Report comment to moderator
No Scroopy,
What McCain ridiculed was how the health of the mother meme has been expanded to include any reason they want. That’s why they use mental health as justification. They think if they say it will effect her mental health, that it falls under health of the mother. McCain clearly answered this question better than Obama. But hey, at least he didn’t use that “above my paygrade” nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
I did not see Scroop’s #1 post before posting, so I will say to him: McCain was not ridiculing the health issue, only pointing out how it has been misused by abortion proponents to allow almost any reason as a health reason. Just how few mothers are actually at risk in a pregnancy now-a-days? Usually a C-section delivery takes away the risk of a natural delivery killing the mother.
Report comment to moderator
It was obvious that, although the moderator followed up McCain’s answer with a direct question of whether or not McCain would nominate someone to the SCOTUS who disagreed with him on the abortion issue, the moderator did NOT do the same after Obama’s answer (even though Obama did NOT answer the question directly).
Report comment to moderator
It’s anti-life, no choice for the unborn, just a trip to your local anti-infant death doctor -
This is what Obama said not ALL that long ago:
Report comment to moderator
Roe v. Wade says a woman has a right to an abortion at any time to preserve both life and health. McCain clearly talked like he wants to eliminate the “exception” for health. Independent women voters won’t think that’s acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for setting the record straight with an actual quote from Barry, Victoria. All the leftists can do, meanwhile, is write things like “McCain clearly talked like he wants to . . . ” (without actually quoting him) to describe what their opposition said. The difference speaks a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Moth
There are women who are so selfish, nothing will stand in their way to eleminate their child from the womb so they can ‘CARRY ON’ whatever their little lives desire – without giving one single tooting hoot, as to the other life they helped to create, but destroyed because it just didn’t fit into their cramped selfish schedule. Who needs a mother like that, but then there are thousands of mothers and dads who would welcome that little one with all the joy of NEW YEARS EVE –
But the anti-infant death doctor awaits his patient, the mother without any love for her child.
Report comment to moderator
That’s funny Scroopy,
I know probably 8 women off the top of my head who are independents, and only 2 are pro-abortion. They mostly perfer the pill, IUD’s, diaphrams, condoms, foam, and spermicidle jells, and other means of contraception to abortion. Only 2, 1 of which is a close relative, think abortion is acceptable, except in the case of rape. I think you’re full of it.
Report comment to moderator
Punished with a baby doesn’t mean punished by a baby — or that a baby is a punishment — but that he doesn’t want the girl and her baby to be punished by circumstances. Victoria’s outrage is an example of political correctness run amok.
Report comment to moderator
The outrage is over our government sanctioning the killing of innocent pre-born babies, Scroop.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
When I heard the debate, all the ugly things that were said regarding abortion, all trumpted up to look very eloquent, but closely examined, filled with verbalism – all you see is a sinful world which accepts anything that serves their selfish purpose -
Report comment to moderator
Scroop- You are spinning like a top on that one. What Obama meant is what he said- that a baby would be punishment to his daughters. If he meant it the way you interpret it, then why didn’t he say it that way?
Report comment to moderator
Moth
Here it is:
“But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
If you can’t get it, then its your desire not to.
Report comment to moderator
AJ I think you’re full of it
Not being an independent woman, perhaps I am. We’ll know soon enough, and if they vote for McCain, I’ll acknowledge your diagnosis of my condition.
Report comment to moderator
As an independent woman voter, I find John McCain’s anti-abortion stance refreshing. Rights for women include unborn ones.
Report comment to moderator
Welcome to the debate, Hantheroo, and thanks for sharing your perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Peter — he didn’t say it that way because it takes more words and he didn’t think his audience would twist a mundane ellipsis into the theological judgment that babies are a curse.
Report comment to moderator
How often does “health of the mother” actually enter in?
It’s a number that the prolife advocates should admit is so vanishingly miniscule that it should be effectively disregarded for the sake of saving the vast majority of lives. It’s also a number the prochoice advocates should admit is so vanishingly small that it doesn’t enter equation if they’re really about reducing the number of abortions.
Who’s going to step up and beyond their own purist pride?
Beuller? Bueller? Anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Emily, how could those undecided voters be conservative if they are still undecided at this point? One may argue over how conservative McCain is, but Obama is obviously far less so.
Report comment to moderator
So, instead of saying But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby,, why didn’t he add three words (in bold): punished with the circumstances of a baby?
Report comment to moderator
The live CNN “EKG” poll was interesting on this one. Obama just about pegged the meter with women, while McCain’s reading wandered about. And when Obama linked choice rights with other rights, like speech, even the men responded positively.
Report comment to moderator
And CNN’s focus group (not “women in general,” but the women they picked to be in their audience) was indicative of U.S. voters? Keep believing that, Arcadia . . . .
Report comment to moderator
Peter — are you like me an aficionado of the psychological theories of Freud? You clearly want Obama to have said what you think he said, but that would almost be too good for you to be true, so you probably are thinking that Obama’s words slipped out by accident, revealing what he truly thought. The subconscious never lies, never says no. If that’s your point, Herr DoKtor, there’s no arguing with you about it.
Report comment to moderator
DAD
Why is this so complicated and so vague – maybe a ploy for the liberals, but I think abortion is murder, the killing of a defenseless, helpless, God-formed little human being!
Abortion is still murder, no matter what “politically correct,” rhetorical stance you put to it. and the Bible speaks against it, Psalm 139:13-16, and Jeremiah 1:5 among some places. I wish someone in any debates and/or rallies would say those three words, to set the records straight!!
Report comment to moderator
What ever one’s opinion on abortion, it would seem that this did not stick in this debate as a campaign issue which was going to swing the election.
Anti-abortion forces are, it would seem, basically talking to themselves during this campaign.
Report comment to moderator
DAD post 26,
actually abortion is clearly not murder at least in a civil sense: it is consider justified under certain conditions.
Now if you are going to take this position, what is your basis for calling abortion unjustified?
Report comment to moderator
And so are Pro-Abortion forces, Musing. Tell us something we don’t already know . . .
Zzzzzz . . . . .
Report comment to moderator
So why are the pro-infant death specialists out in full force?
Report comment to moderator
30: Because they love to implant themselves on a prolife blog. Funny thing is, they’re wasting their time, when they should be on blogs filled with undecided, sway-able voters.
Shhhhh . . . . let them stay . . .
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 24,
and your scientifically constructed poll of women which shows that women in general would prefer to outlaw abortion?
The staistics show that perhaps somthing like 50% of people support abortion wiht reasonable controls, with perhaps only 16% or so arguing for completely outlawing abortion (these were Matt Y’s numbers if I remember correctly).
Under these conditions, I absolutely encourage all social conservatvies to insist that McCain make anti-abortion as the key topic for the next two and a half weeks of the campaign.
The Democratic party will thank you.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 29,
actually it appears that the majority of the population is talking about the economy. It appears that it is the topic which is of most import to the electorate.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Blah, blah, blah . . .
Report comment to moderator
outkast,
so do you think that McCain established a strong new trajectory to drive his campaign for the remainder of the election?
And if so, what is this new trajectory?
Report comment to moderator
Musing: See my post #34.
Report comment to moderator
I see that outkast seems to have a problem with his tongue.
I hope it gets better soon outkast.
So do others think that McCain established a new trajectory which can drive his campaign for the remainder of the election?
If so what was it?
Report comment to moderator
Musing Maybe you should drop McCain a note and tell him how you ‘really feel’-
Do you and your husband talk about this, or do you just blither about it on the blog? – My husband and I discuss the issues at length.
Report comment to moderator
Methinks Musing and her husband and still ticked that “Bush stole the 2000 election,” and then proceeded to whip Kerry in 2004, and still has a larger percentage of support than the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2008.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING: Anti-abortion forces are, it would seem, basically talking to themselves during this campaign.
Absolutely. McCain scored points with the base when he disparaged concerns for the health of a mother in abortion, but to the electorate, that sounded sadistic. McCain scored points with this blog when he characterized Obama as an abortionist “extremist” but independent voters could see that Obama was merely defending the language of the court and the law of the land.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: How can you say Obama is NOT an “abortionist extremist” when he has the highest rankings from NARAL and even promoted a law allowing the killing of just-born infants in his home-state of Illinois?!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: My husband and I discuss the issues at length
BOLDLY, I bet. (poor fella)
Report comment to moderator
General thoughts: If McCain were truly as pro-life as he likes to say he is, then he would lobby for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Instead, he just says he wants to overturn Roe and send it back to the states. That’s a good first step, but overturning Roe is just that: a first step.
Real AJ #3: Obama has gone on record saying he’s fine with states banning late term abortions with an exception for health. He further defined health to not include emotional or psychological health. If that truly is his belief, then he actually supports more limits on abortion than exist now.
Musing #32: Nationally, the numbers are approximately 55% supporting “legal in all cases” or “legal in most cases” and 45% supporting “illegal in all cases” or “illegal in most cases”, with 5% unsure.
Outkast #41: Obama scores a 100% from NARAL and a 0% from NRTL. But so do John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and lots of other Democrats. In order to be an “extremist” Obama would need to be at the very fringe of those in the pro-choice camp, unless you define extremist differently. Just going by the numbers, he really isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass post 43,
I agree wiht your first group of 55% which is of course a majority. Matt y’s numbers were slightly lower, but we are talking polling data with an error band.
Your 45% number is more interesting since it appears to be approximately:
16% in favor of outlawing all abortions
and therefore
29% or so in favor of abortion in a variety of cases including the life and health of a mother. Usually this category also includes incest and rape.
As such, it would seem that you agree with the basic numbers but differ in interpretation on the illegal category.
So do tha anti-abortion forces on this blog want abortion illegal in all cases or would they tolerate abortion being legal in some cases, where ife and health of the mother and typically incest and rape would appear to be some of the cases.
And the sense of the blog?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 39,
since in November of 2007, outkast was forced to apologize for comments he made which disparaged my wife, it would seem that outkast should know that I am a male.
But as we are seeing, outkast seems to be a bit out of touch with reality.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 38,
the issues surrounding the election are the primary topic of discussion in our house right now, and have been for just under one year.
If anything my wife is more concerned about McCain’s anti-abortion stand than I am.
And in yours? How are you viewing the election in your house?
Report comment to moderator
Musing #44: I personally fall into the “always illegal” category, but I grouped “always illegal” and “almost always illegal” together since they both describe people who want more restrictions than currently exist today.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass post 47,
but if yo are going for always illegal, then this is a false alliance. I can equally group almost always illegal, the legal in most cases, and the legal in all cases together to show an overwhleming majority favors abortion.
The reality is that we are very unlikely to get an always illegal.
But if the always illegal group want to participate in what I suspect is a coming cmpromise, they will have to become less intransigent. If they do not, then given their small minority position, they will become moot.
I suggest we are seeing some aspects of this in the present election.
Report comment to moderator
abortion is M U R D E R in all cases…..
Musing, as usual……….you are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
“Punished with a baby doesn’t mean punished by a baby — or that a baby is a punishment — but that he doesn’t want the girl and her baby to be punished by circumstances.”
Now does that quote run around the block a few times saying punishment isn’t punishment unless it’s punishment, or what?
Obama used the word “punishment.” And stop trying to say he didn’t mean what he said.
You either have the child or you don’t. Obama is saying having the child is punishment, so get rid of it. So don’t say that a baby in those circumstances isn’t punishment in Obama’s view. It is. It’s what he said.
If anyone is out of touch with reality, it’s you. You’re the one redefining words.
Report comment to moderator
And now they’re going to pull in their “data” and percentages and all their “evidence,” and never deal with the truth that a child is losing it’s life to suit their political expediency. It’s incredible, and it goes on day after day.
They won’t tell you when life begins, and they won’t tell you why you should be willing to kill a child for expedience — because they KNOW it’s murder. They are cowardly and will not answer the questions, because they know your response, so they try to “soften” their position by telling you the percentage of people who would collude in the murder.
It’s okay if we murder the baby. All the people in our group are willing. It’s like putting a bunch of Ted Bundy’s in a room and asking them if serial murder is okay. Of course, it’s okay to them! What a sad thing to have no morals, no guts, and live your life by polls, of all things!
Report comment to moderator
Theophuilus post 49,
murder is unwarrented killing.
You have not deonstrated that abortion is unwarrented under certain conditions.
You haven’t even deonstrated that it is killing of a human being.
And in your sense that demonstrating this is not necessary, you are demonstrating the assumptional gap which makes this discussion difficult to hold with the strong anti-abortion proponents.
And as Buddygrass and Matt Y have noted, the strong anti-abortion position is held by hperhaps 16% of the population.
Since this group appears to be intransigent and is relatively small, a compromise on this issue will probably be developed without them
Report comment to moderator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
The numbers (from October 2007, the most recent poll listed in Wikipedia) showed 54% of respondents agreeing that abortion should at least be banned in all circustances except in cases of rape and incest and to save the mother’s life. Smaller portions of this group went further, with 4% saying it should be permitted “never” and 16% saying “only to save the woman’s life” (also my position).
So if we accept those numbers, then John McCain and George W. Bush, who oppose abortion except in cases of rape and incest and a threat to the mother’s life, are in the majority. They are generally considered “pro-life”, and they use pro-life language when speaking of abortion, so it can be argued that a slim majority is pro-life according to this poll. Abortions in cases of rape and incest account for only about 1% of all abortions, so this is hardly significant enough to argue that this position is not basically pro-life or that it is closer to the pro-choice view.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 51,
but if by child you mean human being, then we have already established that under the law a fetus is not a human being and hence not a child.
We again see the unwillingness to accept that there are assumptional differences here which must be nogotiated if we are to reach a compromise.
And if the strong anti-abortion proponents are unwilling to compormise then, since they are only 16% or so of the population, a compromise will be developd without them
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y post 59,
indeed I am using your data.
But how many argue that abortion shold be totally illegal?
When I saw your numbers it was aboutr 16%.
so if you are arguing that we will be very restricitve on abortion BUT abortion will be legal and available, your model is right.
If we are arguing that there will be no abortion, and there have been comments in WMB about not allowing abortion for say rape, then you anti-abortion community is about 16%.
I have tried to be very careful about making this distinction here.
It would seem you are cherry picking your numbers.
Report comment to moderator
Wikipedia mentions other polls showing a virtual tie between “pro-lifers” and “pro-choicers.” One poll showed 50% pro-life and 45% pro-choice; another showed 49% pro-choice and 47% pro-life.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #55: Yes I know what you’re saying.
so if you are arguing that we will be very restricitve on abortion BUT abortion will be legal and available, your model is right.
Yes, what I’m saying is that 54% favored being at least that restrictive (very restrictive) on abortion, and that people in that 54% call themselves pro-life. Although they have some minor differences among themselves, they are generally allied together against those who call themselves “pro-choice.”
I am not dogmatic, however, that there is a “pro-life majority” since other polls indicate a virtual tie between pro-lifers and pro-choicers.
Report comment to moderator
I am also not in favor of using polls to decide what is right or what our policy should be. But I AM interested in the public opinion on abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y post 53,
now looing at your numbers I am struck by the following.
I see as I reread your material that the completely illegal abortion commmunity is about 20% (I missed the 4% add on).
Now it is interesting that 23% of the respondents after the debate suggested that the Ayers allegation was very iportant to them.
The siilarity in numbers would open the possiblity for an hypothesis that those who are fully against abortion are also focused on Ayers.
The posts in WMB certainly do not refute this.
And this could lead to some interesting considerations.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y post 58,
so am I.
but it does matter what question you try to determine from the pollig numbers.
If you are willing to have abortion but severely restricted, your analysis would seem plausible.
If you are effectively not willing to tolerate any abortions, then I suggest my analysis is plausible.
And I have asked the board with notable silence, so I can only infer based on the posting so far: in general the anti-abortion forces on this blog appear to be insisting on effectively no abortions: hence my numbers.
Report comment to moderator
So the following is more recent data:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
One thing I find interesting in the polls is that I believe that the legal form is “life and health of the mother”. The polls are “life of the mother”.
Also note that, using the Quinipiac language, 53% consider themselves pro-choice and 44% consider themselves to be pro-life.
Report comment to moderator
The time poll in the link I provieded has 86% who argue that abortion should be legal at least in some circumstances.
I think we can say that the question is at best highly nuanced.
We can say that there is weak support for full outlawing of abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – 42 – my husband is VERY HAPPY, maybe you should look for one, or are you still in you your “be there or be square” era, as you mentioned on another thread? LOL I honestly have never heard that phrase except from old folk and now from you, on another thread last night, what a hoot!
Report comment to moderator
Serious George at #20:
How often does “health of the mother” actually enter in?
It’s a number that the prolife advocates should admit is so vanishingly miniscule that it should be effectively disregarded for the sake of saving the vast majority of lives. It’s also a number the prochoice advocates should admit is so vanishingly small that it doesn’t enter equation if they’re really about reducing the number of abortions.
Sort of like the horrific storis pro-lifers tell of near-term babies hacked to pieces and smothered in bags of bleach in their efforts to ban first-trimester abortions?
If McCain is right that “health of the mother” has been stretched to mean almost anything, it is also true that the conservative response has been not to write legislation that defines it more narrowly, but to eliminate it altogether. Even if cases of women who learn that giving birth could harm or kill them is only a few hundred a year, those few hundred would be denied the right to terminate the pregnancy for their own protection under most laws conservatives favor.
The Real AJ: I know probably 8 women off the top of my head who are independents, and only 2 are pro-abortion. They mostly perfer the pill, IUD’s, diaphrams, condoms, foam, and spermicidle jells, and other means of contraception to abortion.
Huh. Like just about all pro-choice people. Almost nobody is “pro-abortion,” even though I know conservatives refuse to accept that. We’d all prefer the unwanted pregnancies never happen.
Only 2, 1 of which is a close relative, think abortion is acceptable, except in the case of rape.
If abortion is murder, why should rape make a difference?
Report comment to moderator
“If abortion is murder, why should rape make a difference?”
It shouldn’t. Thank goodness we don’t need to deal with that circumstance in order to get rid of like 98% of abortions currently being performed.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 65,
actually it appears that it has been suggested here that we should outlaw abortion even in the case of rape.
I believe that Palin also argues this.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 66
Please give PROOF of Palin saying this?
Report comment to moderator
The health of the mother almost never comes into play for a late term abortion. They can do a C-section in 60 seconds, and deliver the baby alive. If baby dies, that’s very sad. But, not caused by the doctor. And, a doctor would NEVER have to do a partial birth abortion based on the health of the mom – delivery is just as easy, and saves 2 lives. This arguing about the “health of the mother” or in cases of rape (less than 1/2 of 1% of all abortions) are just smokescreens for wanting abortion on demand in all cases. That’s what they are after.
Report comment to moderator
So, yes. Let’s start by banning all abortions except those in cases of proven rape and cases where the PHYSICAL health of the mother is in danger, and the baby cannot be delivered any other way. Let’s start there. I’m sure that all our friends on the pro-choice side who want to decrease the number of abortions won’t have any arguements with that, right? Seems we CAN all agree on something!
Report comment to moderator
Designergirl post 68,
ah so you are actually against all abortions:
“This arguing about the “health of the mother” or in cases of rape (less than 1/2 of 1% of all abortions) are just smokescreens for wanting abortion on demand in all cases.”
I suggest it is the anti-abortion forces who are misrepresenting their positions.
Report comment to moderator
Designergirl post 69,
and are you willing to compromise on this position and have those who want unlimited access to abortion compromise and result in a solution between the two positions?
Report comment to moderator
How about we start with educating teens about contraception, providing taxpayer-funded pre-natal care for poor women, and child-care programs for single mothers who can’t keep a job without child-care they can’t afford? That would eliminate many unplanned pregnancies (through information) and remove some of the financial considerations that pregnant women who are poor have to factor in, thus lowering the number of abortions without needing to fight a years-long court battle that’s doomed to fail unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.
How many conservatives will support that?
Report comment to moderator
DG – 68
You said it, you’re right – Good job!
Report comment to moderator
Musing – yes, I’m against all murder, er, abortions. A woman is raped – that means her child must die? No one said she must raise the child of a rapist, only that she should offer the child life. How selfish is our society that we cannot do that?
And, yes – the compromise is, let’s ban everything except these cases that make “pro-choicers” so rabid in their defense of abortion “rights”. If we can get to that point, that is great. But it will never happen, since they don’t want restrictions on abortion for those who simply don’t want their babies. They want open access for inconvenient pregnancies. I’m open to compromise. We would eliminate 99% of all abortions, which pro-choicers have proclaimed to be their goal all along. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
It looks like you’ll have a chance to prove your theories. Abortion rates went down over the past 8 years. We’ll see whether that trend continues or reverses under Obama. I hope it continues. I still take exception to your assumption that pregnancies are caused out of ignorance, but whatever. As long as the option of abortion is available, people will not act responsibly. There is a subtle voice saying, Why bother with contraception? If you get pregnant, there’s always Planned Parenthood to mop up after your mistake. In other words, your suggestions are good but answer only half the problem. It’s not an either/or situation, but both/and instead. Liberals fight every single suggestion of a restriction on unlimited abortion rights–why is that? That’s not what you do if you truly want to reduce the number of abortions.
As someone said above, and as I’ve been saying for a long time, a compromise that every pro-lifer in the country would agree to would be to allow abortions only in the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother. If abortion isn’t an option, then all your other suggestions would of necessity have to be implemented, wouldn’t they?
Report comment to moderator
In other words, pro-abortion ideologues bring up rape and incest not because that’s really what they care about but because those situations carry this emotional baggage that is intended to silence the opposition.
What they truly care about is unlimited abortion access. Why not admit it? This is, contrary to what you’ve said, a pro-abortion rather than a pro-choice stance. Otherwise, why not accept the compromise I’ve suggested?
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 67,
perhaps the misunderstanidng stems from comments Palin made during her 2006 gubanatorial run:
comment during Gubanatorial run
“Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother’s life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, “I would choose life.”"
This has been widely interpreted as suggesting that Palin does not support abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
But you are right, it is possibly interpretable, which is why I said that I believe Palin argues against abortion in the case of rape.
Are you now asserting that Palin actually supports abortion in the case of rape? The comment that she oposes abortion in all cases except the life of the mother has been widely reported as meaning she opposes abortion for rape cases, and Palin does not seem to have taken the trouble to clarify the record here.
Do you have references where Palin explicitly says she supports abortion in the case of rape?
There of course is a second order question behind this, but lets start here first.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 67,
or perhaps it was from the Gibson interview in September:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5789483&page=2
“GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?
PALIN: That is my personal opinion.”
I think we have produced sufficient evidence to support the observation that Palin has indeed supported banning abortion even in the case of rape.
I believe if you insist otherwise, then perhaps you should now produce evidence to the contrary.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 75,
actually I am testing this statement now:
“As someone said above, and as I’ve been saying for a long time, a compromise that every pro-lifer in the country would agree to would be to allow abortions only in the cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.”
So far actually I believe we do have people who argue against this in WMB, but lets see how the conversation develops.
Report comment to moderator
Designergirl: And, yes – the compromise is, let’s ban everything except these cases that make “pro-choicers” so rabid in their defense of abortion “rights”. If we can get to that point, that is great. But it will never happen, since they don’t want restrictions on abortion for those who simply don’t want their babies.
(Also for David L.)
The problem is, this doesn’t address education, abandonment, financial needs or health care. The conservative answer, as described here, is just “ban.”
That might end the practice you abhor, but it does nothing to address the issues that lead to it in the first place. Under this approach, teen girls would still get pregnant, poor women would still struggle to earn a living while providing day care for the child, and health needs would still go largely unmet. But as long as abortion’s ended, that seems to be fine with you.
That isn’t a compromise. That’s you getting your way.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Get the QUOTE, not your rendition of it. I’m not going to research the sites you post – I don’t have time.
Don’t put words in my mouth – either Palin said what you asserted or she didn’t, you either have the quote or you don’t –
I like many others here on the blog, are weary of your twirl/whirl approach to every subject which is posted.
Report comment to moderator
David: I still take exception to your assumption that pregnancies are caused out of ignorance, but whatever.
I wouldn’t say all of them are, but a significant number. There are also women who seek abortion because the fathers of their children — whether husbands or not — decide three months into the pregnancy that they don’t want to share to the financial obligations after all, and split, leaving the woman who thought she had a dependable source of support suddenly alone.
And sure, there are some who behave irresponsibly and know full well what they’re risking. But I doubt there’s any evidence that it’s the majority of women who face unplanned pregnancies.
As long as the option of abortion is available, people will not act responsibly. There is a subtle voice saying, Why bother with contraception? If you get pregnant, there’s always Planned Parenthood to mop up after your mistake.
I can’t imagine many people think this way. The women I know who have had abortions (and there are not many) spent a lot of time agonizing over the decision and still, years later, carry regrets and emotional scars.
It’s not something many people take lightly.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 76,
we can say with certainty that a number of anti-abortioon proponents have demonstrated a high level of emotionalism around this case. One of the side effects would appear to be using extreme cases and extreme language to further their cause.
And it is interesting that most of this emotion centers on later term abortions.
So let me take you at your word that this is not emotional partisanship and that the greatest worry is regarding late term abortions (if it is not, then I renenter the partisanship argument).
So for example, the wikipedia article which Matt Y has been references suggests that 90% of abortions occur during the first and second trimester. Given the sensibilities expressed might it perhaps be possible to write clinicaally meaningful regulation to minimize abortions in the third trimester?
And I note that already the court specifically regulated abortion after viability (or effectively the third trimester):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
“Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’” The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]”
So we are talking about 10% of abortion cases in a period where there is increasing chance of viability of the fetus outside the womb. My sense is that if we work on the health clause for this specific period, that a compromise of sorts might be possible.
And your thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
You’re only proving me right: Democrats are lying when they say they’re interested in reducing abortions. I told you it’s not either ban or educate. It’s some of both/and. You didn’t address any of the other points I made. What about liberals’ unwavering opposition to all restrictions? What about the fact that sex education HAS increased but abortion rates haven’t fallen proportionally? Ignorance is no excuse in this day and age.
Why do the vast number of women who are merely inconvenienced by their pregnancy need to abort their children just so a small number of rape victims can abort theirs? It’s not logical.
Anyway, as I said, you will get your way when Obama becomes President. I hope for your sake–and his–that abortion rates do in fact go down.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – can’t we do both? We already have systems in place to help single moms, adoption agencies, and families willing to take these “unwanted” children into their homes. And, we already have sex ed in schools, etc. Why is it that you argue for abortion so that we don’t have any of these other problems!? We already HAVE other problems, many of which are being met by pro-lifers, via crisis pregnancy centers, open/closed adoptions, etc. You cannot be serious – your solution to eliminating these problems to mention is to KILL MORE BABIES? Any idea how revolting that is? While we’re at it, maybe we should kill people after they hit 80 years of age – after all, they drain our health care system, our pocket books, and our time. It’s a problem. Let’s fix it.
Report comment to moderator
I meant to say, “we already have these problems, even though abortion is still legal.” Why would keeping abortion legal help to eliminte them. Isn’t working now.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t imagine many people think this way.
I know for certain that people do.
The women I know who have had abortions (and there are not many) spent a lot of time agonizing over the decision and still, years later, carry regrets and emotional scars.
Yes, many feel this way, and if abortion hadn’t been an available option, of course, they wouldn’t have been able to give in to their fear of bearing a child, and they wouldn’t have to live with these lifelong regrets.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 84,
because of course there is a deep divide between the assumptional position of the strong anti-abortion forces and the pro-abortion forces (wording explicitly chose this way).
I believe it is fair to say that there will be some abortions in early pregnancy under any plausible compromise: the majority of the U.S. seems to favor it and it is well supported by an individual right to privacy argument and the consideration that an early stage fetus is not yet a human being.
I suggest we can do two things:
1) we can reduce the number of early abortions by widespread sex education and deployment of birth control
2) we can probably tighten the standards for late term abortions and in particular abortions after viability
These seem feasible given the poll numbers which have been entered into the discussion.
And my sense is that we will see just this under an Obama administration.
The interesting question will be will anti-abortion forces work on these plausibly achievable goals or will they stick with their hard positions?
Report comment to moderator
Now there is a second issue we must perhaps bring out into the open:
- if we are allowing birth control as an effort to reduce abortion, we will inded have to supprot birth control.
And at this point a clinical discussion is perhaps in order. As I understand the term, clinically an abortion is a termination of a pregnancy after the embryo has been emplanted in the womb.
As such IUDs, oral birth control, and morning after pills are not abortion.
We will yet again see the honesty and transparency of the anti-abortion forces when we explore whether they are indeed willing to work with the FDA discussion on contraception:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/397_baby.html
as the model for deployment of contraception techniques.
Report comment to moderator
We already have sex ed and birth control – easy to get. Seems not to be working. No one gets pregnant because they didn’t know about birth control. That’s a convenient excuse, perhaps, but please – you can hear about condoms on the television during sitcoms! And at sex ed in school. Education is not the problem. Responsibility for our actions is the problem. And it shows up in many arenas, not just this one. Mortgage crisis, anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Designergirl post 90,
actually scientifically focused sex education is increasingly hard to get. But indeed abortion seems to be going down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
So it would seem that there are some positive forces driving this.
What is perhaps interesting is to note the high rate of fall in the 1990s and the slowing down of this fall in the 2000s.
Report comment to moderator
DG – 90
It’s a whole list of:
I don’t care, the government will pay my Ins.
I forgot to use birth control
I ran out out of birth control meds and didn’t have time to pick it up
We just got carried away, we didn’t have time to use protection
I can just get an abortion, I don’t have time for a baby
I should get help from the government, it’s not my fault that I bought a home to expensive to pay for. It must be the realtors fault, or the mortgage company, NOT MINE
My kids should get a free breakfast and lunch at school, I don’t have enough money, – I bought an SUV and the payments are too high, the gas costs to much.
The public school should offer free after school care so I don’t have to pay for a baby sitter, I have credit cards to pay.
I need the same PPO health Ins, as those who make more money, not fair that I have an HMO, my employer can pay for it, after all he owns the company.
Poor me, I bought an SUV, a home, furniture, ran my credit cards to the limit (new clothes and furniture) and now I can’t afford all this – It’s Bush’s fault, or those guys in N.Y. or maybe that bunch in Washington D.C. one things for sure IT ISN’T MY FAULT, and I’m not going to take it, I’ll vote for the socialist thingy, it might save my bacon after all!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!