Flawed Thinking

I'm a person of faith and pro-Obama/Biden ticket because both Obama and Biden are ACTUALLY pro-life because they DO support such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.
I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm against criminalizing abortion because:
1) there is no way to tell a spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage) form an induced abortion, criminalizing abortion invites abuse of women who suffered miscarriages.

2) this question remains unanswered: who has the right to decide whose life is more valuable -- that of a woman or a child -- when pregnancy threatens woman's life?

It is wholly irresponsible to cast a vote purely on the issue of abortion when there are many other issues of life and death and the violation of natural and moral law at stake.

To think that the overturn of Roe v. Wade would resolve issues like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and giving shelter to the homeless is ridiculous. It will, however, imprison the sinner. I am Catholic and I am reluctant to be critical of a bishop of the Church, but quite frankly, bishops are called to sheppard their flock, not to imprison sinners.

Governments and the laws they enact could NEVER change hearts. That's the job of the bishops and the priests.

Oh, please. If Catholics are voting for Obama, it's probably not because someone mislead them about the way he voted on "pro-life" issues (and that is such a bullshit phrase. Pro-life? Really? Because you want to take charge of some other girl's body and future, over which she should be the only person who has control?). These Catholics might be voting for Obama because -gasp- they like him! Or approve of his other policies.

And if they're voting for McCain, then they're just idiotic. Because really. Sarah Palin wants women to pay for their own rape kits, which most people can't do. Classic case of blame the victim: oh, well they were asking for it!

PS: Abots22, learn a little more about actual abortion methods before you criticize them. Ignorance is inexcusable.
And one more thing: tell your kids about birth control. A condom's never hurt anyone and an STD will. Because they will have sex. Kids do that these days (dunno what world you've been living in.) Besides, if they don't learn about it from you, they'll learn from someone else. And that will give them even more cause then they already have not to like you.

Using the term "Pro Life" to describe anti-abortionists is a misnomer. Anti-abortionists established that for me when they overwhelmingly rejected the anti-capital punishment aspects of the Pope's encyclical "On the Sanctity of Life," when in 1993 they did not speak up against an Illinois Pentacostal woman who refused to have a Caesarian section even though her doctors told her it was necessary to save the life of her infant, and when, a year later (I believe) they similarly were no shows when doctors told an English woman who had taken fertility drugs that she had to abort three of her eight fetuses in order to save the other five. These events made clear to me that "Pro-Life" people were really "Anti-Abortion" people.

I submit that there are four categories: Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, Pro-Abortion, and Anti-Abortion. I happen to be both Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion, ie., I believe that the choice should be up to the woman in consultation with her family, physicians, and clergy--and my choice would be Anti-Abortion in the vast majority of instances.

On the other hand, Anti-Choice people take the Big Government position that the governement should make the decision--not the woman in consultation with her family, physicians, and clergy--as long as the government's decision agrees with their own Anti-Abortion views, of course.

Using the term "Pro Life" to describe anti-abortionists is a misnomer. Anti-abortionists established that for me when they overwhelmingly rejected the anti-capital punishment aspects of the Pope's encyclical "On the Sanctity of Life," when in 1993 they did not speak up against an Illinois Pentacostal woman who refused to have a Caesarian section even though her doctors told her it was necessary to save the life of her infant, and when, a year later (I believe) they similarly were no shows when doctors told an English woman who had taken fertility drugs that she had to abort three of her eight fetuses in order to save the other five. These events made clear to me that "Pro-Life" people were really "Anti-Abortion" people.

I submit that there are four categories: Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, Pro-Abortion, and Anti-Abortion. I happen to be both Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion, ie., I believe that the choice should be up to the woman in consultation with her family, physicians, and clergy--and my choice would be Anti-Abortion in the vast majority of instances.

On the other hand, Anti-Choice people take the Big Government position that the governement should make the decision--not the woman in consultation with her family, physicians, and clergy--as long as the government's decision agrees with their own Anti-Abortion views.

Obama is ACTUALLY pro-life because he supports such pro-life and moral measures like health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, empowering of women through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity and date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

First of all, you are not pro-life IF if you do not support such pro-life and moral measures as health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and IF you are against empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. In other words, the Roe v. Wade law does not force women into having abortions, but in a way it is rather they who do not support the above pro-life and moral measures.

Second, since there is no way to tell a spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage) form an induced abortion, criminalizing abortion invites abuse of women who suffered miscarriages.

Third, which person has right to decide whose life is more valuable -- that of a woman or a child -- when pregnancy threatens woman's life?

Excellent piece. So much progress in the pro-life effort all will be lost in an Obama presidency. Moral confusion is a mild term for the delusion.

gpuhr, first of all, you are not pro-life IF if they do not support health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and who are against empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

Second, since there is no way to tell a spontaneous abortion ( miscarriage) form an induced abortion, criminalizing abortion invites abuse of women who suffered miscarriages.

Third, which person has right to decide whose life is more valuable -- that of a woman or a child when pregnancy threatens woman's life?

CORRECTED:
Roe v. Wade law does not force women into having abortion.

And the so-called pro-life individuals and groups are NOT ACTUALLY pro-life if they DO NOT support health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and who are AGAINST empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

By the same token, the individuals and groups are ACTUALLY pro-life if they DO support health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and who are FOR empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

Roe v. Wade law does not force women into having abortion.

And the so-called pro-life individuals and groups are NOT ACTUALLY pro-life if they DO NOT support health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and who is against empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

By the same token, individuals and groups are ACTUALLY pro-life if they DO support health care coverage accessible to all pregnant women and children, and who is against empowering women, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, prevention of STDs, prevention of promiscuity, prevention of date rape through comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.

Considering all of the medical advances we have made in seeing the fetus in utero, I think Roe v. Wade should be revisited.

It's funny that we continue to have the same endless debates over 30 and 40 year old issues. But let me ask this - assume that Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion was legislated as illegal again. Would the conservative movement be willing to raise taxes to assist these mothers and their children? Would conservatives be willing to raise taxes to build and maintain orphanages? Would conservatives be willing to raise taxes to provide vouchers and to send these kids to colleges?

I am a woman, I have grown children, and I appreciate the right over my own body. If women are to be equal to men in the work place, whether military or civilian, then, we cannot have the government dictating what she can and cannot do to her own body. This places us back in the dark ages when women were the possession of men. If a man cannot legally be castrated against his will, then a woman should not have someone dictating to her about whether she can or cannot protect herself from pregnancy or take a morning after pill. As it has been believed for many years, the essence of life begins with the first breath. I cannot support someone who states that they are pro-life, but will attempt to kill another human being based on their support for their belief. I am specifically recalling the bombing of an abortion clinic. This sounds convoluted and "sick." The bomber could have also killed a pregnant woman and her fetus while trying to carry out this horrible mandate.

Ida
Obama has no record on human rights. Where is his record? He opposed the liberation of the Iraqi People who were victims of genocide. He then wanted immediate withdrawl by the end of 2007 which would have resulted in monumental numbers of dead in an all out civil war. What record on human rights? He has a very slim record on anything actually. He began to run for President before authoring any meaningful legislation in US Senate.

Excellent article. One more issue where Obama's rhetoric do not match his deeds. The man has never changed anything in elective office.

I am not pro abortion, but I reject the assumption that the government should have control over a woman's body. Why doesn't the government & pro-lifers go after the guys that market Viagra? It seems as though there is a disconnect between what is morally right and what a small group of people THINK is right!