Abortion and birth control have killed the lower classes. Where was AIDS back in the mid 60s...I am waiting for mass genocide, the usual evolution to the educated eilte utopian society. No family, no sexual morality, AIDS and other STDs skyrocketing, birthrates in developed countries that promise to eliminate themselves in a generation or two, genetic engineering only Mengele could have loved...they don't get it and never will, but they have plenty of Yale and Harvard degrees to back them up. Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee are touting the "new atheism and humanism", but it sounds like the old Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot routine...and it didn't work last century! If I knew I were carrying a Down Syndrome kid, I would gladly welcome it, but if I knew I were carrying a doctor or a feminist or a college professor or a Hollywood actor or a media journalist I would be tempted to abort.
OPINION
A Ceasefire in the Culture War
By making 'abortion reduction' a priority, Obama courts his frenemies.
Published Mar 28, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009
Member Comments
- 1
- 2
-
Posted By: Old Fashioned @ 05/06/2009 9:23:24 AM
-
Posted By: petergauhar @ 04/21/2009 7:12:59 PM
The Early Christian View
In sharp contrast, early Christians took a firm stand against abortions. Durant adds: ???Abortion and infanticide, which were decimating pagan society, were forbidden to Christians as the equivalents of murder.??? So while family limitation became an outstanding social phenomenon of both the Greek and the Roman eras, the Christian community stood firmly on a strict moral code that built respect for the sanctity of life. As in ancient Israel, children were a mark of the Creator???s blessing. The psalmist states: ???Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; the fruitage of the belly is a reward.??????Psalm 127:3.
It is evident from God???s Word, the Bible, that Jehovah, ???the source of life,??? recognizes the right to life of the unborn child. How? First, the Bible shows that he deems the unborn to be more than just a glob of tissue. God???s interest in his marvelous creative arrangement is described by the psalmist this way: ???You [Jehovah] kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.??????Psalm 36:9; 139:13-16.
Further, God calls to account the individual who accidentally interferes with the natural course of events involving an unborn child. Notice that the Mosaic Law put a heavy responsibility on such ones, stating: ???If men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman???s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.??????Exodus 21:22, 23, American Standard Version.
Now if Jehovah views an accidental interference with the unborn child to be a matter of such serious consequence, how much greater accountability would there be with deliberate interference, as in the case of abortion! Also, since God gave no limitations as to the age of the unborn in his law expressed at Exodus chapter 21, arguments based on age become moot.
-
Posted By: NancyJ27 @ 04/07/2009 2:05:42 PM
Safe, legal, and RARE. What a joke.
-
Posted By: History 101 @ 04/04/2009 12:28:34 AM
You right wingers are something else. You b*tch about abortions but then you B*tch about the democrats putting more money into the welfare system. What one do you want. I think pumping billions into planned parenthood and show people how to use condoms or contraception is better than abortion. Can we agree there. Young people that do not have abortions are more likely to be on welfare and this and that. Now, you going to say "well stop opening up your legs" or whatever. What about the little girl joggin in the park and a guy puts a gun to her head and says get in or Ill kill you, so she does and gets rape and is pregant. Your telling me she can not have a abortion. WAKE UP. Then I tell you, tell your priest to stop touching little boys and girls. Go ahead and banned abortion, I dont care, just see the crime rate up up in about 18 years or see for young women dying from botch abortions, or see healthcare go up more becasue they can not afford it but the hospital has to help them anyways. Just a few ideas. Maybe I am wrong but I thought I would throw that out their. Have a nice day.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/05/2009 1:08:46 AM
What about the little girl joggin in the park and a guy puts a gun to her head and says get in or Ill kill you, so she does and gets rape and is pregant. Your telling me she can not have a abortion. WAKE UP.
If you combine rape, incest and the health of a mother for the total amount of abortions performed then it wouldn't even add up to 1 percent of the abortions performed. We are awake. The question is, are you awakened to this knowledge or any knowledge of the reasons why abortions are performed?-
Posted By: History 101 @ 04/05/2009 10:56:59 PM
Well if you ban all abortion then raping and incest of the little girl would not beable to get a abortion, right. What up bojack 27
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/07/2009 1:29:24 PM
Well if you ban all abortion then raping and incest of the little girl would not beable to get a abortion, right. What up bojack 27
If you combine rape, incest and the health of a mother for the total amount of abortions performed then it wouldn't even add up to 1 percent of the abortions performed. We are awake. The question is, are you awakened to this knowledge or any knowledge of the reasons why abortions are performed?
What part of the above statement don???t you understand? Most abortions performed are not even near this caliber. I would say if a young girls life is threaten then of course you allow this procedure to save the life of the little girl. Her life should not be put into jeopardy because of getting raped or being the victim of incest. The alternative to them aborting the child is giving the child up for adoption. Why should you punish a little girl with the taking of a human life when she is already traumatized with the rape or incest?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: SharedThought @ 04/06/2009 2:21:14 PM
While President Obama's approach may not be identical to that of Bill Clinton during his administration, there is a similarity insofar as, consistent with Obama's interest in "abortion reduction" (which would make abortion more rare as compared to now), Bill Clinton, while serving as president, WAS known for sharing his own view that abortion "should be safe, legal, and rare."
-
Posted By: DisciplineIsFreedom @ 04/05/2009 1:42:40 PM
I am so glad this "debate" has largely been decided. There is nothing more pointless than listening to a discussion among pro and anti-abortion people. There is never any real discussion, just a lot of accusation and name calling. Clearly the two sides are never going to see eye to eye. Thankfully the law recognizes a woman's right to control her own body, regardless of whether another life has taken up temporary residence within it. Beyond that it is left to individuals to decide whether they will use that right to put the needs of the life growing within them first or put their own needs first. It is their choice to make, and they make it, then live with the consequences of either decision. This is the law, and will never ever change back to the way in which the state forced its decisions on women. I think the president and other wise people who are against abortion realize this, and are becoming pragmatic about reducing abortion by creating conditions such that either A) women and girls don't get pregnant accidentally; B) the choice to keep the accidental pregnancy is made easier by social support services during pregnancy and after birth; C) the skills needed to properly raise a child are taught through social programs where the girl's own family lacks those skills; and D) girls are encouraged, supported and educated in such a way that they have hopes for their futures and respect for their bodies that preclude promiscuous sex as a teen activity (a preoccupation that distracts from an educational focus and raises risk of accidental pregnancy and/or venereal disease). Giving girls more education and more options is the answer when we want to encourage desirable behavior. No type of prohibition has ever worked to change behavior that comes natural to people, such as wanting to feel good. The war on sex will be no more successful than the war on drugs until our society learns to lead people with a carrot instead of punishing them with a stick.
-
Posted By: bndkllr2 @ 04/02/2009 8:59:28 AM
It is almost unfathomable that unitl recently we had the "employee counscience" law that allowed health workers to refuse service to people if it interferred with their "moral" beliefs. Under that law, if I believed that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality, then I could refuse to fill a prescription for anti-viral drugs if I believed that it was interferring with God's work. When are we going to get religion out of government and join the rest of the developed world?
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/02/2009 4:51:06 PM
It is almost unfathomable that unitl recently we had the "employee counscience" law that allowed health workers to refuse service to people if it interferred with their "moral" beliefs.
Yeah why should they object to assisting killing babies when it is against their belief???get real!
Under that law, if I believed that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality, then I could refuse to fill a prescription for anti-viral drugs if I believed that it was interferring with God's work.
Wrong! Promoting health to every patient is a Christian value and giving out drugs to help those in need don???t violate these standards in no way???.what have you been reading?
When are we going to get religion out of government and join the rest of the developed world?
Maybe you should get government out of religion, if they insist on telling people to perform something against their religion. By developed you mean atheistically, well believe it or not this is a religion as well according to the definition.-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 9:23:23 AM
"Maybe you should get government out of religion, if they insist on telling people to perform something against their religion. "
MAYBE those people should find another career.
They KNEW abortion was the law of the land when they went to med/nursing school, so they've got no excuses. If they don't want to do the work then get the heck out of the way......I'm sure McDonalds is hiring.
And yes, it is that simple.
Love,
JM-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/05/2009 2:07:15 AM
Ever hear of the The Hippocratic Oath it is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine. The phrase "Above all, do no harm" is usually attributed to the oath.
Changed portions of the oath:
1.To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools gave preferential consideration to the children of physicians.
2.To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.
3.Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and in the the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a doctor can prescribe euthanasia with the patient's consent.
4.To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
5.I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too menial for physicians, and therefore was left for barbers (the forerunners of modern surgeons). Surgery was not recognized as a specialty at that time. This sentence is now interpreted as acknowledging that it is impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. It also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.
6.To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians. -
Posted By: sjjessup @ 04/03/2009 5:17:42 PM
THANK YOU!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 11:12:08 AM
I will ask one question! What has Obama done to help reduce abortion?
-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 11:48:50 AM
Nothing - why should he? It is not his place to do so.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 12:39:34 PM
It is not his place to do so! Then it isn't his place to increase the number of abortions as well!......Obam did run on this promise to reduce the number of abortions and now you are saying he doesn't have to keep his word?
If it isn't his place to do so then don't make promises that you are not going to keep.....-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 4:08:39 PM
"It is not his place to do so! Then it isn't his place to increase the number of abortions as well!"
Apparently, you missed the part about "abortion reduction"
"......Obam did run on this promise to reduce the number of abortions and now you are saying he doesn't have to keep his word?
If it isn't his place to do so then don't make promises that you are not going to keep....."
Whoa! You mean to tell me that politicians don't keep ALL their campaign promises? Say it ain't so! SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!
Love,
JM-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/05/2009 1:59:29 AM
Maybe you need to start at the beginning and read my first post on this blog. If you can answer it then fine if you cannot then I consider you as one who hasn't got the answer or doesn't care to engage in debate.
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 11:12:08 AM
I will ask one question! What has Obama done to help reduce abortion?
-
-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 1:23:07 PM
It is not his (nor the government's) place to decrease or increase the proceedures. I repeat, fo r the benifit of all nut jobs such as yourself: it is the mother's (and less so the father's if he is really there for the mother) decision and the government should never be telling them what they must or must not do. It is not the place of the federal, state, county or city government to tell a young mother she must not have such a proceedure, regardless of the circumstances. It is the responsibility of her parents, her doctor, her family, the father of the baby (who very rarely owns up to his responsibility) to educate the mother-to-be on ALL of her options. Such a decision is a life changing decsion and as such, that woman must have support, and knowledge to do what she (and the father) know is right for the fetus. She must have the support of her closet family and friends. If you are anti-abortion, you have no right to pound your point of view into some young woman's head. Whatever she decides, she lives with it for the rest of her life, so you don't have to make her feel any better or worse. It is not your place to do so. This is an issue that the government MUST steer clear of completely.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 3:30:49 PM
It is not his (nor the government's) place to decrease or increase the proceedures.
Ok then let???s take away the funding for Planned Parenthood who gets close to 1 Billion dollars each year.
I repeat, fo r the benifit of all nut jobs such as yourself:
So you cannot answer a straight forward question without demeaning someone in the process. Maybe you should read the article before you post???.and then you will have a clue to what is going on in this blog.
it is the mother's (and less so the father's if he is really there for the mother) decision and the government should never be telling them what they must or must not do.
So who gave the mother this authority? Is that your point of view that you think everyone should adhere to? So are you saying that the unborn doesn???t have a right to exist? Are you saying only the woman or the father who is to be there for the mother have a right to decide who gets born into this world? So what happens if the father wants a abortion but the mother doesn???t? What happens if the mother wants an abortion but the father doesn???t? What gives one parent more of a right to the child than the other? I say neither has the right to terminate a life, but the laws of this land have said otherwise! We make laws when we haven???t even determine when life begins???.or should I say come to an agreement of when life begins???.so are you endorsing murder?
It is not the place of the federal, state, county or city government to tell a young mother she must not have such a proceedure, regardless of the circumstances.
It is the place of the government to govern such actions of said people and to make a decision on a divisive issue such as abortion. Why? To maintain good order and discipline within society! So regardless of how you feel that government shouldn???t have the right to interfere it must in order to not go into anarchy.
It is the responsibility of her parents, her doctor, her family, the father of the baby (who very rarely owns up to his responsibility) to educate the mother-to-be on ALL of her options.
So I see you have baby daddy issues???did you get abandon by your pops? Get real! What options are there? To kill or not to kill!
Such a decision is a life changing decsion and as such, that woman must have support, and knowledge to do what she (and the father) know is right for the fetus.-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 9:27:11 AM
"So who gave the mother this authority?"
So who gave YOU the authority to tell her how and when to have children?????
You can't have it both ways. If she has no rights.....NEITHER DO YOU!!!
I would have a lot more respect for your position if you would simply admit that you think you know what's right for EVERYBODY ELSE (REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION), and that they have no option but to accept what you have to say because you simply know more than them.
Love,
JM-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/05/2009 1:56:38 AM
So who gave the mother this authority?"
So who gave YOU the authority to tell her how and when to have children?????
Never did I say that in my statement. Your assumption that we are telling a woman what to do with her body is wrong! What we are saying is that the life inside the woman has the right to be protected from the mom. There are even laws that prosecute women who smoke crack and drink severely causing their children to go through withdrawals. So if it is her body why do they prosecute her for this?
You can't have it both ways. If she has no rights.....NEITHER DO YOU!!!
Obviously you didn???t read the post directly above yours and you would have known my thoughts on who have the rights.
I would have a lot more respect for your position if you would simply admit that you think you know what's right for EVERYBODY ELSE (REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION), and that they have no option but to accept what you have to say because you simply know more than them.
You have no respect because you simply came in here with a pre-conceived notion to attack the first person you saw support the un-born. Your mind was made up and didn???t even read the whole article or my post. If you would have read my post it was Skallywag who wanted me to except his position on this matter. No where in any of these posts did anyone mention their religion. So you are assuming again that it has to do with religion while there is no mention of in my post. Everyone has an opinion and if I do know more or less than someone that doesn???t mean anything. We are here to debate positions and why we support them. Everyone has an opinion and I???m just giving mine based on the knowledge that I have and others are doing the same. So if you have anything to add then address and not attack and make railing accusations that are not warranted by me. I will try to do likewise to you as well. This is a very divisive issue as it is and one should not try to fan the flames with personal attacks.
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 3:33:24 PM
What is right for the fetus! LOL???.it is a child???no matter how you try to spin it and if you abort it you have simply killed your won child???.and who gives anyone this right to kill their children???.if that is so then we can shoot them after they are born if they don???t live up to our expectations, cost to much to raise, get sick, inconvenience our lives or we decide later that we don???t want the responsibility of raising them???. Sounds crazy???.but these are the reasons most (99%) abortions take place.
She must have the support of her closet family and friends. If you are anti-abortion, you have no right to pound your point of view into some young woman's head.
If a woman drowns her children and claim that a black guy rob her and took her children Then society doesn???t have the right to pound their point of view into this young woman???s head. Or better yet if the woman down in Florida kills her child (Caylee Anthony) then society has no right to even take her to court or pound their point of view in her head???. After all it is just murder! Killing a child and we should all be quiet because you say so???.get over yourself!
Whatever she decides, she lives with it for the rest of her life, so you don't have to make her feel any better or worse. It is not your place to do so. This is an issue that the government MUST steer clear of completely.
What is the matter you having problems with the child that you aborted? Are you still trying to convince yourself that it was the right thing to do? Yes the government must steer clear of citizens killing one another???.let???s get rid of the cops and maybe not even prosecute this guy who just shot and killed 8 elderly people because he was having problems with hi ex-wife???.after all we don???t want the big bad government interfering on life or death issues???..-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 3:54:52 PM
Bottom line is, it is NOT your decision to make, or to judge another. You are the nut job. Folks, watch out for this one, he/she is a whacko.
-
Posted By: juice911 @ 04/03/2009 7:36:30 PM
common sense tells you it's wrong.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 4:58:29 PM
Good comeback to all the questions.....sidestepping the issue is your mantra I see....lol....So according to you we should just live like in a state of anarchy and not have any laws to govern outrageous behavior.....You hear that Chris Brown....it is a private matter you can beat Rihanna since she was your girlfriend at the time....GET REAL!
-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/31/2009 10:02:08 AM
I see your point, I do not agree, so stop trying to convert me and others like me. How come you don't get it? The parents of a child make the decisions for that child based on what the parents (not nosey outsiders) feel is best for that child. If you saw a mother scolding a recalcitrant brat in the grocery store by speaking sternly and wagging her finger a the child, would you interfere for the safety of the child? I would hope not, if so, you need to get a life an stop being a nosy busy body, pay attention to your own issues. The same principle goes for an abortive proceedure. Unfortunately, science has not been able to definitavely determine when exactly life begins - at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth (I'm no expert and will not debate it here). This makes the whole decision process very difficult for all concerned. I am all for preventing abortive proceedures, through abstinence, safe sex, adoption, education and outright keeping the child, but the bottom line is that no one other than (ultimately) the mother has the right to make the decision. You may feel it is wrong, as do many, but don't condem a woman for making what she believes is the best possible choice for her child. This assumes of course that the mother is not abusing the right of free chioce just use use the proceedure as birth control (why bother, condoms are so much cheaper as are other methods, abstinence being the cheapest, albeit possibly the most difficult at times) - in such cases then the mother needs some serious help. My point is ultimately that you have no right to judge or condem or force your values upon another human being just because that individual made a chioce you may not have made under similar circumstances. I only ask that you stop, think, and understand this point of view. You do not have to agree, but if you are so narrow minded that you refuse to see the other viewpoint then you are only hurting yourself.
-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 10:59:41 AM
Why then should nosey outsiders have to fund abortions. If they are not allowed a voice their money should not go to fund them.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/01/2009 3:34:49 PM
I see your point, I do not agree, so stop trying to convert me and others like me. How come you don't get it?
Not trying to convert you???.it was you who answer the question and then called me a nut job for not agreeing with you???.
The parents of a child make the decisions for that child based on what the parents (not nosey outsiders) feel is best for that child. If you saw a mother scolding a recalcitrant brat in the grocery store by speaking sternly and wagging her finger a the child, would you interfere for the safety of the child? I would hope not, if so, you need to get a life an stop being a nosy busy body, pay attention to your own issues.
I don???t know what state that you live in but most people do interfere with others???I wouldn???t interfere with a mother scolding her child but I would interfere if a mother is about to kill that child in front of me???.two very different things???.
The same principle goes for an abortive proceedure. Unfortunately, science has not been able to definitavely determine when exactly life begins - at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth (I'm no expert and will not debate it here). This makes the whole decision process very difficult for all concerned. I am all for preventing abortive proceedures, through abstinence, safe sex, adoption, education and outright keeping the child, but the bottom line is that no one other than (ultimately) the mother has the right to make the decision. You may feel it is wrong, as do many, but don't condem a woman for making what she believes is the best possible choice for her child.
I asked the question before to many people???what makes a woman think that the child belongs to her when it took the father to get her pregnant with his sperm? No one has the right to terminate the life of a innocent. You said that you are not on here to debate when life begins but there lies the problem???so I will not debate that with you. I don???t condemn no one for having a abortion???what is done is done and cannot be undone. But get away from that argument that it is her child and hers alone???.the child is a gift and belongs to both parents for a certain period, to love nourish and educate.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/01/2009 3:37:03 PM
This assumes of course that the mother is not abusing the right of free chioce just use use the proceedure as birth control (why bother, condoms are so much cheaper as are other methods, abstinence being the cheapest, albeit possibly the most difficult at times) - in such cases then the mother needs some serious help.
Well do you know that less than 1 percent of abortions performed are for the following reasons: rape, incest, health of the mother???..
My point is ultimately that you have no right to judge or condem or force your values upon another human being just because that individual made a chioce you may not have made under similar circumstances. I only ask that you stop, think, and understand this point of view. You do not have to agree, but if you are so narrow minded that you refuse to see the other viewpoint then you are only hurting yourself.
My point is that this person (man or woman) has no right to enforce their values on the unborn and make a decision in whether they live or die???this is a human being as well??????I have stopped and experience the other viewpoint and didn???t condemn the person involved by they end up condemning themselves???.I???m never hurting myself speaking out for those who cannot speak out for themselves???.I do have the right to (judge) as you and others always like to say???speak out and say what is right and wrong in this world???..and so do you???condemning belongs to God and Him alone???.I never do this???.so don???t accuse me of doing such a thing???.I may get passionate about a subject but in the end it is individual choices that prevail???..I believe one day everyone is going to have to give an account for what they did, said and refuse to say about this subject ???.but others don???t believe this and that is another debate??????
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: LIMPbaugh @ 04/03/2009 12:53:34 PM
Why do we need President Obama to act? Isn't the abstinence, just say no, policy of the GOP working?
-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 1:23:56 PM
Oh yes, Promises, from Obama? Are you joking?
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 3:05:47 PM
Oh yes, Promises, from Obama? Are you joking?
Does it sound like I'm joking? What is wrong with you? did some wild hair get stuck up your butt or what?-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 3:36:15 PM
Why yes, I thought you were joking - you used the term "Obama keeping promises." And no, I do not have a wild hair stuck.... It is a fact - It is not your place, the place of the federal, state, county or city government to tell a young mother she must not (or musat) have such a proceedure, regardless of the circumstances. it is PRIVATE. Learn to respect that privacy.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 03/30/2009 4:54:18 PM
So killing is a private matter!...Great then all of the murderers will rejoice at hearing this news....and yes promises made by Obama....didn't you read the article?.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: mac101 @ 04/03/2009 7:52:36 PM
Abortion reduction and supporting a woman's right to make choices about her own body are not two mutually exclusive goals, and the majority of Americans support both, as does Obama.
The current law of the land is that an adult woman can choose to legally end her pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy. Obama supports this, and has not gotten involved in the wrangling over under-age abortion, second trimester abortions, or any of the gray areas that have proven more controversial.
Obama also supports reducing the over-all number of abortions performed through greater access to birth control for women, and education about preventing pregnancy for teens, since we have clear evidence that abstinence-only sex ed in high school doesn't work.
The hard-liners on both sides not withstanding, Obama has lived up to his campaign promise to make reducing the overall number of abortions a priority.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/05/2009 1:33:54 AM
Abortion reduction and supporting a woman's right to make choices about her own body are not two mutually exclusive goals, and the majority of Americans support both, as does Obama.
If it was her own body that she was destroying then it would be no problem.
Now the problem with your reasoning is that you think preventing teen-age pregnancy is reducing abortion. It is like saying that all teenagers that get pregnant have abortions! That is not true and neither is giving greater access of birth control to women. How hard is it to get birth control?
Under the Bush administration abortion was reduced, under President Obama it was increase when he lifted the ban on abortion performed overseas 3 days after he got into office. This isn't reduction this is increasing the procedure and American tax dollars are paying for foreigners to get abortions.
Obama hasn't live up to his campaign promises, he just clearly defined them to those who were stupid enough to vote for him believing that he would reduced abortions. There is a lot of egg on the faces of those Christian pastors and Christians who actually believe this lie in the beginning without even checking out his voting record and his radical stance on Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). So if this is not controversial to you then what is controversial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA
-
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 04/04/2009 9:53:50 AM
Sooner or later a great leader is presented with two claimants of a baby, each wishing to deny the other of any custody whatsoever. He will offer the only possible solution to them in order for both of them to be satisfied to the maximum available, a half of the baby to each claimant. This is more or less where the president finds himself today, following an administration which favored a small number of people by giving the baby to a favored claimant and letting the other go home in grief. Which half of the baby would you like to have?
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 04/04/2009 10:03:30 AM
The president who put himself into the fray concerning abortion was dead wrong. That question was never within his purview to decide. it was within the purview of the judiciary. As executive, he does not decide the law. The court decides. That mistake along with so many others, the unnecessary war being the worst and tantamount to a war crime, is why we are all at each other's throats over so many issues. He was the most divisive head of our country in our history. it will take us years to recover from the damage of his incompetence.
-
-
Posted By: History 101 @ 04/04/2009 12:28:17 AM
You right wingers are something else. You b*tch about abortions but then you B*tch about the democrats putting more money into the welfare system. What one do you want. I think pumping billions into planned parenthood and show people how to use condoms or contraception is better than abortion. Can we agree there. Young people that do not have abortions are more likely to be on welfare and this and that. Now, you going to say "well stop opening up your legs" or whatever. What about the little girl joggin in the park and a guy puts a gun to her head and says get in or Ill kill you, so she does and gets rape and is pregant. Your telling me she can not have a abortion. WAKE UP. Then I tell you, tell your priest to stop touching little boys and girls. Go ahead and banned abortion, I dont care, just see the crime rate up up in about 18 years or see for young women dying from botch abortions, or see healthcare go up more becasue they can not afford it but the hospital has to help them anyways. Just a few ideas. Maybe I am wrong but I thought I would throw that out their. Have a nice day.
-
Posted By: juice911 @ 04/03/2009 7:39:19 PM
Common sense tells me it's barbaric
-
Posted By: Skallywag @ 03/30/2009 10:46:18 AM
While I personally do not like the idea of abortion, I also see the other side of the coin - it is the mother's (and less so the father's if he is really there for the mother) decision and the government should never be telling them what they must or must not do. It is not the place of the federal, state, county or city government to tell a young mother she must not have such a proceedure, regardless of the circumstances. It is the responsibility of her parents, her doctor, her family, the father of the baby (who very rarely owns up to his responsibility) to educate the mother-to-be on ALL of her options. Such a decision is a life changing decsion and as such, that woman must have support, and knowledge to do what she (and the father) know is right for the fetus. She must have the support of her closet family and friends. If you are anti-abortion, you have no right to pound your point of view into some young woman's head. Whatever she decides, she lives with it for the rest of her life, so you don't have to make her feel any better or worse. It is not your place to do so. This is an issue that the government MUST steer clear of completely.
-
Posted By: sjjessup @ 04/03/2009 5:12:15 PM
Thank you for being a coherent, normal person, because seriously, some other posters on here think the woman should have the child regardless of if a support system is in place, or whether it was the cause of rape or incest or not. It's nice to see that not everyone who opposes abortion isn't trying to force their beliefs on me.
-
Posted By: juice911 @ 04/03/2009 7:21:24 PM
ANYONE know how soon a baby has a heartbeat after conception?
-
-
-
Posted By: SrAN @ 04/03/2009 11:57:39 AM
I love how people can take a simple statement or, in this case, a simple piece of writing and turn it completely upside down and off track.
The point is clear. Instead of having a policy that's foundation is weak and lacking, Obama is trying to incorporate education and support for those facing this decision, strengthing the policy. Everyone here keeps talking about the responsibility of the mother, without education how can we expect women to make a responsible decision? In some cases, women go into pregnancy completely blind. Without education on their options and support from people around them these women are more likely to have an abortion for lack of a better option. Educating and supporting those going through this sometimes tough time can lead the woman (and even her partner or the father of the child) to make educated and responsible decisions.
As for those calling abortions evil. Tell that to a family who was able to keep their daughter instead of watching her die. Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued is one of the top reasons many women decide to have an abortion. Not only is the life of the mother in jeapordy but the life of the child usually is as well. Is it fair to prevent the mother from making literally a life or death decision, especially when it is her life?
abortion should be looked at on a case to case basis. If there is a possibility of saving the pregnancy instead of terminating it then I say go for it. Educate the mother on her options, support her with whatever decision is made. But above all make sure that if the mother decides to terminate the pregnanacy she is basing her decision on responsibility. Abortion should never be used as a contraceptive.-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 12:39:09 PM
In the United States most abortions are not done because the mothers life is in danger. Rather studies show that the primary reasons are they already have enough children and therefore having another would hinder their ability to care for their current children. Another reason is it would interfere in their plans either in regards to work or education. A third reason is that they feel they are not ready for motherhood. Given the serious nature of what an abortion is, the taking of human life, one would wish that much more thought went into using birth control. I also wonder if ending rather than dealing with the challenges of life makes a better person.
-
Posted By: SrAN @ 04/03/2009 1:04:08 PM
I never said it was THE top reason, I simply stated that it was one (of many) top reasons. I would never lay blame on a mother who had to terminate a pregnancy due to severe health issues. what if she is already is a mother? Would it be fair to have her die giving child birth and leave her children motherless? And what makes for a moral person? I am pagan and do not follow Christian beliefs, does that make me immoral?
-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 1:57:33 PM
I had trouble posting but I'll try again. It is not even one of the top reasons. As far as whether you are moral or not - that is for you to know. Christians do not have a monopoly on morals. People of all faiths to those with none can be moral people. I just feel everyone attempts to alleviate all strugglesis not always best. In our struggles we grow to become stronger people. I don't know too many people who grow from everythiing going their way. Sometimes what is not easy at the time becomes what is best for us in the long-term.
-
Posted By: SrAN @ 04/03/2009 2:48:20 PM
Abortion is not a way to alliviate all struggles, it is a way to ease struggles that can come up when someone doesn't ask for them. What should happen to a 13 or 14 year old girl who is raped and becomes pregnant? Should she be responsible for giving birth to a child she never asked for?
-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 3:45:10 PM
In cases of rape that is a different situation totally. The person has no responsibility for the pregnancy. This is not the norm.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: kshortSD @ 04/03/2009 1:49:37 PM
I might be wrong, but it seems that many of the conservatives that are against legalized abortion are the same people that oppose sex education in school and birth control (which is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion). I applaud the president's practical approach to this dilema. Let's educate young people and make birth control available, and be happy when the abortion (and STD) rates drop.
-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 2:01:37 PM
I think you are wrong. I am a conservative and I support birth control education. I think that teaching about birth control combined with teaching that you do not have to be sexually active is the best possible solution.
-
Posted By: kshortSD @ 04/03/2009 2:16:03 PM
I wrote that many conservatives have that view, not all. I appreciate your support of education.
-
Posted By: paproudmom @ 04/03/2009 3:30:55 PM
All the conservatives I know do support education, some who are Christian Fundamentallist do as well. I think people assume that the extreme positions on each side represent the norm. Usually they do not. Thanks for your comments.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: memo2 @ 03/29/2009 5:37:17 AM
This is one of the things no body whant to talk, is nice to have childrens and see how they grow the problem is for this childrens after some time for diferent reasons people split and start the dilemmafor this childrens, for young couples they have no idea of what kind of resposibility they will chalenge after the baby born,everything will be diferent but they don't know it or probable they know is just like chalenge their lives for no be safe,one way or another they will find out the consequence of their action's, can be prevented yes and no we can prevent our future but we are so busy with other matter's and I understand but we can still talking to our childrens no matter their age, we can communicate and let them know our life and what they have to do when you not there,if we deal with all this problems right now what is going to be for them in 20 years, this will be more problematic our population will be triple or more we still can prevent for them now, I respect all religions but they respect the future life in this planet ? I believe the existence of religions was to help us to behave our selfs, right now the fact is we need to help our self's with out religions or gobermrnt's, cause when something happen it happens and they not will be there,.Only just my comment......
-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 11:18:05 AM
it's called "punctuation" and it can break up your thoughts into logical, easy to read segments.
Live it, learn it, love it!
Love,
JM-
Posted By: kshortSD @ 04/03/2009 1:54:48 PM
Yeah, let's try to learn how to spell, too!
-
-
-
Posted By: Dave Jones @ 04/03/2009 10:55:12 AM
This is just another example of Obama's belief in collectivism, the collective good is greater than the sum of all the individual good. Reducing abortion is a smokescreen, it serves the collective good by setting forth an agenda that tolerates evil.
-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/03/2009 11:16:02 AM
You are so right????
Who cares if our ENTIRE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT is based on laws for the COLLECTIVE???
What did the founding fathers know when they warned about the dangers of "factionalism" and the imposition of one "factions" ideas onto the rest of the country (don't bother reading the Federalist Papers....they're amazing!)
And Eisenhower was CRAZY when he warned about the military-industrial complex dominating national policy! Decisions should only be made BY THE FEW and FOR THE FEW...preferably those in power (if you're not one of them, that's your problem).
Thanks for posting and showing us how smart and thoughful you really are!
Love,
JM
-
-
Posted By: Dave Jones @ 04/03/2009 10:55:01 AM
This is just another example of Obama's belief in collectivism, the collective good is greater than the sum of all the individual good. Reducing abortion is a smokescreen, it serves the collective good by setting forth an agenda that tolerates evil.
-
Posted By: EE7011 @ 04/03/2009 10:52:37 AM
A female needs to decide for herself what she wants first and she has to start asking herself this the moment she gets her period. Do I want children if I am able? When? What do I want to accomplish before I get pregnant, if I chose to get pregnant? What will I tell my boyfriend when it comes to sex if he is pressuring me and I'm not ready? Do I have someone I can talk to honestly about sex and re-production? What role does my religion have on my decision making? What are my own values/morals? Would I feel comfortable asking my doctor about birth control methods? Would I take a pill everyday as directed? If I got pregnant would I have a support system and would I be able to achieve the goals I set for myself? Do I have health insurance and if not who is going to help cover my medical expenses? Do I have an OBGYN or PCP? Can I speak openly with religous officials about my questions/concerns? If I'm in an abusive/controlling relationship who can I turn to and what resources are available to me?
-
Posted By: nfprha @ 04/03/2009 10:47:56 AM
@likeitis: whoah. dude. chill out. this precisely why there's such a rift between the two camps. comments like that contribute nothing to the debate.
on another note, the article talks at length about the compromise to reduce the need for abortions. It's a third way that the President has embraced and we all just need to be patient while this unfolds. I do have some reservations about putting this initiative under the purview of the faith-based office, but hopefully some sound, scientifically-based policies will come out of that office. In the meantime, the President can really live up to his word of working to reduce abortions by adequately funding Title X at $700 million. Title X is the nation's only federal funding stream for family planning, which is something 90 percent of the voting public supports.
- 1
- 2
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss