<p>Well, to be clear, there is certainly a wide variety of opinion within Christianity and religion in general on the morality of abortion. However, I do not believe that Obama’s position on abortion would fit into any of these mainline views.</p>
<p>I am not even certain that Obama’s view fits into Obama’s view. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is because I find him so thoughtful, but I find it difficult to reconcile Obama’s position on abortion with his public persona. </p>
<p>I am at a loss to explain how a man that appears so thoughtful and compassionate could oppose something that does not even seem to offer any moral “cover” whatsoever…and I do not believe even Hanna would consider this one a matter for personal ethics. This is clearly a public policiy issue.</p>
<p>I would be interested in hearing anyone’s opinion on this that disagrees with my own…or that may even have some insight into what, on the surface, appears to be a rather brutal vote.</p>
<p>Hunt, have you read the link I provided on the previous page?</p>
<p>For many many many many Christians, there is nothing to “resolve” regarding their religious beliefs and being pro-choice. Their religious beliefs – their Christian beliefs – support, indeed, demand, that women be allowed to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Of course there are other Christian faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, which demand that women not be able to choose. Someone who is Roman Catholic and anti-choice has nothing to resolve in regard to abortion. Someone who is Congregationalist and pro-choice has nothing to resolve in regard to abortion.</p>
<p>Garland is absolutely correct: there is not monolithic Christian position on abortion. </p>
<p>If I misunderstood you, if you were speaking not about individuals resolving their beliefs with their religions and instead were speaking about individuals resolve their beliefs with others who do not have those same beliefs, I apologize.</p>
<p>"Obama’s Father’s Day speech on Sunday provided another glaring example of his carelessness with words. Obama stated: “But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize responsibility does not end at conception”.</p>
<p>Nothing inconsistent here. He’s saying that men shouldn’t duck out on their responsibilities as fathers after impregnating a woman – being a father involves far more than impregnating a woman.</p>
<p>I’m talking about thoughtful people who try to resolve this issue in their own minds, taking their actual religious beliefs into account. I don’t think this issue should be easy for anybody to resolve, whatever the leaders of their denomination may say about it. I simply don’t agree that a Catholic or Congregationalist has “nothing to resolve” unless they are simply going to blindly accept what somebody else tells them. To put it another way, the problem I have with this whole issue is people on both extremes pretending that there is nothing to resolve.</p>
<p>and what does a ceremony have to do with being responsible and mature enough to take on the responsibility of providing for and raising a child for almost two decades?</p>
<p>I phrased it like this- because I know quite a few gay couples who are raising children without the benefit of being recognized as a couple, by some of our societies institutions.
( and doing a better job than some of the married parents I know)
I know couples who were married at the birth, but at least one parent never took the responsibility of raising a child seriously.
I also know a few straight couples who are raising children without being married.
I think you can make a commitment without a ceremony, and I don’t see that for many, the fact that they were married at the time of the childs birth, makes them a better parent 5 years down the road.</p>
<p>I agree that most people should wait until they are in a solid relationship before they make the decision to parent a child, although I have also seen some excellent single parents who have made a successful effort to establish a strong support network for themselves and their child-
but everyday, I read about at least one young child being gravely injured by a parent or sibling ( intentionally by parent/accidentally by sib), and I wonder what support system was there for the parent/child- including before birth/pregnancy.</p>
<p>I don’t know if he believes that or not, but I don’t see how this quotes leads to that question, frankly. Which has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.</p>
<p>Reading the linked article, it appears that the bill Obama did not support was different from the one passed federally. But I don’t have the two bills in front of me. The one in Illinois was possibly written to trigger more widespread and ambiguous consequences. I don’t think we can assume any bizarrely radical views from the information presented here. At least, that’s how it reads to me.</p>
<p>The key words are “being born,” aren’t they? Do they mean “being conceived” or do they mean what we ordinarily mean when we announce to the world that we are the proud parents of baby x who was born a 7am on Day… month… year… weighing 7lbs and measuring 19 inches?</p>
<p>In the Compassion Forum, both Obama and Clinton talked about “potential life” when referring to fetuses. You would find their answers to a question regarding abortion interesting. Here is a link to the full transcript. Clinton went first then Obama.</p>
<p>Let’s not try to portray being opposed to the quoted definition as some kind of far left position. Read the definition. “Born alive” (and, therefore, a person subject to all legal protections, presumably allowing criminal prosecution of any doctor or nurse who allowed such a fetus to die without taking heroic measures) is defined, taken literally, as including an “infant” “born” “at any stage of development”, so long as it “has a beating heart” after the extraction – whether for one second or one hour, and whether with or without mechanical assistance. (The heartbeat and other “qualifiers” are listed in the disjunctive, so that any one is sufficient.) There is <em>no</em> “viability” (or even potential viability) requirement. In other words, since a fetus has a discernible heartbeat well within the first trimester, this statute, interpreted literally (as courts are generally supposed to do) would theoretically permit a fetus long before the state of viability to be classfied as a “born person” so long as that heartbeat continues at all after an extraction. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t be in favor of this statute either. It is <em>very</em> poorly drafted – I’m sure intentionally so, given the breadth of its literal interpretation.</p>
<p>Not that any of that matters to those who are eager to pounce on it as “proof” that Obama is some kind of radical leftist devoid of “family values.”</p>
<p>…this does get tiresome…and not just with the quoted poster.</p>
<p>There was no “pouncing” here and you would be very hard pressed to find a single post wherein I pounced or even cast doubt on Obama in any fashion. </p>
<p>If asking a legitimate question in an effort to determine a position of the candidate is “pouncing,” or as has been suggested in the past “is slimey”, then there is no debate and there is no discussion. It all becomes a matter of faith not politics.</p>
<p>Abortion is a political issue.
Pouncing on radical leftist devoid of "family values”, as you say, is not.</p>
<p>For some time I have felt Obama’s greatest weakness is the thin-skinned aggressiveness of many of his most committed supporters; specifically those that prefer to control the discussion rather than to address what is being discussed. It is bad form.</p>
<p>“The one in Illinois was possibly written to trigger more widespread and ambiguous consequences.”</p>
<p>That’s correct. It was (openly) intended to scare doctors out of performing abortions. It probably had the secondary intent to create political problems down the road for legislators who voted against it for this reason. And here we are.</p>
<p>Before I pounce, I try to find some news reports about issues like this that aren’t just on partisan blogs. I did that in this case, and posted a link to one in which Obama’s opposition to this state legislation was explained. What annoys me is people who just ignore any kind of explanation or nuance and just plow ahead with the same broad statements. Yeah, Obama is pro-choice. So what else is new?</p>
Can’t say for sure, but as mine was the only post to address this issue in this thread, I assume you find my query annoying in some fashion. As I said: </p>
<p>and so it continues.</p>
<p>I read your link.
It aired the same critique and said approximately the same thing as those I linked to…which were the web sites of the United Nations and the actual bill in the Illinois Senate: not “blogs,” as far as I understand the term.</p>
<p>In many respects the linked article at “The Hill” was even more critical of the senator’s position by pointing out that the US Senate passed a similar bill to the one Senator Obama voted against by a vote of 98-0. </p>
<p>Yes, Senator Obama is pro-life/abortion, as were about half of the US senators that voted for a bill that was, according to your link, similar legislation. Would Senator Obama have voted in the majority for that law?</p>
<p>It is a relevant question and I would think worthy of an answer or explanation.</p>
<p>It’s really quite simple.</p>
<p>Here are some relevant remarks from your “nuanced” link:
</p>
<p>The article does quote some spokespeople that opposed the bill spinning the vote to their purposes --perhaps even in a legitimate fashion-- but I think I would have preferred to hear the Senator himself address this rather than apologists outside of his campaign.</p>
<p>I will do my own research and not bother the committed any further.</p>
<p>If you did not want people outside Obama’s campaign to address your concern, why did you post on CC? this is not the Obama’s campaign HQs, AFAIK.</p>
<p>Woodwork–if you have a question about the difference in the bills, it does make sense to research it, rather than asking someone else here to do so for you. It’s not a matter of dismissal, but rather, I don’t have that question. I already have an answer that makes sense to me (different scope and intent of the two bills).</p>
<p>Getting all huffy over not getting your research done for you seems rather churlish, frankly, but I do hope you find your answers.</p>