|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: Obama and abortion. |
 |
|
This...I already knew. So, no surprises....just confused as to how this bypassed Americans when they voted.
| Quote: |
BARACK OBAMA ON ABORTION
Barack Obama is undecided on whether life begins at conception and he would expand access to contraception. He is rated 100% by National Abortion Rights Action League on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007, and rated 0% by the National Right to Life.
He believes the Constitution is a living document and is opposed to strict constructionism, he thinks moral arguments from pro-lifers are counterproductive. He supports Roe v. Wade and will protect a �woman�s right to choose.�
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
So if you are against abortion you won't agree with his stance and if you are for the right to abortion, you will agree with him. How is this worth a thread?
Probably most Americans do not vote solely based on what the candidates view on abortion is, or at least I'd hope not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006) |
It didn't bypass voters; most of those things are positives in the eyes of most of us. Reducing teen pregnacy via education and contraceptives? What a monster! Helping low-income women to get contraceptives? What a devil!
The only thing really even questionable on that list is not notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, and honestly I'd say ultimately even that is between the parents and the children; no reason for the state to involve itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
makemischief
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Location: Traveling
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
This...I already knew. So, no surprises....just confused as to how this bypassed Americans when they voted.
|
What is confusing? Most voters would know that Democrats are largely pro-choice. Bypassed? No. Obvious? Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| just confused as to how this bypassed Americans when they voted |
It is only a minority of American voters who identify themselves as being "pro-life", in the sense of actively wanting to restrict or outlaw abortion, and they almost all vote GOP anyway. So there is really no big mystery as to what electoral impact Obama's stance on abortion is going to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006) |
It didn't bypass voters; most of those things are positives in the eyes of most of us. Reducing teen pregnacy via education and contraceptives? What a monster! Helping low-income women to get contraceptives? What a devil!
The only thing really even questionable on that list is not notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, and honestly I'd say ultimately even that is between the parents and the children; no reason for the state to involve itself. |
Partial birth abortion is more than questionable. Its barbaric and gruesome. You can't even treat animals that way w/o serious legal ramifications. And what parent shouldn't have the right to know a medical procedure is being performed on their child?
Obama could learn a thing or two from Kathy Ireland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzisHrqZAbM
Go Kathy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Partial birth abortion is more than questionable. Its barbaric and gruesome. |
It's also at times the best solution to what is required for the woman's safety. Let's get realistic here, anti-abortionists aren't against "partial birth abortion" (which, by the way, isn't a medically recognized term, but rather a politically driven phrase), they're against all abortions, and just want to use "partial birth abortion" illegalizations to get their foot in the door and then progressively argue from there. Honestly I don't consider them in a particularly different category than any other type of abortion that happens later in the fetus' development, but then I'm not very vulnerable to the political hype certain other people are vulnerable to. Fortunately, neither is the majority of the voting population (or at least they aren't susceptible enough such that it affects their voting practices).
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| And what parent shouldn't have the right to know a medical procedure is being performed on their child? |
They should have the right, and they do have the right. If they inquire with the hospital as to medical procedures regarding their child, they will get an answer.
Having the right to know doesn't mean you have the right for the state to make sure you know. Conservatives are constantly talking about personal responsibility; this is a case where the personal responsibility for remaining informed remains with the parent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd also like to add that, if you are anti-abortion, the best thing you could possibly do to advance your cause is to begin work on an artificial womb capable of supporting transplanted fetuses until they gain viability. If such a thing existed, justification for abortion would be destroyed, as a woman could be free of unwanted pregnancy without the baby dying. You'd have exactly what you wanted, without impinging on anyone's rights. Obviously it would be hard work, but if you truly care that hard work is justified, and it would also make you very rich.
Unfortunately, the people who are strongly against abortion don't tend to be particularly strong proponents of science. The very technology that makes abortion unnecessary will very likely end up coming from the same "evil people" who right now support the right of women to be free of unwanted pregnancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Partial birth abortion is more than questionable. Its barbaric and gruesome. |
| Fox wrote: |
| It's also at times the best solution to what is required for the woman's safety. |
|
Really?? The American Medical Association doesn't think so. From their website:
"Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus..."
In fact, former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop said it was never necessary.
Besides, they pull the kids body into the birth canal and leave the head just inside the womb. The child is still alive. The kids head is punctured and a catheter is inserted to suck out the brain so the collapsed skull and the rest of the body can be pulled out. Abortion success!
Thats their best solution?? They can't try to deliver the child alive? They can't at least administer anesthesia to the baby first? Like I said, its barbaric and gruesome.
| Fox wrote: |
| They should have the right, and they do have the right. If they inquire with the hospital as to medical procedures regarding their child, they will get an answer. |
Yes, I suppose that if you happen to think your child is pregnant you can ask every hospital and abortion clinic in every nearby city if she went there for an abortion. Great advice. The point is that, like any procedure, a parent should have the consent, or at least the knowledge, of what is being done to their underage child in a hospital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I'd also like to add that, if you are anti-abortion, the best thing you could possibly do to advance your cause is to begin work on an artificial womb capable of supporting transplanted fetuses until they gain viability. If such a thing existed, justification for abortion would be destroyed, as a woman could be free of unwanted pregnancy without the baby dying. You'd have exactly what you wanted, without impinging on anyone's rights. Obviously it would be hard work, but if you truly care that hard work is justified, and it would also make you very rich.
Unfortunately, the people who are strongly against abortion don't tend to be particularly strong proponents of science. The very technology that makes abortion unnecessary will very likely end up coming from the same "evil people" who right now support the right of women to be free of unwanted pregnancy. |
I'm glad you brought that up because science is EXACTLY why I oppose abortion. Medically, scientifically abortion IS the taking of a human life. From the very beginning all the human chromosomes are present, the gender has been decided, the blood type, eye color, etc. It may be at a different stage of development than you. But so is an infant, so is a teenager, etc. Through medicine and science we know more than ever about the childs earliest days of life. Ultrasounds have made this even more clear.
There is no doubt that pregnancy can be a hardship in many ways, but lets give women alternatives that don't mean ending it through abortion. Subsidized daycare, promotion of adoption, maternal healthcare, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
"Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus..."
In fact, former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop said it was never necessary. |
"Necessary for" and "best for" are not synonymous. This procedure can be safer for a woman than other types of abortion which occur at similar stages in development (such as dilation and evacuation). That doesn't mean it's necessary, just that it has less potential to cause damage to the woman.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
Besides, they pull the kids body into the birth canal and leave the head just inside the womb. The child is still alive. The kids head is punctured and a catheter is inserted to suck out the brain so the collapsed skull and the rest of the body can be pulled out. Abortion success!
Thats their best solution?? They can't try to deliver the child alive? They can't at least administer anesthesia to the baby first? Like I said, its barbaric and gruesome. |
In many cases, they do deliver the child alive instead. I don't think you grasp exactly how uncommon this procedure really is. In the year 2000, for instance, this procedure made up 0.17% of total abortions in the United States. This procedure is not used often, and obviously they do often try other things instead most of the time.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| They should have the right, and they do have the right. If they inquire with the hospital as to medical procedures regarding their child, they will get an answer. |
Yes, I suppose that if you happen to think your child is pregnant you can ask every hospital and abortion clinic in every nearby city if she went there for an abortion. Great advice. The point is that, like any procedure, a parent should have the consent, or at least the knowledge, of what is being done to their underage child in a hospital. |
So you accept it's reasonable for a parent to be so unaware of their child's activities that said child could, without the parent knowing:
1) Be pregnant.
2) Go to another state (the vote in question is about abortions performed in other states).
3) Have an abortion done.
If the state should be involved in this situation, it's not because the parents need additional information, it's because the parents are negligent, horrible parents. Remaining informed about your child's activities is a parent's responsibility; by contrast, keeping said parents informed about their child's activities is not the state's responsibility. If the parent is so ill informed that they'd really have to go around to random hospitals asking this question, they've failed as parents.
All that said, no, I don't feel parents should be required to consent to their child having an abortion. Teens who are pregnant and feel the need to have an abortion shouldn't be restricted just because they were unfortunate enough to have anti-choice parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| There is no doubt that pregnancy can be a hardship in many ways, but lets give women alternatives that don't mean ending it through abortion. Subsidized daycare, promotion of adoption, maternal healthcare, etc. |
None of the things you listed solve the problem abortion solves: the fact that it is unethical to legally force a woman to endure a pregnancy.
Artificial wombs would mean you could allow a woman to avoid unwanted pregnancy while still saving the child. That's ethically acceptable (and ethically ideal). Daycare, adoption, and so forth all require the woman to endure her unwanted pregnancy, and legally forcing her to do that is unacceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
"Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus..."
In fact, former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop said it was never necessary. |
"Necessary for" and "best for" are not synonymous. This procedure can be safer for a woman than other types of abortion which occur at similar stages in development (such as dilation and evacuation). That doesn't mean it's necessary, just that it has less potential to cause damage to the woman. |
.
But it isn't "best" for the child, considering a brutal death is the end result. Since this type of abortion occurs over several days it isn't peformed on a woman whose life is endangered. But it DOES endanger and kill the child in a truly horrific manner.
| Fox wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Yes, I suppose that if you happen to think your child is pregnant you can ask every hospital and abortion clinic in every nearby city if she went there for an abortion. Great advice. The point is that, like any procedure, a parent should have the consent, or at least the knowledge, of what is being done to their underage child in a hospital. |
So you accept it's reasonable for a parent to be so unaware of their child's activities that said child could, without the parent knowing:
1) Be pregnant.
2) Go to another state (the vote in question is about abortions performed in other states).
3) Have an abortion done.
If the state should be involved in this situation, it's not because the parents need additional information, it's because the parents are negligent, horrible parents. Remaining informed about your child's activities is a parent's responsibility; by contrast, keeping said parents informed about their child's activities is not the state's responsibility. If the parent is so ill informed that they'd really have to go around to random hospitals asking this question, they've failed as parents.
All that said, no, I don't feel parents should be required to consent to their child having an abortion. Teens who are pregnant and feel the need to have an abortion shouldn't be restricted just because they were unfortunate enough to have anti-choice parents. |
I think any parent, good or bad, could find that their teens have gotten into a heap of trouble. It doesn't necessarily make them "negligent, horrible parents" at all. Even the best of parents at the best of times can be blindsided by such things. And I'm sure there plenty of pro-choice parents who still want to know if their child is pregnant, so its not a view taken only by pro-life parents.
By the way, the state isn't intervening just on the parents behalf. Its a way to protect the teen, as well. If the boyfriend is over 18 then it would be considered statutory rape. Or if she is being taken over state lines, it could be considered kidnapping. Along with the fact its a serious surgery, I think there are many reasons parents should have the right to know whats going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris2007
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| There is no doubt that pregnancy can be a hardship in many ways, but lets give women alternatives that don't mean ending it through abortion. Subsidized daycare, promotion of adoption, maternal healthcare, etc. |
None of the things you listed solve the problem abortion solves: the fact that it is unethical to [b]legally force a woman to endure a pregnancy.[/b]
Artificial wombs would mean you could allow a woman to avoid unwanted pregnancy while still saving the child. That's ethically acceptable (and ethically ideal). Daycare, adoption, and so forth all require the woman to endure her unwanted pregnancy, and legally forcing her to do that is unacceptable. |
Whats unethical is taking the life of an unborn child. In the vast majority of cases women and men made the choice to become pregnant through their own actions. They have choices - not having sex, sterilization, birth control, adoption or raising the child. The child doesn't have other choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Obama and abortion. |
|
|
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| But it isn't "best" for the child, considering a brutal death is the end result. |
That's the end result of abortions, not just the type of abortions we are discussing. Abortion results in the fetus dying, otherwise it's not abortion. Obviously abortion in general isn't the best result for the fetus. If that concerns you, get working on an artificial womb so our society has other viable, ethical options, or at least support others who are working on it.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Since this type of abortion occurs over several days it isn't peformed on a woman whose life is endangered. |
I didn't realize your life was only endangered if the imminent threat was less than several days away. I guess the lives of cancer patients, AIDs patients, and so forth aren't endangered.
Personally I suspect the woman suffering from unwanted pregnancy might also worry about threats to her health beyond potential threats to her life.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| I think any parent, good or bad, could find that their teens have gotten into a heap of trouble. It doesn't necessarily make them "negligent, horrible parents" at all. |
If your child is pregnant and sneaking off to another state to get an abortion, and you are so uninformed about this that you need the state to inform you, yes, you are a horrible, negligent parent. At that point, you've all ready shown you've raised them so poorly that they're having unprotected sex as teenagers, don't trust you enough to approach you with their problem, and are even willing to sneak off to another state and deal with it in secret so as to avoid your involvement with this problem. You can fail more thoroughly as a parent than that, but not by much.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Even the best of parents at the best of times can be blindsided by such things. And I'm sure there plenty of pro-choice parents who still want to know if their child is pregnant, so its not a view taken only by pro-life parents. |
I'm sure almost every parent would like to know if their child is pregnant and wanting an abortion. The good ones find out without state involvement. The bad ones might not. In our current parental system, it is not the state's responsibility to keep you informed about your child, it is your responsibility. If you can't handle that responsibility, you should not be a parent.
For someone who cares so much about making sure children are successfully brought into this world, you're remarkably tolerant of poor parenting of those children after that occurs.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| By the way, the state isn't intervening just on the parents behalf. Its a way to protect the teen, as well. If the boyfriend is over 18 then it would be considered statutory rape. Or if she is being taken over state lines, it could be considered kidnapping. |
As you say, would be and could be. We don't investigate hypothetical crimes, we investigate reported crimes. Parents are more than welcome to file reports of statutory rape or kidnapping at their leisure, assuming they're good enough parents to even realize these things are occuring.
In reality, though, you're just attempting to use these at best remotely related crimes to try to justify your position.
| Chris2007 wrote: |
| Along with the fact its a serious surgery, I think there are many reasons parents should have the right to know whats going on. |
As I said all ready, yes, they have the right to know. That doesn't mean the state is obligated to step in and inform them. If you're such a bad parent that your child is getting secret abortions you don't even have a clue about, the problem isn't abortion law, it's your parenting. I understand you're an apologist for this sort of bad parenting, but I'm not - it disgusts me how many people have children despite their parental ineptitude. The state isn't there to constantly monitor your child for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
