Abortion: How does it effect your vote

[Bootstrap]

My thinking is more along the lines of I don't believe abortion is going to be overturned no matter who they put on the court but if we can remove the root causes for people getting abortions as much as we can we can help eliminate a lot of them. See my point?

Exactly. You've said this more clearly than I have.

Jonathan

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Ahhh! Thanks, that makes sense.


My thinking is more along the lines of I don't believe abortion is going to be overturned no matter who they put on the court but if we can remove the root causes for people getting abortions as much as we can we can help eliminate a lot of them. See my point?


You're very welcome bro.
tulc(it's been a blessing talking to you, thanks for reminding me why I love hanging out at CF!)

Tulc,

I have one more thought that ran through my head last night. I am going to over simplify things because there are obviously many more factors involved, but here is where I am coming from. This is a hypothetical situation with two different scenarios.

1.) A father, who is a smoker, has a son or daughter and he does not want them to smoke and lets them know the dangers and associated problems.

2.) A father, who is a non-smoker, has a son or daughter and he does not want them to smoke and lets them know the dangers and associated problems.

Which kids are more likely to smoke? There have been studies done that say kids who parents who smoke are more likely to smoke.

My point is that if I were to vote for a president who is strongly in favor of abortion, I do not care how much help you give to women who are pregnant they are still going to get abortions. I think it has less to do with the support system of the government then it has to do with the familial support system (government cannot fix this it is a societal problem). Basically, you will not lessen abortions by trying to legislate more government support systems. Your Commander in Chief likes abortion and thinks it is good, so your children will see this and think it must be good. Especially with someone who speaks as eloquently as Obama.

We will probably end up agreeing to disagree, but I thought I would make one final point. I pray that you might see it my way, but in the end that decision will be left up to you.

Aaron

 

[reverend B]

if you agree that obama is eloquent, then listening to the nuances of his position regarding abortion would be beneficial. he is not wildly pro-abortion. his votes have been much more complicated than that. there were specific reasons for each of his votes that deserve your research.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

if you agree that obama is eloquent, then listening to the nuances of his position regarding abortion would be beneficial. he is not wildly pro-abortion. his votes have been much more complicated than that. there were specific reasons for each of his votes that deserve your research.

Reverend B,

I will try to devote some time to doing more research, but I do have to say in my defense that Obama is "Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)". -Taken from ontheissues.org

Here are a few other things that I gathered from ontheissues.org
- Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
- Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
- Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
- Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Like any other politician Sen. Obama is going to try to spin the issues to make himself appear in a better light. His actions pretty much speak for themselves though. The greatest saints were able to convert people to Christianity not because of their words, but because of their actions. Obama seems to be saying to me, through his actions, that he is for abortion all of the way.

If you know of a vote that he cast, or something that he has said that would prove other wise please let me know. I will be glad to take a look at it.

Thanks for taking the time to read my posts.

Aaron

 

[reverend B]

Reverend B,

I will try to devote some time to doing more research, but I do have to say in my defense that Obama is "Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)". -Taken from ontheissues.org

Here are a few other things that I gathered from ontheissues.org
- Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
- Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
- Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
- Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Like any other politician Sen. Obama is going to try to spin the issues to make himself appear in a better light. His actions pretty much speak for themselves though. The greatest saints were able to convert people to Christianity not because of their words, but because of their actions. Obama seems to be saying to me, through his actions, that he is for abortion all of the way.

If you know of a vote that he cast, or something that he has said that would prove other wise please let me know. I will be glad to take a look at it.

Thanks for taking the time to read my posts.

Aaron

unfortunately, aaron, bills are virtually never "clean". there are attachments to them that sometimes make the bill untenable as a compromise between the main intent and the added detritus to the bill. what obama has consistently asserted, however, is that what his personal religious beliefs are have no bearing on whether or not something should be "legal" or not. these are completely different considerations. God does not need legislative help in enforcing His will on His people. in fact, legislating it is subject to people making interpretations of scripture that we don't all agree with. obama is trying to uphold the law as determined by the supreme court, regardless of whether revisionists agree with it or not.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

obama is trying to uphold the law as determined by the supreme court, regardless of whether revisionists agree with it or not.

Reverend B,

This is the problem in a nutshell. Law should never be established by judges. Laws are to be created by the legislature and then decided on by the judges if there should be a question of constitutionality. The fact that the Supreme Court decided to make a decision on Roe v. Wade is the problem in the first place. We can't change that now unless we were to get judges in the Supreme Court which might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obama is firmly in the abortion camp. He truly believes that it is okay. He has gone in front of Planned Parenthood and told them that he believes in the "right to choose". "Right to choose" is a nice way of saying right to murder unborn children.

Obama saying that he is just trying to uphold the law does not hold water with me. Upholding the law is the job of the Judicial branch of government. His job is to legislate new laws. I realize that bills have all sorts of attachments, but that hasn't stopped him from voting for other bills in the past. Obviously he feels a need to present himself as a Pro-Choice candidate, because he either believes it is right, or he believes it will help get him elected. Being a Democrat he realized that he needed that block of voters to be selected as the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Either way I cannot support him. In my eyes murder is murder and I cannot support any candidate who thinks murder is right.

I would have voted for McCain in the Republican Primaries (I did not have to it was already decided) simply because his stance against abortion has not wavered (in terms of his voting). My parents, sister, and brother-in-law were firmly in support of another candidate and thought that I was crazy when I mentioned I would vote for McCain. My reason for supporting him then and now is that he is firmly against abortion. Since I view abortion as an intrinsic evil then I will stick with the candidate who also has a similar stance (can't say whether McCain views it as an intrinsic evil - have to go by voting record).

Aaron

 

[platzapS]

platzaps,

This is not a rant, but it is a little off the topic of the title of this thread. I'm discussing one of the hot button issues, abortion. I'm trying to figure out why people support abortion knowing that it kills a living person. Please let me know why you feel that is okay to kill a living being. I'm sure you would object if someone decided they wanted to kill you or someone you love, but the baby inside a womb seems to be lacking an advocate.

Aaron

Fair enough. I disagree that it kills a living person. It certainly kills a living human, but I don't think that the fetus has gained personhood until it is born. I think the fetus grows in value the later the pregnancy goes on. And regardless of its personhood, I don't think a woman should have to endure a pregnancy she does not want.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

Fair enough. I disagree that it kills a living person. It certainly kills a living human, but I don't think that the fetus has gained personhood until it is born. I think the fetus grows in value the later the pregnancy goes on. And regardless of its personhood, I don't think a woman should have to endure a pregnancy she does not want.

PlatzapS,

What creates this value that you are establishing? What is the deciding factor in determining when the baby has enough value to be considered a person? If I'm going to argue this point I need to know how you establish this value.

Aaron

 

[Matthew_18:14]

I wanted to find out how the abortion topic plays out in the decision on who you vote for in the Presidential election and in other governmental elections. This thread can also be used to discuss the support of and support against abortion. Philosophical and religious arguments may be used in this discussion. I hope we can get a good dialogue going related to this very important topic. If we can avoid name calling that will certainly help. Thanks for helping further this discussion.

Aaron

 

[reverend B]

Reverend B,

This is the problem in a nutshell. Law should never be established by judges. Laws are to be created by the legislature and then decided on by the judges if there should be a question of constitutionality. The fact that the Supreme Court decided to make a decision on Roe v. Wade is the problem in the first place. We can't change that now unless we were to get judges in the Supreme Court which might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obama is firmly in the abortion camp. He truly believes that it is okay. He has gone in front of Planned Parenthood and told them that he believes in the "right to choose". "Right to choose" is a nice way of saying right to murder unborn children.

Obama saying that he is just trying to uphold the law does not hold water with me. Upholding the law is the job of the Judicial branch of government. His job is to legislate new laws. I realize that bills have all sorts of attachments, but that hasn't stopped him from voting for other bills in the past. Obviously he feels a need to present himself as a Pro-Choice candidate, because he either believes it is right, or he believes it will help get him elected. Being a Democrat he realized that he needed that block of voters to be selected as the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Either way I cannot support him. In my eyes murder is murder and I cannot support any candidate who thinks murder is right.

I would have voted for McCain in the Republican Primaries (I did not have to it was already decided) simply because his stance against abortion has not wavered (in terms of his voting). My parents, sister, and brother-in-law were firmly in support of another candidate and thought that I was crazy when I mentioned I would vote for McCain. My reason for supporting him then and now is that he is firmly against abortion. Since I view abortion as an intrinsic evil then I will stick with the candidate who also has a similar stance (can't say whether McCain views it as an intrinsic evil - have to go by voting record).

Aaron

it's a specious argument to suggest that obama believes "murder is right", just like it would be if i said the same thing about a death penalty supporter. just emotional rhetoric. obama has said in the past very clearly that his own personal morality finds abortion repugnant, but he is not in the profession of enforcing his personal morality on the public. he believes that the public has decided that this issue must be left to the personal moral choice of each individual, and he is defending their right to disagree with his. that's what roe v. wade is about. the public is not of one accord with your moral stance, and those that disagree with you have the same rights to representation as you do, and obama is a representative of the people, not a moral arbiter. you have decided you are a one issue voter, by your own admission. i think this is very short sighted, both politically and spiritually.

 

[bunnytoes]

unfortunately, aaron, bills are virtually never "clean". there are attachments to them that sometimes make the bill untenable as a compromise between the main intent and the added detritus to the bill. what obama has consistently asserted, however, is that what his personal religious beliefs are have no bearing on whether or not something should be "legal" or not. these are completely different considerations. God does not need legislative help in enforcing His will on His people. in fact, legislating it is subject to people making interpretations of scripture that we don't all agree with. obama is trying to uphold the law as determined by the supreme court, regardless of whether revisionists agree with it or not.

.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."



Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992

How can any Christian vote for this man? Doesn't his stance on abortion- his support of partial birth abortion, his voting against a bill to protect babies who survive abortion THREE TIMES give you just a little incite into the character of this man

 

[bunnytoes]

unfortunately, aaron, bills are virtually never "clean". there are attachments to them that sometimes make the bill untenable as a compromise between the main intent and the added detritus to the bill. what obama has consistently asserted, however, is that what his personal religious beliefs are have no bearing on whether or not something should be "legal" or not. these are completely different considerations. God does not need legislative help in enforcing His will on His people. in fact, legislating it is subject to people making interpretations of scripture that we don't all agree with. obama is trying to uphold the law as determined by the supreme court, regardless of whether revisionists agree with it or not.

.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."



Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992

How can any Christian vote for this man? Doesn't his stance on abortion- his support of partial birth abortion, his voting against a bill to protect babies who survive abortion THREE TIMES give you just a little incite into the character of this man?

 

[JustOneWay]

.

How can any Christian vote for this man? Doesn't his stance on abortion- his support of partial birth abortion, his voting against a bill to protect babies who survive abortion THREE TIMES give you just a little incite into the character of this man?

Bush claims to be against abortion and even elected a couple conservative judges to the Supreme Court....yet abortion is still legal

Who are you people fooling with this empty talk of Obama's stance on abortion? Abortion will still be legal regardless of which man is elected, so it makes abortion a moot point.

 

[reverend B]

.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."



Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992

How can any Christian vote for this man? Doesn't his stance on abortion- his support of partial birth abortion, his voting against a bill to protect babies who survive abortion THREE TIMES give you just a little incite into the character of this man?

this no more contradicted what my post said than the first time it was posted.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

obama has said in the past very clearly that his own personal morality finds abortion repugnant, but he is not in the profession of enforcing his personal morality on the public. he believes that the public has decided that this issue must be left to the personal moral choice of each individual, and he is defending their right to disagree with his. that's what roe v. wade is about.

Reverend B,

I'm afraid that Obama can make that statement all he wants, but I do believe that some laws do provide moral judgements e.g. murder, robbery, assault, these are all moral judgements made for the good of society. You cannot say that they are not. An immoral society or immoral government, would not need any of these laws. Darfur, Somalia, Germany - these are places where immoral people came into power and saw fit to commit genocide. Do you think that what they did was morally right, or are there no morals that we can attach to the killing of innocent people? This is what I ask.

So this leads us back to the question at hand. Are babies in the Mother's womb a living human being? I argue that they are, so that would make it murder, which is a moral judgement. I'm afraid that Barack Obama cannot support any of our laws against murder, robbery, or assault if he cannot pass moral judgement. I think he has found a way to make everyone feel alright about his views on abortion. You cannot be against something and yet vote for it every time there is a vote (obviously he agrees with abortion).

We can continue this dialogue in my new thread, Abortion: How does it effect your vote, if you would like. Thanks for continuing to speak with me about this.

Aaron

 

[platzapS]

Abortion is not a deciding factor in who I vote for, for several reasons:

1) I'm what you might call a radical pro-choicer. Unlike many pro-choice people who consider abortion a difficult and heart-rending situation, I simply don't view abortion as a major moral issue.

2) If I did consider the death of a fetus a major issue, I might still vote Democratic, because they tend to be for more universal health coverage for young women, more government child support, and comprehensive sex education (which teaches teens who do choose to have sex how to prevent pregnancy).

3) I agree with the Democrats on unrelated issues (like foriegn policy and the economy), so the fact that I am pro-choice doesn't make me conflicted at all about my vote.

 

[Matthew_18:14]

PlatzapS,

So you are telling me that you have no moral grounds because you do not believe the baby is a human being?

Aaron

 

[blueapplepaste]

PlatzapS,

So you are telling me that you have no moral grounds because you do not believe the baby is a human being?

Aaron

Because one doesn't view a clump of cells as human doesn't mean they have don't have any moral grounds. I personally don't really consider a fetus to be a human being until its viable outside the womb. Does that mean I am not moral? I think not.

As for voting, it doesn't affect me one way or the other really. Abortion has always been around and always will be. Its nothing but a wedge issue to divide the electorate. Things won't change one way or another really. And quite frankly, I'm more concerned about the economy, the Iraq war, and other issues more than abortion.

 

[platzapS]

This is a good idea for a thread, Matthew.

 

[platzapS]

PlatzapS,

So you are telling me that you have no moral grounds because you do not believe the baby is a human being?

Aaron

I think a fetus is of course genetically human, but I don't think it deserves any real rights. I don't think a very young embryo has any more rights than a beetle, and I'd say our moral obligations to a later-stage fetus are about the same as our moral obligations to, say, a rabbit. That is, don't kill it for no good reason, but if it's inside a woman's body taking up lots of resources, it's OK to get rid of it.

In essence I don't believe abortion is anything near genocide, as some pro-life groups might call it.