Obama, Biden on abortion
September 8th, 2008 9:05 am · 9 comments
So, now Barack Obama acknowledges having been “too flip” with his “above my pay grade” answer to when life begins.
The trouble is his stance in favor of “choice” on abortion either (A) makes the call that life doesn’t begin until the U.S. Supreme Court says it does or (B) says murdering an unborn child is OK, if the kid’s going to be an inconvenience to a mom who might vote Democratic.
Here’s more on Obama’s pathetic copout, in his own words:
“What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It’s a pretty tough question.
“And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions,” he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
And his running mate’s answer was no better:
A Roman Catholic, Sen. Biden said he accepts his church’s teachings that life begins at conception, but that the issue is personal for him. He said it wouldn’t be right to impose his views on others who are just as religious as he is.
“I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment,” Biden said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”
Really? So we must err on the side of murdering an innocent child, in the name of pluralism?
As a fellow Catholic, all I can say is “EEEEK!”
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: 2008 White House race
There are currently 9 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogdragonrider 9/8/08 10:54 AM | Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post. All I can say is EEEK. A fetus is not a child, there is no such thing as an unborn child you can unscrew a light bulb but you can't unborn a child. You can't murder a clump of undifferentiated cells.
There is another altenative explanation to his stance on abortion, since we disagree on when life begins then the decision up to point of viability outside the womb should be left to the doctor, woman and whatever higher power she seeks wisdom from. |
4coffee 9/8/08 10:58 AM | All I can say is EEEK. A fetus is not a child, there is no such thing as an unborn child you can unscrew a light bulb but you can't unborn a child. You can't murder a clump of undifferentiated cells.
There is another altenative explanation to his stance on abortion, since we disagree on when life begins then the decision up to point of viability outside the womb should be left to the doctor, woman and whatever higher power she seeks wisdom from.
I agree |
jhainthaler 9/8/08 11:30 AM | All I can say is EEEK. A fetus is not a child, there is no such thing as an unborn child you can unscrew a light bulb but you can't unborn a child. You can't murder a clump of undifferentiated cells.
There is another altenative explanation to his stance on abortion, since we disagree on when life begins then the decision up to point of viability outside the womb should be left to the doctor, woman and whatever higher power she seeks wisdom from.
"Undifferentiated cells"? Everything you are is there in the womb at conception. There is no doubt the fetus is human. And it's not part of a human. It's got all the attributes, including the ability to grow, that science attributes to life. Just because its cells have not matured into organs, hands, feet and toes does not mean it's not a human life. A child at 1 year old is also immature in many ways. A child of that age has not, in most cases, developed empathy or the ability to reason, yet we do not deny the child is human. And the fact that the fetus is dependent on its mother is not much an argument either. A 1-year-old child is also dependent on others for survival. (Heck, so are some 18-year-olds.) |
dragonrider 9/8/08 2:41 PM | "Undifferentiated cells"? Everything you are is there in the womb at conception. There is no doubt the fetus is human. And it's not part of a human. It's got all the attributes, including the ability to grow, that science attributes to life. Just because its cells have not matured into organs, hands, feet and toes does not mean it's not a human life. A child at 1 year old is also immature in many ways. A child of that age has not, in most cases, developed empathy or the ability to reason, yet we do not deny the child is human. And the fact that the fetus is dependent on its mother is not much an argument either. A 1-year-old child is also dependent on others for survival. (Heck, so are some 18-year-olds.) There is lots of doubt that the fetus is human, If I took a fetus at one week or one month you would not be able to identify it as human. What we call human has feet hands organs toes hands fingers , a brain, awareness of surroundings beyond pleasure pain reaction that even single cell organizisms display. A 1 year old is aware of its surrounds and interacts with it. A one month fetus only reacts to pleasure pain stimulus that all living things react to. Some would say that teenagers also lack empathy and some republicans lack empathy all their lives but we still call them human becuase they react and interact with their enviroment and for the most part are more than just a clump of undifferentiated cells. I am aware that many with in the anti choice community want to equate humaness with conception but I am unwilling to define humaness to a clump of cells and deny women contraception choices for moral expediency. |
AngelFace 9/8/08 6:18 PM | There is lots of doubt that the fetus is human, If I took a fetus at one week or one month you would not be able to identify it as human. What we call human has feet hands organs toes hands fingers , a brain, awareness of surroundings beyond pleasure pain reaction that even single cell organizisms display. A 1 year old is aware of its surrounds and interacts with it. A one month fetus only reacts to pleasure pain stimulus that all living things react to. Some would say that teenagers also lack empathy and some republicans lack empathy all their lives but we still call them human becuase they react and interact with their enviroment and for the most part are more than just a clump of undifferentiated cells. I am aware that many with in the anti choice community want to equate humaness with conception but I am unwilling to define humaness to a clump of cells and deny women contraception choices for moral expediency.
And there is the quote of the week! Identifying abortion as a "contraception choice". You made the point I have made over and over and over and had you and every other pro-abortion person screaming at me for.
Contraception means PREVENTION OF CONCEPTION. Hello????
Abortion does NOT PREVENT CONCEPTION. It DISPOSES of the life conceived.
Abortion is an INAPPROPRIATE birth control method. Use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. |
dragonrider 9/8/08 9:13 PM | And there is the quote of the week! Identifying abortion as a "contraception choice". You made the point I have made over and over and over and had you and every other pro-abortion person screaming at me for.
Contraception means PREVENTION OF CONCEPTION. Hello????
Abortion does NOT PREVENT CONCEPTION. It DISPOSES of the life conceived.
Abortion is an INAPPROPRIATE birth control method. Use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. hormonal and iud's function by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs therefore as you consider life to begin at fertilization then these contraceptive technigues would be outlawed. I do not equate abortion with contraception, you do I do not. Your proposal of human rights beginning at conception would remove from women the right to hormonal and IUD contraceptive. I believe that to be very wrong headed giving human rights to a small clump of undifferentiated cells that have yet to implant into the uterine wall. I want to protect womens ability to have birth control, you want to take away almost all birth control options for women in the name of preventing abortions. If you name human life to begin at fertilization that is exactly what you will do. |
AngelFace 9/8/08 9:41 PM | hormonal and iud's function by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs therefore as you consider life to begin at fertilization then these contraceptive technigues would be outlawed. I do not equate abortion with contraception, you do I do not. Your proposal of human rights beginning at conception would remove from women the right to hormonal and IUD contraceptive. I believe that to be very wrong headed giving human rights to a small clump of undifferentiated cells that have yet to implant into the uterine wall. I want to protect womens ability to have birth control, you want to take away almost all birth control options for women in the name of preventing abortions. If you name human life to begin at fertilization that is exactly what you will do.
The quote is directly from you. You said of abortion that you wanted women to retain their contraceptive rights. Correct your statement if you wish. As you well know, many many abortions are simply the birth control method of choice.
And please do not use "you" as if you are addressing my positions. God only knows that every TB-er knows EXACTLY where I stand. Pro-choice BEFORE conception, pro-life after. Take up your birth control objections with the Catholic Church. The vast majority of pro-life people believe in contraceptives. So please stop all the black and white, all or nothing nonsense as if the only choice for women is to have scads of kids or have unbridled access for all 9 months to abortion. It actually might be possible to have some SANITY in this debate -- but that can't happen when the pro-abortion side defines EVERY FETUS no matter what its gestational age as "undifferentiated cells", when you equate late term abortion of viable babies with IUD use. |
dragonrider 9/8/08 9:52 PM | The quote is directly from you. You said of abortion that you wanted women to retain their contraceptive rights. Correct your statement if you wish. As you well know, many many abortions are simply the birth control method of choice.
And please do not use "you" as if you are addressing my positions. God only knows that every TB-er knows EXACTLY where I stand. Pro-choice BEFORE conception, pro-life after. Take up your birth control objections with the Catholic Church. The vast majority of pro-life people believe in contraceptives. So please stop all the black and white, all or nothing nonsense as if the only choice for women is to have scads of kids or have unbridled access for all 9 months to abortion. It actually might be possible to have some SANITY in this debate -- but that can't happen when the pro-abortion side defines EVERY FETUS no matter what its gestational age as "undifferentiated cells", when you equate late term abortion of viable babies with IUD use. You upbrade me for using you and then you use you to assign a belief I have never stated. I do not equate late term abortions of viable babies with undifferentiated cells. Buy YOU state that human rights begin with conception which YOU repeat above. Since hormonal and IUD's function by in part prevention of impantation of a conceived embryo YOU in YOUR statement are saying that hormonal and IUD contraception should be outlawed. I never equate abortion with contraception but YOU by saying human rights begin at conception equate birth control with abortion. So lets get the facts right and stand by what YOU say and stop putting words in my mouth. |
lee41 9/8/08 11:17 PM | If life begins at conception, as some argue, then the birth control pill is an abortofacient since in some cases it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
So what is McCain's and Palin's view on birth control pills?
Feminists for Life - of which Palin is a member - seems to be against the birth control pill. We know that McCain is fine with prescription drug plans paying for Viagra for men, but not the birth control pill for women. |
View Topic | Comment on this blog