Obama's abortion policy.

[Dron_Cah]

Originally Posted by Ilander Well, as for who I agree with most, here, it's Cerek's earlier post for sure. That said, how many abortions can we prevent by bolstering the standard of living and education for the poor? That's proven to reduce teenage pregnancies (which are almost always unwanted ones). How many abortions can we reduce by streamlining the adoption process? How many abortions can we reduce by having better sex-education on the subject of contraceptives? For those whose basis of being opposed to abortion is religion, isn't our (I include myself! I do consider myself a christian) duty to ransom the captive? Give drink to the thirsty? Harbor the harborless? Instruct the ignorant? Do these things, do them well, and you'll find the only abortions left are the ones done for clinical reasons (rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, etc.), and the ones you're trying to fight---the ones that middle-to-high income level women have because they don't want to give up their lifestyle, or because the man refuses to take care of children, or because of a thousand other fundamentally selfish reasons. At that point, the coup de'grace can be delivered. Until then, I sadly must protest banning abortion.

First, I want to applaud your quotation of NewAdvent! Especially since it's a reference to Thomas Aquinas!
Anyways, I think you pretty much have things in the right, however what I do question is the ORDER of events. I think you now that I desire an increase in social justice across the board, including education and the adoption process. However, I think the loss of life on such a massive scale should be the biggest issue. Simply put, no other issue involves such a massive loss of life.

For Illumina: I think the discussion can stay away from the realm of religion, at least for my part, but I kinda doubt it will here.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Ilander Well, as for who I agree with most, here, it's Cerek's earlier post for sure. That said, how many abortions can we prevent by bolstering the standard of living and education for the poor? That's proven to reduce teenage pregnancies (which are almost always unwanted ones). How many abortions can we reduce by streamlining the adoption process? How many abortions can we reduce by having better sex-education on the subject of contraceptives? For those whose basis of being opposed to abortion is religion, isn't our (I include myself! I do consider myself a christian) duty to ransom the captive? Give drink to the thirsty? Harbor the harborless? Instruct the ignorant? Do these things, do them well, and you'll find the only abortions left are the ones done for clinical reasons (rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, etc.), and the ones you're trying to fight---the ones that middle-to-high income level women have because they don't want to give up their lifestyle, or because the man refuses to take care of children, or because of a thousand other fundamentally selfish reasons. At that point, the coup de'grace can be delivered. Until then, I sadly must protest banning abortion.

Those are good points, Ilander and I agree with most of them - especially streamlining the adoption process. Of course, some time has to be involved with the number of sexual predators in our society now.

Unfortunately, better sex-education in particular will not be nearly as effective as many people hope. Every teenager KNOWS having sex can cause a baby, they just don't think it will happen to them. Income and education doesn't always help either.

A good friend of mine from high school got pregnant her junior year and had an abortion. Her father had a very good federal job and she was a bright girl. But she had some self-esteem issues (she was MUCH younger than her siblings and her parents were quite a bit older) and she was also just kinda stupid about her boyfriend - who was a Class-A Jerk. As soon as he found out she was pregnant, he dumped her and would have nothing to do with her. She got an abortion. Then, he decided everything was cool and they could date again. One year later, she was pregnant again - and the boyfriend bolted again (what a shock). This time, she kept the baby and had a beautiful girl.

While life may not have been a rose garden, her parents WERE fairly well-off, so she had a good home and built in babysitters for her child. She worked at a local fast-food restaurant for a number of years, but eventually went on to finish her education and get a good job. Her daughter is now grown and - I would imagine - probably has kids of her own.

I can only imagine how my friend feels about the first baby she aborted. But she proved that education, financial well-being and sex education STILL did not prevent her from REPEATING the same mistake she had made before. I don't doubt the measures you suggest would help tremendously. I just realize it would not eliminate the desire for ALL "selfish" abortions.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar I don't know. I know that, quite frankly, I'm not able to discuss this if people are going to cite God, religion, the Bible, or personal experiences as, well, as gospel. I feel I am unable to address these things without going too far into a religion debate, and I'm unwilling to do this given our little venture into religious discussion- I for one don't want to be held responsible for a renewed crackdown on that sort of thing. I want to talk about things from a rational, commonsense, and legal perspective. Is this at all possible, or am I going to have to sit this one out?

I will again post Kevin Rudd's quote about people's refusal to allow those who base a position on their religious belief from explaining why they have reached a decision, and are thus effectively banned from discussion:

"A (truly) Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed." Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia.

Aside from which Ilander, I made logical, rational, scientific statements and you have not replied to me.

However, if someone believes abortion is wrong because of biblical statements, their position is as valid as any other persons.

We all possess subjective morality. In a free and respecting discussion, the basis of that morality and the basis for reaching a decision should be heard, regardless of whether it's agreed with.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood Does not every perspective have the same merit, whether rational, irrational, religion, or whatever? Would it be right for me to ask you to have a completely christian perspective on this? Certainly not! I think in this case though ID, we can make a clear case, even with religion etc aside.

Well said.

Yes, imagine if I said: "I cannot discus this if people are refusing to look at scientific evidence when defining human life". It seems I'm the only one here who even understands what foetology is. I have to accept that people just ignore science if I'm going to discuss abortion on ironworks.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Ilander How many abortions can we reduce by streamlining the adoption process? How many abortions can we reduce by having better sex-education on the subject of contraceptives? For those whose basis of being opposed to abortion is religion, isn't our (I include myself! I do consider myself a christian) duty to ransom the captive? Give drink to the thirsty? Harbor the harborless? Instruct the ignorant? Do these things, do them well, and you'll find the only abortions left are the ones done for clinical reasons (rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, etc.), and the ones you're trying to fight---the ones that middle-to-high income level women have because they don't want to give up their lifestyle, or because the man refuses to take care of children, or because of a thousand other fundamentally selfish reasons. At that point, the coup de'grace can be delivered. Until then, I sadly must protest banning abortion.

Are any of these arguments for lifting the ban on murder or theft?

Murder and theft will always be with us, and are the result of myriad social ills we should be fixing. We still prohibit such behaviour.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by dplax What about the fact that no contraceptives are 100% sure?

Very few things in life are "sure"?
However, it is a sure thing that if you're celibate, you are more likely to not have a baby, than if you have sex with contraceptives.

Sex=babies.

Just accept the possible consequence if you're going to have sex. Babies are not a punishment as Obama likes to suggest. They are a life-changing consequence. A life changing consequence is not automatically bad. Having your life go a different direction to what you planned is not automatically bad.

We're such control freaks, we want to control everything. Life is not actually like that. The sooner you just enjoy the ride instead of trying to control every aspect of the ride, the less disappointed you'll be.

[Ilander]

Well...which points do you want me to speak against, exactly? I think it's been made clear that we're not exactly on opposite sides of the fence, here, right?

I'm essentially opposed, with caveats...I just have my own ideas about how we should treat this social stigma...and I don't really think it's right to associate Barrack Obama with it.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Ilander Well...which points do you want me to speak against, exactly? I think it's been made clear that we're not exactly on opposite sides of the fence, here, right? I'm essentially opposed, with caveats...I just have my own ideas about how we should treat this social stigma...and I don't really think it's right to associate Barrack Obama with it.

What are those ideas?

I think it's pertinent to associate it with Obama considering he has said he will repeal the late term abortion ban (which bans killing viable babies who can survive outside the womb) first thing when becoming president.

He has expressed vigorous defense of Roe v Wade despite Roe herself initiating proceedings to repeal the decision.

[Ilander]

I think we should treat the cause of abortion first, as I said in the earlier, orange-ish post.

[Yorick]

Ok. And should we treat the cause of murder first too?