Comments on: Challenging Obama on Abortion

By: Medela

Medela — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:49:15 +0000

So is abortion wrong? Is abortion right?

Let’s be honest here shall we?...The endless amounts of energy spent debating this issue has proven ineffective time and time again. What’s really at stake here is your ego. It makes you feel superior and useful to protest abortion and those who support it, but how’s that worked out for ya??

You may find it more efficient and rewarding using all of your “passionate issue energy” to visit an inner city school or donate your time with underprivileged teens. Or how about this….. pretend you’re a sexually abused and pregnant 13 yr old minority with a mother who works two jobs, a dad that isn’t around, and a society who sees no further than the political games of voter-exploitation at your expense.

I’m confident that if you stepped outside of your fairytale and exercised compassion, rather than pointless condemnation, your chances of saving a precious life may just improve.

By: Medela

Medela — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:49:15 +0000

By: pancreatic cancer symptoms

pancreatic cancer symptoms — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:54 +0000

Obama is doing good job in controlling abortion rate. Abortion shouldnot be carried by couples.

By: std symptoms

std symptoms — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:11:42 +0000

Abortion is against human ethics. How can a human being kill another human who is on the verge of coming in this world.

By: Dr David Black

Dr David Black — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:11:18 +0000

Life is sacrosanct and should be preserved at all cost.
Dr.David Black
www.blackchiropractic.com.au

By: pregnancy symptoms

pregnancy symptoms — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:42:45 +0000

Abortion is against human ethics and in my view it is a serious crime.Only in critical conditions it should be carried out like if continuation of pregnany is dangerous to either mother or child.So all unreasoned abortions should be stopped.

By: Evangelical Left Ethicist Defends Obama on Abortion?!?! « True Discernment

Evangelical Left Ethicist Defends Obama on Abortion?!?! « True Discernment — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:12:06 +0000

[...] energized by President Obama’s Notre Dame controversy, Stassen, a strong Obama supporter, is claiming [...]

By: mharper

mharper — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:00:56 +0000

I think I've got the statistics right. Mr. Stassen was correct about the increase in the total number of abortions in 2002. It was +637 according to the CDC. The rates did NOT increase among teeanagers going from 19.1 to 17.1 for those equal to or less than 19 years old. And, although the rate may have stayed the same per 1,000 women, the overall amount of abortions has went down from 857,475 to 820,151 from 2000-2005. The only increase was the +637 in 2002. All this to say that citing a very small increase in one year does not support his argument and the trend has been downward during that time. It will be more important to see stats from 2005 onward.

CDC stats available… http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713...

By: Theology and Politics Around the Web « One beggar trying to lead other beggars to bread…

Thu, 21 May 2009 00:11:04 +0000

[...] God’s Politics blog had this great post on Abortion, due in part to the recent speech given by President Obama at Notre Dame. In tandem [...]

By: The American Spectator : Evangelical Left Ethicist Defends Obama on Abortion

The American Spectator : Evangelical Left Ethicist Defends Obama on Abortion — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:24:05 +0000

[...] and energized by President Obama’s Notre Dame controversy, Stassen, a strong Obama supporter, is claiming [...]

By: WitnessforPeace

WitnessforPeace — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:01:23 +0000

In reply to Wave_Tossed and "don't feel welcome"
I'm sorry to hear that. But you've got me thinking about the relative importance of various "family values" and here's part of a thread on Jim Wallis' column:
_______________
neuro_nurse asked what Planned Parenthood does that I oppose [not that whether or not I personally oppose something is particularly imporant]
Let me tell you a story first, from one of the many missionaries to Haiti supported by our church over the years. Her biggest challenge in preventing “risk taking” behavior among young women in Haiti is convincing them their life is worth preserving from the danger of AIDS! If your life is of little value, why not have fun while you can? How profoundly different from my friend's attitude is the raison d'etre of planned parenthood—their consistent pupose year in and year out is to measure the value of individual lives, created in the image of God, and to prolong or terminate that life based on a scale of worth that is inimical to my values and I suspect to yours as well. Nothing has changed except the increasing sophistication of their slogans. The main value that is placed on an unborn life is simply “is this baby wanted” and that, of course, correlates with everything BUT that child's value in the eyes of God. I'm glad rich parents decorate nurseries for their wanted babies, and pass around “baby's first picture” even if it's just an ultrasound. But the unplanned pregnancy looks the same to the baby whether it's wanted or not. We're told there will be less suffering if these lower class babies are “terminated”—that is, there is no intrinsic worth in the baby or ultimately in anyone. So the link to decades past is clear, with no repentance. “Every child a wanted child” “Family Planning” are just better slogans. So that's what I don't like about them—they seem to have fooled many well meaning folks, including you.
Blessings for peace, SHALOM—God's wholeness for all of his creation,

By: Isis

Isis — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:06:18 +0000

Hi there, It's really great to see that you are quite concerned about this.

Rina

By: ByzantineCalvinist

ByzantineCalvinist — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:33:06 +0000

“I'm not for a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage, abortion, etc. I know many pro-lifers tend to be, but their energy is in the wrong direction.”

Article IV, section 1 of the US Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that every state recognize the acts of every other state. In the case of marriage, if one state opts for it, then the courts could decide, based on this clause, that all states are obligated to recognize such “marriages.” Opposing a federal marriage amendment would amount to allowing one state to make law for all the others.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:54:48 +0000

Especially by today's standards, most people indeed were. I'm rereading a copy of “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” which I initially got in college, and through that book I learned that such laws in the South actually were inspired by the very real racial segregation that existed elsewhere in the country. And let us not forget that there was a racial component to the original release of the movie “King Kong.”

Anyway, that animus against the “other” still exists — if you listen to the “pro-life” Rush Limbaugh it's quite obvious.

By: Obama At Notre Dame « man.of.depravity

Obama At Notre Dame « man.of.depravity — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:31:04 +0000

[...] read a great post challenging Obama to stick to his word. If he says that specific things will be put in place to reduce abortions, it would be nice to see [...]

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:08:13 +0000

Not everybody was a racist back then. Whatever the flavor of the debate, there was a debate, and there were those making the argument that black persons were not human, or were sub-human. My point wasn't that it was “heated,” though; it was to point out two instances where the courts defined who was a human being and was worthy of natural rights protected in the Constitution.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:30:56 +0000

Heated. The idea of racial equality didn't exist in those days; even Lincoln said during a campaign stop that he didn't believe black and white could live in piece and favored shipping blacks back to Africa — a stance favored even by abolitionists. (Whether he actually believed that is beside the point.)

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:28:58 +0000

The problem with abortion at heart really isn't political. When abortion was banned in every state around the turn of the last century there was considerable outcry among the populace; that said, it was also connected to men's irresponsibility. Basically, the issue was addressed with a multi-pronged, consistently “pro-life” approach. That's a far cry from what we see today.

I mention the political right because in the late 1970s it deliberately split the abortion issue away from other “pro-life” issues because, as I said before, they really don't raise money or passion. Ironically, doing so made abortion actually harder to eliminate because of the polarization factor.

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:27:10 +0000

I never said it would be easy, simple, or that the right things would occur anytime quickly. But why would we expect much activity at the state level when the federal government has usurped most of the authority the states rightfully have? Whatever state you live in would see some activity along the abortions legislation if indeed it were up to them to do something about it. The inactivity (or expectation of such inactivity) is due to federal law usurpation.

As for the GOP, your assessment is dead on. You and I tend to agree on the “right,” but you still seem enamored by the left.

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:15:42 +0000

Not at all what?