Al Sharpton on abortion

[LilKim]

At a townhall meeting just before the South Carolina primary, Al Sharpton gave what I thought was the most elegant explanation of why he was pro-choice. I saw this on C-SPAN on a Sunday; I don't remember whether it was a live broadcast or not.

I know I'm really reaching with this one, but does anyone remember it, or even better, have a quote or transcript?

[candy]

1. I would never listen to a word that man says. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I thought he gave a fabulous speech

at the convention.

[Francesca]

8. thought his was one of the best in fact eom

[greenohio]

25. I agree 100%

He was my favorite to watch in the primaries as well. The man can give a speech. That said, he has too much baggage and will never get elected.

[candy]

11. Hitler gave wonderful speeches too! n/t

[Forkboy]

14. Yeah,they're pretty much alike

:crazy:

[sangh0]

35. For women's rights?

.

[Dem2theMax]

74. I'm here to say 'ditto.' I loved his speech.

:)

[jdots]

3. I on the otherhand voted for him

[TomClash]

6. To paraphrase Malcolm,

you voted for a house negro in a field negro's clothes.

[RafterMan]

7. WTF?

[TomClash]

13. Here's Sharpton's problem

To know him is NOT to love him - he's not exactly the nicest guy in the world.

He acted as an FBI informant in the neighborhood.

He slandered Steven Pagonas and tried to ruin his legal career. Without any evidence he falsely and intentionally claimed Pagonas raped Tawana Brawley. He's been running from the judgment ever since.

That's the tip of the iceberg.

As for the quote, read The Autobiography of Malcolm X - it is an enlightening book.

[fob]

15. I'll take this one rafterman,

WTF?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. The Al Sharpton of today is...

a much differant man that of even ten years ago.

From my viewing of him, he changed profoundly after his stabbing.

I was not a fan of the Al of yesteryear, but I have great respect for what he has done for the party and for the truth.

[Leilani]

19. Yeah, he's a real class act now...

He was financed by Republicans...& Roger Stone worked for him.

Roger Stone, Republican dirty trickster.

[Blue_Tires]

50. i'm a sharpton fan

and even i admit the Roger Stone connections bother me

[ElectroPrincess]

85. And he's getting a divorce from his wife of

25 years. /gossip monger mode OFF

[msgadget]

38. I'd have more respect it he ever

acknowledged he might have been wrong. But, like our president, he doesn't want to give his enemies more to use against him. He's an opportunist with the gift of rousing oratory.

[southlandshari]

20. It was not Sharpton's job to establish evidence

in the Brawley case. He was a community activist and minister who believed the claim of a 14-year-old girl and stood up for her. People do make mistakes. And in the face of countless other cases of police brutality, particularly against minorities and immigrants in NYC, it isn't so hard to see why he might have believed her story and been outraged about it.

I remember the case very well, and it was terrible for everyone involved. I'm not absolving Sharpton completely for his actions nearly 20 years ago, but it is interesting that this case is brought up again and again by those who discredit him completely. I took the time and learned a little more about him in 2000, and there is a lot more to the man, his ideology and his record of service that is too often ignored.

[CAcyclist]

31. Very well said

:thumbsup:

[sangh0]

36. And if weren't for the Rev, hate crimes would be a NYC issue

and the rest of you's would never had heard of it. Sharpton made it into a national issue when four teenagers in a van were shot by NJ State Troopers.

[southlandshari]

62. Interesting contrast - Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton on Brawley case

Few people seem to remember that Bill Cosby put up a $25,000 reward for more information to back Tawanna Brawley's story, but everyone remembers Sharpton's involvement and far too many condemn him forever for it.

I have more respect for Sharpton's political activism today than I do for Cosby's. I still have a lot of admiration for Cosby (I learned many important lessons from watching "Fat Albert" as a kid!). But my feelings for Cosby and for Sharpton have little to do with their actions in one very heated, emotional case some 17 years ago.

I don't understand why folks refuse to acknowledge anything about Al Sharpton other than his role in the Brawley case. Bill Cosby certainly isn't instantly associated with it, though he was very publicly involved.

Related link on Cosby involvement:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/29/brawley.trial/

[Cheswick2.0]

76. Bitching about Sharpton is convenient for racists

He is an easy target and they can claim not to be racist, but rather that Sharpton is too extreme.

[sangh0]

37. Do you actually know Sharpton?

Or are you just blowing smoke?

[TomClash]

64. Yes, I actually know Al Sharpton . . .

. . . so blow smoke somewhere else.

[sangh0]

66. How do you know Sharpton?

Because so far, you haven't said anything that isn't public knowledge

[Cheswick2.0]

77. unfortunately there were no field negroes running, so we did the best

we could.

WTF? LOL

[vpigrad]

9. Sigh

Why is there so much bashing of party members here? Sometimes this place looks more like the freepers own the place.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. That's a shame because he had many of the best

lines during all the debates, and in interviews. He's a sharp guy. He may not be entirely honest, but there's a lot of that amongst those in politics.

[greenohio]

32. He was the best on the stump, hands down.

Man he was funny, and to the point. I really enjoy watching him talk. I'm glad he ran over at the convention.

I hope he sticks around, even though he probably will never get any post or elected position.

[northernsoul]

83. any reason?

It's better when assertions to be backed up by some kind of reasoning.

Personally, I think the Tawana Brawley incident is going to make it hard for him to be 100% credible even with his taste for showmanship. Having said that, I'll still hear the man out, sometimes only the court jester can speak the truth.

[Jackson4Gore]

4. Here is his views

• Has said his religion taught him abortion is wrong, but "I can believe something without having to impose my beliefs on others."
• Says he would not limit women’s access to safe abortions
• He says he would only appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who support Roe V. Wade
• "If women do not have a right to choose, then it's a civil rights violation."

[Jackson4Gore]

5. Quote

My religion says that abortion is wrong. And while I may believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that only God should decide whether to take a life, I will not stand in the way of a woman's right to choose. If women do not have a right to choose, then it's a civil rights violation.

[mistertrickster]

10. Wow, great picture--I'd love to shake President Gore's hand too.

nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. He also mentioned...

I think it was in one of the debates, that God gives us all free will, and that to take away the opportunity for a woman to express her free will was essentially playing God.

[JeffInRick]

18. How can this be believed?

"My religion says that abortion is wrong. And while I may believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, and that only God should decide whether to take a life, I will not stand in the way of a woman's right to choose."

If he believes the first part, then abortion is murder and he cannot believe the second part.
If he believes life begins when sperm meets the egg then he is pandering to the pro-choice people by saying it does not matter.
If he believes that a woman has the right to choose, then he is pandering to the anti-abortion crowd by saying he shares their religious beliefs.

Another politician trying to have it both ways.

Please, tell me I'm wrong.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. I agree with you. It is contradictory, and always

bothers me, too, when people make statements like that.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[JeffInRick]

27. Thanks DemBones! Cool name BTW. N/T.

[shraby]

73. Statements like that denote a statesman, not a

politician..a politician will tell you what he thinks you want to hear, a statesman will put his personal beliefs aside and do what he believes is the right thing for many instead of forcing others to live by his own personal agenda.

Separation of church and state was recognized by the founders as a very important separation. History teaches us they should be separate.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. like most non radical right people

He doesn't think he should legislate his own morality because he believes in the separation of church and state and civil rights. Many people can see shades of gray and even keep two thoughts in their head at the same time.

[Toucano]

24. I don't find it contradictory.

First, he doesn't say abortion is murder. You're putting words in his mouth.

Secondly, he clearly says it's his BELIEF. He recognizes that his BELIEF is different from fact.

He doesn't BELIEVE he has the RIGHT to FORCE you to BELIEVE what he BELIEVES and govern yourself according to his BELIEF.

I believe God wants me to give up liquor during Lent. That doesn't mean I advocate prohibition during Lent. I recognize that other don't agree with my belief.

Many people BELIEVE life begins at BIRTH. Others BELIEVE it begins at VIABILITY. Their beliefs are every bit as valid as the person who BELIEVES it begins when "sperm meets egg".

[JeffInRick]

26. The fact that he does not use the word murder...

...does not hide what he is saying.

He says life starts when egg meets sperm.
He says only God can decide to take a life.

I know I'm only seeing this as inferred, but it seems an obvious inference. Taking a life is generally murder (self-defense and war among the exclusions).

What I am saying is that his first statement says that abortion is taking a life. The second statement says that he will not stand in the way of a woman taking a life.
There are more than a few laws on the books that prohibit taking a life. When he associates a fetus with “life,” he associates abortion with murder.

He’s trying to have it both ways and does not do the pro-choice movement a service by doing so.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. he's fine with the pro-choice "movement"

Pro-choice is the law, not a movement. We are just fine with Sharpton. You are the one who seems to have a problem with him.

[JeffInRick]

30. If it stops being a movement....

...it may very well stop being the law.
If you speak for all who are pro-choice when you say "We" I have to apologize. I did not get the memo on that one.
I doubt I'm the only one with a problem with Sharpton. In any case, it is the double-speak of politicians that pander to both sides that I am objecting to. Sharpton is just a single example.

[Toucano]

51. Definition of "murder"

From Merriam-Webster online:

"1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The absense of malice and the absense of unlawfullness makes murder an inappropriate word to use to describe abortion.

But that isn't the point, really.

The reason why it's fine for Sharpton to hold this position and why this position bolsters the pro-choice position is obvious.

Americans need to be reminded that it is possible to believe something is right for you, but not feel compelled to force your belief on other people. Not only is it possible, but it's the American Tradition.

A remarkable number of diverse beliefs coexist well in this country.

For example, if Rev. Sharpton believes the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday, for example, there is nothing contradictory about him observing the Sabbath on Saturday while AT THE SAME TIME permitting me to observe the Sabbath on Sunday. I don't tell him he can't observe the Sabbath on Saturday, and he doesn't prevent me from observing the Sabbath on Sunday.

What I BELIEVE is a perfect justification of how I govern myself. What I BELIEVE is NOT justification for how I govern you.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. You're wrong.

Sharpton is just another sane religious person who recognizes that they DON'T HAVE THE DAMN RIGHT in this country to impose THEIR religious beliefs on others who may not share those beliefs.

Why is that so fucking hard for folks to understand?

My religion says that all animals are sacred and should not be killed. That is my belief, one that I adhere to. But I don't believe that it is not enough that I act on my beliefs --I think you should stop eating those burgers and roasts right now. And if you don't agree with that, well I'm sorry, but that is just not relevant. From here on in, I will make every effort I can to make sure that you stop eating meat. I will try to have it banned or at least regulated. And maybe, if I'm feeling spunky, I will try to have a Constitutational Amendment added that declares the sanctity of all animals and makes it illegal for you to hit the all-you-can eat shrimp buffet.

Do you get it yet?

[JeffInRick]

33. Animals are irrelevant to this discussion....

...since there are no laws that make killing an animal murder.
If we say that the fetus is life, then we run afoul of laws prohibiting killing humans.
The courts will not be satisfied with our telling them that they are just wrong.

I really do understand what you are saying about not imposing religious values. The problem is that being against murder is a pretty universal value, regardless of religion.
If we let the discussion be framed in terms of "living fetus'" then we are open to condemnation as murder's.

[sangh0]

40. Actually, it is as relevant as your argument

You said because Sharpton believes that life begins at conception, he must also believe that abortion is murder. However, according to the law, only a "person" can be "murdered", and according to the law, a fetus is not a "person", so it can't be murdered.

If we say that the fetus is life, then we run afoul of laws prohibiting killing humans.

If you're going to discuss legal issues, it helps to understand the law. "Murder" does not apply to a fetus, only a "person".

[JeffInRick]

47. Peterson conviction.

"If you're going to discuss legal issues, it helps to understand the law. "Murder" does not apply to a fetus, only a "person"."

Scott Peterson was recently convicted of the second degree murder of his "unborn son." Either a fetus can be a person, or it is possible to murder a non-person.

It's a shame that the chimp-in-chief will be appointing so many judges over the next 4 years that might end up resolving that apparent conflict between laws.

[sangh0]

54. Only because the mother was also killed

The law that Peterson was convicted under REQUIRES the murder of the parent. Abortion is still not murder.

[JeffInRick]

56. I did not know that about the law...

...and I did not interned to equate what Peterson did with abortion.
I was just giving an example of how a "non-person" can be murdered.
I still think it may be used against choice in a court...sucessfully or not, who knows.

[m berst]

46. the flaw in your position

There is a difference between saying on the one hand that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, and saying that it is murder, or is the same as murder.

Here is an inconsistency that has always bothered me. Aren't thousands of fertilized eggs lost in fertility clinics in the hope of getting one successful pregnancy? Right winger couples I have talked to who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant say they are following the Biblical injunction to go be fruitful and multiply.

So, is a fertilized egg a human being only when it is politically convenient to call it that? When the argument can be used to control others and is part of an anti-sex agenda, then we call abortion murder. When fertilized eggs are lost in the cause of being fruitful and multiplying and sex isn't involved, it is not murder.

In any case, a fetus is not a human being anymore than an egg is a chicken. One can argue that an egg is the moral equivalent of a chicken, but a quick glance at an egg will tell you that it is not in fact a chicken.

Another problem - belief in creationism precludes belief in genetic combination as the start of life. If the earth began when God waved his hand, then logically life for an individual probably begins when God breathes life into the person.

[JeffInRick]

48. You're absolutely right.

There is a huge difference between the moral equivalent of murder, and the legal equivalent of murder.
My point re: Sharpton is that he is implying that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder and that he supports that right.
I suspect he doesn't mean it that way. But what he said can reasonably be thought of in those terms.
I think you have a point regarding the fertilized eggs and I agree completely that people will try to apply the standard that benefits them most directly.

[m berst]

49. thanks, point made

I don't know what Sharpton means, and you are probably right. I guess I don't much care about Sharpton, but the thread got me to thinking about abortion.

[ohioan]

60. Not contradictory at all . . .

The fact that a politician holds a particular belief does not mean that he or she should demand, not only that everyone else believe it, too, but that said believe must be imposed upon all others as a matter of law.

Barack Obama expressed this very well:

"I'm a Christian. I attend church regularly with my family, and that faith informs what I do. But I think what we have to do is argue about the nature of our faith in a pluralistic society. You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt that says that I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in God, but I also recognize that part of my job as a Christian is to recognize that I may not always be right. That God doesn't speak to me alone, and that the only way that I can live effectively with people who have different beliefs and different faiths is if we have a civil society, that is, in fact, civil. And, you know, that really is a central difference between myself and Mr. Keyes on a lot of these issues, whether it's abortion or gay rights, you know, Mr. Keyes, I think, feels the certainty of a prophet, you know, somebody who's got a direct line into what God thinks, and I guess I think to myself, you know, I have to struggle a little bit more and admit a certain human fallibility and not assert my, my unyielding confidence that I always know the truth."

ABC's This Week, August 15, 2004

[msgadget]

39. That's damned good.

[Guava Jelly]

12. I cant say anything bad about sharpton

he was the best during the primarys and the best at the convention.
I like what jon stewrt said about sharpton on crossfire.

TEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.

STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking. I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed
to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.

BEGALA: CROSSFIRE.

STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass"

[Cadence]

44. AND he's one of the few democrats

that I've seen kick Bill O'reilly's ass! He doesn't back down and he comes back at him with FACTS!

[ohioan]

61. Interesting how some DUers insist that we need leaders who "tell it like

it is" and "speak truth to power," then turn around and attack Sharpton for not being politically correct enough for public consumption.

Hmmm.

[Cheswick2.0]

78. you are talking about two different groups of DUers

[ThorsHammer]

34. This is probably one area where I'll break from everyone else

I still have a problem with abortion, as I do believe it is the taking of a life and don't believe that it should come down to a matter of choice. At the same time, I recognize that others may not view the fetus as a life, and thus can logically view it as a woman's right to choose. I'm also hesitant to want it totally banned as that would force women into back alley situations (I think that's the term). I'm more than willing to make reasonable exceptions (mother's health, etc), but cannot agree with the idea that they should be allowed at any time.

Regardless of our views, I'd much rather see efforts to minimize the situations that could lead to abortions. I've posted before that the far Right's insistence on abstinence only is absolutely asinine. I have no problem with the idea of abstinence, as it's the only foolproof way, but I would like to see some basic common sense education as well, something like: "Abstinence is the only completely safe way, but IF you have sex then please use protection." That alone could cut down on a ton of abortions through unwanted teen pregnancies. I'd also like to see better healthcare alternatives, as it makes no sense to give birth to a child who will lack healthcare. Finally, adoption could often be a viable alternative, as there are many childless people who really want kids. I don't think this would be a big issue at all if they were safe and rare, but unfortunately they are still all too common.

[greenohio]

41. Welcome to DU,uuuhh I think.

Though we support a variety of opinions here, you worry me about your stance on choice.

I do agree that we should focus on minimizing the situations that lead to abortions. But I don't agree with placing restrictions that would make it unreasonable to get one.

[ThorsHammer]

42. Thanks for the welcome

My point was more that while I can't see it as a matter of choice available at any time, as I do believe it is a life, I can see how others see it as a fetus and therefore can logically hold the belief that it is just a choice. I wouldn't have a problem with it to save a mother's life, and could also understand rape/incest victims, but still think we have way too many every year. The larger issue should be to eliminate or at least reduce the situations that lead to abortions.

[no name no slogan]

68. You make some good points, which the far right COMPLETELY ignores

Personally, I don't think anybody is advocating for more abortions. Even the most "extreme" (?) elements of the pro-choice side are not in favor of more abortions.

Dennis Kucinich (somebody who has been unfairly tagged as "Pro-Life", IMHO) has made similar arguments to yours: we need to EDUCATE people to ensure that abortions become as rare and as unnecessary as possible.

This means fully funding REAL reproductive education ("abstinance only" is a joke), making sure that people know about contraception, and keeping it accessible for everyone. And also ensuring that abortions (if necessary) are safe, legal AND accessible.

IMHO there's a lot of middle ground in the abortion debate that is ignored by the extremes on both ends. Realisticly, most Americans are closer to the middle on this issue. They don't 'favor' abortions, but also don't like the idea of 'abortion on demand'-- which has NEVER existed in this country, despite what the right-wing demagogues say.

[southlandshari]

70. You've made some good ones, as well!

Great post, NNNS. I also think there is much more middle ground on the abortion issue than meets the eye.

[Cheswick2.0]

79. It is not unfair to tag DK as pro-life

He was his whole political life until he ran for Pres. He voted anti-choice consistantly until then. You can decide for yourself if his conversion was genuine or not. I guess we will see over the next few years.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. thank you so much for your willingness to make exceptions

with my civil rights. Since you have problems with abortion it is really good God made you a male. Now you won't ever have to bother with making that choice.

[ThorsHammer]

45. Re: "thank you so much for your willingness to make exceptions"

Sorry, didn't mean to seem condescending. I was just explaining how I personally see the fetus as a life and therefore can't agree that it is completely a matter of choice, BUT can also see how others may disagree and thus hold a different, yet logically consistent view. I understand that it is a very difficult choice for any female to make, and am glad to be a male.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. Thanks Thors

I know it is difficult. All I ask is that men try to understand that they can have all kinds of intellectual positions on abortion but because they will never face that choice, they can never really know. So when you say that you would support abortion in cases of incest or rape I assume that you would vote that way and I have a problem with that. To me that says you are willing to take away right to make my own moral judgement and you have substituted your judgement instead. I don't believe you or any man (or any other woman) has that moral right.
I would ask that you forget about what you have been taught or what you think intellectually, and remember that I am a human being with as much right to control my body and life as you have.
I have a right to protect my physical, emotional and economic health. My rights trump your feelings and your judgement on this matter.

[greenohio]

52. Wow Ches, we agree on something.

Don't read into it.

[m berst]

55. I don't think the right wingers care

Talking to anti-choice people, they tell me that they don't care about ending abortions or reducing the number of them. One told me last week "we know that it will go on and we can't stop it, but that is not a concern." So why vote anti-choice? To please God. What is the hope? To have it outlawed. Why? To please God.

There is no arguing with people who think they are speaking for God rather than for themselves, of course. There position is that they are just innocently passing along the word from the big guy, and if you object you will have to take it up with Him.

My point being that at the core of the anti-choice argument is a desire to criminalize all abortion, regardless of what effect that has. The core of the pro-choice argument is that abortion should not be criminalized. Both positions are non-negotiable. "Core" may be the wrong word here. I hope you see what I am saying.

You said "I do believe it is the taking of a life..."

Did you mean "life" or "a life" as you said?

[ThorsHammer]

57. To clarify

I'd much rather cut down on the situations that lead to abortions than worry about whether they are legal or not. I would much rather have abortion be safe, legal, and rare, than dangerous, illegal, and commonplace. That said, I do think that is the taking of a life and would like to see the numbers decreased. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need abortions at all, but unfortunately this world is far from perfect. I don't want to be completely criminalized, as it will still happen and place both mother and child at risk, but would like to see a drastic reduction through sex education, adoption, healthcare, and so on.

[m berst]

59. why?

I don't mean that argumentatively. I am sincerely interested in your thoughts. Why would you much rather cut down on the number of abortions?

[ThorsHammer]

63. Sure

I don't think abortion is a winning scenario for anyone. I obviously have no personal experience with the matter, but have heard and sincerely believe that it is an incredibly difficult decision for the woman. For the vast majority of them, it must be one of, if not the hardest decision they have to make. Many women say afterward that they regret it, and even those that do think that they made the right choice are usually not happy about it. From everything I have read and heard anecdotally, it is a traumatic event, and I hope I didn't come across earlier as implying that I thought it was something trivial. I also think a high abortion rate implies that there are societal problems as well, as many of the reasons for having one are due to things like a lack of education and/or job skills, no childcare, no healthcare, no support system, no financial resources, and so on. I think everyone wins with less abortions - the women are spared a traumatic event, adoptive couples are able to adopt, and the fetus/child lives. Not sure where I saw it, but the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those with strong safety nets for all. It may just be a coincedence, but IMO it's more of a correlation.

[m berst]

65. thanks

It should be self-correcting then and left to people to make their own decisions I would say. Certainly the conditions you refer to should be alleviated asdide from and separate from the issue of abortion I would say. I think you are correct about the correlation you mention.

I am thinking that the abortion debate is a stand-in for another issue entirely. Maybe the question is better phrased this way: should our laws be based on a religious group's interpretation of morality? Yea or nay? I would say "nay" myself, since if we go down that road we are building a theocracy not a democracy.

Then the question becomes theocracy or democracy?

[ThorsHammer]

67. No problem

I was thinking how to word this, and the best I can think of is that ideally I would like to see conditions such that women do not have the desire to have abortions, and it would become a non-issue. I don't know what the correct practical solution would be, but think that what I described would be beneficial for all, liberal or conservative.

I'm not particularly religious, but my opinion is shaped more by my belief that the fetus is a life. I don't see it necessarily being a question of religious views, but more of one's perspective on whether it is a life or just a fetus. Since this is somewhat subjective, I can also see how others may think it to be just a fetus and therefore want the right to choose. I don't see this issue as that much of a "theocracy" issue, although religion has co-opted the abortion issue quite a bit. The rise of the religious right does worry me some, especially with their newfound influence over GWB. I just hope we have some checks and balances in place to prevent this from becoming a theocracy.

EDIT: I think we've discussed this ad nauseam, and have probably reached the point where we can respectfully agree to disagree on some points and agree on others.

[fortyfeetunder]

69. Some situations can't be minimized

While you do express some rational viewpoints on preventing abortions, there are some situations that just can't be simplified.

How about ready and available access to genetic screening before a couple tries to conceive a child? And sometimes screening does not detect all the possible abnormalities.

What do you think about when the mother's life is in danger. Like if she continues the pregnancy she will die or become disabled....

Complex questions and complex solutions. I may not have an abortion myself, but I leave that up to a woman and her medical practitioner.

[ThorsHammer]

71. Sure

Agreed that this is a very complex issue and can't be made into pure black and white like the Fundies/Far Right want. Even someone like me, who sees the fetus as a life, understands the reality of the situation and would not want it completely banned.

I don't see any problems at all with screening before conceiving a child. Nor do I think (as I've said before) that there should be problems with it done to save the mother's life/health.

Like no name no slogan said above, the best answer to this complex issue is probably somewhere in the middle.

I think we've discussed this ad nauseam, and will probably agree to disagree on some points while agreeing on others.

[Cheswick2.0]

81. the answer does not lie somewhere in the middle

the answer lies right where it is now. The law may not force a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not wish to continue, period.

[ThorsHammer]

84. Re: "the answer does not lie somewhere in the middle"

Cheswick, my post was in reference to no slogan no problem's quote "IMHO there's a lot of middle ground in the abortion debate that is ignored by the extremes on both ends. Realisticly, most Americans are closer to the middle on this issue. They don't 'favor' abortions, but also don't like the idea of 'abortion on demand'-- which has NEVER existed in this country, despite what the right-wing demagogues say."

W/r/t your post #80, I can definitely see where you are coming from on that, as it is impossible for a male to know what it feels like. However, I do believe where we diverge is whether the fetus is a child or just a fetus. If it was just a fetus, then I would completely support the right of choice. Since I believe it to be a child, I would err on the side of caution and save the baby's life, barring extenuating circumstances like the mother's health. At the same time, I also see how the pro-choice side has valid logic, as the rights of the mother to control her body do clearly trump the rights of the fetus if it is considered just a fetus. I hope I've not seemed condescending in this thread, as I'm just trying to explain how I see the fetus as a life worthy of protection. I can see where you are coming from, and hope at this point we can respectfully agree to disagree, as I think this discussion has gone as far as it can. I also hope that we can all agree that is a worthy cause to reduce the social problems that lead to women desiring abortions. Finally, thank you for keeping this discussion civil and not stooping to name calling and personal attacks like you might find on other boards.

Maraya and Ohioan, I agree that many conservatives are like that (pro birth not pro life). I hope that you read my above posts, and see that there are also people who are both pro-birth and pro-life, as I've mentioned many times that we need to fix the societal problems that lead to women desiring abortions (education, job training, healthcare, childcare, etc). I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for programs like this at all, as I think they would have a very beneficial effect for everyone. Please remember that not all of us pro-life people are hypocrites like the far right.

[blm]

53. Gee....no sign of seriousness.

positively
every
effort

yields
ornery
orations

[Rambis]

58. Al was the best at the DNC

No one could touch him. Michael Moore is an ASSHOLE! but that doesn't mean he doesn't have good things to say. I don't know if Al new Tawana was making up the story only he knows that for sure. He is the only one that makes sense, he speaks his mind and when asked a question he answers it. You might not like his answer but he tells you anyway.

[eridani]

72. Great speaker, but can't organize his way out of a paper bag.

Easily the best speaker of all the candidates, but anyone who looks at a black man who has never held public office running for president can't help but have an image of Jesse Jackson's campaigns in the 80s as a model of how that should be done. The Rainbow Coalition really was a rainbow because Jackson made very serious and effective organizational efforts to go beyond his base, like frinstance getting seriously informed about farm issues to campaign in Iowa. Sharpton never bothered with any of that.

[Maraya1969]

75. On one TV show he said the the conservatives were

Pro-life until the fetus is born. Then they don't want to educated them, they don't want to help them, they don't care if the children live in poverty.

I thought it was great!

[ohioan]

82. Yes! They are PRO-BIRTH, not pro-life

The couldn't care less what happens to them once they make it out of the womb.

[Forkboy]

86. drive-by posting