NYT: Obama Explores Abortion Issue

[Colobo]

Mr. Obama: “The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions.

“I don’t think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I’ve arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don’t think they make it lightly. I don’t think they make it callously, so I reject a comparison between a woman struggling with these issues and Michael Vick fighting dogs for sport. I don’t think that’s sort of how people perceive it.

“Now, this is one of those areas – again, I think it’s important to be honest – where I don’t think you’re ever going to get a complete agreement on this issue. If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind. I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues.

“One area where I think we should have significant agreement is on the idea of reducing unwanted pregnancies because if we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, then it’s much less likely that people resort to abortion. The way to do that is to encourage young people and older people, people of child-bearing years, to act responsibly. Part of acting responsibly – I’ve got two daughters – part of my job as a parent is to communicate to them that sex isn’t casual and that it’s something that they should really think about and not think is just a game.

“I’m all for education for our young people, encouraging abstinence until marriage, but I also believe that young people do things regardless of what their parents tell them to do and I don’t want my daughters ending up in really difficult situations because I didn’t communicate to them, how to protect themselves if they make a mistake. I think we’ve got to have that kind of comprehensive view that says family planning and education for our young people and so forth – to prevent teen pregnancies, to prevent the kinds of situations that lead to women having to struggle with these difficult decisions and we should be supportive of those efforts. That’s an area where there should be some agreement."

More at:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/

[daninthemoon]

1. There he goes, talking sense again.

:applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[killbotfactory]

2. Imagine: A thoughtful, intelligent president who doesn't just talk in soundbytes.

I doubt Bush has the attention span recite the above from a teleprompter. It's amazing how much Bush has lowered the bar for presidents.

[AtomicKitten]

3. He has a sensible approach to the issue.

It is an issue that STILL motivates GOP voters in light of the threat by Dobson et. al. to go third party if the GOP doesn't come up with a viable abortion nazi.

Obama remains pro-choice and I approve of his thoughtful discussion of the issue.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. If abortion is not murder, what's the "moral implication"?

Granted, all politicians have to play this game, and they do, but no point heralding this as straight talk.

This is not an Obama thing. Everyone is guilty. This is Bill Clinton's position from 1992, and the position of the majority of Dems everywhere.

But it's double-talk.

If abortion is not taking a human life then it's like having a mole removed. There are no moral implications.

If there are legitimate moral implications then abortion is almost certainly immoral.

And so on.

[iamjoy]

8. Why Is It One Or The Other

Why can't we agree it is less than a life but more than a clump of cells?

Why can't we agree that yes, there are moral implications, but equating it with murder goes too far.

It is not a black and white issue, much as many people would like to act as if it is.

OK -
If life truly begins at conception, than it shouldn't be allowed even in cases of rape, incest and to protect the woman's health. It should only be if her life is in imminent danger - and even then, it would be a maybe because if those lives are equal, who decides who lives and who dies? Furthermore, we could charge every woman who has a miscarriage with involuntary slaughter.

If abortion is the moral equivalent of having a mole removed, than there's nothing wrong with a woman having an abortion because the child she is carrying is not of the gender she wants. But, I think most Pro-Choice people would not find it okay to abort a fetus on that basis.

Instead we get into sticky middle issues - people think it should be legal to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome or severe diseases, but would be repulsed with aborting the fetus because it had the wrong eye color. Yet, it is murder to actively take the life of a severely disabled person (although not illegal to withhold lifesaving medical treatment in many cases).

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Because it is an issue of rights.

We are talking about the law, not about what people think is admirible or icky. Presumably the question is not what a candidate thinks in the abstract, but how that thinking would find expression in government action.

People are free to hold whateve personal views they wish, but if law is the topic then you are talking about someone else, quite likely someone who disagrees with conventional attitudes.

All rights are measured in relation to deeply objectionable behavior. (Rights are not needed to protect popular behavior.)

The question is not whether you or I think it is nice for a woman to abort based on eye color, but whether it is her legal right to do so regardless of your (or my) sense of repugnance.

The law dos not prevent anyone from holding higher moral standards than the law. I, for instance, have very strong ideas about breast implants. I think think it is disguting for a woman to mutilate perfectly attractive, albeit smaller breasts for purely cosmetic reasons.

But it has never crossed my mind that my sincere disgust has, or should have, and implications for a woman's right to do what she wants with her body.

For the record, I would not abort based on eye color, but I believe it is a woman's right to do so. The alternative is a government review board where concerned citizens decide which women they think should bear their pregancy to term. Cleft palaate? Club foot? very large wine-colored birthmarks?
The concensus that a fetus is not a mole (which I subscribe to) offers no reliable guidance.

On the other hand, we know that limitations on abortion will always result in telling some individual somewhere that the govvernment has determined that she must bear a child to term.

Very, very, very, very few women would abort for eye color, so that's a red herring on par with "Jack Bauer" torture hypotheticals.

The bottom line is that society does not suffer if a miniscule number of women abort frivolously. Women, however, suffer as a class from restrictions on abortion.

[AtomicKitten]

10. This isn't a black/white issue for some folks.

We decide our own moral compass. There is a mile between "taking a human life" and "having a mole removed."

It is an individual decision and the "moral implications" are also decided individually. In other words, a pro-choice woman having an abortion can still be saddened by the experience, but the important thing here is that it is HER decision.

There is nothing wrong and, in fact, everything right about being pro-choice and still being sensitive to other people's feelings on the issue.

What matters is that abortion remains safe and legal, and I agree with Obama that education will aid in making them infrequent. Nothing wrong with that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. re: There is a mile between "taking a human life" and "having a mole removed."

To you and me, sure.

But we are not the law. The government cannot be permitted vague musings on metaphysical imponderables.

The government must operate in a world of inalienable rights and bright-line law. So the government should hold that an abortion is, indeed, like removing a mole insofar as it is none of the government's business.

There is no compelling state interest in forcing any women to carry pregnancies to term, so the government should have no real position anyway. Then evry individual can follow the dictates of her own conscience.

(The question of who pays for any given abortion may or may not be more complex)

[hedgehog]

11. There is no test to determine when the living organism is "human"

I would tend to say from conception, but then what am I to say about identical twins or conjoined twins? Were both babies there from conception, one of them, neither of them? What if something goes terribly wrong and there is no brain? There is no black or white. Most people think there is a line somewhere before birth, but who could tell you exactly where that line is?

So any attempt at straight talk, whether it's saying a woman has a right to an abortion at any time or saying all abortion is murder is just ignoring the complexity of the problem. Saying there are never any moral implications ignores the reality that there is a human life at some point. If I say all abortion is murder and should be illegal, how do I stop abortions? When all abortion is illegal, many times the woman dies in attempting an illegal abortion. So if I make abortion illegal, what is my responsibility toward those women? SInce I can't prove abortion is murder, what gives me or anyone else the right to deny an abortion?


I think Obama has chosen the third way here, suggesting that society has an interest in protecting the fetus during the late part of the pregnancy (once it is viable?) but still placing the life and the health of the mother first. Going to his previous statement, he says
"that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination"


He also goes on to support efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is the best answer.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. The fallacy is conflating the range of individual opinion and the responsibilities of government

society has no conceivable interest in protecting the fetus during the late part of the pregnancy unless one's idea of legitimate government interest involves a government that imposes arbitrary metaphysical viewpoints on the citizenry.

You and I could kick it around for weeks, but it has nothing to do with the proper role of the government.

The question is when one becomes a person deserving state protection. Even using delivery as the thresh-hold is somewhat arbitrary, but has the advantage of being universally subscribed to (nobody ever suggests anything later) and consonant with human nature. (Until recently, all human groups murdered inconvenient children shortly after birth without considering it murder. Including the folks who wrote the Ten Commandments. Babies usually became memebers of the tribe when they were named, usually after a week or two to see if the poor kid would survive. Hence chistening, baptism, etc. That's a primitive viability standard that few would subscribe to today)

Also, not that I nessecarily mean this seriously, though it's worth thinking about, it comports with the US Constitutions definition of a US citizen being either a naturalized citizen, or else anyone "born" in the US

(One could debate whether a fetus is a non-citizen, yet a US resident entitled to equal protection of the laws. I'm not suggesting it, but one could if they had a lot of time on their hands.)

Government should address only real problems, and no woman's abortion, even very late term, presents any threat to a citizen. Unless the fetus is considered a citizen, in which case abortion is murder straight up, and presumably from conception. (Viability is no help. Lots of us are not viable. Even the healthiest month old infant cannot survive on its own. We don't pull the plug on sick people because they are not viable. Lots of folks cannot live without assitance.)

As a matter of governance, the only sensible stance is for government to be hands off entirely.

[bigdarryl]

5. what is his position on parcel birth abortion or for that matter Hillary's position

they better clear it up now because this is where the republicans are going to hit them hard if either is the nominee.

[sandnsea]

6. That's a made up term

If we'd stop using it, it would go a long way to getting the issue back to health. Pregnancy terminations have always happened for medical reasons, they made an issue where there wasn't one. Until WE get that clear within the rank and file, it will limit what the candidates can say on the issue.

[bigdarryl]

7. made up or not i read that most americans including pro-choice are against it

[sandnsea]

13. Until they're dying and need it

Then the light bulb goes off - oooooohhh, THIS is what the feminazis have been trying to get through my thick stupid head.

:argh:

[durrrty libby]

19. Do tell us what you think that means?

[hedgehog]

9. I think this covers it here:

"I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues. "



Not exactly abortion on demand for 9 months, but I think it corresponds to Roe v Wade.

[sandnsea]

14. Except he's wrong

There are people who don't understand that these abortions are necessary to save a woman's life or to mitigate severe health consequences. There are people who will say these terminations are never necessary.

[hedgehog]

24. He said large agreement, not total agreement.

I think polls show 70 -80% of the people fall into this bracket with 10 -15% against all abortions and 10-15% in favor of absolutely no regulation.

[durrrty libby]

18. "what is his position on parcel" Put a stamp on it and mail it

How difficult is that?:shrug:

[VANSPEAK]

12. moving beyond position to ending the division?

Clearly a sensible position by the Senator regarding the topic of "choice". However, discussion begs the question which is: How will President Obama end the perpetual divisiveness that the topic engenders. His position statement does not address that, so not much can yet be said (given this example) about his ability to lead us toward a more hopeful future.

[IndianaGreen]

20. What's there to explore? You either support reproductive rights, or you don't!

There is no middle ground!

Now, one could argue that the state does have a role to play in providing free health care to all its citizens, including family planning. The state also has a legitimate role in ensuring that citizens are provided with competent medical care in a safe hospital environment. The state also has a responsibility to provide free pre and post-natal care, as well as free day care facilities for working parents. That's what a state in a socialist society would do!

Having said that, the state has no role to play whatsoever in personal decisions regarding reproduction or sexual practices between consenting adults.

The churches should consider themselves lucky we don't shut them down for poisoning the minds of our youth and exploiting gullible citizens' fears of their own mortality.

[TheWraith]

27. Thank you for proving that you lack thoughtfulness.

Also that you didn't actually read the article.

[CK_John]

21. IMO, Obama has fallen into the trap of believing abortion is not about male control and power over

womens bodies. Abortion is about telling women where,when and who they will reproduce with.

[IndianaGreen]

22. The irony is that in 1919 Soviet women enjoy more reproductive rights

than American women do in 2007.

Lenin did away with the Tzar's oppressive abortion laws, in which women were mere chattels of men.

[Colobo]

23. That's ONE way of seeing it.

[illinoisprogressive]

25. He has so much common sense.

[ShortnFiery]

26. True, and such wisdom does not fit well into "sound bytes."

Yes, Obama is also, IMO, The Genuine Article. :thumbsup: