Sharing Stage, Obama and McCain Split on Abortion

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Sharing stage, Obama and McCain split on abortion
By CHARLES BABINGTON and BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writers
30 minutes ago
LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain differed sharply on abortion Saturday, with McCain saying a baby's human rights begin "at conception," while Obama restated his support for legalized abortion.

Appearing on the same stage for the first time in months, although they overlapped only briefly, the two men shared their views on a range of moral, foreign and domestic issues as they near their respective nominating conventions.

Obama said he would limit abortions in the late stages of pregnancy if there are exceptions for the mother's health. He said he knew that people who consider themselves pro-life will find his stance "inadequate." He said the government should do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to help struggling new mothers, such as providing needed resources to the poor, and better adoption services.

McCain expressed his anti-abortion stand simply and quickly, saying human rights begin the instant a human egg is fertilized. McCain, who adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, also called for making adoption easier.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_religion

---

[bluestateguy]

1. So the next question for McCain should be this:

"If abortion is outlawed, as you wish, what would you have happen to a woman who has an illegal abortion and her doctor?"

I have yet to hear an anti-abortion politician give a straight answer to that question.

[heliarc]

2. I wonder what they say about incest.

Should a fetus that is a girls father's child be carried to term? Should the girl/woman be required to seek parental consent in such cases?

[fasttense]

3. Well, if the moment an egg is fertilized makes it a person then

a lot of women are murderers and don't even know it.

"Physicians and scientists studying human reproduction estimate that a fertile, healthy couple has only a 20 to 30 percent chance of conceiving during each of the woman's menstrual cycles. The low frequency of detectable pregnancies has been attributed in large part to the failure of embryos to attach themselves successfully to the surface of the uterus. Moreover, once a pregnancy begins, as many as 30 to 40 percent fail during the first few weeks. Some of the failures are the result of genetic and chromosomal abnormalities of the embryos; others occur because the uterus is not properly receptive."

http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/FrederickGrinnell/GrinnellWebMisc/embryodeath.pdf

An embryo is a fertilized egg and every time one of those microscopic pieces of human potential fail to attach, they die. We should jail everyone of those murderers.

[sushi]

21. What?

If the woman herself doesn't know that she has lost the baby and is no longer pregnant, how will other people (the authorities) know it in order to jail her???

[Stellabella]

23. Easy! We'd have forced pregnancy tests every month.

Then, if a woman was found to be pregnant, she'd be put into a 'pregnancy jail' and watched around the clock to make sure she didn't abort those precious cells.

After all, if abortion is 'murder', shouldn't the right wing nazis want to do everything possible to prevent it? Even forced incarceration?

:sarcasm:

Honestly, I'm just waiting for some nutjob to say they want to do this. It's the only way to 'stop' abortions, since it's such a private issue there's no way for a sane society to outlaw it. There's a reason the abortion rate is the same whether it's illegal or legal: it can't be stopped. The only difference between the two scenarios is that there are lots of dead women when it's illegal. But that's a-okay with the 'pro life' crowd.

[Doremus]

28. There was such a bill proffered in one of the southern states a few years ago.

It caused quite an outcry and didn't pass if I recall correctly.

Among other things doctors would have had to report miscarriages. There were other, equally intrusive, stipulations that my memory cells have gratefully expunged.

[pokercat999]

4. If "conservatives" were consistent their view on

abortion would be "it's none of the governments business". But then they are almost never in favor of a persons individual rights.

Ever notice how the GOP is always for "getting the gov't off our backs", when the truth is they are only talking to CORPORATIONS and their super rich friends not to you and me.

[knixphan]

17. exactly right.

[susanna]

24. Abso-freaking-lutely. Thank you. Well stated. n/t

[truthisfreedom]

5. Ask Johnny if he's ever been responsible for an abortion.

In any way shape or form.

[Vinca]

6. Ask McBush if each and every fertilized egg is carried to term,

who's going to provide it with food, shelter, healthcare, education and a job? It sure as hell won't be the Republicans who vote against SCHIP. Maybe he and the others should step forward and sign a pledge to adopt each and every one - black, white, deformed, healthy.

[alphafemale]

7. kick

[pattmarty]

8. I am sorry to say, I think McCain "won" last night.

Obama was first up and I thought was excellent on his answers and also "looked" truthful & sincere. I was expecting McCain to look really bad having to follow Obama. Boy, was I wrong!!! McCain to my surprise didn't look like the deer in the headlights that you sometime see on TV and the campaign trail. Trying to be somewhat objective here, McCain after the first 10 minutes or so started in with the campaign talking points and the crowd was more with him than Obama. I was expecting Obama to walk away from a "conservative" venue as the winner, but McCain was a huge surprise to me. I believe now that the Obama campaign will HAVE TO get somewhat more negative as the election nears. I don't want to leave the wrong impression here, I will vote for Obama and hope he wins and pulls more Dems into the house & Senate with his "coattails", but McCain proved to me at least that he will be tougher candidate than I first thought.

[Honeycombe8]

9. It was a given that McCain would "win" the night, IMO. The goal for Obama....

who could never expect to "win" a conservative far right evangelical audience in a question and answer interview, was to calm some fears, show that he's not the "boogey man" those e-mails being circulated say he is, and maybe....just maybe....convince a tiny number of wavering conservatives watching the interview on TV to at least consider pulling the lever for Obama.

I only saw part of the interview and was pleased that the audience and interviewer were polite, respectful, and even somewhat favorable to him. I was also pleased with Obama's comfort level, his ease at answering the questions, and the substance of the few answers I saw.

I saw part of the McCain interview, also, and it went as I expected it would. He is "their guy." So his applause as he walked onto the stage was overwhelming, the applause to answers was more enthusiastic than some of those answers warranted. This was a given. He is pro-life, and while not a far right evangelical, he holds some of the same values as the evangelicals do, and he holds them hard and fast.

Obama did himself some good last night. That he even accepted that forum speaks volumes about his philosophy in campaigning. That the far right offered the forum speaks volumes about at least that one interviewer's desire to not be so hostile to the "Democrat" Party.

Good show, Obama.

[pattmarty]

10. I agree with you as far as the forum. I saw the whole thing and.....

......I was talking about the PR and "free campaign ad" point of view. This was nationally televised on a saturday during prime time with a majority of the country watching. Looking at the event in that aspect I believe it did more for McCain than Obama. When I saw Obama (who was first) his answers and seeming honesty was really impressive. I even mentioned to my wife at the time "he hit a home run" with his answers. But as a saturday night prime time "event", I thought it was at best a draw. I guess bottom line what I'm saying is McCain surprised me coming across a lot better than I expected.

[Honeycombe8]

11. Did the ratings show a lot of people watched? I wud think most were watching the Olympics.

It was the night that Phelps was in the relay race, going for the world record 8th gold medal in one Olympics.

[LibDemAlways]

12. Here on the west coast it aired at 5 PM (although was rerun later).

Everywhere it was in competition with the Olympics. I sincerely doubt "a majority" of the country was interested in watching Obama and McCain being interviewed on cable by the pastor of a megachurch.

Those who did watch no doubt saw what they wanted to see. The venue favored the R's. The interviewer favored the R's. The audience favored the R's. Of course McCain did well. It looked and sounded to me like he was well-rehearsed and knew what questions were coming. He kept throwing out red meat to the base - who, predictably, ate it up.

It's going to be a tough battle in the fall. No doubt about that. The corporate media desperately wants a McCain win and is going to go to great lengths to boost him up. Ultimately it's going to be up to the independents and not strongly partisan voters to decide whether they want four more years of the same or someone determined to take the country in a different direction.

[bulloney]

19. Why do you think Crash McCain's ads constantly raise doubts on Obama's credibility?

They're always raising doubts that you can't believe what Obama says. Like, Crash can write a book on credibility, the way he flip-flops on everything and the way he whores around on his wives.

[eagertolearn]

13. I don't agree. I thought McCain stood out better to the

non-thinkers. He had personality and very rehearsed responses and many "nonresponses" that the interviewer didn't call him on. But he was missing the substance from his talk. He told a lot of "deep" stories that would tugg at the audiences hearts. He used a lot of general responses (drill for oil, fire bad teachers, life starts at conception) without any expression of how he would follow through with any of this. Who will get the poor kids with vouchers to go to better schools to the schools. Who will help them with homework. Why would a teacher want to even be a teacher if you take a job in a rough area and the test score aren't like all others you might get fired! But Obama had much better answers. Unfortunately, our country tends to like to elect a president with a good stage presence and not always one who can think on his or her feet and come up with an intellegent (not cute) response. McCain was well coached and Obama was himself. I would like to see them both in a setting together where they don't know the questions that will be asked (I can't believe that they didn't know these questions ahead of time because McCain was answering some of them before they were completely asked!).

[pattmarty]

18. This is a country of NON-THINKERS, that's why I said he "won"...

.....and that's what scared me. I believe that this election will be a lot harder than "most" liberals think. With everything going wrong now (gas prices, health prices, jobs, housing crisis, NO regulation, Iraq war, oh shit, I could go on forever) I am going from "Obama blowout" to just a little scared. At this stage I still think Obama will win, but my hope was/is that he will win and even larger the Dems will get 20 House seats and 8 or 9 Senate seats.

[susanna]

25. You thought Obama would win in a conservative forum?

Why did you think that? I'm just curious.

[Lorien]

14. A "baby's" human rights? It's not a baby at conception

it's a blob of cells that MIGHT become a baby eventually-if it doesn't become a miscarriage like around 35% of all pregnancies (my grandmother had EIGHT miscarriages before my father was born). Does that make God pro abortion?

[Breeze54]

15. This is "Breaking News"?

O I C ... it's from LAKE FOREST, Calif. :eyes:

[HopeHoops]

16. Note to Tom Ridge - "Danger, Danger Will Robinson!"

McCain's short list is written on his limp member. I personally think Donald Trump would be a good choice - great hair piece and lots of money. And, he doesn't actually have any positions so he can be whatever the GOP wants him to be.

[TBF]

20. If Johnny were the one who had to have the child (or the abortion),

I believe the laws and opinions on this subject would be different.

I'm happy to see Obama come out more strongly in favor of pro-choice. He needs to do more of this.

[GeorgiaVetRay]

22. Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology
By RACHEL ZOLL – 3 days ago 

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when
she attempted a theological defense of her support for
abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine
and free will so far out of line with church teaching that
they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik,
who said Pelosi, D-Calif., "stepped out of her political
role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the
Catholic Church in regard to abortion."

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic
congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has
expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

Cardinals and archbishops in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia,
New York and Denver are among those who have criticized her
remarks. Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi's hometown of
San Francisco, will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition
of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said.

Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, Pelosi
said "doctors of the church" have not been able to
define when life begins.

She also cited the role of individual conscience. "God
has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to
answer for our actions," she said.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement
defending her remarks that she "fully appreciates the
sanctity of family" and based her views on conception on
the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, 'The law does
not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for
there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that
lacks sensation.'"

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the
theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days,
Christianity has considered abortion evil.

"This teaching has remained unchanged and remains
unchangeable," according to the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed
either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral
law."

The Rev. Douglas Milewski, a Seton Hall University theologian
who specializes in Augustine, said Pelosi seems to be
confusing church teaching on abortion with the theological
debate over when a fetus receives a soul.

"Saint Augustine wondered about the stages of human
development before birth, how this related to the question of
ensoulment and what it meant for life in the Kingdom of
God," Milewski said.

Questions about ensoulment related to determining penalties
under church law for early and later abortions, not deciding
whether the procedure is permissible, according to the U.S.
Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Augustine was "quite clear on the immorality of abortion
as evil violence, destructive of the very fabric of human
bonds and society," Milewski said.

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that
Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering
moral issues. However, that doesn't mean parishioners can pick
and choose what to believe and still be in line with the
church.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said
conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and
philosophical insights. "It's not just a personal opinion
that you came up with randomly," she said.

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over
the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who
attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the
fringes of church life.

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching
should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics
required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can
they back a politician based on his or her policies on
reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their
election-year public policy guide, "Forming Consciences
for Faithful Citizenship."

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he
or she supports "an intrinsic evil" such as abortion
amounts to "formal cooperation in grave evil."

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a
position contrary to church teaching, but only for "truly
grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or
partisan preferences," according to the document.

It is a complex discussion. The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior
fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown
University, has some advice for candidates who seek to join
the debate: Stick to politics — and support programs that
truly help reduce the number of abortions.

"It is a big mistake," Reese said, "for
politicians to talk theology." 
Hosted by  Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved. 

[susanna]

26. So Augustine is considered a heretic for his view by the Church? n/t

on edit: succinctness (is that a word?)

[happyslug]

27. Many of the Doctors of the Church held heretical beliefs.

Thus the works of the Doctors of the Church must each be taken as a WHOLE not torn in tiny parts to prove or disprove a point of theology. The classic situation is St. Paul's belief that all you need is BELIEF in God to get to heaven, a position rejected by Jesus himself AND by St James, whose Writing FOLLOWS right behind St Paul's writing in the Bible. St James restated Jesus statements that you need Good Works to get to Heaven, belief was NOT enough, what have you done to improve the condition of your fellow man? Those are the Good Works Christ and St James talk about and ignored by St Paul. Thus St James was NOT a rejection of St Paul's writing but a clarification of why St Paul's writing is in the Bible. As a whole St Paul's writing are Good for the Church and Mankind, but St Paul's various citation of Belief alone is sufficient in the eyes of God had to be shown NOT to be Catholic Doctrine at the time the New Testament was first made in the 4th Century under the Reign of Constantine.

The same concept goes for the other Doctors of the Church, read them as foundation of Catholic Doctrine but remember they were written by Humans and all Humans commit errors. This is true of all the Doctors of the Church, St Augustine is most liked for his statement "The Pope has ruled on this subject and thus the issue is closed" (Paraphrase not direct quote). The quote was a statement to STOP talking about a subject that Church Councils and the Pope had consistently rejected, but out of that quote came the basis for the Pope's right to make the final decisions as to Catholic Doctrine (Which was NOT St Augustine's intention but it is the result).

Also remember St. Augustine other heresies, including the one that women do NOT have souls, for they were NOT made in the image of man (i.e. only men have souls, for the old Testament said only only "Man" are in the same image as God). This concept that women do not have souls was rejected at the time St Augustine wrote it and has been rejected every time it has come back up. The Doctrine keeps coming back, mostly because St Augustine wrote it, ever since but has NEVER been Church Doctrine (even through some Popes may also have believed it). More then one of the Catholic Doctors have embraced it, but at least three have rejected it (i.e. the three women on the list of Doctors of the Church).

List of Doctors of the Church:
http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church

[susanna]

29. Wonderful information - I thank you for such an informative post.

I guess my question is - vis a vis my earlier post - how anyone not versed in the Church doctrine can ever understand these rather arcane "twists and turns"?

on edit: spelling

[GoddessOfGuinness]

30. Obama supports legalized abortion?

I thought it was already legal...

[slackmaster]

31. The anti-abortionists are pushing a myth that it was always illegal everywhere until Roe v. Wade

Which of course is far from true.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

33. Even if that was true,

Roe v. Wade made it legal.

We shouldn't be speaking as if it wasn't...as if these fundies had jurisdiction over the Supreme Court.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.