I still don’t think I can vote for someone who has his morals. Even if overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t make a difference in abortion outcomes it is still not something in my own mind that I could do. Not only does he support abortion Emily, but do you realize the outcomes of universal healthcare? I am not even going to get into politics on here because I think it is nobody’s business who we vote for. It is a right that we fought long and hard for and some people just take it for granted!
That is some very interesting info. It is eye popping to see how much economic care for families can aid in taking off the pressure to get an abortion because they have no other option. Still, I would be interested in seeing how abortion statistics now compare with rates before Roe vs. Wade. I don’t feel one can get an accurate picture until one has seen those stats. Also, I think the banner of the website you linked to is misleading. It says “Pro Life Obama” I believe that Obama has said he believes that the choice should be left with the mother of the child, which is a pro-choice position. Not a big deal, but still, I think it’s misleading.
Melody– I’m not in favor of universal healthcare (as far as I know right now)….at least I know I’m not in favor of the way Clinton was going to do it, I need to look more into the way Obama wants to do it. I’m not pro-Obama, I don’t even know who I’m voting for yet. (and I probably won’t even share on here who I vote for whenever I do make that decision) I am interested in looking at things from all perspectives, though. No matter where my final views/decision ends-up, I feel like it’s important to listen to all sides of the issues without the same militant preconceived ideas I’ve always had before.
Harvey– Good point about the stats, but I wonder how accurate that would be since wasn’t Roe v. Wade established, like, in the 60’s or something? Would stats from before even be comparable to now given the differences in the economy and and culture? But I dunno. Oh, and the website is one from a group that is pro-life but voting for Obama, I don’t *think* it’s an official campaign website.
Just my thoughts after talking to a good friend about this the other day…I understand supporting the single mom with healthcare options, daycare, anything to make it easier and better for her and the child (though the church should be doing this, not the government). But I am not ok with killing an innocent baby. The question is whether or not the baby is a baby. And I believe the answer is yes. You cannot compare this to McCain being pro-war. Yes, innocent people get killed during wartime, they are labeled casualties. But the specific innocent people were not targeted like the babies are. An innocent unknowing unborn (and in some cases born) babies are specifically targeted to be murdered, and we are ok with allowing this to happen as long as we provide ways for them to be “minimized”. Make it illegal AND do the reform that Barack mentions. Argh.
Interesting… but keep in mind that this is an Obama-sponsored website.
Also keep in mind that Barack referred to babies as a punishment.
Barack and his wife consider partial birth abortion a “legitimate medical procedure” and that banning it was a “tragedy”.
Also… when asked to vote on issues surrounding abortion, Obama has most often voted “present“.
In this case, McCain may stand left-of-center on a few issues… but he is without a doubt the lesser of two evils. Also note that his VP candidate is no stranger to the dangling carrot of abortion, having a Down syndrome child of her own and a pregnant teenage daughter.
In some of my economics courses we discussed the economic implications of laws that affect sociocultural decisions – such as abortion laws, gambling laws, the legalization of drugs, etc. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt asserts that the large decrease in crime in the 90’s was due to the legalization of abortion because it is more common for lower-income (and, therefore, more crime-prone) babies to be aborted, which the article you sighted alludes to as well (Note: Levitt’s findings have been disputed by several people). The MAJOR problem I have with such assertions is the underlying message that America is better off if we help poor, young women end their “unintended” pregnancies. My vote is certainly not based on this one issue, but on the issue of abortion I would always vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade (just as I would never vote to legalize drugs) because abortion is the taking of an innocent life that government should be protecting. And if economic assistance to low-income families is a big part of the solution (and yes, Joey, the church SHOULD be doing this), then why does abortion need to be legal to do this? If Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will still have “unintended” pregnancies that they want to abort and will still need economic assistance.
I don’t think that the authors of this website are saying that they want to keep abortion legal (correct me if I’m wrong, I really didn’t spend much time on it). The message I’m getting is that there’s not much likelihood of Roe v. Wade getting overturned, and even if there is, abortions will still happen rampantly. Not that that isn’t still a good goal to have, but in the meantime wouldn’t it make more sense to put your vote where it will actively reduce the number of abortions in a greater proportion than gambling on another pro-life president whose only shot at reducing the abortions is an unlikely overturning Roe v. Wade? From what I understand (which admittedly isn’t much), McCain doesn’t have near the same plans to help the the poor in the same ways that Obama does, so it’s not a matter of choosing to do all those steps PLUS overturning Roe v. Wade, we have to pick one of them. And I do agree that it’s the church’s place to help the poor, but we’re certainly not doing a very good job at that, and I don’t think it’s wrong for the government to step-in and help.
You’re right – the website wasn’t so much condoning abortion as saying overturning Roe v. Wade won’t help anything – which I would still have to say that overturning Roe v. Wade is important bc of the message it sends. As far as which candidate has the best economic strategy to help the poor in our country – that’s a great debate! At the risk of majorly oversimplifying things: Democrats usually side with spending lots of tax money to aid the poor and Republicans usually side more with decreasing taxes to prevent dead weight loss to stimulate the economy to create more jobs & lower unemployement to help the poor… and you’re very right the church is not doing a good job of helping!
I agree that overturning Roe v. Wade would not change anything. Just like legalizing prostitution- it would still happen. My thing is– I am against abortion, I would never have an abortion, I think it is murder, and yet, my hard-earned money funds it! That SUCKS! Did you know that in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood received a total of $336.7 million from government grants and contracts!?!?!?! That’s taxpayer dollars!!! I think a candidate who recognized that life begins at conception (McCain) would be more likely to see things my way, unlike Obama who thinks that the answer to when life begins is “above his pay grade”.
Also, keep in mind that the liberals have done a GREAT job of “helping out the poor” by giving people who were underqualified for home loans these ridiculous loans, thus causing this economic crisis!!! As anyone seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY. Very interesting.
Ashleigh, I see what you’re saying, but we’ve had a pro-life president for 8 years and it’s under his presidency that those funds are going to Planned Parenthood. While I don’t like that anymore than you do, what makes us think that McCain would be any different than Bush? (who “at least” is a Christian and has theological reasons for disagreeing with abortion, maybe I’m wrong, but I thought McCain wasn’t a Christian, so I would imagine it wouldn’t even be quite as big a deal as it is to Bush. But that’s an assumption on my part.) It seems like no matter what the President thinks about abortion, he just doesn’t hold that much power to do much about it.
Being a christian has nothing to do with it- just an sure there are plenty of nonchristians who think maybe life does begin at conception. I’m totally aware that bush was president then, but you kinda have to take the current economic situation into perspective. I mean, we are headed for a depression, so wouldn’t you hope that the budget is going to have to be cut somewhere? Or do you really think we are going to be able to afford healthcare for everyone and the $700b bailout? Of course neither candidate has said that they would necessarily cut funding to abortion clinics. But I would rather my President be able to at least acknowledge when he believed life begins, not essentially answer “present” to the question when asked. So that, in times of economic crisis, he maybe less likely to approve millions of dollars in govt spending go to the likes of planned parenthood.
just wanted to add that giving poor people money doesn’t help them. it just allows them to not help themselves.
and living in the ms delta, i see it all day every day.
Having President Bush in office has taken a step in the direction of overturning Roe v. Wade because of his Supreme Court appointments. Politicians like Bush and McCain have and would appoint strict constructionist judges. All of the Supreme Court judges will either die and retire at some time. If we can fill the court with strict constructionist judges, then it’s more likely for us to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Obama, on the other hand, would appoint judges who view the Constitution as a dynamic document and would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. That’s why whether the President is pro-life or pro-choice affects how much longer abortion will be legal. Nonetheless, Congress (or maybe just the Senate, I’m not taking the time to look it up) must approve the appointment of judges. Most Democrat congressmen object to the appointment of pro-life, strict constructionist judges. It’s therefore important to have Congressmen who will approve the appointment of these judges who can limit the reach of Roe v. Wade and hopefully overturn it someday. We just need a pro-life candidate in office long enough to appoint enough pro-life, strict constructionist judges to the bench.
Ashleigh – I’m glad to see we agree with one another, though I would caution about about one stance you referenced. Pro-choicer advocates will state “even if you outlaw it, people will still do it… so let’s keep it legal so that it will be more safe”. This is one of the weakest arguments around, but pro-lifers’s continue to get away with it.
Theft is outlawed yet people still continue to rob banks. Should we then make bank robberies legal in order the make it ‘more safe’ for those who are stealing?
People will “still do” everything that is outlawed… legalizing anything because of that fact simply leads us down the path of Sodom and Gomorrah.
And to the point (as Landon references) that “people will still do it if it’s outlawed”….
So we quit trying to work for our goal?
I hate that we all think that no one is capable nor willing to reach for a high standard (and expecting that standard from people) Come on–as Believers, don’t we all have a high standard we attempt every day and daily fail? Do we give up from trying ourselves or “expecting” (I use that word lightly) it from other believers?
The website that you linked to above states this fact:
“If states with more than 45% “pro-life” sentiment chose to outlaw abortion, this would only impact 16 states accounting for 10% of abortions nationwide, or less than 100,000 abortions a year.”
Saving 100,000 unborn babies is reason enough to vote for McCain.
Wow, what a loaded topic! First I am against abortion and have always voted pro-life. One thing I have realized though is that politicians may say they are pro life (and truly may be), but they don’t stand up for it on Capitol Hill! I think the goal of overturning Roe vs Wade is a good thing, but I think you have to look at what’s realistic. Has it even been close to being overturned in the last 8 years of a “Christian” presidency? Not really. Again, not saying we should not try to eliminate abortions. But, it all comes down to a couple of political truths.
Politicians, from governors, congressmen, cabinet members, president, etc. are only concerned about one thing. Themselves!! They worry about covering their own butts and keeping the people who put money in the pockets happy; aka lobbyists. Want proof, just look at how awesomely productive our congress has been the past couple of years…even before that. It’s all a big game for them. I know this may seem like it’s off topic, but by voting solely for pro life reasons and thinking that abortions will cease…I think is naive.
I am still undecided about who I will vote for, but whoever it is I know one thing is for sure….my life will most likely be no different 4 years from now. Just something i was thinking about.
Let's be honest here... 
I still don’t think I can vote for someone who has his morals. Even if overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t make a difference in abortion outcomes it is still not something in my own mind that I could do. Not only does he support abortion Emily, but do you realize the outcomes of universal healthcare? I am not even going to get into politics on here because I think it is nobody’s business who we vote for. It is a right that we fought long and hard for and some people just take it for granted!
LikeLike
Emily,
That is some very interesting info. It is eye popping to see how much economic care for families can aid in taking off the pressure to get an abortion because they have no other option. Still, I would be interested in seeing how abortion statistics now compare with rates before Roe vs. Wade. I don’t feel one can get an accurate picture until one has seen those stats. Also, I think the banner of the website you linked to is misleading. It says “Pro Life Obama” I believe that Obama has said he believes that the choice should be left with the mother of the child, which is a pro-choice position. Not a big deal, but still, I think it’s misleading.
LikeLike
Melody– I’m not in favor of universal healthcare (as far as I know right now)….at least I know I’m not in favor of the way Clinton was going to do it, I need to look more into the way Obama wants to do it. I’m not pro-Obama, I don’t even know who I’m voting for yet. (and I probably won’t even share on here who I vote for whenever I do make that decision) I am interested in looking at things from all perspectives, though. No matter where my final views/decision ends-up, I feel like it’s important to listen to all sides of the issues without the same militant preconceived ideas I’ve always had before.
Harvey– Good point about the stats, but I wonder how accurate that would be since wasn’t Roe v. Wade established, like, in the 60’s or something? Would stats from before even be comparable to now given the differences in the economy and and culture? But I dunno. Oh, and the website is one from a group that is pro-life but voting for Obama, I don’t *think* it’s an official campaign website.
LikeLike
Just my thoughts after talking to a good friend about this the other day…I understand supporting the single mom with healthcare options, daycare, anything to make it easier and better for her and the child (though the church should be doing this, not the government). But I am not ok with killing an innocent baby. The question is whether or not the baby is a baby. And I believe the answer is yes. You cannot compare this to McCain being pro-war. Yes, innocent people get killed during wartime, they are labeled casualties. But the specific innocent people were not targeted like the babies are. An innocent unknowing unborn (and in some cases born) babies are specifically targeted to be murdered, and we are ok with allowing this to happen as long as we provide ways for them to be “minimized”. Make it illegal AND do the reform that Barack mentions. Argh.
LikeLike
Interesting… but keep in mind that this is an Obama-sponsored website.
Also keep in mind that Barack referred to babies as a punishment.
Barack and his wife consider partial birth abortion a “legitimate medical procedure” and that banning it was a “tragedy”.
Also… when asked to vote on issues surrounding abortion, Obama has most often voted “present“.
In this case, McCain may stand left-of-center on a few issues… but he is without a doubt the lesser of two evils. Also note that his VP candidate is no stranger to the dangling carrot of abortion, having a Down syndrome child of her own and a pregnant teenage daughter.
LikeLike
(Oops… my last link was messed up: Obama’s ‘present‘ votes.)
LikeLike
In some of my economics courses we discussed the economic implications of laws that affect sociocultural decisions – such as abortion laws, gambling laws, the legalization of drugs, etc. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt asserts that the large decrease in crime in the 90’s was due to the legalization of abortion because it is more common for lower-income (and, therefore, more crime-prone) babies to be aborted, which the article you sighted alludes to as well (Note: Levitt’s findings have been disputed by several people). The MAJOR problem I have with such assertions is the underlying message that America is better off if we help poor, young women end their “unintended” pregnancies. My vote is certainly not based on this one issue, but on the issue of abortion I would always vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade (just as I would never vote to legalize drugs) because abortion is the taking of an innocent life that government should be protecting. And if economic assistance to low-income families is a big part of the solution (and yes, Joey, the church SHOULD be doing this), then why does abortion need to be legal to do this? If Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will still have “unintended” pregnancies that they want to abort and will still need economic assistance.
LikeLike
I don’t think that the authors of this website are saying that they want to keep abortion legal (correct me if I’m wrong, I really didn’t spend much time on it). The message I’m getting is that there’s not much likelihood of Roe v. Wade getting overturned, and even if there is, abortions will still happen rampantly. Not that that isn’t still a good goal to have, but in the meantime wouldn’t it make more sense to put your vote where it will actively reduce the number of abortions in a greater proportion than gambling on another pro-life president whose only shot at reducing the abortions is an unlikely overturning Roe v. Wade? From what I understand (which admittedly isn’t much), McCain doesn’t have near the same plans to help the the poor in the same ways that Obama does, so it’s not a matter of choosing to do all those steps PLUS overturning Roe v. Wade, we have to pick one of them. And I do agree that it’s the church’s place to help the poor, but we’re certainly not doing a very good job at that, and I don’t think it’s wrong for the government to step-in and help.
LikeLike
You’re right – the website wasn’t so much condoning abortion as saying overturning Roe v. Wade won’t help anything – which I would still have to say that overturning Roe v. Wade is important bc of the message it sends. As far as which candidate has the best economic strategy to help the poor in our country – that’s a great debate! At the risk of majorly oversimplifying things: Democrats usually side with spending lots of tax money to aid the poor and Republicans usually side more with decreasing taxes to prevent dead weight loss to stimulate the economy to create more jobs & lower unemployement to help the poor… and you’re very right the church is not doing a good job of helping!
LikeLike
I agree that overturning Roe v. Wade would not change anything. Just like legalizing prostitution- it would still happen. My thing is– I am against abortion, I would never have an abortion, I think it is murder, and yet, my hard-earned money funds it! That SUCKS! Did you know that in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood received a total of $336.7 million from government grants and contracts!?!?!?! That’s taxpayer dollars!!! I think a candidate who recognized that life begins at conception (McCain) would be more likely to see things my way, unlike Obama who thinks that the answer to when life begins is “above his pay grade”.
Also, keep in mind that the liberals have done a GREAT job of “helping out the poor” by giving people who were underqualified for home loans these ridiculous loans, thus causing this economic crisis!!! As anyone seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY. Very interesting.
LikeLike
Ashleigh, I see what you’re saying, but we’ve had a pro-life president for 8 years and it’s under his presidency that those funds are going to Planned Parenthood. While I don’t like that anymore than you do, what makes us think that McCain would be any different than Bush? (who “at least” is a Christian and has theological reasons for disagreeing with abortion, maybe I’m wrong, but I thought McCain wasn’t a Christian, so I would imagine it wouldn’t even be quite as big a deal as it is to Bush. But that’s an assumption on my part.) It seems like no matter what the President thinks about abortion, he just doesn’t hold that much power to do much about it.
LikeLike
Being a christian has nothing to do with it- just an sure there are plenty of nonchristians who think maybe life does begin at conception. I’m totally aware that bush was president then, but you kinda have to take the current economic situation into perspective. I mean, we are headed for a depression, so wouldn’t you hope that the budget is going to have to be cut somewhere? Or do you really think we are going to be able to afford healthcare for everyone and the $700b bailout? Of course neither candidate has said that they would necessarily cut funding to abortion clinics. But I would rather my President be able to at least acknowledge when he believed life begins, not essentially answer “present” to the question when asked. So that, in times of economic crisis, he maybe less likely to approve millions of dollars in govt spending go to the likes of planned parenthood.
LikeLike
I have nothing to contribute….I do enjoy reading though. Just wanted to say that McCain is a Christian..Baptist to be more specific.
LikeLike
just wanted to add that giving poor people money doesn’t help them. it just allows them to not help themselves.
and living in the ms delta, i see it all day every day.
LikeLike
Having President Bush in office has taken a step in the direction of overturning Roe v. Wade because of his Supreme Court appointments. Politicians like Bush and McCain have and would appoint strict constructionist judges. All of the Supreme Court judges will either die and retire at some time. If we can fill the court with strict constructionist judges, then it’s more likely for us to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Obama, on the other hand, would appoint judges who view the Constitution as a dynamic document and would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. That’s why whether the President is pro-life or pro-choice affects how much longer abortion will be legal. Nonetheless, Congress (or maybe just the Senate, I’m not taking the time to look it up) must approve the appointment of judges. Most Democrat congressmen object to the appointment of pro-life, strict constructionist judges. It’s therefore important to have Congressmen who will approve the appointment of these judges who can limit the reach of Roe v. Wade and hopefully overturn it someday. We just need a pro-life candidate in office long enough to appoint enough pro-life, strict constructionist judges to the bench.
LikeLike
Ashleigh – I’m glad to see we agree with one another, though I would caution about about one stance you referenced. Pro-choicer advocates will state “even if you outlaw it, people will still do it… so let’s keep it legal so that it will be more safe”. This is one of the weakest arguments around, but pro-lifers’s continue to get away with it.
Theft is outlawed yet people still continue to rob banks. Should we then make bank robberies legal in order the make it ‘more safe’ for those who are stealing?
People will “still do” everything that is outlawed… legalizing anything because of that fact simply leads us down the path of Sodom and Gomorrah.
LikeLike
Explanation of Freedom of Choice Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
(see sec 4 for details)
Obama’s View: http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php
(He states it in one of the first few paragraphs)
What does this really mean? Basically doing away with all state limitations on abortions (later term, waiting periods, parental notification.)
Hmmm–don’t know if I can agree with that and it is supposedly the “first thing I’d do as president…” is sign that.
LikeLike
And to the point (as Landon references) that “people will still do it if it’s outlawed”….
So we quit trying to work for our goal?
I hate that we all think that no one is capable nor willing to reach for a high standard (and expecting that standard from people) Come on–as Believers, don’t we all have a high standard we attempt every day and daily fail? Do we give up from trying ourselves or “expecting” (I use that word lightly) it from other believers?
Hope that made sense…:)
LikeLike
The website that you linked to above states this fact:
“If states with more than 45% “pro-life” sentiment chose to outlaw abortion, this would only impact 16 states accounting for 10% of abortions nationwide, or less than 100,000 abortions a year.”
Saving 100,000 unborn babies is reason enough to vote for McCain.
That’s all.
LikeLike
Wow, what a loaded topic! First I am against abortion and have always voted pro-life. One thing I have realized though is that politicians may say they are pro life (and truly may be), but they don’t stand up for it on Capitol Hill! I think the goal of overturning Roe vs Wade is a good thing, but I think you have to look at what’s realistic. Has it even been close to being overturned in the last 8 years of a “Christian” presidency? Not really. Again, not saying we should not try to eliminate abortions. But, it all comes down to a couple of political truths.
Politicians, from governors, congressmen, cabinet members, president, etc. are only concerned about one thing. Themselves!! They worry about covering their own butts and keeping the people who put money in the pockets happy; aka lobbyists. Want proof, just look at how awesomely productive our congress has been the past couple of years…even before that. It’s all a big game for them. I know this may seem like it’s off topic, but by voting solely for pro life reasons and thinking that abortions will cease…I think is naive.
I am still undecided about who I will vote for, but whoever it is I know one thing is for sure….my life will most likely be no different 4 years from now. Just something i was thinking about.
LikeLike