Now?

Obama: mental stress doesn't justify late term abortion

quote:

---

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying the child to term."

---

Compared to last year, also from Obama:

quote:

---

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

---

quote:

---

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

---

Obama On Abortion

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Overall he had been 100 percent pro-choice, stating that women should be allowed abortions when under mental stress.

---

That's not 100% pro-choice. 100% pro-choice means stating that women should be allowed abortions whenever they want them. Period. Not because they're under "mental stress" or for "health reasons" or anything else.

Maybe it's just a case of low expectations, but I never expect presidential candidates to be 100% pro-choice. They all have to pander to some degree on this issue, as repulsive a political reality as that is in the US.

If he totally sells women out, however, and starts acquiescing to legal restrictions instead of just making the right noises to placate the "sort of pro-choice, sort of paternalistic" crowd, then he's no better than a Republican.

This year, he no longer defends that position. Of course, his mind was changed when he started pandering to the religious right.

I have zero faith in Obama. I think in due time he'll be swinging farther to the right on this issue. Because he can, and it will get him votes from people he should not, as a "progressive" ever be courting. Screw the religious right. They have the entire Republican Party, half of the Democrats, and almost all the airtime, yet Obama feels the need to give them more of what they already had.

Since when is courting the religious right a good progressive thing to do.

I dislike Obama. very much.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Do you dislike him 'very much' because you thought that he'd be more progressive due to his particular background?

---

quote:

---

Do you dislike him 'very much' because you thought that he'd be more progressive due to his particular background? To put it another way, if he'd been just another stock democrat who switched positions to suit conditions would you have disliked him as much as you currently dislike Obama?

---

The questions are redundant. The first one is essentially the same as your second one.

I dislike ANY Democrat (yea, any of them) who change positions on progressive matters in order to court these right wing religious nuts. I dislike Obama the most because he could very well be the next president of the US of A, and from what I've been reading, he'd throw anyone under the bust to get elected.

And no, I don't fall for the BS line "that's what they have to do to get elected".

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
Do you dislike him 'very much' because you thought that he'd be more progressive due to his particular background?

---

I know you didn't ask me the question, but I concur with Stargazer.

Take a made-up scenario. I can't imagine John McCain or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or various others responding to some hypothetical gossip by posting this on their campaign websites:

"I am not now and never have been a Jew."

Obama - for whatever reason - dares to respond to rumours by posting stuff like this on his official campaign website:

"Barack is not and has never been Muslim."

"Barack never attended a Muslim school."

"Barack's middle name is not Mohammed."

I may be naive, but I don't think any other candidate could have gotten away with despicable statements of this nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
I don't see what's despicable about setting the record straight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
Not wishing to prejudge your answer but I bet you'll pick Obama. Am I right?

---

Again, I certainly can't speak for Stargazer, but even though there is practically nothing of substance to choose between Obama and McCain, my choice at this point would be McCain, for one simple reason:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

That's pretty clear.

---

quote:

---

Would you rather have Obama or McCain as US President?

---

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

No, Obama is the change candidate. Change you can count on.

---

quote:

---

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying the child to term."

---

quote:

---

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

---

The two statements don't contradict one another. Obama is in favour of abortion in the first two trimesters, and opposed to it in the third, except when the physical health of the mother is imperiled. (Whether you agree with the stance or not is another issue)

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
I don't believe he's really changed his positions all that much, because there's no real need to change them. Polls show that over 55% want an end to the way things are going in the US. He's got it wrapped up. Why bother to dilute his message?

---

Obama and Rice in 2008

The Reason I like this ticket is if you look at her statements about public policy they read as vague and as "progressive" as her fellow Ivy League elitist.

quote:

---

I never in a million year thought I would say this, but I think Hillary would not have sold out women as quickly as Obama did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Really? Hillary stood by Bill through the worst of times and the worser of times. Obama tossed his Minister under the bus at the first sign the old boy had a mouth that wouldn't be gagged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
R When the moderators die

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by laine lowe:
I never in a million year thought I would say this, but I think Hillary would not have sold out women as quickly as Obama did.

That said, the US badly needs to break out of their two party system.

---

Hell, yes, we need a labor-based third party so bad, but the horizon down here looks empty with every U.S. labor leader on his or her knees worshipping behind the Church of Obama Magic Thinking; corporations are sitting in the pews, and media is covering the event out front, so the back of the church is where labor has to go.

Obama's statements quoted in the OP are really horrible, wow! With Clinton out of the picture this dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Party hack can turn his back on women's rights because he figures that intelligent women voters will have to vote for him anyway.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
You have no idea what Obama will do. What, are you part of his campaign? You're not a female, so his stance on abortion now (or when he moves even further to the right) clearly will not bother you. Besides, you seem to have a rather Stepford Wife like Obama mania going on.

---

quote:

---

Stargazer coined the phrase: Stepford Wife- like Obama mania

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because Obama has so much support. If American feminists - most of whom are Democrats - thought he was anti-abortion we'd be looking at Clinton as the Presidential candidate. But she's not. Now maybe you think you're smarter than American feminists and blessed with the ability to see what millions of others don't but I'll take their opinion of Obama over yours. Thank you very much.

---

I don't really see the issue with Barrack correcting to false rumours. You have to be quite naieve to not realize why it is necessary.

The right wing is intentionally trying to make him look like a fanatic, that will betray American to the Muslim people the first chance he gets.

What is the alternative? He doesn't address it and allows the right wing to convince many voters that he is Muslim?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So according to your logic the American majority is always right and people who disagree are not as smart.

---

What he should be doing is saying something like this:

"There have been rumours that my political opponents have been circulating about me that are untrue, namely that I'm a Muslim, and that my middle name is Mohammad. I am not a Muslim - I've been a Christian all my life and I belong to X church. My middle name is not Mohammad, it is X.

"What concerns me, however, is not that I might be mistaken for a Muslim, but that my opponents who have been spreading these rumours consider Muslims to be unfit to hold high public office. I am not a Muslim, but if I were, I would be just as qualified to be the President of the United States of America as I am now, as a Christian. Just as I would be if I were Jewish, or Buddhist, or any other religion."

But he didn't do that. He calls it a "smear" to be mistaken for Muslim. He demands that people recognize that he is a Christian without speaking up for a religious group that has been racialized and discriminated against when he has been mistaken for one of them.

So hopefully this explanation clears up for you why some babblers feel that Obama's reaction to this is not only inadequate, but even racist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
Now maybe you think you're smarter than American feminists and blessed with the ability to see what millions of others don't but I'll take their opinion of Obama over yours. Thank you very much.

...

Wrong. I said I'd take the view of American feminists on this issue, most of whom are Democrats and most of whom supported Obama.

---

RationalThought, please stop being condenscending and dismissive towards actual real live feminists who are speaking up in this forum. Otherwise I'm going to ask you stop posting in the feminism forum altogether.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStone:
Unionist,

I don't really see the issue with Barrack correcting to false rumours. You have to be quite naieve to not realize why it is necessary.

The right wing is intentionally trying to make him look like a fanatic, that will betray American to the Muslim people the first chance he gets.

What is the alternative? He doesn't address it and allows the right wing to convince many voters that he is Muslim?

Taking the high road, and only being concerned about the 10% of American voters who meet the moral criteria to be worthy of voting for him would be short-sighted and stupid.

---

quote:

---

U.S. voters will hang onto the lesser-of-two-evils mentality until they are actually out in the street, homeless and broke.

---

It is silly to call Obama "evil" unless you are some sort of far-right religious nut. I think your real objection is to the two-party system.

The idea that a two-party system necessarily leads to being homeless and broke is empirically false. I think that idea probably comes from a desperate yearning for a breakthrough by the left in the United States.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, no one but Obama or McCain has the slightest chance to become President. Since Obama promises to be substantially better, serious people on the left will vote and work for him. Others will resort to denial of reality.

---

Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb and can survive on its own - ie around 20 weeks now - it should be removed whenever the mother chooses, but kept alive. I really cannot see the justification for killing it if it can survive on its own. A woman still has a complete right to her body and to control her body and to not become a mother against her will, however it the fetus can survive on its own, it should.

That said, abortion after 20 weeks is very rare and is used to cloud the entire issue. I would support legislation similar to what they have in Britain surrounding when abortion becomes a C-section at the time of the woman's choice.

Obama - he could do anything if he got power. Given his ability to change his mind and abandon former colleagues, ministers etc. I would not be surprised if he stacked the SCOTUS with pro-lifers who overturned ROE v. Wade or if he stacked it with pro-choicers who overturned some of the nasty anti-choice laws currently being passed in many states. He is the furthest thing from trustworty and what he says on abortion today is about is relevant as a the colour of his socks in terms of determining where he will stand in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb and can survive on its own - ie around 20 weeks now - it should be removed whenever the mother chooses, but kept alive. I really cannot see the justification for killing it if it can survive on its own.

---

My point is that if you want to adopt "survival on one's own" as some sort of criterion, you will have to a) explain why that should be the criterion and b) define what you mean by survival on one's own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
20-week fetuses cannot "survive on their own" without massive medical intervention and artificial life support, any more than you can survive on your own after your heart stops beating or your brain waves flatline.

My point is that if you want to adopt "survival on one's own" as some sort of criterion, you will have to a) explain why that should be the criterion and b) define what you mean by survival on one's own.

You will also have to figure out how to determine the exact age of the fetus in order to decide whether to keep it on life support or not. "Around 20 weeks" is not nearly accurate enough for the kind of life-or-death decisions you want to make, and for which medical malpractice insurers will have to adjust their premiums accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
True - but why do we spend healthcare dollars keeping premature babies alive? My "around 20 weeks" statement is based on the capabilities of the current technology to save premature babies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
The capabilities occur after 25 weeks, no sooner, and even then there are serious issues for a 26-28 week fetus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Frankly, I do not believe that any abortions are tragic and dislike the use of that term completely. What I would call tragic would be when, or if, women are denied their choice.

---

Yep, that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by laine lowe:
Abortions being performed post 20 weeks are the most tragic because they are done under the most extreme circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb and can survive on its own - ie around 20 weeks now - it should be removed whenever the mother chooses, but kept alive. I really cannot see the justification for killing it if it can survive on its own. A woman still has a complete right to her body and to control her body and to not become a mother against her will, however it the fetus can survive on its own, it should.

---

I disagree with both these statements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Frankly, I do not believe that any abortions are tragic and dislike the use of that term completely. What I would call tragic would be when, or if, women are denied their choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
So even though you agree that fetuses are viable at around 24 weeks, you still believe they should be aborted rather than cared for in the same manner as preemies of the same age? (With no obligation on the mother of course)

---

What do you NOT get about 25 weeks? It is NOT "around 24 weeks", it is a full 25 weeks going into the 26th week.

Now, having said that, I personally do not even agree with trying to save a 26-28 week fetus that is born prematurely. So, my answer would be NO.

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

What do you NOT get about 25 weeks? It is NOT "around 24 weeks", it is a full 25 weeks going into the 26th week.

Now, having said that, I personally do not even agree with trying to save a 26-28 week fetus that is born prematurely. So, my answer would be NO.

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Now, having said that, I personally do not even agree with trying to save a 26-28 week fetus that is born prematurely.

---

Totally different issue from abortion. If a
baby is born prematurely it is a human being, not a fetus, so you can't just let the baby die. You need to make some effort to preserve the baby's life. Not trying to save a 26-28 week baby that was born prematurely would be manslaughter (at least). Clear?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
How the heck has this thread descended into a debate about abortion? Ghislaine, please remember which forum you're posting in. In case you haven't noticed, abortion is not up for debate on babble.

---

I am not debating a woman's right to choose - I was stating support for Obama's original position that once a fetus is viable outside the womb, it should be kept alive, rather than killed. That number would need to be determined by medical professionals. Remind claims it he time is around 25-26 weeks. This is similar to the legislation currently in place in most European countries.

This does not in the least affect a woman's right to choose - as she has no obligation to the child afterwards and the HUGE MAJORITY of abortions occur many weeks before that point. It would only be to ensure that if a woman did want an abortion at such a late date and the fetus is viable, that it would be kept alive. I merely want to say that I support Obama's original position (which will no doubt change 100 more times prior to the election and after).

How does any of the above in any way contradict a woman's right to choose or interfere with her ownership of her own body?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
You don't agree with trying to save preemies??? Why the hell not?

---

I was very specific about the week gradients, so please do stop trying to infer I am against trying to save ALL premature fetuses. I simply see no point in trying to save them earlier than a full 28 weeks. IMV, it is conducting medical research on a living organism and nothing more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Most do not live under 28 weeks, and those that do have significant medical problems and developmental problems that the treatment of, if it is even possible, is, in my view, inhumane.

---

Okay, I will stop the thread drift after this... but my response is SO???? Many babies born after 9 months have significiant medical problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Okay, I will stop the thread drift after this... but my response is SO???? Many babies born after 9 months have significiant medical problems.

---

quote:

---

I am glad you don't author healthcare policy, as I would hate to see you trying to tell a new parent why their preemie born at 26 weeks is not getting medical care!

---

It is high time people stopped viewing babies and children as their emotional giving objects that they desire, and own, and start actually caring about them as future adults.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
How the heck has this thread descended into a debate about abortion?

---

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: Threads ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Your observations of placing my personal views, into a professional setting, do not contain any valid point, and are merely an attempt to portray me as unfeeling and uncaring, when indeed I am being realistic.

It is high time people stopped viewing babies and children as their emotional giving objects that they desire, and own, and start actually caring about them as future adults.

Romanticizing babies is wrong. Just as wrong as viewing them as future vessels to look after you in old age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Ghislaine will not go further with you in this matter, it is quite obvious we disaagree. I view it without emotional bias, while you view it with emotional bias.

So, let's just leave it with me stating again I do not personally believe there should be medical intervention in trying to keep a pre-mature fetus alive prior to 28 weeks. A baby born with birth defects, at full term, is way more capable of enduring medical intervention, as they are fully done developing. Unlike the pre-maturely born fetus, who have little lung development, and a circulatory system that cannot withstand nor take the medical interventions required, plus little or no renal development. And I won't even go into the pain they endure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I will leave it at that then.

---

quote:

---

Just as an FYI - if you did give birth to a preemie baby in reality and tried to put into practice your personal views, the medical staff would not only ignore your views but alert child welfare authorities who would remove the child from your care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Again your personal emotional view commentary means little to the discussion, all you are attempting to do is to try and paint me as uncaring.

In actual fact, there can be a DNR on a fetus that is born pre-maturely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:

<captain name="obvious">
The third word in the thread's title?
</captain>

---

Hey Captain Obvious, guess what? Abortion's not up for debate on babble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bitsy:
This is what women will see if McCain is elected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What, cheesy "cartoons"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Welcome bitsey, thank you for the cartoon, and I agree the cartoon is NOT cheesy, and will say that mspector was out of line saying so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
...I agree the cartoon is NOT cheesy, and will say that mspector was out of line saying so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bitsy:
Thank you for your words and your welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

These are scarey times again for women with the full on press to take away our human rights, by men intent on not giving up their supremacy.

---

We have to keep opening minds or we will find ourselves reliving those days.

Patricia Goodwin, of Marblehead, shyly gives Steinem a book of her poems, softly saying, "You changed my life. You said a chance remark about abortion. It opened my mind to thinking in a different way."

Steinem brightens. "You know who said that? Years ago, I was in a taxi in Boston or Cambridge. There was an old Irish woman taxi driver. Flo Kennedy, the civil rights activist, was my speaking partner at the time. We were sitting in the back talking about abortion and the taxi driver turned around and she said, 'Honey, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.' And I've always been so sorry that I didn't get her name."

http://www.boston.com/ae/events/articles/2006/11/24/hanging_with_gloria_steinem/
[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Bitsy ]

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Bitsy ]

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bitsy:
We have to keep opening minds or we will find ourselves reliving those days.

---

Here in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that women cannot be compelled to give their lives into the service of another person, even if that "persons" life is in danger. And thus we have no abortion laws in Canada, although currently the neo-cons are trying to back door it into law.