They are talking about abortion at this debate tonight.

Well, it's about time! :-)

I missed the debate (voluntarily. So weary . . .) - what did they say?

The debate on domestic policy is tonight, so maybe it will get raised.

It's not that I don't care about abortion, because I do, and though I really don't think we'll see any change in the next 4 years or the next 40 years in this country's policy towards it, I don't think I'm copping out when I say that that issue will not sway my vote. I'm not built to be a single-issue voter, and I never will be one.

Honestly, if we look at the Court right now, assuming that three justices retire/die in the next eight years, and assuming that they are Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg, as almost everyone predicts they will be, the choice is between maintaining balance or swinging the court into a 8-1 conservative court. Based on the way they've voted, I don't like the thought of that one bit. A Court without balance is just as bad as a Congress and an Executive without it.

The Abortion battle will be won by technology, and not by reversing Roe v. Wade. It isn't that I don't care, but that other issues have to inform the way I vote. This year, I happen to be voting with a pro-life candidate, but I'd vote for a pro-choice candidate if we agreed on everything else without blinking.

I understand, and I think you're representative of a lot of voters.

I disagree with you that we won't see a change in the country's policy toward it in the next four years if Obama's elected - repealing the Hyde amendment seems very possible, and then - bam! - my tax dollars will be funding abortions. But time will tell. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I also think (and this is just a theory of mine) that a person's stance against abortion really solidifies into a more passionate stance once they've had children. You see those little ones on the sonogram and it seems impossible that it's OK to kill them if they are inconvenient. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - I'm generalizing (as is my wont) - but I believe having kids makes the whole debate a lot more personal and real.

I also think (and this is just a theory of mine) that a person's stance against abortion really solidifies into a more passionate stance once they've had children. You see those little ones on the sonogram and it seems impossible that it's OK to kill them if they are inconvenient. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - I'm generalizing (as is my wont) - but I believe having kids makes the whole debate a lot more personal and real.

I think you're probably right. There was a friend of mine (who you know) who said that her mom got pregnant with her accidentally and considered aborting her, but chose to go through with it. It's amazing to see the product of one of those "mistakes" grown into a young woman. And in that context, Obama's stance is completely repugnant to me.

You know, I was wavering on voting third party. McCain hadn't necessarily locked up my vote, though I didn't look disfavorably upon him.
Now, I don't know. Part of me hates the idea of "voting against someone". But part of me hates more knowing that my vote could end up being a decider; living in Missouri, I figure it could be pretty important...
And if there's anything I could get single-issue about, it's this...

Here's an excerpt of that portion of the transcript:

Schieffer: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Sen. McCain?

McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

Schieffer: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

McCain: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Sen. Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

Schieffer: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Schieffer: All right.

Obama: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.

So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

Thanks

Obama is a master at appearing to be thoughtfully and moderately pro-choice.

That being said, McCain doesn't strike me as being someone who would advance the pro-life cause much. He just wouldn't (at least attempt to) decimate the pro-life cause.

Yeah, Andrew, I really want to agree with you on the whole "single issue" thing. I did, until a few months ago. I really see where you're coming from, and I imagine we feel somewhat the same about our choices in the upcoming election: totally screwed over. This will only be the second presidential election I'm legal to vote in, and I really wish I was still too young, and could sit this one out.

I've wrestled with it for a long time, but gradually came to the conclusion that, though there are many other issues vying for my attention,there are no other issues this fundamental.

For example, I really dislike the war; dislike the way we've spent American blood over there, etc. I see that as a pro-life issue. Still, I can't help but think we're on shaky ground when we're arguing for being careful with the lives of our troops when we're not careful with the lives of our infants. We should be careful with both, obviously, but from a worldview which considers infants dispensable, how does a candidate argue that troops, or anyone for that matter, are indispensable?

Brant Hansen made the point well a while ago, and with him, I'll be holding my nose, asking forgiveness, and voting for the sort of prolife-ish guy.

The also addressed things like partial birth abortion. I thought this was interesting:

Obama: "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

And, I really thought McCain should have addresed this statement made by Obama:

Obama: ...nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

How does saying abortion is "always a tragic situation" square with the statement he made about not wanting his children to be punished with a baby if they make a mistake?

Sorry for the typos and messed up block quote. I'm sleepy!

The Abortion battle will be won by technology, and not by reversing Roe v. Wade.

Andrew, you may wan't to read your C.S. Lewis (Abolition of Man to start with). Technology will not solve the abortion debate; it can and will only make it much worse. Think about it a little. It is so much easier to trade life for convenience especially when technology makes the decision ever more effortless and the consequences ever more marginal. What we used to call 'shame' and 'guilt' is now a conveniently treatable post-abortion depression that is solved with a little pill. Abortion is no longer an inpatient procedure, but a convenient outpatient act that one may accomplish in the time it takes to go through a McDonald's drive-through.

I'm just saying, I don't mean to be negative.

To answer Bill, Obama wasn't all too forthcomming about his position on abortion as well as a number of other issues (ie he lied). I think McCain was valiant and honestly raised the question and Obama lied through his teeth.

Somebody should tell Obama that a "safe, legal and rare abortion" is a complete non-sequeter. He can't hope to reduce abortions by removing any and all restrictions on abortions (and yet he would like to regulate to the finest detail what businesses do with their employees benefits). I once thought I might be able to support Obama, but that was before I looked past his words and into the substance of his policies.

Andrew, you may wan't to read your C.S. Lewis (Abolition of Man to start with). Technology will not solve the abortion debate; it can and will only make it much worse. Think about it a little. It is so much easier to trade life for convenience especially when technology makes the decision ever more effortless and the consequences ever more marginal. What we used to call 'shame' and 'guilt' is now a conveniently treatable post-abortion depression that is solved with a little pill. Abortion is no longer an inpatient procedure, but a convenient outpatient act that one may accomplish in the time it takes to go through a McDonald's drive-through.

Well, I've read The Abolition of Man and I understand what you're saying, but I'm referring to the rapidly advancing technology that can carry babies to term artificially. I think their down to midway through the second trimester (and feel free to correct me, I can't remember the exact age). As the age of viability continues to drop, we may see a day where artificial pregnancy replaces abortion. I'm not naive enough to think this will happen without a fight. Pro-choicers will argue that it only increases the number of orphans, inundating our orphanages, and that it will cost too much, etc., but I really do see great promise in the rise of new technology.

And I realize I may be far too optimistic about this, as I may be far too pessimistic about politicians doing away with abortion, but I think the evidence suggests that abortion is on a collision course with technology, and there may be a day when abortion is truly rare. And I'm willing to bet it isn't a product of the legal system.

Lack of progress? The progress that has been made is huge.

You may be right, AM - but let me know what you see as progress, because I need to be encouraged!

The one thing that I've definitely seen this election season: Bring pro-choice no longer seems to be something that the candidates want to talk a whole lot about. Obama doesn't hide the fact that he's pro-choice, but I've never heard him bring it up unless asked, and he does his best to soften his rather extreme (very extreme) pro-abortion stance. So that points to a country that's less tolerant of abortion than it used to be, I believe.

Andrew, I guess I misread your statement. It's true that we are saving infants at younger and younger ages, but unfortunately it also seems that increasing power over 'nature' results in increased exploitation of people by other people; especially the exploitation of the weakest among us like unborn children.

I would like to think that people who are faced with these increasingly complicated moral decisions will continue to struggle against the current of convenience and self-interest, but realistically I don't think that's the case. Perhaps it would take a great moral crisis like what happened in the 1930s & 40s, but left alone with the choice between power and good, I think most people are choosing power.

I really liked McCain's statement that "we have to change the hearts of Americans" -- This is so very true. I've had girls watch their baby kick and move on the ultrasound, suck their thumb, etc. and still abort....even at 26 weeks. The truth of the matter is they don't care one bit (at least right now in their current life situation) that what they see is a baby. That baby is getting in the way of what they want and they will not be deterred. I recently met with a woman who had 3 abortions...her most recent was a couple of months ago and she came in pregnant again. The only reason she decided to "keep this baby" was because she thought 4 abortions in such a short amount of time might be hard on her body. You can't even imagine the callousness of some of these women. Most of the clients I've counseled have only made a decision to carry their pregnancy because they couldn't afford the abortion. You get Obama in office and he starts funding abortion with Medicaid and we are going to see a dramatic increase in abortions courtesy of the taxpayers.
Personally I wanted McCain to respond to Obama's comment that this is a "moral situation" meaning he would not impose his morality on another. He talked about Columbia and Darfur and mentioned again these were "moral" situations yet he had no problem imposing his moral view to help out in these cases. I think McCain should have said rape, child abuse, and stealing are all "moral" issues as well and THANK GOD we "impose our moral view" when the well-being of another human being is at stake.
One more comment..Obama flat out lied in his answer about the Born Alive Act. If a law was currently on the books (as he stated) why did Jill Stanek (an OB nurse in Illinois) hold a Down's Syndrome baby who survived an abortion until he died, unable to administer any help? Had it not been for her the child would have been placed in a closet of soiled linens to die alone. If there is a law on the books why weren't these people prosecuted? I'll tell you why...there isn't any protection in Illinois for children who survive an abortion.

If there is a law on the books why weren't these people prosecuted? I'll tell you why...there isn't any protection in Illinois for children who survive an abortion.

Well there is a law on the books, as there has been since 1975. It states:

Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

And:

Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.

I'd take anything Jill Stanek says with a grain of salt. This is the lady who compared Michael J. Fox to Hitler (and defended that stance openly).

Mandi said:

You can't even imagine the callousness of some of these women. Most of the clients I've counseled have only made a decision to carry their pregnancy because they couldn't afford the abortion.

Mandi captured a hinge in the discussion.

Except that once in a while God gives me a glimpse of my own sin, my own utter dependence on grace, I wouldn't be able to imagine. (One ought also observe that the men involved are every bit as callous, even if their connection is not as direct.)

Just ponder for a few moments how the question of infanticide isn't a decider for anyone. Ponder the situation in which anyone could even think of running for office and even need to articulate a pro life position. Now shiver at the situation in which one candidate nuanced his pro life stance while the other openly lied about his intention to advance infanticide.

One issue voting? Get real. What other issue has anything like the magnitude of a defended position on infanticide? What other issue tells so much about what at least one of the candidates intends across the spectrum of presidential responsibilites? Talk about litmus test handed you for free. Want to know about what a candidate plans regarding gov't invasion of privacy? Check out FOCA, and learn who intends to tell me I must pay for another's choices.


Or, if you have limited google skills and can't look up FOCA, read Mandi some more:

You get Obama in office and he starts funding abortion with Medicaid and we are going to see a dramatic increase in abortions courtesy of the taxpayers

.

BTW, Andrew, since those laws are on the books, what you must answer is how come they were not enforced? Apart from that answer I will take your reasoning with that grain of salt you mentioned. More accurately, I will realize you connect only some of the dots.

The problem is not that abortion occurs. It has and will. The problem is that abortion has the support of law rather than law enforcing sanctions against it.

I'm completely confused. You've heard of the fog of war. The fog of politics is even worse.

If there was already a law on the books (as others have asked), why is it not enforced? Why was a new law proposed? Why did Obama stand against it? Did he/does he want to repeal the born-alive portions of the older law as well?

Does anyone knowledgeable from Illinois read this blog, and can they explain this whole thing?

BTW, I'm not defending abortion, or Obama. Just so it's clear, I don't hate babies.

BTW, Andrew, since those laws are on the books, what you must answer is how come they were not enforced? Apart from that answer I will take your reasoning with that grain of salt you mentioned. More accurately, I will realize you connect only some of the dots.

I didn't reason anything, I just pointed to a fact.

Andrew, you say that their was a law passed in 1975 that protects children of botched abortions. In 1984 that law was found unconstitutional.

Good call, Tami. I didn't know that, and that clears up a lot. The news media has really done a horrible job covering this. Even FactCheck.org neglected that little tidbit.

Andrew I don't think you should be so quick to discount Jill Stanek. I can't imagine what it must have been like for her to hold a child, gasping for air, incapable of helping him. She was there as he took his last troubled breath. I would think that something like that would change a person and give them a sense of fervor. If you had seen the horrific tragedy of such a thing don't you think you might also be denouncing this atrocity in the somewhat in-your-face approach Jill has taken? Jill Stanek, from what I have found in my own research, has the most comprehensive account of Obama's stance and voting record on these issues.

I'm always having some sort of debate on this issue, and I've come from the other side, having been a deeply entrenched liberal from the 70's and 80's. I was way pro-choice in those days.

Now I usually start with the question, "When is it appropriate for one human being to take the life of another?" Liberals who say, "Never," are either thoughtless (their usual state) or lying (their other usual state). I base it on behavior, and I believe Scripture gives the authority to government (an admitted matter of interpretation). If one person wantonly and obviously deprives another of their right to live, "that one" abrogates his own right by choice.

Liberals don't base it on behavior. For them, the appropriateness of taking the life of a human being seems to be entirely founded on physical size alone. If the human is small enough, no harm done. Even if she survives after her intended demise, her size is still diminutive enough to fall outside the physician's oath to "do no harm."

Personally I fail to see the compassion in this stand that liberals so violently embrace when they're protesting an execution. And it is my own myopic infirmity in this matter that finally motivated me to change camps.

Andrew I don't think you should be so quick to discount Jill Stanek. I can't imagine what it must have been like for her to hold a child, gasping for air, incapable of helping him. She was there as he took his last troubled breath. I would think that something like that would change a person and give them a sense of fervor.

You're right. I admit my opinion of her is pretty badly colored, because she tends to write very inflammatory things without much grace (and not just on abortion), and without much evidence at that.

But you're right, and I have no reason to doubt her story. And it turns out you were also right on the Illinois law, and I owe you an apology for that, though I think anyone who has tried to research the issue would agree that the solid information out there is lacking. Thanks for the discussion!

When I was young (and a little more stupid, I admit) I didn't have much opinion on this issue. Then one day when I was about 19 I missed an appointment at a clinic I went to. They rescheduled me for a Saturday. When I got there they gave me my wonderful paper gown and I waited in the waiting room. I noticed the other girls around me were in cloth gowns and it didn't take me long to realize every single one of them was there for an abortion. There were women and young girls of every race and socio-economic group.
Only ONE of them had never had an abortion before. The rest of them (around 8 or 9 others) had had multiple abortions.
They spent 20 minutes or so trying to calm the nerves of the young girl that had never had one. They told her how easy it was, how it was no big deal and then one of them began making FUN of the SOUND the machine made when it finally got the baby.
I was furious. I left that place with tears running down my face and a VERY FIRM pro-life stance. No one can tell me that no one really wants abortion or that it's a hard decision for all those women. Sit in a clinic on abortion day and then tell me what you think.
And I'm sure not voting for someone that tells me MY TAX dollars are going to pay for someone else to do it.