Obama's campaign cites everything [about the "Born Alive" legislation] so you can check it out. This has been discussed a lot already and I think this link pretty much sums up the "pro-Obama" response. It is no secret that Obama is a pro-choice candidate that will protect Roe vs. Wade. He is not, however, pro-abortion or pro-infanticide.Well, first of all, I tried to respond to your recent posts, but it would've been at least 20 comments long. There's just too much to cover. Instead, I would like to direct you to articles that refute the points you have made. I beg you to read them.
Now, regarding Obama's justification for voting against “Born Alive” legislation in Illinois, I offer the following:
As for Obama being "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion," I think the distinction is ultimately pointless for one thing. I also think it gives Obama more credit then he deserves. The following articles explain why "pro-abortion" is an entirely justifiable label:
You said, "I see that you trust his words there. I don't. The reason I don't is b/c, when pro-choice politicians and organizations talk about 'women's health', 'family planning', and 'compassionate assistance' they really mean 'abortion.'" I don't see how you prescribe to know that. We will never know if every politician and organization that is pro-choice really does care about women's health, family planning, and compassionate assistance, but do you really believe they are all just trying to find ways to kill more babies and that they don't actually care about women at all?I think Planned Parenthood certainly fits that bill. They're after one thing: the almighty dollar. The fact that abortion even falls under "women’s health" is misleading at best. Abortion does nothing positive for the health of the mother. Nothing. If these people really cared about women’s health they wouldn’t be "pro-choice." Here’s what their beloved "choice" is doing to women:
About the number of deaths to malnutrition vs. abortion, both numbers are obviously estimates and there may be no statistically significant difference between the two, but I can concede the numbers are comparable. At any rate, here is an interesting journal article on the incidence of abortion worldwide that, I think, shows the concern that making abortion illegal does not seem to affect its practice much since abortion rates are roughly even between countries where abortion is legal and where it is illegal.For one, there are too many extenuating variables involved from country to country to make the blanket statement that “Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law than in areas where abortion is legally permitted." Secondly, Michael J. New has done extensive research which shows that pro-life laws do actually work. See "Pro-Life Politicians Have Made a Difference, Pro-Life Laws Work". Thirdly, I reject the very logic behind your argument.
Abortion should be illegal because it’s wrong. Period. As far as I know, you believe it’s wrong, too. Well then, why not fight to make it illegal? Why must we force ourselves into this false dichotomy of either making it illegal or providing help for women in crisis situations? Why can’t we do both? That’s what any “pro-lifer” would advocate.
Yet, you somehow think a person can call themselves "pro-life" and still vote for a candidate who advocates unfettered access to abortion. The programs that you want to see … I want to see them too! But, we won’t see them under Obama. These programs will be seen as a threat to Roe vs. Wade and they will all be abolished. When his campaign was asked, "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?" they responded: "No" (see here). That doesn't seem very "pro-choice" to me.
All I know to say is that abortion is deplorable and an issue of deep concern. Abortion rates are going down as programs are being developed, and that is a wonderful thing. Whether Roe vs. Wade is overturned or not, there will still need to be action taken to lower the number of abortions. Mccain and Obama have different plans for sex education and the economy. You said it is debatable if Obama's plans will work, but it is debatable whether Mccain's would as well. You mentioned FOCA, but I believe that will not pass if people like us write to our congressmen and senators--which is much more effective than just debating with friends, because unlike our friends, senators and congressmen must listen, if for no other reason than to be re-elected.I think that’s naïve. For one, it is highly, HIGHLY probable that we will soon have a Democrat-controlled House AND Senate. If Obama is elected, that will mean a Democrat-controlled government through and through. When’s the last time the Democrats have been good on the abortion issue? If you don’t think they’ll pass FOCA you’re a few bricks short of a load (no offense). At any rate, why even risk it?
From now on Nick, I'm callin' you trouble. ; )You call ME trouble? Obama is trouble par excellence. In case I have not been very effective at presenting my position, see Gerard V. Bradley's recent article "When Is It Acceptable for a Pro-Life Voter to Vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate?". He makes the case much better than I can.