I'm confused... whats not to support?

I'm with them on the prochoice thing, but I'm not sure I agree with this position of the democratic party.

This sounds like an Onion article. "Republicans Strongly Support Decision to Donate Money to Charity".

I think this is in response to the way that some people frame the Pro-Choice perspective as being "pro-irresponsibility" or "pro-abortion".

We all want to reduce abortions, and I think this is just a re-framing of that argument.

I like how its labeled "carry a pregnancy to term" instead of "have a baby."

Uh-oh, "more programs for expectant mothers who want to keep their babies" sounds costly! Who said anyone wanted to help pay for the babies?

Uh, stephley, it's our responsibility as Americans to parent every child of this country. It takes a village.

I'm confused, is Obama saying he wants to reduce abortions? Isn't that a pro-life stance?

Organic - true; however, as a person who has been responsible with their sexual practices and take measures to avoid unintended pregnancies and when I was emotionally and financially in a position to support a child, decided to bring the child into this world, why is it that I should have to pay my hard earned money to support someone who was not responsible? Why does the government insist on making other people's problems MY problems?

I understand there are extraordinary circumstances, and I support opportunities to assist people; however, I'm exhausted with paying for people who have no financial wherewithal, no education, no sense of responsibility to a great society squeezing out babies like they are candy and then claiming "oodles" of social services to support their "habit." And I'm not talking your typical "welfare" stereotype here. I'm talking about people I know who can't barely afford to feed one child and they are now on #3 because she "likes kids."

*sigh* So much more to say, but I'll stop for now?

"is Obama saying he wants to reduce abortions? Isn't that a pro-life stance?"

Well, first, this is the DNC platform, not necessarily Obama.

Second, reducing abortions is absolutely NOT only a pro-life stance. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you want women to have abortions. Most pro-choice people want abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare". Pro-choice people also tend to be for comprehensive sex education and allowing birth control to be widely available, which reduces the need for abortion.

IMO, both camps (pro-life, pro-choice) want to see abortion reduced, one group wants to accomplish it through legislation and one through education.

No one should only be considering the abortion issue when voting. There are tons of other issue out that have about 800 times greater chance of actually being addressed by whoever wins the Presidency. Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, suck it up and look for a better solution to preventing abortion... like the provision of aid to people who decide to keep their babies or better services for adoptions.

The most logical response to the abortion issue I have heard is from Hillary Clinton who has a "safe, legal, never" agenda that would keep abortions legal (like the Supreme Court has decided them to be over and over) and safe (to prevent the harm cause by illegal abortions that would still happen) and would be aimed at reducing the need for people to have abortions in the first place.

Well said, Jillness!
You know, I never have to comment, I just wait for you to do it, since you say what I want to, only much, much better!!!

I'm confused, is Obama saying he wants to reduce abortions? Isn't that a pro-life stance?

I don't think that is necessarily a "pro-life" stance. I am sure everyone wants to reduce abortions. Pro-choice doesn't mean you want to increase abortions.

wow, so, NOW they strongly support a mother choosing to keep her baby huh? NOW theyre willing to have programs set up to give women more options and to help them if they need it? theyre ridiculous.

yeah...nobody LIKES abortions. It's not something that anyone particularly enjoys.

Jillness always comments better than anyone I know!

Exactly as she said- pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I do not know of any pro-choice person that wants women to get more abortions. The difference is in how we approach abortion. In a safe legal way that allows a woman to have an option or provide more alternatives to abortion. Something to consider - if we ban abortion women of high economic status can easily fly or travel to a country that allows abortions. It is the poor that will suffer and find black market ways to abort the baby. Something to consider.

im pretty sure i read that obama voted against giving medical care to a baby that SURVIVES an abortion... he doesn't care about women and their babies, he just wants votes.

alynn, give me a break! You really think candidates who are pro-choice don't support mothers who wish to keep their baby?

"Exactly as she said- pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I do not know of any pro-choice person that wants women to get more abortions. The difference is in how we approach abortion."

Great point.

There are numerous programs set up by pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood that educate women about motherhood as well as adoption. It is not like once you test positive for pregnancy they automatically had you a brochure on how to terminate the pregnancy. I think Obama is pushing more of these programs, which is smart.

Its funny that you accuse Obama of doing this for votes. What do you think presidential candidates do? But I guess in your train of thought McCain is totally innocent of these things. I could understand if Obama turned around and started supporting something like Creationism, I would see where you were coming from but he is not. This is actually a reasonable initiative that everyone can agree on.

no gitsie i dont. and i have my reasons.

Well I'd like to hear those reasons.

Whoa, Nelly!

"he doesn't care about women and their babies,"

Rea-hee-heeaaaaly? (a la Ace Ventura) I'd sure like to see that source!

>Uh-oh, "more programs for expectant mothers who want to keep their babies" sounds costly! Who said anyone wanted to help pay for the babies?

Seriously. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice, and why should my hard earned money go to pay for someone else's decision? (I honestly can't decide if I mean that sarcastically or not.)

"Something to consider - if we ban abortion women of high economic status can easily fly or travel to a country that allows abortions."
thats a great point. and i am more on the pro-life side. i wish that there was a way for women to get the support they need when they are pregnant and alone and broke- think abortion should only be an option if the mother's life is in danger from the pregnacy. so i LOVE this new stuff obabma's camp is saying. and as someone else said, even when the republicans are in power, abortions do not become illegal, so its not a point to vote on. the democrats will probably prevent even more abortions if they win!

Thank you, guys!

"There are tons of other issue out that have about 800 times greater chance of actually being addressed by whoever wins the Presidency."

Good point.

"Obama tries to put himself forward as a moderate, but an examination of his stance on issues such as abortion shows that he is anything but moderate. He is perhaps the most liberal senator on the Hill.

When examining Obama's record as it pertains to abortion, it doesn't take long to figure out exactly where he stands. According to ProChoiceAmerica.org, Obama has earned a 100% voting record in each of the last 3 years. That means that he has voted with the pro-choice position every single time he had the opportunity to do so. He has made it easier to get an abortion under more circumstances since he was elected to the Senate.

Obama also voted against banning partial birth abortion. Anyone who has actually seen this process, and still approves of it is warped at best and debased at worst. I do not understand how anyone (even if you think abortion is tolerable) can approve of this practice. It is a disturbing process used for the destruction of a child that is well developed. It is amazing that there is a difference of only about 3 inches at best between "abortion" and "murder." Ironically, Obama's vote came in the form of a "present" vote, which is used in the Illinois senate to avoid an issue that the senator does not want to come back on him in a negative way. So, he is not on record as voting "no", though that is his official position. He is on record as voting "present" as opposed to "yes", which shows his disapproval of the bill, and yet does not put him on record as specifically voting "no." Effectively, there is no difference!"

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/863059/barack_obamas_position_o...

I thought this guy said exactly what I wanted to say. Also, a little description of partial birth abortion. This is a procedure, performed in late-term pregnancies, where a fetus is extracted from the uterus via the birth canal by the legs. The head of the child is left inside the mother until after the infant's brains have been sucked out. All the while the poor child is kicking and flailing. Many lives that are destroyed this way are past the point at which they are viable outside the womb.

But it's a woman's right to do this.

"Obama also voted against banning partial birth abortion."

And he has clarified MANY times that it was because there was no exception for the mother's health.

Jill, there is a provision for the mother's health. So either Obama didn't read the act or he's making up excuses after the fact.

Either is a great reason.

I was wondering how many "partial birth abortions" are performed each year, so I googled it. I could only find stats from an NPR article with numbers based on 2000 data. Only 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year were "partial birth abortions". It seems that this isn't something that is widely used. But no statistics were kept as to why these were performed - whether they were performed on healthy mothers and babies or whether it was for cases where there was threat to the mother's health or severe infant abnormalities. I wish I had a clearer picture of this part of the debate.

Michelin, we must be working with a different set of facts, which is understandable because sources on both sides have strong agendas. I have read from several sources that I trust that the legislation did not include exceptions for the mother's health.

I wish that we could have a really national discussion about this topic that doesn't dissolve into accusations of baby hating and the like. I think that, while there are big areas where we disagree, there are probably big areas where the pro-life and pro-choice folks would agree. By vilifying the opposition, I think we detour around these areas of common agreement.

Martini, I got this information from Wiki, so take it with a grain of salt...

"Late-term abortions at 21 weeks or later account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[11] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of those late-term abortion cases. This is the equivalent of between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000"

The nurse that testified in front of Obama's committee (from Christ Hospital in Chicago that, she said, routinely performed pb abortions) said that the majority were done to abort downs syndrome babies, the second largest were for deformities.

She was on the Mark Levin show today as well. If you want to hear her witness to the Obama response I'm sure you can find a clip.

Jill, my source is the Act itself.

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself"

That sounds like an exception for the mother's health.

Thanks, GS I will see if I can find a clip. I am interested to hear what she has to say. If this procedure is predominantly used due to issues with the mother's health or because the child has a severe abnormality, I am not sure I take a lot of issue with it. It sounds gruesome and horrible, but I believe a mother's life takes priority always. And if the child's deformity would prevent it's viability outside the womb, I would never want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy and then give birth to a child that would subsequently die right away, that in itself would be cruel. I would leave it up to her to decide, in that case.

Michelin, isn't that the language from the 2003 US Congressional ban...and Obama wasn't in the US Senate at that time.

You're right, I am confused. I'm trying to find what GS was referring to when she said he opposed a ban on partial birth abortions. I see that statement in several news articles, but they don't reference any specific vote.

It was a state senate thing. Just Illinois.

Ah, okay, well I don't have the text of that bill. I've got to take the puppy for a walk, but maybe I'll look it up afterward

To be clear -- the late-term abortion ban does NOT include an exception for the health of the mother.

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother"

Notice that the words "OR HEALTH" are conspicuously absent?

This means that a doctor performing a late-term abortion on a woman who is not physically dying at that very moment could face prosecution. Nevermind any serious damage that may be done to the woman's body by continuing to carry the pregnancy. If she's legally "alive" at the end of it, a physician was not legally allowed to provide that abortion, no matter her physical state at the end.

Also - the late-term abortion ban does NOT ban all late-term abortions. It bans one particular procedure, which, while potentially "icky" depending on your perspective, is the SAFEST method of late-term abortion.

What does this mean? Woman who require late-term abortions can still have them, when necessary, but can be legally barred from having the safest procedure available, leaving them with a more risky procedure in order to satisfy "pro-lifers."

Please note that I said "women who require..." because I"m sure everyone knows that across the country, a pregnant woman can NOT just wander into an abortion clinic late in pregnancy and simply request a late-term abortion on demand. This is outlawed pretty much everywhere. So all this ban does is prevent women who NEED a medical procedure from receiving the safest and most effective care available.

Also, try to use the term "late-term" since it's actually objective. "Partial-birth" abortion is not a medical term and purely a phrase conceived by abortion opponents to frame the issue in a distinctly anti-abortion manner.