Obama and abortion September 21, 2008 2:06 AM Subscribe
Obama and abortion.
Jessamyn said this should be in metatalk, so here it is.
There was some discussion in the Palin Straight Talk thread about Obama's stance on treating babies who survive abortions the same as any other babies. Obama repeatedly voted NO on a bill that would do so. His reasoning now is that he felt they would undermine Roe v. Wade, but his reasoning has changed over time and he changed his explanation about what his reasoning was on his webpage.
When the subject was brought up again, people argued that it was already debunked. This was not the case. Jessamyn's debunking was: Leaving babies to die is a crime in and of itself. The language used in many of these "partial birth abortion" discussions is not the language of doctors, it's the language of people who want to control doctors. World Net Daily is not a reliable news source. The baby Jill Stanek is highlighting on her blog claiming it was "born alive" post-abortion was from 1977. This is not debunking of an argument. Just because someone has an old picture on her personal website to make her point, does not mean her (recent) testimony (before a court) is invalid!. And just stating "leaving babies to die is a crime" does not make it so, because the exact issue here is "when does a baby become a person". A few other people weighed in, saying things like Now, davar, is there anything else you want to say in defense of allowing anti-abortion extremist busybodys to jam feeding tubes down the throats of nonviable infants, despite the parents' wishes? (jonp72) and If you believe that shit, as I said, you're either disingenuous or easily misled because you're stupid. Or both (fourcheesemac).
In the meantime, nobody actually debunked the fact that Obama voted against this bill. People just disagreed with the implications. It is true that in Illinois there already is a law that for abortions where the aborting doctor expects there to be a reasonable chance for sustained survival of the infant, there should be a second doctor present to look after that child. But that was not what this bill was about. This bill was about children who unexpectedly survive an abortion, and were left to die in a utility room or in a trash can.
Obama says now that the only reason he voted against the bill was because he was afraid it would undermine current Illinois abortion laws. But he did not say that before (see the factcheck article). In interviews about this, he never reasonably and calmly says that of course he is in favor of this bill, if only it had [insert specific wording here]. He sounds angry and defensive, talks about how burdensome it is to arrange a second doctor, how hard this is for the parents who made a decision to abort. On the question "when does a baby become a person" he answers with the cop-out: "That's above my pay grade".
I don't know why people in the thread assume that treating a 23 week old surviving baby the same as a 23 week old stillborn baby means throwing tubes down their throats. Do you do that in the US with 23 week old babies, against the parent's wishes? To me, treating them the same means basically to hold them in your arms and see if you can do anything to alleviate their pain.
I already said that I know he means well and I mostly disagree with his interpretation of the threat that this bill would pose, or with the fact that he did not do anything to change the wording of the bill. In fact, he (or his collegues in the IL senate) did make an amendment to the 2003 bill, which was accepted, and after that he (and the collegues) voted against it anyway. He could have proposed an amendment that worked for him.
I also understand that it is rare that babies survive abortion and that McCain kills much more babies than Obama. But I still disagree with Obama on this. That does not make me stupid or an anti-abortion-extremist. I agree with much of the points in this article.
Jessamyn said this should be in metatalk, so here it is.
There was some discussion in the Palin Straight Talk thread about Obama's stance on treating babies who survive abortions the same as any other babies. Obama repeatedly voted NO on a bill that would do so. His reasoning now is that he felt they would undermine Roe v. Wade, but his reasoning has changed over time and he changed his explanation about what his reasoning was on his webpage.
When the subject was brought up again, people argued that it was already debunked. This was not the case. Jessamyn's debunking was: Leaving babies to die is a crime in and of itself. The language used in many of these "partial birth abortion" discussions is not the language of doctors, it's the language of people who want to control doctors. World Net Daily is not a reliable news source. The baby Jill Stanek is highlighting on her blog claiming it was "born alive" post-abortion was from 1977. This is not debunking of an argument. Just because someone has an old picture on her personal website to make her point, does not mean her (recent) testimony (before a court) is invalid!. And just stating "leaving babies to die is a crime" does not make it so, because the exact issue here is "when does a baby become a person". A few other people weighed in, saying things like Now, davar, is there anything else you want to say in defense of allowing anti-abortion extremist busybodys to jam feeding tubes down the throats of nonviable infants, despite the parents' wishes? (jonp72) and If you believe that shit, as I said, you're either disingenuous or easily misled because you're stupid. Or both (fourcheesemac).
In the meantime, nobody actually debunked the fact that Obama voted against this bill. People just disagreed with the implications. It is true that in Illinois there already is a law that for abortions where the aborting doctor expects there to be a reasonable chance for sustained survival of the infant, there should be a second doctor present to look after that child. But that was not what this bill was about. This bill was about children who unexpectedly survive an abortion, and were left to die in a utility room or in a trash can.
Obama says now that the only reason he voted against the bill was because he was afraid it would undermine current Illinois abortion laws. But he did not say that before (see the factcheck article). In interviews about this, he never reasonably and calmly says that of course he is in favor of this bill, if only it had [insert specific wording here]. He sounds angry and defensive, talks about how burdensome it is to arrange a second doctor, how hard this is for the parents who made a decision to abort. On the question "when does a baby become a person" he answers with the cop-out: "That's above my pay grade".
I don't know why people in the thread assume that treating a 23 week old surviving baby the same as a 23 week old stillborn baby means throwing tubes down their throats. Do you do that in the US with 23 week old babies, against the parent's wishes? To me, treating them the same means basically to hold them in your arms and see if you can do anything to alleviate their pain.
I already said that I know he means well and I mostly disagree with his interpretation of the threat that this bill would pose, or with the fact that he did not do anything to change the wording of the bill. In fact, he (or his collegues in the IL senate) did make an amendment to the 2003 bill, which was accepted, and after that he (and the collegues) voted against it anyway. He could have proposed an amendment that worked for him.
I also understand that it is rare that babies survive abortion and that McCain kills much more babies than Obama. But I still disagree with Obama on this. That does not make me stupid or an anti-abortion-extremist. I agree with much of the points in this article.
I'm not familiar with Obama's history on this issue, so I won't get too involved in the back-and-forth that this thread is fated to produce, but I will just point out this excellent comment by jonp72 (which was in direct reply to you, davar) explaining precisely why this was such a divisive, unnecessary bill and citing a piece by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo which does the same, both with much more competency than I could hope to muster.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:48 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by Rhaomi at 2:48 AM on September 21, 2008
(I would quite like to follow this thread without having to constantly load the monster thread itself, so I would love it if people could quote relevant comments instead of linking to them).
posted by jacalata at 3:01 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by jacalata at 3:01 AM on September 21, 2008
Bullshit edge cases to charge the base and keep this sideshow issue front and center in the election. Iraq? Whatever. Economy? Whatever. OMG feeding tubes for babies in partial birth abortions there was this one one time that lived and they want to KILL BABBIES!!!1
posted by Meatbomb at 3:13 AM on September 21, 2008 [31 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 3:13 AM on September 21, 2008 [31 favorites]
I read that Rhaomi. I responded to part of it in the thread and also said in my post here that the existing law that Stevens-Arroyo refers to is not good enough. I think the article by Stevens-Arroyo is correct in that the "Obama is in favor of infanticide" wording is inflammatory and wrong. But I did not say that, so this is a straw-man. I only said that I disagreed with Obama's vote on this bill and his own explanations for doing so.
posted by davar at 3:15 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by davar at 3:15 AM on September 21, 2008
While I am by no means familiar with the overall abortion laws, you seem to have a certain ignorance of the bills under discussion.
There is no question that the bills Obama voted against were specifically talking about the need to provide medical care to any infant/foetus who displayed any signs of life, rather than the previous definition of 'viable with or without intensive care'. Given that, to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to 'hold' a baby at any stage, why would somebody introduce a bill requiring this for 'born-alive infants'? Nobody is stopping the parents from doing this should they so desire.
Also, I think it is a fair stretch for you to say that you disagree with his interpretation of the possible effects of the bill, without giving any evidence that his interpretation is wrong. Can you explain why the bill as presented would not have had any impact on abortion laws, and what link in Obama's argument is incorrect?
I don't know if you have already read it, but I personally found the transcript of the Senate session itself (at the 2002 presentation of the bill) quite clear.
posted by jacalata at 3:23 AM on September 21, 2008
There is no question that the bills Obama voted against were specifically talking about the need to provide medical care to any infant/foetus who displayed any signs of life, rather than the previous definition of 'viable with or without intensive care'. Given that, to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to 'hold' a baby at any stage, why would somebody introduce a bill requiring this for 'born-alive infants'? Nobody is stopping the parents from doing this should they so desire.
Also, I think it is a fair stretch for you to say that you disagree with his interpretation of the possible effects of the bill, without giving any evidence that his interpretation is wrong. Can you explain why the bill as presented would not have had any impact on abortion laws, and what link in Obama's argument is incorrect?
I don't know if you have already read it, but I personally found the transcript of the Senate session itself (at the 2002 presentation of the bill) quite clear.
posted by jacalata at 3:23 AM on September 21, 2008
(Note: relevant section begins around page 28, for bill 1661)
posted by jacalata at 3:24 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by jacalata at 3:24 AM on September 21, 2008
While talking about the transcript: what I found most disturbing about that session is that the bill (1663) was apparently about to pass with the 'support' of a senator not actually present. Is that correct? And it would have passed if somebody hadn't requested a specific listing of the votes? What kind of system is that? Is there any process for challenging a vote after the case?
posted by jacalata at 3:28 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by jacalata at 3:28 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
Apologies for that, jacalata. I guess that The Thread has eaten up so much of my machine's processing power that Son Of The Thread seems absolutely speedy by comparison. Also it seemed a bit tricky quoting him when he was already quoting someone else, etc.
Here's jonp72's comment in full:
* * *
the biggest problem that pro life people have with Obama: the fact that he voted against a law that sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention. Obama has since nuanced his opinion (he now says that he supports the new federal law that essentially says the same thing), but still, his voting shows he is not just pro-choice, but much more pro choice than most people.
This is a reference to an act passed in the Illinois state legislature with the inflammatory title of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which included several objectionable provisions that promoted government interference with women who had life-threatening prenancies. Here's a column by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, a Catholic conservative who voted for Goldwater, that convincingly debunks the infanticide smears being leveled against Obama by anti-abortion extremists. According to Stevens-Arroyo, here's the meat of the issue:
The legislation would have required the state to provide health care to children born alive after an abortion. Now, existing Illinois law already covered all children. But the BAIPA [Born Alive Infant Protection Act] was intended to create a special status for the survivors of abortion – mostly late-term abortion. The BAIPA clarified that these survivors were “children.” If that was all the law intended, I think it should have been passed and Obama’s self-identified faith should have led him to vote for it.
But things are not always as they seem. Although phrased in legalese, there were three additional and problematic provisions. First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government. Moreover, I have enough of my Barry Goldwater vote left in me to be wary of lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
Stevens-Arroyo also said:
If Obama is guilty of infanticide for opposing mandated health care in the relatively few cases of abortion survivors, then isn’t McCain guilty of far worse by denying government mandated health care to 46 million Americans? I reject this logic: McCain’s plan does not amount to genocide of the poor and Obama’s vote is not infanticide. With his characteristic serenity, Senator Obama refused to descend into the mud of accusations, demands for retraction, etc. That kind of old politics produces tribalistic hatred rather than participatory progress and it's so unChristian!
There's nothing to apologize for about wanting to save parents from having to deal with pro-life extremists who want to force a Terri Schiavo-style intervention on little babies, regardless of the parents' wishes. If you have ever known anyone who has had to deal with a miscarriage or stillbirth in their own family, you should understand.
In other words, it's not about being "extremely pro-choice." It's about being pro-freedom, period.
* * *
(end of quoted comment -- don't want skimmers seeing the byline and thinking it's mine!)
posted by Rhaomi at 4:00 AM on September 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
Here's jonp72's comment in full:
* * *
the biggest problem that pro life people have with Obama: the fact that he voted against a law that sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention. Obama has since nuanced his opinion (he now says that he supports the new federal law that essentially says the same thing), but still, his voting shows he is not just pro-choice, but much more pro choice than most people.
This is a reference to an act passed in the Illinois state legislature with the inflammatory title of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which included several objectionable provisions that promoted government interference with women who had life-threatening prenancies. Here's a column by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, a Catholic conservative who voted for Goldwater, that convincingly debunks the infanticide smears being leveled against Obama by anti-abortion extremists. According to Stevens-Arroyo, here's the meat of the issue:
The legislation would have required the state to provide health care to children born alive after an abortion. Now, existing Illinois law already covered all children. But the BAIPA [Born Alive Infant Protection Act] was intended to create a special status for the survivors of abortion – mostly late-term abortion. The BAIPA clarified that these survivors were “children.” If that was all the law intended, I think it should have been passed and Obama’s self-identified faith should have led him to vote for it.
But things are not always as they seem. Although phrased in legalese, there were three additional and problematic provisions. First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government. Moreover, I have enough of my Barry Goldwater vote left in me to be wary of lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
Stevens-Arroyo also said:
If Obama is guilty of infanticide for opposing mandated health care in the relatively few cases of abortion survivors, then isn’t McCain guilty of far worse by denying government mandated health care to 46 million Americans? I reject this logic: McCain’s plan does not amount to genocide of the poor and Obama’s vote is not infanticide. With his characteristic serenity, Senator Obama refused to descend into the mud of accusations, demands for retraction, etc. That kind of old politics produces tribalistic hatred rather than participatory progress and it's so unChristian!
There's nothing to apologize for about wanting to save parents from having to deal with pro-life extremists who want to force a Terri Schiavo-style intervention on little babies, regardless of the parents' wishes. If you have ever known anyone who has had to deal with a miscarriage or stillbirth in their own family, you should understand.
In other words, it's not about being "extremely pro-choice." It's about being pro-freedom, period.
* * *
(end of quoted comment -- don't want skimmers seeing the byline and thinking it's mine!)
posted by Rhaomi at 4:00 AM on September 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
I'd find these Right to Life fuckers a lot more convincing if they weren't quite so vocal in their support for the death penalty.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:06 AM on September 21, 2008 [13 favorites]
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:06 AM on September 21, 2008 [13 favorites]
because the exact issue here is "when does a baby become a person"
that is not at all the issue.
I can only speculate as to what jessamyn meant but my gut feeling is that she meant that the actual question in such cases is whether the baby was born alive or deceased. that's a very simple question to answer in this case - that of a criminal investigation: a medical examiner will take the lungs and put them in water. if they float the baby drew a breath and thus was born alive - ergo the death is ruled to be a homicide. if they don't float, the baby was born dead and the case is closed. because abortion is legal even though the outcome may have been introduced by conscious action is not a crime.
a baby obviously born alive (=a breathing baby) will not be thrown in a trash can, an image I suppose you used to be crude and stir up emotions. not now, not under proposed laws.
People just disagreed with the implications.
when life begins is a completely different issue from how to treat babies who survive abortions, roe v. wade and changing reasons or not, and that is also why I personally do not take issue with the movement of this discussion to metatalk. it was a non sequitur argument.
you're either disingenuous or easily misled because you're stupid.
no, you are not. it is silly to suggest otherwise based on a difference in positions and cheap to exploit such an obvious damp squib accusation. unless that is the level at which you wish to argue any point I'd suggest ignoring it.
On the question "when does a baby become a person" he answers with the cop-out: "That's above my pay grade".
I don't think that's a cop-out. the one extreme end thinks it's at conception, which the other thinks is utter nonsense. the other extreme end thinks it's at birth, which the former thinks is utter nonsense. taking either side gives the other a cheap excuse to stop talking altogether. when people stop working on fundamental conflicts, things like the civil war happen. trying to find common ground is what officials are elected to do. this isn't supposed to be the tyranny of the majority under which the minority is told to stand in a corner for the next four or eight years, it's supposed to be a way for us all to live together.
this is an entirely different discussion than the one in the palin pancake thread, which is why it deserves to be somewhere else. because it's you stomping your foot and advocating I was right it should be talk, if anything at all, not blue.
this is an issue on which nobody will be convinced. the whole discussion is pointless.
posted by krautland at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2008 [5 favorites]
that is not at all the issue.
I can only speculate as to what jessamyn meant but my gut feeling is that she meant that the actual question in such cases is whether the baby was born alive or deceased. that's a very simple question to answer in this case - that of a criminal investigation: a medical examiner will take the lungs and put them in water. if they float the baby drew a breath and thus was born alive - ergo the death is ruled to be a homicide. if they don't float, the baby was born dead and the case is closed. because abortion is legal even though the outcome may have been introduced by conscious action is not a crime.
a baby obviously born alive (=a breathing baby) will not be thrown in a trash can, an image I suppose you used to be crude and stir up emotions. not now, not under proposed laws.
People just disagreed with the implications.
when life begins is a completely different issue from how to treat babies who survive abortions, roe v. wade and changing reasons or not, and that is also why I personally do not take issue with the movement of this discussion to metatalk. it was a non sequitur argument.
you're either disingenuous or easily misled because you're stupid.
no, you are not. it is silly to suggest otherwise based on a difference in positions and cheap to exploit such an obvious damp squib accusation. unless that is the level at which you wish to argue any point I'd suggest ignoring it.
On the question "when does a baby become a person" he answers with the cop-out: "That's above my pay grade".
I don't think that's a cop-out. the one extreme end thinks it's at conception, which the other thinks is utter nonsense. the other extreme end thinks it's at birth, which the former thinks is utter nonsense. taking either side gives the other a cheap excuse to stop talking altogether. when people stop working on fundamental conflicts, things like the civil war happen. trying to find common ground is what officials are elected to do. this isn't supposed to be the tyranny of the majority under which the minority is told to stand in a corner for the next four or eight years, it's supposed to be a way for us all to live together.
this is an entirely different discussion than the one in the palin pancake thread, which is why it deserves to be somewhere else. because it's you stomping your foot and advocating I was right it should be talk, if anything at all, not blue.
this is an issue on which nobody will be convinced. the whole discussion is pointless.
posted by krautland at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2008 [5 favorites]
There is no question that the bills Obama voted against were specifically talking about the need to provide medical care to any infant/foetus who displayed any signs of life, rather than the previous definition of 'viable with or without intensive care'. Given that, to my knowledge, there is no legal requirement to 'hold' a baby at any stage, why would somebody introduce a bill requiring this for 'born-alive infants'? Nobody is stopping the parents from doing this should they so desire.
But who is stopping hospitals of letting those infants die alone in soiled utility rooms?
Note that Obama does support the bill now, now that he feels it no longer threatens Roe v Wade.
Also, I think it is a fair stretch for you to say that you disagree with his interpretation of the possible effects of the bill, without giving any evidence that his interpretation is wrong. Can you explain why the bill as presented would not have had any impact on abortion laws, and what link in Obama's argument is incorrect?
Like I said: Obama (and/or the other Democratic voters) proposed an amendment to the 2003 version of the bill because they feared the bill in the previous state would undermine Roe v Wade. The amendment was accepted and then they voted against it anyway. Why did they not propose an amendment that they could live with (like they did in 2005)?
Thanks for linking to the transcript. This is one reason why I think Obama's reasoning just is not clear. In the Senate session, Obama's main argument seems to be that he assumes that if a baby is born alive after an abortion, the aborting doctor would of course make sure that it would be looked after, so adding a secondary doctor is unnecessary (and a burden to the doctor and the woman). Seeing the testimony of Jill Stanek, I do not think this is always the case. Obama now says that he would support the bill if the necessary legalese was added that it would not undermine abortion laws, but that's not what he said then.
posted by davar at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2008
But who is stopping hospitals of letting those infants die alone in soiled utility rooms?
Note that Obama does support the bill now, now that he feels it no longer threatens Roe v Wade.
Also, I think it is a fair stretch for you to say that you disagree with his interpretation of the possible effects of the bill, without giving any evidence that his interpretation is wrong. Can you explain why the bill as presented would not have had any impact on abortion laws, and what link in Obama's argument is incorrect?
Like I said: Obama (and/or the other Democratic voters) proposed an amendment to the 2003 version of the bill because they feared the bill in the previous state would undermine Roe v Wade. The amendment was accepted and then they voted against it anyway. Why did they not propose an amendment that they could live with (like they did in 2005)?
Thanks for linking to the transcript. This is one reason why I think Obama's reasoning just is not clear. In the Senate session, Obama's main argument seems to be that he assumes that if a baby is born alive after an abortion, the aborting doctor would of course make sure that it would be looked after, so adding a secondary doctor is unnecessary (and a burden to the doctor and the woman). Seeing the testimony of Jill Stanek, I do not think this is always the case. Obama now says that he would support the bill if the necessary legalese was added that it would not undermine abortion laws, but that's not what he said then.
posted by davar at 4:15 AM on September 21, 2008
I have a simple question: is there any data to just how often it happens (in any state, for any year) that an aborted fetus is found to be alive? Just how often does this happen?
posted by zardoz at 4:34 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 4:34 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Krautland, I don't disagree with the discussion being here. In fact, I stopped discussing the topic in the thread because I saw it going nowhere.
a baby obviously born alive (=a breathing baby) will not be thrown in a trash can, an image I suppose you used to be crude and stir up emotions.
Someone testified this before a court. I have no reason to not believe them. (I do believe that it was an accident and that this is not common procedure for the hospital, but still, it is awful).
I don't think that's a cop-out. the one extreme end thinks it's at conception, which the other thinks is utter nonsense. the other extreme end thinks it's at birth, which the former thinks is utter nonsense. taking either side gives the other a cheap excuse to stop talking altogether. when people stop working on fundamental conflicts, things like the civil war happen. trying to find common ground is what officials are elected to do.
I totally agree. Simplistic answers to difficult problems are not the solution. But I still think his answer was a cop out. He could have used just a few more words to explain the difficulty. Please also note that the interviewer asked "at what point does a baby get human rights", not "at what point does a fetus get human rights" or "when does life begin".
it's you stomping your foot and advocating I was right
That was not my intention. People in the pancake thread said (or yelled) that this issue was already debunked, and I disagree. There was no debunking, there was just disagreement (and straw-mans, tu-quoques and guilt by association).
posted by davar at 4:34 AM on September 21, 2008
a baby obviously born alive (=a breathing baby) will not be thrown in a trash can, an image I suppose you used to be crude and stir up emotions.
Someone testified this before a court. I have no reason to not believe them. (I do believe that it was an accident and that this is not common procedure for the hospital, but still, it is awful).
I don't think that's a cop-out. the one extreme end thinks it's at conception, which the other thinks is utter nonsense. the other extreme end thinks it's at birth, which the former thinks is utter nonsense. taking either side gives the other a cheap excuse to stop talking altogether. when people stop working on fundamental conflicts, things like the civil war happen. trying to find common ground is what officials are elected to do.
I totally agree. Simplistic answers to difficult problems are not the solution. But I still think his answer was a cop out. He could have used just a few more words to explain the difficulty. Please also note that the interviewer asked "at what point does a baby get human rights", not "at what point does a fetus get human rights" or "when does life begin".
it's you stomping your foot and advocating I was right
That was not my intention. People in the pancake thread said (or yelled) that this issue was already debunked, and I disagree. There was no debunking, there was just disagreement (and straw-mans, tu-quoques and guilt by association).
posted by davar at 4:34 AM on September 21, 2008
Why does everyone give so much of a shit about abortion?
For fucks' sake.
Live a little.
posted by Jimbob at 4:37 AM on September 21, 2008
For fucks' sake.
Live a little.
posted by Jimbob at 4:37 AM on September 21, 2008
Live a little.
In a thread about abortion. The jokes write themselves!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
In a thread about abortion. The jokes write themselves!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
I don't really understand this thread. I disagree with Obama on hundreds of little points: I think he's a little bit sexist, which is pretty much a given for someone his age in our society. He's not as strong on reproductive freedom or gay rights as I would like. Although I am religious, I am somewhat uncomfortable with how much he seems to be willing to inject religion into politics. His vote on FISA sucked. His healthcare plan is not good enough. Biden is a shill for the credit card companies and an unexciting choice for VP. etc.
But I'm still going to vote for the guy. And I don't think it's up to Metafilter users, many of whom may well share some of my misgivings, to convince me that Obama is perfect on every issue, even though many of them would probably like to.
So you disagree with Obama on something. So what?
posted by hydropsyche at 5:34 AM on September 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
But I'm still going to vote for the guy. And I don't think it's up to Metafilter users, many of whom may well share some of my misgivings, to convince me that Obama is perfect on every issue, even though many of them would probably like to.
So you disagree with Obama on something. So what?
posted by hydropsyche at 5:34 AM on September 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
That's right, Obama, your ass just got called out on METATALK.
posted by The Straightener at 6:13 AM on September 21, 2008 [32 favorites]
posted by The Straightener at 6:13 AM on September 21, 2008 [32 favorites]
"McCain kills much more babies than Obama."
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion? You guys are neglecting serious issues that are ruining your lives and the lives of billions of people around the globe because you can't see past that.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:32 AM on September 21, 2008 [16 favorites]
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion? You guys are neglecting serious issues that are ruining your lives and the lives of billions of people around the globe because you can't see past that.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:32 AM on September 21, 2008 [16 favorites]
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion? You guys are neglecting serious issues that are ruining your lives and the lives of billions of people around the globe because you can't see past that.
Don't lump us all together. The majority of Americans are not hung up on abortion at all, it's just that a very, very vocal minority of anti-choice folks bring it--or rather, keep it--at the forefront of American politics, namely around election time. In fact my question earlier was for clarification of the specific situation that gave rise to this thread; I've never even heard of that before.
posted by zardoz at 6:41 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
Don't lump us all together. The majority of Americans are not hung up on abortion at all, it's just that a very, very vocal minority of anti-choice folks bring it--or rather, keep it--at the forefront of American politics, namely around election time. In fact my question earlier was for clarification of the specific situation that gave rise to this thread; I've never even heard of that before.
posted by zardoz at 6:41 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's right, Obama, your ass just got called out on METATALK.
Read all about it in his new books, "The Audacity of Beans".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [13 favorites]
Read all about it in his new books, "The Audacity of Beans".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [13 favorites]
A couple of monkeys were having sex at the zoo the other day. There were a bunch of children around asking what was happening and one of the dads said that maybe the female monkey's back was hurting and the male monkey was a chiropractor monkey. All of the children were like "Cool, come see the doctor monkey!"
posted by sciurus at 6:50 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by sciurus at 6:50 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion? You guys are neglecting serious issues that are ruining your lives and the lives of billions of people around the globe because you can't see past that.
Indeed. The dipshits have won.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:53 AM on September 21, 2008
Indeed. The dipshits have won.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:53 AM on September 21, 2008
I would like to cash in my "mod for a day" coupon now, please.
posted by popechunk at 7:00 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by popechunk at 7:00 AM on September 21, 2008
Obama voted how he voted.
That is all I need to know about him.
posted by konolia at 7:03 AM on September 21, 2008
That is all I need to know about him.
posted by konolia at 7:03 AM on September 21, 2008
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion?
You are oversimplifying; don't forget about the pressing concerns of gay marriage, evolution, and the urgent need to discredit the global warming hoax as well.
posted by TedW at 7:10 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
You are oversimplifying; don't forget about the pressing concerns of gay marriage, evolution, and the urgent need to discredit the global warming hoax as well.
posted by TedW at 7:10 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
But I'm still going to vote for the guy. [...] So you disagree with Obama on something. So what?
I agree with you. I said the same thing in the thread.
But still I think a discussion has merit, because this topic is obviously important to a vocal minority of people, and it is important to understand why they feel so strongly about this. I still think Obama could make an important difference here. His speech about race was very powerful and I do not doubt that his real opinions about abortion and infants are very nuanced and compassionate. I just do not think he has explained himself very well on this issue.
posted by davar at 7:15 AM on September 21, 2008
I agree with you. I said the same thing in the thread.
But still I think a discussion has merit, because this topic is obviously important to a vocal minority of people, and it is important to understand why they feel so strongly about this. I still think Obama could make an important difference here. His speech about race was very powerful and I do not doubt that his real opinions about abortion and infants are very nuanced and compassionate. I just do not think he has explained himself very well on this issue.
posted by davar at 7:15 AM on September 21, 2008
Not to be all meta2, but this doesn't really seem to be the kind of thing MeTa is for.
posted by signal at 7:20 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by signal at 7:20 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why does everything in American politics have to always be about abortion?
It's utterly baffling, isn't it? America becomes more and more laughable every day. Almost makes you want to grab the country by the lapels and shake it screaming, "Get your priorities straight!"
posted by Manhasset at 7:28 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
It's utterly baffling, isn't it? America becomes more and more laughable every day. Almost makes you want to grab the country by the lapels and shake it screaming, "Get your priorities straight!"
posted by Manhasset at 7:28 AM on September 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Obama voted how he voted.
That is all I need to know about him.
and more to the point - that is all we need to know about what you think about him
posted by pyramid termite at 7:32 AM on September 21, 2008 [17 favorites]
That is all I need to know about him.
and more to the point - that is all we need to know about what you think about him
posted by pyramid termite at 7:32 AM on September 21, 2008 [17 favorites]
A good chunk of the population seems to think that "liberals" are for whatever reason dead-set on killing as many babies as possible. Of course, if this were true, it would be a good reason not to vote for them.
In fact, that should be the Republicans' slogan this year: "The Republican Party -- at least we don't kill babies."
posted by creasy boy at 7:36 AM on September 21, 2008
In fact, that should be the Republicans' slogan this year: "The Republican Party -- at least we don't kill babies."
posted by creasy boy at 7:36 AM on September 21, 2008
and more to the point - that is all we need to know about what you think about him
Actually, people who haven't read the Palin straight talk thread need to know that konolia will lie when it suits her to defend her opinions, and when challenged will refuse to defend her lies with facts or admit she's lying.
Just like John McCain and Sarah Palin.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:37 AM on September 21, 2008 [8 favorites]
Actually, people who haven't read the Palin straight talk thread need to know that konolia will lie when it suits her to defend her opinions, and when challenged will refuse to defend her lies with facts or admit she's lying.
Just like John McCain and Sarah Palin.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:37 AM on September 21, 2008 [8 favorites]
He sounds angry and defensive
Well, yeah, of course he does. Because half the point of such a bill is to make pro-choicers angry and defensive. The other half of the point is to make pro-lifers angry and self-righteous. Notice that no part of the point was to actually save any babies.
Obama voted how he voted.
That is all I need to know about him.
What does this mean?
posted by lunasol at 7:40 AM on September 21, 2008
Well, yeah, of course he does. Because half the point of such a bill is to make pro-choicers angry and defensive. The other half of the point is to make pro-lifers angry and self-righteous. Notice that no part of the point was to actually save any babies.
Obama voted how he voted.
That is all I need to know about him.
What does this mean?
posted by lunasol at 7:40 AM on September 21, 2008
So, if the offspring was already legally protected, then the whole thing is about a bill that required that government (not the doctor or parents) treat the offspring differently from other babies, who are themselves already legally protected against neglect, etcetera?
So this whole thing is all about a different bureaucratic label for some offspring when all offspring are protected against neglect?
That's it? Really?
posted by NortonDC at 7:41 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
So this whole thing is all about a different bureaucratic label for some offspring when all offspring are protected against neglect?
That's it? Really?
posted by NortonDC at 7:41 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
You know, when John McCain wins the election in November, I really don't know what I'm going to do.
posted by kbanas at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by kbanas at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why the fuck is this in MetaTalk? Tell me again what aspect of site etiquette/policy your points cover, davar, 'cause it didn't come through in that windbag opinion piece you posted (and continue to flog multiple comments down the thread). Is someone calling you names elsewhere? Has rational discussion lost yet another battle to anon-i-fed internet ideology? Or do you just want to get your opinion out there once and for all 6 or 7 comments down the line?
Flame out already, otherwise this thread is useless.
posted by carsonb at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2008 [7 favorites]
Flame out already, otherwise this thread is useless.
posted by carsonb at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2008 [7 favorites]
If you're the kind of ignorant half-wit or disingenuous lying sack of shit who pretends to think Obama favors killing babies, we don't want or need your vote for Obama. Lying, slandering, disingenuous hacks pushing emotional hot buttons with disturbing mental images of things that don't happen in real life, or happen when a mother is fighting a massive ovarian tumor and needs chemo to survive, or when genetic testing is not done early and a fetus is discovered to have a terrible and fatal deformity. Pick on families dealing with tragedy, on women who are fighting for their lives, on people going through the saddest crap you can imagine, and then call yourself a defender of morality? On behalf of those families, let me say screw you.
As for who really kills babies, on a large scale, I am looking at Bush, Cheney, and McCain and saying j'accuse.
And for the strong of stomach, let's look at some of the THOUSANDS of children and babies killed in our names by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and enablers like John Sidney McCain. (NSFW, do not click this link unless you can deal with lots of pictures of maimed, dead children.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [21 favorites]
As for who really kills babies, on a large scale, I am looking at Bush, Cheney, and McCain and saying j'accuse.
And for the strong of stomach, let's look at some of the THOUSANDS of children and babies killed in our names by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and enablers like John Sidney McCain. (NSFW, do not click this link unless you can deal with lots of pictures of maimed, dead children.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:48 AM on September 21, 2008 [21 favorites]
And for the strong of stomach, let's look at some of the THOUSANDS of children and babies killed in our names by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and enablers like John Sidney McCain. (NSFW, do not click this link unless you can deal with lots of pictures of maimed, dead children.)
I'm not sure if you got the memo, but those aren't American children - they don't really count.
posted by kbanas at 7:56 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if you got the memo, but those aren't American children - they don't really count.
posted by kbanas at 7:56 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah, I forgot. Man, they're not even Christians (some are, most aren't). What was I thinking?
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:57 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:57 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
zardoz writes "is there any data to just how often it happens (in any state, for any year) that an aborted fetus is found to be alive? Just how often does this happen?"
The go-to example is from 1977 so probably less than once every 25 years.
posted by Mitheral at 7:57 AM on September 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
The go-to example is from 1977 so probably less than once every 25 years.
posted by Mitheral at 7:57 AM on September 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
I always wondered why religious nuts cared so much about abortion, when the rest of their neverending outcry is filled with such hate and exclusion.
I am beginning to realize that most of these evangelical types are children of neglect and abuse, and the fake love of the Church gives them a home. Abortion is a complicated issue that their trickster leaders turn into a simplistic binary war for the life of babies against those that want terrible to harm them.
This crazy post is more evidence of that hate, of that shrill mendacity that pervades their endless outrage.
If only they could wake up, and realize they are not immersed in love, but that they are being conned and marched in hate's greatest army.
posted by plexi at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2008 [6 favorites]
I am beginning to realize that most of these evangelical types are children of neglect and abuse, and the fake love of the Church gives them a home. Abortion is a complicated issue that their trickster leaders turn into a simplistic binary war for the life of babies against those that want terrible to harm them.
This crazy post is more evidence of that hate, of that shrill mendacity that pervades their endless outrage.
If only they could wake up, and realize they are not immersed in love, but that they are being conned and marched in hate's greatest army.
posted by plexi at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2008 [6 favorites]
Why the fuck is this in MetaTalk?
Not satisfied with hijacking threads one at a time, the single-issue screechers and concern trolls have succeeded in turning an entire section of the site into "all abortion, all the time".
posted by yhbc at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2008 [5 favorites]
Not satisfied with hijacking threads one at a time, the single-issue screechers and concern trolls have succeeded in turning an entire section of the site into "all abortion, all the time".
posted by yhbc at 7:58 AM on September 21, 2008 [5 favorites]
Why the fuck is this in MetaTalk?
I think there's some political argument going on in some massive thread on the site somewhere that thankfully I don't have to read or even see, but that some people think is VERY IMPORTANT. Every so often it spills over into public.
posted by smackfu at 7:59 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think there's some political argument going on in some massive thread on the site somewhere that thankfully I don't have to read or even see, but that some people think is VERY IMPORTANT. Every so often it spills over into public.
posted by smackfu at 7:59 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
OK, davar, I do see that fourcheesemac called you stupid. That was wrong, because on MeFi you're supposed to keep the discussion to the topic at hand and not focus on whatever glaringly apparent personality traits other members are displaying. But, again, you buried that complaint in a thousand words that read like a monotony of your first three, so my previous comment stands.
note: Everyone needs a hug. A subset of Everyone needs a punch in the junk.
posted by carsonb at 8:00 AM on September 21, 2008
note: Everyone needs a hug. A subset of Everyone needs a punch in the junk.
posted by carsonb at 8:00 AM on September 21, 2008
1977. Cannot be emphasized enough.
How many babies have American bombs killed since then? Hundreds of thousands at least.
And konolia says she's OK with at least one of those deaths, which occurred a long time after 1977, since it served to get Quadaffi's "attention." (warning, link opens long thread: here's the money quote:)
Actually, the turning point with Libya is when we bombed them and in the process killed Khadafi's toddler daughter. This turns my stomach-I had children her age when it happened-but after that we had Khadafi's attention.
Whoops. Killing Muslim toddlers is sad, but good foreign policy. She said that.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:01 AM on September 21, 2008 [17 favorites]
How many babies have American bombs killed since then? Hundreds of thousands at least.
And konolia says she's OK with at least one of those deaths, which occurred a long time after 1977, since it served to get Quadaffi's "attention." (warning, link opens long thread: here's the money quote:)
Actually, the turning point with Libya is when we bombed them and in the process killed Khadafi's toddler daughter. This turns my stomach-I had children her age when it happened-but after that we had Khadafi's attention.
Whoops. Killing Muslim toddlers is sad, but good foreign policy. She said that.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:01 AM on September 21, 2008 [17 favorites]
I wasn't calling davar stupid. I said the options were stupid OR disingenuous.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:02 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:02 AM on September 21, 2008
And I was speaking generically. I think it's a stupid MeTa post. Offensive, even. But the "you" I'm addressing is generic.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:06 AM on September 21, 2008
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:06 AM on September 21, 2008
MetaTalk isn't for edge case abortion debates, it's for site policy discussions, bug reports, and feature requests.
I'm going to close this thread and ask that this derail not make it back to the original thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:06 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm going to close this thread and ask that this derail not make it back to the original thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:06 AM on September 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
note: Everyone needs a hug.
posted by disillusioned at 2:17 AM on September 21, 2008