Decades ago the State of Oregon did a study with public participation "prioritizing" several hundred different types of medical care on two bases:  How much did it cost?  What was the likelihood of success?

Top of the list was giving antibiotics to people suffering from pneumonia.  Dirt cheap (relatively speaking,) high chance of success and you avoided all kinds of more-expensive care options by acting quickly.

At the bottom of the list was life support for anencephalic babies.  Hideously expensive, and no hope at all.

The bill Obama voted against in Illinois and declined to vote on in the Senate makes that kind of care mandatory.

Chico:  This subject is too hot for me.  It's one that guarantees that fiercely-held opinions will be shared and argued about but will never be settled as long as there are human beings on earth.  That's the only reason I can't share my opinion.  The name of our next President may hang on this question.  That's how important it is. 

Maybe it just comes down to a difference in terminology.  I had a friend that seemed to have a healthy pregnancy until about her sixth month.  She became sick almost overnight and collapsed.  The hospital told her she had preeclampsia and they needed to induce labor right then.  She didn't argue.  Her life, and the life of her much-anticipated and adored baby were on the line.  The baby only survived a few hours.  It was heartbreaking to the whole family.  My friend, her doctors and her family referred to the experience as premature delivery.  Would pro-lifers call it "late-term abortion?"

Chico:  By-the-by, I agree with you about how wrong you were.  (But that still doesn't address the hot-button issue of any-time abortions, upon which I shall not opine.) 

Cat,  that "difference in terminology" has me saying it's a "lifesaving medical procedure" and the people who don't understand the procedure calling it "murder." 

.

The name of our next President may hang on this question.

And vice-versa.

Carrying a dead baby till delivery is unthinkable,at least to me Audrey.

I think what we can all agree on is that birth,life,death are all individual situations..that no "one" simple solution is right.

BTW~ after the death of my friends baby we did some research.It clearly takes a very special person to decide to let these children live,and some do. Again ,as was the case with keeping my son,the morality of that action was mine and my families to decide....no one else.

Well put, as always, Sage.  : )

Also, I think the reason many pro-lifers make an exception for situations where the mother and/or baby's life is in jeopardy is because it falls under the "this baby was wanted, but..." pretext.  If they didn't make this exception, every "preemie" baby that didn't survive would have to be classified as an abortion, and that's fightin' words to many.

I think another reason abortion is a hot-button issue is because it throws a lot of our long-cherished beliefs into disarray.  When the world is in upheaval, when men are fighting and raping and pillaging, when no one in the whole world can be counted on to perpetuate the species instead of annihilate it, MOTHERS can still be counted on to suffer and scrape and claw to feed and protect their children.  Mothers are sometimes the last defense against complete anarchy.  I'm getting images of Darfur and Somalia here.

When mothers are the annihilators, when mothers, not guerrillas fighters, are the ones turning their backs on the perpetuation of the species, I think some kind of inner instinct tells us the whole world has gone to HELL!  If mothers can't be counted on, then what's left?  That's why you get outraged screams from some people over abortion, and yawns and shrugs from the same people over the latest deadly gun battle in the hood.  It's the inner city "guerrilla fighters" that no one seems to want to change the constitution over, but mothers?  Hell yeah!

In other words, we're applying ingrained habits which developed during a time when most children died anyway before reproducing, to a very different situation today when our greatest danger is too many of us all on one planet.  But that's what you get when your reflexes were evolved a million years ago, and your rulebook is two thousand years out of date.

That's why *THINKING* is much more important to the survival of the species than reproducing. 

Some people "think" with their hearts, Random, and vote that way, too.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong.  It is what it is.

Let's strip away the runaway emotion from the issues of birth control and abortion for a moment and take an objective glance at some other aspects and questions surrounding the subject.

If those 1.2 or 1.3 million abortions per year had not been performed during the past 40 years we would have a directly proportionate number of millions more people in the country and billions more to come.

Add to that the number of babies that would have been procreated by those who wisely practiced proper birth control.

If all those babies had matured and had 1.2 children of their own by the age of 20 or so, millions more babies would have been created, therby propagating a mind boggling exponential increase in U.S. population similar to that of underdeveloped African and Asian countries that can no longer feed, clothe and otherwise administer to their vast populations created by ignorant parents who failed to practice birth control and had babies neither they nor society can support.

Selective procreation is increasingly more necessary to curb exponential population growth, whether it be abstinence or birth control. Abortion also plays a significant role in that overall equation.

Unfortunately, while developed nations better control their own population growth with these effective albeit unpopular measures, other large nations can't, don't or won't, and must deal with much uglier natural selection processes including death by disease, famine, war, genocide and other horrific causes.

If the fundies have their way with birth control and abortion, everyone would be encouraged to have a dozen or more kids as science finds ways to make them live increasingly longer and the planet would soon be in chaos.

When I look at those fly-ridden African kids in the television ads, I can't help but think of the ignorance of the parents who so irresponsibly created them.

When I see some of these large families of Christians numbering up to a dozen or more children, I wonder if they consider what kind of world we would have if everyone manufactured of babies an automobile factory.

When I see pregnant 13, 14-year-old girls dropping out of school to become welfare mothers with fatherless babies, I wonder why they didn't have the sense to avoid the pregnancy with proper precoital protection or why they didn't terminate it early at the first sign prior to it becoming a viable life.

Is it because of inflammatory religious dogma demonizing people who practice birth control or seek pregnancy termination? Bad parenting?

Whatever it is, one thing is clear. Unfettered population growth in the long term will at some mathematical point suffocate the planet.

In the shorter term, uncontrolled population growth will create misery and pain for many.

Maybe instead of encouraging people to crank out litters of kids, we should be thinking about spay and neutering programs like we have for dogs and cats. Of course, that's inhumane, but it helps illustrate the need for responsible procreation.

Why is it that people feel so compelled to make more kids, anyway?

Is it out of selfishness?

Is it because they just want babies for their own enjoyment, like live versions of Barbie and Ken dolls?

Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?

Is there not a genetic safeguard preventing extinction from overpopulation or is that a matter left to the brain to exercise?

Newest Dem talking point re this:  "McCain could actually hear some of Obama'a answers so he could shape his own......"

Dem Motto:  "if your man gets beat, assume the other guy was cheating" 

"Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?"

Yeah, and you seem to be lacking it.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....

If those 1.2 or 1.3 million abortions per year had not been performed during the past 40 years we would have a directly proportionate number of millions more people in the country and billions more to come.

Not so.  Typically, those women undergoing abortions have those babies anyway--just at a later/more convenient time, or healthy babies as opposed to malformed ones.

Doubt we can ever strip away the overloaded emotional content.  It's too valuable to the demogogues.  Heavy emotions stop thought--and that's perfect when you're manipulating people.

Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?

Of course there is.  That's how we won out over the Neanderthal.  We didn't out-think 'em, or out-fight 'em.  We out f'ed 'em.

Yes, Catherine, I was shortchanged with the omission of a compelling procreation gene.

It's no biggie. I don't feel terrible about it.

But as a male in a civilized society, I have nothing to say about a woman's desire and freedom to procreate or not.

Unlike in some other underdeveloped countries where men have a say in a woman's pregnancy, along with other aspects of her life, here in civilized western society the decision to have babies is determined solely by the mother. Fathers have no voice in the decision.

Women don't need husbands or even male sex partners to achieve their procreational goals.

Many single women are buying anonymous sperm from banks to father their own progeny in order to avoid male interference in the birthing and rearing process.

Maybe men should have more say about it?

Just kidding.

Everyone knows that men are incapable of rational, humane thought on the matter.

Hell, if it was up to men, there'd probably be a million more abortions each year.

Men always have a say, Saber.  A man's say ends where their zipper begins. 

Well said, sage.

RandomFactor, for what's it worth,  I totally agree.

It's a little irritating how something as emotionally intimate as the decision to carry a baby can be so highly politized.  I came of age in the early eighties - this issue has been part of national politics for as long as I have been socially conscious.

I think the  evangelical Right - granting such a thing - would be a better witness to a wayward nation if they  left the public scene and then returned only  after the  New Testament has  been fully revisited.

--virgil

Yes, Sage, men like to get laid once in a while.

I hear that women like it. too.

Sometime women are doing the unzipping

But women don't need the physical presence of a man directly involved in their lives in order to have sexplay or babies.

One of my points is that women are solely responsible for the birth of children.

A man cannot force a woman to have either birth or abortion.

A woman, on the other hand, can use effective protection to avoid pregnancy. A woman can demand that a male sex partner use protection such as a condom.

However, condoms are not sure-fire protection against possible pregnancy, they are primarily designed to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases not as a birth control measure.

So, the protection against pregnancy also falls more on the heads of women than on men.

In the case of teen pregnancies, parents are often largely at fault for failing to acknowledge the young girl's sexual activity and failing to properly educate the child on proper birth control methods and equip the child for safe, baby-free sex.

I have friends who are presently in complete denial about their 13-year-old daughter's possible sexual behavior with her steady 15-year-old boyfriend of six months.

I've seen this common behavior in families often wherein the child is understandably reluctant to share experiences with parents whom she knows will become angry at the disclosure and punish the child with Draconian measures rather than resolving the issue intelligently and dispassionately.

"My daughter and I are very close, she would never lie to me," says the mother.

Yeah, sure.

"I'll beat her to a pulp and kill the boy," says the father.

The girl ends up pregnant, her parents raise their grandbaby while the girl dates a series of losers that beat her and struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and the baby grows up to become a Republican evangelist and visits his toothless tattooed mom in prison once a year or so.

Well, maybe it doesn't turn out quite that badly, but for all you parents out there who don't believe your 14-year-old daughter is most probably bonking her boyfriend, heaven help you, your child and the early grandbaby you might soon have.

Unless, of course, you find out about the pregnancy soon enough for an early term abortion.

I was just being flippant, Saber.  I'm not arguing with you on your points.  I agree that too many idiots are congratulating themselves on having babies they cannot care for instead of having abortions and being baby murderers.  I think the main reason behind this is that there really is no longer a stigma against stupid, unmarried 15-year-old girls having babies, but there is still a stigma against abortion.  Whatever the path of least resistance is, you know.  They'll worry about tomorrow (and the next 20 years) later.

However, implying that parents are somehow ruining the world because of world overpopulation just because YOU don't want kids and can't see beyond your own ego and admit that other people who don't think like you do may not, as a result, be WRONG, deserves a big *SMACK!* from my gentle, mothering hand.

Huh? Did I mention getting "laid"? I'm so confused.....

Saber~ for the record:I did not mention getting "laid" at all. But to be clear,I am for it,given consenting adults.

The more I see of Obama the more I think he is really not that sharp.

Those who consider him  "nuanced" with all the uhh's, ahhh's, and other pauses remind me of the movie  "Being There"

"Intellectuals" are seeing what they want to see.........

I really don't see NEITHER one of them pulling that 'magic rabbit out of their hat' and making all of our troubles go away in the 4 years that he/she is in office---not unless your Criss Angel...but whom ever wins this race..why in the 'heck' do they want a job that pays LESS than a Medical Doctor?

I agree Ling~ and we still have sooo looong to go. Whoever gets in has a row to hoe,that is for sure.

Chico:  He's really good at pursing his lips, staring off into the distance (peculiarly, toward the right), chin up, as though envisioning a future as King.  But he has absolutely perfected Ummm, Uhhhhh, etc.  Maybe that's a good thing, though.  "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip."  And while I know my comment will resonate with few on this thread, that's okay.  I'm not running for anything.  (Maybe my life, later.)

So whom-ever WINS...Good Luck...WE still have a Congress that still can't find their BUTTS with both hands....(as I drift off and think of my friends years ago at Tuns Taveren when they were called upon)

"He's really good at pursing his lips, staring off into the distance (peculiarly, toward the right), chin up, as though envisioning a future as King."

If that future ever actually comes to pass, what he'll be seeing when he stares off into the distance is a huge banner. It'll read "THE KING IS A FINK!"

"Intellectuals" are seeing what they want to see.........

So, sadly, are you.

I agree, Ling.  Neither candidate, no matter how hard they try, is going to be able to "fix" everything during their presidency.

We all see what we see,and no one here by debate or offensive slurs will change one mind.

All I know is whoever gets "in" I will stand behind them, hoping to improve my country,until they prove otherwise. Unfortunatly that can be said of very few Americans.

I completely agree, Sage.  The two candidates want to achieve the same results for the country, just with different methods.  I think they both want the best for our country.  Too bad we can't have a co-presidency.  Obama and McCain can situate their desks on opposite ends of  the Oval Office, and have to agree or shoot spit balls at each other.

tonyh:  Or something similar. 

 Even though it is technically considered major surgery, a cesarean carries relatively minor risks--closer to those of a tonsillectomy than of a gallbladder operation, for instance--that can generally be treated easily

My wife has had her gallbladder removed and had two c-sections. Her experience is closer to that than a tonsillectomy. I also saw the doctor tugging and pulling trying to get my son dislodged (from her ribs, I guess). I also saw the cutting and the tools used to separate the abdominal wall. You also have to have an attentive anesthesiologist to monitor the patient (my wife was given too much anesthetic due to her high tolerance which caused her to temporarly lose function of her arms) . The major surgery part is by no means just a technicality. C-sections are very serious business.

Elective c-sections increase the maternal risk of death threefold over vaginal birth, and increase the risk to the infant as well.   Of course in these cases we're not technically talking about elective surgery--unless it's being done because someone *OTHER* than the mother or doctor said that intact d&e was not doable.

The risk of dying from a c-section is *MUCH* higher than tonsillectomy.   About ten thousand times higher.

When the decision comes for many whether to abort or carry to full term, I wonder how many decide to carry and then look down at their infants head and thought but that for that split second decision, you would be a small pile of waste tossed in a trash can.

I wonder how many fathers look at their sons and marveled that they ever could have wished them down a drain.

I know of couples or parents who made that decision to carry and later you'd have thought they invented successful pregnancies.  I was accused on here of my anti abortion stance being a religious one and I vehemently disagree.   Every infant I see and hold is a gift.  A gift of life, a gift of continuity.  I will sit and make stupid noises and faces just to get a smile or a giggle and so the thought of that not happening is an impossible one for me.

I don't care that some here will remind me of the broken children and the lost children..I get it.  But when as abortion is performed because a pregnancy is too early in their married or teen life or inconvenient...that's just wrong and I don't care who disagrees with me.  It is NOT our choice to end that fetus's life.

When I heard McCain say that life begins at conception I was standing in a hotel room and I applauded.

And for the record, if anyone thought Obama was talking about a higher power when he said it was above his pay grade needs to read up on Solomon.

The five million dolor remark was a joke, he even said something like"seriously, I know that statement will be distorted, but seriously lets talk about this". His point was that he doesn't care what figure is considered rich he doesn't wan to raise taxes on any one.

And he did define rich in the beginning he said it was having a home, a family, and giving more to your children than you have. He said it was ridiculous to think that a small business owner working 16 hour days, and employing others, helping our economy should not be taxed as if they are "rich". I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Note, that Obama said "well selling 25 million books make you rich..." that was obviously a joke and so was McCain's.

The five million dolor remark was a joke,

I knew that.  In his social circles you need ten million dollars and at least three houses just to be on his Christmas Card list--and $20 million makes you middle class.

It is interesting how some of the Obama supporters on this thread did their best to delflect from its original subject... the performance of the two candidates at the forum.

McCain was obviously the sharper of the two. His answers were concise, definitive, and left little doubt where he stood on the issues being discussed.

Obama, on the other hand, did his usual waffling, giving vague substanceless answers, trying to appeal to the low IQ crowd who would rather emote than actually think.

I was recently on a forum where an ardernt Obama supporter who lives in NORWAY was talking about how disappointed he was because it was clear, even to the Norwegian press, who dominated in that matchup.

First of all, it *WAS* a forum, and not a "debate."

McBush was not the sharper of the two--he was the one who had a prepared speech.

Obama went before a conservative, Christian audience and made the case for being pro-choice.  He disproved the "Muslim" crap.  He even bantered with the minister.  McBush's supporters desperately want this to be a "win" for him to deflect from his awful performances of late.  We'll see what the two look like head-to-head, before a *NEUTRAL* audience and not one made up of McBushies.

I believe you, jfrancais.  We all have different experiences.  Believe me, if your wife had been one of the women I had talked to about c-sections when I was pregnant with my first child, I would have been shaking in my boots.  There WAS the possiblilty of needing a c-section in my case because of placentia previa, but it improved before I went into labor. 

Anyway, my whole point of bringing it up was that I felt, in cases where the mother or the baby is in distress, induced labor and/or c-section are preferrable to late-term abortion.  If you don't agree, that's okay.

Is that why Obama is the one holding the no. of real debates down to only 3 while McCain wants more?

McBush wants "town-hall" style affairs packed with his supporters.  Obama's the front-runner.  He doesn't *HAVE* to give McBush anything.

Cat

You made some compelling arguments.  Two things that stand out.

One.  Men hold life dear while that life is in a woman's womb and they are not troubled (at all) by it's gestation. .

On the other hand, men have no problem waging war and slaughtering that same life in an act of national aggression for gain, ideology  or supremacy.

Two  If it's murder to abort a fetus when a woman decides to end the pregnancy, isn't it also murder to abort a fetus because it threatens the mother's life. 

Let's say in the first case that the mother has children at home who don't have the basic necessities to sustain life, then she becomes pregnant with a child whose  birth will increase the strain on  the existing children (perhaps resulting in their deaths).   Do we just let the birth happen and leave the results to God?

In the second case, a woman is told that she will die if she continues a pregnancy.  Do we let the pregnancy continue and leave the results to God?  Even if the life of the mother and the fetus will most certainly  end before birth takes place.

Or we could argue whether c-sections are risky and whether the world is overpopulated.  ; )

"Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade".  WOw.  What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???"

You think Obama is bad? You should hear what the Pope says about it:  From the very lips of of the Pope/Ratziner:

"The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion."

[*Magisterium: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.]

Apparently God's representative on earth also doesn't hold the pay grade, either. If history is the teacher, the Magisterium might get around to defining when life begins in a couple of centuries, sort of like when they finally understood the sun didn't rotate around the earth and that natural selection was a fact. But then you can always ask the Mormons. They have the pay grade and they'll tell you that souls are alive and waiting for parents to get together so they can come into the world.  What do the Mormons know that the Pope doesn't?

The Scientologists also share that belief, along with a screwy kind of reincarnation.  (Or, in the Ozarks, reintarnation.)

Once more, life began either 2 billion or just over 6000 years ago, depending on your favorite method of answering such questions.  It does *NOT* begin at conception.

As for "ensoulment," I believe that's when you learn to dance.

"Apparently God's representative on earth also doesn't hold the pay grade, either."

Obama wants to wield power a million times greater than anything the Pope can imagine. NOTHING is above the President's pay grade.

Obama is obviously not up to the task.

And for the record, if anyone thought Obama was talking about a higher power when he said it was above his pay grade needs to read up on Solomon. 

The question from Pastor Rick was:

Q: AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
The assumption of Obama's critics is that a president should always reduce complex issues to simple black and white truisms, unfounded in reality. That's why they supported Bush. And that's why they're supporting McCain.  If Pastor Rick's question were rendered into a direct question, rather than a metaphor, the question would be, "When does life begin?"   If Obama's answer were rendered into a direct answer rather than a metaphor, it would be rendered, "I don't know." Which is exactly what the Pope (Ratzinger) says.

Random. I like the explanation from the cracker thief's tribe. When asked, "When does life begin?" someone said, "two billion years ago."

Spam code:  US XXX (LOL)