In a sign that he wants to reach out to pro-life voters, Barack Obama has told a Christian magazine that he would be against overly-broad exceptions to the prohibition on late-term abortions.

...Or maybe that is actually his opinion. I am as pro-choice as anyone else, but "distress" is way too vague a term for any legal process. I would like to introduce the concept that it is actually possible to have an opinion on this that stems from thoughtful effort, rather than from either knee-jerk responses vs pandering.

NARAL has said that his position is still consistent with Roe v Wade. This is right trying to say that he has changed his position. Don't be deceived.

I fail to see how this is "reaching out to pro-life voters." And how the hell is this inconsistent with anything Obama has ever said in the past?

"If all you guys are going to do all summer long is follow the MSM CW that every Democratic nominee is a flip-flopper and that everything a Democrat says in the summer is calculated to move to the middle, exactly what purpose do you serve in the grand scheme of things?"

To report the facts?

That was a stupid question.

The only time late term abortions are performed is when the mother and/or baby's life is in danger - physical danger.

The fucking question was meaningless.

As a physician (not a psychiatrist, I certainly agree that "Mental stress" is a very different term medically than Mental illness. While I consider myself pro choice, I certainly believe that abortions, especially late term ones, should be only performed for medical(including psychiatric)reasons. An unfortunate fact is that a majority of abortions are performed as a result of socio-economic circumstances. While this is unfortunate, it's a fact.
So, why would anyone who is otherwise healthy wait until 3rd trimester before they decide they want an abortion? Well, I postulate most don't but the roots may lie in socioeconomic/education of the pregnant woman. It may be related to the age of the mother, and lack of knowledge about options available and necessary actions that they need to take. It may be because of personal conflict and even religious beliefs. I have even heard of cases of a teenager hiding their pregnancy until they no longer could (for anatomical reasons). Finally, some mothers may have very little symptoms, and indeed may not even realize they are pregnant for quite a while (for example, very obese patients)
In cases of rape/incest which were mentioned in some posts earlier, again my thought would be that the abortion should be done earlier when it is safer to the mother. In fact in all sexual assault kits,pregnancy tests are included.
Finally, I noticed TenaX decrying adoption as a good option (unless I misunderstood). I have to disagree. While ideally, every kid should be raised by their biological parents, as I mentioned, many many of these cases have roots in poor and uneducated populations. The reality is that it would be safer for the child (obviously) and the MOTHER to explore adoption as a viable choice. We should always remember that late-term abortions are a lot more complicated procedure with a lot more potential risks than early terminations.
Apologies for the long post.

I agree with Tena that adoption is not a happy alternative, at least for the one giving up the baby, but my God it has to be happier than essentially murdering a viable fetus, which as I understand it is what a late-term abortion is. And I have always been pro-choice; but isn't everyone basically opposed to late-term abortions unless absolutely necessary? I mean medically necessary. Cases of emotional and mental distress, as well as rape or incest would presumably be diagnosed far sooner in the pregnancy and not necessitate a late-term abortion, which would cause mental and emotional distress in and of itself!

I don't see how this is pandering to the religious right, nor how it could be construed as misogynistic; it just seems like the only sensible position to take.

Guess #3.

BO's position on the death penalty is so objectionable, so unacceptable, you can't even stand to talk about it. OR, you're pretending it is unimportant, OR you just don't care.

OR, you can't have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with what you think.

Dju guys see the NYTimes yesterday? Gosh, only a few weeks ago they were kissing his ass.

So, in this case, I have to agree with you. The Times, editorially, is absolutely full of shit.

I think the biggest problem with the MSM and their coverage of Obama is their lack of ability to see shades of gray in any issue. What attracted to me to Obama in the first place is his willingness to see the nuance in issues - unlike George "you're either with us or against us" W. Bush.

To me, I want a president who understands that not everything in this world is black and white. I understand that his aim is to have all troops out of Iraq in 16 months, but I also understand that his ability to follow that timeframe will be dictated by events on the ground. I understand he's pro-choice but I also understand if he believes that there should be limits to late-term abortions. Unfortunately, it's just easier for the MSM to scream "FLIP-FLOP!" and "He's moving to the middle!"

We just have to hope when his head stops spinning he'd facing in the right direction.

Simplistic explanations to such complicated issues from either side just stinks of intellectual laziness.

For those of you who don't follow Edge of the American West, they've chimed in with the "Get Disappointed by Someone New" sticker again.

I was mainly referring to the tone of the posts. The idea that somebody has a differing opinion than mine does not bother me at all. But as I said, when it comes to complex issues like this for which there is no easy answer, I dont care what you classify yourself as, if you rant and rave, make sweeping generalizations, or adhere to bumper-sticker discourse, then you are no progressive, that's for damn sho'.

Does anyone know, specifically, what Obama means by "mental distress"? In other words, what's the context -- legal, medical, political -- for that phrase?
Thanks.
Posted by arikelman

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

There ya go, upnorths. No easy answers, now. No sweeping generalizations.

==Wouldn't you agree that, the answer is to provide the young woman with the education, and health care, and economic means to have access to contraception, and early intervention, rather than focusing on the management of an advanced and dangerous stage of the problem? From a healthcare point of view, the parallels are endless... and Obama does seem to get the big picture very well. He is not perfect by any means, but he does not need to be in this world. He is just more nuanced and either smarter,more genuine, or less committed to an ideology than McCain.==

That's really great that you have extended what Obama has said, in a way that projects him in the most agreeable and liberal light possible, given the cirmustances!

The problem is he did not say any of this. He did not draw the attention to the attrocious conditions that many doctors who perfrom abortions operate under. He did not point out that in many states there is a single doctor who performas ANY abortions. He did not draw attention to the lack of sex education in many American school systems and the lack of any funds available for abortions, even in the most non-controversial circumstances.

Like I said, he could have delivered this message in a way that made his position clear while strengthening his committment to the woman's right to choose. He did not do so - he said that it should be easier for a state to ban late term abortions, limiting some silly "excuses" women may use to get this "thing" done. This is the tone of a politician that is running to the right so hard, he doesn't even know when he got there.

==Finally, if there is one lesson one can learn from the debacle of the last decade, it should be that in life and politics, there are VERY few absolutes. ==

Is there anything your chosen candidate can do or say that will actually challenge your support of him? Or, having chosen "your man" you will rationalize 'till the end?

You don't have iota of truth behind what you said about Hillary Clinton campaigning on the ban in 2000. She NEVER SUPPORTED THE LAW.

It is a calumny that you say so...and it's typical of the trash talk that was so common during the camapaign.

You are an ignorant ignoramus.....

Bill Clinton vetoed just such it in 1998. And don't you even dare to effing argue with me over it becasue I have long tbeen in a position to know exactly what I am saying.

I live in NY, I am a Democratic party official. I am on the board of the most prominent prochoice organization in NY. She did not support the partial birth abortion ban in 2000. She was supported by all th e prochoice groups in NY. She was fully in line with the stance of NY prochoice groups that insisited that

1. There was no need for this law because it purportedly describes a medical procedure with language which didn't really describes anything that actually happens medically

2 Late term abortions are already banned under Roe.

3. The law really neither protected the mother's health nor in even many cases her life (the life exception was written so narrowly that it applied only in immediate emergencies...like hours from death)

4. Yes mental health is part of the consideration...because severe fetal abnormlaities can come up late in pregnancy for women who may not have had amniocentesis or sonograms or other early screenings. Mental health was always part of it.

Nancy Keenan of National NARAL is very busy covering up for themselves in their hasty endorsement and of course Obama blindsided her when he said this....because I doubt they ever had an interview or a conversation about abortion issues ever. I sometimes wonder if Nancy Keenan even knows what organization she is the head of ....Women for Obama or NARAL.

He was pandering to right wing evangelical...He thinks prochoice women are in the bag.

That lonely bracket represents this:

"Realistically, a pragmatic and moderate president is what U.S and the world needs right now, after the last 8 years of nutjobs."

" Most people, including a lot of the pro-life crowd may well agree with him. "

Thanks for pointing out the typo!! The point actually meant to read as "pro-choice", in fact the argument does not really make sense.

However, keep in mind that late terminations are not(underline) risk free, in the short and the long term. In the majority of the cases giving birth would actually be less risky to the mother, and needless to say, the child. And I'm not even referring to the long term psychological impact on the mother.I would challenge any one to say that undergoing this procedure is less emotionally traumatic than giving the child up for adoption.
While I agree with the existence of "throw-away" children, I do have a moral dillema with the idea of killing a living child that would otherwise survive, is a real ethical dillema. As I said before, I am pro-choice, but this does not sit well with me and many of my pro-choice colleagues. In the cases that you referred to, support for the mother,and adoption should be considered as viable options, and that comes down to education and awareness.

Hillary Clinton during her October 8, 2000 debate against Rick Lazio: "I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240013

I do not agree that NARAL is just covering themselves on this. I believe they had an extensive interview with Obama on abortion before they endorsed him. That's just an empty accusation.

Obama is in the process of getting his stand on the issues out to the public, and some people are finding out they don't agree with him on every nuance. For this to come as a shock is really naive.

National elections are not about who lines up to your issues 100%, they are about which candidate is the closest to you on the issues. You will never get anymore than that unless you run for president yourself.

And as for the chicken littles who are running around yelling "he's flip flopping he's flip flopping," When you start agreeing with people like Rove, then you should recognize that you have gone so far left you are standing with the far right. That's just sad.

"I do not agree that NARAL is just covering themselves on this. I believe they had an extensive interview with Obama on abortion before they endorsed him. That's just an empty accusation."
Posted by Debra
============
You "believe"? This is just empty speculation.

"Obama is in the process of getting his stand on the issues out to the public, and some people are finding out they don't agree with him on every nuance. For this to come as a shock is really naive."
============
Shock? Way past that, Debra. Loathing and disgust. Oh, and some of us saw him coming long ago.

"National elections are not about who lines up to your issues 100%, they are about which candidate is the closest to you on the issues. You will never get anymore than that unless you run for president yourself."
============
Snore. What are you, twelve?

"And as for the chicken littles who are running around yelling "he's flip flopping he's flip flopping," When you start agreeing with people like Rove, then you should recognize that you have gone so far left you are standing with the far right. That's just sad."
=============
Please document.

"The question that matters on the issue of abortion in this election, is which candidate is going to protect Roe vs. Wade by selecting Supreme Court justices who support it? McCain has promised he will try to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, and that will be possible if he is elected. That's what is at stake in this election, and Democrats need to stop eating their own and helping McCain to win."
============
Obama is a holy roller and on this issue has demonstrated his weakness on RvW. What makes you think he will be careful about his appointments to the Court when it comes to this issue?

News flash, in case you missed it the primaries are over.

The next president will be either Obama or McCain. This is McCain's stand on the issue of abortion, from his website:

"Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

News flash, in case you missed it the primaries are over.
=========
So?

The next president will be either Obama or McCain. This is McCain's stand on the issue of abortion, from his website:
"Overturning Roe v. Wade
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."
=============
Okay, McCain will surely appoint pigs to replace any retirees. But how can you be so sure, considering his "fluctuations", and clear status as a religious fanatic, that Obama will give a damn, one way or another, about RvW in his appointments?

Posted by Debra
July 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink

Sorry I don't talk to trolls. Bye!

Posted by Debra
=============
I just don't get ya, Debra. If by "troll" you mean me, you just talked to me. So what up?

And what does it mean when dialog stops just because people disagree with one another? This is a characteristic of Obama supporters, NOT the dissenters.

Ok I will answer you, just once.

You don't want a dialogue, you just want to attack people and their candidate. You aren't for anything, you are just against.

Don't you have something better to do with your life than sit around and type hateful comments about Obama? Surely there are healthier decisions you can make for yourself.

So that's my reply. Now please direct your spew toward someone else.

And to answer your question, no I'm not 12.

Ok I will answer you, just once.
========
Um, that would be TWICE.

You don't want a dialogue, you just want to attack people and their candidate. You aren't for anything, you are just against.
============
You don't know anything about me. One thing I know about you? You won't answer substantive questions.

Don't you have something better to do with your life than sit around and type hateful comments about Obama? Surely there are healthier decisions you can make for yourself.
===========
You might be right about that - in the sense I am spending more than a few seconds on YOU. But maybe a reader will see the emptiness inherent in this campaign, personified by the acolytes who populate this place.

So that's my reply. Now please direct your spew toward someone else.
==========
To you, apparently, "spew" = questions and comments too difficult and/or challenging to respond to.

And to answer your question, no I'm not 12.
=========
11?

Posted by Debra

Well, you haven't REALLY "been there". Does your wife know you are saying things like this? Such theorizing from you about "firm medical ground" is offensive. Obama's is, too.

In a sign that he wants to reach out to pro-life voters, Barack Obama has told a Christian magazine that he would be against overly-broad exceptions to the prohibition on late-term abortions.

Can you supply us with a single instance in which a politician has said he or she was in favor of "overly-broad exceptions to the prohibition on late-term abortions"?

Is it obligatory that nonsense always be the norm in writing about this subject?