Author of Anti-Obama Book Lies About Stance on Abortion


Media Matters catches Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, lying about Sen. Barack Obama’s Illinois legislative record on abortion. He’s not the first to do it, nor will he likely be the last. The extreme rhetoric will not save one life, but it is not intended to. Division and misinformation is all the far-right seeks.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    Why don’t you post Obama’s Voting Record on Abortion? Have you looked at it…

  • scott-swenson

    We have several posts and an entire Election 2008 page devoted to the candidates stands on sexual and reproductive health inclusive of abortion, comprehensive sex ed, contraception, maternal health and HIV. I guess it is hard for you to actually click around a bit and research things, much easier just to spout off, eh TR (aka the Truth)? Try opening your mind to a little learning TR, you might be surprised to learn what the truth really is.

    Also, in case you missed it, the link in the short piece takes you to Media Matters where they debunk the lies your side continues to put out.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    and he is voting pro-choice and doesn’t vote against partial birth abortion according to that site. I thought you had some other information about his stance on the issue. I think what the author of the book is saying is that if you’re for partial birth abortion then you’re not opposed to killing a child outside the womb, which is what partial birth abortion is, right? Maybe he could say it in a less accusational way but he is probably passionate about it and so there is some emotion there. The Truth is the Truth so not matter how he says it – it probably would be opposed, right? I don’t have a side except the Truth so I am open, but I have studied and studied both sides and while both have their faults the Life side seems to have a more solid argument – philosophically, theologically, socially, psychologically, spiritually, etc. Throughout history the society’s and cultures that began to degrade human life didn’t last very long because this is a basic truism for any ongoing civilization to stay in business – it has to have people and there must be rules.

  • invalid-0

    Swenson,

    How can you accuse anyone of “lying” about Obama’s stance on abortion when nobody really knows what his stance is? As National Right-to-Life President Wanda Franz noted, “[w]hen the frame is focused on reproductive rights and health specifically, we see a candidate who is either uninformed . . . or speaks with an unacceptable lack of moral center about abortion, sex education, and family planning.” And speaking of Obama’s position on late term abortion, Franz observed that “[m]aybe Barack Obama just hasn’t thought this through to the degree that he needs to.” The Media Matters piece doesn’t shed a single ray of light on what Obama’s position actually is. Can you really say that you disagree with Ms. Franz’ assessment of the situation?

  • invalid-0

    there is a great deal of clear, concise information on Obama’s record. You just may not like what it says.

    Obama supports comprehensive sexual health education so young people understand their bodies, how they work and how to protect themselves against pregnancy, or getting a woman pregnant, sexually transmitted infections and how to navigate sexual relationships in a healthy way. Obama supports ensuring access to abortion under Roe v. Wade – a decision that allows for abortion until viability and after that only in cases where a physician (according to the American Medical Association, the American College for Obstetricians and Gynecologists and every single other mainstream medical organization that does not take an ideological position but a MEDICAL position) believes it is necessary to save the live or health of the woman. These are extreme cases where the physician (not you, not your priest, not the directors of anti-choice advocacy organizations but doctors, women and their families) deems it necessary or appropriate. 

    If you did take a moment to actually understand extremely late term abortion procedures (there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion" and, again, this is not a term that any mainstream medical organization recognizes as a medical term no matter how often extremist anti-choice organizations and others repeat it), you’d understand that, in the %.02 of abortions where these are performed, they are done in situations where women are generally devastated because the child they had planned to have was not destined to live or because the woman carrying the fetus would not survive or because it would threaten the woman’s mental capacity to carry the pregnancy to term  (but, please don’t bother to talk about this with actual women who have gone through this – I’m sure it’s much nicer to just assume and coerce your own belief system onto others than to actually trust women and their families with their doctors to make the best decisions they can in an extremely difficult situation – please, by all means, interfere).

    Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his positions through the legislation for which he advocates – legislation that would provide access to health services and education like contraception, family planning and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Obama supports ensuring emergency contraception for women who have been raped and want to prevent a possible pregnancy by their attacker. Barack Obama supports ensuring that young people receive the access to sexual health education and information in an age-appopriate way that most parents want to see.

    In fact, these are the positions that the majority of Americans support. The majority of Americans believe in access to contraception, comprehensive sexual health education that provides information on both abstinence and contraception as well as navigating healthy relationships. The majority of Americans support ensuring education and tools that prevent sexually transmitted infections like HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The majority of Americans support making sure our funds go towards ensuring prenatal care access for low and middle-income Americans who need it, ensuring access to quality care during childbirth and health insurance coverage for children and their families afterwards. 

    If you want to fixate on one procedure and on falsifying Obama’s reproductive and sexual health positions, please do. It only helps to solidify how extremist and out of step your positions are with most Americans. 

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • scott-swenson

    Ms. Tavish,

    I disagree with anyone who says that they do not know where Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain stands on these issues because both have been very clear.

    Obama is pro-choice, believes in comprehensive, age-appropriate sex-ed, supports prevention efforts including access to contraception and believes that it is time that we move beyond the screaming rhetoric and focus on the important health care aspects of education and prevention efforts. You can read the Obama questionnaire on these issues at the link above, Sen. McCain has yet to respond to repeated efforts to answer the same questionnaire.

    McCain is anti-choice, believes women should not have the right to a safe, legal medical procedure that more than 40 percent of American women will have at some point in their lives. He supports abstinence-only programs, and doesn’t seem to have a clear position on contraception given that he couldn’t answer a simple question about whether or not women should be able to access contracpeiton covered by insurance plans. Sen. McCain seems content to allow the divisive nature of this debate to continue as it has for the past 30 years, and seems fearful of selecting a pro-choice Republican to be his running mate for fear of offending people that he described in his 2000 race for the White House as "agents of intolerance."

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Miss Newman,

    As being a fellow partaker in truth, would you please cite the statistical data that substantiates your claim that 50.1% or more of Americans would like to be provided with access to health services and education like contraception, family planning, sexually transmitted infection prevention, treatment, emergency contraception for women who have been raped, comprehensive sexual health education, education to navigate through healthy relationships, education and tools that prevent sexually transmitted infections like HIV/AIDS, and making sure that American tax payer funds go towards ensuring prenatal care access for low and middle-income Americans who need it?

    Thanks.

    Timothy+

  • scott-swenson

    TR:

     

    There is no medical term "partial birth abortion". It is a political creation used by the far-right to stir people’s emotions. Any procedure done late in a pregnancy is done for the life or health of the mother or the fetus, and must be required medically, by law. There are very strict regulations, and they are very, very, very, very rare (one percent or less of all procedures).

     

    So what about the degradation of women’s lives, lives that are not allowed to determine when they are prepared to bring a child into the world, are forced to carry to term a pregnancy that originated in the violence of rape, or forced to give birth to the fetus that has had complications and died in the womb?

     

    I couldn’t agree more with you that it is of the utmost importance to value life, not just its potential. The life that we should honor, celebrate and respect is that of the woman, who if for whatever reason makes the private medical decision to terminate, has the ability to give birth at a later date if that is her choice. But if her life is ended because of dangerous health complications, or a botched, illegal and unsafe abortion, all that happens is the children she already has are now without a mother.

     

    We should not devalue the lives of women and force them into situations that may be medically dangerous to them, or force them to carry a pregnancy to term because someone else said so. What could possibly be more degrading than removing another individual’s God given free will?

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Wait a second. Are you claiming that more than 40% of all American women will have an abortion?

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    So, it is the forty percent that are unintended, right?

    Timothy+

    Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. (Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96).

  • scott-swenson

    Thank you for the clarification, I should have said that 40 percent of American women who face an unintended pregnancy, will choose to terminate.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • http://www.alittleredhen.com invalid-0

    Lately I’ve noticed more long-winded, inaccurate comments on blogs I read. Though always a problem at Alternet, seems to have increased as the desparation of the McCain campaign gains energy.

    Thanks RH Reality Check for your thoughtful, well-researched posts.

  • scott-swenson

    Yes, the desperation of a shrinking fringe minority is palpable as more Americans realize that if we just educate youth with facts about sex, and treat reproductive health as what it is — health care, we might actually make progress. But some will vent and rant and not even bother reading the factual evidence on this site, let alone actually bothering to do their own google searches. And most will always favor heated emotional rhetoric over actual cold hard facts. The hope is that enough people see through the games now, regardless of party or candidate, and simply reject ideologues and make a stand for reality.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Ms. Tavish, I disagree with anyone who says that they do not know where Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain stands on these issues because both have been very clear.

    Mr. Swenson,

    Now I’m not sure where you stand on where Obama stands. First, you told us to go to this site’s 2008 Election page, which is where I found those quotes from former Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt and RH Reality Check Managing Editor Annie Newman (both mistakenly attributed to Ms.Franz). Both women paint Obama as a hopelessly pandering, disingenuous flip-flopper, with Feldt noting that she even tore up her invitation to his fundraiser. Now you say we should restrict our research to your blog comments and forget about the intra-choice infighting. In any case, I still have no idea what Obama would want the doctor to do if he or she found himself holding a healthy (or slightly mangled) late term fetus after a botched abortion, which is what I thought your post was originally about.

    Apparently you were actually writing about the national consensus on sex education and how important it is to go with whatever the majority wants. Newsflash: most kids go on the internet and know more than YOU know about safe sex and contraception by the time they’re ten. They also know the important of safe driving, but this doesn’t stop a lot of them from drag racing.

  • invalid-0

    I can give you more information but below you’ll find links to unbiased news sources, sources like Harris Polls, and advocacy organizations that discuss the polls, as well as medical associations all of which support the numbers I refer to in my previous comments – most Americans support these crucial reproductive and sexual health services. 

    If I may be so bold, I’ll suggest again that people peruse our web site for volumes of information on support for contraception, comprehensive sexual health education and more but for starters:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/issue-briefs/contraception

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/issue-briefs/sexuality-education

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/issue-briefs/access-to-abortion

     

    Parents overwhelmingly support comprehensive sexual health education in schools including info on contraception and abstinence:

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/18/sex_education/

    http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/01/State/Floridians_want_sex_e.shtml http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/public_support.pdf

     

    Americans overwhelmingly support widespread access to contraception:

    http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NEWS/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1064

    http://www.nfprha.org/main/family_planning.cfm?Category=Public_Support&Section=Access_Poll

    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2006/pr06232006_poll.html

    http://womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1108/4

    http://www.arhp.org/healthcareproviders/resources/ecresources/ecotcfda.cfm

    Majority of Americans support access to abortion:

    http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp

    http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1354

     

     

     

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • scott-swenson

    Ms. Tavish:

    What I attempted to do was to address the fact that we do know where the two candidates stand, and in fact that Sen. Obama does not support what you and others, like Mr. Corsi, says he does by distorting his record. We have many different opinions on this site, and we encourage people to express them. I think it is safe to say that Gloria and Amie and I all agree that Sen. Obama is pro-choice. Are you suggesting he is not? There are many, like Prof. Doug Kmeic, and Rep. Tim Roemer and others who are anti-choice that support Sen. Obama, and they do so knowing he is pro-choice. I guess in your emotional ad hominem attacks I’m confused as to what point you are making.

    Further, there is a national consensus on comprehensive sexuality education and a rejection of abstinence-only policies, and there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of contraception. Do you care to share your views those issues?


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    there is no reason to ever terminate a child’s life. In the case of pregnancy hardship the doctor or mid-wife has a responsibiity to try and save both the mother and the child. If the child were to die in the process of the doctor saving them both then so-be-it. This is basic Hippocratic Oath 101. It really isn’t even fair that the doctors ask the father or mother to make these life or death decisions, but unfortunately because of the lawsuit happy society we live in doctors do feel compelled to ask and fully inform the parents to prevent lawsuits. The correct response morally is, “Do your job – save them both!” As long as the doctor has made a reasonable attempt to save both lives — all lives — then he/she has done their job both ethically and morally. All the other reasons you give are rhetorical propoganda and Planned Parenthood and other Anti-Lifers have been using them for years, and they are getting old.

    The “time for change” is that the youth of this country are tired of hearing perversions of basic truths. With the onset of technology and everyone emailing ultrasounds and hearing heartbeats of their sister’s, friend’s, aunt’s, mother’s babies your arguments are as transparent as ever. Unfortunately for you, you have to actually ask for a reprieve to kill – unlike before – when you could get away with saying it was just a glob of gooey cells. You can’t fight biology forever and now your target market is becoming more and more informed with the internet.

    Obama knows this so he remains as neutral as possible in his speech and written word on the subject because he knows if he remains ambiguously diplomatic then he will not lose moderate votes. He’s got the pro-choice vote, he will never get the right wingers and so he is going after the moderates by remaining seemingly — MODERATE. Not rocket-science were dealing with here.

  • invalid-0

    In the case of pregnancy hardship the doctor or mid-wife has a responsibiity to try and save both the mother and the child. If the child were to die in the process of the doctor saving them both then so-be-it. This is basic Hippocratic Oath 101.

    Truth Returns, are you a doctor or a midwife? If not, kindly don’t assume you know everything about what their responsibilities are. The truth is, every clinical situation is unique, and it’s crazy to make blanket statements like this.

    It really isn’t even fair that the doctors ask the father or mother to make these life or death decisions, but unfortunately because of the lawsuit happy society we live in doctors do feel compelled to ask and fully inform the parents to prevent lawsuits. The correct response morally is, “Do your job – save them both!”

    Ah, such naivete. Doctors fully inform parents because they deserve to be fully informed. Would you withhold information from them? Now who’s being unethical?

    The truth is, sometimes it will come down to having to choose to save one or the other. One example is severe eclampsia. The continuation of the pregnancy could very well be lethal to the mother (and, in most cases, eventually to the fetus, too) Same thing with pregnancy-induced heart failure. If a physician didn’t present all the facts to a pregnant woman, he or she would be legally and ethically guilty of malpractice.

    All the other reasons you give are rhetorical propoganda and Planned Parenthood and other Anti-Lifers have been using them for years, and they are getting old.

    Before you assume you know all the medical facts about pregnancy and childbirth, maybe you should make sure you’re fully educated. You know, it’s not that hard to get into medical school. Either put up or shut up.

  • invalid-0

    Miss Newman,

    Thank you for the information. It will be used well. I disagree that children should be taught about their sexuality (and those many aspects applicable to it) at school. Parents should teach their children about sexuality, without fear of reprisal from society. Contraception has become a means for men to treat women as objects. An occurrence that happens not infrequently, as contraception also conversely affords women the possibility to treat men as objects in a similar frequency. And abortion will never be an objectively reasonable way to deal with the fact that a life is inside of a woman. A choice to choose when to have a baby is not objectively more important than the baby’s right to live. Smile : – ) your mother choose not to have an abortion. The stats are remarkably close, especially considering the sources. For example, in recent history I remember Mrs. Bill Clinton had a ten-point edge before she lost, which was just losing to the built in statistical margin of error of most surveys. Nonetheless, I thank you for your time. So, I will be seeing you in the battle of public spin.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    “Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.”

  • invalid-0

    My mistake.

  • invalid-0

    Stick with the TRUTH – it’s much easier and fruitful! You’re spinning out of control.

  • invalid-0

    So crisp and clean. So peaceful and soothing to the ear. Thank you.

  • invalid-0

    “Thou hast endowed man with the wisdom to relieve the suffering of his brother, to recognize his disorders, to extract the healing substances, to discover their powers and to prepare and to apply them to suit every ill. In Thine Eternal Providence Thou hast chosen me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures.”
    – Maimonides’ Prayer for the Physician
    .
    Alleviating the suffering of pregnant women would fall under this category.
    .
    (Oh yes, and there’s also this phrase from the Prayer: “Should conceited fools, however, censure me, then let love for my profession steel me against them, so that I remain steadfast without regard for age, for reputation, or for honor, because surrender would bring to Thy creatures sickness and death.”)

  • invalid-0

    You’re the spiritual head of your household and you are arguing that 1% should equate to 100% – where are your spiritual balls? Are you listening to yourself? Stand up for what is TRUE, man! You need to lead the women to trust in God, and the same goes for you. Let God take care of the 1% you’re talking about and uphold His laws. If you were to concern yourself with all the “what IF’s” in the world you would be wasting a lot of time and energy that could be spent on glorifying God. The only degradation is the fact that you would allow someone’s human selfishness to supercede the supernatural.

    Don’t let yourself become emasculated. Stand up and be counted lest your lose your soul.

  • invalid-0

    Mine is specific while the portion you have chosen to distort to your own means allows you to trick yourself into believing what you do or allow others to do is OKAY. Look at yourself – are you proud of your distortion of the Truth? Peel back the layers you have so carefully laid over the years and be truthful – even just for a minute – and ask yourself if you should pervert Truth or defend it. Do it for all the innocents. Do it for yourself and your family. There is no suffering of pregnant women… You have take the few and made it the many – does this make sense to the little one inside of you? Believe as a child believes…

  • invalid-0

    so I am sorry if it sound like static to you.

  • invalid-0

    Yes. Only a child would believe that the world is entirely black and white, without shades of gray. As for distorting the truth, I would have to disagree with that. But for the sake of argument, let’s look at some of the specifics of the Hippocratic Oath:
    .
    I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
    I doubt there are too many people that would take this literally. The Greek gods are not worshipped anymore.
    .
    To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
    Taken literally, every doctor would be required to teach medicine free to the children of his or her own teachers. The ultimate in legacy admissions!
    .
    I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest.
    Hope you never need surgery! It’s against the Hippocratic Oath…
    .
    I would argue that you, too, are picking and choosing statements that suit your purposes.

  • invalid-0

    funny that the oath mentions no other procedure by name other than abortion! You took out a lot of the parts about life conveniently…

    “I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
    To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

    I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”

    To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

    Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

    But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

    I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

    In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

    All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

    If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

  • scott-swenson

    Dear Taliban Returns:
    Your insults and taunts are beneath someone who holds himself up as a man of God, but that’s o.k., you are forgiven; these are the slings and arrows many of us have had to deal with from those who believe they are superior. Your belief that women must be "led" is, in many ways, what leads to the violence against women, subjugation of women, degradation of women that most people in the world now stand against. It must be difficult to watch as all of your "truths" crumble around you, and I understand why that makes you and others lash out. But you are only hurting yourself and demeaning those parts of God represented in female form.

     

    Readers – could it be made any more plain? The woman does not matter to people like TR other than as a womb that he can control, or to use his phrasing "lead". Only men and fetuses matter, and in some parts of the world, the only fetuses that matter are male.
    This is politics masquerading as faith and it always has been. The real shame is that it perverts what real faith teaches, and in many cases turns people away from seeking any spiritual connection. Far from being evangelicals — bringing people to God — the current crop of politico-pulpiteers and their online flock like TR, just give people more reason to turn away.
    They are the anti-evangelicals, and they have more in common with the Taliban and their strict laws controlling people, than they do with the neighbors they are commanded to love, their wives and mothers they are commanded to honor and respect, and the God they have perversely made in their image, as opposed to recognizing all the diversity made in God’s image.

     

    And then they dare to hold that up as an ideal and expect others to worship the way they instruct, follow their made up rules, ignore our God given free will and hard fought liberty, turning our democracy over to them. Don’t fall for it again.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • mellankelly1

    Your entire post put together (succinctly) my thoughts on the matter of those who claim to speak for God (isn’t it peculiar how God always wills exactly what these men wish?).  I agree that these men who wish to control the masses do so without regard for Gods will, but rather due to their own perverted control issues.  I pray that these men do not turn others away from seeking any spiritual connection; that people will see them for the religious extremists that they are.  God Bless you Scott and thank you for your very poignant words.

  • amanda-marcotte

    That a lot of our anti-choice commenters define "truth" as "what I wish to believe" instead of the common definition, which is "what is true in the real world". 

  • invalid-0

    funny that the oath mentions no other procedure by name other than abortion! You took out a lot of the parts about life conveniently…

    My point is that this version of the Oath (the Classical Greek version) is no longer relevant in every aspect.

    For this reason, many use the modern version, written in 1964. It makes no reference to abortion at all.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

    The Maimonides prayer is also commonly used as an ethical guide.

    It’s not a simple issue. But to state, as you do, that the Hippocratic Oath does not allow us to make a choice between saving the mother and saving the child in an emergency is just ridiculous.

  • invalid-0

    Stick with the TRUTH – it’s much easier and fruitful! You’re spinning out of control.

    Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about you.

  • invalid-0

    Mr. Swenson,

    What I attempted to do was to address the fact that we do know where the two candidates stand, and in fact that Sen. Obama does not support what you and others, like Mr. Corsi, says he does by distorting his record.

    I never made any claim as to what Obama supported, or distorted his record. I merely pointed out that it’s impossible to accuse Corsi of distortion on the late-term issue without knowing exactly where Obama stands. Both Amie and Gloria have called Obama out for disingenuity or ignorance or having an “unacceptable lack of moral center” on the abortion issue. In view of this distrust, I can hardly be blamed for wondering what Obama would counsel the physician to do in the case of an accidental, abortion-related late term delivery, particularly in the absence of any clear guidance from the Senator on this precise point.

    I also never disputed that Obama was (generally speaking) pro-choice. No one disputes that he considers the abortion right to be absolute up to the point of viability. The question raised by your post was the nature and extent of his commitment to abortion rights after that point. Corsi contends that Obama supports the right in the abortion/delivery context. On the pro-choice side, Obama has been criticized for wavering in his support of a mental health exception for third term abortions.

    Your arguments suggest a disturbing reliance on statistical morality, i.e., assertions that a practice is moral because it occurs only .02% of the time, or because “overwhelming” majorities support it. It’s not the most effective way to make your point. Death by capital punishment is statistically infrequent, and it’s a fairly popular practice, but those considerations aren’t particularly relevant to the debate. Obviously such arguments are equally irrelevant in the abortion context, and the pro-choice side has (rightly, as least from its perspective) resisted the notion that abortion rights should be left up to popular vote.

    So I don’t think late-term abortion issues should be trivialized merely because the practice is infrequent. Indeed, the sole purpose of your post was to defend Obama from Corci’s accusations that he supports a practice you apparently consider barbaric or even criminal. When that topic became uncomfortable you apparently thought it prudent to shift the focus to the distracting “but they’re really just trying to take our condoms away” argument.

    This is not to deny, as you say, that there is a wide divergence of opinion even within the pro-choice community regarding abortion issues, including the late-term ones. Some find drawing the line at viability particularly significant; some find it as meaningless as doing so at conception. Peter Singer finds even the birth line somewhat arbitrary. As a simple matter of practice, society does not punish those (rare) instances of teens flushing their newborns down toilets or abandoning them in dumpsters as severely as other forms of homicide.

    But once again, the rarity of such practices doesn’t mean they should be treated as morally irrelevant. They may have particular relevance to Obama’s candidacy, insofar as he has come out strongly in support of the capital punishment in extreme cases of child abuse, even where the victim does not die. Would he execute a teen mother in the dumpster/toilet scenario?

  • invalid-0

    The only people who don’t respect women are those that would:

    a. Allow them to hurt themselves and/or others. Abortion does both (hurts them emotionally, pychologically, spiritually, etc.), and destroys their child (male or female). If you and others truly loved people, you would respect life in all of its phases from womb to grave.

    b. You need to “lead” your people. We all have a certain “circle of influence” and so you can look at the word “lead” in a bad light, but the fact is that people are attracted and led by our actions. If our actions are in line with the “truth,” which speaks to everyone’s soul, then you can have a positive effect on them. By “bending” natural laws (like the sanctity of human life), you are naturally putting yourself in a posture that cannot be respected because deep down we all look at this as cowardice.

    I am sorry that you took what I said and made it into a weird Anti-Patriotic diatribe, but what I said is true and you should really consider getting to the fundamentals of your faith (if you claim one), and you will see that at the core of most is the basic respect for human life. If you claim Christianity then you need to research and study your faith because you can’t believe that killing is okay and be a Christian (they are mutually exclusive).

    Once a society begins down the path of disregarding human life this can have (and already has had) very negative consequences.

  • invalid-0

    It doesn’t sound like static, it sounds like bullcrap. I unfortunately have read and understood everything you’re said, and I completely disagree. Even the way you capitalize “Truth” reeks of hardcore fundamentalism, which is super creepy. We don’t all believe in your god or your personal truth. I happen to have different views on God and truth than you do, but I won’t impose them one you. I fully respect the individual search for truth and enlightenment, but you do not have the right to impose your personal truth on the rest of us. And spewing hate and fundamentalist BS is not a good way to convince people to be open-minded toward your views. So stop acting like a jerk and just have a conversation.

  • invalid-0

    I am the only one who puts forth logical arguments, and all I get in return is emotion. It’s like dealing with a bunch of teenagers who are pissed off at their parents still! I used to be a rebel, too, and I thought I was going to change things. The fact of the matter is that if you seek Truth it will find you, and you will be so happy… Everything I have said on this website is unabated Truth. You can’t deny it – you can’t run from it and deep down you really don’t want to because it is already written on your heart. I am sorry that my confidence in the Truth might seem overbearing, but I have seen Truth so I naturally want that for everyone because I love people and I know what can make them truly happy. Anyway, you’ll get there too in your own time and I really don’t need to convince anyone – I just need to tell the Truth.

  • mellankelly1

    I am the only one who puts forth logical arguments, and all I get in return is emotion.  It’s like dealing with a bunch of teenagers who are pissed off at their parents still!

    Nope… no emoting on your end, you don’t sound like a spoiled teenager at all:

    "where are your spiritual balls?" & "Don’t let yourself become emasculated"

    Of course, my personal favorite is your insistence that "the women" must be lead to trust in God – we simply couldn’t figure out our own spirituality without some man (who knows "the truth") showing us the way, right?