Barack Obama: Reasons For/Against Electability

Note: I'm not going on topic about the war, but if necessary, I might create an alternate thread about that. It's much too large of a topic to cover in this thread.

Pro-partial birth abortion, flip flopping on the death penalty and flip flopping on anti-gun laws? Where exactly does this man stand? He wants to take the life of your children, and spare the man that took that childs life, or does he? He doesn't know. He wants to take away your hand guns (in Illinois) so you can't stop that man from killing your child. Oh wait, he changed his mind.

One thing is for sure though, this man of "change" has one thing for sure he wants to change. The right of your child to ever exist with partial birth abortion.

For those of you who don't know, partial birth abortion is abortion in a later stage where the baby is pulled out piece by piece. That's not until after they suck the brain out of the skull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Intact_D.26X_surgery wrote:According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head. Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina.

That sounds quite atrocious doesn't it?
Let's see what that looks like shall we! (warning, this image may be unsettling to some, and discretion is advised before viewing.)
http://www.hyscience.com/FetusHeadonSide.JPG

My, that's a pretty picture, just what this oh so great Obama wants. Change we can "live?" with! Or whatever his lame gospel is. At least some of us could live with such atrocities. I know, despite being atheist, my "morals" don't stand for such things.

Why I don't support the baby death penalty:

Who's fault is this child? In most cases, the parents! (I don't believe rape numbers are anywhere near as high as they are, due to false reporting.) Think of it this way. Unless you are completely uneducated on the subject of entering adulthood and how babies are made, you should realize that by engaging in acts of sexual intercourse there is a possibility pregnancy along with other complications could occur. Thus, if such problems occur, due to your knowledge, it is thereby your responsibility and you should acknowledge that responsibility. Further, this life you are "aborting" could possibly turn out to be a better person than you are, but you wont know that.

As for the topic of rape. Boohoo. But kill a child, because of another person's crimes? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Think of it this way, a man walks into the store and steals food. Should we kill his child too because his child is a potential thief, or the child of a disgusting man who committed such a crime? That's the same sense in murdering a rape victims child, who could grow up and become a famous lawyer who persecutes rapists, or a officer of the law who captures rapists.

Then comes the argument: "It's not even alive yet, what's it matter."

It's not alive is it? Living things grow. Rocks aren't alive, they don't grow. Trees are alive, they grow. Fetuses grow, they're alive. They might not be sentient, conscious thinking beings yet, but they're very much alive. (Screw the argument of the soul, that's just ridiculous.)

Anyway, now we all know abortion is wrong. This is one of the many reasons Barack Obama does not belong in the office of the president.

But hey, he reminded me to put air in my tires!

It's not alive is it? Living things grow. Rocks aren't alive, they don't grow. Trees are alive, they grow. Fetuses grow, they're alive. They might not be sentient, conscious thinking beings yet, but they're very much alive. (Screw the argument of the soul, that's just ridiculous.)

The logging industry is evil!

Sorry, had to say it. Until measurable brain activity occurs, a fetus is a vegetable, much like a brain-dead person.

Massacre wrote:As for the topic of rape. Boohoo. But kill a child, because of another person's crimes? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Think of it this way, a man walks into the store and steals food. Should we kill his child too because his child is a potential thief, or the child of a disgusting man who committed such a crime? That's the same sense in murdering a rape victims child, who could grow up and become a famous lawyer who persecutes rapists, or a officer of the law who captures rapists.

Okay, I try to steer clear from Abortion arguments, since choosing a side on abortion is a catch-22, but after reading this, I couldn't help but intervene. This is completly insensitive, as well as hideously unfounded. Your next argument compares rocks and trees as different things, but this kind of does the reverse. (Hypocritical much?). Also, rape is a horribly mentally scarring occurance, and while some people want to keep the baby, many of them don't. It's living with the product of one of the most mentally scarring things possible.

Then comes the argument: "It's not even alive yet, what's it matter."

It's not alive is it? Living things grow. Rocks aren't alive, they don't grow. Trees are alive, they grow. Fetuses grow, they're alive. They might not be sentient, conscious thinking beings yet, but they're very much alive. (Screw the argument of the soul, that's just ridiculous.)

Well, now you're just comparing trees to fetuses, which is a horrible argument. Then again (and I'm not trying to be respectful), if all goes well, they'll at least contribute to something (this is a horrible, horrible analogy, but still. Trees go into helpful wood products, and fetus help with stem-cell research, which may greatly improve our chances of curing a whole gambit of diseases and genetic problems).

A lot of things can scar the human mind. My feelings are hurt is not an excuse for killing a human being.

Actually, fetuses don't go to stem cell research. Stem cells are obtained much earlier, before fetuses are formed AKA the embryonic stages. In many cases, embryo's can be artificially created. Let alone, in many cases stem cells can be obtained from other sources.

http://www.webmd.com/content/chat_transcripts/1/103125.htm wrote:The debate that is going on in the public today is over, if you will, a sub-issue of "How do we obtain stem cells?" and it is confused by the fact that the term "stem cell" does not have one single meaning; they all share this multipotential ability, but many people, by "stem cells," mean the very primitive cells taken from an embryo. In fact, you can obtain stem cells from the human umbilical cord; you can obtain them from the adult brain (although no one has obtained them from the human brain, but in principle you could do it), and you can obtain stem cells from the blood.

Regardless, the topic is Barack Obama and partial birth abortion where the baby is fully developed and not just a fertilized egg. (Which even then I believe is still wrong, but that would make this a discussion about abortion altogether which it is not. It's a discussion about why Barack Obama is wrong about partial birth abortion.)

In partial birth abortion, the baby is fully formed, with a brain. The act itself is disgusting, and murderous.

As for the topic of rape. Boohoo. But kill a child, because of another person's crimes? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Not that I have ever experienced it although I do know someone who has. It's mentally scarring as mentioned before by Athias as well as frightening and traumatizing. Almost everday a movie plays in your head, reminding you of what happened. And just to top it off you become pregnant, most likely at a time when you're not ready.

You were forced to have sex. You get pregnant. You're not ready to have a baby. You don't want a baby. Still, you keep it. You have income struggles. You loose out on the chance for a good life. The child does as well. Therefore you are BOTH miserable. Is THIS your idea of the American dream?

There are alternatives to abortion. Just because you're traumatized, and emotionally scarred, you don't have to kill the baby. It's perfectly legal to leave the child on the steps of a police station, or to even "GASP" put it up for adoption. There is no reason you would have to kill the child.

Killing babies is worst than rape in my opinion. Especially already formed babies.

By the way, it costs money to have an abortion, and if you're struggling to take care of yourself just think how much harder it will be after you dish out all that cash on a baby hitman.

Back on topic. This is something Obama supports, and that is why he should not become president.

Well, I'm glad that you don't stand for abortion! Because neither do I. It's wrong, no matter how you look at it.

One more thing I'd like to add...

(I don't believe rape numbers are anywhere near as high as they are, due to false reporting.)

The number of rape-related pregnancies are even lower because the trauma experienced by the victim (both physical and emotional) often prevents conception. As a result, this type of pregnancy is very rare.

Massacre wrote:There are alternatives to abortion. Just because you're traumatized, and emotionally scarred, you don't have to kill the baby. It's perfectly legal to leave the child on the steps of a police station, or to even "GASP" put it up for adoption. There is no reason you would have to kill the child.

Killing babies is worst than rape in my opinion. Especially already formed babies.

By the way, it costs money to have an abortion, and if you're struggling to take care of yourself just think how much harder it will be after you dish out all that cash on a baby hitman.

Back on topic. This is something Obama supports, and that is why he should not become president.

Abortion being legalized doesn't force you to have an abortion. If someone wants to have an abortion, it's their choice and whatever emotional consequences as a result are simply theirs to bare.

However, even giving birth and being pregnant with a fetus who was he result of rape is potentially traumatizing.
Also, people don't kill already formed babies, that IS illegal and that's not what abortion is. Abortion is killing the brainless, un-fully-formed fetus, not a living, feeling infant.

Also: Stem cell research. It's not the happiest thing to think of, but it could lead to curing cancer and diabetes. That could save millions more lives than banning abortion could. In addition, it could improve the lives of actually concious beings.

Well, this is a topic that I would just love to flip out on. But since that wouldn't do anyone a bit of good, I'd just like to post my opinion on the two topics.

1. Barrack Obama: Personally, I think he's an idiot. He says many things that he can't back up, and gets "confused" on a lot of the things he has said and done. However, this is just my opinion and has nothing to do the second topic.

2. partial birth abortion: I absolutely abhor this carnage. Let's put it this way. A quick search on google of partial birth abortion brought up an interesting website. It placed the partial birth abortion between 32 to 40 weeks of pregnancy. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had friends that were born preemies before 32 weeks. It's kinda disgusting to think that they could have been killed in cold blood, with unprecedented brutality. To put it simply, partial birth abortion is just that. The child is partially born, but not all the way. It's like they're saying: The way this isn't called murder is the fact that the head is still inside the mother when it is killed. Forget the fact that the rest of the body is already delivered, the same way that any other baby is. If the head is still inside, the baby isn't considered a person, so it ain't murder. That just doesn't sound right to me. It just really makes me sick. However, this is, again, only my opinion, and doesn't have anything to do with the first topic.

Massacre wrote:Killing babies is worst than rape in my opinion. Especially already formed babies.

Tell that to a rape victim. Rape scars for life, can leave people diseased, cause death from said diseases, cause pregnancies that can yield diseased babies, etc etc etc. There are such things as consequences things worse than death. Abortion removes a fetus that doesn't even know what death is. A fetus in the womb has not experienced life beyond the womb. It won't know sadness for its death. In an even simpler light, I hate it when people use the argument "What if YOU had been aborted, huh? HUH?" Guess what. If I was aborted, I wouldn't know it, because I wouldn't be here and therefore couldn't know pain or sadness for it. If I was raped? Whole other story. My mother had 4 abortions before she had me. My father was raped as a child. No matter someone's stance on abortion, don't compare it to rape. Please.

As Athias was already kind enough to point out, no one's forcing anyone to have abortions. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

In a way, it's apples and oranges, my friend. Extremely personal and sensitive apples and oranges.

Edit: My bad, it was 4, not 5. I was the 5th pregnancy. I get that confused sometimes, as it doesn't come up often.

OK, OK, how about this one.

If you don't like Obama's stand on things: Vote for someone who isn't Obama.
What's preventing you from doing that, and going about your day? This is why we have this wonderful thing call democracy.

On the other hand, what'll happen if they make abortions illegal? Poor women will seek out illegal, unsafe abortions, and rich women will get them anyway from doctors who are pro-choice. It'll be the same fiasco we had when the government tried to ban alcohol, except that in the case of prohibition, no humans were killed.

We have a definition of when someone has ceased to live. We should use the same definition for when someone has not yet begun to live. If they're not alive yet by the standards we use to tell when someone has died, they're not killed by an abortion, because they weren't alive to begin with. What's wrong with that statement?

One other thing: Raped? Pregnant? Foster home! (Sorry if I sound insensitive.)

DCLXVI wrote:We have a definition of when someone has ceased to live. We should use the same definition for when someone has not yet begun to live. If they're not alive yet by the standards we use to tell when someone has died, they're not killed by an abortion, because they weren't alive to begin with. What's wrong with that statement?

While I agree largely with many of your statements, I must let you know that the scientific definition of "life" includes a fetus. A living thing must have these properties: homeostasis, cellular organization, a metabolism, the ability to grow, the ability to adapt, the ability to respond to stimuli, and the ability to reproduce. That last one is the only one that's sketchy, but technically fits because it can be as simple as creating new cells.

DCLXVI wrote: It'll be the same fiasco we had when the government tried to ban alcohol, except that in the case of prohibition, no humans were killed.

LOL, sorry that part made me laugh. I can find ye many a grave of rumrunner, lawman, gangster, drinker and random people in the wrong place at the wrong time that died because of prohibition.

Let me reiterate what I think maybe a few of us here are thinking.

There IS a difference between banning abortion in general and banning partial birth abortion

Banning abortion, at this time in our country, would lead to some very desperate measures taken by people who didn't want the kids. I'm not saying I agree with abortion or the way it is done. I'm just saying that banning it now would be the wrong thing to do. It is too ingrained in society for that.

Banning partial birth abortion, on the other hand, I am all for. Partial birth abortion is, in my mind, the same as killing the baby after it has been born. I dunno. Maybe all those lectures my dad gave me as a kid about finishing what you started are finally hitting my thick skull... but to start giving birth to the kid, and then kill it when it's almost all the way done? That seems much too sadistic for me to accept. But, as I've said before, this is only my personal opinion.

The subject at hand is primarily Barack Obama supporting partial birth abortion. That is a fully formed, baby, with all it's appendages and brain intact and functional. That is why Barack Obama cannot become pregnant.

As an addition I went further into the topic of abortion, when I shouldn't have as that lost focus of the primary topic.

What I am trying to accomplish is the persuasion of others to not vote for Senator Barack Obama in order to prevent such a horrible means of murder to ever be accepted by our country as that is what partial birth abortion is. Taking the life of an unborn human being.

I hate people who try to say abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Its the womens choice, if she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have to have it. Its the same as using a condom, or taking a morning after pill. The baby never became sentient, it was never born, its the same as a guy jacking off, the sperm never reached fruition. There is nothing wrong with abortion, or any form of contraceptive, and anyone who disagrees should seriously try and put themselves in the shoes of a 14 year old incestual rape victim and see if they would really want to give birth to that child.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:I hate people who try to say abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Its the womens choice, if she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have to have it. Its the same as using a condom, or taking a morning after pill. The baby never became sentient, it was never born, its the same as a guy jacking off, the sperm never reached fruition. There is nothing wrong with abourtion, or any form of contraceptive, and anyone who disagrees should seriously try and put themselves in the shoes of a 14 year old incestual rape victim and see if they would really want to give birth to that child.

Fortunately, this topic is about partial birth abortion. Thus, that 14 year old incest(ual? wtf) rape victim even matters. Partial birth abortion occurs approx 32 to 40 weeks into the pregnancy. Hopefully the 14 year old incest rape victim will have already murdered her baby long before then. The reason it's called a partial birth abortion is because that's exactly what it is. The baby was partially born, it's fully formed, with a brain. Fully in tact, etc.

Maybe you should try reading the topic. To cover your other points, your "hatred" for others opinions is just ignorant and immature. You shouldn't "hate" somebody's opinion just because you disagree with it. It's their opinion and their entitled to it, just as you're entitled to yours. Here, though, is why you're wrong.

It's the woman's choice? Is it now? The father doesn't have a say? Seeing that it's half his child? Granted, he's not the one going to conceive it and supply it with nutrition like for 9 months, and what not. However, the child is still a part of the father, and the father should have a say in it. Further, it doesn't matter if it's still murder (which after 32 weeks it definitely is.)

Further, if the case isn't rape, then ones character must be called into judgment. How irresponsible are you to take the risk of sexual intercourse knowing that contraception and the day after pill can fail and then terminate that potential life (when there are alternatives available.)

In your second point, you claim that using a contraceptive is the same, or even a morning after pill. It's not. In one case, she becomes PREGNANT (omg, no way, really?) In the other case, she doesn't (congratulations, you're not pregnant.)

Obviously there is something wrong with abortion if so many people are against it. And it's why Senator Barack Obama should fail on his attempt to be president. Because he supports the murder of partially born babies.

1.) If the baby can't think it doesn't matter how old it is, its the same thing.
2.) Hatred for someones opinion is not always wrong, for example, in this situation it is perfectly acceptable to hate an opinion that can hurt the lives of so many people.
3.) No, the father doesn't have a say. Not if the mother wants to terminate. As much as it may suck for the dad, its the moms choice, and he can't force her to have the kid.
4.) Its called being drunk or high, or the birth control pill failing you, or a condom popping, or not knowing you might be pregnant the morning after. Contraceptives aren't fool proof, especially not when drunk or high.
5.) Way to completely ignore the point. The end result is the same, the baby is not born, the sperm does not come to fruition. Yeah she gets pregnant, but she can end that pregnancy and keep that sperm from coming to fruition, just as a condom would do for her.
6.) There is nothing wrong with abortion, people are just religious and blindly follow the bible. It says that any sex should be an attempt to result in a baby, and all babies should be born. Thus Christians believe that abortion is wrong, and this illogical thought has spread. There is nothing wrong with abortion, the bible is an outdated load of hucky that should not be taken literally, line by line. Not to say parts of it aren't good, but there is a lot thats just stupid. Like anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-mixed fabrics passages.
7.) Obama would be about a million times better than the replacement Cheney.

... wow. This is causing some flashbacks from a few other topics in this same forum. So, before I say what I'm going to say, please note that this is not the place for flaming, name calling, and other childish activities.

Now, having said that, I do want to say that I take offense at one of the points Gabriel Whist has proposed.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:6.) There is nothing wrong with abortion, people are just religious and blindly follow the bible.

Now, as I've said in several other places, I am not a religious person. So when a person going around says: "Stop being so religious, there's nothing wrong with abortion, you hater", it makes me rather irritated. I didn't want to bring this up, but it might be appropriate now. My dislike of abortion has nothing to do with religion. I don't like abortion because I was almost aborted. It's a story that I don't like to tell, but needless to say, it has given me a strong dislike of abortion. It has nothing to do with religion, and I sure don't "blindly follow the bible", by any stretch of the imagination. When I think of the fact that I almost never had a chance to experience all the things I have in my life, just because of some doctor who wanted a bigger paycheck... well, it kinda pisses me off, you know?

So Gabriel, even though you don't seem to like christians, please don't stereotype the rest of us in with them, just because we dislike something they dislike.

Well, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I have to turn to something that Massacre said.

Massacre wrote:Obviously there is something wrong with abortion if so many people are against it.

Uh... that right there's a logical fallacy. Personally, I believe that there are a lot of things wrong with abortion, but I sure don't believe it because "others say so". That's like saying that there was something wrong with work, just because the some of the workers don't really like it. Just because something is disliked, that doesn't mean it is bad.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:2.) Hatred for someones opinion is not always wrong, for example, in this situation it is perfectly acceptable to hate an opinion that can hurt the lives of so many people.

Wrong. It's still an opinion. The person is perfectly entitled to it just as you are yours. Your opinion, I'm sure, severely bothers me and other people, but I still don't hate it.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:4.) Its called being drunk or high, or the birth control pill failing you, or a condom popping, or not knowing you might be pregnant the morning after. Contraceptives aren't fool proof, especially not when drunk or high.

This is the sorriest excuse for a defense I have ever seen. Don't get drunk or high, and you're fine. That is not even a REASON to defend getting an abortion, especially a partial birth abortion. You were too STUPID to get so drunk or high that you let your judgment slip. A baby should not have to suffer for your stupid decisions. I don't care if you say the baby has no feelings or whatever. *I* believe it does.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:5.) Way to completely ignore the point. The end result is the same, the baby is not born, the sperm does not come to fruition. Yeah she gets pregnant, but she can end that pregnancy and keep that sperm from coming to fruition, just as a condom would do for her.

Wrong. If the woman gets pregnant, the sperm has already 'come to fruition' as you put it.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:6.) There is nothing wrong with abortion, people are just religious and blindly follow the bible. It says that any sex should be an attempt to result in a baby, and all babies should be born. Thus Christians believe that abortion is wrong, and this illogical thought has spread. There is nothing wrong with abortion, the bible is an outdated load of hucky that should not be taken literally, line by line. Not to say parts of it aren't good, but there is a lot thats just stupid. Like anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-mixed fabrics passages.

And here is the flaming again. You argue with me so much on the fact that you aren't flaming. Well, I'm not deleting this post. I'm going to leave it here as proof that you can't handle a debate intelligently and often resort to name-calling to defend your sorry excuse for an argument. Not only has someone already replied to this thread pointing out your flaming, but a moderator has flagged your post as flaming to let the rest of the staff know to keep an eye on you, because you often get out of control. I'm not even going to reply to the text I just quoted from you. I have far better things to do with my time than to argue with a kid who debates about things he knows nothing about.

Gabriel_Whist wrote:7.) Obama would be about a million times better than the replacement Cheney.

And to stay on topic now. I hate Obama. This is one of the reasons I do. To preserve my sanity, I'm just going to say I agree with almost everything Massacre has said.