Yes, we can agree that in most cases, women who choose to have an abortion do not do so without thought and that, in many cases, they experience real agony, both before and after the act is done. (We do not say all women who choose abortion go through this because we have the witness of many who insist that “[i]t’s not a soul-wrenching, hand-wringing ordeal.” See “For many women, abortion is no big deal,” First Post (May 19, 2009), http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/35781,opinion,for-many-women-abortion-is-no-big-deal.)

A genuine debate, however, does not end with one side’s concession of a serious but inconclusive fact. Real dialogue seeks truth as a ground for understanding, and in any good faith discussion, both sides must concede the obvious, indisputable facts. For this reason, it is appropriate to ask President Obama to make his own concession: “Surely, Mr. President, we can all agree that the act of abortion kills a living, human organism?” No one seriously disputes this fact on medical or other scientific grounds, although only a few pro-choice thinkers such as Camille Paglia will “frankly admit[ ] that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.” See Fresh Blood for the Vampire, Salon (Sept. 10, 2008), http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index3.html. Instead, most pro-choicers–and virtually all pro-choice politicians—frantically try to convert this simple factual question into an insoluble religious riddle, as if they were medieval scholastic philosophers debating the nature of angels: “Many religions have different ideas as to when the soul enters the human body;” “The Hebrew word for ‘personhood’ means ‘to breathe life into;’” etc. Thank you for those pious reflections, but they really don’t answer the biological questions: Is the embryo or fetus of the human species? Does it possess life? Is it an organism genetically differentiated from the mother?

Conceding the obvious fact that abortion destroys a human life does not necessarily, in today’s world, answer the further questions as to whether that life should be given legal protection and, if so, what kinds of protection. However, if the party calling for dialogue refuses even to discuss what his opponent in the debate considers a central issue, one has to question whether he is committed to anything other than advancing his own agenda.

“hope and change”…oh yea, put more air in your tires! Without Fox or Rush and the gang, we wouldn’t know anything about him.

On the home page, they are talking about how the NY Times spiked a major story about Obama and ACORN…go figure. Yet they published a false story about McCain with a staffer that was proved false and the times got sued for it

Obama won, and everyone knew his position. End of story, people.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Anna shows she is NOT a Conservative as she tries to use “trump-cards” vs debate!

Annin–

60% of Americans thought the GOP ran Congress the past 2 years. \
\\

Again all your posting will not make what you did right.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM

You’re kidding, right? The voters knew his record? The voters knew his position? Which voters would they be? The star-struck kids or the star-struck adults? What percentage of voters know their representative in Congress, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Secretary of Defense, or 1 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices let alone the O-Hole’s position on the Infant Born Alive Protection Act?

Baby Crying During Obama’s Pro-Abortion Remarks

She has a video there.

I LOVE it. As pro-infanticide Barack Obama talked around his support for abortion, you can hear a baby crying in the audience.

Girl on the Right brings the heat on hypocritical Catholics today:

Do yourselves (ourselves) a favor and please shut up. Shut up, for the love of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the wee little donkey too.

This contrived outrage over President Obama’s forth…

I figured I would tackle this issue right out of the gates because, believe it or not, for all the anger and bitterness on both sides – I think the abortion debate is extremely straightforward and simple.
The reason both positions on this issue w…

Unless you’re the “vessel.” Then, I think the perspective shifts a lot.

How does carrying a child make one more intent on having an abortion? Wouldn’t the opposite be true? I mean, I’m assuming that’s your argument but I could be wrong.

Obama won, and everyone knew his position. End of story, people.

I’m not convinced a lot of voters knew his true positions on a lot of things. The media chose to ignore or gloss over several alarming facts about the man. Add to that the reprehensible treatment they gave Sarah Palin as well as John McCain’s wishy-washy campaign, and there’s really no other explanation as to how this man won the election.

I don’t know how many presidential campaigns you’ve been through (I clearly remember every one from 1984 to the present), but I have never seen the media drop the ball to the extent they did with Barack Obama. He has chosen to adopt as mentors a rogues’ gallery of convicted felons, domestic terrorists, racist preachers, and anti-Israel nutjobs. He has supported gruesome post-birth abortion methods. He hadn’t even served a full term in the Senate, and had zero foreign policy or executive experience.

Now this man is in charge of our military and has the ability to sign into law whatever radical agenda a leftist-dominated Congress sends his way. The same man who expresses regret that the Constitution is a document that limits government power as opposed to granting government power. That’s frightening.

With a vigilant media he never would have broken out of local politics with his extreme views and horrendous associations. Unfortunately today’s media is only vigilant about one thing, backing their own horse.

managed portrayed himself

should be “managed to portray himself,” sorry…

Obviously, this issue didn’t block him from carrying many Catholic-laden states or otherwise.

True, but I think he somehow managed portrayed himself as moderate on abortion – which he is not – and a lot of folks bought it. It didn’t seem important enough when the nation was poised to elect its first black President, I guess.

Mr. Resident:

EVERYTHING is above your pay grade, so it seems.

h/t to http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/05/obama-the-pipsqueak-did-he-vote-appropriations-for-gitmo.html

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Well, on many issues Obama lied and lied. People were confused whether he was a moderate tax cutter or a socialist rabblerouser. Some are still confused, but then half of the idiots out there didn´t even know which party was running congress.

But on abortion the record was as clear as daylight. Which shows that 53 % of catholics don´t give a damn about the demands their religion would impose on them. They just want to feel good about themselves. Like damn Hippies.

Michael Weiss, “Inhuman Rights”, City Journal

The HRC was formed that March by a UN resolution, though the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau voted against it. The U.S. at present does not occupy a seat on the council because of the Bush administration’s skeptical view that the HRC would prove just as ineffectual and biased as the former commission. Bush did license American aid to the HRC, but in September 2007 the U.S. Senate voted to cut that off, too.

In late March, however, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. would seek a seat during the upcoming HRC elections in May. According to Susan Rice, America’s ambassador to the UN, “The U.S. is seeking election to the council because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

I still don’t know his record or what his position is on any given topic.

Listen up, people! AnninCA has spoken. Because Obama won the election, no one should ever object to anything he does or stands for, ever again.

Polls are great, but the best poll always is the actual election.

Obviously, this issue didn’t block him from carrying many Catholic-laden states or otherwise.

That’s all I meant.

And the voters definitely knew his record and his position. They definitely weren’t bothered.

Unless you’re the “vessel.” Then, I think the perspective shifts a lot.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Of course the perspective shifts when you’re the one who’s pregnant. That doesn’t make abortion right.

Obama won, and everyone knew his position. End of story, people.

AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Listen up, people! AnninCA has spoken. Because Obama won the election, no one should ever object to anything he does or stands for, ever again.

In order to justify this the argument must be made that the fetus wasn’t really a person to begin with. That is an issue that will never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of both sides. Better to err on the side of caution than take the risk of killing an innocent child.

Unless you’re the “vessel.” Then, I think the perspective shifts a lot.

Pro-lifers have only two choices: get a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe and Casey, or amend the federal Constitution to either prohibit abortion or allow states to legislate.

Roxeanne de Luca on May 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM

The Roe overturn is unlikely (Scalia & Thomas probably would with Roberts & Alito maybe, and Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, “Obama pick” very improbable). Also, Obama gets to reset the clock on Ginsburg and Stevens during the next 3 years.

A Constitutional amendment protecting life from conception has a statistically negligible chance of being proposed and ratified (one can quickly point to 13 states that would veto it).

There is a lot that can be done working within Casey or creating another SCOTUS challenge that pushes back Roe in the way Casey did.