Why Lorna Brett Howard Switched from Clinton to Obama

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Not at all.

If the person had said, I don't wish to support Obama/Clinton because they don't support pro life that would be one thing. However, that's not what was said. The person said, I will not support either candidate because in their eyes such support equates to support of:

Yes, abortion for no other reason than the woman couldn't control her sexual urges and now doesn't want a baby, is unjustified murder of an unborn human being. Needless to say, I am NOT pro "choice" if the choice is to murder another human without just cause.

That is clearly a very distorted view of why either of the candidates is not pro life, hence my metaphor. This person can't see the grey in the abortion debate. It's not a question of 'if you are with us you are against us'. People have all sorts of reasons for not being 'pro life' and I don't think many of them are so because they want women to be able to murder unborn babies.

I most certainly do understand the gray issues with abortion. I am not against abortion if it's justified, I just don't agree that it should be a woman's personal choice just because it's her body and I don't believe it's a violation of women's rights to have this view. What I believe is that it should be the choice of her health care provider since it's a medical procedure. What I don't agree with is that any woman should be allowed to walk into an abortion clinic, all willy nilly, and say "Good morning, the condom broke! Would you kill my baby please?"

However, if a woman's doctor is strongly inclined to believe that having this baby will present an uncommon possibility of danger, up to and including death, then it's basic human instinct to preserve one's self.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ok, you understand some of the grey areas, but by no means all. Again, being pro choice is not a license to murder babies willy nilly. However, again I really don't want to get into this debate. You made it clear that you believe that anyone who is 'pro choice' at least in the public arena is pro unjustified murder (although I am not at all sure what unjustified murder is anyway). That to me is a very myopic view. However, that's my opinion and you have yours.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Not at all.

If the person had said, I don't wish to support Obama/Clinton because they don't support pro life that would be one thing. However, that's not what was said. The person said, I will not support either candidate because in their eyes such support equates to support of:

Yes, abortion for no other reason than the woman couldn't control her sexual urges and now doesn't want a baby, is unjustified murder of an unborn human being. Needless to say, I am NOT pro "choice" if the choice is to murder another human without just cause.

That is clearly a very distorted view of why either of the candidates is not pro life, hence my metaphor. This person can't see the grey in the abortion debate. It's not a question of 'if you are with us you are against us'. People have all sorts of reasons for not being 'pro life' and I don't think many of them are so because they want women to be able to murder unborn babies.

I most certainly do understand the gray issues with abortion. I am not against abortion if it's justified, I just don't agree that it should be a woman's personal choice just because it's her body and I don't believe it's a violation of women's rights to have this view. What I believe is that it should be the choice of her health care provider since it's a medical procedure. What I don't agree with is that any woman should be allowed to walk into an abortion clinic, all willy nilly, and say "Good morning, the condom broke! Would you kill my baby please?"

However, if a woman's doctor is strongly inclined to believe that having this baby will present an uncommon possibility of danger, up to and including death, then it's basic human instinct to preserve one's self.

i agree, it's not a form of birth control either, especially in this age with all of the prescribed drugs we have that can prevent it. certainly it should be available for victims of rape and incest.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Ok, you understand some of the grey areas, but by no means all. Again, being pro choice is not a license to murder babies willy nilly. However, again I really don't want to get into this debate. You made it clear that you believe that anyone who is 'pro choice' at least in the public arena is pro unjustified murder (although I am not at all sure what unjustified murder is anyway). That to me is a very myopic view. However, that's my opinion and you have yours.

Pro-choice means having the stance that it's a woman's "right" to have the choice to abort her pregnancy for whatever reason she sees fit because it's her body. That's what I don't agree with. If I'm mistaken and you can provide me with a different deffinition of "pro-choice", I'd be open to hearing it.

Unjustified murder is ending the life of another person without just cause.... what's hard to understand about that?

[Alhamdulillah 0]

i agree, it's not a form of birth control either, especially in this age with all of the prescribed drugs we have that can prevent it. certainly it should be available for victims of rape and incest.

I don't necessarily disagree with that but there would have to be something to regulate it. As it stands right now (thanks to pro-choicers ) anyone can get one for any reason and it doesn't look like that's likely to change anytime soon because it's been made into a "womens' rights issue".

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't subscribe to the idea that murder can be justified or unjustified. Either it's murder, or it's not.

[Peikko 1,575]

The real point of allowing the woman who's pregnant to make the final decision is far more complex than simply saying, oh, it's her body she can do what she likes with it. As I understand it you either have to allow for abortion or you don't. You can't make rules as to who is allowed to have one and who isn't because of the complexity of each individual case.

Who's to say that one Dr's judgment on what is a legitimate abortion and what isn't is the judgment you would agree with? Or are you suggesting that there be a board that meets up to examine the merits of each case? What about appeals if someone doesn't agree with the judgment? Would it be appropriate for a male Dr to make the decision or only female Dr's? It just isn't a case that we can say, oh, we'll allow abortion under these circumstances but not those. Would that life where so simple. That said, there are some rules as we all know and these rules are around the age of the fetus which seems to me perfectly reasonable.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I don't subscribe to the idea that murder can be justified or unjustified. Either it's murder, or it's not.

Would you rather I use the word kill instead of murder? It's the same thing is it not? Murder is ending the life of another person. Sometimes, there's a reason to do so, other times there is not.

[Peikko 1,575]

I believe kill is more accurate. Murder and kill are by definition different.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

The real point of allowing the woman who's pregnant to make the final decision is far more complex than simply saying, oh, it's her body she can do what she likes with it. As I understand it you either have to allow for abortion or you don't. You can't make rules as to who is allowed to have one and who isn't because of the complexity of each individual case.

Who's to say that one Dr's judgment on what is a legitimate abortion and what isn't is the judgment you would agree with? Or are you suggesting that there be a board that meets up to examine the merits of each case? What about appeals if someone doesn't agree with the judgment? Would it be appropriate for a male Dr to make the decision or only female Dr's? It just isn't a case that we can say, oh, we'll allow abortion under these circumstances but not those. Would that life where so simple. That said, there are some rules as we all know and these rules are around the age of the fetus which seems to me perfectly reasonable.

Why do you understand it this way? Now you're the one seeing only the black and white of it. There is no good reason why restrictions cannot be placed on abortion to make sure it's not abused, like many other things. In fact, there already are restrictions on abortion, which vary state by state, like getting a parent's consent for minors, or not being allowed to get an abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy (12 weeks I believe is the norm). So you see? Further restrictions can be placed on abortion so that it's not abused by women who lack the ability to close their legs There's no good reason why it should be an all or nothing deal.

I don't know what the gender of the dr would have to do with anything. A male dr can just as easily weigh the medical aspects of a high-risk pregnancy as a female dr.

[Peikko 1,575]

This is pointless. I don't believe there are many women who use abortion as an alternative to birth control, you do. The restrictions that are in place are the ones that have nothing to do with making a value judgment on the legitimacy of the abortion. If you put those into the equation, the gloves are off and litigation is where you will end up.

[Peikko 1,575]

That and back street abortion clinics...again.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I don't subscribe to the idea that murder can be justified or unjustified. Either it's murder, or it's not.

Would you rather I use the word kill instead of murder? It's the same thing is it not? Murder is ending the life of another person. Sometimes, there's a reason to do so, other times there is not.

At least you can agree that this is perhaps the one of the greatest sticking points. Neither side is going to budge. Some see clump of cells, you see a human being. Is a few week old fetus viable outside the womb?

That and back street abortion clinics...again.

[new orleans bound 0]

You already stated what you are. Why the big deal about this?

So are you one of those people who support the murder of inocent babies?

It's not murder of inocent babies. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she wants to regardless of how it happed. It is a person's right- just as free speech.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

You already stated what you are. Why the big deal about this?

So are you one of those people who support the murder of inocent babies?

It's not murder of inocent babies. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she wants to regardless of how it happed. It is a person's right- just as free speech.

You think it's a right. I personally, think it's disgusting and more than just a woman's choice. As far as rights go, I may feel that I have the right to kill old people, but I don't. Using the word "right" in the way you are using it is a slippery slope.

Yes, I should have an eight year old child right now, but it's the woman's right.

Edited January 24, 2008 by AnewKINDofFEELIN