Democrats & Abortion

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Clearly, from a religious perspective, abortion is not a black and white issue as some would like to think.

Some can't handle any shade of gray. That adds too much complexity to issues. You know that.

[jundp 191]

Its dishonest to say that the dem party is big tent because a lot of dems voted for the amendment that would be included in the HCR Bill. They had to do that or it never would have passed. It doesn't mean those dems were pro-life.

It doesn't mean they aren't.

It's funny, but people don't fit into a little niche the way some would like.

I am staunchly pro-life, across the board. I am also a devout Catholic. I'm also a Democrat.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Abortion access:

Current beliefs by various
religious groups

Overview:

A diversity of views exists within the U.S. and Canada concerning abortion access. Many pro-life and pro-choice groups have been organized with opposing goals. Surprisingly, they agree on a few very important points:

• They both want to see the abortion rate decline.
• In those cases where they feel that an abortion is acceptable, they are both concerned that it present a minimal health risk to the woman.
• Once human personhood is attained by the embryo or fetus, both pro-life and pro-choice supporters are concerned that his/her life be preserved, except in very unusual circumstances.

Unfortunately, the two sides cannot agree on when personhood is attained. Most pro-life groups believe it happens at conception and are thus generally opposed to all elective abortions. Pro-choice groups typically believe that it happens later in gestation or at birth, and are thus generally supportive of a woman's access to affordable, safe, elective abortions.

Pro-choice groups:

• Liberal and some mainline denominations: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1

• American Baptist Churches-USA (see below),
• American Ethical Union,
• American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
• American Jewish Committee,
• American Jewish Congress,
• Central Conference of American Rabbis,
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
• Council of Jewish Federations,
• Episcopal Church (USA),
• Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
• Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
• Na'Amat USA,
• National Council of Jewish Women,
• Presbyterian Church (USA),
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
• Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
• Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
• Unitarian Universalist Association,
• United Church of Christ,
• United Methodist Church,
• United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.
• Religious groups other than denominations:
• Catholics for Free Choice,
• Episcopal Women's Caucus,
• Evangelicals for Choice,
• Jewish Women International,
• Lutheran Women's Caucus,
• North American Federation of Temple Youth,
• Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,
• Women of Reform Judaism,
• Women's American ORT,
• Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,
• Women's League for Conservative Judaism.

.............................


Pro-life groups:

• Conservative and some mainline denominations: These are found in most religions, and are generally opposed to abortions. They have adopted a range of policies:
• Some are unalterably opposed to all abortions, from conception to birth, for any reason;
• Some would allow abortion only to save the woman's life;
• Some would permit abortion to save her life or when pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

There are approximately 1,000 denominations in North America who take a pro-life stand and oppose abortion access. The largest of these are:

• The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian group in the world with about one billion members. They teach that abortions are a form of murder, no matter what the situation or conditions leading up to the pregnancy. The only exception is when a medical procedure needed that has the death of the embryo or fetus as an undesired and unintended side effect. Contrary to the historical record, the church also teaches that its current position has remained unchanged from the beginning of Christianity. Details.

• The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., also opposes elective abortions.

Other large pro-life groups opposing elective abortions are:

• African Methodist Episcopal Church
• Assemblies of God
• Church of God in Christ
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons)
• Church of the Nazarene
• Eastern Orthodox churches
• Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.
• Progressive National Baptist Convention
• The Salvation Army
• And hundreds of others, including all or essentially all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations.

An exception among conservative Christian groups is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They are pro-choice to the extent that they believe that "The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation." However, they do not condone abortions "...for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience..." They recognize that abortion can be a legitimate option for some women who "face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest." 4

A conservative Jewish exception is the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. They support a case-by case analysis in accordance with Jewish law. "We cannot endorse a public policy that does not reflect the complex response of halacha (Jewish law) to the abortion issue. In most circumstances the halacha proscribes abortion but there are cases in which halacha permits and indeed mandates abortion. The question is a sensitive one and personal decisions in this area should be made in consultation with recognized halachic authorities." 5

• ................................
  
  
  The position of the American Baptist Churches:
  
  The General Board of American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. adopted a statement in 1988-JUN, and modified it in 1994-MAR. It recognizes that no consensus exists within the denomination concerning abortion access. They did agree that they opposed abortion "as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception, as a primary means of birth control, and without regard for the far-reaching consequences of the act." They condemn violence and harassment directed at abortion clinics. They feel that physicians should be able to opt out of performing abortions without sanctions and discrimination.
  
  The membership holds diverse views concerning:
  
• When human personhood begins,
• Whether there are situations in which an abortion can be a morally acceptable action,
• Whether there should be laws to protect the life of embryos and fetuses by criminalizing abortion, and
• whether women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion.

The statement concluded: "We affirm our commitment to continue to counsel and uphold one another, to maintain fellowship with those whose opinions differ from ours and to extend the compassion of Christ to all."

................................

Inconsistencies in the pro-life and pro-choice movements:

There are two inconsistencies in the "pro-life" movement from the viewpoint of pro-choicers:

• There appears to be relatively little mention of IUD's (Intra-uterine devices). The precise mechanism by which IUDs prevent pregnancy is unknown.
• Some researchers believe that the IUD immobilizes sperm, preventing them from reaching the ovum;
• Others believe that it causes the ovum to pass through the fallopian tube so fast that it is unlikely to be fertilized
• Most believe that the IUD interferes with the implantation of fertilized ovum in the uterine wall.

If the third property is true, then IUDs terminate the development of a fertilized ovum after conception, and cause its expulsion from the body. To a person who believes that human personhood begins at the instant of conception, there is no ethical difference between using an IUD, having a first trimester abortion, or having a partial birth abortion, or --for that matter -- strangling a newborn just after birth. Yet pro-life groups actively campaign against PBA's, picket abortion clinics, and attempt to pass restrictive legislation limiting choice in abortion. Some have made negative statements about IUDs. But none have, to our knowledge, picketed IUD manufacturing facilities, or sponsored anti-IUD legislation. This is surprising, because in those countries where IUDs are widely used, the number of fertilized eggs which IUDs apparently expel from women's bodies far exceeds the number of surgical abortions. About 43% of American women will have had a surgical abortion sometime during their lifetime. Women who use an IUD will expel about one fertilized ovum annually (assuming that they engage in intercourse once per week)

IUD's are becoming increasingly popular. Two studies have reported effectiveness rates of 99.4 and 99.9%. 6

• The Roman Catholic church has occasionally "held funeral and burial services" for aborted fetuses. 7 However, this has not been the general rule. Embryos and pre-viable fetus have not usually been considered full persons to the extent of being worthy of a formal requiem mass or formal burial service.

There is also a serious inconsistency among the pro-choice movement, as viewed by pro-lifers:

• There is little agreement among pro-choicers as to how late in gestation elective abortions should be permitted. For example, some argue that elective abortions should be restricted after fetal viability; some place the time limit at about 26 weeks when the fetal brain's higher functions start are initiated; some would allow pregnancy termination at any time up to childbirth.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm

[DeadPoolX 9]

I honestly wonder why these debates continue on here. No one is going to change their mind. All that happens is one side bitterly argues with the other, which eventually devolves into hurling insults and derogatory comments instead of debating the actual topic. There is nothing constructive to be gained from any of this.

So-and-so is this or that. Who cares? If someone wants to abort, then they will; likewise, they won't abort if they don't want to do it. Nothing you say is going to convince them otherwise. It's their business how they run their lives.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I honestly wonder why these debates continue on here. No one is going to change their mind. All that happens is one side bitterly argues with the other, which eventually devolves into hurling insults and derogatory comments instead of debating the actual topic. There is nothing constructive to be gained from any of this.

So-and-so is this or that. Who cares? If someone wants to abort, then they will; likewise, they won't abort if they don't want to do it. Nothing you say is going to convince them otherwise. It's their business how they run their lives.

I disagree. There are many different angles to the abortion issue. This one happens to do with public funding.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I already posted this in another Democrats and abortion thread but fits here too:

November 13, 2009

RNC to end coverage for abortion

Posted: November 13th, 2009 08:00 AM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston

The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," RNC Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement released late Thursday. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

In a note accompanying the statement, the RNC said this type of coverage dated to 1991.

The Politico newspaper first reported the story Thursday.

Follow Mark Preston on Twitter: @prestoncnn

Filed under: Michael Steele • RNC

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...e-for-abortion/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I already posted this in another Democrats and abortion thread but fits here too:

November 13, 2009

RNC to end coverage for abortion

Posted: November 13th, 2009 08:00 AM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston

The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican National Committee has instructed its insurance company to remove a provision from the committee's health insurance policy that covered elective abortion for employees.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," RNC Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement released late Thursday. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

In a note accompanying the statement, the RNC said this type of coverage dated to 1991.

The Politico newspaper first reported the story Thursday.

Follow Mark Preston on Twitter: @prestoncnn

Filed under: Michael Steele • RNC

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...e-for-abortion/

No doubt the Republican's moral grandstanding on the issue of funding reeks of hypocrisy, however, the Democratic Party cannot ignore the significant number of Democratic Senators who want to make sure that no public funds go for abortions.

On that note - it looks like the 1976 Law prohibiting public funds for abortions already covers what Stupak's Amendment set out to do. Hopefully, both sides can come to an agreement on a final bill which would not circumvent the 1976 Law.

[Ban Hammer 14,667]

Thought this thread dealt more with the public paying for abortions than the abortion issue itself. I don't want to pay for anyone having an abortion, but also don't want to pay for their kids.

i'd rather go with a federally funded birth control pill.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

There is no actual distinction that split second before birth, or the split second after birth except what occurrs in the text-book.

Ummmm... which is why there are no abortions performed on babies the split second before birth...

The textbook is not reality. A baby is a baby. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. Which you do.

Pray tell what would be *my* agenda, Dr Joe? Tell us what the liberal medical textbooks refuse to tell us.

Man people are always having to read your posts again. Maybe you should try re-phrasing if you don't mean what they say.

I understood what he wrote. Why can't you?

I don't speak invalid language, sorry.

There is no actual distinction that split second before birth, or the split second after birth except what occurrs in the text-book.

Ummmm... which is why there are no abortions performed on babies the split second before birth...

The textbook is not reality. A baby is a baby. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. Which you do.

Pray tell what would be *my* agenda, Dr Joe? Tell us what the liberal medical textbooks refuse to tell us.

Man people are always having to read your posts again. Maybe you should try re-phrasing if you don't mean what they say.

I understood what he wrote. Why can't you?

The gestational sequence is very well understood biology Joe. I really think you need to revisit sex ed.

Its understood fantasy so you libs feel good about killing babies. Thats all.

I sort of stumbled onto those interesting facts regarding those two religions. Clearly, from a religious perspective, abortion is not a black and white issue as some would like to think.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If thats the case, whether or not someone believes in murder is a religious thing as well. Which it isn't.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I am staunchly pro-life, across the board. I am also a devout Catholic. I'm also a Democrat.

I'm not talking about the voters. In a national or statewide election, it is dang-near impossible for a pro-life dem to be elected. And i don't mean one who gives lip-service and has a record no different than other dims.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I sort of stumbled onto those interesting facts regarding those two religions. Clearly, from a religious perspective, abortion is not a black and white issue as some would like to think.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If thats the case, whether or not someone believes in murder is a religious thing as well. Which it isn't.

From a moral perspective, it certainly does. You're not thinking this through, Joseph. Currently, abortion is not only legal, it is a considered a right, according to our the highest court in our country. So if it's not morality and it's not our Constitution that shapes your views on abortion, then what is it?

Edited November 17, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I sort of stumbled onto those interesting facts regarding those two religions. Clearly, from a religious perspective, abortion is not a black and white issue as some would like to think.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If thats the case, whether or not someone believes in murder is a religious thing as well. Which it isn't.

From a moral perspective, it certainly does. You're not thinking this through, Joseph. Currently, abortion is not only legal, it is a considered a right, according to our the highest court in our country. So if it's not morality and it's not our Constitution that shapes your views on abortion, then what is it?

I think conscience has a lot to do with it. Its unconscionable to everyone I think, but the libs have brainwashed themselves with words like "fetus" in order to make them accept it and be "ok" with it.

Everyone inherently knows murder is wrong. It just depends on how desensitized you are to it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Religion has nothing to do with it. If thats the case, whether or not someone believes in murder is a religious thing as well. Which it isn't.

Joe, whether an act of killing is termed murder or not is always a matter of opinion.  That opinion may be sanctioned in a particular set of laws or it may not.  In the case of abortion it currently is not in the US, that point is very clear. 

You are not against killing, you are simply against killing in the circumstances that suit you all the while claiming that what suits you is aligned with what suits god.  Other people who claim a belief in god however, have a different set of opinions on this issue.  People who don't believe in god, different opinions again. Your suggestion that only you are right is sanctimonious bullshit.

No one who performs or obtains an abortion 'feels good' about it, that's a totally inappropriate statement, but typical of those who do not really care to honestly look at problems of this order of complexity, but instead prefer to try to sway opinions with emotional blackmail.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Everyone inherently knows murder is wrong. It just depends on how desensitized you are to it.

Would you shoot someone for trying to break into your home?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Everyone inherently knows murder is wrong. It just depends on how desensitized you are to it.

Would you shoot someone for trying to break into your home?

Yes. There is a clear difference of shedding innocent blood, and shedding guilty blood or in self defense. That has nothing to do with religion.

Religion has nothing to do with it. If thats the case, whether or not someone believes in murder is a religious thing as well. Which it isn't.

Joe, whether an act of killing is termed murder or not is always a matter of opinion.  That opinion may be sanctioned in a particular set of laws or it may not.  In the case of abortion it currently is not in the US, that point is very clear. 

You are not against killing, you are simply against killing in the circumstances that suit you all the while claiming that what suits you is aligned with what suits god.  Other people who claim a belief in god however, have a different set of opinions on this issue.  People who don't believe in god, different opinions again. Your suggestion that only you are right is sanctimonious bullshit.

No one who performs or obtains an abortion 'feels good' about it, that's a totally inappropriate statement, but typical of those who do not really care to honestly look at problems of this order of complexity, but instead prefer to try to sway opinions with emotional blackmail.

So if they legalized killing up to 5 years of age would that make it right just because its law?

And if no one "feels good" about abortion, then why is it a good thing?