Barack Obama said:
I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on ... . This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances.
Then John McCain said:
We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it's got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who's facing this terribly difficult decision. ... But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it.
17 comments:
is it just me, or are they saying the same exact thing?
the only thing that i really notice is different is that obama articulates his view better, but doesn't bring in the words, "pro-choice" or "pro-life"... whereas mccain isn't so articulate in defining exactly what he thinks, but decides to side with the "pro-life" side by saying directly that he does.
people who vote for either candidate solely based on the candidate's views on abortion are in my opinion seriously misguided, since it seems that from the start of their campaigns, they have been saying the same thing.
steve carroll, they "say" the same thing above ... but when it comes down to their voting ... they "say" very different things ... and although their hope is to decrease abortions, their stance on much else in this arena is very different
hope, know that i respect your integrity and character on the problem of abortion.
you are correct in saying that we cannot look at those statements with blinders and ignore everything else. when observing the way mccain and obama vote and the comments they've made aside from their campaigns' promoted views, i definitely agree with you: there is a bigger picture.
i think that obama is guilty of voting the opposite way than either of us would have liked to see him vote, and while mccain has voted the way we might like him to. unfortunately, he has made statements that put him on both sides of the issue... this is unfortunate because again, while i do believe it is an important issue, there are so many other things to be concerned about: voting for a candidate based solely on where they stand on abortion shouldn't happen.
During his unsuccessful bid for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination, McCain said of the Roe v. Wade decision, “I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
"we all know, and it's obvious: if we repealed roe v wade tomorrow, thousands of american women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
After a furor broke out in conservative ranks over that comment, McCain issued a statement which said, "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.”
mccain is for the overturn of roe v wade "ultimately", but we're not exactly sure what that means... we know he'll be working for the overturn, but we're not sure what that really means either. there's no time frame. it may happen in the next four to eight years, or it may happen in the next fifty years.
i personally don't like either candidates thought process on the issue, which is why it's not something that i add into my reasons for voting for either of them.
"This is a reference to a single anomalous statement purportedly made by McCain before a newspaper editorial board in 1999, which McCain immediately clarified. McCain has been in Congress since 1983, and he has voted consistently anti-abortion throughout that period. He has voted explicitly against Roe v. Wade both before and after the disputed statement. He has sponsored pro-life legislation that, according to pro-abortion groups, offended the principles of Roe v. Wade. In short, McCain has a full quarter-century record of consistent public policy actions against abortion and against Roe v. Wade."
- Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee
I don't like either of them also. I just wanted to make sure you knew that they were no where near the same page.
:) yaya hope, thanks for the clarification. and eric, i may or may not have any idea who you are, but i love the insight... while he votes well, i would ask: what about mccain's support of embryonic stem cell research? isn't that ultimately connected to a disagreement with the pro-life camp?
interesting statement steve, we'll have to have a stem-cell convo soon
I honestly wish abortion just wasn't a political issue. I think if one good thing came out of the economy collapsing and the war in iraq it was that abortion and gay marriage got off the center stage. I think there are much more important issues. Not to mention that each party's stance on abortion is pretty contradictory to their platforms anyway. So I'm always pretty upset when this becomes the one issue people choose to vote on.
just to clarify, that was definitely not an attack on anybody in particular. re-reading it made it seem that way.
if a candidate thought murder was a justifiable action for a mistake, would that color your view of his other convictions?
abortion isn't just a political issue. at the very essence of the question lies the fundamental belief regarding the sanctity of life.
in a way, i'd rather vote based on someone's stance on this issue than, say, their foreign policy.
bold eric ... but I'm with you.
I see where you're coming from and I respect your dedication to that decision. But I think, at the same time, that it's misled. I can understand you voting for a candidate because you think they'll make strides in the area of abortion, but I think you should realize that these people are politicians. Regardless of either of their personal beliefs, they're going to side with their party's view on such a politicised issue as abortion. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure neither candidate is as convicted as they claim to be, but rather being politically savvy, so I doubt it highly influences all their other convictions.
Also, if you're going to get into the core issue about the Sanctity of life, how can you say that John McCain has a more pure view than Barack Obama when he supported a war that killed millions of Iraqi citizens. Or are American lives or the lives of the unborn the only lives that count? Just something to think about.
i don't think either candidate will "make strides in the area of abortion" but i do think that the stances they take on some issues will give us a glimpse into who they are and what their character is. politics is politics: promises, lies, loop holes, doubt, speculation, getting ahead, etc. you also astutely said "these people are politicians" and that's right. they're going to do what they can to get into office. obama did not vote to go to war but only because he was not a US senator. most politicians voted for it (3 to 1 in the senate, and 2 to 1 in the house). to say obama would have or would not have voted for the war is only speculation. he did vote for continued funding, though.
"Or are American lives or the lives of the unborn the only lives that count?"
i'm going to go with "yes" on this one just to point out the absurdity of the question. one of the reason, arguably, we went to war was to protect the freedoms of iraqi citizens and to end their oppression.
do you think obama is going to end the war in iraq? or the war in afghanistan? iran?
most of these issues, ultimately, are actually decided in the legislative branch of government. the president is mostly a cheerleader for public (or corporate) opinion. to credit the president with what has happened, or what will happen, is giving him undue responsibility. these changes should be, and in fact ARE, decided in the senate/house. democrats have had total control in the senate from 1950 to 1994 (clinton's term)... followed by 12 years of republican control... and just two years ago went back to both being democrat controlled. fairness doctrine, financial collapse, continued war, oil crisis, etc... presided over by a democratic congress.
while obama has a great unifying persona and has tremendous potential on the global front. however, having a democratic house, senate, and president essentially undermines the diversity that makes our government stable. checks and balances are good. unilateral decision making is not.
are you voting for obama or mccain? how about your state senate? how about your town reps? we should be urging our friends to vote on a state level if we want to see change.... not another empty suit in the white house.
end rant.
I think you completely misunderstood my argument. You said that the candidate's stance on abortion is insight into their character, and I said it wasn't because they're politicians. I brought up the war in Iraq to display that obama and mccain both have flawed ideas of the sanctity of life if their voting and stances are what communicate this character (the iraq war being a completely separate debate if you want to get into that). furthermore, I'm not voting for either candidate based on his character. I would not be surprised if you are correct in saying that Obama would have supported the war had he been in the senate. I'm voting for the candidate who's history and vote, regardless of motivation, aligns most closely with my own.
also, my faith in government, limited as it is, allows room for the importance of the presidency and the executive office. obviously, I'm voting for my state reps, but I would also like the leader of my country to be more closely alined with my views.
your argument about a democratic congress and presidency just mirrors the latest republican argument. can you really say that you would vote otherwise if the threat of a republican majority was a possibility?
I feel, at this point, I'm defending my own knowledge, not my opinions, and that's ridiculous. So if you want to continue this debate I'd be happy to but not andrew's blog.
fair enough.
i guess what i meant was regardless of voting record, what they state as personal opinions, character, holds a lot of weight. to get something to pass as a law requires a concerted effort on the part of the house and senate and presidency (and yes, i think in any aspect a one party system is bad. and no, i am not voting for either of the two popular candidates). if those views happen to align with a republican argument, that is okay. there is truth to that ideal.
also, i think the reason andrew posts these sound-byte articles is to encourage community discussion.
regardless, i'm glad that you are voting and have a decent grasp of either what's at stake, or what you believe in. that is a lot more than the majority of americans. enjoy the day tomorrow :)
Hey Eric,
I'm sorry, I was really tired when I left that response yesterday and it was very rude of me.
You're actually very right about a large majority in congress and the presidency. However, although I think they will win a majority, that it won't be enough for them to have a filibuster-proof senate. Even if that does happen, however, the American public doesn't like this kind of majority and I highly doubt it will last very long. I actually also agree with your opinion on this. I don't think this kind of majority is good thing and highly support debate and diversity in government.
I think I'm coming to a point where I'm really leveling out in my political views and truly seeing the importance of having honest conversations between both sides. I'm really sorry that I attacked you in the way that I did and I appreciate this conversation.
Cheers.
Post a Comment