Obama storms into abortion debate in Notre Dame speech

Monday 18th May, 07:06 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 108 Total Comments Show All

adaydream at 04:51 AM JST - 20th May

WilliB

I think that obviously some will, and the easier abortion is made, the more will.

It's never been easier to get an abortion then now. It would be hard to make it any easier. Except maybe a drive through window.

In your arguement if the parents find out that their child might be gay.... Then when and if they get to that level of determination of qualities of children in the womb, then we will have to make that technology available, we'll have to make it illegal to give out this information to the parents because of the ramifications of increased abortions. Hmmmmmmm...... let me think about this. < :-)
Wolfpack at 10:06 AM JST - 20th May

I know you don't believe in personal freedom and believe the government should make your decisions for you, but I prefer personal choice.

No, you don't believe in choice either - because you deny choice for the aborted baby. It seems that too many people seem to forget that a baby in the womb is human. If it has a beating heart and an active brain - then it is a living human being that has emotions and can experience pleasure and pain. At this point in a childs development it becomes an issue of ethics, moraolity, and compassion for a defenseless living human being. I understand that this could be a difficult dilemma for a woman that becomes pregnant unintentionally. But if the pregnant person doesn't do something about it before it becomes a sentient being, then it cannot be logically called anything other than infanticide.
teleprompter at 10:14 AM JST - 20th May

On a side note, I find it amusing that pro-life voices have no real reasons for being pro-life, other than the fact of course my thousand year old teaching says so.

For many it is not just the Bible or the Judeo-Christian ethic that informs their position.

The US Constitution speaks of inalienable rights and the equality of all men.

Viewed in this light some believe the unborn wait, as slaves once did, for us to make good on the promise of the Republic's ideals.

"It's never been easier to get an abortion then [than] now."

And there have never been more couples turning to adoption...
Wolfpack at 10:24 AM JST - 20th May

kaoken: On a side note, I find it amusing that pro-life voices have no real reasons for being pro-life, other than the fact of course my thousand year old teaching says so.

Of course they do. You just don't agree with them so you discard their reasons out of hand. Interestingly, I pretty much agree with you that if a woman wants an abortion, it should be done very early. I am not religeous myself so my pro-life leanings are not inspired by God. However, those who state that their religion is the reason why they believe that abortion is wrong have a legitimate argument. A persons religion is their philosophy for life - and no one yet has been able to prove that a religious philosophy is any worse than a secular one (let's leave the crazy religeous folks like the jihadi's out of this please). Other than religion, there are perfectly logical reasons for not supporting abortion on the grounds that abortion actually does kill a living human being. Although I don't agree myself, but even very early on when the baby is just a cluster of millions of cells, there are legitimate reasons for wanting to protect these cells because they are human. These cells will not become a dog or a lizard - they are uniquely human. As science progresses, so does our understanding of how quickly babies develop in the womb and how quickly they take on human characteristics. People who are pro-life have a good argument on the issue of abortion, but closed minded people are unable to open their ears to hear it. Most pro-choice people have de-personalized babies as being just an object called a 'fetus' that is only important if the mother decides it should live.
kaoken at 01:09 PM JST - 20th May

-teleprompter: I agree with you not all pro-lifes are religious. But the active ones are, the ones that are on the street corners everyday holding up signs. They are also the ones with the most power. I don't want some religion that actively fought against science and human progress to do the same now.

Your argument also ties in with stem-cell research. If they make pro-life law, stem-cell research is dead, kaput. Abortion should be okay, but should be based on individual cases. Just like our justice system. You wouldn't want to hand out the death sentence for all cases do you?

-Wolfpack: I'm not really dismissing it because they are on the other side. Read the 1st paragraph I wrote for 'telepromter' above.

A persons religion is their philosophy for life - and no one yet has been able to prove that a religious philosophy is any worse than a secular one (let's leave the crazy religeous folks like the jihadi's out of this please).

What do you mean secular philosophy exactly?

People who are pro-life have a good argument on the issue of abortion, but closed minded people are unable to open their ears to hear it. Most pro-choice people have de-personalized babies as being just an object called a 'fetus' that is only important if the mother decides it should live.

It is also some pro-lifes who are also closed minded. There are cases in which abortion is necessary, and yet these people will use fancy rhetoric to avoid these cases.
Molenir at 07:20 PM JST - 20th May

Your argument also ties in with stem-cell research. If they make pro-life law, stem-cell research is dead, kaput.

Wow, talk about an uninformed statement. Since Bush essentially denied all Federal Funding for Fetal stem cells, there has been tremendous progress made in adult stem cell research. And don't kid yourself here. It is nothing more nor less then a line of inquiry. It doesn't mean it will lead to anything. Not cures for cancer or anything else. It could, but then it might not. The point being however that new lines of fetal stem cells, are less and less needed for the research you seem to be a proponent of.
Madverts at 01:40 AM JST - 21st May

"That you don't like it does not change the facts."

I'm sorry but we're talking about abortion and not the odd times the process goes wrong so, no, I refuse to change my position and reiterate that calling abortion "infantacide" is cheap shock-horror sensationalsim.

If you're big on responsibility then you should allow people to make their own responsible choices.

And as for anything that becomes illegal, it always ends up underground. One of my best friends mother died at 27 through a back-street abortion. I'd like to see you make your case to her.
Good_Jorb at 01:54 AM JST - 21st May

The irony of some of the more extreme religious stances;

It's not ok to kill a fetus and state should interfere with the parents choices.

but

It's ok to stop your child from getting chemotherapy(essential killing him) and the state shouldn't interfere with the parents choices.
Madverts at 04:40 AM JST - 21st May

The religious nutters are there to be laughed at. Fundie Christians have only one difference from the Taliban - they've evolved, slightly.
Molenir at 10:24 AM JST - 21st May

If you're big on responsibility then you should allow people to make their own responsible choices.

I don't think you understand what the term responsibility means. I'll take a moment here and just explain it, so you can see where I'm coming from on this. To put it simply, everything we do has consequences. Everything. Having unprotected sex is the action, the consequence is pregnancy. Taking responsibility for your actions, means owning the consequence. Realizing that its happening not because life is fair, but because of your own actions, and dealing with those consequences. Girls don't have to have unprotected sex. They can say no, they can insist on a condom, they can use the pill. There are ways around it. So, if they get pregnant despite all these options, then I have no problem with saying they ought to have the child. Thats the natural consequences of their actions. Its different of course if they didn't choose. If they were raped, or victims of incest. In those kind of cases, where they didn't make the choice, then they should have the choice about whether or not to keep the child. You see, when it comes right down to it. I'm all about choice. However I'm also in favor of responsibility. And therein lies the difference.
Madverts at 03:17 PM JST - 21st May

Pregnancy can occur even using all means of contraception.

People should be allowed to choose what they want to do, without the government on religious nuts deciding for them. That's all.
Molenir at 08:48 PM JST - 21st May

Pregnancy can occur even using all means of contraception.

If thats the case, then the woman should definitely be having the child. I'm sorry, but if a girl gets pregnant despite being on the pill, and using a condom, then either she had placebo's and a scumbag boyfriend, or that child really needs to be born.

People should be allowed to choose what they want to do, without the government on religious nuts deciding for them. That's all.

They do that all the time. Everytime they decide to have sex. Wonderful world we live in.
kaoken at 03:25 PM JST - 22nd May

Wow, talk about an uninformed statement. Since Bush essentially denied all Federal Funding for Fetal stem cells, there has been tremendous progress made in adult stem cell research.

Ok maybe to clarify, embryonic stem cell research would be dead. Even though tremendous progress has been made with adult stem cells it is nowhere promising as embryonic. Bush really has pushed back progress in stem cell research. Now scientists have to work the long way around for progress, which they may or may not reach.
goodDonkey at 05:19 PM JST - 22nd May

The conservatives are all "Pro-Life" when it comes to the unborn but after you are born your "Pro-Life" rights end.
WilliB at 04:02 PM JST - 23rd May

goodDonkey:

" The conservatives are all "Pro-Life" when it comes to the unborn but after you are born your "Pro-Life" rights end. "

Is that an obscure reference to the death penalty, which is generally a conservative position? In that case, I´d like to point out that I have not met any conservative who is for a death penalty without a preceding trial and guilty verdict. Have you?