Obama still dodged the actual question that was asked. The question was, "at what point does a baby get human rights in your opinion?" Instead of approaching a subject he knew he would be on the wrong side of with this crowd considering his past voting record, he dodged that one completely and turned it into some fluff about "working together to decrease unwanted pregnancy." When a baby gets human rights can extend beyond just abortion considerations. There are cases where murderers of pregnant women are charged with double homicide. What if that woman had an abortion instead? Does the baby have rights when the mother is killed, but not when the mother kills it? It is an area that should be addressed and more clearly defined legally.

Of course, we already know where Obama stands from his voting record. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of fear that he might accidentally grant protection to a fetus and threaten Roe vs Wade (his own words). He also said he would vote for it on the federal level if an identical bill was presented that protected Roe vs Wade. When the identical bill that he said he would vote for was presented at the federal level, Obama voted against it. CNN and CBN confronted him in an interview about this and Obama called it lies and deliberate misrepersentations of his position. You can see that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c

Shortly after the interview, Obama's campaign admitted that this was false and he did in fact vote against the identical bill. This allowed living, breathing babies that were now outside the womb as a result of failed abortions to be thrown into medical waste bins. Until this bill finally passed in 2005, babies were being murdered legally. I say murder in this case because you are not even talking about dividing cells at this point. You are talking about a baby that is now breathing on its own outside the womb. In the face of testimony from nurses and evidence presented, Obama still voted against the bill 3 times with different excuses in each instance. So, back to the question he dodged. Obama never answered when he believes a baby gets human rights.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

^ Second the David Brooks is an idiot. He's just whining because he doesn't like the thought of a tough Democrat.

Besides, Obama always said he'd consider public financing, he did not unequivocally commit to it, contrary to what that obviously objective John McCain guy says.

Let's look at McCain's flip-flops.

My favorites:

Against off-shore drilling, now advocates it.

Thought Iraq would be easy, now says he always knew it would be hard.

Has been both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Against Bush tax cuts, now for them.

Against torture, now for it.

Oh, and how could I forget? John McCain is an election finance criminal.

Technically that last one isn't a flip-flop, but a long-held position, but it seems relevant to the conversation anyways.

David Brooks is a Republican cheerleader. If he wanted to slam Obama for a serious flip-flop, he'd have to talk FISA, but Brooks won't do that because in his very prestigious role as a Republican cheerleader, that's Obama seeing reason, not selling out the 4th amendment.

I think Brooks' article was entertaining read, but I think Republicans like Brooks seem to think all of Obama's appeal comes from being "a different kind of politician", and that any time he makes a smart tactical or strategic move, it's evidence that he's "just another politician." They think articles like this will "shatter the illusion", and make us all get luvey-dovey about McCain, who's a "straight-talker".

If you read through the article I linked and the videos I linked, you'll find that if Brooks is really concerned about us liking a "two-faced politician", he needs to write an expose about McCain.

I won't be holding my breath.

McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and backs abstinence-only education. *femme?

Yes there are intelligent voters there, same as there are in the South and in other places. Last polls I saw from there showed McCain up by quite a bit and I'm pretty sure Bush won both times there as well so they aren't going to vote for Clinton or Obama in the end, debating how to please them is a loss to start with. Even if they do and maybe it's possible with Clinton it's just 5 electoral votes. They aren't our target audience.

We do want to build consensus and that's exactly why Clinton can't be on the ticket. If you think she's been vetted and can't bring new controversy take a bit of time to read the following article.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Hillary39s-woes-take-their-toll.4071541.jp

So far Obama hasn't touched her on most issues she's open on, she flung Wright and Ayers out there but he stayed more classy and that had a bit to do with why he'll win. She's still open to all of that and more though, so far it's been just amateurs and the press poking at her. The repubs will tear her up on that stuff and more. Most damage she's taken in the campaign has been self inflicted anyway and I don't see how she can possibly be vetted for what she insists on doing to herself.

With the court on the edge of spit decisions on everything from Roe v Wade to torture to how we can try and hold suspects and open seats likely in the next few years there's a lot at risk even before we consider the economy, the war, and so on. Most who claim they won't show now probably will when we come to it because the cost is too high for angry gestures, those who won't were just Limbaugh's chaos or too prejudiced to be any help anyway.

She'll bring us fewer voters than we think and for every one she brings she'd drive at least one more away, independent and crossover voters who like Obama and are looking for a change but don't like her or believe she's any part of change. She's probably dead weight or break even at best and that's before we even consider how she'll energize the repubs in both fund raising and voter turnout. They don't much like McCain otherwise, they are hoping for a reason to care and she's it.

Then there's personality, the VP's office isn't the back seat ride along that it used to be and you CAN NOT fire the VP, they are an elected official just like the President is. They can be impeached and convicted but not fired. Once in office the chances of her trying to run things her way from the VP office is too large and nothing about this campaign suggests she'll take a back seat to or stop for anyone once she sets her mind to it. It's a violent conflict waiting to happen.

It's a real bad idea, best chance the repubs have for a win. Either her alone or him behind her would have worked better, but not her behind him and not now, not after this campaign. He can do better and so can we.

>> ^chilaxe:
Taking Hillary as his VP would probably go a long way toward resolving the rift among democrats. I think Hillary's still running now just to force him to pick her.


I don't think that's a good idea for a number of reasons and the odds of it happening are a LOT lower than most people expect. I'd be glad to explain the reasons if you'd like, but it's a bit long and I don't want to go too far off topic here without need. Bad habit I'm trying to work on a bit

It might have been an option 6 weeks or more ago, but she went for it all instead of leaving herself some room and leverage and she's got nothing left now. He's got no reason to want her. Not even electability or bringing more people out to vote.

With Roe V Wade and so many other things hanging on the edge of a split court and one or two Justices old enough to retire or otherwise leave office in the next few years that'll bring many of the women who say they won't vote for him out in spite of themselves. Loss of that is a steep price for an angry gesture so most will probably show in the end with or without her. There's a bunch of other problems with arguments for her being on the ticket as well. She offers little really but baggage and controversy, the potential for conflict within the ticket.

>> ^SDGundamX:
But marinara, he has a point--as a judge, it's his job to uphold the law. The 8th Amendment says "cruel and unusual punishment" not "interrogation." Until lawmakers decide to change that, his hands are tied. Unless, perhaps, you think it is better to have a Supreme Court capable of creating laws on the fly--an idea that completely upsets the (albeit already tenuous) balance of power between executive, judicial, and legislative branches.

So Scalia's argument is that while the police can't search you without a warrant, can't hold you without a charge, and can't beat or torture you as punishment for a crime, that since it's not explicitly in the constitution you can legally torture people while searching for incriminating evidence?

After all, they don't mention murder in the constitution either. Perhaps that's a new "interrogation" technique they should use.

What's the point of "innocent until proven guilty" if you can torture people who haven't even been to trial?

Judges do make law. In cases where the law is not clear on how to proceed, judges make law by setting precedent.

In cases like, say, Roe v. Wade, the supreme court created law. It's what they're there to do. It's why they're the third co-equal branch of government. It's why there wasn't armed rebellion when they anointed George Bush President.

This emphasis the religious right (and their neocon allies) place on the necessity of appointing judges who believe in the strictest possible interpretation of the letter of the law leads to people like Scalia having a position of power in this country.

As a supreme court justice, his job is not to uphold law, it's to uphold the principles of the constitution. Scalia isn't doing that job, he's just upholding the letter of it.

We're looking at it from two completely different sides. I see a life being formed, regardless of the circumstances that brought it into being. You see a fetus that does not yet count as alive. This is a major difference. From the first perspective, abortion is like killing a small child because it's burdensome, just at an earlier and impersonal stage. From the other, abortion is terminating a potentially troublesome pregnancy, or a standard medical issue. I personally view it like this: You would definitely think it is vile crime for a mother to kill her child after they had been born. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between killing baby in the nursery and aborting a fetus is that you have a face to associate with the child already born. It becomes more important to you because you can see him/her.

Tofumar, a self-defense analogy is a bit weak. I was referring to the story the doctor gave at the end of the article about the muslim boy. The doctor's ultimate point was that since the boy feared the girl's brothers would kill him, he saved a life by aborting the baby. My point was that viewing the aborted baby as being alive means the doctor killed an unborn child to save a man from fear. Were the girls brothers going to kill him? How does the doctor know that's truely what will happen? If that was the case, there are no better reactions than to murder a child to save a man that made poor choices? I don't mean he should be killed either, but he can't find a better way to deal with his problems? I think in this situation it should be viewed as courageous for them to find a way to give that child a chance to live, not for killing it to buy themselves temporary happiness. To bring that back to self-defense, what does killing the baby have to do with it? Self-defense is defined as "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant" or "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack." Under those circumstances, killing the brothers would be self-defense if they attacked him. A defense against someone that has chosen to attack you, not against someone completely different to prevent a suspected attack at an undetermined point in the future. Killing the baby is just plain murder.

Farhad, you're using some pretty flimsy logic to connect Roe vs Wade to "the largest drop in crime rates in the US." Could it be a factor? Possibly. Is it the sole cause of a decrease in crime. Certainly not. You're usually really good with framing logical arguments so I find that one pretty out of character. The small-government part of me can definitely see your point about social programs and adoption though. It all comes back to the core issue, how do you view the pregnancy? As a fetus, or an unborn baby? If you believe it is not yet alive, then it becomes a clinical issue to you. No different than removing a tumor or other harmful condition. If it's an unborn baby, it's much more complex. Everything else has to be weighed against the idea of ending a life for convenience. Is it worth the money to support these children so they have a chance to live, or is it better to chose for them and kill them before they are born?

Roe Vs Wade has lead to the largest drop in crime rates in the US. Those who could not financially support themselves and a child could now abort their children, reducing those born out of wed lock, into poverty, into drug abuse, and eventually those who enter into crime due to inability of the parents to support them fully. Not to mention reducing burden on social services, foster homes and so on. Over the decades since Roe Vs Wade this had lead to the largest crime rate drop in the US, currently the only reason it seems there is more crime is because there is over reporting of what crime does occur due to the 24 hour nature of our news services.

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

My thought with regards to Pro-Lifers is always, if you would adopt, cloth and feed and provide an education for the aborted child then go ahead, I support you.

But don't mandate the abolition of abortion to the State and then refuse the increased costs in taxation in creating foster homes and other social services to support them.

Because thats exactly what would happen.

We're talking about practicalities now, which is quite right, that's where the public debate should be. I actually think it's quite workable.

In my proposal you wouldn't have to take the man's word for it, he would be required to make an official declaration before a given date. I don't know offhand what the current foetus age limit is on abortion, ludicrously low certainly, but that would be the obvious starting point. It needn't be difficult or expensive either, I had to make a declaration a while ago for work and it cost me one phone call to a solicitor, ten minutes of my time and £5. The court would only have to get involved in rare cases, such as where a man had to show that he wasn't aware of the pregnancy or that he was unable to abdicate responsibility in time.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
I agree with you in principle however, the reality is that what you suggest opens up a new can of worms; more lawsuits based on intent. A man can SAY he is supportive of the idea of having a child with a woman but what happens once the pregnancy reaches the third trimester and he changes his mind? or after the baby is born? Then it is his word against his. Same for if he says he doesn't want it then she gets an abortion and he then can sue her? The problem is, when a baby is born there are only two certainties: the mother wanted to have the baby and the baby is of her blood. Everything beyond that is he said/she said. And that's the reason why we err on the side of the mother; because ultimately, when a woman has a baby we KNOW she wanted it (at least initially) and we can only make assumptions about the father. Before modern birth control and Roe vs Wade we could assume a man must have had some intent because the connection between sex and impregnation was much stronger.
When there is a way to prove the intent of the man upon delivery, then we can talk about enforcing a man's wishes (including allowing the man to abdicate parental responsibility and rights) until then, in the interests of the child, we must have things be "unfair"

I agree with you in principle however, the reality is that what you suggest opens up a new can of worms; more lawsuits based on intent. A man can SAY he is supportive of the idea of having a child with a woman but what happens once the pregnancy reaches the third trimester and he changes his mind? or after the baby is born? Then it is his word against his. Same for if he says he doesn't want it then she gets an abortion and he then can sue her? The problem is, when a baby is born there are only two certainties: the mother wanted to have the baby and the baby is of her blood. Everything beyond that is he said/she said. And that's the reason why we err on the side of the mother; because ultimately, when a woman has a baby we KNOW she wanted it (at least initially) and we can only make assumptions about the father. Before modern birth control and Roe vs Wade we could assume a man must have had some intent because the connection between sex and impregnation was much stronger.
When there is a way to prove the intent of the man upon delivery, then we can talk about enforcing a man's wishes (including allowing the man to abdicate parental responsibility and rights) until then, in the interests of the child, we must have things be "unfair"

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
We're not adjudicating in the interests of the man; we're adjudicating in the interests of correct moral principle.

Whether a child is disadvantaged by the lack of a father is not the issue; there is no law or, more importantly, moral imperative against single parenting. Neither is the man the issue, he had nothing to do with the decision to have a child.

This needs to be elaborated upon. Having sex with or without birth control is not in itself a procreative act. There is always the option of abortion in the case of pregnancy, even in uncivilised (anti-abortion) or poor countries one could always 'leave the baby out for the wolves' or similar. Therefore, a conscious or unconscious decision not to abort, i.e. the deliberate decision to have a child, is an integral part of every birth. Unintuitively, simply conceiving does not make one a parent.

I agree with you when you say that a person who takes action leading to the birth of a child is responsible for that child. In the example we are discussing, only the mother has taken that action, only she has refused an abortion, therefore only she is responsible for the child. Consider that if both the mother and father agreed to abort, neither of them would be responsible for the support of a child that wouldn't exist. The father's actions are the same in both cases, consequently his responsibilities must be the same.

It is not acceptable to force the burden of a child on someone who hasn't chosen it. Far better to force an abortion on the woman if that were the only other option, but I'm suggesting it isn't. Where a person chooses to have a child without a partner that is their decision and their responsibility alone. If they can't afford to support that child as they would like, that is unfortunate. You can only legislate so far against bad decision-making.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
because then you are adjudicating in the interest of the man and THE CHILD suffers. your suggestion puts it as if its "person who opposes abortion" versus "person who doesn't oppose abortion" or mother versus father etc but its not about them, its about the child.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I don't see why men who don't want children shouldn't say exactly that, smibbo. If birth control fails, have an abortion. If the woman refuses an abortion, the man should be able to make a legal declaration refusing parental rights and responsibilities to the child.

Roe v. Wade sets the abortion limit up to the point the fetus can live outside the womb (viable) unless the woman's health is in danger. States are also given the power to further regulate abortion; required counseling, a wait period, or parental notification or consent. I'm pretty sure there some state laws on 'late term' abortion, but I don't think the states can outlaw it completely.

I think it's a false dichotomy saying either-if on abortion. There's a very big difference between aborting a birth within the first month and in the eigth month.

The problem with moving it to a state level is that many states are retarded - or would ban it altogether, and that takes away the choice from the mother and thus removes it from the local authority, so to speak. Now, I honestly don't know the specifics of Roe v. Wade, but in Denmark, where I'm from, we have free abortion within the first 12 weeks, and after that special circumstances have to allow it - this is decided for each individual case.

If Roe v. Wade allows for eight month abortions - just like that - then I agree that it is murder, and it plays all to well in to "pro-life" and religious cooks hands.

(Btw, it's sort of fun how people always choose a "pro-something" never anti.. "anti-choice" sounds a bit worse than pro-life, and anti-life is just funny.)

Ron Paul's sympathies are with those who want to ban abortion and gay marriage but he says it should be left to the state and local governments to decide. Regardless of what he says about leaving it up to the states, electing him would risk another conservative appointment to the supreme court. A strict constructionist is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Kucinich is the only candidate who's right on all the social issues and civil liberties issues. Clinton and Obama weasel their way out of making definitive statements that might alienate social conservatives. Kucinich is the only candidate proposing socialized healthcare that would be equivalent to what they have in France and Canada. I'm opposed to his international trade position. I'm ambivalent about his other economic policies, his foreign policy, his gun control stance, and his competence, but for the moment he seems like the best candidate. He has no chance of winning the nomination. Any one among Clinton, Obama and Kucinich would be preferable to all of the republican candidates.

Pros:
Fanatical devotion to "The Founders"
Advocates the Gold Standard
Cons:
I'm unsure on the Abortion thing, but I don't think he should mess with Roe v Wade however he suggests that it be an issue for the States to decide which isn't neccessarily a bad idea.

He wants to abolish the public education funding - I have mixed feelings about this as well, but Ron is citing some good reasons as to why he wants the schools to be able to be more independent. Federal budgets cause a waste of people's money but ultimately I think the schools need help and they are already bound to the hip to federal funding. I don't think this will pass through congress.

If Ron were working with the likes of Kucinich and Gravel I'll bet it would be an amazing replacement to the neocons.

Your right, there are no references to God in the constitution - Of course the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Was he pandering to a religious group? If he stated that then I agree it's wrong. It would be a good question for him in a youtube debate.
I always heard him stating that some of the founding fathers had strong religious beliefs but that we are granted with freedom of religion via the 1st Amendment.

So you think he's a cheap demagogue like the others, however the others (Republican candidates) completely hate him for his beliefs. I think that he's not perfect, but he's nothing like the others.

Who do you think is the best candidate then? Who is our best hope, and why? If you think I'm making the wrong choice, I'd like to know what you think the best option would be.

Also, my "religious" beliefs are in-line with Thomas Jefferson as described in the link you posted. He was a genius.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not saying the pilots or passengers or the crew should be able to bring guns. What he says is that the airlines should be able to protect themselves - whether the pilots, stewards or guards should carry guns - it's upto them to decide. It's their property, they know best how to protect them. Let's assume for a moment, that an airline does allow passengers to bring guns. Do you really think that their business will survive ?

Though he didn't make it clear, he has said elsewhere, that abortion is a state issue. By getting rid of Roe vs Wade, he is giving more power to the states to decide on that. From his website: "I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."

http://ronpaul2008.com/issues