Leave a comment

Comments 29

atalantapendrag January 23 2009, 15:57:13 UTC
How much do I love him right now? He keeps making me proud of having voted for him.

Reply


acelightning January 23 2009, 16:22:30 UTC
I don't know where Digby got that from, but I went to whitehouse.gov, and there was nothing even remotely resembling this. Then I checked a few of the major news sources - again, nothing. There is going to be an announcement that President Obama is rescinding Bush's ban on funding for foreign aid if it includes anything vaguely related to birth control or abortion, and apparently that statement does mention Roe v. Wade. But the statement you posted sounds just a little too controversial for a savvy politician like Obama to have made...

...dammit.

Reply

james_the_evil1 January 23 2009, 17:07:19 UTC
I just did a Yahoo news search for Obama & Roe V. Wade and that statement is cited in a couple of articles from the AP.

Reply

starcat_jewel January 23 2009, 19:04:04 UTC
Follow the link in the post, and then scroll down to the "Reproductive Rights" section. It's not quite word-for-word, but the same themes are there, very clearly laid out.

Obama knows that he's never going to win over the fundies on this issue, so there's no point in soft-pedaling his principles in the hopes of not offending them. Instead, he's issuing a clear call to the progressive base -- and damn, I'm glad to see it! After 30 years of even Democratic politicians tiptoeing around acting terrified of less than 30% of the population, it's a real breath of fresh air.

Reply


unclelumpy January 23 2009, 18:37:23 UTC
It really sickens me how some people think that just because I want abortion kept legal, that means I somehow "like" it or think it's a "good" thing.

Of course I don't!

An abortion is a terrible thing. It's probably one of the most heartbreaking experiences anyone can go through.

But life, for lack of a better word, is complicated. Sometimes you are forced into situations where there are no good possible outcomes, so you must choose which one you consider to be the least of all evils.

And if a woman decides that it is a lesser evil to end the life of a fetus than to bring a baby into a world in which it is unwanted, I believe she should be allowed to pursue that choice and bring it about in the safest way possible.

Reply

fredhuggins January 23 2009, 23:17:26 UTC
You filthy heretic! Life is absolutely sacred, in even its smallest forms (swats fly) damn pests. That reminds me, need to buy some anti-bacterial shampoo...

Reply

morpheus0013 January 23 2009, 23:24:09 UTC
It's probably one of the most heartbreaking experiences anyone can go through.

No. Not really. It's a common misconception, and I don't think it benefits the debate at all to say that all women who have abortions have a horrible time making and going through with their decision and if they don't, then there's something wrong with them. For some women, myself included, it was neither difficult nor heartbreaking. It was logical, right, and the best course of action, and I've never lost a moment's sleep over it.

Reply

chaosdancer January 24 2009, 05:05:58 UTC
I think this has to be a YMMV area...I've seen both extremes and neither is "right" or "wrong" - it's just a person's response to a situation. Where a child has been wanted but there's a serious medical problem, or it's not at all the right time or the money's just not there, it can be a sad decision to have to make. Conversely, it can be the absolute right thing to do, such that the "what-if" questions just never come up. Kind of like a divorce in that respect, in that some people are sad and others are thrilled, and until you talk to the person it's hard to know whether to offer sympathy or congratulations, or neither.

Reply


bryanp January 23 2009, 19:07:49 UTC
While I am pro choice, every time I hear about the anniversary of Roe V Wade I can't help but think that somewhere out there the kid who was the center of that case is probably celebrating a very awkward birthday ...

Reply

jannyblue January 24 2009, 15:07:11 UTC
You mean Jane Roe?

Her real name's Norma McCorvey.

She went all "Abortion is evil and nobody should be allowed to have one... EVER!" a couple of years ago...

Googled Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21598

I don't have the stomach to wade through the TONS of rabid anti-choice webpages asking "So whatever happened to Jane Roe's rapist's baby after she gave it up for adoption?"

(Although she now denies it was rape, probably because a lot of the anti-choice people are willing to consider exceptions for rape cases, which would have made abortion sort of forgivable in that case.)

As for the kid (which was not her first child, BTW) I suspect they have no idea of their identity as THAT baby...

Reply

bryanp January 24 2009, 15:16:36 UTC
Yeah, I've heard about some of that. I was kidding, mostly. It would be weird to know you were the kid in that case, though.

"My mom didn't want me. No, really. You want proof? Look in this American History textbook, page 473."

Reply

dan_ad_nauseam January 24 2009, 23:26:14 UTC
In all fairness, she acknowledged that her pregnancy was not the result of rape several years before she announced her conversion.

OTOH, considering that Roe was a class action (and needed to be one to get around mootness problems), we don't have to worry about any legal repercussions.

Reply


kilbia January 23 2009, 20:45:27 UTC
A bumper sticker I saw in college summed it up very neat for me:

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up