Originally Posted by Frank777
It's not a trick question. It's a question central to the abortion debate.
If you believe human life is only evident and should be protected only when a baby exits the birth canal, you should at least have the guts to stand up and say so.
Sure it is and your comment illustrates that perfectly. Most folks will agree that by the third trimester when survival is possible then it's a baby.
But not all folks believe human life begins at conception. Where in that in-between area does it occur? That's above my pay grade...and even were it not, I shouldn't be defining it for YOU. That's between you and your beliefs. The converse is true as well...you should not be defining it for me either.
Personally, I have no problems with IUDs and morning after pills...even when I believe that abortion should not be used as a birth control method. Human life begins sometime after that first month or so.
How MUCH past that I couldn't tell you. Nor do I have to. Nor does Obama have to because he probably doesn't know. Even as a personal opinion.
Right-to-lifers' are happy to have such education, but insist that the state should provide the resources and training to parents, and let them raise their own children with proper values.
This isn't a moral question but a health question. If you wish to teach your* kids abstinence is the right way that's perfectly fine. As long as they know about all the other ways to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Knowledge of those should not preclude your ability to teach children "values".
By repressing that knowledge ensures that the kids that need that information the most (as in those with less supportive parents) do not get it. THOSE kids might be the sex partners of your kids. Don't pretend that good christian children do not experiment with sex.
It is a lot easier to forgive a transgression that does not come with a baby after 9 months or a STD that lasts a lifetime.
The idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood and other stakeholders in the abortion industry should be responsible for the teaching of values to kids is severely warped.
Why? Because they are "selling death"? Or perhaps they feel they are as ethical and moral as you are, just with a different viewpoint. From my perspective they help women who are in a bad spot because they didn't get the support and knowledge needed before sex. That includes sex partners and family members that might believe that contraceptives are a sin.
That sex education should be left to the sexually repressed conservative Christian parents who fear everything and do not trust their ability to show their own children the power of God is equally dubious. They have faith in God but not their parenting ability to say "Hey, even though you CAN use condoms and have pre-marital sex safely, it is better not to do so and it is against Christian teaching"?
I can say with some level of assurance that most pro-choice parents are also not in favor of teenage sex and caution their children not to do so.
So Obama's answers are 'nuanced' positions, but McCain's are simply pandering. Got it.
How is it nuanced? He said he supports choice and opposes abortions. Those positions are not in opposition.
Unlike the position where one believes that life begins at conception but it's okay to kill the baby anyway because dad was a rapist...
* I use your in the generic sense. I don't mean YOU specifically since you may or may not have children.