• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Ending the "Mexico City Policy" - Obama's Hope Begins

Let me help it get started :)

Hope begins for who exactly?

No need to fight about abortion, because the issue is deader than the deadest horse.

But this decision will probably just be reversed the next time we have a conservative republican in office.
 
I concur with the decision of the Obama Administration, but at the same time, I don't see it as anything to rejoice in. Much as abortion itself, I see it as regretfully necessary at times.

OTOH, if it also reverses the Bush Administration's insistence on teaching abstinence only, then I am happy about that, because the Bush policy on that was really, really, naive and dumb.
 
USS_Triumphant said:
I concur with the decision of the Obama Administration, but at the same time, I don't see it as anything to rejoice in. Much as abortion itself, I see it as regretfully necessary at times.

OTOH, if it also reverses the Bush Administration's insistence on teaching abstinence only, then I am happy about that, because the Bush policy on that was really, really, naive and dumb.
Click to expand...

That and reversing the stem-cell research ban, which really needed to happen.

Despite my Christian beliefs, I never understood the opposition to using aborted fetuses in experiments. The child was already dead. If some of its cells can be used to cure Alzheimer's, then why not use them? There's no commandment that says 'Thou Shalt Not use fetuses for biomedical research.'

I'll bet that if Evangelicals knew their whole belief structure was influenced by a cynic like John Calvin, their views would change pretty damn quick.
 
It's unfortunate, but the Right Wing's insistence on making this a religious issue has completely killed any possibility for rational discourse.
 
I am against abortion except in the case of rape, incest or the mothers life is in danger. I might not see eye to eye with Obama on this, but nobody is perfect and I still support him. After 8 years of Bush, satan would be an improvement.
 
RJDiogenes said:
It's unfortunate, but the Right Wing's insistence on making this a religious issue has completely killed any possibility for rational discourse.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it impossible to remove a religious person's religiousness from any discussion just as you would find it difficult to remove the non religious point of view from an atheist.
 
Augustus said:
RJDiogenes said:
It's unfortunate, but the Right Wing's insistence on making this a religious issue has completely killed any possibility for rational discourse.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it impossible to remove a religious person's religiousness from any discussion just as you would find it difficult to remove the non religious point of view from an atheist.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about motivation. The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.
 
msbae said:
USS_Triumphant said:
I concur with the decision of the Obama Administration, but at the same time, I don't see it as anything to rejoice in. Much as abortion itself, I see it as regretfully necessary at times.

OTOH, if it also reverses the Bush Administration's insistence on teaching abstinence only, then I am happy about that, because the Bush policy on that was really, really, naive and dumb.
Click to expand...

That and reversing the stem-cell research ban, which really needed to happen.

Despite my Christian beliefs, I never understood the opposition to using aborted fetuses in experiments. The child was already dead. If some of its cells can be used to cure Alzheimer's, then why not use them? There's no commandment that says 'Thou Shalt Not use fetuses for biomedical research.'

I'll bet that if Evangelicals knew their whole belief structure was influenced by a cynic like John Calvin, their views would change pretty damn quick.
Click to expand...

What ban are you referring to?
 
RJDiogenes said:
Augustus said:
RJDiogenes said:
It's unfortunate, but the Right Wing's insistence on making this a religious issue has completely killed any possibility for rational discourse.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it impossible to remove a religious person's religiousness from any discussion just as you would find it difficult to remove the non religious point of view from an atheist.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about motivation. The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.
Click to expand...

I may not be understanding you correctly, but are you saying that there is a scientific rationalization as to when life begins now? I always thought that was really a matter of opinion
 
I find it hopeful because it's a first step towards stopping religious views to continue to drive our nation's policy. The separation between church and state must be restored.

Restoring this is the first step to changing the culture of our local legislature and our courts and our voters so we can all stop injecting religion into policy. This will pave the way for stem cell research, then gay marriage.
 
but isn't the phrase separation of church and state NOT ACTUALLY in the constitution?

And isn't the only provision regarding religion that the congress should not establish a church as the state religion??

Just asking...
 
You're right, it's not in the Constitution. If it were, then a lot would be ruled unconstitutional.

Someone more well versed can correct me but it was a philosophy first coined by Thomas Jefferson. The idea that the freedom of religion includes freedom from religion's influence in government, which is what led to the colonies' creation in the first place. I find it hopeful that our president is placing American principles above other principles.
 
Meat Tenderizer said:
T'Baio said:
It seems on the 36th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, President Obama will reverse Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, in which no American dollars would be used to help fund a family planning agency that included anything about abortion in its tenets, teachings and beliefs.

The Hope begins. :)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/19/obama.abortion/index.html
Click to expand...

What is hopeful about that decision?
Click to expand...

I agree.

Show me when Obama's going to do a massive overhaul on the foster care and adoption system in this country and THEN I'll say that's hope. Ther's no attention paid to the children who need GOOD homes to live in (and not the crappy ones social services so often seems to let them rot in). I kind of sit where Giuliani does on the abortion issue. I think making it illegal would cause more problems--but I think that a LOT needs to be done to really make the adoption option something much more feasible and the foster care system not a soul-sucking dump like it is now. Maybe if we had that fixed, more mothers might actually be able to believe there'll be a worthwhile life ahead for their children if they carry them to term, instead of believing that abortion would be more merciful.
 
Augustus said:
but isn't the phrase separation of church and state NOT ACTUALLY in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Remember yesterday when I said a specific phrase doesn't have to be in the Constitution in order to be protected or outlawed by it as decided by later court decisions?

And isn't the only provision regarding religion that the congress should not establish a church as the state religion?
Click to expand...
No, that's not the only thing. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment say this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

... AN establishment OF religion..., not "THE establishment OF A religion."


As interpreted by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.


As interpreted by the US Supreme Court in 1971's Lemon v. Kurtzman case:

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
USS_Triumphant said:
I concur with the decision of the Obama Administration, but at the same time, I don't see it as anything to rejoice in. Much as abortion itself, I see it as regretfully necessary at times.
Click to expand...

I'm not happy at the idea of more abortions, and for me personally I only support it in cases of rape / incest, if the fetus has serious and irreparable medical issues, or the birth is a danger to the mother (but I understand that others may disagree which is why I'm pro-choice). Like you said, I consider it regretfully necessary sometimes.

That being said, why I said "good to hear" in this case was because this ridiculous policy denied funding even to places that simply talked about the option of abortion whether verbally or through literature, even if they didn't perform abortions themselves. I'm not a fan of preventing family planning clinics or doctors in general from presenting all the options available to their patients.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top