1. I agree with how the law currently stands: that a woman should have the option to choose an abortion early in the pregnancy, when the fetus is still not “viable” - typically, the first trimester. Bush does not.

2. I also agree with standing laws that a woman may choose, after the first trimester, to have an abortion in exceptional circumstances. Bush probably doesn’t, but I’m not sure. Most likely, he agrees with you that there should be such exceptions, but he would outlaw them anyway on the grounds that they would be taken advantage of. The Republican Party Platform for 2008 takes a hardline stand that the law should be changed to allow no exceptions. In any case, we disagree. Laura Bush agrees with me, I’m sure. (Cindy McCain also, I suspect).

Obama is a

1) Messiah
2) Immaculate
3) Always right in all things
4) The most caring person to have ever lived
5) The one who will bring paradise on earth
6) He who brings peace on earth for ever after

The media will inform u s about his other benefits for America.

I reject both views…and stand somewhere in the middle.

1)baby killer
2)arab and muslim
3)will be killing jews with with Osama Bin Laden
4)domestic terrorist who is planning U.S. attacks with Ayers
5)hates Americans especially whites and is planning attack whites with Rev. reverend Jeremiah Wright
6)is planning to steal rich whites kids lunch money and give it to black crack heads in the ghetto.

Sarah Palin will inform us about his other evil plans for America.

I’m curious LaurenceB, as stated, one can make the argument that your views are no different than GWB’s views on abortion…after all, he also supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and for the life of the mother.

So to clarify what you are saying, I ask, in what way are your abortion views different than GWB’s? Or are they not?

Yes, I did read the article - or at least I tried. It’s hard for me to have patience, or take seriously, people who use over-the-top language like (for example) the “killing” of embryos produced through in vitro fertilization. The reason I only addressed one piece of the article was that a) that was the only piece Jon brought up, and b) the article was just too long to discuss all of it.

My general view of the article was that I found some of it persuasive (Obama’s opposition to federal funding of non-embryonic stem cell research I think is damning, and is something I wasn’t aware of). But I found most of it was just a re-hashing of issues with which I am familiar and with which I respectfully disagree. For example, I frankly, have no problem with embryonic stem cell research, and I prefer to continue to allow women to choose an abortion in exceptional circumstances such as when there is a health issue or the pregnancy was the result of a rape. On these issues, you and Mr. George see Obama and I as an extremist (and a murderer), whereas I, and most other Americans, see him as a moderate.

I’m curious, did you read the article before commenting? The reason I ask is, frankly, the article shows that Obama’s views on abortion are alot worse than even I had assumed. ALot worse! And your response of “Obama wants it to be clear that abortion is permissible throughout the nine months of pregnancy in exceptional circumstances such as when the life of the mother is threatened” addresses little to nothing of the article.

FYI though…everybody believes that ‘abortion’ is permissible when the life of the mother is truly threatened. Even the most ardent abortion foes - such as the Catholic Church - believes this. In other words, not even Rick Santorum would draft a bill that opposed that.

What pro-life members of congress know is that when you include dubious exceptions into pro-life laws, things like “health of the mother”, that those exceptions are abortionspeak for “any and all things”. In other words, as McCain explained during the third debate, when a politicians says he supports abortion bans except in cases where “the health of the mother” is at risk, thats really a way to say to the abortion crowd “I support abortion for any reason” because that is the way that clause is legally interpreted (even morning sickness could be classified as ‘health of the mother’) - yet the politician is able to seem reasonable on abortion. Don’t be fooled by the abortionspeak.

Either way - the article is a must read and goes far beyond his simple support for late term abortions.