Definite pro-Clinton feel to this article I’m impressed by the creative slant.

It’s not unusual for Clinton to give better answers, though I don’t care for the way she campaigns, but both are head and shoulders above McCain. I thought Hillary gave a decent answer to the when does life begin question. Obama also would keep a woman (& family’s) right to choose. McCain is very conservative on this and in fact favors a constitutional amendment that would ban most abortions. Also he’s opposed to real sex education and availability of contraceptives. For women and families worried about their children or about caring for the kids they have, McCain has nothing to offer.
Oh, and he’d keep us heavily involved in the three trillion dollar Iraq invasion that’s ruining our economy and threatening the relatively few government programs with help for the poor or middle class.

Both Clinton and Obama were a pleasure to listen to last evening. Both show intelligence and honesty in their answers. Very outstanding leaders.

Clinton certainly gave the right answer for me when it comes to abortion. “The potential for life begins at conception” and she still believes it should be legal, safe and rare.”
Key word: potential, not that it IS life at conception.
She doesn’t feel that govenment should intrude on a deeply personal decision.

It did tend to have a pro Clinton slant to the article, but both gave good answers. Looking at who McCain is pandering to we can guess at what he would say but probably something along the lines of pro life so as not to offend his base. IMHO Clinton or Obama would do better.

The potential for life is always there. The beginning stages of life are occurring at conception.

I have noticed that all of the aritcles on this event have given a little extra attention to Clinton. I think it may have been , in part, because Obama’s had so much attention on his faith journey. However, I do not think she took as much advantage of this opportunity as she could. Her responses have been tepid, vague, and tenuous. His seem stronger and more thouth through. Perhpas this is because he has had to think these issues through more than she. This is not a criticism, simply a commnet. I am not willing to chew on one candidate more than the other, becuase I am sure I will be voting for one or the other in Nov (McCain is becoming more scary than I had anticipated).
This was an interesting event – now I hope it is time to mve on to other topics and concers – like the ECONOMY!!!

It’s not the economy but while we’re on the issue of McCain let’s point out he just can’t keep his facts straight, even on the military side.
At least four times he’s wrongly said or implied al Qaeda is Shi’a when it’s actually Sunni (and thus not likely to be getting help from Shi’a Iran) and just Monday McCain said he’d only shift troops from Afghanistan to Iraq if General Petraeus said he should, when Petraeus testified only last week before McCain’s Senate committee that’s not his decision to make; he’s only in charge of Iraq decisions and has nothing to do with the bigger picture. And of course if McCain were the military expert the press seems to think he is, McCain would know that anyway.
The Democratic candidates are too polite to bring this up, but McCain is 71 years old and suffered some traumatic times earlier in his life and maybe he’s just not mentally alert enough to be President. I wouldn’t say that about just any 71 year old but McCain’s made some major slip-ups on an area where he’s claimed expertise so in a sense he’s brought it up himself.

> Asked whether life begins at conception, Obama said he didn’t know the answer.
Let me make it simple for you, Senators Obama and Clinton. Two basic scientific questions need be answered:
a) Is it human or not-human?
b) Is it alive or not-alive?
If the answer two both questions is “human” and “alive”, then it is what we call a “living human”.
Now that this oh-so-very tricky question is settled, Senators, you may now debate as to whether a living human may be killed simply because he or she causes inconvenience to others. Please proceed.

Kaffinator you over-simplify. The answer to your first question is non-human but slowly becoming human and the answer to your second question is, parasitic, can’t live on its own, but slowly becoming able to live on its own.
So you haven’t advanced the issue at all.

At the risk of dating myself, I must reply to nnmns posting, “ditto”!

To say that the potential for life begins at conception, or that the the life which begins to grow at conception is “non-human but slowly becoming human” or that it is “slowly becoming able to live on its own” is to engage in so much double-talk.
Abortion ends a human life, pure and simple. Some may argue there are situations in which it is okay to end that life (I don’t argue that, however), but it is still a human life that is being ended. And by nnmns’ definition of slow progression toward humanity, he would have to favor the cutting off of abortion availability at some point, because each day the fetus, as he describes it, becomes more human. When would it be, nnmns? Three months? Six months? On the child’s first birthday?
Setting a point in time when a conceived human being becomes human is arbitrary and could be set aat any point for the convenience of others. Double talk all you want to. Human life begins at conception.

Also, I will not vote for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. I do appreciate their willingness to discuss their religious views, and I do not wish to denigrate them in any way, but they will not get my vote simply because I do not agree with their liberal philosophies. I am totally opposed to abortion on demand. I do not think federal health care will work. And I don’t want my taxes raised to support further redistribution of the nation’s wealth, something the Democrats seem to be good at.

WC your last post is interesting. The first President I voted for was Eisenhower when I was 19, because he was going to end the Korean Conflict, and my fiance was there. I voted for each succeeding President for various reasons that we felt had to do with how we would bring our children up well. My Dad got caught in the depression and so voted for FDR. At no time did I think of what their religion was, what their philosophies were, if they were liberal or conservative. People didn’t look through magnifying glasses to analyze personal beliefs of people running for office in those years. It started when Bill Clinton was running, everyones morality hit the fan! I can’t imagine dissecting everything a person does to suit myself as to who I would vote for, because nobody is going to do it 100% to please WC or H22.

“And by nnmns’ definition of slow progression toward humanity, he would have to favor the cutting off of abortion availability at some point, because each day the fetus, as he describes it, becomes more human. When would it be, nnmns? Three months? Six months? On the child’s first birthday?”
Actually, the cutting off point is quite easy to figure out. It’s when the fetus can live on its own.
Lots of things beside pregnancy begin with cell division or conception, including cancer and parasitic infections. According to your definition, we are also extinguishing these forms of life – maybe this should also stop. And before you ask, no a child is not the same as a cancer, but they do begin the same way.
Any other job in this country would be labeled discrimination if these questions were asked. When are we going to treat the presidential race as it should be, a job interview? We are not asking these folks to run our church or teach us morality!
And by the way, I am from Pennsylvania so I do get to vote next week!

Too much attention has been paid to the “religious views” of potential presidents (and other elected offices too). Religion and politics don’t mix when it comes to running the country. What happened to separation of church and state?
As Henrietta said…when she voted in her early years, no one worried about the candidate’s religion. Same with me. Folks were more interested in the what the person was going to do for the country and for them.
Outlawing abortion wouldn’t stop it, only drive it underground.

“Abortion ends a human life, pure and simple.”
That’s your opinion, nothing more. If you find two cells hanging together to be a human you can do that but I think most people have better sense than that.
“Some may argue there are situations in which it is okay to end that life”
Yes indeed. Women and their families have had that need as long as there have been families. And for a long time now some men have found arbitrary reasons to try to deny that right. E.g. your claim it’s a human life.
“And by nnmns’ definition of slow progression toward humanity, he would have to favor the cutting off of abortion availability at some point, because each day the fetus, as he describes it, becomes more human. When would it be, nnmns?”
Roe v. Wade does an excellent job of that, allowing the least legal protection during the first trimester, more during the second and the most legal protection during the third. It’s a remarkably good ruling.

nnmns — all humans are parasitic in the sense that they depend on others. Do you really think you could survive completely on your own?
It’s sad when someone chucks common sense, logic, and reason in order to protect the “freedom” to kill for inconvenience. But it’s truly tragic when someone with such a severely damaged morality gets installed into the white house.
But I’m glad that discussions like Obama’s and Hillary’s happened, so that everyone can see that they’re willing to equivocate on simple terms like “human” and “alive” in to serve their constituents’ desire for death on demand.
Henrietta, check your history. Americans have _always_ been concerned about the faith and moral character of the Commander in Chief. And rightly so, when choosing a leader for the nation, these qualities actually do matter.

“It’s sad when someone chucks common sense, logic, and reason in order to protect the “freedom” to kill for inconvenience.”
I can only assume you are talking about GWB and his Republican cronies who attacked Iraq, and have caused the deaths of over 4,000 US service people and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and inconvenienced pretty much everyone involved while ruining our reputation around the world and breaking our treasury. Or maybe you are talking about John McCain who would continue those policies.
parasitic: Living in or on another animal and deriving food from it.
So I’m not parasitic in that sense. In the sense you alluded to every animal is parasitic and it would be a meaningless word. But maybe that was your intent.
And you are preaching to your choir on the abortion issue, and it’s a fairly small, if noisy, choir. Most people believe in the right to abortion in at least some situations. You, I take it believe it should never be allowed which, happily, puts you in a distinct minority.

Clinton needs to explain her vote. Obama wasn’t in the Senate then. Bush and his cronies lied about the evidence and held back evidence. I suspect some Senators who should have known better thought Bush might have had real evidence that he’d use to punish people who voted against the invasion. But in any case without Bush and his Republicans, including the strong backing of McCain, the invasion would never have happened.
It’s a parasitic relationship. The embryo or fetus would mindlessly try to suck the life out of the mother to be if she couldn’t get nourishment. Being the humans in the situation it’s up to the mother and her mate to be sure she gets nourishment and in our society she pretty much always does. But that’s the kind of relationship it is so don’t try to represent the embryo or fetus as this smiling baby in a blanket.
And when women and the people who love them realize McCain, who is no moderate, will name Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, thus ending the right to abortion in some states and starting bitter fights in many states, they will rally to Clinton or Obama. You are on the losing end of this fight.

Oh, and Kaffinator I’m quite sure you can’t help me.

The “right to murder” catagory? Oh Please, Kaffinator. That sounds very inflamatory, and like a desperate attempt to change people’s minds on their pro-choice attitudes. The message you’re trying to promote, that a woman making a personal, hard, decision to terminate a pregnancy is committing murder, is just plain outragous. It is so NOT your business. All any one would get with the removal of Row V. Wade is underground, dirty abortions or self-induced ones. It wouldn’t stop them.

Infants cannot live on their own. I hope no one is implying that it’s okay to end the life of an infant here.

No one here I know of.

Kaff, I don’t have to check History, I’ve lived it. If anyone gets to the point of even thinking of being elected President in the US his character and morals have been in display for many yrs., even the ones you wouldn’t vote for. Good try.

Its an old joke, but we need some levity here…
Life begins when the kids leave home and the pets die.

It’s an old one, yes, jestrfyl, but a good one. I’ve already had the kids leave home and didn’t have any pets to die! Life’s good!