i disagree with the presidents policy concerning abortions and stem cell research. but when i watched the president and listened to his speech, i came to realise what a spectacle that guy can be. at the end of the speech, i still disagreed with him on the issue of abortion, but i developed a new great respect for him. he spoke some hard truths . . . some differences are irreconciliable. but he made another point____[b]demonising your opponent[/b]. he rose above board and showed a mastery of oratory that will be a flash point in history for the next 200yrs or more. after all said and done, i think he did what the bible advocates . . . . reply ''violence'' with peace, he showed tolerance, understanding and love in the midst of such vehement confrontation with his opponents.

one point he made which i find myself agreeing with, is the issue of reducing the need for abortions.

the issue now is . . . . what will america do with this debate on abortion? discuss . . . . .

Roe vs Wade is here to say.

social conservatives especially in the Bible Belt need to let it go. ironically the rate of Abortions in the bible belt states are some of the highest.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

Roe vs Wade is here to say.

social conservatives especially in the Bible Belt need to let it go. ironically the rate of Abortions in the bible belt states are some of the highest.

Is it really here to stay? Public sentiments has shifted in favor of the pro-lifers. Heck, even the famouse Roe in Roe v Wade is now pro-life.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

@toshman,

Isn't Obama a class act? He talks about the need to reducing a need for abortion in Notre Dame.  How do you reconcile that with the following obtained from the article I posted above: With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures

You want to reduce the need for abortion but yet expanding its availability beyond your borders! You said abortion has profound consequences but refuse to ere on the side of life!  You hate abortion but do not favor the need to bring in a second Doctor to help keep alive, a baby born alive through botched abortion.  Cutting the bull-crap out of the rhetoric, this is nothing but political grand standing.

Tayo-D:

@bawomolo,
Is it really here to stay? Public sentiments has shifted in favor of the pro-lifers. Heck, even the famouse Roe in Roe v Wade is now pro-life.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean they out to make choices for other people.

bawomolo:

Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean they out to make choices for other people.

So why are those women forcing their choices on the babies? Why not let's have those babies and let them determine when they are p\old enough whether they want to be killed or not. Why should others sentence them to death without their input?

Notre Dame, all mouth. Bunch of pathetic losers, all these Catholic establishments.

@TOH,

When did you become so nasty? Who have you been e-walking with? I need to take you back!!!!!

I've never had much respect for the Catholic church, Tayo. Not sure why that is a surprise to you now.

@TOH,

You can disagree without being disagreeable. That is my point.

Tayo-D:

So why are those women forcing their choices on the babies? Why not let's have those babies and let them determine when they are p\old enough whether they want to be killed or not. Why should others sentence them to death without their input?

The babies have no choice.   Who would take care of the babies. The taxes you whine about paying.  There are lots of children abandoned in foster homes with no one to adopt them or folks like you who consider their tax money too precious to provide welfare for them.  Let the woman determine what's best for her.

It's funny you care about life but aren't against the death penalty.  What changed?

Toshmann,

  There's nuthin overly admirable in what Obama said. How else could he have reacted? insulted the pro-lifers? He probabaly didn't even write the speech - hope you know that. But yeah like u highlighted the one thing we can all agree is its best to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

 However I do disagree with the overly fanatic protesters. Let the president go and give a common speech jare. They have a right to disagree but all this drama over the honorary degree is unnecessary - he is the president of the country! it is an honor to have him speak at your commencement whether or not you like him. There are much more important battles to fight.

 I'm pro-life but I don't think women should be forced by the govt. to make that choice.

you have to realize alan keyes is just a bitter man.

His daughter is an homosexual and he has been humiliated as a step and fetch republican.

@bawomolo,

The babies have no choice.

According to who? The babies have life, human life. Since when did any human being cease to have a right to life?      

Who would take care of the babies.

Common sense dictates that the parents should.  We can learn that much even from the animal kingdom. Last I checked, aint we supposed to be higher animals?

The taxes you whine about paying.

I can see that you pay 90% of your income to the FG. Come to think of it, arent all the liberals out there dolling all their hard earned money to the govt?

There are lots of children abandoned in foster homes with no one to adopt them or folks like you who consider their tax money too precious to provide welfare for them.

The last I checked, Conservatives like me give more of our money to help the downtrodden more than so-called compassionate liberals.  What we are against is the abuse of the welfare system that kills the initative of the poor.  Welfare should be structured to make the recipients self-sufficient, and not to make them life-long dependents on other people's labour.

Let the woman determine what's best for her.

And the child?

It's funny you care about life but aren't against the death penalty.  What changed?

Of course I care about life and support the death penalty. I believe in personal responsibility and justice. No one is more innocent than the unbor, and yet we kill them in the thousands everyday. If you murder someone in cold blood, it is not cruel and unusual to deprive you of your life as well.

@JeSoul,

I'm pro-life but I don't think women should be forced by the govt. to make that choice.

I believe the extent to which I can exercise my right is limited only to the extent that it does not violate the right of others.  I have no problem with women getting a face-lift or a boob job because it only affect their bodies. Those actions do not violate the rights of others. I cannot in all good conscience say the same in the case of abortion.  It violates other people's rights. Govt, as far as I understand and as envisioned by the founding fathers, exists only to ensure that people's rights are not violated. It's job is to make sure the strong do not violate the rights of the weak, or the rich the poor. To that extent, I approve of govt intervention in this matter.

Women have a choice to have sex or not to do so. To the extent that this action was voluntary, they must be held to account and be responsible for the consequences of that action. Unlike Obama, I do not think becoming pregnat is a punishment for that action.  It is only a natural expectation of the deed done.

What do u mean wen u say catholic church?

However I do disagree with the overly fanatic protesters. Let the president go and give a common speech jare. They have a right to disagree but all this drama over the honorary degree is unnecessary - he is the president of the country! it is an honor to have him speak at your commencement whether or not you like him. There are much more important battles to fight.

I'm pro-life but I don't think women should be forced by the govt. to make that choice.

That's my girl

According to who? The babies have life, human life. Since when did any human being cease to have a right to life? Shocked Shocked

when is it considered life? 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 months? What if the woman's life is at risk or the woman doesn't want the damn crumbsnatcher.

Common sense dictates that the parents should. We can learn that much even from the animal kingdom. Last I checked, aint we supposed to be higher animals?

in the animal kingdom, mammals tend to take care of their young through extended families. The parents aren't left to do it alone. That's where welfare programs come in. Something you conservatives call unnecessary handouts for children you want to force women to have.

I can see that you pay 90% of your income to the FG. Come to think of it, arent all the liberals out there dolling all their hard earned money to the govt?

blah blah blah

Conservatives like me give more of our money to help the downtrodden more than so-called compassionate liberals.

Oh really, you mean welfare programs ballooned under Ronald Reagan? please.

And the child?

who cares, nah my pikin

Of course I care about life and support the death penalty.

yes , he cares about life so much but doesn't worry about taking it. Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bawomolo:

who cares, nah my pikin

yes , he cares about life so much but doesn't worry about taking it. Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@bawomolo,

when is it considered life? 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 months?  What if the woman's life is at risk or the woman doesn't want the damn crumbsnatcher.

Life is not subject to time.  I am not more alive today than I was 30 years ago. I have the same life. It has not degenerated nor has it been enhanced by time. So your attempt to qualify human life based on a time frame is mute.

in the animal kingdom, mammals tend to take care of their young through extended families.  The parents aren't left to do it alone.  That's where welfare programs come in.  Something you conservatives call unnecessary handouts for children you want to force women to have.

So the State is now your extended family? Your attempt to justify your untennable position is getting absurd by the minute.  As I have said, if you believe so much in the superiority of the State, why don't you turn over 95% of your income to it. The individual is sustained by the family, and not the other way round. Same is not true with the State. The State needs the individual for sustenance.

blah blah blah

Of course. Liberals know how to put other people's money to use. They lose coherence when their money is the one in question.

Oh really, you mean welfare programs ballooned under Ronald Reagan? please.

See your warped logic. You think the best thing to do for the poor is to put them on welfare. You help the poor by making them see that those who are making it out there are no different than them. They have the same opportunity and God-given talent. But political expediency makes the liberal keep them on welfare.

who cares, nah my pikin

If no be your pickin, why the phony sense of obligation to take care of it through the community? 

yes , he cares about life so much but doesn't worry about taking it.  Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One is an innocent life and the other is a guilty one. One has done no one any harm while the other has taken another's life.  The law of justice of modern nations is based on the principle of "no cruel and unusual punishment." It is cruel and unsual to kill an innocent baby. It is not cruel and unusual to kill a cold-blooded murderer. I'm sure a liberal mind like yours can grasp such a noble concept.

Tayo-D:

So why are those women forcing their choices on the babies? Why not let's have those babies and let them determine when they are p\old enough whether they want to be killed or not. Why should others sentence them to death without their input?

Sorry. But that is just a pathetic argument.

The women who make those choices do so because it is their body and therefore their right.
Who are you to claim that they have no right? What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her own body?
Your statement is just pure hypocrisy.

As for having the baby grow up to make a choice? If they did that, there would be no abortion would there? An adult cannot be aborted. It's a purely illogical argument.

@Bastage,

Sorry. But that is just a pathetic argument.

The women who make those choices do so because it is their body and therefore their right.
Who are you to claim that they have no right? What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her own body?
Your statement is just pure hypocrisy.

As for having the baby grow up to make a choice? If they did that, there would be no abortion would there? An adult cannot be aborted. It's a purely illogical argument.

What is pathetic is your inability to understand when the exercise of your right is limited. Put simply, your right ends where another's begin. A woman has no right to do anything to her body if it violates another's right, in this case a baby. As I mentioned earlier, I don't care what they do to their body in terms of plastic surgery because the effect is limited only to the woman. However, when abortion is concerned, another life is involved.

I am ammused by the hypocrisy of the liberals when it comes to a person's body. You guys are taxing the hell out of smokers claiming what they are doing to their body affects others. So why is this different? Why shoudl smokers be punished with taxation for what is clearly an abuse of their body? I guess principled stance is never a strong forte of the liberal.

ThiefOfHearts:

Notre Dame, all mouth. Bunch of pathetic losers, all these Catholic establishments.

now this is what the president was preaching about. ''demonising'' opponents.

note that the majority of catholics voted for the president and still support him. majority of catholics follow ''liberal'' policies on sex (condoms/contraceptives) contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church. separate the political protesters from the real catholics.

@my great friend tayo

smoking is still legal. that analogy u made was inappropriate. smoking was taxed to ''discourage'' it, while banning abortions is ''illegalising'' it. they are 2 different things.

NB: the president is not pro-abortion. I am not. but my policy is, in a democracy like the US, let God be God. I dont want to play God. while i hate abortion like toshman, i dont want to impose my religious beliefs on all women. let the women make their own choices. as for the unborn babies, really sad. i wish it never gets to this.

@pres-elect,

now this is what the president was preaching about. ''demonising'' opponents.

I hope you are listening now o.  Don't turn around and start demonising Hillary or Rush anytime they express contrary opinion to yours.

separate the political protesters from the real catholics.

My understanding is that the real catholics will follow the teaching of the church which is contrary to Obama's stance. If that is the case, then I suppose the political protesters must be the real catholics.

smoking is still legal. that analogy u made was inappropriate. smoking was taxed to ''discourage'' it, while banning abortions is ''illegalising'' it. they are 2 different things.

There is nothing inappropriate about my analogy. The issue is on what people can do with their bodies and how far they can go with that. If smokers can be taxed because of the effect on others, why let the abortionist go free despite the fatal consequence of their action on another?

NB: the president is not pro-abortion. I am not.

He is not? Is he anti-abortion? You guys just want to muddy the line.  It aint gonna work.  Tell me, when Obama denies help to a child that survives an abortion attempt, is that another way of being pro-life?

but my policy is, in a democracy like the US, let God be God. I dont want to play God.

Now we are talking about God as if he will come down in person to stop the evil. God, like Satan works through human agencies. Complacency, bordering on complicity is the author of statements such as "let God be God".

while i hate abortion like toshman, i dont want to impose my religious beliefs on all women.

This is not about religious beliefs. It is about what is the unalienable Right of every form of human life? Can a human life be terminated beause of inconvenience to another's body. And by the way, the life came to be through a voluntary action of those who want to terminate it.  I just can't reconcile those extremes.

let the women make their own choices. as for the unborn babies, really sad. i wish it never gets to this.

I strongly believe that a society is only as developed and strong to the extent that it protects the weak and vulnerable. We claim to seek justice oversees and send our finest to die for the cause of freedom in strange lands. It's so funny that we look away from the needy and most vulnerable within our borders.  We watch them being led to the slaughter house everyday in their thousands and do nothing about it.  Human life is meant to be safe and secure in the womb, but that is not what obtains.

Who are you to claim that they have no right? What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her own body?

I wonder

now this is what the president was preaching about. ''demonising'' opponents.

I wish I gave a shit. Btw, my problems with the Catholic Church go beyond "abortion or no abortion"

Abeg - go and discuss this on dollarLand, not on NairaLand.

@TOH,

Let me provide an analogy explaining my stance about a woman's right over her body.

I have a right to keep my body clean. Infact, bad hygiene is detrimental to my health. To keep clean which is my Right, I cannot go dip myself in the community pool of drinking water. I have a Right to keep clean, but my Right must not violate other's Right to safe, drinking water. That is just my point with respect to a woman's Right over her body. I am for it so long as it does not violate the Rights of others.

everyone has their opinions on when life is created so what you consider already a "baby" is something else to others. Forcing others to see things your way is just lame esp when its not YOUR problem.

Im pro-choice but also very much against partial abortions. To most people, its the timing that matters.

@tayo

you know i'm trying my best to like hillary. it aint easy. i cant help it. i'm still trying. perhaps the best way to like someone i hate may be not to think or see the person. i'm trying. one day i'll succeed. or at least convert the outright hatred to something less mean . . like dislike . . . i'll keep trying. as for rush . . . . God help me

tayo u cant keep calling Obama pro-abortion. this is the demonising we talk about. if bush's policies led to the death of I00,000 muslims in the middle-east, is Bush anti-arab. remember, obama's wife/sister/mother have never done abortion. listen, let's be civil. the guy is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. sarah palin's daughter decided to keep her baby. it was her choice that's what we are saying.

or are u going to say obama is gay b/c he supports gay rights? tayo were ya nwayo biko _{take am easy abeg}

u say, God works thru human beings. I agree. but tayo, this is a democracy, not a theocracy. are u going to wipe out the atheists b/c God says he must be worshipped?  and talking about helping the helpless , is it not better to reduce the causes of unwanted pregnancies? #I cause is poverty. poverty is strongly associated with violence, drugs, teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc teenage girls in south london are more likely to be pregnant than those in west london or herfordshire. i've always said that when a patient comes in with headache, a seasoned Dr will not just give him paracetamol, but will go deeper to find the cause of the headache and treat it. it may be malaria, typhoid fever or tumor etc, if the original cause is not treated, the headache will come back and the patient will return for more paracetamol until one day the paracetamol will damage his liver. then he starts preparing to meet his creator

always treat the cause of abortion/unwanted pregnancy.

tayo if i fail my exams this semester i will hold u responsible for keeping me in nairaland whenever i want to read. . . just joking

@TOH,

I am not forcing my opinion on you, and I don't believe you are doing the same to me.

With regards to the timing, I mentioned earlier that my life is not more precious today than it was 30 years ago. Human life, as far as I know is not valued based on time.  It is just sacred by its being, its existence. Qualifying the quality of life based on time opens up a can of worms where human life can be valued based on transient issues.  You really don't want to go there.

I am of the opinion that life begins at conception. Those who do not believe same cannot provide a definite answer. Obama admitted same by declaring at the Saddleback Church that determining when life begins is above his pay grade. Doesn't common sense then dictates that we ere on the side of life?

Didnt say you were forcing your opinion on me (o laya yen) 

I mean most pro-lifers in general.

I am of the opinion that life begins at conception.

and some people disagree. That's life. Get over it. 

See your warped logic. You think the best thing to do for the poor is to put them on welfare. You help the poor by making them see that those who are making it out there are no different than them.

This is your problem, you worship guys Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan without knowing what they stood for.

Ronald Regan cut federal funding for Schools. The rich white surburban schools of course could just increase property taxes for their school districts or send their kids to private school. School districts like those of Washington DC and Chicago began to deteriorate before Regan left. Your conservative hero also cut funding for after school programs to help the kids you want to bring to this world by force.

But hey, Parks and after school programs are welfare for the poor. Let those lazy poor people help themselves.

you are basically a big hypocrite considering you favor the death penalty nor do you care about the welfare of the kids you want to preserve by all means necessary.

If no be your pickin, why the phony sense of obligation to take care of it through the community?

because children who fall through the cracks are the ones who become our gang bangers, bloods and crips etc. Of course, that's an extreme generalization but you get what am saying. If you force people to have their kids then you must be willing to take care of them. Didn't your bible preach generosity?