Do you think this is mere pandering or this may be reflective of his actual feelings on the issue?

Not that either stance would make me happy, and frankly I'm becoming less and less charmed by BO daily (it started with his vote on telecom immunity). I mean I still think he's better than McCain, but it's getting to look more and more like Douchebag Vs. Mega-Douchebag. No matter what I feel like I'm gradually being robbed of my ability to feel good about my vote.

I have a novel idea: Maybe all the things Obama says about abortion are what he does actually believe and he's not pandering to anybody. Or even that if he's pandering to anybody, it's those of his supporters who are far-left and his own feelings on abortion-related rights are much more middle-of-the-road than he is even explicitly stating.

I agree he could have handled this far better but for once I'd just like some candidate, ANY candidate, to ignore these fundamentalists altogether.

: Never happen. Special interest groups are where the money is, and they always poll high on the "likely to vote" statistics.

Also polling has become kind of confusing and complex. This "likely to vote" deal has had a huge impact when contrasted with the "likely to donate" polls. It's basically forced very specific and disparate themes to speeches.

Here's a question: At what point does a woman get human rights?

What was even more worse was his answer on gay rights. THAT was definite pandering and left me disgusted.

K, wtf is up with the musc.

Townhall #234787: The Movie ... Official Soundtrack! Featuring The Fray!

No, seriously.

I was incredibly disappointed at Obama's answer. It's times like this that I miss Hillary--she would have said proudly that she is pro-abortion no matter that the crowd would have been aganist her or boo-ed her.

Obama did what he needed to do. He can't afford to cede an entire voting bloc. When Bill ran he won 37% of the evangelical vote; Gore only won 21%. If he picked up JUST 30% of the evangelical vote he would've won. The math is just that simple.

Obama, as a politician, isn't there to 'pick a fight' with evangelicals, he's there to win their votes. So judge him on his policies. Which according to NARAL is as good as Hillary's...which is why he won their endorsement.

Its true that the Right has usurped the language of the abortion debate, and changing the tone & vocabulary of that debate, as Obama is doing, is crucial to maintaining abortion rights.

Yeah Logrus I feel the same way. I definitely feel like once again American has 2 poor choices to choose from. I thought he was gonna be different. I really no longer buy the Hillary would have done the same thing, mostly because she hasn't so how could anyone know that.

I will still vote for him, no actually I am not sure. Maybe I will write in Ross Perot.

Look its no longer a matter of at least he's pro-choice. Its more like one is 100% against choice and the other is like 30% against choice. It feels like a loose, loose situation. I Obama get a new rejuvenated kick after the convention and gives us all reason to hope again. Otherwise, why would I care who wins?

I think the more simple answer to this question would have been: "Babies already have human rights. Did you have something relevent to ask about abortion?"

And Hillary pandered on the abortion issue too -- I remember her describing it as "unfortunate" or something pejoritive of that ilk during the primary.

Actually, I think Obama did pretty well talking about what is a very fraught and emotional issue. I admire him more for taking on the complexities of the issue than I do McCain for simply giving the clap-inducing answer.

The US does have a very high rate of abortions compared to other industrialized countries. I think reducing that rate is a worthwhile goal. The fact is that criminalizing abortion does little to reduce the rate of abortion. It does increase the number of women who die from abortions, which hardly strikes me as a pro-life position.

What does reduce the rate of abortion is comprehensive sex ed, contraception availability, educational opportunities for women, affordable prenatal and birth care, and affordable health care. Those seem pro-family to me.

I'm very troubled that this issue is so divisive.

Femgineer - fucken' amen to that!

I understand why pro-choicers are criticising Obama. I mean, why, oh why, can't there be a candidate who is just unapologetically progressive and pro-choice? But still, I'm not in the camp who thinks he's doing us a massive disservice by answering in this way. Yes, he's clearly eager not to offend, and, obviously, to get votes. But for most people who don't really know a lot about abortion - which is most of the population - it's a really sensitive subject which you have to tread carefully around if you want any chance of becoming president. When McCain is grilled by people who oppose him, he starts to hesitate and make mistakes, too. Here, he's very practiced and at ease because he knows the whole crowd agrees with him.

On the other hand, I agree that Obama is not ideal in his position on abortion. Ideally, he would be more solid about his position and less interested in pleasing everyone.

i do think his answer was more nuanced,as it should be, but i agree that it was kind of disappointing. i think he could have given an equally thoughtful answer that pointed out how democrats, himself included, care about elping parents with born children get by and have better lives and more opportunities, something mccain and his ilk do not give a flying fuck about. i think he should have mentioned access to contraception and accurate sex-education as the primary means of reducing the number of abortions that actually happen. i think he should have played it as a government intrusion/freedom of religion problem--that at what point "life begins" is a personal decision, guided by one's own philosophy and spiritual/religious views and the government has no business imposing one particular view on everyone else. after all, MOST americans don't adopt the right-wing position on choice anyway, even if they are uncomfortable with late-term abortion on demand.

i think the whole venue was just kind of wack and i don't really know why he agreed to it.

I too think that Obama is simply stating his more conservative views on abortion, not pandering to the right. Moreover, I think he is right and I think much of the left-wing criticism of him is insane. I understand that many who hold this critical view of his stance do so because of an instinctual fear of anything that sounds like it could be a slippery slope towards restrictions on access to abortions, but nothing Obama is saying or proposing to do differs from the practical concerns of the most fervently pro-choice. As far as I can tell he is concerned about access issues and supports the choice of abortion as a legal option unconditionally (the late term ban with exception for health makes no practical difference in this).

The difference is he does MORE for choice by pursuing policies in favor of choices other than abortion that seem to be opposed by some of you. I don't see what is wrong by supporting the choice to carry to term. Further, I think it is problematic to think of abortion as an amoral consideration. Abortion is perhaps justifiable as a lesser evil than the burden of carrying an unwanted child to term, but it is an evil none the less.

What I would've answered would be: I believe a fetus has basic human rights. But no human has the right to use anyone else's reproductive system for their own purposes. You are not allowed to use my reproductive system for your purposes, even to save your life. Therefore, a fetus does not have that right, and a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy if that's what she wants to do.

WTF?! Is that Christian rock music in the background?!

why oh why are the dems always pandering to a crowd that is never ever going to support them? Totally ludicrous imho. I've also heard some banter in the press about him possibly choosing an anti-choice for the VP slot. If that happens I'll just give up and vote green. I support their platform way more then the ineffective dems anyway.

Samhita,
Wait a second, what do you mean, "I believe in the reproductive rights of families and women"?
Let's be clear: women have reproductive rights. Nobody else.
Right?
-Jut

I would like to clarify a comment from above:

I don't think Hillary would say she is "pro-abortion" but pro-choice. There is a difference.

Jut - men have reproductive rights, too, like the right to get a vasectomy if they want and the right to use the contraception they want. Though with regard to abortion, yes, it is only the women in question who have the right to make that choice.

Nettle Syrup:
Yes, let us be clear.
Men have contraceptive rights.

However, vasectomies, condoms, castration, and "pulling out" hardly compare to the number of options women have.

Some choice: surgery or lack of pleasure.

On the other hand:

Women have contraceptive rights.
Women have reproductive rights.

As we are talking about the abortion issue:
Women have reproductive rights.
Men have no rights.
Families have no rights.

Maybe I was making a semantic point, but, looking at the other comments, I was not alone.

-Jut.

Well, I'd agree with you there, Jut.

Oh, Jut, I've seen many men recently exercise their reproductive rights by promptly splitting after their girlfriend tells them she's pregnant and wants to keep the baby, because they're not ready for a kid. Isn't it funny, how women are born with uteruses and the requirement that offspring be carried for nine months - and men aren't? It must've been a nice right in the past to have premarital sex and illicit relationships while getting to leave all the shame and consequences to the women. In the not-so-distant past, men *owned* their children like objects. How's that for reproductive rights.

Hillary says: "Keep abortion safe, legal and rare" -- just like sex, you mean, Hill?

Obama is given a pass on even having to say he is "pro-choice"???

Puhleeze. How low can we go here?

Neither of these folks are on the side of women. They're on the side of whoever passes them the bucks.

Don't hold your vote so cheaply. I think Cynthia McKinney is the most pro-choice presidential candidate.

Some choice: surgery or lack of pleasure.

Jut, I'm pretty sure that wearing a condom doesn't result in no pleasure. Otherwise men would never wear them.

And, seriously, if you want to play the "poor my gender" game, please do it elsewhere. We will whoop your ass, and whoop it good.

I agree with those who feel like it's a choice of the lesser of two evils (actually, that's mostly how I've felt this entire campaign -- meaning since over a year ago). Although I voted for Hillary and would much prefer to see her running, I don't think her response would have been much more satisfying, assuming she would have attended (or been invited to!) an event like this.

This is why I got out of politics. Politics is a game of power, nothing more.

I, too, am less than thrilled with Obama's answer, largely because I KNOW he's smarter than that. Hell, I thought of way better responses the instant Warren asked the question, and Obama had people to fucking PREP him.

And I just have to say WTAELF???? "At what point does a baby have human rights?" A BABY??? If that's not poisoning the question I don't know what is. Obama should have called him on that FIRST THING.

Heh. If I'd been asked the question I'd have been tempted to say something like "A baby? Well, I think a baby always has human rights. In fact, I'm a little concerned that this is even a question. Are there people who don't think babies should have human rights?"

Framing the language of the debate, indeed.

"What I would've answered would be: I believe a fetus has basic human rights. But no human has the right to use anyone else's reproductive system for their own purposes. You are not allowed to use my reproductive system for your purposes, even to save your life. Therefore, a fetus does not have that right, and a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy if that's what she wants to do."

if only logic would fly with the electorate. i would pay to see the looks on the megachurch audience's faces if a candidate actually said that to them, though.

What I would've answered would be: I believe a fetus has basic human rights. But no human has the right to use anyone else's reproductive system for their own purposes. You are not allowed to use my reproductive system for your purposes, even to save your life. Therefore, a fetus does not have that right, and a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy if that's what she wants to do.

Nettle (and riley), funny enough, this is the exact argument that won me over to the pro-choice side. I had always thought there was an unbridgeable gap between the anti- and pro-choicers, because of the whole "when's it a human" thing. But then I realized, like you write here, that the answer to this question doesn't even matter. Whether it's a human being or not, it doesn't have the right to USE my body, even to save its life, just like a kid dying of kidney failure doesn't have a right to my kidney, even if I'm the only person who can save him.

Mmm. I didn't think Obama did so bad. Don't like the support for late-term limitations, but not much to be done about that.

It also annoys me that so much public rhetoric today frames the abortion debate as a "children's" or fetus' rights rather than women's-rights issue. The pastor asking the questions, for example, emphasizes the specific number of abortions, 40 million, at least two times, laments how the 40 million fetuses is a "holocaust." No mention of the fact that there are 40 million WOMEN behind the fetuses, a big enough number to suggest that the 40 million women are not just going to stop having abortions, but will simply have illegal, unsafe abortions if it's banned. From what I read about the history of abortion rhetoric, there was, in past decades, a much greater focus on the WOMAN as human, the woman's physical experience, her body. Now there's barely mention of her. She might as well not exist. It's become unpopular to remind people that the woman, not the fetus, will suffer, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

So, yes, I wish Obama would remind folk of the human-rights element.

"What I would've answered would be: I believe a fetus has basic human rights. But no human has the right to use anyone else's reproductive system for their own purposes. You are not allowed to use my reproductive system for your purposes, even to save your life. Therefore, a fetus does not have that right, and a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy if that's what she wants to do."

That same argument gave me some great thoughts too. you see, it points out some intense hypocrisy in the whole conservative platform. I have never heard of any conservative that wasn't in favor allowing the use of lethal force to defend your home. In every single state it is legal to use deadly force to remove an intruder from your home. In some states, such as Texas, it is legal to kill the intruder once they have been in your home, even if they turn and run. This is conservative policy, and it makes no difference to them whether that intruder was a threat to you or not. Now I think your body is a far more fundamental piece of property than your house, and you have even more right to remove an intruder from it. These conservative possibilities basically say "You can kill a fully grown intelligent human being who happens to be in your home against your will, but god forbid you should kill a blob of jello with the brain waves a cucumber." Even if Abortion were made illegal, and fetuses were known as people, you could get an abortion doctor to come to your house, and say that that "person" was an intruder in your home, and use lethal force to remove it, just like conservatives all want you to do with actual people.

Here's the answer I would have liked to see to the question, "Have you ever voted to reduce or limit abortions?":

"I've voted for increased funding for family planning services, which would reduce abortions.

I've voted for comprehensive sex education, which would reduce abortions.

I've voted to close the Deficit Reduction Act loophole that's drive up contraceptive prices and college and other clinics, which would reduce abortions.

I've voted to require insurance companies to cover contraceptives, which would reduce abortions.

And I've voted for policies that increase economic opportunities for women and combat violence against women, all of which would reduce abortions.

And any of these policies would prevent more abortions than any of the abortion restrictions or bans that my opponent has advocated. People who describe themselves as pro-choice and pro-life may never agree on when life begins, but we should be able to agree on policies like these, and that may ultimately be more important."

I wouldn't find that to be unacceptable pandering. But the answer he gave left me unhappy and probably didn't gain him anything.

Allegra: It is very simple, women want all of the rights, post-conception, please accept all of the responsibilities. As for men who abandon pregnant women, I think they are violating a moral duty (but, in the arena of abortion politics, moral duties do not equate to legal duties).

And, The Law Fairy, I am not playing the "poor my gender" game. You should just have the courage of your convictions. In short, your choice, your responsibility. I am fine with that. Just do not expect me to be responsible for your choices.

-Jut

I just want to point out that everyone keeps saying that Obama will never win evangelical votes by trying to look pro-life, but I think you're wrong. I went to an evangelical Christian college, and from my experience in the PoliSci department there, and conversations with a bunch of students, I think it absolutely will work, at least with younger Christians. They're interested in social justice, they're excited about the historicity of the first black candidate, and they're caught up in the rhetoric of change - they want to be able to vote for him, and him acting like he's not really that pro-choice is their permission.

Obviously this video was put together by McCain supporters. Contrasting Obama's thoughtful pauses with McCain's quick answer was supposed to point out that Obama is weak while John McCain is big strong man. Then yes, that was put with "How to save a (read: baby's) Life" I wanted to gag a little.
But the sad thing is, they had a point. The music was gross, but Obama didn't do a good job of stating his point. He wavered a little, but it was because he was walking an incredibly fine line. He needs the votes of these people, it's just the way politics works in America, you can't afford to alienate anyone. Yet he also supports abortion and the measures to make it safe for women and to give women options. I guess I was disappointed, but I doubt I would have done much better in his shoes.

My reaction when I saw this live was "wow, that was really brave of him to not pander to the evangelical crowd." Yes, his answer could have been better (especially the "pay grade" comment) and he should have pointed out that abortion concerns women and their fetuses, not babies. But all things considered, he still went into an evangelical church and told the crowd that he was pro-choice because he trusted women to make their own decisions. It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the hardcore pro-lifers sitting in those pews had probably never even considered that argument before. "Pandering" is what John McCain did, where he gave a superficial "life begins at conception and I'm pro-life" response and never bothered to explain what that meant. He just told the crowd what they wanted to hear. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that that's what Obama did. He could have gone further, but he absolutely still challenged their views.

Um, does anyone know where I can find a script? Not everyone has sound capabilities on their computers.

Yes, I'm THAT Karlos.

All I'm really saying is that you gotta be more prepared than Obama was. I mean, they had to know THAT question was going to be thrown at him.

I suppose folks are right that he shoulda' just said that he's pro choice. It would have been better than his "nuanced" answer. Yet I do think it would also have been out of character, though, to challenge the crowd and expect boos and all. And as for simply writing off folks because we think we disagree with them, I'd rather frame well and educate, engage and expand even the most, let's say, "hostile" audience.

What's happened in this case is that the knee jerk reactionary anti-woman crowd has successfully branded the "pro life" frame as simple shorthand messaging of the affirmative of being "anti-abortion." The liberal left, reacting to the re-frame, "chose" to claim choice as a shared value rather than be portrayed as "pro abortion" or "anti-life." It’s a quirky argument, and both sides seem inconsistent when you look at a broader set of issues.

Choice is the wrong plea to shared values for most progressive issues, including the woman’s right to determine her reproductive rights and what happens with her body.

Here's what I would tell Obama to say.

"Being pro-life means more than being against abortion. In fact, the obsession with Roe v Wade and abortion as a single issue has done little to nothing to lower abortion rates and promote a culture of life.

If you believe we have the moral responsibility to lower abortion rates, and if you believe in promoting a culture of life (and if Obama does, he should say so here: "like I do"), then you should be working with me to ensure human rights and responsible reproductive rights for everyone, to ensure the best prenatal, postnatal and preventative health care for all our families, to promote living wages, and join me in ending unnecessary wars and doing everything we can to confront a climate crisis before it's too late."

Or:

“I really believe in a culture of life and human rights. With respect to war. With respect to the violence tearing apart communities. With respect to holistic, preventative healthcare. With respect to poverty. With respect to housing. And with respect to economic development that improves the lives of the people who live in the communities targeted for development.

I also believe that the best way to amplify a culture of life when it comes to the hot-button issue of abortion is to rely on the most proven, effective and responsible ways to lower abortion rates – with sex education, encouraging the use of contraceptives, family planning, etc., NOT to have the government dictate decisions of women, their families and their doctors.

That’s the problem with those who call themselves conservative leaders these days. They want the government in our business when it comes to civil liberties, war and women’s bodies, and they don’t want anything to do with our lives when it comes to “living” wages, health care, housing and our “livelihoods.”

Read Barack's books. He is not pandering. He is not a feminist. He'll do better than McCain on the things that matter, yes, but stop expecting this man to change his values all of a sudden.

We as a bloc have a right to force his hand on the issue, but we can't do that until we recognize that he's not just trying to win votes with his stance--he's actually being (gasp!) honest.

Yes, the premise of the question was flawed (baby v. fetus or zygote) but I heard Obama say "I am pro-choice" and "I believe in Roe v. Wade." Maybe I'm far too willing to settle for good enough, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a politician to say anything more than that s/he knows abortion is a tough decision, it should be left to women and their families, and that it isn't really and of his business to judge