I say his stance on PBA (d & x) is peculiar because he opposes the federal ban, and voted against a state ban, because the laws don’t make exceptions for the (potential) mother’s “health”. I’ve criticized this specific language because “health” is so vague a concept, it could be used by unscrupulous doctors to justify the procedure for frivolous reasons. However, if Obama instead demanded exceptions when the (potential) mother faced “serious physical debilitating harm,” that might be articulated explicitly enough to prevent abuse (which implies such harm might justify the procedure). This is all based on the assumption that the burden is extremely high when someone wants to abort a completely viable baby, which is what PBA does. (The moral restrictions are more lax earlier in pregnancy, though always serious.) “Health” just doesn’t cut it, but “serious debilitating physical harm” probably could. (Exceptions for when the mother’s “life” is in danger are already in place.)

So by only demanding the vague “health” provision, Obama, a very intelligent man, could be trying to strip the ban of its force. If he has a stronger standard in mind, I have no beef. But all he’s demanded as far as I’ve found is “health”, leaving open his moral judgment and/or sincerity.

You can read all about that in an earlier post here. The discussion with Matteson is especially helpful (smart guy).

And last, don’t ever be shy on this website to think through any issue aloud. Anyone who can’t reason like an adult without getting their panties in a bunch can go elsewhere. (I suspect the readership will remain small, but high quality, which is what I’m after.) It’s OK to be passionate, but I hope to encourage an atmosphere where the pursuit of truth overrides the typical “I win, you lose; I’m right, you’re wrong; I’m saved, you’re going to hell” nonsense. C’mon folks—let’s reason together

Where do you separate personal beliefs from arguments? Mere opinion from reasoned position? Opinions are hollow, lacking any logical basis whatsoever. “I believe a fetus gains strong moral status at conception, end of story or because my mom told me so or because a warm fuzzy feeling tells me so” is a mere opinion. “I believe a fetus gains strong moral status at conception because that’s the point at which it becomes a distinct individual with the potential to become a fully functioning person, possessing the same moral capacities that grant the rest of us moral worth” is an argument. On inspection we may decide that it’s a bad argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless.

And just because you don’t currently have an argument to support your intuitions doesn’t mean you can’t build one. (Maybe reason really is a slave to the passions…) Our gut is the best guide we’ve got, but sometimes it leads us astray. That’s where ethics comes in, helping us bring our moral convictions into line with one another—guided by instinct but disciplined by reason—where intuition and logic converge. Hot damn, I’m a poet tonight!

—Matt—

i did leave out the abortion argument because, as you said, it is a very emotional one and one that probably matters little if obama wins because we do have a strong pba ban (even though i believe that partial birth abortion isn’t even a real medical term).
i do wonder what he’s done to have, in your opinion, a peculiar stance on pba. if you are referring to his “no” vote on SB 230, you might find more info here.
i don’t find his stance peculiar, but logical , trusting doctors and patients to make the correct decisions on these issues. then, obviously, i am pro-choice, so when i’m looking at the abortion issue, obama has the advantage.
if mccain wins, i do think that choice might be in danger, but because his conservative running mate and cabinet members and federal court appointees would almost assuredly be more dangerous than he is. you are correct the he is fairly pro-choice as far as republicans go. read more about his record <a href=”“>here.
i didn’t want to get too far into this because it’s a blurry line. i don’t want to attack a personal belief, just the argument for it and i don’t really know where they separate.

One thing I might add (though you’ve already cast your vote) is that Phil Graham is (according to Forbes) McCain’s financial and economic advisor. As we’ll see this week he is one of the major sources of the deregulation that led to our current financial crisis. I’m not sure we want him to be in a position of power in the economic realm at all.

I’m voting tonight, but I don’t think my D-vote will count for more than a “statement of opposition” in this state.

[Also, what's this big electronics purchase? Don't you still have a PS2?]

McCain’s foreign policy advantage is his meanness. Opening communication can be good, but I’m afraid Obama comes off as too weak—might embolden bad guys. Team America—World Police has a great analogy that explains all, one I won’t repeat here. (You know the one—Ds, Ps, and As.) The way the polls are looking, hopefully he’ll surprise me though. JFK came off as a softie too, and he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis quite well. In fact, a hot head would have been exactly the wrong person for that job. Maybe a more reasonable leader is what we need at this dangerous time. We’ll see.

That explains much. I was wondering why both sides have ignored immigration…

And not only have I decided, I went ahead and early voted just this evening. Feels good to have that out of the way—like when I finally make a big electronics purchase after WEEKS of research!

—Matt—

i think obama has more in the area of foreign policy than people give him credit for. he has a passport! haha. ok, but seriously, he’s willing to be diplomatic and i think that’s important. we aren’t getting anything accomplished by locking ourselves in our room and not talking to the bad guys.

the gop does not want mccain to talk about immigration. if i remember correctly, it was a “big problem” for him during the primaries. it might even bring up the fact that mccain was a key speaker at an immigration reform rally – sponsored by acorn – in 2006. obama doesn’t want to talk about it because some people might catch on that these farmers are here working our farms because they lost their land in the nafta deal – and that’s at the feet of clinton (even though obama opposes it, or at least he confronted hillary about it in the primaries, it was a dem that passed it and that could mean trouble for him?).

i agree that i don’t think gun rights are in any real danger even under obama.

i don’t think that trickle down economics really works. i have nothing to back that up, just sort of common sense. the people making the big money like to keep as much of it as they can.

i would also argue the stability point. i think mccain has been acting all kinds of erratic lately.

i’ve already decided, but you’ve presented a good summary.