Well, the head question is easy to answer. They are hung on the wall as trophies, obviously. Jeez.
But for fair and balanced (since this discussion has mostly been around "he said, she said" level of discourse):
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php
This is the Obama campaign formal response for those that are worried about this type of thing this late in the game.
It is interesting what is a "dealbreaker" with folks, though. If you would agree 100% with all of Obama's other positions relating to the job of the President, would you still vote against him since he is pro-choice? On the other foot, would the shoe fit on McCain if you were pro-life (as he says he is) but disagreed with every other tennant of his campaign?
For most folks right now I think the economy has blown away the sort of discussions that come around pro-life vs. pro-choice. Those are the kind of arguments you have when the economy is healthy and there isn't a war or two going on. Gads, I fondly remember the days when Flag Burning was the major issue taking up times in the political debates. Good times, good times.
But seriously, what really is "pro-life" if you are a candidate happy to throw American's greatest resources...actual born children who are walking around...into the quagmire of middle-eastern warzones for no discernable purpose. Or condone torture. Or capital punishment. Or whatever. I will blink and rub my eyes when I see a true pro-life candidate with a real chance on the right OR left that sees all life as sacred...period. Not the life you choose to hold sacred or whatever is politically expedient.
The arugments around abortion won't end as they are fighting two wars on two continents in terms of beliefs. On the pro-choice side, it isn't about the actual act of having an abortion at issue. It is deciding who has the right to make this final and terrible decision. Is it the right of the State (big State meaning the nation) or the right of the doctor or right of the alleged father or right of the mother or right of...whatever. On this side the argument boils down to the kind of personal liberties argument one would think would bind the left and right. Both sides would be filled with like minded folks. The same folks that do not want the State telling them to get rid of their guns should be sitting side by side with the folks who want the State staying out of their wombs. The same folks that think the government should take away guns from citizens would break bread with those that want the government to tell you who you can marry or when you can or cannot have an abortion or use birth control or even learn about sexuality.
The other arguments are around abortion itself. I think if women could be assured that their right to choose wouldn't be infringed upon then folks could have more reasonable discussions about the procedures themselves. Again, there is plenty of room for like-minded discourse from what would traditionally seem opposites. There are plenty, if not all, women on the pro-choice side of the discussion who would want to limit or avoid abortions altogether and when they do acknowledge the need for an abortion would advocate for it to happen as early as possible. They should be able to sit side-by-side with pro-life folks who would kindly put down their protest signs to work things out. Since the numbers of teen pregnancies have gone up and the numbers of abortions happening every year is still high then one would think that some common ground shoudl be found to address and prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible through eductation, contraception, etc.
But when has this argument ever found common ground. They HAVE clear common ground and together could make changes that both would be immediately pleased about...less unwanted pregnancies and in the end less abortions.
But they are too stuck in their ground war to see the bigger picture.
And posts like Bill's, which do little to add to the discussion but fan the flames of fear, continue the impasse. It would be wonderful to see some real leadership in this area. I don't know if Obama is the one to deal with this. Maybe in his second 4 years. He will have plenty of stuff to contend with that will make these kinds of discussions out of his vision for a while.
