It sounds to me like both Barack and Hillary are willing to talk about these issues like adults. If you think you are going to get anything like that out of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain, you are in for a great disappointment.

As far as his Christianity is concerned it is a lukewarm Christianity trying to play both sides of the fence for political gain. To God, this an abominable way of believing.

Revelation 3:14-22

"14To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

John McCain's platform:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

Source: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

Regarding Obama's comments on AIDS prevention in Africa—I pointed out in a comment a while ago on this blog that there's a devastating critique of primarily condom-based AIDS prevention programs in Africa in the current issue of First Things ("AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right").

It's also worth noting that one of the authors of said article, Edward Green, is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who never went to college an anti-gay Bible-thumping preacher the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies; the other author, Allison Herling Ruark, is a research fellow there.

Of particular note from the article:

Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year�which is exactly what fidelity programs promote. The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior. The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people.

If AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than ideology or bias, then fidelity and abstinence programs need to be at the center of programs for general populations. Outside Uganda, we have few good models of how to promote fidelity, since attempts to advocate deep changes in behavior have been almost entirely absent from programs supported by the major Western donors and by AIDS celebrities. Yet Christian churches�indeed, most faith communities�have a comparative advantage in promoting the needed types of behavior change, since these behaviors conform to their moral, ethical, and scriptural teachings. What the churches are inclined to do anyway turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention.

And:

In fact, the mainstream HIV/AIDS community has continued to champion condom use as critical in all types of HIV epidemics, in spite of the evidence. While high rates of condom use have contributed to fewer infections in some high-risk populations (prostitutes in concentrated epidemics, for instance), the situation among Africa�s general populations remains much different. It has been clearly established that few people outside a handful of high-risk groups use condoms consistently, no matter how vigorously condoms are promoted. Inconsistent condom usage is ineffective�and actually associated with higher HIV infection rates due to �risk compensation,� the tendency to take more sexual risks out of a false sense of personal safety that comes with using condoms some of the time. A UNAIDS-commissioned 2004 review of evidence for condom use concluded, �There are no definite examples yet of generalized epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on �condom promotion.� A 2000 article in The Lancet similarly stated, �Massive increases in condom use world-wide have not translated into demonstrably improved HIV control in the great majority of countries where they have occurred.�

And:

Thus far, research has produced no evidence that condom promotion�or indeed any of the range of risk-reduction interventions popular with donors�has had the desired impact on HIV-infection rates at a population level in high-prevalence generalized epidemics. This is true for treatment of sexually �transmitted infections, voluntary counseling and �testing, diaphragm use, use of experimental vaginal microbicides, safer-sex counseling, and even income-�generation projects. The interventions relying on these measures have failed to decrease HIV-infection rates, whether implemented singly or as a package. One recent randomized, controlled trial in Zimbabwe found that even possible synergies that might be achieved through �integrated implementation� of �control strategies� had no impact in slowing new infections at the population level. In fact, in this trial there was a somewhat higher rate of new infections in the intervention group compared to the control group.

And:

Meanwhile, the other interventions that have generally been called �best practices� simply do not seem to work in generalized epidemics, even though they are still applauded loudly at global AIDS conferences, while mention of fidelity and abstinence is received by booing, as Bill Gates discovered at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto in 2006. If we are to progress beyond science-by-popular-acclaim, we must accept that the evidence is much stronger for fidelity or partner reduction than for any of the standard-package HIV-prevention measures�in Africa at least�and so we need to rethink and reprogram AIDS-prevention interventions.

Admittedly, changing direction is hard when there has been massive investment in these �best practices.� It is not in the interest of a multibillion-dollar global AIDS industry to endorse interventions that are low-cost and homegrown and that rely on simple behavior change rather than medical products or services provided by outside experts. And so the major donors of AIDS programs continue to do the same things, expecting different results.

Jill—

What's up with your blog not accepting "delete" tags?

(In my previous comment about Edward Green's article in First Things, "a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who never went to college an anti-gay Bible-thumping preacher" was supposed to have had a line through it.)

And another thing— the "preview" comment feature doesn't work either (at least on my machine it doesn't). Anyone else? Bueller? Bueller?

Hey John,

I didn't know "preview" wasn't working. Thanks for the heads up. My web guy installed a new version of my software a couple weeks ago, and maybe this is a bug not yet worked out. I'm checking.

As for strikeouts, I've never been asked that question. I just checked and you used del and /del. I tried s and /s and that didn't work either, although it works in my posts. I've noticed on other blogs that only a select amount of html language is allowed on comments, like bold and italics. That may be the case here? Has it ever worked for you before in comments?

Why does Obama bring up "the soul"? A religious idea of ensoulment has no bearing whatsoever on when the biological processes of life begin. His confusion over this very idea should lead him towards an "err on the side of life" stance, rather than the hardcore 100% no exceptions stance he has taken for legal abortion (and the radical promotion of it thereof).

It's a straw man, P.L.A. Obama is trying to make abortion into a "religious" issue so that outlawing abortion would amount to a violation of separation of church and state. So his "hands are tied" because otherwise he would be imposing religion on the people. It's a slick little way to try and divert people's attention away from actual science (because that is, of course, on the pro-life side) and onto "religious superstition."

"Actual science" is not the issue.

Again, I'm impressed with Obama's willingness to talk to us like adults, and avoid sound bites and pandering. He's a true leader.

""Actual science" is not the issue."

Well Doug, if I had to guess, I would say that if you asked the average pro-choicer what the status of the unborn is, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would say non-human or blob of tissue (up to maybe viability or something like that.) I doubt that the average pro-choicer supports it based on bodily autonomy or non-personhood. I think if more people realized the humanity of the unborn, they would not support abortion.

""Actual science" is not the issue."

Well Doug, if I had to guess, I would say that if you asked the average pro-choicer what the status of the unborn is, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would say non-human or blob of tissue (up to maybe viability or something like that.) I doubt that the average pro-choicer supports it based on bodily autonomy or non-personhood. I think if more people realized the humanity of the unborn, they would not support abortion.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 14, 2008 11:08 AM
*********************************
No one disagrees that the embryo/fetus is genetically human but if you would realize the humanity of the woman pregnant and her right to do what she knows is best and her right to make her own decisions then you wouldnt be so quick to be antichoice. But you cant do that because youre certain you know what is *best* for her and her opinion is somehow inferior to yours even if SHE is the one who will be dealing with the pregnancy.

Bobby,

I figure you'd lose that bet that the average pro-choicer would say "non-human" for the unborn.

As for "blob of tissue" it depends on what is meant, i.e. we can all be described that way, after all.

On both of them, if somebody is saying that the unborn here are not human or that they don't develop the form that you and I know to be there in embryos, fetuses, etc., then I'd argue with them just as vehemently as anybody else could.

And, if somebody, after being informed that the unborn really are "human" and look like so-and-so as a fetus, etc., became pro-life, then I'm cool with that.

Of course her opinion is inferior.

She wants to kill for her own convenience.

That opinion is inferior.

As for strikeouts, I've never been asked that question. I just checked and you used del and /del. I tried s and /s and that didn't work either, although it works in my posts. I've noticed on other blogs that only a select amount of html language is allowed on comments, like bold and italics. That may be the case here? Has it ever worked for you before in comments?

I'm not sure if I've ever tried posting strikethrough tags on your blog before. Now that you mention it, I don't think I have.

Let me see if followed by works here:

testing

D'oh!

That doesn't work either.

test test

Well, shocker, I was able to figure out how to add strikeout. Use the s /s

Huzzah!

Thanks, Jill.

trying it out

In a current Pennsylvania political ad, 3 year-old Hillary Rodham, arms extended, toddles toward the home-movie camera. Hillary's present-day voice-over explains, the Rodham family cottage, down by the lake, lacked indoor plumbing. It was hardship borne from the start. Yet, more telling events seem to fall by the wayside. Take twenty-seven year old Hillary's first real job. The upshot: Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary for unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Why was Hillary fired? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in a recent interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“I have gone [duck] hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting," says Hillary. Perhaps as amusing, is how an elitist politician worth over $100 million-dollars, espouses small town family values. Not only does Mr. Zeifman’s account go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation. It took Zeifman twelve years to get his story aired. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. After that, Hillary's employment record is one of strict nepotism, cronyism, and amnesia.

Although few suspected the lengths to which Hillary would go, a leopard never changes her spots. According to Mr. Zeifman, it’s not just Hillary’s dishonesty; that’s a fact not in dispute. More to the point is the overall timeframe, in which she has behaved in a fraudulent manner. "The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party." -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor. Again, Hillary Clinton is a bold-faced liar, who will stop at nothing. Should anyone doubt either Mr. Zeifman, or Mr. Ruth’s veracity regarding the Clintons, dispute this: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Note to parents, due to possible long-term side effects, please take appropriate cautions when teaching a child to quack like a duck.

I don't know how many times I have to say it - I don't care what a woman does with her own body. If a radical feminist wants to shoot herself in the head and blow her brains out, who I am to judge?

But our laws should not allow the same woman to kill someone else. I know you pro-aborts aren't as dumb as you pretend to be. You 'get it'. You know that we don't put the life over the unborn child over the life of the mother, but we do put the life of the unborn child over the social life of the mother. But you pretend that you don't understand the distinction. I think you do understand.

But our laws should not allow the same woman to kill someone else.

John, not everybody agrees with you on when it is "someone else."

As for strikeouts,

Reggie Jackson is The Man.

Sen. Obhama says he has not thought through whether life begins at conception. Translation: He does not dare do this, else he would realize the horrible error in jugment he has made of ignoring Truth. Or else he really has, and plays dumb. I also cannot believe this is the first time he has heard such a question. If he has not spent time to think through that what, what else has he not thought about?

Sen. Clinton says she does not know why God allows suffering in the world. Where is her Christian upbringing when it comes to understanding that we suffer due (ultimately) from Original Sin and our resulting separation from God, and the concept of redemptive suffering bringing us closer to Him? If God prevented all suffering, who would turn to Him?

Sen. Clinton also recounts her memories of the Esther as one of the few examples in the bible of a woman taking a chance for her faith... I guess if she answered 'Mary' (duh!) she would only alienate those of the Jewish faith and then also those Protestants that think "too much emphasis" is placed on Our Lady.

I have heard quite enough to know that I do not want either of these candidates in the white house.

But our laws should not allow the same woman to kill someone else.

John, not everybody agrees with you on when it is "someone else."

Posted by: Doug at April 14, 2008 11:21 PM

So did you read the "Aborted Socrates", yet, or just skim it?
You're missing out if you don't read it in full. One of the characters is named "Pop Syke" (he's a Psychiatrist). Get it?

Janet, only thing I've done is read some reviews of it.