Lib smasher.
I ask you the same question. I also ask you another one and I am positive you will become just as evasive as Obama.
I do not personally agree with any abortion after the first trimester on ethical grounds only ( I do not feel we have enough knowledge of the human body/mind, to ascertain without doubt, that an embryo/foetus over 12 weeks gestation does not feel pain, or lacks any thought process) . I am not religious and so try to view the subject matter logically and rationally (any other way is wholly flawed ).
Let us just say for arguments sake, we give an embryo/foetus the rights I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong) you yourself wish for and support.
What then exactly, are you going to do with the forty million unwanted children resulting from such a change in the present laws?
I have no personal interest regarding the investiture of Obama, Mc Cain or any other American politician, but how exactly can you honestly expect Obama, or anyone else to have a tangible and practicable answer to the problem of abortion?
First, let's get my position on abortion clear: I am an agnostic, and none of my opinion about abortion is or ever has been informed by religious doctrine. The first trimester cutoff, and other arbitrary "magic numbers" are UTTERLY devoid of any basis in science or ethics. I have said before that there should be a real national debate - I emphasize "REAL" - based on the following two questions:
1. What IS human life?
2. When does it begin?
This should involve biologists, medical researchers, philosophers, and other potentially competent people to answer these questions. Religious and ideological assertions of any kind ("A woman has a right to choose") are disallowed.
This REAL debate has NEVER occurred, because any possibility for it was cut short with
Roe v. Wade, a judicial fiat that not only was not based on any real scientific or philosophical competence, it was also hignly flawed in the realm where the justices of the USSC were SUPPOSED to know what they were doing, the U.S. Constitution. There HAS been a lot of
a posteriori pseudo-scientific justification.
Since such a resolution of the real issues has NOT yet taken place, my position is the following: since it is a reasonable
hypothesis (after all, nobody doubts that fetuses at least BECOME live human beings) that abortion DOES kill a human being, then until the REAL debate takes place and the issues are resolved, which may even be resolved in favor of the pro-abortionists, prudent policy is that abortions be prohibited, and society take on the responsibility of unwanted children. Meantime, society effect those policies that decrease the number of unwanted children conceived.
Notice there is a feedback effect with legalized abortion - if abortions are readily available, and feminists have convinced women that fetuses are just a blob of cells, than many more women become pregnant with unwanted fetuses, since there is not much negative consequence for doing so.
Also note that there used to be a HUGE number of adoptions in this country - the number of adoptions fell way off after abortion came on the scene - the babies that would have been adopted were never born.
Here in essence is Obama's vs my position:
Obama:
"I'm for abortion, but I can't justify why I would support it."
Me:
"I don't know whether abortion is killing a live humen being or not, so the safe course is to prohibit it until it is determined whether or not abortion is the killing of a live human being."
Also on that corner was some group with a funny website name and AARP on their signs. They were all oldsters - I asked one woman who they were supporting - she said Obama and healthcare reform - the Greedy Geezers true to form. There were all kinds of odd lot crazies. My neighbor, who belongs to the church, was pissed because only a few members of the church got tickets. Long time since I've been in any kind of demo - it had a carnival atmosphere. 
