Also see The scariest part about Obama
McCain is significantly better than Obama in every key area:
- Pro-life – McCain has a track record of supporting good judges, while Obama is one of the the most extreme pro-abortion advocates I’ve heard of (and that is not an exaggeration – just keep reading). Consider his bizarre standards for judges: Instead of picking people who can interpret the law honestly, he wants this: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
- McCain has much better fiscal policies. Obama wants to take your money to give to his pet projects, but donates a pittance himself. Giving other people’s money at the point of a gun is not charity. “Spreading the wealth around” is socialism, and it doesn’t work.
- We’ll be far, far safer with McCain. Obama is relatively clueless about foreign affairs, would have us surrender in Iraq and set the Middle East progress back 50 years, and is so naive as to think we could or should eliminate nuclear weapons.
- His energy policies will keep the cost of fuel up for decades. McCain knows we need to drill now and get nuclear plants started asap. This will provide jobs, reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce energy costs for us all.
- Obama is anti-free speech. Watch how they try to annihilate anyone who dares to even question him, such as Joe the Plumber. He and the Democrats will want to impose the deceptively named Fairness Doctrine, so they can try to silence conservative radio while leaving the grossly biased mainstream media untouched.
- “McCain pays his female staffers more, on the average, than his male staffers; Obama, however, pays women $0.83 for every dollar earned by men.”
- Obama is not about change at all. He is about the same old liberal politics. McCain is the poster boy for real change – whether you agree with the change or not – and for reaching across the aisle.
- Obama lies when saying he’ll reduce taxes for 95% of the people. Nearly half don’t pay taxes, so it is impossible to lower theirs. He is just talking about more welfare.
- He will be pro-gay marriage. Just wait.
Barack Obama, hero and “savior” of the left, isn’t just pro-abortion, he’s pro-partial birth abortion. 80% of the population disagrees with this stance, so be sure to tell others. Just Google “obama partial birth abortion letter” or something similar if you want more sources. He is against informed consent and parental notification. In his world, your junior high daughter needs your permission to take an aspirin but not to have an abortion.
He reveals his deceptiveness and/or ignorance with his latest ads trying to say that McCain will make abortion illegal. But overturning Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal. It returns the power to the states – to the people - and lets them decide. California, Massachusetts, NY, etc. can keep killing the unborn all they like.
He also defended the rights of hospitals in Illinois to let children die outside the womb by repeatedly opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act against infanticide and he is against parental notification laws.
He lies over and over on his views. He is as radically pro-abortion as one can be. Read this thorough analysisby Randy Alcorn to see what I mean.
In his July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund he said,
“We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
If you don’t know about the Freedom of Choice Act, it was written by the most radical proabortion activists because they saw informed consent and parental consent laws being passed at the state level. They wanted something powerful that would dismantle anything that could serve to reduce abortions through requiring that people be told the truth before an abortion or before their sixteen year old, who can’t be given an aspirin without their permission, can have an abortion.
Here’s a piece on the audacity of being an abortion survivor. Remember, Obama doesn’t just see the right of unrestricted abortions in the Constitution, he sees the right to a corpse. If the abortion fails, then that shouldn’t be a barrier to a dead human.
Obama is lying about others lying- will the MSM check the facts and let voters know his real stand on abortion, partial birth abortion (aka infanticide) and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?
Obama wants change . . . except when it comes to abortion as birth control, inside the womb or outside it.
Obama wants you . . .
- to pay for abortion!
- to sanction the killing of infants born alive!
- to believe that pregnancy is a “punishment”!
- to accept partial birth abortion!
- to forget his close association with radical abortion groups like NARAL and PP!
- to endorse liberal activist Supreme Court Judges that support abortion in the 9th month!
- to embrace a culture of death!
Listen to his own words, plus his silly comment about the question of when life begins being above his pay grade:
He couldn’t be more clear about his plans:
See The Infanticide Shibboleth for more. Simply put, Obama is super-duper pro-abortion, and pro-infanticide as well.
He doesn’t even hide his hostility towards preborn human beings. Consider this quote (emphasis added):
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
News flash: Sex has consequences – emotional, physical and spiritual. Destroying – and I do mean destroying – the evidence doesn’t take the consequences away.
Despite being portrayed as a moderate, he is also against traditional marriage, including the Defense of Marriage Act.
He has bad theology, thinking that other religions will get you to Heaven (of course, our current President is guilty of saying this nonsense as well).
More hypocrisy: He wants to take lots of your money for his pet liberal causes, but donates a pittance himself. Once again, folks, charity is when you give your own money, not when you force others at gunpoint to support your causes.
I can’t believe he threw his grandmother under the bus. If anyone uttered “typical black person,” their political career would be over. Yet he gets a pass for saying, “typical white person.”
Updates: Click here for a long list of reasons why he would make a bad President.
Filed under: Politics, Pro-life | Tagged: Bible, Democrat, election, obama, partial birth abortion, Politics, religion
Has the world gone completely crazy. Is the world declining so bad that they would ok a live baby to die because he or she is unwanted? what will be next -our elderly because they can no longer take care of them selves, our sick, our mentally challenged, and then what about me, because I think differently from the world?
It just makes me want to say “Come now”
Neil,
Excellent Article. I live in Illinois and never knew about Obama’s stance. This is excellent because now I can tell people about it when I hear them praise him for being such a wonderful guy who cares about people…
I guess unborn babies are not people.
Edgar.
I’ll play devil’s advocate and mention that maybe there is some value in having him there, provided that they are focused on the HIV/AIDS issue, Africa, etc… That it is important to look past differences and focus on common issues.
But even if that’s the case, the whole thing still bothers me. The church is not supposed to be some political rallying center. Even if it was some conservative Congressman or even Bush talking about a certain issue, that would still bother me.
I’m not saying, like the IRS does, that churches can’t discuss certain political issues, even though I think they should focus less on political issues. From time to time my pastor will talk about pro-life issues, but when he invites guests, they are people that work for private centers dealing with helping out pregnant women or victims of abortion. He may mention that we should vote pro-life, but he doesn’t have some Congressman making a pitch for any certain issue.
The whole thing makes me a little queasy, and not just because of Obama’s politics.
Actually, I thought about why it bothers me so much, and I guess because in a church service, the focus should be on God. When you have a big time politician, it takes the focus away from God. Not that churches can’t invite famous people, but this church invites Obama, and it gets so much press, it’s like a major event. A church service shouldn’t be a major event or news spectacle. Just my unrefined thoughts on the topic.
I’ve been an outspoken critic of Rick Warren for years, and have taken a lot of flack for it – but he continues to prove my skepticism warranted more and more as the years go by.
Come on! If you read the letter you’d understand who is being unreasonable.
Why is it so hard to put an exception into these laws for the health of the mother?
Independents for Obama
If you want exceptions for the life of the mother, that is fine. But you aren’t fooling me with the “health” of the mother exception. Anyone familiar with the topic knows that is a smokescreen to provide for any and all exceptions, such as potential temporary depression.
Obama is pro-partial birth abortion, aka infanticide. That is sickening. And it isn’t required to improve the health or the life of the mother. You can do the exact same procedure and just skip the fork in the head part. You’ll end up with a live baby, of course.
“You’ll end up with a live baby, of course.”
And, while you’re at it, not disobey “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Among other things. {I know that you can argue over when a baby gets his/her soul, but somehow I think it has arrived by the time it’s exiting its mommy.}
Wow! I must admit that I am truly astounded by the igonrace that has spewed forth from most of your mouths. What is most sickening about the majority of you individuals is that you truly believe that you are in the right and that your hate-filled words are warranted. In reality, it is and will never be justified to tell a woman what to do with her body. How can it be?? Explain to me if you can, how a woman getting an abortion negatively impacts you in any way?? Do you believe that YOU won’t go to Heaven because of what some woman did with her body??? What of the women who get raped and then pregnant???? What of the women that use condoms and birth control and still somehow manage to get pregnant??? They were responsible. Now because of terrible chance the infant and the parents are to be damned because they have neither the financial nor the emotional means of providing for the infant. Or they could clog the system known as Adoption where many kids are never taken from or when they are, sometimes disastrous consequences can result. Such as the adpoted parent using the child only as a source of income and or child abuse/molestation may occur. I apologize for going off on a tangent, but my point is that abortion of a FETUS (NON-LIVING TISSUE) can be a responsibile choice in itself. Also, anyone who would argue that abortion Has to be murder is a fool of the words of kind. Murder is not possible if something is not living in the first place and it is a PROVABLE FACT that a fetus is a non-living tissue. I would like to leave this on two notes. The first one being that you are for the most part either confused or just terrible people for condemning so many young girls for their choices when they don’t even affect you. Needlessly interfering in other peoples lives is something I would hope god will discuss with you in Heaven. You have offered an alternative choice to abortion and that is where you need to draw the line. Furthermore, maybe it would len more creidibility to this whole topic if someone could actually provide an article from a well-known source that states Obama supports partial-birth abortion. I have searched through numerous newspapers now and various websites and have yet to see this article that you have all spoken about. I would hate to think that it is nowhere to be found and thiswas just a pathetic attempt at slandering a good man.
Hi Allen,
Thanks for stopping by. You bring up some common pro-choice arguments that I am glad to respond to.
Regarding Obama – he is in favor of legalized partial birth abortion. Just view the link in the original post. If you can find something proving that it is falsified please let me know.
Please peruse the pro-life category on the left side of this page. It answers many of your objections. Please come back as I’ll also address some of the admittedly tough issues such as rape and incest.
Have you seen any 4-D ultrasounds? I don’t see how you can claim that this is just non-living tissue. If fetuses weren’t living then abortions wouldn’t be necessary, would they? A fetus is just a stage of development such as infant, toddler, teen, etc.
Of course I am against child abuse. But we don’t go around killing children who are abused, do we? In the same way, why would we say it is acceptable to kill the unborn just because they might be abused (or poor, or whatever)?
I think it is misguided to say that pro-lifers are “terrible people” for opposing abortions that don’t affect us. Murders of humans outside the womb generally don’t affect me, so is it immoral for me to oppose them?
Can you point me to the “hate-filled words” you are referring to?
Basic pro-life reasoning is astonishing simple:
1. It is immoral to kill an innocent human being
2. Abortion kills an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, abortion is immoral.
Drill into each word and you’ll see how tight this argument is. The unborn is obviously a human being (she ain’t a puppy). At conception there is a living human being with unique DNA, 46 chromosomes, etc.
The unborn are innocent.
Abortion kills them.
The good news is that God’s grace and mercy extend to all those who have been involved in abortions in any way. It is also demonstrated through people who help women in crisis pregnancies. Check out your local Crisis Pregnancy Center. I think you’d be surprised at just how much they do for families in need.
I have been a christian all of my life and am against abortion. I have never had one and have never considered it as a viable option. However, I am so saddened by my fellow christians who use presidential campaigns as a means to further their viewpoint…to the point of slander and lies. If the election of George Bush, has taght us nothing in this country, then perhaps we are not good learners after all.
Pamela, will you please clarify what you are referring to as “slander and lies?” Thanks.
“Explain to me if you can, how a woman getting an abortion negatively impacts you in any way??”
Allen, it does not affect me very much. However, if I only get involved in the issues that affect me personally, that seems to me to be rather selfish. If slavery was still going on today, it wouldn’t affect me personally as I am white, but I would still hope I would have the moral sense to oppose it. Only tackling the issues that affect us personally is a terrible way to approach the world around us.
“In reality, it is and will never be justified to tell a woman what to do with her body. How can it be??”
Allen, I don’t think it is justified to tell a woman what to do with her body. I also don’t think it is justifiable for a woman to control the body of the baby by ending its life. That’s where pro-lifers and most pro-choicers differ. We believe the baby counts as a separate body.
“I apologize for going off on a tangent, but my point is that abortion of a FETUS (NON-LIVING TISSUE) can be a responsibile choice in itself.”
Again, that is where we differ. If you think a fetus is inferior to a born person, that is more understandable, although I disagree. However, a fetus is far from “non-living tissue”, dead cells to do not replicate, but rather decay, and “non-living tissue” does not have a heartbeat. To say a fetus is inferior is one thing, to say it is “non-living tissue”, well, let’s say the science here is not in your favor.
Allen, in fact, all your arguments hinge on the idea that a fetus is a non-living person. If you want to be successful in your pro-choice persuasion, you have to convince us pro-lifers that the fetus is not a person. Otherwise, all this talk about what if the woman is raped, molested, if she is poor, etc… doesn’t have much meaning, because to us, killing a fetus because she was raped, molested, poor, etc… is the same as kidding a toddler because he or she was raped, molested, poor, etc… You must convince us that a fetus is different from a toddler. That, and not open your arguments with “Wow! I must admit that I am truly astounded by the igonrace that has spewed forth from most of your mouths. ”
Allen, you will find me to be one of the more libertarian thinkers among my peers. In the political arena, I am willing to allow people to engage in many behaviors I find morally despicable, as long as it does not affect someone else. That is exactly why I am pro-life, because I believe the fetus is a human being that deserves protection from others, including the mother. I do find it ironic that one of the few times liberals discuss personal freedom and “my body, my choice” is in the instance of abortion, when more than one body is involved! Unlike many members of the modern Democratic Party, and the Republican Party for that matter, I believe a person can control their body in many cases. If they want to eat trans-fat foods, if they want to smoke, if they want to walk in a crosswalk with their iPod blaring much to their danger, if they want to get tattoos, heck, even if they want to be gay (marriage is another issue) etc… I am all for a high degree of freedom in our personal and our economic lives. But when you talk about the freedom to terminate the life of another body, your definition of “freedom” will fall on deaf ears among the pro-lifers. Freedom at the cost of other unwilling people (willing people being our military) is not truly freedom, but simply a perversion of liberty.
Pamela and Allen never clarified their allegations of slander and lies, so just in case they were implying that I had committed those sins let me say this: The link in the original post is to a fundraising letter sent by Obama’s wife. If anyone can prove this is illegitimate, let me know. I did a search on “obama partial birth abortion letter” and got all sorts of supporting links.
Please re-read my original post and note that all I did was point out Obama’s positions on some important issues and that people might want to be aware of them. That seems to be a rather relevant thing to do considering that he wants to be the President of the United States.
Somewhat “off topic” here, but the following comment caught my attention:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t prostitution ILLEGAL in all but one state (Nevada)? Isn’t that “tell[ing] a woman what to do” (or not do) with her body? How come the “pro-choice” crowd isn’t all up in arms about that if their frustration really is all about the woman’s body?
By the way, I’m “pro-life” and “anti-prostitution.” Neil, I thought your post was solid.
Neil,
I’m not going to get into the details of your post or subsequent comments (I think you know my point of view on this matter). However, I do feel the need to make one biological observation. You like to point out that a fetus is “a living human being with unique DNA, 46 chromosomes, etc.” You want to revise your argument as to why a fetus is alive – every cell in my body has unique DNA and 46 chromosomes – am I a murderer every time I bleed?
Although I will likely lose my ACLU license for helping you out in this way (totally joking), I think you would do better to point out that a fetus meets the biological definition of life in that it is an organic, genetic unit capable of metabolism, reproduction and evolution (micro-evolution…don’t panic
)
BTW – I wasn’t joking when I said I really think you would enjoy a basic class in genetics. You would learn why it is incorrect to say that a human has 46 chromosomes (23 chromosomes, 46 chromatids – I’ll explain the difference the next time I see you).
Take care!
P.S. I’m pro-prostitution as long as the woman is ok with it.
Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the insights on the genetics. I’ll need to hear more about your case for the 46 chromosomes, as every resource I’ve seen mentions that. Regardless, the point is that these are human chromosomes.
And my point about the DNA isn’t to prove that the unborn is alive, so the bleeding example doesn’t apply. I thought the concept of her being “living” was self-evident. If she wasn’t alive and growing then no one would be debating whether or not to kill her. I mention the DNA to emphasize that we are dealing with a unique human being. This isn’t just a part of the mother, it is a unique human being inside the mother.
Of course, Barak Obama and company think that as long as 10% of the baby is still inside the mother it is ok to stick a fork in the baby’s head and suck her brains out. Perhaps they still cling to their “it isn’t a living human being” fantasy at that point, but not many others do.
P.S. Don’t worry, I won’t tell the ACLU!
“Also, anyone who would argue that abortion Has to be murder is a fool of the words of kind.”
Right. I suppose quoting Scripture indicating that calling someone a fool is ‘worthy of the’… Anyway, I said I wasn’t going to quote it.
Oh, here’s something to remember.
Plants don’t ahve souls. Plants are alive. They are made out of living tissue. Animals don’t have souls. Animals are also alive/made of living tissue. Fetuses are made out of living tissue the same as my arm is made out of living tissue. Regardless of whether the baby/my arm has a soul all to its own, it is made of living tissue. If you cut off my arm, the cells in it will die. If you suck the brain out of a ‘fetus’, its cells will die. It will be dead. That, my friend, is grave mutilation at best and murder for the rest of us.
Once again, when does a fetus become ‘alive’, Allen? Does it take an inch of space between baby and exit, or does it take a few minutes after birth for the baby to spontaneously become alive? If one of the baby’s limbs isn’t quite out yet [which would be more than the 1/10th of a body required by Obama], is it not yet alive? Does a baby spontaneously become alive when it is no longer in physical contact with its mother?
Seriously, man, between your angry insults and the poor logic I’ll credit to your momentary angry outburst, it is very hard for me to give your thoughts and opinions credence.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
“I am truly astounded by the igonrace that has spewed forth from most of your mouths. What is most sickening about the majority of you individuals is that you truly believe that you are in the right and that your hate-filled words are warranted.”
While some anti-abortion folks (like some pro-choice folks) are indeed hateful, I have to confess I don’t see any of that here.
I believe I can state without fear of successful contradiction, that I’m the most liberal (at least on social issues) commenter who regularly reads Neil’s blog and I didn’t see any evidence of the hate to which you refer, Allen. I’m also sure that if I did see it, I’d likely be the first to comment on it, as I think Neil can attest.
The question is not whether or not abortion affects me personally. It does not. And, I can also state without fear of successful contradiction that neither my husband nor I will ever have an abortion, or have to have an abortion.
And yet, I’m against it, because it does harm to another person — the baby, the fetus, the embryo, whichever word you prefer to use.
I believe that, under most circumstances we all should butt out of other people’s lives unless those lives are in danger. I also believe, as a Christian, it is our duty to stand up for those without a voice. The Bible tells one story over and over and over again — from Abraham, who goes from being a nomad to the father of a nation of people; to David, who goes from being a shepherd to being a king of a nation; to the formation of the nation of Israel; to Jesus, God With Us, born in a manger — it’s all the same story: God loves us all equally, but he roots for the underdog. Thus, I firmly believe God is on the side of the unborn. (Where’s the hate in that, Allen?)
When does life begin? That’s a silly question that’s unanswerable from a biological standpoint because the biological definition of “life” is necessarily incomplete. Are 2 cells alive? 4? 8? At what point does adding one cell make a fetus a baby, but taking away that one cell would turn that baby back into a fetus? Is there any reason to suspect that point would be the same for each baby? There is no rational dividing line. So, ethically, the line must be drawn as conservatively as possible in order to protect those without a voice, and the most rational line is at conception.
Now I’m certainly no expert on pregnancy and birth (that’s an understatement), but I’ve known lots of women who have gone through both and frankly, though it all seems like a terrible bother, I can’t believe it’s so annoying that it’s worth killing for.
Oh, and Allen, FYI you spell your name wrong. (just kidding)
(PS. On the other hand, I don’t know of any evidence that Obama is for “hate speech” legislation that would silence clergy. A reference would be useful there, I think. I don’t even know of any “hate speech” legislation that is coming before Congress, and I’m pretty informed about such matters.)
Good points, Alan.
Saying “We don’t know when life begins” (as was claimed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, by the way) is wrong on two levels. First, I think it obviously begins at conception (unique DNA and such).
Second, as you point out, we should err on the side of caution. What if someone was about to implode a building and asked, “Is there anyone left inside?” If the answer was, “I don’t know,” I hope someone would check before pushing the button. Unless someone is sure that life hasn’t begun then they ought not be doing abortions.
Thanks for the P.S. – I can’t find the original source for that, so I’ll delete it. (By the way, the original piece I read didn’t say it was something currently before Congress, just that he had supported it at some point.)
On a more important matter, you do spell your name correctly (Alan is my middle name, so I’m an expert on such matters). But with a first name like Neil (not Neal, or Neall, or Niel) I’ve developed thick skin about such things. As long as people don’t spell it with a “K” then I’m cool about it.
Neil: there is some biological debate over when life begins. All of the traditional indicia of biologic life are NOT necessarily present at conception (homeostatsis and metabolism, as there is no way for the egg to get food until implantation). The twinning process occurs up to about two weeks after conception. Before then, you cannot be sure whether or not there is one being or two beings, and it is somewhat abnormal to describe as a distinct being that which may be two beings (one of which is not the offspring of the other). Within that time, about 80% of pregnancies end via spontaneous abortion.
All indicia of life are present within about a week or two of conception.
Even if we take the most “pro-choice” view of the biological definition of life, we are giving women about a week after conception to abort, which would be a de facto bar to abortion. It would, however, insure that women would not be charged with murder for having an eptopic pregnancy or a spontaneous abortion after bad health.
Genetics: please, let’s not go down the 23 chromosomes/46 chromatids (one strand of a chromosome) = life issue. I have nothing against people with Down’s, Tay-Sachs, Kleinfelters, or any other genetic abnormality that results from having one too many (or too few) chromosomes.
>>>I can’t believe it’s so annoying that it’s worth killing for.
Modern feminists don’t believe that abortion is murder. They really do believe that it is NOT a baby until they want it to be one. I once asked a bunch of “feminists” what the difference was between pregnancy and miscarriage, if pregnancy did not involve a living being. The answers were ridiculous and centered around the “fact” that you can miscarry without having a fetus involved.
—
Random abortion stats of the day: According to Planned Parenthood’s research arm, 70% of women who abort were not using ANY form of birth control when they got pregnant. The Pill, plus a condom, plus spermicide results in a one in a quarter-million chance of getting pregnant over a year. 60% of women who abort already have kids (and presumably can get their tubes tied or have their husbands get vascetomies).
For most women, it’s not a “terrible chance,” but inability to take care of their bodies, that causes them to seek abortions.
“He also defended the rights of hospitals in Illinois to let children die outside the womb by repeatedly opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act against infanticide and he is against parental notification laws.”
Disgusting and deplorable.
I almost vomited. How can you oppose something involving babies? Once the baby is born, the woman’s body and bodily autonomy are no longer implicated.
wow good post first of all. pretty astounded by alan’s post.
I really enjoy reading yours and some of the other conservative christian blogs I have found on word press- by very educated… yet also very obviously Jesus loving, people. It is so encouraging to me. I have many friends who will most likely vote Obama… and honestly I get tired of debating. I admire that you can get a horrible post like that guy Alan and still keep on. I get really effected by that stuff. Anyway, press on, keep doing what you are doing. very cool.
Thanks, Mommyzabs! Great to have you stop by. I was just mentioning on theobromophile’s blog that when someone posts who is really unhinged it is actually easier to stay calm (though I confess that what I write for the final comments is about 50% nicer than the first drafts!).
I admit that it is wearing sometimes, but I try to remember whose side we’re on.
I enjoy your blog. It must be tough being home with the kids while your husband is on a mission trip. Now I know how my wife feels!
Neil is more rational than I. I see the completely unhinged posts and think, “Wow, to that person, my hard-line views must seem unhinged… am I crazy?”
Nevertheless, I’ve loved to hear the sympathetic, compassionate, and caring pro-life arguments on this blog. Very refreshing.
Barack Obama is not “pro” partial birth abortion. He’s not “pro” any abortion. I’ve never met anyone who was “pro” abortion. I’m pro-choice, but I’m anti-abortion. Without getting into when a fetus becomes a person, people on both sides of the debate should be able to agree that a fetus is a potential person and that, in general, the world would be a better place if there were no unwanted pregnancies, and thus no abortions. The question of legalized abortion is not about whether or not abortions are bad; everyone agrees they are. It is about whether the decision to have an abortion or complete a pregnancy is best made on a case-by-case basis by a woman and her doctor, or on the basis of broadly sweeping statutes by state legislatures or by Congress. The question of partial birth abortion is about whether, in a situation where a woman’s right to choose is protected by Roe/Casey, her doctor has the right to chose the safest method to perform that abortion.
The Supreme Court today upheld a Congressional law banning partial birth abortions. Before anti-choicers celebrate this decision as a victory, they should consider the implications of allowing Congress to regulate intra-state, point-of-sale transactions under the commerce clause. They should consider the long-term effects of the erosion of stare decisis. They should consider that the vast majority of elective abortions are performed during the first trimester, and that most second term abortions are performed to protect the life or health of the mother.
Further, anti-choicers should more generally consider the implications of making abortions illegal, as they were in this country for a century. Women still had abortions, but the procedures were much less safe, and women seeking them risked being beaten and/or raped by the abortionist. Many died because of the unsafe procedures used. Anyone who claims to be concerned about the “sanctity of life” should realize that there are trade-offs. The most effective way to prevent abortions is to provide access to effective contraception to all women, to provide poor pregnant women with adequate health care during their pregnancies, to extend programs like WIC and Head Start, and to provide free, high-quality day care for single moms. Barack Obama supports these methods as the best way to reduce the number of abortions performed. It seems to me that is the truly pro-life stance.
“Before anti-choicers celebrate this decision as a victory, they should consider the implications of allowing Congress to regulate intra-state, point-of-sale transactions under the commerce clause. They should consider the long-term effects of the erosion of stare decisis.”
That’s odd coming from a pro-choicer. It didn’t seem to bother pro-choice advocates when the court ignored the Constitution and created a right to have an abortion where none existed.
Hi Pyxie – thanks for stopping by.
How about if we go with “Barrack Obama is pro-legalized-partial birth abortion?” I thought that was implicit, as I would concede to you that no one wants to have abortions just for fun.
Re. a fetus being a potential person – I have to disagree with that. There is no such thing as a potential person / human. You are a person or you are not a person. I think it is intuitively and scientifically obvious that the unborn are humans at a particular stage of development (zygote ==> fetus ==> infant . . . . ==> adolescent).
I 2nd TT’s comments re. Congress being involved. It is ironic that if it weren’t for Roe v. Wade the PBA ban wouldn’t have even come up. It would have stayed with the states.
Yes, many women used to die from unsafe abortions. But, as the saying goes, they are always unsafe for the unborn. And as the Center for Disease Control noted, the deaths to women went down drastically right up to the time of Roe v. Wade – primarily because of improved antibiotics. Only 39 women died in one year. That is still a lot, but a drop in the bucket compared to the 4,000 unborn killed today.
Peace,
Neil
First off id like to introduce myself, and interject into this discussion if i may . I am myself a religious person to some extent, however unlike most here i am jewish (not that that has anything to do with my argument… just want to give an outside perspective). I’m 25, a democrat, and live in California. I have a few points that i would like to share and ask the pro-lifers, AND pro-choicers here.
First off, i am against partial-birth abortion, but have no problems personally with abortion in general. The reason being is that to me they are two separate issues. One deals with a constructed organism, and the other deals with cells which have the instructions and POTENTIAL for creating an organism. I am progressive and for many reasons believe that having an abortion should be left up to the mother, and her conscious. But, there is a serious distinction between and abotrion of a cluster of cells at a couple months and sucking the brains out of a small baby in the 3rd trimester.
I think we ALL can agree that a child becomes a full being sometime between conception and birth 9 months later. No matter if you are a bible-thumping Christian or a tofu-touting liberal….. this is a fact. Likewise, I would also assume that all of us here believe murder of a human is wrong. I’m sure regardless of who you are, we can ALL agree on those two points. Now, where we all differ is at what point we consider that being an organism. You dont see the pro life crowd protesting womens periods, and unused sperm…. likewise you dont see the pro choice crowd picketing for the right for a mother to kill her 3 month old infant. The disagreement becomes at what point you label something an organism. Based on each of our individual faiths, or even lack thereof… we will all pick a time between 0 and 9 months as what we consider something a person.
Personally for me its a grey area… but i believe somewhere in the 3rd trimester a fetus becomes complex enough for me to say, yeah this is a person. Before that point i disagree with the pro-lifers as im not much interested in a lump of partially developed cells. But after things start to come together i start asking myself some serious questions…. what if this organism is complex enough to feel pain? can i justify killing a human being even if it is a simple one? etc etc. My answer to these questions leads me to be completely against partial birth abortion.
So ive laid my logic out on the table and id like to hear yours as well (pro partial birth and con)…. but i also have a few questions id like to ask each party.
To the pro-partial birth crowd. Whats the deal? Why is this so important to maintaining a womans “right to choose”. Youd think by the 6th month you would have decided LONG AGO wether or not you are going to keep the baby. I dont see why it takes half a year to figure it out while a fetus is maturing inside of you. If you can make a decision untill that late in the game then my advice to the mothers in this situation is simply… ride it out. Theres no reason to wait this long, and if you cant make a decision in a timely manner then the courts will do it for you. Sorry to sound like a hard ass but thats how i feel. My grandma has a saying that i think applies….. “Shit or get off the pot”
Now on to the anti-partial birth abortion crowd. I fully agree with you, but please allow me to attempt to widen your horizons. Many of the arguments against partial birth abortions revolve around statements such as “the fetus feels pain”, “the fetus cant fight for itself, so we must fight for it” and “if you saw the horrors of a partial birth abortion you would change your mind”. so i have one simple question for you anti-partial birth crowd: Do you eat meat? If so, please re-read my previous statements and simply replace fetus with animal. A living cow, dog, chicken is more complex, more conscious, and just as much one of gods living creatures as a fetus is. If you witnessed the slaughter of your meat would you be able to eat it? please extend your logic to ALL of gods creatures and not just the human being. If you can consider a 4 month embryo so sacred it must be spared how can you eat another one of Gods beautiful sparks of creation without thinking twice.
Thanks for your time, and im very excited to hear responses from both sides of this debate. -Heath
Hi Heath,
Thanks for coming by and sharing those views.
I see some of your points but have a couple questions and quick thoughts:
“I think we ALL can agree that a child becomes a full being sometime between conception and birth 9 months later.”
Sorry to be difficult, but that is the crux of the problem. I agree that a sperm is not a human being, nor is an egg. But after conception, we have a human being at a particular stage of development, and barring medical problems or abortion, she will continue through various stages (fetus ==> infant ==> toddler ==> adolescent ==> etc.).
There is really no such thing as a potential person. You are a person or you are not a person. The Constitution got it wrong by saying blacks weren’t fully persons, the Nazis and radical Muslims have it wrong with Jewish people, etc.
And perhaps most importantly, even if we weren’t sure when life begins, we should err on the side of caution. If we “might” be permitting the murder of 4,000 human beings per day, then perhaps it ought not be legal.
“Likewise, I would also assume that all of us here believe murder of a human is wrong.”
Amen! You might be surprised, though. I actually had someone argue that point with me this week. But back to my first point: The unborn are human beings at every stage.
Re. the last points you made – yes, some pro-life reasoning may be bad. This is why we should be careful with the reasons we offer. Just because our overall point is correct doesn’t mean everything we say with respect to it is.
Hope you come back soon!
Lets get to the nitty gritty here, because I used to lean towards pro-life because I was totally anti-republican. Then came partial-birth abortion.
If anyone in their right mind can honestly say without a doubt that partial-birth abortion is not murder, then you are a sick and evil person and you have believed in the lies of Satan.
But here’s the deal…if that’s the case then ‘regular’ abortion is murder as well. There is no, ‘potential person’. A human is defined by its DNA. That’s what happens when sperm meets egg…a human is created. Its simple. Its scientifically sound and there is absolutely no way to refute that truth.
But here’s why we are having this discussion:
Greed. Children have turned from blessings to ‘burdens’. And killing them is a way to get rid of a ‘burden’ in order to save some money. Hopeless dejected America…what has happened to you?! For the aborition clinics and its lobbiests, however, its a multi-million dollar industry. Disgusting, treacherous, vile America.
It’s one thing if a mother chooses to commit an abortion herself. She will obviously bear the punishement of doing so…and rightly so. And in that case, I feel that the abortion would be punishment enough. But for an industry to be created and promoted to such an inhumane cause is baffling.
For humans to continue to lie to themselves about it (like I did) is absolutely inhumane. Like I said, it is following the heart of Satan and his lies. Unfortunately, it is following him straight to the pits of hell as well. Only Jesus Christ can save someone from it…he saved me and he can save you too.
btw…I am not Republican or Democrat…there are no politics in the Kingdom of God.
I just wish that many Christian brothers and sisters would remember that. Its not about politics…its about salvation and the Love of God. Don’t forget that upholding the truth is more important than what your bank account looks like.
Excellent points, Ant C., especially the third paragraph. The concept of a “potential person” is a made up thing used to justify murder.
“Not a person” also justified the Dred Scott decision.
Great point, Bridget. I make a reference to that in a post on “personhood” set to go up on Monday.
I can’t wait.
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwww!thats crazy.i thought he was better than that.
According to an article in topix.com, by “Robbo Blogger”, approximately 47% of Black American women get abortions each year. Yet Barak Obama is pro-abortion? What does that say about him? Worse yet, he actually is for partial birth abortion. This is a hideous procedure where the baby is almost totally delivered. The head is the only thing left in the birth canal. The doctor makes in incision …I think it’s at the base of the skull of the baby and uses a machine that sucks the baby’s brains out. Around 80% of Americans are for having this procedure abolished. Some day, this generation …especially the law makers who wouldn’t listen to the will of the people will go down in history as being incredible barbarians. I wonder what the lives of those women are like after they have that procedure done? I bet they are horribly guilt ridden and I bet some even commit suicide. There are so many people who want babies in this country. I hear even Europe doesn’t allow this “partial birth abortion procedure”. The women come over to good old America to get it done. Even Europe with their very liberal ideology about sex can figure this no brainer out.
Bernie
That’s dead wrong. Only 35% of American women abort in their LIFETIMES.
I don’t think the proper number is per year – because I really don’t think that every other black woman gets an abortion per year, whether she be 6 years old or 80 years old.
Try “per lifetime.”
Thanks “thebromophile” for clarifying. But 35% isn’t that great either.
1. You’re welcome.
2. It’s horrible. 1/3d of women in America (IMHO, the greatest country in the world) are so scared and desperate at the thought of pregnancy that they kill their unborn child.
Thanks for the posts about Barack Obama. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am an African American woman and have voted Republican for the past 12 years. Consequently, I’ve been a born again, bible believing Christian for the same amount of time. However, I have not been pleased with this present administration and was considering voting for Obama because some of the issues he speaks of changing seemed appropriate to me.(health care reform, the war in Iraq, etc.) Needless to say though, when I read his support of partial-birth abortion and his stand on the marriage act, I couldn’t in good conscience vote for him. I pray Hillary isn’t the forerunner either, but it’s in the Lord’s hands.
“Against traditional marriage,” that’s a little Orwellian!
Hi Cassandra – thanks for stopping by and commenting!
You remind me of one of my best friends. Like you, she is an African-American who typically votes Republican. She jokes that it would be better if she voted Democrat, because her family turns out in droves just to offset her one vote!
I was brought up with the womens right to choose what to do with her body. My mother worked in a family planning center. But at what point to you stop and say what am I doing???? Partial Birth Abortion is wrong. It is murder. When you have women who is 8 months along and force her to go into labor and fork the back of the baby’s head before it comes out–because if it comes all the way out they have to do everything possible to save it’s life. How could you say it is not murder. If we let this continue it could turn over court cases such as Scott Peterson who has a double MURDER charge. One has to ask himself if someone lile Scott Peterson Cannot kill a baby fetus, then why can doctors???
I strongly oppose bans on abortion, but i would just like to commend the blogger and those leaving comments for their calm and level headed approach to this touchy subject. It appears the only real jerk off to post here is, unfortunately, a pro-choicer.
Well done, keep it up, and Godspeed.
- Sebastian
Neil,
I am only pro-choice as I don’t see anti-abortion as a viable option. You can never stop a woman entirely from getting an abortion, the fetus is dependent on her for it’s own life so if she wants it out, she’ll get it out one way or another. I would like to use Romania as a case study for the basis of my question. I am quoting “The American Journal of Public Health.” (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/pro-choice/romania.1992)
“In 1966 Romanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu introduced pronatalist policies, outlawed abortion and contraception, and took measures to enforce the law. Mandatory pelvic examinations at places of employment were imposed on women of reproductive age. Informers for the security police were stationed in maternity hospitals. Doctors could be prosecuted for performing unauthorized abortions, and nurses were to make unannounced supervisory visits to new mothers to determine whether they were taking proper care of their infants.”…”Before the 1966 law went in to effect, the Romanian maternal mortality rate was similar to those of other Eastern European countries. Afterward, abortion-related maternal mortality increased to a level 10 times that of any other European country. For the decade 1980 to 1989, the average Romanian maternal mortality rate was 150 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. [6] Many women obtained abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 otherwise healthy women of childbearing age died from postabortion hemorrhage, sepsis, abdominal trauma, and poisoning.”…”In Romania, local health professionals report that unsafe abortion – as performed by the woman herself or by untrained persons – may involve very dangerous techniques, such as scraping the uterus with a rubber tube or other instrument, uterine lavage with water or a caustic fluid, introduction of foreign bodies into the uterus, or external trauma. Such methods often result in damage to the uterine cervix,
chronic infection, and severe anemia that, in turn, increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and infection, infertility, preterm birth, and low
birthweight.”
Now that is pretty gruesome. If you outlaw something, you give up the right to regulate it at all. Abortions will still be preformed but be much more dangerous for both mother and child.
Isn’t the best conclusion to promote contraception (something Sarah Palin would certainly argue against with her abstinance only campaign) while at the same time limiting the ease with which one can get an abortion? I just can’t validate outlawing it, as much as I am morally opposed, I think abortion is here to stay. It’s just a matter of keeping people away from needing to get one in the first place.
Let me know what you think,
CV
Hi CV,
Abortion kills innocent human beings, therefore it should be illegal.
To say that the Romanian plan would be the only proxy for anti-abortion laws is a bit of a straw man argument.
Using that reasoning we’d have to make all sorts of crimes legal, because then we could regulate them better.
Yes, people will have abortions regardless of whether they’ll be illegal. No laws completely eliminate crime, which is why we have police and courts. But abortions will definitely be reduced if made illegal. The survivors will be grateful.
Abortion is wrong, but having sex to every one whom you just met at the corner of the street is wrong, immoral, dirty and like dogs. Those people who enjoyed casual sex, then make sex the most sacred union of husband and wife, so wait till you are married. Most of you of who talk about abortion are the father or mother who does casual sex. Shame on you who are talking about abortion
You are all dunb asses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was dumb asses!!!
Neil said: Thanks for the clarification. Without that I would have been stumped.
Abortion has it`s place in society. I would have had one -had I found myself pregnant and single with a small child. I would have done everything to to avoid it -but if it had happened. I would have had an abortion rather than explain to the child I had why I couldn`t keep this baby.A child is not a child until it can survive outside the womb!!!!!
Kelly, thanks for your eloquent input, but I find that less than persuasive.
Scientific fact: Life begins at conception. Check any embryology textbook.
What is alive? A human being.
What does abortion destroy? A human being.
I really hope you never kill your unborn child. You will always regret it.
“Child” is just a state of development, e.g., human fetus, human newborn, human toddler, human teen, etc.
Human beings have intrinsic value at all stages of development and should not be destroyed for the reasons you cited.
Neil, your views on Obama are off base as are your views on McCain / Palin. Each of us are given the right to choose: whether believe is Christ as Savior or not, Democrat or Republican, speak or not. I am not qualified nor are you nor is any body that walks on this planet (not speaking from a legal standpoint), to cast judgement on another. My life as a Christian is accountable to God and Scripture, by which I base my faith in Him. My faith and my citizenship; however, are two different aspects of my life. The folks that try to stand up for what is “right’ (in this case i’m referring to voting for McCain / Palin) are mistaken in believing they are the right choice for America. This is an advanced citizenship, young in relation to the rest of the world, but a foundation of corrupt leaders that too claimed to be “religious” Now when speaking of religious I mean to not confuse that with a relationship with God. In our current day and age it seems these are not one and the same as God intended. Some put on the face of religion and claim this and that which may be in line with some translation of scripture; however, they have no relationship with God on a personal level. As, I can’t judge that and nobody really knows we have to go on what they say, and their actions. In addition, the office of President is a public office of service to the entire population of the United States, a legal position. It is not a spiritual position or religious position in our lives. McCain / Palin, their campaign for example there was division in their own cabinet. Hidden agendas and altered motives. Yes they spoke of pro-life and anti abortion and that is their choice as is their choice to be Republican. However, when serving the people of a free country the basic rights of those people should be left to the people. should a woman choose to take matters into her own hands, well then she will be accountable for that on God’s terms, whether she is a believer or not. All will be exposed. The problem is trying to mix church and state (of course they should be separated). Does God want to force us to believe in Him and force us to align our lives with His will? NO. God wants us to come to Him as children. Respecting His Majesty, aspiring to imitate Christ, living our own lives in His will. Our government leaders have no place in deciding for each of us what is best in matters so critical to our own personal existence. The taking of a life is disgusting; but you may be forgetting all those that died for the sake of the “Church” when this country was founded. When this continent was discovered. What was God’s role in that Neil? Seriously, do we believe that man’s interpretation of God is infallible? Man in anything and you will have a problem. So, Obama as president is an economically & socially responsible choice for this country at this time in our existence. His personal thoughts on pro-life and abortion I feel would be more in line with scripture than whay you think; however, in the public office of Presidency he serves a greater population than that of his own household. Therefore, our responsibility is to elect the candidate that is going to properly balance the extremely trying and diverse times we are now facing. God’s plan is still at work. Christ is still coming back again. Neither Obama or McCain will have an impact on that, nor should either have an impact on the relationship we each have or don’t have with God. Obviously, this argument is age old. These are the end days. People forced into “righteousness” will be less likely to understand the reason as opposed to the free will to choose to believe and trust in God as Savior and Lord.
Hi xtype56, thanks for visiting. That seemed like a lot of judging for someone who says we’re not qualified to judge anyone.
Your notion about abortion being a “basic right” begs the question. It assumes there isn’t another human being in the equation. But science clearly shows that abortion kills an innocent human being, and that denies a basic right to the unborn.
But you are ignoring that abortion isn’t critical to our existence, but banning it is critical to the existence of unborn human beings.
So the state needs to do the opposite of what the church says? That would mean that murder should be legal for those inside the womb and outside, as well as stealing.
But wait — some churches disagree, so the state will typically agree with some of them. What now?!
How about if people gain a proper understanding of the 1st Amendment and realize that it protects religious freedoms and does not restrict them. Then perhaps they would stop drawing such illogical conclusions about it.
P.S. I agree that faith can’t be coerced, though I would note that I have never suggested it could or should be. I’m just saying that it is wrong for Christians or non-Christians to support the legal crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings.
I know this article is older, but I just found it and read it.
As a pro-life person, I actually have no problem with the word “fetus”. I just wish all the pro-choice people would learn what they were actually saying.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977482657&nav=Explore
(There are many articles beside this one. Just do a Google search or look it up in a dictionary.)
Hi American Texan,
That link had some great Q&A, so thanks for sharing it.
I don’t mind if they use “fetus,” either, provided they use it properly: Human fetus (as in a stage of human development, such as human embryo, human fetus, human toddler, etc.).
Another thing Obama is poised to do is to have gov’t funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Hey this is great….Obama, by executive order, plans on increasing abortion by funding it overseas:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081109/D94BM1O00.html
Also, Planned parenthoods president and abortion activist Cecile Richards shares her take on Obamas help to the abortion industry:
more funding for abortions
more funding for stem cell research
abortion for military women overseas
Forcing doctors to do prescribe what they consider morally objectionable
etc etc
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2008/11/7/7-things-obamas-win-could-mean-for-womens-health.html
I thought Obama wanted to help lower abortion rates???
How will Chuck Currie and all the other social gospelists justify this one?
Yep. The media did an effective job of hiding is pro-abortion views. That is part of the “change” he promised. More abortions, including around the world. More embryonic stem cell research, even though private financing has no interest in it and it has yet to provide any real hope. It is all about advancing the abortion agenda. It is very important to the pro-aborts that human embryos are not considered to be human beings (even though that is profoundly anti-science).