Barack Obama – more of the same
“This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.” Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at
Now if one is to give Barack the benefit of the doubt on his lack of knowledge regarding this crucial question, should he not give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt as to her humanity?
There are those who are attempting to divide the pro-life movement. These people point to the failures of the Republican administration and the Republican leadership in their efforts to end abortion. Frankly the Republicans have not done all they should have to stop the killing. And there have been those who have compromised on the issue. You will find my criticisms of their failures in my previous writings.
And the pro-life movement as a whole has failed to make inroads into the Democrat Party to challenge the headlock that the pro-abortion extremists have on the party and the party leadership. For too many years pro-life leadership has not been truly non-partisan in its efforts to influence political forces both in
But let’s get real.
Is the Democratic leadership that has been controlling the House and Senate for the last two years going to provide any legislation to protect unborn children?
Not Barack Obams.
This Senator from
This fellow regrets having voted to try to help Terri Schiavo.
I ask all the apologists for Barack Obama who claim to be pro-life how one can support a fellow who “regrets” having tried to help save a defenseless BORN woman’s life.
So the drum beat will go on how Obama is about “change.” But where will the change come for the unborn child? There will be no change for the unborn child if Obama is elected. He will want to increase the genocide against the unborn. This genocide will include poor children of the ghettos and barrios. This genocide will harm women and permanently scar their fragile lives. This genocide will not bring about a better world where everyone will have an equal chance at life.
The mainstream media does not care. The liberal elites do not care. But perhaps in the small towns, in the modern suburbs, in the inner cities, and elsewhere, there are people who do care. The people who “do most of the working and paying and living and dying” in this country, will stand up for their children and the women and offer them real opportunities to choose life. These people will vote for someone who knows what it is to suffer to defend what is right, honorable and true. These people will vote for someone who believes in “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “
The American people want to think that our best days are ahead. In their hearts they would choose life for their children. We must make the contrasts known for the “choice” this November is clear. The consequences of our actions will affect future generations throughout the world for years to come.
posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 8:17 PM
11 Comments:
While I completely respect your views on abortion, I cannot read your blog and buy into the fact that you or any other American should vote for a president based on this issue.
There are so many other problems to solve, so many other (bigger) causes to support. Nobody is making people get abortions.
Everyday we see people dying across the world for unjust reasons; grown, living people who have actually had an impact on this world. That is sad, and a travesty. And when I think that there are those who believe defending the right of an unborn fetus is more important than that, it makes me sad.
Just because there is potential for life does not mean it has to be carried out. It is the natural order of the world, and something we as a country unfortunately left behind long ago.
Cornerstone,
It is not that we should not be concerned about the other problems in the world. Indeed our respect for the sanctity of all human life should compel us to be involved in assisting those less fortunate. But how we address our concern for the most vulnerable reflects our true character. The purpose of all law is to provide order and to identify the need to respect basic human rights. We cannot enjoy any of these rights without the right to life.
consider what are the other problems you would like to solve. Imagine that people told you that these problems were not important because they devalued the people to be helped. You would be justified in being upset because the people needing the aid have value and are worth helping. Well so are the unborn children and their mothers.
If I suggested that most women do not really want abortions, but find themselves having abortions because of social and/ore economic considerations, would you agree that addressing those needs would be in the best interests of those women?
In like manner, i am suggesting that any candidate for president who does not care enough for the least of these does not really care about any of us, but acts with other motives - motives that will justify the taking of innocent human life when compatible with other desires. I cannot trust such a person. He does not cross my threshold of being qualified to ask for my vote.
I compare him to a person seeking the office of treasurer who has a history of embezzling money from the public trust.
Ultimately we must endeavor to elect people who respect the right to life of all people.
Me thinks you read too much into what you want to see, and not the facts, my dear Mr Jakubczyk.
When Obama says he is not "Pro Abortion", he is saying that he's "Anti Abortion". When he says he's "Pro Choice" after saying he's not "Pro Abortion" he's saying that a government's job/task is not to dictate rules that are questionable in moral origin, but rather that a government should endeavor to do its best to insure that the "Choices" offered are in such a manner that Abortion is the least likely choice.
If you really want to stop Abortion (and who doesn't?!?) you don't prohibit it. That created a black market with back-alley clinics, poor health care, and a life threatening environment for more than just the unborn. What you do is offer something so much better/easier/cleaner. You make sure Planned Parenthood is out there offering birth-control that does not require parents awareness. You provide a parent-free place to place young women who would get an abortion purely because their parent's are too tight to accept that their daughter is a woman. You address every single issue that would give a woman a reason to abort, and you offer a way out.
End result: Women only use abortion as a form of birthcontrol, and then you banish it. And that's precisely the goal of Obama. If you doubt that, at all, go look up his views on Abortion, it was one of the many reasons I choose him over a Republican or even Clinton.
sphynx,
With all due respect, applying your logic to the law would result in chaos. If the behavior in question is morally wrong, and it harms a human being, then logic would dictate that the law should prohibit the behavior and protect the human being.
If Obama was truly anti-abortion, then he would support all efforts to lessen the number of abortions happening in society. He would most definitely NOT bne applauding or appearing before Planned Parenthood and complementing them on their actions. After all they are the largest abortion provider in the world. He would not vote against laws that would provide more information to women about abortion, nor would he vote against laws that would make it a criminal offense to take a minor across state lines to procure an abortion. Finally he would not vote against a law that would protect a child born alive during an abortion. Oh and he would also not vote against the partial birth abortion law that passed the Congress.
But Obama has voted to block these pro-life bills. He speaks glowingly of Planned Parenthood. His record is that of an extreme pro-abortion advocate.
Most Americans oppose having abortion as a means of birth control. The studies show that increasing availability of birth control does not reduce abortions. Abortions become a back-up to birth control. Indeed Planned Parenthood sells it that way.
No, one must return to the initial concept of protecting the innocent.
Do we protect innocent human beings with laws?
Are unborn babies worth protecting?
Since when does killing a baby really solve the problem?
As a society we ought to offer women better options for an unplanned pregnancy than to simply suggest that they kill their baby.
If Obama really cared about women and children, he would offer a real
solution to end abortion other than empty rhetoric.
Except for Obama, a baby is a punishment not a blessing.
Nice dream. Not realistic.
Of course babies are worth protecting, abortion is wrong. Banning it with laws won't stop it. There's only 1 way to stop it, that's to provide alternatives that make abortion the least desirable action.
Throughout history, Prohibition has never worked against something that has been around and legal. Once society has accepted something, even a small portion of society, as ok to do, prohibition just can't work. You have to first purge from society the notion that it's ok to do. That takes offering better options and letting the idea die off.
Sphynx
I appreciate your recognition that babies are worth protecting. and I agree that while the law permits the killing, we must act to make abortion unthinkable by providing real help and real solutions. That is what the pro-life movement does every day (although one would never know it reading the mainstream press). Slavery and later segregation were part of this country for over 200 years and needed to be "purged from society."
It took passing laws to finally put an end to segregation. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Laws may not change the heart, but they will restrain the heartless."
Until 1973 states addressed this issue through their police power and the criminal laws. The U.S. Supreme Court interfered with this aspect of federalism and made it a national issue. Until 1973 in Arizona abortion was a felony crime. Abortionists who killed babies went to prison for their actions. Prior to 1973, the debate on the subject was happening in the legislative realm. However, when the abortionists saw that the pro-lifers were poised to stop their efforts, they abandoned the legislative process and went to the courts who which then decreed that abortion should be legal.
In history there have been countries who had legal abortion and then stopped it through law. The result: 99% drop in the number of abortions. So it can be done.
We need to do both. Change the law and change the heart.
So long as the ACT of abortion, and the dispute over to what extent it should be legally permitted, discouraged, or even prohibited, is what is at issue, the "pro-choice" side will always emerge politically victorious as it has for forty years in our free, religiously pluralistic society (one of the many obvious facts that the clueless national pro-life leadership, in particular, has never seemed to even recognize, much less effectively confront).
The sole reason that legal abortion-on-demand is NOT comparable to any issue of primarily personal behavior is the scientifically undeniable, fundamental human rights violation it represents to the lives of pre-birth children. (Would everyone please retire the misleading and self-defeating term "the unborn"?!) Thus is legal abortion-on-demand an issue on the same moral plane (particularly regarding its extreme violence) as legalized slavery, child abuse, ethnic or religious persecution, etc. And as with any public position, those who advocate for legality (such as this thread's two "pro-choice" debaters) must take responsibilty for its outcome (i.e. over 50 million babies legally exterminated in the US so far). It is absolutely NOT morally or logically comparable to alcohol consumption or to any other personal behavior that America or any other democracy has ever (successfully or not) attempted to legally prohibit.
At least "Sphinx"
(unlike "Cornerstone"'s attempt to trivialize this bedrock issue of a civilized society) is thoughtfully giving this issue the weight it deserves (an example of why I sincerely respect abortion advocates more than I do the vast indifferent "middle"), although unfortunately his/her statement that everyone is interested in minimizing abortion is absurd on its face, considering the multi-million dollar, publicly subsidized industry that keeps Planned Parenthood and the rest in bloody business.
John K. Walker
"Everyday we see people dying across the world for unjust reasons; grown, living people who have actually had an impact on this world. That is sad, and a travesty. And when I think that there are those who believe defending the right of an unborn fetus is more important than that, it makes me sad."
Who says it's being made _more_ important? If anything their lives are _as_ important as anyone else's lives, not less and _not more_ either!
"Just because there is potential for life does not mean it has to be carried out. "
It is actual life, not potential life. Unborn humans are actual lives, unconceived ones are not.
Mike3's comment is interesting, and like Sphinx's, does indicate due consideration for the gravity of the issue of legal abortion-on-demand. And if the pro-life movement were composed simply of people who somehow only cared about pre-birth babies, and not for our brothers and sisters around the world who do indeed live in appalling conditions of oppression and chronic poverty, he would have a valid criticism of the movement. (Though this point does not address the barbarity of the abortion act itself.) However, scientifically there is no point during gestation AFTER conception itself which turns "unborn humans" from "potential" lives to "actual" ones as he claims.
Furthermore, the "quality of life" myth that children somehow constitute a net burden on society (the elimination of which constitutes a war crime even if it were scientifically valid) has been thoroughly debunked by the fact that brutal population control, including forced abortion, such as has been practiced in China has in fact led to a demographic disaster, i.e. far too few young people to support retirees -- a phenomenon even occurring here. (Alarmist population kooks like Paul Ehrlich have been proven wrong every time.)
John K. Walker
NOTE: I apologize for not realizing that Mike3 was quoting someone else about pre-birth children being"potential" lives (and then properly contradicting this absurd claim), not expressing his own belief...
John K. Walker
what could be more important than a life of a human being. If that is not important what is? Apparently your value is too far down in the gutter to realize your worth. Those unborn babies are comebody's niece, nephews, daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, gand daughter and grandsons. How could you stand by and condone the genocide of the unborn and even pay for it. The totally innocent and totally defenseless unborn needs your support and protection. Why should the unborn be murdered just because it is inconvenient for the mother?
Post a Comment
<< Home