Rejecting Abortion Using Obama's Argument

On Friday, January 23, Barack Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy -- this means that Americans are now paying for abortions all over the world. Not only this, but Obama's adminstration promises to sign into law the FOCA (The Freedom of Choice Act), an act that would practically remove all state-level restrictions on abortion.

Our president stated in his Call to Renewal address, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

It seems, then, that our president ought to ban abortion if a valid argument, apart from religion, can be made as to why it is an immoral act. While many would say this cannot be done, it is actually very easy to make such an argument.

In fact, it is not only possible to make an argument, but to make the argument very well, and quite strong. "In his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, Randy Alcorn notes a number of completely secular arguments for why abortion should be prohibited by law [one of them being that m]edical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians' testimonies to Congress have asserted this scientific fact.

One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?

"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy -- to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"

What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive -- even if it's me? Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical -- it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime."

President Obama, the case has been efficiently and sufficiently made by many people. Please, look at the facts, and repeal and prohibit those laws advancing the termination of the life within the womb.

quote from Creech. source.

Freedom of Choice

Freedom of Choice a Tough Act to Follow

A year ago today [July 17], Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stood before Planned Parenthood (PP) and vowed that his first priority as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, FOCA would "codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman's right to choose in all 50 states." On April 7, 2007, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Act in Congress, they knew that it was far more than a government "guarantee" of abortion. If enacted, FOCA would obliterate hundreds of state laws that protect women, parents, children, and health care workers, while forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for millions of abortions. It would overturn commonsense laws like parental notification, conscience protections, abortion waiting periods, informed consent, and regulations for women's health. In essence, FOCA would tilt the table for abortion. Obama's support of FOCA hits particularly close to home among African-Americans, whose women and children have been preyed upon for decades by the eugenically minded PP. This connection has been pointed out again to the NAACP, who held their 99th annual conference with a sizeable pro-life presence. Together with Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., black leaders from across the country demonstrated at the convention where both presidential candidates spoke. The pro-life coalition is part of the growing movement of African-Americans who understand the "biggest struggle for civil rights today is for the rights of the unborn." While the NAACP national leadership and Sen. Obama stubbornly champion the abortion industry, groups like PP are profiting from the disproportionate number of black pregnancies that end inside their walls. Given the devastating effect of abortion on one in every two black pregnancies, shouldn't the NAACP be leading the charge against it?

Order Your Copy Now
The Top Ten Myths About Abortion

Additional Resources
William McGurn: The NAACP and Black Abortions

from FRC's Action Update, July 17, 2008

Obama and Botched Abortions

Obama denies protection for infants of botched abortions

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/7/2008 6:00:00 AM

A pro-life activist in Illinois says Barack Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator.

The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law in 2002 after receiving unanimous support from the U.S. Senate. The measure that forces hospitals to give medical care to abortion survivors -- if warranted -- even received the backing of liberal senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts ), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York).

Obama now says he did not support the Illinois measure because it "lacked the Federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade."

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily.com titled "Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide." She points out Obama actively opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act for three years in the Illinois senate.

"He voted against it. He was the sole senator speaking against it on the [Illinois] senate floor [for] two years. And the third year, he held the bill from being considered altogether in committee and killed the bill," Stanek contends.

She says Obama's explanation for opposing the Illinois bill does not pass the straight-face test because, as a committee chairman, he blocked the measure's sponsor from adding the federal language protecting Roe vs. Wade. That federal provision says the bill does not deny or add rights to the species Homo sapiens before birth.

Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after holding a live aborted baby at a Chicago-area hospital where she worked as a registered nurse.

"Barack Obama is now saying that, had that provision been in the Illinois bill he would have voted for it, which is absolutely false – because in 2003, the senate sponsor tried to add that provision and Barack Obama, as the chairman of the committee where the bill was being held, disallowed him from adding that provision, disallowed me from testifying, disallowed the committee from even voting on it. So, it sat in committee for 22 months," Stanek explains.

She reveals it was not until Obama left the Illinois Senate that the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in August of 2005.