In the 35 years since Roe vs. Wade, pro-lifers have spent billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man-hours, trying to overcome the Supreme Court ruling. However, since 586,760 abortions were reported in the United States in the year prior to Roe vs. Wade, clearly overturning Roe will not create realistic reductions. Additionally, in today's visual media-centric country, do you really believe Americans will accept seeing doctors and mothers sent to jail, and women forced to have babies against their will? Using legal means to force women to have babies is not a valid method of reducing abortions in 21st Century America.
John McCain has stated that he plans to continue the failed path of trying to use Supreme Court justice stacking, and, ultimately, the police force to reduce abortions. His belief in the value of human life is also suspect based on his continued support of the Iraq war, where it is estimated that over 1 million Iraqis have been killed. When asked about American exports of cigarettes to Iran, he replied, "Maybe that's how we can kill them." He then said he was joking, but joking about the deaths of an entire nation of people is not acceptable. Pro life is a base moral value, not just for the lives of babies, but all humans of any age and nationality.
Senator Obama is pro-choice, but understands the life issue is truly to reduce the number of abortions. Period. Senator Obama's plan is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, as well as to promote programs that help women keep their babies through health care, adoption programs, and education. Here is a quote from barackobama.com:
Senator Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
Therefore, the TRUE life candidate, the candidate who will work to reduce the number of abortions instead of just paying lip service to “moral issues,” is Senator Barack Obama.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
UPDATE: Some people believe Obama's vote against the "partial birth abortion ban bill" was a sign that he is for abortions up until the day of birth. In reality, this bill did NOT have any exception for the life of the mother. In other words, if a pregnant woman came into an emergency room after a car accident, and it came down to whether the mother or the baby survived, this bill REQUIRED that the doctors kill the mother to save the baby, even if the mother had an 80% chance of survival and the baby had a 5% chance of survival. That is unacceptable, and a ridiculous restriction on doctors' triage options. It was not designed to pass, it was designed to force a NO vote from the Democrats so the Republicans could use it during campaigns. This is an example of my main point, that Republicans USE the abortion issue as a political wedge, and do nothing to reduce the number of abortions.
Posts
3 comments:
Chuck: Being "pro-choice" and saying you want to reduce the number of abortions is like saying you are willing to make bank robbery legal to reduce the number of bank robberies. Also, the main argument LIBERALS pose to their views on gun control and gun laws is to reduce violence and crime. If making something you want less of illegal is the way to go, why not legalize everything? By the way, it was not CONGRESS that legalized abortion, it was a judicial activist Supreme Court. -Brian Lathe
Chuck - thanks for taking a reasoned perspective on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. And thanks also for standing up for the position Senator Barack Obama has taken; I am astounded by the vitriol that is tossed his way - and then I read your first commenter!
I believe that all human life is sacred. I also believe that unless and until that life makes it out of the womb, the state has no interest in it. When we talk about the "power of the state" at heart, we are discussing just when and where we want to band together to use force to get people to conform to our collective will. Now, that is an easy thing to see in bank robberies and murder, but it gets awfully dicey when it comes to the state forcing one of its citizens to bring forth another; that act implies all sorts of responsibilities for care on the part of the state, that I am not sure we are ready for or that I would endorse even if we were ready. People do not pop out of the womb fully developed. We take decades to be molded into a responsible adult and it is no easy task for the most dedicated of parents. If a parent - if a mother - says that she is not willing to undertake that responsibility, then I say thanks for finally standing up!
That is just a practical analysis and some may find that cold, but I think the alternative is even colder. Were we to state - as a matter of law - that life begins at conception, then every miscarriage will need to be analyzed to determine the cause of death for that life. We would be talking corner's inquests and police investigations - for every miscarriage. Compounds that induce miscarriage would need to be outlawed or regulated; additional enforcement actions pursued against providers of those compounds. Additionally, how would we even know who was pregnant? Would all pregnancy tests need to report their status to the government, so that would be aware of this new life? Would a SSN be issued and post-dated back to the conception date? Could parents then be allowed to insure their children while still in utero - spurring the arise of new forms of insurance fraud?
"Life begins at conception". A simple thing to say, a difficult thing to support and one that may give rise to more evil than it actually prevents.
Brian,
Drugs are illegal. Are they gone or do people still use them? You know the answer. There were over 500,000 LEGAL abortions the year before Roe v Wade. Roe did very little other than to allow the Republican Party to control its base with an issue that is ridiculous.
While you fight for "pro-life," babies are dying. Your answer, to overturn Roe, will save zero babies. Obama's methods WILL save babies. What are you about - saving babies, or politics? Will you continue to allow babies to die so you can continue to get Republicans in office? If it's about saving babies lives, you'd vote Obama.
Wasn't it a "judicial activist Supreme Court" that put Bush into office in 2000? Were you upset then? Why do Republicans want to disable the third EQUAL branch of the federal government? Why are Republicans fighting so hard to have the executive branch be a dictatorship?
Post a Comment