Nation Refocuses on President Obama’s Abortion Stance
Filed under Law & Politics, News on May 16th, 2009 by Bethany French
President Obama has so far largely avoided taking a public stand on his views regarding abortion, using the distraction created by the economic situation facing the U.S. as well as moderate rhetoric to avoid a direct confrontation from pro-life Americans. However, he has already passed many pro-abortion bills and reversed several of former President Bush’s pro-life regulations during his short time in office, and plans to continue. The focus on his stance on the abortion issue has been coming back into the public eye in the past few weeks due to two events, however: Notre Dame has engaged President Obama to give the commencement speech at their graduation this spring, and Supreme Court Judge David Souter is retiring, giving the President a chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (a lifetime appointment).
Many pro-life supporters are upset that Notre Dame (as arguably the most prominent Catholic University in the United States) has invited the President to speak, since most Catholics (including the Vatican) are passionately pro-life; this has refocused the attention of much of the nation on the issue of abortion, and the President’s actions. There are pro-life protests being organized at the University of Notre Dame that address not only abortion as an issue and Obama’s pushing pro-choice legislation, but also their disappointment with Notre Dame for hosting an aggressively pro-choice speaker at commencement. Advisors to the President suggest that he address the issue directly in part of the speech he will make at commencement, due to the recent outcry. However, even if President Obama does approach the issue, it is likely that all we will see is more of his “Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” as Kansas senator Sam Brownback puts it, rather than an accurate portrayal of the views that have governed his actions as president thus far.
Obama’s goals to date seem to have been to keep the focus on the economy and other interests as he has pushed for pro-choice legislation quickly but quietly, while verbally painting himself as taking a moderate stand on the issue. His actions continue to indicate his true far-left views on abortion issues, as the New York Times points out (emphasis mine):
Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.
He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”
Clearly, Ms. Richards has no illusions about where Obama’s loyalty truly lies.
Tags: abortion, commencement speech, Notre Dame, Obama, protests
Possibly Related Posts:
Is abortion even in the Bible? I don’t think so.
When did this become a religious issue? Not killing someone is obviously a moral value for everyone. The real question being asked is when does a being begin, which does not have a clear answer in Christianity. The idea that it’s un-Christian to be pro-abortion is a myth that church leaders and many politicians have woven.
Yes it’s not Christian to murder. However, deciding if an embryo is human yet has nothing to do with Christianity. God saying “I knew you before you were born” can be taken as literal as anything else sentimental a loved one might say. It doesn’t mean that God was having a conversation with Jeremiah’s embryo. It could easily mean God knew Jeremiah as a pre-existing soul or just knew his purpose and life ahead of him.
Let abortion not be threaded with religion, please.
–Dan
What do you base your belief on Dan?
Marc
(heknocks.com)
My belief on what, Marc? I’ve read the bible and there’s nothing in it on abortion. In fact, the only relevant scripture is in Exodus 21:22, where if a man accidentally strikes a woman and causes a misscarriage, he has to pay a fine. If he accidentally killed a person, he’d have to flee the city since it would be legal for the relatives to kill him for revenge. That is some pretty big evidence that an unborn embryo is not considered a human life.
I recognize that some translations report that part as “give birth prematurely” instead of miscarriage. If that is the case, there still is no biblical basis for an unborn embryo (clump of cells) being considered a human life.
Dan
I mean are you a Christian? Or do you believe something else?
But you’re right. Obviously the word abortion doesn’t crop up at all in the Bible. Neither does “Trinity” for example, but as Christians we certainly wouldn’t dispute the existence and biblical foundation of this doctrine - and yes, I do realise some Christians would.
The Bible, as the inerrant word of God, has certain limitations - namely, language. Lots of words we use today didn’t exist fairly recently in our short history. For example, did you know the word ‘Youth’ didn’t exist in German during Goethe’s childhood? Weird huh?
The evolution of language means that we have concepts defined for us by a common understanding of a set of principals or an object or a subjective feeling. Here, “Abortion” is the object and we now understand it to mean ‘the termination of an unborn foetus somewhere between conception and birth.’ But in the text of the Bible, this word did not exist.
There are however, biblical references and principles which, do not directly deal with abortion in the most explicit sense, but permit us to put them together in humility using our logic and spiritual wisdom, in order to form a biblical basis for our belief. We do this by asking ourselves questions. For example,
Are there any explicit uses of Abortion orreferences to the death of a foetus in the Bible? What about Amos 1:13, Hosea 13:16,2 Kings 8:12, 2 Kings 15:16?
Are there any references to a foetus as being alive in the womb? What do you think upon a foetus leaping for joy in Luke 1:44?
These are just two examples of questions we might ask ourselves if we were looking to build a biblical doctrine on the matter.
Hope this helps,
Marc
(heknocks.com)
Note*/ My spelling looks bad, but Foetus is the British spelling of Fetus.
Hey Marc,
Thanks for your detailed response. I have looked up all your stated scriptures. I think we can let go of the Hosea, Amos, 2 Kings passages where it talks of “pregnant women ripped open.” It’s a rather brutal image where the woman is no doubt savaged, and probably killed, and her uterus completely destroyed so she can NEVER have children if she was to survive that attack. Additionally, just the profound meaning of it is meant to disturb, just as urinating on someone’s carcass is unsettling even though the person is long gone. Using those passages against abortion are like using anti-rape or anti-incest passages as evidence against premarital sex. It just doesn’t follow when you have multiple wrongs already in the sentence.
As for the Luke passage, Elizabeth is already past her 6th month of pregnancy, where of course she’s feeling a few kicks in her womb, especially when she’s happy. You want to say a third trimester baby is a human being? I’m inclined to agree. You want to take a 6 month developed fetus and say it’s the same as a clump of cells the first month of pregnancy? I would not follow that any more than i would say a sperm or an unfertilized egg is a human. They’re both technically alive, but don’t have rights at this point.
As for my spiritual beliefs, I’m probably more in the New Age/Buddhist category, while not holding to a certain dogma. I have been Christian in the past, and have made peace with my differences with it. I have friends who have benefited greatly from it. My friend who was an alcoholic is now drinking in moderation and healthy. I have a friend who accepted Christ and then recovered from a terminal disease. I’ve heard plenty stories of criminals who find Christ and become honest. I believe there’s a lot of power in Christian belief, as there is in other faiths.
However, I am firmly against legislating based on a specific religion’s beliefs when they cannot be properly supported in a secular argument. We live in a country where everyone is allowed to have their own fairy tale, both you and I. We believe on our own conviction and experience, but none of us have absolute proof, even if we do have our own certainty. When either of us takes our fairy tale and decide to legislate it, then it becomes an abuse, that must be dealt with. Legislating against homosexual marriage because Paul and Moses said so, is a problem. Forbidding abortion because it’s the general church consensus is a problem. Trying to teach Intelligent Design in public schools, based on no clinical scientific research, solely based upon your religious beliefs, is a problem.
While evangelists have tried to find secular reasons against homosexual marriage and abortion, most of time, their intentions are clearly stated that it goes against their God’s will.
I hope this resonates with you somewhere.
–Dan
Interesting argument.
Marc
That’s it?
Was hoping for more. :-)
–Dan
I’m sure someone will see your post sooner or later and oblige you.
Marc
Dan, surely people can legislate their religous beliefs if the people that voted for them hold those beliefs. Surely that’s the point of the American representitve democracy. If the people being represented have mainly religous beliefs they will be refelcted in the laws made. If the people have mainly aetheistic views they will be refelcted in that way.
That’s a good point. ‘For the people, by the people.’
“..there still is no biblical basis for an unborn embryo (clump of cells) being considered a human life.”–Dan
The Bible clearly indicates a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. When a women is pregnant, both in the early stages and the later stages of her pregnancy, the Bible never says the women is,” with clump of cells” or as some pro-abortionist call an unborn child; parasite. Instead, Scripture says:
“…You are now with child…” (Genesis 16:11).
God’s Word calls us to protect the defenseless and this includes children:
“Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3-4).
“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?” (Proverbs 24:11-12).
Niucole says: “The Bible clearly indicates a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. When a women is pregnant, both in the early stages and the later stages of her pregnancy.”
Clearly? Where does it say that? If you’re referring to “You are now with child,” that is the colloquial equivelant to “You’re pregnant” It’s something that you cannot assume to be literal equivelant of a full grown adult.
Obviously rescuing those who are defenseless is important, but it’s a moot point if the clump of cells (which is what new pregnancies literally are), are not human beings yet.
Paul said “Dan, surely people can legislate their religous beliefs if the people that voted for them hold those beliefs. Surely that’s the point of the American representitve democracy. If the people being represented have mainly religous beliefs they will be refelcted in the laws made. If the people have mainly aetheistic views they will be refelcted in that way.”
Paul, this is why we have separation of the powers in the consitution, so this doesn’t happen. Even if the majority of the US was beleiving Christian, there are laws to protect minorities. There was a time where Jews were not very popular in certain states, but there still were laws to make sure they got equal treatment, even if it was the majority’s rule.
To give you a future thought to consider, Europe is progressively growing more and more Muslim in population. There is an explosion of growth in the Muslim communities, and eventually you can expect they will want to vote for the taking away of women’s rights, and possibly taking away the religious rights of Christians like they do in Arab countries. Does this picture sound like a fair “majority rules?” Or are there some standard rights that all nations should have regardless of religious faith, that people can have freedom to not have to follow the majority’s religious guidlines.
Think about it.
–Dan
Dan
Are you saying that women who want abortions are minorities that need to be protected?? Also you fail to see that the seperation in powers has failed to protect minorites throughout the history of the US. African Americans and Native Americans are huge examples of this. Also what has people having equal treatment have to do with abortion? My exapmple is this, if you have to candidates for office one believes women should have the right to choose and the other is pro life and the candidate who is pro life gets in partly on that platform with many other candidates that believe the same way having been voted for by people who want the government to take that stance, surely the government must go that way as it is what the people and what and is reflected by the representitives they chose. This is the way representation works, or at least should.
As far as Europe goes I think you’re grosly exagerrating the situation, the UK which has one of the largest muslim populations is only 2.4 million in a nation of over 60 million people. Also EU cuntries are increasingly coming under a common law that means essentially they should be protected on things such as women’s rights ect., Whether the EU is a good thing or not is another debate, but I think you’ve been listening to a lot of right wing propaganda in regards to muslims taking over europe. I’d be interested to hear what marc thinks about the subjec as he’s lived all over europe
Paul
Dan, I didn’t realise that women wanting abortions were a minority that needed to be protected by the government?? As separation of powers protecting minorities, what about arican americans and native americans throughout history? Anyway my point is this if two candidates stand with opposing viewpoints, one that reflects a religious belief and another that doesn’t, and the people vote for the one with the religious belief on the premise it best reflects and represents them it would be strange for that person not push for legislation that reflects the people he represents. He wouldn’t be a representitve then.
Also in regards to europe I think that you’ve listened to a lot of highly exaggerated propaganda. The uk has the one of the largest muslim populations and that is only 2.4 million out of over 60million people. Hardly a big take over. When it comes to protecting people’s rights the power increasingly has gone to the EU and they are hardly much of a democratic institution. I can’t see the eu suddenly doing away with women’s rights to appease the muslims. I’d like to hear what marc says on that cause he’s lived all over europe.
paul
Hey Paul,
You’ve read my response carefully, and I appreciate that.
I’m not saying that women who want abortions are minorities to be protected. I’m saying if there’s a minority of people that don’t share the general public’s religion, they shouldn’t be forced to live by their religious principles.
At a practical level, this means that if the reason the public is against abortion is Christianity alone, then non-Christians should not be prevented from having abortions. If the reason the public is against abortion works as a secular morality viewpoint as well, then women shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions. Simple as that.
As an analogy, it is illegal to steal from your neighbor in Israel. This is forbidden both in Judaism, and on a secular morality level. That’s why it’s illegal. Working on Saturday, however, is only immoral from a Judaism standpoint, not secular morality, so Israel doesnt’ outlaw businesses running on Saturday. They may not run their federal buses on that day, but if someone isn’t Jewish and wants to gather firewood, they won’t punish them.
What this boils down to, is that even if most of the United States were fundamentalist Christians, the separation of powers would, or at least should prevent abortion from being outlawed if the motivation to outlaw it is fundamentally Christian based.
So to clarify, I have NO problem with the secular pro-life movement and pro-life politicians who think an embryo at conception is a human life, and would think so even Christianity was proven wrong. Let’s hear his case for it. If he’s right, so be it, and outlaw it. I put true human life over a woman’s convenience any day.
Same with Creationism. If there are scientists, meaning people with doctorates in science, not philosophy, who can make a case for spontaneous generation of plants, then animals, then human beings, in a cascading fashion, and publish scholarly (not popular) articles in the major journals on the subject, then by all means, let it be taught in public schools as a theory instead of a religious based hypothesis.
However, until there is clear evidence that the pro-life movement is not religious based and that Creationism has scientific evidence backing it (poking holes in evolution theory does not count), then abortion should be legal, and Creationism banned from public schools.
Does that make sense? I’m all for discussion on the issues as long as they make sense in a secular world. That’s what separation of powers is supposed to accomplish.
–Dan
P.S.– Here’s the link where I heard about the Muslim growth exploding. It was just for an example, so it doesn’t need to be refuted. My point was simply that separation of powers make a lot of sense once YOUR religion isn’t the one in power. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDftD70E_Wk
Dan,
I like your style of writing. It’s fairly unemotional which is a good thing on this website. Nice work. I would like to comment on two things: firstly, the vertical flow of legislation and secondly, the situation in Europe.
Unfortunately, if the one nation was to follow the rule that if group is marginalised for not believing in Religion X and therefore shouldn’t be subjected to the same rules, the government would open up a can of state-eating worms. It would allow legislation on a state level to sub-divide and sub-divide as long as anyone had a differing opinion. Fortunately, for those who do feel marginalised, most states exercise a “vertical-axis” of legislation - Supranational/Intergovernmental institutions (e.g the EU) make broad rules, National Central governments (10 Downing Street) have a certain mandate to make laws, they pass some power down to Sub-national government (like the Welsh Assembly/Senedd) and they in turn pass it down to councils.
I assume that you have realised that a democracy works on this system. A representative democracy (although some people will debate this term I am sure), allows for minorities to be represented too and hopefully in equal proportions with other groups.
If someone doesn’t like the rule, they can do something to change it (exercise their democratic right to protest) or they can leave the state. This seems like a good system to me. People are not oppressed by laws - because they chose the decision-maker in the first place. The government is given social contract to legislate.
Secondly, as I said, I would like to comment on the situation in Europe. In fact, Paul was right about Britain - relatively we have a tiny islamic population and lots of those muslims are ‘Anglicized’ (Muslim by heritage and not practicing). Countries like France and Germany are completely different. France for example, has a strong colonial history and the colonies were largely muslim. Particularly the pied-noir settlers (from the Maghreb) who have settled in France. In Paris, the proportion of muslim people to other believe, must be astronomical I think. Germany has less of a muslim population but all the same, after the second world war, they invited lots and lots of people from Turkey to do menial jobs - this means that today Germany has a lot of muslim families. In fact, they passed a law in 2001 saying that efforts must be made by all settlers to integrate in society - failing to do so could result in expulsion.
With regards to the EU, and this is my degree so you know that I’m not just saying what I heard from a website (that happens a lot here!) - the main problem with the EU is that it is having somewhat of an identity crisis. It doesn’t really know what it is - is it a supranational organisation able to make laws that govern all 27 member states? Is it an intergovernmental organisation which serves as a forum for joint policy making by the EU-27? What will happen if Turkey (with a massive muslim population) joins the EU - this looks unlikely to happen by the way.
Because of the incredible identity crisis, it is difficult for any law to be passed. Especially one cover-all law for such a diverse set of cultures. Imagine the difference between Scotland and Italy, Romania and England. Incredible.
Standing along side of the identity crisis, is the Human Rights charter, which basically guarantees basic human rights. At the base of these rights is the right of the individual and effectively, the minority is protected. I see the problems you might have with this - but don’t worry - the most complicated political system in the world (that is getting ever more difficult to manoeuver) has their backs. ;)
Marc
Hi Marc,
Thank you for the compliment. While I am a non-believer in Christianity, I do follow Jesus’ teachings to a great extent, which includes loving my neighbor, loving my enemies, and not judging people who I disagree with, even if they are not being cordial themselves. Plus, I learned a while back that you can never win an argument with a knock-out, only a handshake. There are a LOT of spiritual/new age/Buddhist people who think like I do, but they tend to stay away from public forums of this nature, as they just are in acceptance of the moment and see no need to debate.
As for the “can of worms” that my thought opens up, I’d like you to reevaluate it. What I propose is simply that religious laws not be enforced to the public. This does not mean people can ignore laws if it violates their religious principles, but that the laws themselves can’t be religious in nature. Are pro-life laws religious in nature? Then they shouldn’t be added to the books, even if there is a majority. Is anti-gay marriage religious in nature? Then it shouldn’t be banned.
As for people having religious problems with other laws, that can be taken on a case by case basis. Should prisons provide non-pork options? I think so, since that’s a minimum amount of difficulty. Should Muslim women be permitted to have their faces covered for driver’s license photos? Since that makes identification to law enforcement impossible, that’s a definite no. You always draw the line somewhere.
I’d like to point out, that what I’m advocating is a completely secular policy, not an atheist one. Atheist governments forbid religion expression. Religious governments forbid their specific religion’s disobedience. Secular governments simply take the view that every religion is to be considered a respected opinion that no one can prove, so we’ll do what’s best for society here on earth, instead of what’s up above.
Make sense?
–Dan
Dan~
Were you not once a clump of cells? So what is the difference between when you were and now? From the time of conception nothing else is added to that fertilized egg that all of a sudden makes it human or alive.
So I ask again; what is the difference between the clump of cells you started out as and what you have become?
Tina
Tina,
Happy to see a woman on this forum.
Yes I was a clump of cells at one point. Things are added to the embryo every day until it reaches a fetus, and more so until it is a fully forumed baby. There are hormones added, organs formed, eyes, brain, and especially consciousness. Can I prove that a tiny clump of cells is not conscious? No, but if it lacks an entire nervous system, chances are it does not have an awareness.
Let me give you an analogy to show what I mean. When you buy a box of eggs and put it in your fridge, do you think you have a dozen chickens sitting in there? When you make a 4 egg omelet, do you think you’re eating four chickens? This isn’t really an argument, so much as an illustration to show that in daily life, we do make a distinguishing between a fertilized egg and a full animal or human.
–Dan
Someone please state when “life” or “the soul” enters into the fetus, at whatever stage of cell groupings. Also, give any scientific evidence that shows when the soul enters into the fetus. To me the issue is when life begins and no one has scientific evidence, that I know of.
If there’s no concrete evidence to either side; life at conception vs. life at first breath, then why default with at first breath. That leaves a very good possibility that, if life begins at conception, then, indeed, abortion is murder.
This approach leaves the Bible out of the picture. Now, tell me, where’s the evidence? Is it only the musings of people with a piece of paper that says they’re intelligent? Who is the authority of when life begins? If a group of cells can evolve into humans evolving into gods, then if one aborts masses of cells….? You’re killing some very intelligent glops of cells. That doesn’t sound to darwin smart.
Hey John,
As for when life enters… well, technically a father’s sperm and a mother’s egg are alive before they even meet each other. Your blood is alive, as well as your skin. So “life” isn’t a good term for it.
The soul? Well, from a scientific point of view, as well as religious or biblical, no one can say when it begins.
Consciousness? I think science can give a pretty good timeline when there are enough brain cells in an embryo to make thought or awareness possible. Of course, this is just conjecture.
If you’re going by the better safe than sorry argument, I don’t really have an answer to it.
What I can say is, that I dont’ consider an egg as a full chicken, do you?
I’d say that a fertilized egg isn’t much different from an egg and sperm separated already; that it takes time to develop into a person.
Also, please keep in mind, I don’t think barely anyone subscribes to “first breath” argument. Most pro-choice people are against last minute abortions, to my knowledge, and they are even illegal unless the mother’s life is threatened.
Better safe than sorry, though? I have no answer to that. Just that it’s a philosophical issue, and not a religious one, since the Bible is silent on the matter.
–Dan
It seems to me there’s an equal comparison of human life to chicken life; no special differentiation between Human creation and any other animal on earth. I don’t find this surprising, as there are those that believe God created Human Beings “in His Image.” This would make offspring of the Human species very special; one to be highly regarded and protected. It makes perfect sense, given Satan’s hatred toward God, killing the seed of mankind , thus eliminating another soul from the whole life experience - to come to believe and love the Father. Of course, for this to make any sense, one must believe in, trust in, rely on and adhere to the teachings of Jesus.
I know I give some of you a lot to mock & scoff at, but I simply must let you all know that we have a Creator, He is our God, He has an enemy including most humans and abortion is the #1 killer of unborn babies. Listen, even Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) has changed her tune regarding abortion. She’s finally realized it’s murder. Women, without any religious or otherwise restrictive convictions, who have had abortions, experience severe emotional/mental problems long after the incident. There’s irrefutable medical/psychological evidence of problems that exist from doing an “innocuous” medical procedure, like a simple abortion. Could it be there’s more involved than doing a simple excavation of a mass of cells? Could there be a “Spiritual” element involved? I know these questions have been asked over & over again; and, they will continued to be asked. Psycho’s will continue to go to far to the right and kill abortion Doctor’s.
Politicians will continue to manipulate the weakened masses by promising to keep abortion legal. Listen, to them, it’s a wild card. they don’t give a rat’s tail about the abortion issue. They simply use it to gain their own victories.
The whole Abortion issue is self-explanatory, … it’s an abortion.
John,
Obviously I don’t think chicken life is equal to human life. However, I’m illustrating that society in general views eggs as not the same thing as chickens. This is just an illustration, not an argument.
If you think most humans are God’s enemy then… well I don’t know what to tell you. It says a lot if a deity dislikes the vast majority of his creation. If that’s true, he has only himself to blame. He made us, flaws and all.
I agree that abortions can be very traumatic for women. I have a friend who had one and says she feels grief about it every day. However, this does not tell you anything about the embryo’s soul or lack thereof. It only describes the future mother’s behavior. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense that mothers would feel traumatized from losing their unborn. The women who take care of their pregnancy with utmost vigilance were the ones most likely to “be fruitful and multiply.”
However, even without taking evolution into account, a woman’s grief is human psychology, nothing else. Women often feel guilty for being raped as well, but it doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.
I also agree that abortion is unhealthy for a woman’s body. No argument there. If you’ll pardon a little absurdity on my part, I’ll also point out that giving birth isn’t very healthy for a woman either. With a large mortality rate for new mothers in third world countries, you could say that abortion is actually safer statistically. (Obviously I’m not advocating teaching abortion in Africa.)
As for the political stuff, I’ll tell you, there are people who use abortion as a political issue on BOTH sides. Dick Cheney, now that he’s out of office, is pro-gay marriage. What does that tell you? He had all this time to say how he felt, even with a gay daughter, but he feigned being anti-gay to be a good Republican.
Republicans know they can get Christians to vote for them by hyping on the abortion issue. Democrats know they can get liberal women to vote for them by hyping on the abortion issue as well. That’s politics, nothing new.
–Dan
-Dan,
I meant to say that Most humans on this earth are opposed to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; that is to say, the God as portrayed and illuminated in the Bible. If that were not so, then we would not be having this discussion.
I believe saving a human life is of the utmost importance. We are a “living soul,” which occurs in the womb. The excuse, “abortion is not in the Bible,” doesn’t fly for this reason: many things humanists believe in are in direct opposition to the Bible and that doesn’t mean they obey God’s Word. However, the fact that a “living soul” exists in the womb, is in the Bible in many places, however balked.
Why is it so important to abort (murder) a fetus (human being) because of its inconvenience. Most mothers, after the abortion, go through severe emotional problems, sometimes for life. I don’t blame the mothers. Very few, after having one abortion, will ever have another. These women are but patsies in a big game in the spiritual realm. The Spirit of life and the Spirit of murder. Eternity will bare this and many other godless issues out. I hope it is worth promoting abortion and basically standing in denial of Biblical principles and the reality of the God of the Bible, because it is a big gamble. It’s a bet that only eternity will tell. It will be too late to change one’s mind. If Christians are wrong, no problem, we get to go where everyone else goes. if Christians are right, the God of the Bible is true and all His commands are true, then there’s a place for all God haters…. I hope this life was sufficient for an eternity of …….. So bock, scoff, mock… I just get sad because I would that all enjoy what I was once without, the Presence of God (of the Bible) in my life. Oh well…
Since this is a never ending argument, I going on to different articles and leaving this one alone. God Bless you