Abortion: In this Election, One Candidate is Not Viable
In an election cycle that is dominated by Bush bashing, anti-Iraq fervor, and over-hyping of the current financial crisis, some think that some of the other social issues are irrelevant. Yet, for those like me who are not huge Sen. John McCain fans, I find that I cannot, in good conscious, vote for Sen. Barack Obama, a candidate whose abortion views are so extreme as to make his views completely unacceptable.
Let me make this clear: I am not a one-issue voter. If I thought that Sen. McCain's economics would send the United States into financial free fall, while Sen. Obama's views were the only things that could save the economy, then I might be forced to vote for Sen. Obama even if he were pro-choice/pro-abortion. But even in these troubling financial times, abortion remains an important factor in determining which candidate will receive my vote.
However, even if I believed it would be economically disastrous to elect Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama's extreme views on abortion make him a non-viable candidate for the highest executive office of the United States.
Why do I believe this? Well, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, and former member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, has recently published an article on Sen. Obama's abortion views based upon a thorough examination of Sen. Obama's voting record. His conclusion, as found in Obama's Abortion Extremism, reads:
Going step by step through his record, he points out that Sen. Obama has
(1) supported "legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest";
(2) promised to immediately sign the "'Freedom of Choice Act' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed 'fundamental right' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, 'a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons'";
(3) "opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice";
(4) failed to endorse the "Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies";
(5) "as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability".
And the article goes on and on and on giving more gruesome details of Sen. Obama's abysmal record of abortion rights extremism. I don't use the word "extremism" lightly here. There is no question that Sen. Obama is way, way outside of the mainstream of American society on this issue. He is far, far to the left of his own party.
After reading this article, I have no doubt that Sen. Obama would do everything within his power to promote the pro-abortion/pro-choice agenda while in office. I have no question he would work to unwind the many gains by the pro-life community that a broad spectrum of Americans have wisely put in place to limit this heinous procedure. In accordance with his general views of government, Sen. Obama will nationalize the issue through FOCA making many state laws that differ from the extreme views in this legislation void.
For those reasons, Sen. Obama has made himself someone for whom I cannot vote. I encourage all thinking pro-life people in this country to read Professor George's article before entering the voting booth because it spells out clearly and convincingly why Sen. Obama would be catastrophic to the pro-life cause for years to come if he is elected president.
HT: Stand to Reason Blog (Melinda Penner)
Let me make this clear: I am not a one-issue voter. If I thought that Sen. McCain's economics would send the United States into financial free fall, while Sen. Obama's views were the only things that could save the economy, then I might be forced to vote for Sen. Obama even if he were pro-choice/pro-abortion. But even in these troubling financial times, abortion remains an important factor in determining which candidate will receive my vote.
However, even if I believed it would be economically disastrous to elect Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama's extreme views on abortion make him a non-viable candidate for the highest executive office of the United States.
Why do I believe this? Well, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, and former member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, has recently published an article on Sen. Obama's abortion views based upon a thorough examination of Sen. Obama's voting record. His conclusion, as found in Obama's Abortion Extremism, reads:
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Going step by step through his record, he points out that Sen. Obama has
(1) supported "legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest";
(2) promised to immediately sign the "'Freedom of Choice Act' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed 'fundamental right' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, 'a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons'";
(3) "opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice";
(4) failed to endorse the "Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies";
(5) "as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability".
And the article goes on and on and on giving more gruesome details of Sen. Obama's abysmal record of abortion rights extremism. I don't use the word "extremism" lightly here. There is no question that Sen. Obama is way, way outside of the mainstream of American society on this issue. He is far, far to the left of his own party.
After reading this article, I have no doubt that Sen. Obama would do everything within his power to promote the pro-abortion/pro-choice agenda while in office. I have no question he would work to unwind the many gains by the pro-life community that a broad spectrum of Americans have wisely put in place to limit this heinous procedure. In accordance with his general views of government, Sen. Obama will nationalize the issue through FOCA making many state laws that differ from the extreme views in this legislation void.
For those reasons, Sen. Obama has made himself someone for whom I cannot vote. I encourage all thinking pro-life people in this country to read Professor George's article before entering the voting booth because it spells out clearly and convincingly why Sen. Obama would be catastrophic to the pro-life cause for years to come if he is elected president.
HT: Stand to Reason Blog (Melinda Penner)
Comments
I would have thought you would know better.
Look, McCain has been on averge 5.2% behind for a month. ON election night a mysterious motivate will cease conservatives to run out and vote just before the polls close and he will magically win the election. There may be a supreme count halt to the re count. There will be massive allegations of fraud, but the court will install McCain and most Americans will never miss the Democracy that has been stolen from then.
this will be third election in row.
But that's nothing. every four years since 1980, the republicans wind you up. Time to be afraid! we must keep those Godless liberals out.
we must make world safe for death squads, hypocrisy and stealing elections!
Conservative Christians, biggest suckers in history. you can just keep fooling them time after time they never wise up.
We disagree on many things, but in matters of religion I respect your opinion. Here, however, we will never agree on the other issues you raise in your comment about death squads, etc.
However, I don't think that there is any question that Obama will do everything in his power to strengthen abortion rights. That is the subject of this post. If you can point me to a resource that demonstrates that any of the information contained in the George article is inaccurate, I'm listening.
I think you're perhaps failing to account for other things he wants to do with social programs to improve prenatal care, early child care, and generally provide resources for "at risk mothers," that may well REDUCE the number of abortions that take place.
Given your position, I understand why his candidacy outrages you, but I don't think Obama's necessarily a bad choice for those who oppose abortions taking place.
Goliath, don't worry. I never believed even for a moment that you would care about the unborn.
However, I don't think that there is any question that Obama will do everything in his power to strengthen abortion rights. That is the subject of this post. If you can point me to a resource that demonstrates that any of the information contained in the George article is inaccurate, I'm listening.
I think it's totally beyond the president's power to do that. I respect your view on many things, not just religion, but that too. I don't disrespect your views on politics. But I am not voting in line with you on this one. I suspect I never do. But that's ok you are always my buddy.
Golith came to my blog and expressed confussion. how can turn on my own kind?
my own kind? what am I a cave man?
"we are not killing human beings we are killing demons" Reos Mont, President of Guratemala backed by Regan as a "born again Christian."
Its' one thing to argue about abortion it's quite another to slaughter hole populations of born people.
BK also, who was also a lawyer.
come on you know the place that serves in political rhetoric. I am not for abortion, but why are those lives any more sacred than the concrete born children who will die under McCain's stupidity?
Fine. You are free to believe what you want. I am not twisting your arm. I am not trying to force you into anything. If you want to believe that God is what you have made Him out to be, you have the freedom to do that.
But I'm back to what I asked in the last comments: why are you so hateful?
Of course we can disagree and still have friendship. Heck, we've been doing that since 1997! And you're probably right that we haven't voted for the same person for President since we have known each other.
(Obviously, this will confuse those skeptics who believe that all Christians walk in lockstep and cannot think for themselves. But I suspect they won't ever figure out how we can do that.)
Having said that, I don't agree that abortion is a scare tactic. Abortion is what it is: the killing of an innocent living human being for convenience. The practice is abhorrent, and I cannot possibly vote for someone who has Obama's record on the issue. This is not a last second article -- it is a listing of informaton I had been reading for several months. What is new is that it is finally compiled in one place.
Now, if abortion isn't a big issue to you, well, you have the right to vote how you see fit. Abortion, while it isn't the only or most important issue, is an issue which I always take into account when going to the polls. Obama is clearly no friend to the unborn. His history doesn't reflect any sensitivity to the pro-life position at all.
Again, if you have information to the contrary, I would happily review it because McCain (while much better than Obama) has been somewhat inconsistent on the issue as well.
I don't care if you're a political traitor to your fellow Christians or not. I will not convert.
as far as I'm concerned you can stick unmentionable where the sun doesn't shine and rotate.
I only have hatred for rancid butter milk fool
Now, if abortion isn't a big issue to you, well, you have the right to vote how you see fit. Abortion, while it isn't the only or most important issue, is an issue which I always take into account when going to the polls. Obama is clearly no friend to the unborn. His history doesn't reflect any sensitivity to the pro-life position at all.
yea but
(1) not the presidents perview, he can't anything about it.
(2) the gop is not serious about doing anything about it, they get too much out of keeping it around so they can keep the fundies voting for them.
(3) there are tons of other issues that are much more important. many more people will die from global warming, wars, poverty and all sorts of things.
given that neither side is going to do anything (and the GOP has had decades to do something) then that's a null point. It's just a null point.
(2) I disagree. They are doing something, but there is only so much that can be done to undo abortion so long as the Supreme Court ruling that holds that abortion is Constitutionally protected stands.
(3) I agree those other things are important. However, I don't think that they are more important.
I don't think its a null point. It has been slowly moving towards fewer abortions over the years, but I honestly believe it will slam into reverse with a heavily pro-abortion president.
(2) The GOP has done plenty. There are many restictions on abortion across the land that would not exist without earnest GOP efforts. The GOP has saved lives in this area. The Democrats want to have the government pay for killing more.
(3) Yeah there are other important issues that cause this conservative Christian to be even more eager to avoid electing Obama. For example, it is the Right, not the Left, in this country that contributed so much to stopping communism and its death squads (i.e., governments and insurgents) who murdered 100 million.
then why haven't they?
For example, right now the president, by executive order, disallows abortions on military bases.
wozer. that'll teach all those whores in the military! why don't they just use their majority in congress, especially when it was big and powerful, to make an amendment banning it?
they had many opportunities. the whoopla over Reagan in 84 for example.
That will go away with Obama.
you don't know what? you are working on a fictitious assumption that as a liberal he loves to see abortions happen.
The President can also refuse to sign FOCA. Without FOCA some measure of abortion regulation to the states. Once Obama signs it into law, there will be one very pro-abortion law. Plus, the president appoints judges (with the advice and consent of the senate).
Obviously it has momentum without him being in the Whitehorse.
(2) I disagree. They are doing something, but there is only so much that can be done to undo abortion so long as the Supreme Court ruling that holds that abortion is Constitutionally protected stands.
Billie boy! How many decades as it been??? 1980! think about it. they they really wanted to get ridi of it they would have.
without abortion how would they motivate the christians to be right wing every four years?
(3) I agree those other things are important. However, I don't think that they are more important.
I don't think its a null point. It has been slowly moving towards fewer abortions over the years, but I honestly believe it will slam into reverse with a heavily pro-abortion president.
Look those are all minor repair band aids. It's like wrestling. If we were watching a wrestling match and I say "why doesn't ref stop spoiler from doing all those rule violating things, you say "he does plenty, he counts to 11 every time and then the threatens repeatedly to throw him out of the match."
why doesn't' he Finnish counting and throw him out? Because if he did it wouldn't' be a exciting match. Every time he turns around to stop Spoiler no 2 from doing something with a chair
Spoiler no 1 attack from out side the right. why doesn't he just stop the match? Because it's fixed, he doesn't want to stop it.
(3) Yeah there are other important issues that cause this conservative Christian to be even more eager to avoid electing Obama. For example, it is the Right, not the Left, in this country that contributed so much to stopping communism and its death squads (i.e., governments and insurgents) who murdered 100 million.
communism was that same kind of chimara issue that kept people afarid. something they didn't want to stop, they wanted to contian it so they would use it to keep people motivated.
some day you have to face the truth and look if you dare to be honest with yourself at how many innocent people were murdered and their democracies taken away to keep the fear of communism working for the right wing.
I talked to Philip Clay Redeinger who was the CIA operative that overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala in the 1954 coup. He said this. he said "we didn't give a rats ass what communism was doing, we knew how to use it to our benefit.
I can prove that almost a million people were murdered around the world 54 interventions in Latin America, so we could play this game of "what out for the boogie man. you need us to protect you from the boogie man!"
Vietnam war is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. It had nothing to do with communism. Nothing> Ho Chi Men was on our side in WWII, he was on our side after the war. He said "our future likes with the United States." He has OAS men he was working with. The OAS chief was killed. and so there was no liaison between the Viet Men and the U.S. Trueman tried to give Viet Nam back to the French so they would have a powerful colonial presence in the world and be a good strong ally against the Sovet's. That's where we go the idea that HO cared about communism.
Ho didn't give a rat's ass about communism, until we betrayed him and he fought us for several years. With he Russian supplying him (China was the ancient enemy so they had no truck with the People's republic) he gradually gained support for Communism but not a passionate support.
We just assumed the NV's wanted communism but it was us who wanted the French to be a strong alley against the stoves, so we assumed it was all about communism. We also used the anti-communist rationale to keep the funding alive and stay involved.
The Ton kin gulf was a total lie. They never fired on us. We were in their waters. All made up to motivate the first huge troop shipment in April of 65. Once that happened were stuck.
None of it had anything to do with communism. It was civil from start to Finnish, the NLF was fighting to keep half of their country from going back to a colonial power they fought for a hundred years to break away from.
You are trying to convince me to vote for the party that thinks abortion is a right to be celebrated, wants to fund abortions and force insurance to cover them and force even Catholic institutions to perform them, by saying the GOP hasn't done enough to discourage abortion. And the reason the GOP has not been able to do more is because of the Democrats. That is ridiculous Hinman. You don't seem to fully apprehend just how important we think unborn human life is.
I really don't care what Philip Clay Redeinger's motives were. I care that the Right helped stopped the communists. That's why millions of "conservative Christians" voted Republican during the Reagan years, whatever some CIA operatives motives were.
where do you go to find that the entire democratic party thinks anything unanimously?
wants to fund abortions and force insurance to cover them and force even Catholic institutions to perform them, by saying the GOP hasn't done enough to discourage abortion.
where?
And the reason the GOP has not been able to do more is because of the Democrats.
the reason they can't do more is because the President doesn't have the authority. If they wanted to end abortion they would put a constitutional amendment on the table.
That is ridiculous Hinman. You don't seem to fully apprehend just how important we think unborn human life is.
Yea I know, life ends at birth. We have to be as evil as our enemies to be good. We have to destroy the village to save it. abortion is the only issue. nothing else matters. born children are just scum. Once you are born you are dog meat.
can't you see what this right wing thinking has reduced to you...Price!
I really don't care what Philip Clay Redeinger's motives were. I care that the Right helped stopped the communists.
and you don't care how many children that killed to do it do you? you are just rationalizing the fact that the cold was was dirty, stinking sin, hypocrisy lies murder torture. I don't care about the facts! You don't give a rats ass do you? Murder, rape, torture, lies. anything goes as long as I hang on to what's mine! that's why communism was so evil,t they wanted to take power away form the powerful and give it to the people who do the work, how satanic can you get?
That's why millions of "conservative Christians" voted Republican during the Reagan years, whatever some CIA operatives motives were.
It's so easy to rationalize away the facts. Chrsitains voted conservative so that makes it good to do doesnt it!?
the right can go on lying and murdering destorying democracy propering dictators any time some one has a qustion we can say "O but we have to do that we have to stop communism."
remember the verse where Jesus said "be ye evil, as evil as the enemy as long as it stops them then it's good." is that what he said?
be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, and do unto the bad guys as they would unto you. that's my favorite verse.
the truth is the staged the coup to help united fruit company beat the unions. That's why they did it. No Redinger's motives are no the issue. John Foster Dulles motives are the issue. His motives were to destroy the unions because he owned a major share in united fruit.
tht's the story of the cold war. that shameful garbage was repeated over and over again; destroy democracy and help dictators murder innocent children so I can get my power and hang on to my security, then blame it on the need to fight communism.
I really don't understand you. I echo what Chris said when he said, "You don't seem to fully apprehend just how important we think unborn human life is." You seem to think that abortion is nothing more than a utlitarian issue for Republican operatives. That is nonsense.
I care deeply about the unborn. I have spoken out repeatedly against abortion. I have written against abortion. The idea that its somehow okay for a woman to kill her unborn son or daughter for convenience is repugnant to my respect for humanity. I am not raising this issue because I want to have Republicans get more power. That's insulting and terribly condescending on your part.
To answer your question about why doesn't the President do more: Abortion was found to be Constitutionally protected in a very poor decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 (and even abortion rights advocates largely acknowledge that the decision lacked any substantial Constitutional justification). Since that time, every President and Congress' hands have been tied by the rulings of the Supreme Court because they cannot pass laws that limit the court-created Constitutional right to abrotion. The only way to make major changes has been to (1) get court members who respect the Constitution (i.e., don't invest themselves in the judicial philosophy of "the living Constitution") or (2) get a Constitutional amendment overturning the court's decision in Roe (which is extremely difficult to get). However, with their hands tied the way that they are, the various legistlatures (both State and Federal) with the support of Presidents and Governors who recognize the fact that abortion ought to be (at minimum) rare have managed to put up some limits to abortion on demand. These limits will likely disappear under Obama because he has said he will sign the FOCA -- an act put up by extreme pro-abortion advocates in response to the U.S. Supreme Courts' very reasonable decision to uphold a ban Partial-Birth Abortion (which is more accurately described as "infanticide with the baby's head covered").
I'm sorry, Joe, but if you honestly believe that I have any reason to post what I did for any reason other than the fact that I believe abortion is both wrong and profoundly unchristian, and the fact that I think that Sen. Obama will support abortion on demand, then you don't know me nearly as well as you think.
And I do reject your idea that somehow it is only Republicans that have supported these bad dictators in other countries. That is a fault that can be spread throughout Congress because both parties have (from time to time) propped up dictators when they felt it was in the best interest of the United States to do so.
why are you so nonchalant about murdering innocent people? why can't you think? did you see the part about how the republicans have had three decades to change it and they never will.
if they didn't do it in three decades when will they?
I talked to a guy from Guatemala who saw his whole gunned down by U.S. supported goverment troops. they just lined them up and shot them. He saw it right in front of this eyes. are you going to tell that guy the lives of his family and freinds dont' matter because they might of been communists?
I don't think you have silghtest idea of what Christianity is about.
Republicans have definately supported them. Liberal Democratic senators like McGovern, Kerry, MacCarthy (old days) had reputations for opposing them. We have not seen a republican stand up to those guys in four decades. The last really good republicans human rights wise were Loyal Wiker who was drummed out in the early 80s, and his freinds like Lahey who left.
of course you do. you are their sucker. without suckers like you who really beileve they couldn't makei t work every four years.
hey time to let them fool us again!
I have opened a thread on my boards to discuss this. I put up a hypothetical question about valuing born life over unborn,or not.
http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=268
Thanks Joe. I will remember that you think that I'm stupid when you next call for help.
“why are you so nonchalant about murdering innocent people? why can't you think? did you see the part about how the republicans have had three decades to change it and they never will.__if they didn't do it in three decades when will they?”
You’ve demonstrated a lack of basic honesty. You first say that Republicans have made no difference on abortion. When your fellow team members document that Republicans have made a difference (within the limits of what’s currently possible), you move the goalpost and say they haven’t made enough of a difference. If you were honest, you’d withdraw your original claim, which they shot down, and admit that you overstated your case. Why don’t you have the honesty to do that, Joe? They answered you on your own grounds.
“I talked to a guy from Guatemala who saw his whole gunned down by U.S. supported goverment troops. they just lined them up and shot them. He saw it right in front of this eyes. are you going to tell that guy the lives of his family and freinds dont' matter because they might of been communists”
i) You’re very selective in your appeal to American history. Are you alluding to some incident during the Cold War? Both Democrats and Republicans supported the Cold War, viz. Truman, JFK, LBJ, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, &c.
So how does your Cold War anecdote single out the GOP as uniquely discreditable?
ii) And what about your anecdotal evidence? Was the guy you talked to a Latin American Marxist? If so, why do you assume he’s telling the truth? Or do you only believe people who smear your own country?
iii) There have been many civil wars in Latin America. Fascists killed innocent people and Marxists killed innocent people. Innocents would die regardless of the presence or absence of American intervention. Innocent people die under Marxist regimes, you know. Maoism. Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge. N. Korea. The body count is unrivaled. If communism had been victorious in Latin America, do you think it would venerate human life?
We were involved in Latin America because the threat of global communism was a greater menace at that time than Latin American fascism.
“I don't think you have silghtest idea of what Christianity is about.”
Unlike you, I don’t get my idea of what Christianity is about from Noam Chomsky’s twisted version of American foreign policy.
And he ignores the fact that the Democrats elected to fight the Vietnam War and fight it ineptly, resulting in far more civilian deaths than he complains of in Latin America. And in Hinman's view, when it comes to Latin America, only "right wing death squads" are to blame, not the leftist ones. Heck, the leftists are still kidnapping and murdering people in Latin America (i.e., Columbia, Chile) long after the end of the Cold War.
LOL there's some truth to that, but no I have no illustions about the potential of lefts to do evil. You haven't seen evil until you have been in the middle of a Trotsky-CP faction fight.
This is why he is obsessed with some purportedly stray comments by a purported CIA agent but ignores the 100 million murdered persons the left wing ideology to which he is sympathetic claimed as victims.
yea that wild eyed lunatic Jesus of Nazerath. what a commie pincko.
there were four CIA station chiefs who came out against contra aid. That is a proven fact. It wont do any good to try and use the murders by Stalin and Mao to brand liberal democrats. That's the logic that is used by atheits in saying Hitler was a Christian and its' worthy of Dawkins.
that's a Dawkinism.
And he ignores the fact that the Democrats elected to fight the Vietnam War and fight it ineptly, resulting in far more civilian deaths than he complains of in Latin America.
so now we are going to argue about who did the best job of prosecuting an illegal and unjust war? I am ashamed to say my side wasn't as good at murder, rape, torture and lies as your side.
And in Hinman's view, when it comes to Latin America, only "right wing death squads" are to blame, not the leftist ones.
there were no left wing death squds in central America. All the human rights organizations cleared the Sandinistas. all the alleged massacres were lies and that is prove by the united nations, Americas watch and all major human rights organizations.
Heck, the leftists are still kidnapping and murdering people in Latin America (i.e., Columbia, Chile) long after the end of the Cold War.
I guess you get your facts from Paul Harvey right?
I have been red baited by professionals. I've been spied on by theFBI. you can't say anything that will bother me. You don't have command of the facts.