Fewer Abortions
President Obama says he'll remove protections for pro-life medical professionals - rescinding the Conscience Clause - and force physicians and nurses to participate in abortion procedures (see FOCA).
All this from the guy who says he wants fewer abortions.
That is kind of like someone who says he wants fewer incidents of under age drinking and then promotes legislation to force liquor store owners to sell liquor to anyone buying, regardless if they feel otherwise.
Mr. President, I have a humble suggestion for you. If you are honest when you say you want fewer abortions, then make it illegal.
But here is a more important question: Why does he want fewer abortions? If there is nothing morally suspect about abortion, why reduce them? Why not increase them?
As you see on STR and LTI, the answer to this question ultimately lies in the answer to another: What is the unborn?
If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If the unborn is a human person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.
posted by Mark Hunsaker on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
7 Comments:
Obama wants abortions. Anything he says to the contrary is just political posturing. He is a hard core liberal agenda man and if the feminine left wants it they will get it. ::sarcasm:: After all they have been so abused they deserve to be able to kill their children if they want.
Your argument requires the belief that there is no justification for ending human life. Perhaps some people don't agree with that.
You guys make very good points. Amy, your reminder is important.
Let's clarify by noting that the unborn is a human life that has not had the opportunity to do anything for him or herself. As such, they are, by all legal language, innocent.
There may certainly be adequate justification for ending a human life that is not innocent. If a man chooses to invade my home in the middle of the night with the express intent of harming my family, I have full justification in stopping him, even if that includes ending his life. This example can be extrapolated to a national level as well.
As such, there clearly are times when ending human life is justified.
But, when dealing with the unnecessary termination of the unborn, I'm aware of none.
Well said Mark!!
I was thinking... Isn't it strange that the people who will argue that there is a "justification for ending human life" when talking about abortion will say there never is if the topic switches to war or the death penalty. It is sad. A good video to watch on youtube about why there is no good reason to kill our children is 'The silent scream'
Really? So by saying that someone believes in giving the decision to the woman that person is wanting abortions? Not regulating moral beliefs isn't telling people to go out and have abortions any more then not regulating guns is telling people to go out and murder people.
Most conservatives believe that less government is good in regards to business and fiscal regulations. Yet you support more regulation in regards to social and moral issues. People who are "pro-choice" don't believe abortions are "good", they just don't believe the government should have a say in the issue. The choice should be between that person, their doctor, and (their) God.
I fully support the concept of less government, fiscally and socially. If you want to live in a theocracy, and pass laws based on religion, I suggest checking out countries in the middle east - it seems to have done wonders for them.
Don,
Thank you for your post. You pose a good question that should be answered: I don't support more regulation, I support consistent regulation.
A question for you: Should the government have a say in whether I am allowed to kill you?
If your answer is yes, then may I ask a follow up question?
Why should the government intervene in one attempt to murder, and not in another?
The answer to this question has nothing to do with religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home