http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.16_George_Robert_Obama%20and%20Infanticide_.xml

Proof that abortions under Obama WILL NOT decrease.

http://www.geneveith.com/how-pro-abortion-is-obama/_1006/

Lord Jesus help us. Obama has promised to sweep away what little progress has been made at protecting the lives of the unborn. It is a matter of public record.

The prolife movement also includes many crisis pregnancy centers and advocates for adoption.

iMonk, thanks for this post. I don’t agree with most of what you write (how’s that for a backhanded compliment!), but your dead on here. Your main point was driven home to me when my wife was pregnant with our first child. When we would go for prenatal checkups, the nurses and doctors would constantly refer to “baby”…”Baby’s heartbeat is fine” or “Baby is doing well.” I realized that since we want it, it is a “baby.” If we didn’t want it, it would be a “fetus” or “tissue mass.”

However, it’s not something that is easily addressed politically. Frederica Mathewes-Green is right. Most people on both sides thinks there are too many abortions and wants to reduce them. Some just want to reduce them to zero whereas others have another number they find acceptable which is higher. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of work we can do together to reduce abortions. But we have to stop (as Scot McKnight might say) ‘othering’ those with whom we disagree to one extent or another. Many of the actions we need to take to reduce abortions benefit women, especially the poorest and most vulnerable. We can do them together if we stop shouting epithets at each other and get to work.

However, many who call themselves ‘pro-life’ seem to have bought into this lie that that means nothing more than voting for a political candidate who claims to be ‘pro-life’. Not all, certainly. I know many who don’t fit that profile at all. My mother, the principal of a Roman Catholic mission school serving an impoverished area, is absolutely one of them. Nevertheless, that’s what I see much of the time.

And I think some of the reason for that is that many seem to have absorbed the myth that if Roe v. Wade is ‘overturned’ abortion will be illegal and the pro-life task will be accomplished. And that’s all it is — a myth. First, since part of the underpinning of Roe v. Wade is a finding of a more general right to privacy in the Constitution, the decision would only be completely overturned if a court decided there was no constitutionally protected right to privacy. Think about that one for a bit because it has ramifications that go far beyond abortion and personally I’m not sure I care for them at all.

However, it’s pretty unlikely — the Thomas’s and Scalia’s on the court aside — that any court will ever go that far. More likely, the most that would occur would be some nuanced decision or set of decisions altering the manner in which Roe v. Wade is interpreted. I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m just saying that the binary sort of world that I often seem to hear in these discussions simply doesn’t exist.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say a court did decide to completely overturn Roe v. Wade. I get the impression that a lot of people seem to think that means abortion would then be illegal. Not all, certainly. But a lot of what I hear and see envisions this as the end goal, the accomplishment that settles the matter. But what would it really mean?

All it ultimately means is that the power to legislate abortion would be returned to the individual states.

Now think about the country in which we live today. Abortion, to one extent or another, was already legal in a fair number of states before Roe v. Wade. Since Roe v. Wade, a number of other states have removed laws against abortion from their books. I don’t know the exact number, but probably only a handful still have laws outlawing abortion on the books at all. However, think critically here about the world in which we actually live. How many states would actually be able to keep and enforce such laws? The world has changed in the 35 years since Roe v. Wade. A lot.

Now, perhaps it is time to return at least portions of this issue to legislative debate. It would be interesting to see how many ‘pro-life’ candidates really are when their political future is at stake. So I’m not saying that this would be a bad thing. I’m just saying that overturning Row v. Wade, in whole or in part, would not serve to outlaw or end abortion. That would be the beginning of the political debate. Not the end.

And I don’t see a country where abortion would actually be outlawed save in a few pockets here and there. I just don’t. And those few pockets would mostly impact the poorest (and probably most desperate) women in those areas who won’t be able to afford to travel to neighboring areas where abortion is legal. Anyone with even a little money and a car will just drive to where legal abortions can be obtained.

So personally, I think it’s better and more productive to focus on real solutions which help remove or alleviate the forces which drive women to seek abortions. Women who have abortions almost always have one because someone in their life who they love and trust either told them to have one or did not try to convince them otherwise. Usually they feel like they have no other choice. What are we doing to give them choices? Love? Real options?

We need to think more like second and third century Christians living in a culture where abortion and exposure were the accepted norms (and typically the decision of the male — why do you think so many women flocked to Christianity?). At least we don’t have to deal with infant exposure. We face half the problem they did. If we could only show half the response they showed, abortions would drop, I think, tremendously.

I don’t think it matters that much how or for whom you vote on this issue because I don’t think it will be solved politically. We live in a representative democracy (or constitutional republic — whatever floats your boat) and the public will simply isn’t there to try to universally ban abortion and enforce it. If you want to fight for changed laws, feel free. But if that’s all we do, we’re doing worse than nothing. We’re just trying to make ourselves feel better.

You’re quite mistaken about slavery today – it’s happening in the U.S., and in private. Only the slave, the slaveholder, and friends that the slaveholder trusts know the truth. Slaveholders are wealthy Arabs, N. Africans, and others who hold Filipinas, Chinese, or other young women from poor backgrounds. There are not millions of these cases, but they are (sadly) far from common.

In any case, please explain to all of us the moral relevance of the public or private nature of an act of murder. Almost every murder is done privately – the murderer expects to keep it that way. NO law against the killing of an innocent human being can assure that the murders will stop. I have never heard that only public murder can be forbidden by law, have you? Please provide a citation. You are presenting sophistry, although you may not know it.

*IF* the act of abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, then it MUST be made illegal. To do otherwise is to divide the human race into two groups, one of which (us) has full rights, including the right to life, and the other of which (them) has fewer – and certainly NOT the right to life. This is unconscionable, and I can imagine no way that a Christian who understands and accepts God’s view of human life can legitimately support it.

Jason, are you saying slavery does not exist in every country in which it is outlawed? Obviously not. We don’t reject making something illegal just because some will break the law. This is a ridiculous argument. Just as is your other point:

…and again, for the third time, the burden of it being made illegal will fall on those that cannot afford to travel some place where it is legal.

What does this have to do with anything? That would be like not outlawing slavery because people could travel to countries where it is legal, and that would put an undue burden on those who can’t afford to travel to those countries.

Again…huh?

However, there is one particular difference between the issues where I feel the comparison falls apart. Slavery was an entirely public institution. You couldn’t own slaves in any way that wasn’t known to your friends and neighbors. And because of that, when it was made illegal, it was done. (Other than being one of the contributing causes of the bloodiest war in US history, the fallout of which we still deal with to this day.) The abolition of slavery ended it in the United States.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible for a woman to become pregnant and then have an abortion without anyone else ever knowing except her and the doctor performing it. It is utterly private. Outlawing abortion, unlike slavery, will not end it, and that is the point I made above, and again, for the third time, the burden of it being made illegal will fall on those that cannot afford to travel some place where it is legal.

Re The science: A new human life is created at conception. A pattern of DNA never seen before. Any other definition of “personhood” is a doorway to oppression and injustice. See the Dred Scott decision.

Re Jailing women who have abortions: That is a red herring. The legislature can make whatever penalties it wants. The most reasonable thing is to punish the doctors (revoking their licenses and/or community service would be best). The women are as much the victim in these acts.

Re Priorities: I see this as nothing more than God turning His back on our country. When McCain can go from dead even to 9 points behind, because of the economy; it shows the American people have the wrong priorities.

About ten years later I had a discussion with a couple of very nice, pro-choice women concerning abortion. At the time I had just finished “The Coming Fury”, which analyzed the events leading to the American Civil War, specifically the slavery debate. I was struck by how similar the arguments used against fetuses were to those arguments used to justify race slavery 4 generations ago. Just for fun, I took a pro-life position using the the anti-slavery arguments. I did not persuade anyone else, but I sure persuaded myself.

Laying awake that night, the full magnitude of what I had done began to seep into my consciousness and the journey toward a merciful God began.

Why?