August 29, 2008

"How Many Babies Have The Pro-lifers Adopted?"

In discussing abortion with those opposed to the pro-life position, the adoption issue is often brought up but not always by pro-lifers. The question that pro-choicers ask is: "How many babies have you adopted? If you don't want abortion to occur, then the pro-lifers should adopt the babies." Of course, their real motive is not to find out how many babies pro-lifers have adopted; it's just an ad hominem attack. They use the common method of attacking the person making the claim instead of discussing the issue at hand. It's just another example of distraction used to avoid talking about what the unborn baby actually is.

August 19, 2008

Obama's Political Response To Abortion

Recently at the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback Church in California, Barack Obama stated the following: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways -- in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground, and by the way, I have now inserted this in the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions ..."

In examining his belief, the conclusion is that a woman can be for the destruction of a life, as long as the woman doesn't make the decision casually. Because someone wrestles with a decision, then that is reason enough to believe that they are right in carrying out that decision. In other words, according to Obama, there are no moral absolutes on this issue. It's just the same as saying, "Bank robbery is fine as long as the decision to rob the bank was done as a result of deep introspection." Also, it helps if the robber consulted those close to him before he committed the act.

Barack Obama says he is pro-choice, but he wants to reduce the number of abortions. He should be asked why does he want to reduce the number of abortions. Whatever answer he gives probably will contradict being pro-choice. Most politicians respond to the abortion issue in a similar manner. There are a few who are strictly pro-abortion or pro-life, but most fall in a category that attempts to please both sides. When faced with this issue, they will usually say, "Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but if a woman wants to have one, that's her decision." Often they will respond with, "I think abortion should be rare, but I can't stop a woman from having one. It's her choice." This type of logic is also shared by quite a few Americans. When they take both sides of the argument, it seems that their real purpose is to avoid the issue completely because they don't have a desire to debate either side.

This response sounds foolproof and a very nice way of answering the abortion issue. But if you think closely about the response, it could be asked, "Why do you personally oppose abortion, or why do you think it should be rare?" It seems that their answer would be that it is the taking of a life, or a similar response. The rebuttal would be "So you're against abortion because it takes a life, but it's perfectly fine for someone else to take a life." "You're against the killing of a human, but also for the killing of a human."

What if we settled other issues this way? "I'm personally opposed to murder, but if a person wants to commit it, that's their decision or choice." In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five young children. Using this logic one could say, "I'm personally opposed to Andrea Yates killing her children, but it's her decision, her choice." We basically could use this logic concerning any law in this country.

August 3, 2008

The Hypocrisy of the Democrats

In this political season, there are tremendous opportunities to expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats by discussing the abortion issue with them. Also, it is an ideal time to initiate a discussion about abortion with someone who normally may not think about it. If a Democrat is asked why they vote that way or what the party stands for, a few items usually come up. They will often state that the Democrat Party stands for the little guy, human rights and tolerance.

Some questions to ask them are:

Do Democrats support the little guy? Why do Democrats almost uniformly believe we should destroy the littlest guy in the name of abortion?

Do Democrats believe in human rights? What groups in this world should have basic human rights? Should terrorist prisoners of war have rights? Should the incarcerated in this country have a right to be treated humanly? Do you believe the unborn should have basic human rights, especially the right not to be killed?

Do the Democrats believe we should tolerate certain groups or lifestyles? Why do the Democrats not always tolerate the unborn children group?

When the Democrat is faced with your questions, it seems they will answer in different ways. They may say that they don't care about the abortion issue, which gives one an opportunity to explain the hypocrisy once again. They might also say that they care about the issue, but it's a woman's right to choose. Then the discussion can shift to what the unborn actually is and what the woman is choosing to do.

Many Democrats vote as they do because of family tradition or an affiliation of a particular group, such as a union. Unions, in general, say that they represent the little guy and his rights in the workplace. The Democrat then can be asked about the aborted unborn who will never have a right to even live, let alone workplace rights.

When it comes to specifically Barack Obama, it can be brought to their attention that he has a 100% pro-abortion record in his political career. In fact, in 2002, when he was in the Illinois legislature, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act. This act would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Also, in 2002, the same type of bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed into law by President Bush. There was nearly unanimous approval by Congress. Even the pro-choice group NARAL supported the legislation.

Recently, Barack Obama gave a well-publicized speech in Berlin, Germany. Excerpts from it show how hypocritical he is:

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?
Pro-life response: Will he stand for the human rights of the unborn? Will he give meaning to the words "never again" to the despicable act of abortion in this country?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?

Pro-life response: Will he project the image that America believes it is acceptable to kill 4,000 of its own every day? Will he reject the torture and death of the unborn? Will he stand for the rule of law against murder?

Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
Pro-life response: Will Obama continue to discriminate against the unborn who don't quite look like us yet? Will he promise equality and opportunity for all of our people, either born or unborn?

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
Pro-life response: Does he mean the mistakes of 1.3 million abortions every year in this country?