Posted on 10/15/2008 4:04:08 PM PDT by tcg
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.Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
“Any person who doesn’t respect the right to life for all of us has no business President of this great country.”
Amen!
Obama defines babies in the second halves of their gestation, who happen to find themselves outside of their mother’s uterus through no fault of their own, as PRE-VIABLE FETUSES.
But there is a little problem with this definition. Sure, it fits those poor souls whose mothers were trying to abort them, but they ended up on the abortion table moving, heart beating, breathing. But it also fits the babies whose mother’s early contractions expelled them prematurely.
How can Obama have it both ways??? He wants one group of babies thrown into plastic hazard bags, while the other group lies in their tiny incubators, hooked up to a million tubes, spending thousands of dollars on medical care, Mommies next to the glass, crying and pumping milk to try and save them.
How can he have his way? ONLY BY DEFINING A VIABLE BABY AS SOMEONE THE MOTHER WANTED. If she didn’t want you, then you are trash.
Ironic, no, for someone whose mother was an unwed teen who mated with a married foreigner??
In prime time, on a well rated network, with much fanfare.
How can we get this to happen?
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
But watch in 2012 as the GOP "moderates" and Rockefeller Republicans try to make the case again for dropping the pro-life position from the platform.
Appreciate the ping, brother, but poster only1percent is so offensive I’m trying to not post any thoughts on the thread.
btttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.