Obama's first export: abortion

[ladiesbballcoach]

http://townhall.com/columnists/LauraHollis/2009/01/27/obamas_first_export_abortion

 

Obama ran as the candidate of “hope” and “change we can believe in.” With nearly 50 million children destroyed by abortion in the United States alone since 1973, do we really need more? Technology like 3-D ultrasound has demonstrated that the human child in the uterus is far more developed and biologically sophisticated much earlier in gestation than we knew 36 years ago. (Remember “it’s just a clump of cells”?) Fetal surgery now saves children with formerly life-threatening conditions like spina bifida, and treatment for preemies has backed up viability to less than 23 weeks – that is just over halfway through a normal pregnancy. Isn’t it long past time that America’s policy on abortion reflected the scientific information that we now have about fetal development? Shouldn’t the president whose campaign was energized by cutting-edge technology, and whose inaugural address emphasized the proper role of science be swayed by that?

 

What are we to make of the first African-American president who is so blind to the devastation abortion has wrought among African-Americans? African-Americans make up less than 15% of the U.S. population, but over 35% of abortions are performed on African-American women. To get some sense of the magnitude of this impact, consider that, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 293,000 black Americans died in 2005. The single largest cause of death was heart disease, which claimed over 74,000 lives. By comparison, the 1400 abortions of black babies daily in the United States is over 438,000 African-Americans destroyed every year. Upwards of 13 million abortions have decimated the African-American population in this country. This is a holocaust, and one that cannot be prettied up under the rubric of “reproductive freedom.” Why does the man who hearkens back to the words of Martin Luther King not heed the call of some of King’s descendents who lead on this issue today?

 

What do Obama’s supporters think about the fact that among his first acts as President is helping pay for the destruction of babies of color in other countries?

[ladiesbballcoach]

I guess this part of his inaugural address was for everyone except the US of A.

 

Obama’s encouragement of abortion in other nations undermines the powerful and passionate ideas he expressed on the day he was sworn in as 44th President of the United States, and renders them meaningless. But none of those ideas seem as hollow as this one: “And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, ‘Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.’”

[MountainThunder]

Remarkable numbers. It is really frightening how many babies we kill every year in our own 'developed' country. After seeing my first grandson being born, I am amazed that this still goes on.

[acemona]

not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. 61% of americans support it in some circumstance. at least these other countries will be getting family planning and the possibility of not contracting STDs. Have you done ANY research on why these countries might need these things

[cch5432]

not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. 61% of americans support it in some circumstance. at least these other countries will be getting family planning and the possibility of not contracting STDs. Have you done ANY research on why these countries might need these things

Try, for once, to imagine it from another perspective. If we see abortion as murder, why in the world would any other country need more murder?

[ladiesbballcoach]

not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. 61% of americans support it in some circumstance. at least these other countries will be getting family planning and the possibility of not contracting STDs. Have you done ANY research on why these countries might need these things

 

They had still been getting that.

The educating them about abortion as a choice was what was eliminated.

 

Any comments that abortion killed more African American unborn children than actual deaths of African Americans this year? In other countries, we refer to that as genocide. In this country, choice.

[MountainThunder]

The intentional ending of a human life is murder, plain and simple. While noone can claim to know the mind of God, ... does anyone really believe that God is okay with ending a life he created?

[UKMustangFan]

not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. 61% of americans support it in some circumstance. at least these other countries will be getting family planning and the possibility of not contracting STDs. Have you done ANY research on why these countries might need these things

 

Just because the majority support it doesn't make it right.

 

The majority of the Nazis supported what Hitler was doing, or at least didn't question it, does that make the right thing?

[AirYardGo]

Just because the majority support it doesn't make it right.

 

The majority of the Nazis supported what Hitler was doing, or at least didn't question it, does that make the right thing?

 

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

[acemona]

Just because the majority support it doesn't make it right.

 

The majority of the Nazis supported what Hitler was doing, or at least didn't question it, does that make the right thing?

 

 

I don't see it as murder, therefore it is not plain and simple. Until that question is decided by science, I will leave the decision to the woman an her doctor.

 

As for the education that was taking place, any organization which had abortion as any kind of option was eliminated, which eliminated most all of them.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I don't see it as murder, therefore it is not plain and simple. Until that question is decided by science, I will leave the decision to the woman an her doctor.

 

As for the education that was taking place, any organization which had abortion as any kind of option was eliminated, which eliminated most all of them.

 

So, as a Christian, you put more stock into what scientists say than what God says? He says he knew us before we were in the womb.

 

That then was THEIR CHOICE. I thought you were for choice? They choose to not receive funding.

[cch5432]

I don't see it as murder, therefore it is not plain and simple.

OK. We'll cite the infinite wisdom of acemona anytime there is any type of ethical dilemma.

Until that question is decided by science, I will leave the decision to the woman an her doctor.

Makes great sense. Why err on the side of caution? I mean, it's only thousands of people a day.

[acemona]

So, as a Christian, you put more stock into what scientists say than what God says? He says he knew us before we were in the womb.

 

That then was THEIR CHOICE. I thought you were for choice? They choose to not receive funding.

 

And now they CHOOSE to receive funding . . .

 

When you start taking all of the Levitical laws literally, and all of what Jesus says literally, then quote me scripture that you stretch to say covers abortion. You do not take it literally, every word, so don't expect me or anyone to take the stretched quotes literally. It is hypocritical and dishonest.

 

FWIW the discussion in the old testament puts more value on the woman who is pregnant that it does on the fetus. If both are humans, why aren't they given equal value in the scripture. Do you take that scripture literally.

 

Jesus also says that he takes cares of the birds of the air and flowers in the field, yet they die from things other than natural causes, like destruction of the habitat by Humans. So was God lying when he said they don't worry so we shouldn't, or has He quit taking care of the birds and the flowers.

[ladiesbballcoach]

And now they CHOOSE to receive funding . . .

 

When you start taking all of the Levitical laws literally, and all of what Jesus says literally, then quote me scripture that you stretch to say covers abortion. You do not take it literally, every word, so don't expect me or anyone to take the stretched quotes literally. It is hypocritical and dishonest.

 

FWIW the discussion in the old testament puts more value on the woman who is pregnant that it does on the fetus. If both are humans, why aren't they given equal value in the scripture. Do you take that scripture literally.

 

Jesus also says that he takes cares of the birds of the air and flowers in the field, yet they die from things other than natural causes, like destruction of the habitat by Humans. So was God lying when he said they don't worry so we shouldn't, or has He quit taking care of the birds and the flowers.

 

Simply what about the Scripture that says it would be better to have a millstone strung around your neck and thrown in the ocean than to harm a hair on the head of a child.

 

How about if I tell you that I think man will be held accountable for the things they have done to the environment and to the animals? How does that fit into your view of thinking somehow that God is going to give a free pass to those that support the right of killing unborn children in this country and now us as a country PROMOTING it in other countries.

 

Also, no comment on the genocide against the African American race in this country in the form of abortion?

[UKMustangFan]

I don't see it as murder, therefore it is not plain and simple. Until that question is decided by science, I will leave the decision to the woman an her doctor.

 

As for the education that was taking place, any organization which had abortion as any kind of option was eliminated, which eliminated most all of them.

 

 

So according to you we should let science decide on issues when it's convienant for you, but follow scripture when it comes to helping those less fortunate and that sort of thing?

 

Isn't that also hypicritical?

Edited January 28, 2009 by UKMustangFan