Barack Obama makes it clear that his first priority upon becoming president would be to open the floodgates (or should I say "bloodgates"?) of abortion on demand.
Consider this from LifeSiteNews:
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
What does "health" mean? When it isn't clearly and properly defined to indicate serious bodily function as it is in South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11, it can mean anything we want it to mean. Which ultimately means an open door to abortion for any reason.
Choice begins when a woman has sex. The natural function and result of sex is reproduction. Even the oral contraceptive can fail--and sometimes does. When you have sex there is an implied (dare I say "accepted") risk that pregnancy may result.
Once human life has been created in the womb, the primary focus of choice moves from the woman to the new life created in her womb. From conception the child has it's own separate DNA, unique from the mother's DNA, making the child not a part of her body over which she exercises choice, but a separate, unique human being.
That child has the first and foremost right and choice among all rights and choices: to live.
2 comments:
The arguments made in this post exemplify the anti-woman position of the "right-to-life" movement.
Firstly, the argument that gives a fetus, a potential human being, rights that supersede the rights of the woman that is carrying the fetus clearly labels women as mere vessels, when in reality women are independent, autonomous beings with full citizenship.
Secondly, the argument that women should only have sex to reproduce and therefore should not be allowed birth control or abortions tells women that they are only valued for their ability to reproduce. They are only valuable if they have sex with one man and only have the sex to have his children. Under that argument, sex is not so much an expression of love but one of control; the control of one being over the other.
Also, the fact that many in the "right-to-life" movement see no harm in dispensing Viagra while simultaneously decrying the use of birth control sends the message that only men may have sex for pleasure, since by the time many men need Viagra they are older and the reproductive phase of their partners' lives has ended. (There's a question for you. What if a woman is past her reproductive stage? Is she allowed to have sex for pleasure then and only then? Or is it still an abomination?)
These arguments are all about controlling women and ascribing their only value as motherhood.
It seems that pro-life really means anti-woman.
Obama is extremely dangerous to all Americans, especially the most defenseless little ones. Christians need to unashamedly oppose this vicious threat to our precious children as if their very lives depend on it, and they do.
Post a Comment