Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama on Roe

From Obama on the anniversary of Roe:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

If government (meaning civil government) cannot legally protect the most fragile and innocent among us, it is failing its principal role to be an agent of justice. "Most private family matters" is a euphemism for killing the innocent, slaughtering them at the rate of over 1,000,000 per year. Moreover, it is not a "family" issue: the father has no say in the matter. If the mother wants to kill her child, she may. Under Obama, she will likely receive your tax money to do so if she cannot afford it.

Later, Obama made comments about wanting to decrease abortion, but they are meaningless drivel. He will do nothing of the sort. It is propaganda meant to hypnotize the unwary.


Tom said...

Hi Doug,

Your post says over 1,000 abortions per year. Did you mean 1,000,000?

You don't need to post this.


Tom Regan

Unknown said...

Dr. G,

Naturally I am in agreement with your sentiments. However, I wonder if you might enlighten me a bit....what has the Bush Administration done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? What fruitful actions have we seen on this front in the last eight years? I would like to have a richer understanding of this issue legislatively.

Also, what are you thoughts on this issue as a "broader dignity of life issue," as Jim Wallis puts it? In other words, what legislative action might accompany efforts to ban all forms of abortion? I welcome your insights. Thanks!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

Bush did much:

1. Appointed Supreme Court justices likely to reverse Roe.
2. Restored the Mexico City Policy, which disallows foreign aid to support abortion.
3. Limited the use of embryonic stem cells.

The Wallis agenda is a ruse; he doesn't care about abortion, but only his essentially socialist and pacifist schemes. Talking about "a wider view" (as does Sider) really boils down to putting abortion on the back burner indefinitely so they can support Democrats who are militantly pro-choice.

The Christian ethic is broader than opposing abortion, but I don't look to leftists to articulate it.

Ben said...

Dr. G,
Check out and consider putting it on your links list. High-quality argumentation of the pro-life case from a natural law perspective, presented in a winsome manner.

ChrisB said...

"what has the Bush Administration done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"

Two thoughts here. First, free or low cost birth control is easily obtained in this country. Where that fails, there are plenty of private and government programs to help people who want have children they can't afford. Finally, the adoption line goes around the block; if you can't give your baby a home, a great many people would be happy to.

Second, killing your unborn child is wrong no whether any of the above is true or not. When did it become a moral obligation for society to help you do right?

Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Kidnapping is wrong. Your responsibility is to do right whether I make it easy for you or not.

David Strunk said...

My memory may not serve me well, but didn't Bush sign some national act into law (along with congress) regarding partial birth abortion? I might be wrong, but if he did sign this into law, this was no small thing at all.

David said...

I recall Obama claiming, at one point during the campaign, that we need to find "common ground" on the abortion issue. How on earth does reversing the Mexico City Policy achieve that end?

As I suspected at the time, this was nothing but misleading rhetoric from a politician trying to appear as moderate as possible.

And this is just the beginning, my friends. May God help us!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

Yes, indeed. How could I forget this! Bush signed into law the ban on partial birth abortion, something Bill Clinton vetoed twice.

Obama supports partial birth abortion and does not thing that infants born alive after abortion should be allowed medical treatment. This is nothing less than evil.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

The media orgy over Obama continues. May no Christian be hypnotized by it. The man is anti-life and statist to the core. He cares not for "the least of these" and makes the state into an pseudo-god, God help us.

L-J W. said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the further devaluation of human life in general is a direct result of the complacency of the masses in the matter of the taking of unborn life.

In Belgium, a doctor need not consult the parents of an infant under the age of 1 year to deem medical euthanasia necessary:

In England, doctors could be prosecuted for refusing to euthanize their patients:

Unknown said...

These insights are helpful. Thank you. Yes, I was aware of Bush's brave ban on partial birth abortion and am also aware of the Mexico City policy. I guess I would like to hear more about what the administration has done in the way of unwanted pregnancies. Someone below mentions the accessiblity of birth control. Bush's administration wasn't responsible for these efforts, however. On the contrary, his limited government approach sought to privatize such matters. Adoption is also mentioned, and is indeed a valid answer to this sad and overwhelming debate. Can Chris B or anyone else help me understand if the Bush administration has made adoption more affordable and easier for families? Last I checked the costs and hoops were immense.

I do not disagree with the sentiments in this conversation as I am staunchly pro-life and believe any form of abortion is morally incorrect. That said, I want to engage in this conversation constructively. How might politically conservative evangelical Christians make a case for policies corresponding to abortion bans? Liberals often criticize the right, noting our overemphasis on acutal abortion policy and our underemphasis on policies relating to the issue overall (social, economic, and education disparities). Rather than throwing punches at one another might we find some common ground and aims, without compromising our biblical beliefs? Obama is in the whitehouse and will be for the next four years, God willing. I urge us to consider how we might encourage partisan work on this issue, not more bantering. Thoughts?