Obama supports late-term abortions, born-alive abortions and sex-selection abortions

Unborn baby scheming about exposing Obama’s abortion record

First, late-term abortions, as reported by the Weekly Standard.

Excerpt:

The Washington Post reports that President Obama is running his reelection campaign as a “culture warrior,” trying to cast his opponents as extremists on such issues as abortion in the case of rape and requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception. But could Obama’s own extremism on abortion come back to bite him?

During a 2003 press conference, Barack Obama indicated that he thought abortion should be legal in all situations, even late in pregnancy:

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice.”

REPORTER: “In all situations including the late term thing?”

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice. I believe that women make responsible choices and they know better than anybody the tragedy of a difficult pregnancy and I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to meddle in that choice.”

In another interview, Obama said: “I voted no on the late-term abortion ban, not because I don’t recognize that these are painful issues but because I trust women to make these decisions.”

And second, on abortions where the baby is born alive (infanticide):

When Obama opposed a bill to stop infanticide as a member of the Illinois legislature, he said he did so because it reportedly contained language that would have contravened the Roe v. Wade decision. However, documents uncovered during the 2008 election show Obama has misrepresented his position.

Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

It also protected babies who were “aborted” through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

On the federal level, pro-abortion groups withdrew their opposition to the bill after a section was added making sure it did not affect the status of legal abortions in the United States. Ultimately, the bill was approved on a unanimous voice vote with even leading pro-abortion lawmakers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing it.

And finally, Obama very likely supports sex-selection abortions.

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama appears to oppose the ban on sex-selection abortions that the House of Representatives debated yesterday and will be voting on today.

ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper posted a new report indicating President Obama opposes the bill to prohibit performing or coercing abortions to eliminate unborn babies of an undesired sex. Tapper raised the question at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, but did not receive a respond to his question about Obama’s position.

[...]White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith told him in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson was upset to learn Obama opposes the common-sense bill, telling LifeNews:  “It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”

The Democrat Party also  supports sex-selection abortions. Their view is that the mere fact that an unborn child is female is sufficient reason to kill that child. Is that pro-women? What could be more discriminatory and anti-women than that?

Filed under: News, Abortion, Barack Obama, Born Alive, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Children, Democrat, Democrat Party, Feminism, Gendercide, Infanticide, Late-Term Abortion, Pregnancy, PRENDA, Republican Party, Sex Selection Abortions, Sex-Selection, Third Trimester Abortion, Trent Franks, Unborn, Unborn Children, War on Women

Abortion debate: a secular case against legalized abortion

Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against gay marriage is here.

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here. An unborn child cannot be the woman’s own body, because then the woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes and two different DNA signatures. When you have two different human DNA signatures, you have two different humans.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value. More at Stand to Reason, here.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. Is there such a justification for abortion? One of the best known attempts to justify abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

The best book for beginners on the pro-life view is this book:

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Learn about the pro-life case

• How to take an incremental approach to the abortion problem
• Videos from academic debate on abortion at the University of Victoria
• Audio: Scott Klusendorf’s 35-minute case for the pro-life position
• Audio: A 55-minute discussion featuring Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
• A comparison of embryonic and adult stem cell research
• Video: 12-year old girl makes the pro-life case in a short speech
• Video:10-year old girl makes the pro-life case in a short speech
• Objective truth in the abortion debate – a pro-life training video
• Alan Shlemon explains a classification system for pro-abortion arguments
• What is the best single book on the pro-life position?

And some posts motivating Christians and conservatives to take abortion seriously:

• Why Christians should focus on cultural issues as well as evangelism
• Republicans introduce House and Senate bills to establish that life begins at conception
• House Republicans introduce ban on taxpayer funding of abortion
• Are Christians too involved in politics?
• What did the early church fathers think about abortion?
• Scott Klusendorf confronts a “pro-life” nun who voted for Obama

Filed under: Polemics, Health-care, Law, Feminism, Abortion, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, Barack Obama, Socialism, Moral Relativism, Republican Party, Christianity, Stem Cells, Adult Stem Cells, Embryonic Stem Cells, ESCR, ASCR, Family, Social Justice, Greg Koukl, China, Unborn, Big Government, Conscience, Root Causes, Fewer Abortions, Reduce Abortions, Funding Abortion, Collateral Damage, Civilian Casualties, Social Programs, Scot Klusendorf, Sex-Selection, Children, Planned Parenthood, India, Republican, Politics, Girl, Boy, Feminist, Women's Studies, Women's Issues, Feminist Theory, Demcorat

Meet the Chinese woman who saved more than 30 abandoned babies

Here’s an inspiring article from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

A woman has been hailed a hero after details of her astonishing work with abandoned children has emerged.

Lou Xiaoying, now 88 and suffering from kidney failure, found and raised more than 30 abandoned Chinese babies from the streets of Jinhua, in the eastern Zhejiang province where she managed to make a living by recycling rubbish.

She and her late husband Li Zin, who died 17 years ago, kept four of the children and passed the others onto friends and family to start new lives.

Her youngest son Zhang Qilin – now aged just seven – was found in a dustbin by Lou when she was 82.

‘Even though I was already getting old I could not simply ignore the baby and leave him to die in the trash. He looked so sweet and so needy. I had to take him home with me,’ she said.

‘I took him back to our home, which is a very small modest house in the countryside and nursed him to health. He is now a thriving little boy, who is happy and healthy.

‘My older children all help look after Zhang Qilin, he is very special to all of us. I named him after the Chinese word for rare and precious.

‘The whole thing started when I found the first baby, a little girl back in 1972 when I was out collecting rubbish. She was just lying amongst the junk on the street, abandoned. She would have died had we not rescued her and taken her in.

‘Watching her grow and become stronger gave us such happiness and I realised I had a real love of caring for children.

‘I realised if we had strength enough to collect garbage how could we not recycle something as important as human lives,’ she explained.

‘These children need love and care. They are all precious human lives. I do not understand how people can leave such a vulnerable baby on the streets.

There are lots of pictures and more to read! It’s a very, very touching story of self-sacrificial love.

Filed under: News, Abortion, Baby, Children, China, Communism, Democrat, Feminism, Gendercide, Infanticide, Leftism, Marxism, One-Child, Pregnancy, Secularism, Sex Selection Abortions, Sex-Selection, Unborn, Unborn Children, War on Women

Horror in China: newborn female baby left to die in trash with her throat cut

Dina sent me this hair-raising article from the UK Daily Mail. (WARNING: Not suitable for younger readers!)

Excerpt:

An abandoned newborn baby is recovering in hospital after having her throat cut, being put in a plastic bag and thrown into a garbage bin in China’s Liaoning province.

The female baby – so newborn that her placenta and umbilical cord were still attached - was discovered by a man who was searching a bin for recyclables.

Local residents called police and the tiny girl was taken to hospital, where she remains in a critical condition.

A resident who witnessed the girl being taken to hospital said: ‘She was still breathing and had a heartbeat. Blood from the wound stained the whole body.’

Doctors worked to close a two-inch wound across her neck, so deep that it went down to her windpipe.

A doctor at the hospital said that had the cut been any deeper at all ‘she would have died instantly’.

The girl was found in Anshan city, in northeast China.

She is believed to be a victim of the country’s notorious one child policy – and seems to confirm the long-held belief that parents upon which this restriction is imposed prefer boys.

Remember, the Democrat party, and anyone who votes for them, is in favor of abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. In fact, Democrat vice President Joe Biden has expressed that he has no objection to China’s one-child policy. And finally, Barack Obama goes even further left than Biden, and has voted multiple times against born-alive infant protection legislation. The Democrats have also expressed support for sex-selection abortion. If you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for violence against unborn girls – just like what happens in China.

Filed under: News, Abortion, Barack Obama, Children, China, Democrat, Democrat Party, Feminism, Gendercide, Infanticide, Joe Biden, Pregnancy, Secularism, Sex Selection Abortions, Sex-Selection, Unborn, Unborn Children, War on Women

War on women: Obama and Democrats oppose ban on sex-selection abortion

From Life News.

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama appears to oppose the ban on sex-selection abortions that the House of Representatives debated yesterday and will be voting on today.

ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper posted a new report indicating President Obama opposes the bill to prohibit performing or coercing abortions to eliminate unborn babies of an undesired sex. Tapper raised the question at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, but did not receive a respond to his question about Obama’s position.

[...]White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith told him in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson was upset to learn Obama opposes the common-sense bill, telling LifeNews:  “It is appalling, but not surprising, that President Obama now stands with the pro-abortion political committees and his Hollywood donors, rather than with the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized in sex-selection abortions.”

And Mary sent me this article from Life News.

Excerpt:

Democrats in Congress peddled a curious reason for opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions that target girl babies with abortion because they are not boys parents may prefer. They said the ban was anti-woman and part of the so-called “War on Women” Republicans are allegedly waging.

During today’s debate on the Congressional bill to ban sex-selection abortions, Michigan Democrat John Conyers said the ban on sex-selection abortions “tramples the rights of women.”

“It limits a woman’s right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care,” he claimed.

[...]Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said during the debate:  “A minority baby is currently five times more likely to be aborted than a white baby, and nearly half of all black babies are aborted, with over 70 percent of abortion clinics being located in predominantly minority neighborhoods.”

In a letter Wednesday, Americans United for Life urged House members to “stop a real war on women — sex selection abortions” by supporting the legislation.

“This is a real war on women,” said AUL leader Charmaine Yoest. “And it is wrong when we turn a blind eye to women being eliminated in the womb simply for being a member of the female sex.”

“There is nothing pro-woman about killing a baby girl because she is female, and putting her mother’s health and safety at risk in the process,” she said. “Americans—whether pro-life or pro-abortion—overwhelmingly oppose this barbaric practice that undermines the dignity of the human person and agree that sex-selection abortion should be illegal.  AULA calls on all Members of the House to vote for PRENDA to stop the war on women yet to be born.”

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, drove the point home about how and why the bill is pro-woman.

“For most of us, Mr. Speaker, “it’s a girl” is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration.  But in many countries—including our own—it can be a death sentence.   Today, the three most dangerous words in China and India are: it’s a girl.  We can’t let that happen here,” he explained. “By now most people know that the killing of baby girls by abortion or at birth is pervasive in China due to the One Child policy and a preference for sons.  China and India are “missing” tens of millions of daughters.”

If you would like to see what abortion looks like, just click this link.

Should we really be celebrating this practice? It seems to me that it’s worse than slavery. Losing your liberty is really really bad. Losing your life is worse. Especially when you haven’t done anything wrong. Let’s be more responsible with our alcohol consumption and sexual behavior so that we don’t have to kill any innocent unborn children. Fun is nice, but not if it means that someone innocent has to die just so we can have fun.

Filed under: News, Abortion, Barack Obama, Children, Democrat, Democrat Party, Feminism, Gendercide, Infanticide, Pregnancy, PRENDA, Republican Party, Sex Selection Abortions, Sex-Selection, Trent Franks, Unborn, Unborn Children, War on Women