Thursday, June 12, 2008

Freedom of Choice Act

According to CNSNews:
Following a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama was asked what he would do at the federal level, not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees he might pick "are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?""Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said. "That's the first thing I'd do." (See video)
The Freedom of Choice Acts (FOCA) is an Act "To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes."

That sounds good, doesn't it? After all who wants government interfering in our rights? And since this Act would ensure the right of a woman to have her baby partially delivered before scrambling its brains, why stop here?

Why not also protect the woman's right to kill her newborn baby also? I mean, if a woman changes her mind and decides that her newborn is holding her back from career or education opportunities, why should government interfere in her right to chose to terminate her newborn's life?

If a woman's job situation should change and her infant has become a financial burden on the family, how dare the government interfere with her choice to end the infant's life!

And if the woman's new boyfriend thinks her toddler cries too much and that is causing excessive tension in the relationship, shouldn't she have the freedom of choice to end the toddler's life also?

Fortunately in America, we still think these scenarios are over the top, but infanticide has been accepted in some cultures so why is it murder to kill a newborn baby but not murder to kill an unborn or even partially born baby?

Some anti-abortion supporters of Obama rationalize their support of Obama by saying that they are not one-issue voters. I sympathize with that view. But some issues are more important than others. My question for anti-abortion supporters of Obama would be, how would you feel about a pre-Civil War voter who voted for a pro-slavery candidate saying that they are not a "one-issue" voter?

7 comments:

L'oiseau said...

I think abortion is wrong. Completely. That said, I am still standing by my decision to vote for Obama.

First of all, McCain will not necessarily "outlaw" abortion in the US even if Roe v. Wade is overturned successfully. This will just give the states the decision to make, and I'm sure many of them will make the wrong one.

Secondly, I do not believe the President has a lot of power over this issue. Bush is pro-choice, and Roe v. Wade hasn't been touched during his eight years as President, and there's a reason for that. His job does not give him the authority to overturn it. If you want to vote pro-life, vote for a Conservative Senator.

Thirdly, I respect Obama for wanting to halt abortions in different ways, by educating young mothers and providing the tools they will need to take care of their baby.

Abraham Lincoln himself said he had no power over the slavery issue, though he was anti-slavery. We might still have slaves in this country to this day had the South not attacked Fort Sumter.

On this issue, I don't really think either candidate is perfect, so I am not basing my vote on this single issue.

L'oiseau said...

*Sorry, I meant to say "Bush is pro-life" in the second paragraph.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

I guess the difference is that McCain would at least advocate letting the voters in each state decide rather than having the Supreme Court legislating what all Americans must accept whether they like it or not.

If pro-choice people were really pro-choice, they would push to let the voters decide. Instead they fight tooth and nail to keep that choice out of the hands of the voters!

McCain would at least be something of a road block for those advocating abortion. Obama would be a steam roller working to crush all opposition to abortion including parental notification and partical birth abortion.

l'oiseau, do you really want laws that would ensure that if your daughter got pregnant, she didn't have to come to you first before getting an abortion?

Kids have to get parental permission to take an aspirin in school but they don't need permission to get an abortion?!!! This is the kind of nonsense Obama supports.

You do provide a good reason for why Americans need to vote Pro-Life (i.e. Republican) for Congress, though. I'll give you that :-)

L'oiseau said...

"l'oiseau, do you really want laws that would ensure that if your daughter got pregnant, she didn't have to come to you first before getting an abortion?"

Honestly, I would be incredibly disappointed if this situation happened in my family. Disappointed, shocked, disgusted. However, I'm going to assume that, were this the situation, my daughter did not come to me and ask me whether or not she could have sex either.

She would be a grown woman, capable of making her own decisions at that point, right or wrong, and I will be hoping and praying that I raised her correctly and that the Holy Spirit would be with her and enable her to make the right choice.

Sorry, but I don't believe that a law against abortion would stop her, if she really wanted it anyway. She would just be using a coat hanger instead of a Dr.

L'oiseau said...

Sorry, I had more to say and I posted too soon ;)

"If pro-choice people were really pro-choice, they would push to let the voters decide. Instead they fight tooth and nail to keep that choice out of the hands of the voters!"

No offense, but this is not a logical conclusion. Reverse the situation for a second. If abortion was illegal now, and pro-life people knew many people would vote to make it legal, would they leave it in the hands of the voters? Doubtful. Most of them believe it's murder. Do you allow people to vote to choose whether or not murder is wrong? No.

"I guess the difference is that McCain would at least advocate letting the voters in each state decide rather than having the Supreme Court legislating what all Americans must accept whether they like it or not."

That's America, people dictate our boundaries to us all the time. I mean, I can't even drive 120 miles per hour on my own street!

"McCain would at least be something of a road block for those advocating abortion. Obama would be a steam roller working to crush all opposition to abortion including parental notification and partical birth abortion."

This is basically what I was trying to address in my post. I don't believe that much will change regarding abortion with either of the candidates, and that is why this issue doesn't matter for the Presidency to me. I may be voting Republican for Congress. Not sure yet.

So, I'm sure we still disagree on this issue, but I hope you can still respect my position.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau wrote,

"No offense, but this is not a logical conclusion. Reverse the situation for a second. If abortion was illegal now, and pro-life people knew many people would vote to make it legal, would they leave it in the hands of the voters? Doubtful. Most of them believe it's murder. Do you allow people to vote to choose whether or not murder is wrong? No."

I guess I'm missing your point. We pro-lifers are not claiming to be "pro-choice." You're right. We believe that killing the unborn is morally evil and we don't think people should have a choice to kill innocent people.

On the other hand, for those who claim to be pro-choice, why don't they put put up or shut up by allowing the voters of each state to decide?

l'oiseau wrote,

That's America, people dictate our boundaries to us all the time. I mean, I can't even drive 120 miles per hour on my own street!

Good point. But let's have the congress decide (we the people) rather than having justices make up law as they go along which is exactly what happened in Roe v. Wade!

l'oiseau wrote,

"I don't believe that much will change regarding abortion with either of the candidates,"

This may depend entirely on whether we have a Democratic Congress or not. If the Democrats run congress and send up pro-abortion bills to the president, McCain will likely veto them but Obama would rubber stamp them. The president could make all the difference in the world.

l'oiseau wrote,

"So, I'm sure we still disagree on this issue, but I hope you can still respect my position."

Well, actually I'd prefer that you change your mind and see things my way so we don't have to disagree :-) but I always appreciate the fact that you disagree agreeably and never resort to personal name calling.

L'oiseau said...

"I guess I'm missing your point. We pro-lifers are not claiming to be "pro-choice." You're right. We believe that killing the unborn is morally evil and we don't think people should have a choice to kill innocent people.

On the other hand, for those who claim to be pro-choice, why don't they put put up or shut up by allowing the voters of each state to decide?"


This is what I'm saying. Imagine that the shoe was on the other foot. Abortion is not legal in the US and pro-lifers are "winning" at the moment.

Would we want to allow the people to vote when we know for a fact that many states would switch over to making abortion legal? I just don't believe that any pro-lifer would be happy with allowing that situation and so, it's the same with the pro-choicers right now.

As for the rest, I'm going to agreeably disagree, say I enjoy our conversations, and vamoose. Happy Father's Day:)