Yes We Can ~ Eliminate Abortion. Can't We?

Thursday Jan 22nd was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in which the US Supreme Court upheld the right to murder babies. This act is shrouded in more culturally acceptable language and has been traditionally called the "woman's right to choose" but as I often say "a rose (in this case poison ivy) by any other name..." etc...

According to the Associated Press, supporters of an individuals right to life took the opportunity to descend upon The National Mall in Washington DC two days after what was one of the most widely hailed Presidential Inauguration ever, only this time, there was no celebration due to any political victories, there were only reminders of what is arguably one of the worst decisions in US Supreme Court history and reflections of what that decision has done to unborn American Citizens.

As a reminder, and as outlined in In 100% Change Man, and Barack-ing the Gay Agenda, Can We Really say Yes To This Change?, since Roe v. Wade in 1973 it is estimated that over 50 Million babies have been aborted or killed. This is in comparison to the following statistics and facts specific to how this has affected the African American community:

• Since 1973 in the African-American community 203,695 people have died of AIDS
  Since 1973 in the African-American community 1,638,350 people have died of CANCER
  Since 1973 in the African-American community 2,266,789 people have died of HEART DISEASE
  Since 1973 in the African-American community 13,000,000 (13 MILLION) people or (BABIES) HAVE BEEN KILLED under the guise of abortion aka a woman's right to choose. This amounts to approximately 1,452 deaths per day.

One of the myths that I have already clearly outlined in Abortion Issues & Myths is that abortion should be lay because it is "medically necessary" in cases of or rape and incest. The facts are that abortions arising from rape and incest only constitutes about 1.5% of all abortions annually. In addition since pregnancy from rape or incest is not an instantaneous occurrence, it has been found that immediate and proper treatment in the hospital and removal of semen from the uterus is an effective method of reducing or eliminating this threat also. [See the results of studies of 4,800 victims of rape in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area, as cited in John F. Hillabrand, "Dealing With a Rape Case," Heartbeat 8 (March 1975):250] In addition, the term "medically necessary" is an ambiguous and subjective term stating that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. Therefore, there is a significant difference between what is essential for someone to live and what someone desires because their life is inconvenienced.

According to The Washington Post.com Although our new President choose not to attend the march he did issue a statement saying that he agreed with the Roe v. Wade decision expressing in part that it, "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."

First of all this statement is totally ridiculous and contrary to the scheme of government in general. In fact because government is so large and will expand under his Presidency he is simply providing a legal equivocation on the issue and covering it with an an emotionally charged sentiment with which we all agree...we don't want gov't to intrude into our most private and family matters, however we all know that some matters, that are considered family and private, are often open to governmental intrusion. Example, taxation...Your check has your name on it and is for the benefit of your family, however if you don't pay your taxes guess who intervenes? Example, our prisons are filled with a disproportionately high number of black males. Many of them are there due to drug use (not sales)...They were engaged in a "private family matter" but guess who had the right to intervene? Further, I am aware of hospitals and states taking rights to conduct certain medical procedures even when the "family" has "privately" decided to seek alternate means. I have seen families have to seek legal council and go to court to try to exercise their "family and private" rights. There are a host of other examples that could be used, the fact of the matter is that the President's addressing of this issue is an obfuscation of his more deeply held belief that he espouses that a human is really not a human and has NO RIGHTS at the moment of conception...

Nonetheless, these statements also agree with his previous statements on the subject:

• "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."~ Senator Barack Obama "A Call To Renewal" Washington DC 6/28/2006
  

In this statement our President provides a pluralistic argument called the imposition of morality and totally eliminates that thought that all laws (whether good or bad) are a product of a value system or set of beliefs. By minimizing biblical beliefs and making those beliefs only products of faith, the President displays that in his understanding, certain moral values either do not exist or are not generally accepted outside of the faith community. He specifically links an anti-abortionist stance to religious belief. That is simply not the case.

"And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address." (Presidential Debate, Saddleback Church 8/17/2008)

This argument for abortion is called the Argument Against Public Policy Forbidding Abortion. The path of this argument as President Obama uses it is textbook. These are the three points that President Obama generally hails in the defense of abortion:

1. There can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on any issue on which there is widespread disagreement.
2. There is widespread disagreement on the issue of forbidding abortion on demand.
3. Therefore, any law that forbids people to have abortions is unjust.

Every African -American in the United States should demand that Obama relieve himself of these views. Frankly stated IF he is right in his approach then we (African-Americans) should all have remained enslaved. Why? Because there was WIDESPREAD disagreement over the abolishment of slavery. So much so until a war was fought over it and the country was cut in half.

DISAGREEMENTS on an issue DO NOT make an issue invalid. But yet our President continues to provide this sort of rhetoric in the name of unity and finding common ground.

So where does President Obama get this overall idea? I believe he received it from former Supreme Court Justices who have ruled on the issue:

• "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."...he further concludes..."In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake." ~Justice Harry Blackmun, "The 1973 Supreme Court Decisions on State Abortion Laws: Excerpts from Opinion in Roe v. Wade," in The Problem of Abortion, 2d ed., ed. Joel Feinberg (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984),195-196.

In other words because there is seeming or apparent disagreement on when "life begins" we revert to a "non- life theory" as evidence and support for the position???

• "The Missouri Legislature [which said that life begins at conception] may not inject its endorsement of a particular religious tradition in this debate, for 'the Establishment Clause does not allow public bodies to foment such disagreement" ~ Justice J. P. Stevens "Webster v. Reproductive Health Services," United States Law Review 57 (22 July 1989): 5044-45

In this case the anti-abortion sentiments were said to be "religious traditions" and ultimately statements of faith, and the "establishment clause" was used to work against the state endorsing religion.The facts are that just because a philosophically and scientifically plausible position may also be found in religious literature such as the Bible, that does not mean such a view is exclusively "religious."...Ooh what a tangled web we weave...

In The Rumor Mill

Word on the street is that 1st Lady Michelle Obama is currently pregnant. Now this may be totally unfounded and one can do the research for themselves but IF she is, I wonder is it really a human in her womb according to President Obama's understanding.

Then I wonder does it have any rights or a right to live?

Then I wonder, if it (he or she) does have a right to live, why doesn't every unborn child in this country have that same right?

As I have pointed out before, I would like our President to explain that to Sasha, Maliah and me.

Final Note:

What is your churches and Pastor's position on this issue? Have you heard a message preached on this subject from the pulpit or even in a teaching class? I would like to know.

Blessed!