Tuesday, November 11, 2008

"No We Won't": Obama and the Lie of Abortion Reduction

Perhaps the debate regarding abortion has changed. Better yet, perhaps the debate over the life of the unborn has added another branch, that of Abortion Reduction. It is significant that in this election cycle for President those who support this new approach to this divisive issue put all of their hope in now President-elect Barack Obama. But the question must be asked, is President-elect Obama going to be the President to reduce abortions or will proponents of abortion reduction be disappointed in Obama.

We have already established that abortion reduction is not the answer to finding middle ground between pro-lifers and pro-deathers (my word for pro-choicers), but nonetheless, proponents of this view have made their case and must therefore sleep in the bed of their making. This is the candidate they wanted, but will they get the result they wanted?

In a word, no. Though Obama has yet to make an executive decision as President, there are early signs of just how pro-abortion his administration is going to be. Already, it seems inevitable that the process that the pro-life movement made under President George W. Bush will be rescinded in a matter of days. It seems that Obama will rescind the following:

  • The prohibition on federal funding for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion -- even in countries where the procedure is legal. This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001. ...
  • The ban on federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. In August 2001, Bush limited government funding to the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence and prohibited any funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines. Proponents of such research -- including many Democrats and moderate Republicans -- have pointed to the potential for cures for such devastating illnesses as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, but many social and religious conservatives liken the use of such stem cells to abortion because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

It seems that Obama will be a return to the past. As the first point makes clear, the question of federal funding was rejected by Reagan and HW Bush only to be rescinded by Clinton within days of his administration only to be reenacted by W. Bush, and now to be re-rescinded by the Obama administration. I must ask, is this the change and the break from the past we were hoping for?

Likewise, it seems that Obama will rescind the Bush administrations decision to not develop new embryonic stem cell lines. This involves the creating of life in order to destroy life. Is this the reduction we were hoping for? Rather than just abortion life, we will fund the creation of life just to kill it.

With the likes of Donald Miller, Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, and others telling us that Obama's plan to reduce abortion was the progress we needed on this issue and that the Bush administration's policies did not reduce the number of abortions, I must ask them what they now think? What are they going to do to the monster they have created? How will they feel whenever the number of abortions sky rocket as our new President spend our money to provide women for abortions?

We were promised change, and we will get it, tat is, except for the unborn. More of them will likely be slaughtered. Even though it was clear that Obama was the most radical pro-choice candidate in Congress, we were promised that his policies would reduce the number of abortions. Should we be surprised? We were warned weren't we?

I must ask another question, are the actions that Obama will likely take during the opening days of his administration process in the direction proponents of abortion reduction were hoping for? Are they so naive to think that federal funding and support of further embryonic stem cell research will actually limit the number of killed human lives? Can such persons be so foolish?

Of course Obama told us he wanted to see a reduction in the number abortions. We all do. But I will believe in actions before words. "Just words," Obama once said and we are living in his hypocrisy. We got words, but is actions will speak louder, and contrary, to his words. Abortion Reductionists made us promises and now it seems the man they helped elect will break those promises.

We can't say we weren't warned. And we must return were we started, abortion reduction is no common ground and is not the solution to the abortion debate. There is no common ground. Murder is murder no matter how good of a speaker one is. Maybe in four years, these fools who spread these lies about our next President will refrain from fooling millions of us again into believing such nonsense.

But then again, I believe that the voice of the increased murdered that will take place in the next four years will cry out loud enough. The Reductionists put global warming and poverty over the sanctity of life and thus came up with an excuse to support Obama. The blood of the innocent will be on their hands as the rest of us seek to recover what will be lost in the Obama adminstration.
Post a Comment