Voting on life
How many of you, our local readers, as well as the nation’s population, know that, then senator Obama’s voting record shows that he voted against the federal protection of living aborted fetuses?
In layman’s terms, this means Sen. Barack Obama voted to not allow human babies, aborted but still alive and breathing, to be given the medical attention needed to save their lives...not once, but four separate times!
There is no documentation available that states he has changed his position on this crucial matter.
Christians, especially Catholics, and all of you whose religious beliefs and conscience tell you that all human life is sacred from conception through natural death, must put this information on top of the list of considerations when voting for the man who will become president in the upcoming election.
Christine Olson
Deerwood
Comments (20)
Add commentSad but true
Yes, I did know this and thanks for writing this letter.
However, as with most other facts about our President,
people don't care. I hope that I'm wrong, maybe some
people that voted for hime last time, will see the light.
Sept. 2012 polls still reflect the fact that a large majority of
Americans, including some Catholics, support Roe v. Wade in "some circumstances"; many in "all circumstances". Further, a candidate's view on abortion is not a litmus test for most voters. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57501996/poll-abortion-views-not-a-l.... I don't think it's a news flash to anyone that Pres. Obama, a practicing Christian, supports Roe v. Wade and has NOT flip-flopped on this issue during the course of his political career. (Where has Gov. Romney, a practicing Mormon, stood over the years? For that matter, how would he really govern as a sitting President? Are we sure we know? Hmm.)
Regarding specific charges in this letter, Obama never supported "infanticide":
" . . .this rumor that Obama voted in support of infanticide is completely false. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against a bill that contained language designed to protect infants who were “born alive.” The thing is, there was already an Illinois law in place that would protect infants. Even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill said that “none of those who voted against [the bill] favored infanticide." (from, http://rachelheldevans.com/article-1224185918)
More clarification at : http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/27/747511/gingrich-huckabee-ob....
Many Christians hold a pro-life position that requires a consistent, all-encompassing pro-life view -- one that extends beyond insuring the birth of a child. They'd (I'd!) say it's not "pro-life" to wash one's hands of a child's/family's well-being the minute it's born, either, as exemplified in many Republican budget proposals.
Being "anti-abortion" doesn't necessarily make one "pro-life", IMO. Thanks to this letter-writer for helping us continue this important discussion.
Pro Life Extends Beyond Birth
Those who call themselves "pro-Life" are usually the same ones who propose reducing or taking away programs that benefit children after they are born. Is that "pro-Life"?
Pro-Life people adopt
Pro-Life people adopt children and do foster care and volunteer in schools and pre-school settings with children born to irresponsible parents.
I think they also support a non-profit that helps single mothers.
I don't know what you are referring to, but it may be
that they want government programs to be run better without so much waste.
I have a problem with a single mother who takes all the government programs available when she has parents who earn good incomesand should help,not taxpayers.
I think the explanation on
I think the explanation on the Obama vote in the state senate may be spin.
no one cares
This was just one of the votes in the state senate. It would be nice if people cared about his votes, what he did as a community organizer, and lawyer.
Ah, Those Thousand Points Of Life
Those thousands points of life will be enough to take care of all those unwanted and needy children. Okey Dokey, living in their own fantasy world again.
What?
I honestly do not know what you mean by "those thousand points of life". For the record, for me, RoeWade is established law.
Why are there unwanted and needy children?
Also, I'm a proud adoptive mother and l"m so saddened when I see or hear of unwanted children. We do what we
can volunteer wise and donating .
Oooops - Thousand Points Of Light
Sorry, I meant the George H. W. Bush's "Thousand Points Of Light". Remember how Mr. Bush thought those thousand points of light could replace the need for those government programs? You are naive to think those adoptions and other good intentions can fill the needs.
Uh, Bond...
Nowhere in that CBS poll did it say a majority of people supported Roe v. Wade. This is what it did say:
"Nearly half of Americans think abortion should be permitted in all cases or permitted with greater restrictions than it is now."
First "nearly half" is not a majority. Second, to get to nearly half they had to include people who think abortion should be more restricted than it is now under Roe v. Wade. Third, even if a true majority supported Roe v. Wade (which your poll does not show), the truth and morality are not determined through a majority vote.
And you, Bond...
...are naive to think the welfare state has made the world a better place.
If you re-read my post, you
If you re-read my post, you will see that I didn't say that adoptions and good intentions fill the needs.
I do believe that the existing government programs should be revamped always looking for efficiency and abuse.
And I repeat that family members should be the first to help, not the government program.
And I ask why are there so many needy children?
Government programs alone are not the answer
No, you didn't insult me by calling me naive because I know better..
Uh, Muelhie....
I did not post anything linking to a CBS poll, that was Bumba Yumbo.
And you are naive, to put it kindly, if you think that today's seniors, disabled, children and the truly needy are not better off because of the programs from the New Deal. Can you name any program you like?
Not sure if this poll was cited, above:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm. Combo of "in some circumstances" and "in all circumstances" indicate a majority favor some aspects of Roe v. Wade. Just math, not a value statement. Indeed, "truth and morality are not determined by a majority vote." Couldn't agree more, Muehlbau. No particular religion's standards of morality/religious beliefs should necesssarily be translated into legislation or constitutional amendments (e.g., MN marriage amendment), since we live in a very divided, pluralistic nation regarding these issues. Women and minorities would have very few rights today if left to a majority vote. Lots of "Christians" liked the idea of owning slaves and keeping their "lady-folk" at home, barefoot and pregnant (and by no means should either have ever seen the inside of a voting booth. Perish the thought!).
Christine...Here's a universal truth in the U.S...
You are free to believe...That's why the United States of America is great...
In many parts of the world overall, you do not have this freedom...
All those things that Sadie
All those things that Sadie said "pro-life" people do for children (adopt, foster care, volunteer, etc.) "pro-choice" do them too.
And pro-choice people are more likely to support birth control thereby decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies and by extension the number of abortions. That is the most effective way to reducing abortions so it is safe to say that pro-choice people have reduced the number of abortions than pro-life people.
Something to think about.
Sorry, Bond, but all leftists look alike to me...
...and Bubba, most people would say that abortion should be allowed in the case of the mother's life being at risk, so that poll means nothing. A much more meaningful question would be how many people believe abortion should be allowed for any reason and at any point in pregnancy, because that's what Roe v. Wade. And belief that innocent human life should be protected is not something that is a religion specific belief so your attempt to paint this as a religious liberty issue fails. There are even atheists who believe that innocent human life should not be destroyed except in cases where there is a commensurate reason for destroying it (such as in the case where both the baby and mother will die if the mother carries the child to term).
Please we all care
I'm for birth control. I only mentioned pro-life people because that is what someone mentioned that they should do more. Now, as I said, I'm for birth control.
You cannot say that pro-choice has done more than
pro-life. That is silly and small ball.
The people that should be reducing abortion are the people having unprotected sex and do I dare say out of marriage sex.
I factor abuse and rape into my thinking and is where I
really think about it.
I trust that most people who are adults want to reduce the abortions that really are murder. It puzzles me that people are actually ok with abortions knowing it is murder.
eyolf says:
Tell you what, meuhl, next time someone with a more rigid position that yours shows up, would you do us all a favor and post a moderating thought? You might say something like: "I think I understand your POV, but please don't speak for me or pretend to define all of us on this issue. Thank you
Please quit judging people eyolf, as I don't think you were apointed to a judging position. Please quit trying to define what is right about everyone else's positions. I don't believe you are the messiah anymore than Obama is.