By Jim on
Archive
Abortion
In His Own Words: A Radical Pro-Abortion President

Discussion

Wed, 01/26/11
i think this latest statement should just be viewed as condensed version of the statement he gave two years ago. i think the most clear statement is what he gave in september 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/28/remarks-president…] Remarks by the President in a Backyard Discussion in Albuquerque, New Mexico (September 28, 2010)
Now, with respect to the abortion issue, I actually think – I mean, there are laws both federal, state and constitutional that are in place. And I think that this is an area where I think Bill Clinton had the right formulation a couple of decades ago, which is abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I think that it’s something that all of us should recognize is a difficult, sometimes – oftentimes tragic situation that families are wrestling with.

I think the families and the women involved are the ones who should make the decision, not the government. But I do think actually that there are a whole host of laws on the books that after a certain period, the interests shift such that you can have some restrictions, for example, on late-term abortions, and appropriately so. So there is in fact a set of rules in place.

Now, people still argue about it and still deeply disagree about it. And that’s part of our – that’s part of our democratic way.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/StatementofPresidentObamaont… Statement of President Obama on the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22, 2009)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/22/statement-preside…] Statement by the President on Roe v. Wade Anniversary (January 22, 2011)

Wed, 01/26/11
Chris,

He didn’t repeat this sentiment now that he is entrenched in the White House, and he has done nothing to support this original statement with his power in office. Quite to the contrary. Even if it is true, so what? Should evangelicals be less appalled because he wants to limit the number of murdered babies? I think not!

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Wed, 01/26/11
[Chip Van Emmerik] He didn’t repeat this sentiment now that he is entrenched in the White House…
the statement i quoted is only from four months ago. that’s why i think calling obama a “radical pro-abortion president” is a little reactionary.

should evangelicals be less appalled? maybe a little. but more importantly, less appalled than what? we have one political side that beats the drum of overturning roe v. wade, but accomplishes next to nothing to reduce the number of abortions while the other side beats the drum of letting roe v. wade be settled law, but taking a few more steps that quantifiably reduce the number of abortions.

if evangelicals are appalled, they should be appalled on two fronts:
  1. the pro-life movement has failed to convince the american public that life with full human rights begins at conception. the vast majority of people are more convinced that the fetus is only a potential human. no politician will be able to make lasting changes until public opinion changes.
  2. the pro-life movement has failed to address the reasons why women seek abortion. see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf] Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives