Skip to main content

Obama Makes Illogical Pro-abortion Arguments

On January 22, 2016, the 43rd anniversary of the horrible Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion in America, President Obama made a statement advocating for abortion (click here to access statement).  President Obama's statement reflects the standard talking points of pro-death abortion advocates.  Let's think through his statement line by line.

First he says Roe v. Wade "affirmed a woman's freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health."  This is the "pro-choice" argument.  The problem is that it isn't logical.  No woman in America has complete freedom of choice when it comes to her own body or her own health.  For instance, there are laws against drug abuse.  A woman doesn't have the legal right to make her own choice about her body in this instance.  The law takes that choice away.  She is not allowed to abuse drugs simply because that's what she chooses to do with her body.  A second reason that this is illogical is that there are two patients in every abortion procedure- the mother and the baby.  The mother cannot choose abortion without affecting the baby.  So while the mother has a supposed right to choose for herself, that right cannot be excercised without her making the choice for the baby as well.  This argument exhalts a woman's supposed right to unrestricted choice over every other American's ability to choose. She has far more power than the father, more power than the baby, and more power than anyone else who might advocate for the baby.  It's not just her body she's excercising control over.

Obama continues: "The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor."  This is also illogical. The government does intervene in some doctor/patient decisions.  For example, there are certain procedures that a doctor cannot legally perform even if the patient requests them.  There are certain drugs a patient may not legally have and a doctor may not legally prescribe.  In these instances the government is intruding and taking unfettered freedom of choice away from patients and doctors.  These restrictions are in place to prevent potential harm to the patient.  Every abortion "procedure" guarantees that one patient in the room, the baby, will suffer irreparable harm.  Why wouldn't the government have a responsibility to interfere on behalf of the defenseless child?

The president also said: "As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them."  This is simply rediculous.  First, Where in the Constitution is the right to safe, affordable healthcare mentioned?  Where is reproductive freedom mentioned in our Constitution?  To say that abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution is to be living in a fantasy land.  None of these things are provided for in our founding documents.  Instead, the preamble to our Constitution states that the Constitution was designed in part to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".  How does abortion provide for "the Blessings of Liberty" to America's "Posterity", our children?  It doesn't.  Abortion is distinctly anti-Constitutional because it kills our posterity instead of blessing them with liberty.  The preamble to the Declaration of Independence says this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  Abortion takes away the inalienable fundamental rights of a baby to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  These rights can only be enjoyed by the living. The Declaration's preamble further states that the reason for government to exist is to secure these rights, i.e. "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" for all citizens.  So instead of Obama using the government to promote abortion, he should see it as his Constitutional duty to do the opposite, i.e. secure the rights of our least vulnerable citizens, the unborn.

Obama's speech closes with these words: "In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams."  I agree.  But abortion advocates apply a double standard here.  In their minds the only citizens in America who truly deserve rights, freedoms, and opportunities to pursue their dreams are pro-abortion women.

Popular posts from this blog

The Lord's Supper and Eating Unworthily

By far the most popular passage in Baptist churches concerning observing the Lord's Supper is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.  A particular focus has been placed on verses 27-31 quoted below from the King James Version that many of us grew up with. 27  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30  For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31  For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. (1 Cor. 11:27-31 KJV) photo courtesy of www.freeimages.com Pastors often point to these verses as a warning to would be participants in the ordinance that they should first examine themselves so that they don't partake unworthily and come under Go

The Abusive Positive Confession Heresy

I was asked today whether I believed in the "power of the tongue".  The Christian who asked me this is from a charismatic background.  What she wanted to know is if I believe that we can speak negative things into existence in our lives.  Is it possible for me to create my own bad circumstances, i.e. cancer, sickness, tragedy, etc. by speaking them into existence?  She referenced the fact that God created the universe by simply speaking.  The implication is that words have power and, since we are created in God's image, our words have power also.  Since God's words can create, then we, His image-bearers, should also be able to create with our words.  We can literally speak things into existence, negative or positive.  This idea is called "positive/negative confession".  This is a heretical idea with no Scriptural support.  The Got Questions? website ( http://www.gotquestions.org/positive-confession.html ) has a good refutation of the positive confession he

Where Will You Be Found?

One of my favorite verses is Philippians 3:9.  The HCSB translates it like this: ...and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ- the righteousness from God based on faith. I would like to expound on this verse a little and explain why it is special to me.  First of all, it speaks of being found . The fact is that each one of us is found in either a good spiritual state or a bad spiritual state in God's eyes.  The Scripture says in Hebrews 4:13 that "No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account." The first thing that Adam did after he sinned was to try to cover his guilt with leaves and hide from God in the shadows.  The first thing God did was find Adam and call him to account for what he had done. Knowing that I am unable to hide myself from God's all-seeing eyes, and that I must give an account to Him causes me to be in a