In his blog today (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/24/in-his-own-words-a-radical-pro-abortion-president/) , Al Mohler notes that President Obama’s statement Saturday to mark the observance of Roe v. Wade did little to dispel the notion that he is more radical in his pro-abortion views than his campaign rhetoric suggested. Obama’s final sentence was this:
“And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”This logic, as I mentioned Sunday, is deeply troubling. It ignores the central issue at stake: what are the rights of the baby in the womb. It instead focuses only on the perceived benefits—or potential benefits—to the mother and father.
On Mother Jones’ website, there was an article posted about a pro-life attorney. One comment on the story caught my eye:
“I can tell you right now that if I were to get my girlfriend pregnant (accidentally, of course) I wouldn't even have to think about it. I've still got 3 years of University left, and my current girlfriend is JUST starting her career. There is no way I can support a child, and with the field she's going into, a child will destroy her career at this point in time. If we brought a child into the world it will be a meager minimum wage existence plagued by all the problems that come with low income families.”Though stated more crudely, this is the same argument that President Obama is making and the same argument Nazi eugenicists made. The destruction of some life protects people’s rights to pursue whatever future they have envisioned for themselves.
The mind-numbingly obvious response, of course, is: what about the future of the aborted child?
Praying for the Protection of Life for the Glory of God,