Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Wed, Jan. 21 2009 12:58 PM EST

Pro-Lifers Double Efforts as Obama Era Begins

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

Enthusiasm for President Barack Obama has abounded around his inauguration as many Americans anticipate a time of change. But now with a pro-choice president, tens of thousands of Christians and pro-life advocates are doubling their efforts hoping for a specific change – justice for the unborn.

"While millions are celebrating the Inauguration of President Obama, it is critical to be a voice and witness for those who have no voice," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "That is the 53,000,000 innocent children that have been lost through abortion."

Mahoney and a group of pro-lifers stood along the Inaugural Parade route in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday holding pro-life banners.

It was just one of many pro-life events taking place that day in Washington and other cities, including Olympia, Wash. Pro-life advocates worry that Obama will push the Freedom of Choice Act, which could lead to more abortions.

The events lead up to the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, on Thursday.

Participants in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Thursday are hoping their message will resonate louder this year as they now march under the administration of Obama, who has been described as the most abortion-friendly president ever elected.

March for Life organizers have extended an invitation to Obama to speak at the rally on the National Mall.

"America needs your strong leadership as President of all of the people to stop the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 preborn boys and girls each day and the brutalizing of mind, heart and body of pregnant mothers," the invitation addressed to Obama states. "This evil continues because some public officials and other citizens are indifferent to the fatal errors of Roe v. Wade and the critical need to overturn the illicit Roe v. Wade."

Catholic bishops also wrote a letter to Obama asking the president not to reverse the pro-life policies – including a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and protection of health care workers who object abortion due to moral or religious beliefs – that were put in place during the Bush administration.

Noting that Obama had at one occasion not been able to provide a definite answer to when a baby has human rights, Cardinal Francis George, who wrote the letter on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: "Uncertainty as to when human rights begin provides no basis for compelling others to violate their conviction that these rights exist from the beginning. After all, those people may be right. And if the goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions."

Last August, then Democratic nominee Obama told Pastor Rick Warren at a forum that it was above his pay grade to answer the question of when life begins. Obama later explained to ABC News that the question is "pretty tough" and he wanted to communicate that he doesn't "presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Obama's answer to the life question did not please evangelicals. Then Republican nominee Sen. John McCain had gained the praise of evangelicals when he, without hesitation, replied that life begins at conception. Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    forgiven, totally on target, it will pretty much eliminate all limits on abortions from parental notifications to ultrasounds.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Apparently, the Freedom of Choice Act undoes everything that at least made some abortion practice alittle more responsible. (If I can say it that way.)

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I just heard on the news that Obama is getting ready to allow funding for baby killing outside the US.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Are you suggesting that a Christian has never been done for speeding? "

    The problem here is people mistake the interstate number for the speed limit. In our case, that would be 85....

    HEY, STEVE!!! You sent me for a pun war and then never showed. What gives? You missed a good one!

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The next question is how wil you force a women to keep a baby she does not want? "

    Direct to the question now... It has been my experience that women who are seeking an abortion have way deeper issues. In fact, the abortion is many times an effect of those deeper issues.

    We tend to overlook those deeper needs of the woman and fight at the "abortion" level. There are many faith based homes for unwed mothers who help with those deeper issues. They can help with adoption or help prepare the mother to keep the child. The woman has the choice and the baby doesn't get killed.

    I was talking with a school district in MN a couple years ago. They have a program for pregnant girls where they can take electives such as early childcare and first aid along with how to run a household (budget and such).

    Most of the abortions in this country happen out of fear. I've known a few gals who have had an abortion. Fear was the driving factor. Lack of support from family causes fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the responsibility. The list goes on.

    Our church has said from the pulpit that a person can't be pro-life and not care for the woman. It has been my experience that "perfect love casts out all fear". When these women are given and accept the true love of Jesus they carry their babies full term and either keep them or put them up for adoption.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The next question is how wil you force a women to keep a baby she does not want?"

    As has been mentioned...adoption. To be honest, there are more couples wanting to adopt then there are babies. Many adopt from overseas for this reason. (Many adopt from overseas for other reasons which are also good.)

    The problem comes in that when a child...say 8...dies people talk about the lost potential. How sad it is that the child never had a chance to grow up. Still, many of those support abortion. It's confusing to a simple man such as myself.

    Here's a better one. A woman 6 months pregnant gets attacked and it causes the baby to die. The person is charged with murder and rightly so. Yet, the same mother could go and have an abortion and it's OK.

    The partial birth abortion camp says is OK as long as the baby is still inside the mother. Yet, if the mother kills the baby 5 minutes after it's born then it's murder.

    Again, way to confusing for a simple man.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    fsnl wrote: "Everyone is appalled by it when they hear it, yet most people think nothing of abortion, claiming civil rights, what about the babies civil rights?"

    I think this why "they" decided to come to a consensus to when one thinks a "fetus" is a "baby"; thereby justifying when is acceptable to terminate a baby, opp, I mean, pregnancy. Afterall, terminology is key.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Are you suggesting that a Christian has never been done for speeding?

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Adoption is certainly an eminently sensible suggestion, but its not drama to ask these questions and put forward senarios in the light of no other suggestions. But what to do with the women who don't want to carry the baby? Though with that idea hopefully they might.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Plus let's get real, abortions being illegal is not a new development and in fact prior to 1973 it was in most states. Did they send women or even the abortionists to jail or were the abortionists practices fined and shut down and perhaps it cost the aborters his or her butcher's license.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20, enough with the drama, how about she put the baby up for adoption!:)

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks dp its nice to see someone come off the fence. The next question is how wil you force a women to keep a baby she does not want? Set up homes? Chain them to beds? I am being serious here, there are more ways to abort a baby than just with a doctor?

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "would you see the guilty woman sent to jail"

    Yes and her abortionist and anyone who didn't tell her all the facts.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But to come back to the main point, would you see the guilty woman sent to jail, she has broken the law after all.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes because the women chooses that course of action, in the situation you write about the women has the choice taken from her, its her body at all times.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Can't help you with that one fsnl as thats not what I'm writing about here.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello Fs

    Your conclusion would, for some who contribute here, certainly be a consistent position for them to take(though I have yet to hear it uttered). I do wonder if it is the mother they would have charged though with first degree murder because she is the one who paid/ hired the doctor/s?. Again, that would certainly be consistent.

    BW

    Steve

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    fsnl wrote: "It should be murder 1 for the doctors that perform the abortions. Not sure about the woman who has the abortion."

    Wouldn't this make the woman an accomplish to murder?

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks for the reply saltnlight. I think this an issue that needs to be addressed and that it is not. When I have discussd this matter with others I find people normally look a little peturbed by this valid question as if this thought had not crossed their mind.

    BW

    Steve

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    chicago, no being pro-abortion means you are okay with and will do nothing to stop the blatant murder of unborn living babies. If you're going to declare that pro-life is an all or nothing position then that standard would hold true for pro-choice as well, if you say you are pro-choice then you must be pro-abortion and pro-murder as well. The same way according to you, if one is pro-life they must be a pacifist and vegetarian as well.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    strag, what settles the issue about the soul is that God declares it in His Word, the Bible not simply that it is in the Bible. But the issue here is the blatant murder of unborn living babies who are created in the image of God.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The key part of this debate is the idea of a 'soul'. A lot of religious contain this idea. Its interesting to ask why. Why do humans want to feel they are more than the some of their parts?
    However, once again, if you claim the existence of a 'soul' and that we need to base our behaviour on that idea - we then you need to supply prove. Simply saying 'its in my book' is not enough.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yeah! What is the going rate for pre-meditated murder?

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have a question.

    If abortion is made illegal, what jail term should the women who have abortions be? Should they go to jail? If not what should their punishment be for breaking the law. There is a penalty for breaking the law of the land, what should theirs be?

    I just wondered what peoples thoughts on this question are.

    Many thanks

    Steve

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:01 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    No Justice! No Peace!

    Civil Rights for the Unborn! Now!

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "It's not a matter of scripture, but one of law."

    So...if it's law it's right?

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Fors:

    Convince you with scripture? Why in the world would I want to do that? It's not a matter of scripture, but one of law. Once again: The only justification for claiming abortion is "murder" of a "person" is wholly religious, as the claim requires the collection of cells, or embryo, if you prefer, have something you refer to as a "soul." Sans the soul, you wouldn't consider it murder at all, would you? Of course not.

    As far as your assumption is concerned, I have never claimed to be a Christian. If something I wrote gave you that opinion, it was unintentional.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    forsaltnlight:
    "Abortion should be rare - but available"
    Abortion is First Degree Murder of a child. Tell me again why this ever should be available?
    50 Million children, the same number of High School Seniors in America, is our holocaust.
    STOP THE MURDERS.
    Patrick James Burwell | OnlyJesusSaves.com

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I think people can be "pro-choice" and not be "pro abortion". "

    The problem is people don't make the choice before they get pregnant. One man and one woman in the confines of marriage would almost end even the question of abortion.

    Obama already has on his desk executive orders he has asked for. One will have us paying for abortions for people in other countries. The Presidential website changed at 12:01pm yesterday to reflect pro-abortion.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I agree with you, 24, as I think most Americans do. Abortion should be rare - but available, and ALWAYS the choice of the woman whose body it is. The only justification for totally banning the procedure is a religious one, (having to do with something the religious refer to as a "soul"), and as such should be opposed on church/state grounds. Same applies to embryonic stem cell research, opposing gay rights and teaching anything but good science in public schools.

    Best thing is, the incoming administration is not only aware of these things, they are committed to properly enforcing them.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer: I think people can be "pro-choice" and not be "pro abortion". Being "pro abortion" implies that they take delight in having an abortion or in people having and supplying them. It really is an inaccurate term.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am pro-life and have "re-doubled" my efforts as this article says. I have set apart more in my personal budget to be making more donations to pro-life groups and have been in contact with my senators/congressman via phone calls to their office and e-mails.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    chicago, the name is not relevant only the fact that we are opposed to the blatant murder of totally innocent unborn living babies. So then you would agree that the term pro-choice is really pro-abortion or pro-murder?

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ID4324: I'm not equating animal life with human life, no. I just get tired of the inconsistencies of those who claim to be "pro-life" yet support a president that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, also support the death penalty, AND who aren't vegetarian.
    They're not "pro-life". Just simply anti-abortion.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:44 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Amazing. Human life with a soul being compared to animal life. Simply amazing that the two would be compared. What nonsense! But, I have no problem with being labeled anti-abortion. I am. I also recognize the Biblical record of blood sacrifices pointing to the the true Lamb of God, Yeshua, the Messiah who changed my life.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, I just do my best so that they aren't attracted to my apartment.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    chicago24 guess you never kill a fly? Roach? Rat? Guess that is not life huh?

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    If you claim to be pro-life, you sure better be a vegetarian as well (like me).
    Otherwise, you're just "anti-abortion"

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links