It's unfortunate, but America now has the most pro-abortion president in the nation's history. He has pledged to protect abortion rights and has wasted no time in advancing its cause. On Friday, January 23, Barack Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy - and with that action forced American taxpayers to fund the innocent slaughter of children all over the world.
But that's not all; in his campaign he promised to do more. He wants to pursue and sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act - legislation that would essentially remove all state-level restrictions on abortion. And he wants to lift the ban on state-supported embryonic stem-cell research.
Interestingly, when presidential candidate Obama gave his famous "Call to Renewal" speech, he said: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." Incidentally, this same principle is reiterated under "Faith" on the White House website.
Although all morality is essentially based in religion and certainly not devoid of reason, suppose God or religion were left out of the picture. Suppose a completely secular approach to abortion was made only "amenable to reason" -- an approach that seeks to show that abortion "violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all," just as the president insists. Would the argument against abortion be sufficiently strong?
The answer to that question is an unequivocal, "yes!"
In his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, Randy Alcorn notes a number of completely secular arguments for why abortion should be prohibited by law.
First, he says, medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians' testimonies to Congress have asserted this scientific fact.
One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?
"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy - to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"
What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive - even if it's me?
Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical - it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime.
Discrimination is another matter considered deplorable by today's standards. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn rightly contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence.
"One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."
Such principle, which is clearly accepted by the masses, is certainly not "religion specific." One might even argue that it has nothing to do with religion. Thus abortion is, at the least, an egregious act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.
What's more, where is it generally agreed upon by people of every background that an individual's right to choose trumps the protection of innocent life?
Alcorn writes: "When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body - and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"
Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason" or even slightly agreed upon by any. Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.
Obviously, there is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position. Whether godless or a person of faith, by the president's own standard alone the practice of abortion should be summarily rejected and opposed - not supported and advanced.