Avoiding The Truth In The Abortion Debate

This title is not so much in reference to direct dishonesty, but more an observation of avoiding, or better yet, not seeking the truth.

President Obama’s track record

During his first campaign, he made the infamous promise to Planned Parenthood that if elected, the first thing he would do would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  If passed, it would have struck down every even remotely pro-life legislation passed by individual states.  Catholic hospitals would have been required by law to provide abortions.  All medical students, regardless of religious belief and personal conscience, would have been required to learn how to perform abortions.  It would have been devastating to the pro-life cause.  Praised be God that this bill has not passed.

Some of us may remember his even more troubling 2001 vote in the Illinois State Senate, when he voted against legal protection for infants born-alive (showing vital signs) after a failed abortion; this bill was proposed again in 2002 and 2003.  When questioned, he defended his position by saying that his intention was to protect the US Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and attacked the Senate bills as “backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to an abortion.” 

Because of his record in the Illinois State Senate, many pro-life advocates accused him of supporting “infanticide”.

What are the facts?

When the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not a in a position to speculate as to the answer” (Majority Opinion, Section IX B.).  Barack Obama echoed a similar sentiment when asked by Rick Warren…

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vym5UmcY3QE]

“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”  He later went on to regret this statement.

In May 2013, a Mississippi grand jury indicted Nina Buckhalter with manslaughter and culpable negligence after delivering a stillborn child in 2009.  The child died in her womb as a result of regular use of methamphetamines during her pregnancy.  Pro-choice advocates worried that the ruling could “set the precedent for fetal personhood.”  One of the dissenting judges in the case asked “Where are the boundaries?  Doctors urge against herbal tea, cigarettes, and other such things during pregnancy.”  Doctors don’t need to advise against using methamphetamines (or any controlled substance for that matter) during pregnancy, though.  They are illegal.

Who are the truth-seekers?

My question here is simple: Where is the consistency in pro-choice activists accusing Christians of being blinded by an ideology based on a belief in an Unseen God and on Sacred Scriptures, or better yet, ignoring truths and facts when they avoid simple inquiries that might lead to the establishment of personhood in the womb?

Like us!

Oram.us is a growing community of Catholic bloggers from various walks of life. To get updates, click here to like our facebook page.