The current presidential election presents the American voter with two specific issues regarding the destruction of human life, namely war and abortion.
John McCain supports the status quo, so to speak, with regards to the “War on Terror,” as it has been inanely dubbed by the talking heads of the current administration. McCain supported a change in strategy and a surge in troops that inevitably resulted in the deaths of Americans and Iraqis alike. A McCain administration will almost certainly continue the conflict in Iraq until the country has been sufficiently stabilized and has promised an American presence there for years to come (a la post war Germany and Japan).
On the flip side of the war issue Senator Obama certainly proves more dovish than Senator McCain. He has repeatedly stressed the importance of face to face talks with leaders of the world’s rogue regimes. He has opposed the Iraq war from the start, opposed a surge in troops, and until very recently has demanded an immediate precipitous withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. An Obama administration would in all likelihood result in fewer deaths of American servicemen/women than a McCain administration.
As commander in chief of the armed forces the POTUS has invested in him the Constitutional power to send Americans into harms way. It has been argued by some that because of this power the POTUS has the ability to cause far more death by being “pro-war” than “pro-choice.” He (or she) is inextricably linked to the decision to go to war and final authority rests in his (or her) hands. Many pro-lifers in this election cycle sincerely believe that a vote for a pro-life candidate will do little, if anything, to impact the current culture of abortion on demand while a vote for a pro-war candidate will have immediate repercussions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. This myth must be debunked.
A cursory overview of the two candidate’s history on abortion is necessary. John McCain has received a 0% rating from NARAL in 16 of his 20 years in Washington. He has consistently voted to confirm pro-life judges and would continue to nominate them to the various courts were he elected president. He opposed partial-birth abortion. He is in favor of parental consent laws. A quick look at NARAL’s website makes it quite obvious they hold him in very low regard. He is opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act. I could go on and on but it gets redundant. The point being Senator McCain always has, without equivocation, stood up for the rights of the unborn and has promised to continue to do so should he be elected president.
Senator Obama has received a 100% rating from NARAL for all three years he has been in the Senate. He opposed the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito, and has vowed he would only appoint pro choice judges to the nation’s top courts. He has voted against parental notification laws, which recent studies show to drastically reduce the number of abortions. He has never once cast a vote impinging on a woman’s “right” to choose, even when it meant choosing to kill the baby after it was completely separated form the its mother and posed no possible health risk. He has said that the first thing he would do as president would be to pass the FOCA.
Now to imagine that the POTUS holds no sway over the future of abortion in this country is incorrect. Under the Bush administration, despite its plethora of flaws, a pro life agenda has unquestionably been asserted. A ban on partial-birth abortion has been enacted, something that would not have happened under a President Obama (and didn’t under President Clinton). Tax payer funding for abortion has been cut. Two very pro life judges have been placed on the SCOTUS, where as the opposite would be true under an Obama administration. And, after all, it is the court that makes the laws. The FOCA, which would effectively strip away any and all pro life victories made at the county, state, and federal level, never had a chance of becoming law (read the text of the act online, it’s pretty extreme). It would under President Obama. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been halted. It would be funded by President Obama. The list goes on but I will stop here for the sake of my word count.
The point to be made here is that if you stand for a woman’s right to choose, so be it. If that’s what your conscience tells you, that’s fair. I’ll disagree with you, but I can respect that. The problem that must be avoided is the self delusion of pro lifers that things would not be so bad under a President Obama with regards to life issues. Barack Obama is the furthest left of any presidential candidate in the history of our country and he would mold policy to ensure his views are reflected in the laws of our land. Again, if leftist abortion policies are your thing, Barry’s your man. For those of us who are bothered by a potential Obama presidency because of his stance on life issues, please do the research and see for yourself just how damaging his administration would be to the pro life movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The issues are numbered, yet we find ourselves hung up on the same ones. CNN.com offers a list of issues, and corresponding links that allow readers to compare the candidate’s positions. For the sake of my argument, patiently read on as I would like to list them now (I will leave their hyperlink should you be interested in reading further on any one in particular):
Abortion Homeland security Afghanistan Housing Cuba Immigration Economic stimulus Iran Education Iraq Energy Israel Environment LGBT issues Free trade Social Security Guns Stem cell research Health care Taxes
What has been overlooked is the role gender has to play ON the issues. Undoubtedly, gender has played a bigger role in this election than ever before, first with Hillary and now with Sarah Palin. However, this is only treating gender as an issue onto itself. Read over that list again. We have failed to notice that the DIRECT results of abortion laws only affect those who can conceive and carry the child. No other issue only DIRECTLY affects one sex over the other. I am no way trying to be crass, obviously this is biology, and I do not want to fight over a technicality, nor do I want to deny the effect abortion has on men (it does in fact take two), but I was astonished to realize I have overlooked this stipulation. In the past, some could have argued that war was a one-sex issue, as men were drafted and women were not. However, this has changed; men and women alike are DIRECTLY affected in the “War on Terror.”
What these two issues still have in common is that the commander in chief makes the decisions that threaten or save lives. In that our next president will be a man, as all his predecessors have been, we are giving him leverage on an issue that can never be his own. Obviously this is just the way of the system, and to be fair the President makes decisions daily that do not DIRECTLY affect him. But it calls to mind the struggle I have been having with the idea of a one-sex issue.
I think of the what-ifs of a college pregnancy in which the woman does not want to have the child, but the man does. Oddly enough we’re more comfortable thinking in terms of the woman wanting the child and the man telling her to “take care of it.” But, with Grant as example, there are obviously pro-life men on college campuses. Is the man powerless? Surely he can try to convince her, talk her to his side, and although he might wish it, he does not have the physical capability of carrying his child. We give people the right of CHOICE both ways, be it life or otherwise. What we have failed to consider is men’s roles, whether they do have a choice. Is it the powerlessness at the individual level that requires a President to be staunchly one-sided? I fear that I have not made a clear point, and for that I blame my frustration with the abortion issue. I feel genuine heartache over the idea of killing an unborn child. And I feel down right awful that only one-sex is protected under the law, current and prospective (from both camps). Obviously there is a need to make room for both sexes in an issue of such magnitude.
P.S. – Barry? Really? Name calling is frowned down upon in effective “they say-I say” argument.
The first issue that must be addressed gdigioia, is the lack of references throughout your article. You assert much authority without informing us where you found it. This could serve two purposes- to make the reader search for it or sheer laziness/arrogance in the thought that you don’t need it; neither of which are good for the academic blog context. Furthermore, the importance of words only exists when they can reach the masses- POTUS… really, because President would be too simplistic? Furthermore, NARAL (which used to stand for National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League) is actually NARAL Pro-Choice America. The use of the acronym without the subtitle is misleading and, in my opinion, would lead an unknowing reader to assume NARAL as some sort of opinion poll for the general public. As an interest group though, of course NARAL is going to support Obama and not McCain; it is a pro-choice organization and therefore a bad character witness against the realities that Obama is much worse for the right than implied. On the same note, Senator McCain was reported in the Boston Globe on Jan 31, 2000 in his first run to have said that “…’the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions’ to an outright ban on abortions.” That doesn’t sound like a man pushing for the anti-abortion support you want. We all need to do our research, no author exemption available.
I see the logical progression of your argument advocating a position I had not previously considered, so I thank you for that, but I must note that your argument might be more effective if your use of the word "right" was not used as a way to forward your personal opinion. "The point being Senator McCain always has, without equivocation, stood up for the rights of the unborn and has promised to continue to do so should he be elected president." In this statement you assume that the unborn are citizens with rights. Well as I'm sure you know, many have been born and died in this country without most if any rights you and I enjoy. Minorities and women have recently wrestled themselves from the chains of inequality. So perhaps it would benefit you to expound on your beliefs of who rights belong to. Later in the post you this wording, "He has never once cast a vote impinging on a woman’s 'right' to choose..." Here lies the discrepancy and obvious, argument weakening bias. I understand you have a viewpoint and would like for it to be known, but the elimination of quotes around the second use of "right" or the addition of them around the first use would make the post considerably more effective. In doing so the reader can recognize that you understand the blurred lines between what a right is and who deserves it. This would add more weight to your argument for someone who may not necessarily agree.
Alexa,
My use of the word "right" can be explained as follows:
The Declaration of Independence asserts that we as Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. An unborn fetus is as a matter of fact, not opinion, a life. We can thank modern science for establishing that. Therefore it seems to follow that the unborn fetus indeed does have a right to continued life.
I agree with you that many in this country still fight for equality. However this is rather tangential to my argument. It is undeniable that in the course of her history the United States has incurred great injustice on those deserving of protection. Be it an agressive Manifest Destiny, slavery, the denial of equal rights to women, or internment of Japanese Americans our country has not always stood for the most noble ideals. The existence of this past injustice should not dissuade us from ensuring a just future for a new class of citizens, the unborn.
With regards to the perceived "right" to choose I will try to clarify what I mean. I do not believe that any person no matter what circumstance has an inalienable right to terminate an innocent life. As I have explained above the unborn child has a right to life and no personal choice or opinion can rob that life of its inherent right.
Post a Comment