A Question on Bush/Abortions for Americans

Why were abortions not decreased, let alone banned, during Bush's term?
This has nothing to de with Obama as president. If I was American I would not have voted for either him or McCain (who had some evil views on abortion/stem cell research himself).

Hi repentcanada...

To answer your question: Abortions DID decrease during the Bush Administration. In fact, they were at an all time low last year.

As far as banning them, a President of the United States does not have that sort of authority. However, Bush reinstituted an executive order (first created by Ronald Reagan) that forbade public funding for abortions, as well as research using stem cells from any abortion committed after he became President.

The most important power regarding abortion that the President has is in regard to his judicial appointments. Not only does he alone appoint justices to the US Supreme Court, but he also appoints many lower judges. All of the justices appointed by President Bush have been conservative -- including two staunch anti-abortion judges to the US Supreme Court. In fact, the judicial nominees to lower courts have been so opposed to abortion, the Democrats refused to allow a vote on many of them!

So to answer your question (or statement?), the limits to the President's power prevent him from making such a decision by himself. Abortion became legal in this nation in 1973 by the decision of six judges...and can only become illegal by the decision of at least five judges. Currently, there is a four vote anti-abortion plank on the Supreme Court, with the possibility of another if an abortion case ever came before the Court.

The danger in the future is that Obama has promised to nominate only staunch pro-abortion advocates to the Supreme Court. We simply need to pray that none of the conservative judges die or retire during the next four years. Otherwise, abortion, gay marriage and a limit on religious faith will be an almost certainty.

:-(

BTW, the most likely outcome for an abortion case (if it were to come before the High Court right now) is not that they would immediately ban all abortions (although it could happen by citing the 14 Amendment's "equal protection" and "due process" clause), but that the Court would allow each state to make up their own laws regarding abortion. It would effectively end abortion (or at least, some abortions) in conservative states.

As far as John McCain is concerned: I think that his appointments to the Court would be much safer for the unborn than Barack Obama's.

Can we get off the politics now?

The best way to eliminate abortions from the country rests with the American people,in particular the religious ones. They are the ones more likely to abort. And, too, have a sense of horror for immorality which will largely eliminate the 'need' for the procedure.

If you want another angle to this issue, check out on the web what abortions do to women on the long term. Many experts say it will facilitate breast cancer in a woman who has had abortion[s]. Abortion minded folks hate this declaration and will do all they can to discredit it. In the meantime, I will not donate any moneys to any Cancer fund raiser because they do receive funding from Planned Parenthood which work silence this connection.

Got more then you asked for, didn't you?

ginnyrose

The most important power regarding abortion that the President has is in regard to his judicial appointments.

This is true. We also have to deal with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act]FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT[/url] that president elect Obama was a co-sponsor of. This is the most radical sweeping legislation in our history and is a nightmare to anyone concerned about the abortions and infanticide that is already going on. In Wichita Kansas, the state I work in, partial birth abortion goes on. This is an unfathomably demonic practice only rivaled by Israel's offering their children to Molech in the fire at Tophet.

Can [u]we[/u] imagine asking a German (I'm German) in the 1930's what the most pressing issue was to them? And if they said to us 'the economy' and we had the backdrop of millions of dead Jews, Gypsies and dissenters from which to have context; what would we think? Do we think that any leader that came along in Germany that improved the economy should be praised? Or can we ask ourselves what is [u]in man[/u] that would cause them to overlook the dead for the chance at one more dollar?

What horrifying history are we watching play out before our eyes? There is none but God that will plead the cause of the dead. Who will erect an unborn memorial in Washington? I dare say God will smite hip and thigh when it is all said and done. How many millstones will He need? Who will drown in the depths of the Lake of Fire? I tremble at the thought more than any other sin that we laud as so-called 'repentance preachers'.

thanks for shedding this light for me, I understand more now

Can we imagine asking a German (I'm German) in the 1930's what the most pressing issue was to them?

In an ironic twist of fate I was told as a child that I had a great uncle that went into Germany during WWII and seen first hand some of the things that his fellow German's had done. I asked back then, since most involved are long dead now, what my great grandfather thought about it. The answer simply was that he never talked about it. I wished he had lived long enough for [i]me[/i] to ask him, because I surely would have. The 'silence' from my great grandfather is sobering.

I knew personally a German immigrant who was a ski trooper in WWII. He was a POW of the allied forces after having crashed down a mountain on his ski's trying to evade small arms fire. He broke his leg and was captured. He came to the US after the war through Canada and finally settled in Kansas City. We had many interesting conversations. Once I asked him, "What about the holocaust?" He said to me that, "he did not believe that it was a bad as it was reported." Clearly he did not think what had happened had [i]actually[/i] happened. That is very sobering also.

But the most sobering of all was an elderly man that I spoke with about that same time that had come in to our shop to have his car serviced. I was a very green teen-ager at the time. This man was an elderly Jewish holocaust survivor. I asked him about his experience, he looked at me no doubt as if I didn't know any better to ask such a question and kindly but sternly replied:

"There are not enough pens and there is not enough paper."

And so will likely be the epithet over any remembrance to those that died in unborn innocence as a generation sat in a dumb silence till the blood flowed to the horses bridles.

Very good post,

as to who are more prone to abortions, enlightening

Good points.

Abortion is not a matter of politics (although it has become one). It is a matter of unrighteousness. I urge anyone to research the history of the practice in this nation. Planned Parenthood's founders (especially Margaret Sanger) held highly racist views regarding "eugenics" -- and promoted abortion primarily as a means of "purifying the population." I have spoken with liberals from San Francisco, and they see abortion as preventing poor, lower IQs from draining our nation's welfare coffers and preventing individuals of "draining the Earth of its food and vital resources" (which equates to the humanistic worship of "Mother Earth").

The practice of abortion is infested with hate, racism, arrogance and most indicatively, SELF. The most common reason that a woman has an abortion is not rape or that her life might be in danger (these are but a small handful of cases each year). Rather, a woman who has an abortion usually has it because she is scared about the consequences that will change her life. She is typically unmarried and/or simply does not want the responsibility of taking care of her child...so she kills it. It is a desperate act of self...murder for convenience.

But I agree with Krispy: It isn't a matter of politics unless we stop using the word "politics" as a scapegoat for non-involvement. "Politics" means what? It is taken from the greek root "[i]polis[/i]" -- meaning [i]having to do with the people[/i]. The word was not used in regard to dictatorships or a monarchy. It first originated in Athens and then became far more prevelant after the formation of Parliment in England and the Democratic Republic of the United States. It was this sort of definition that the founding fathers wrote, "[i]We the people...[/i]" In other words, this nation created a triune government that was created and maintained only by the consent of the people -- a first in the world.

But the idea of people making decisions (literally, the definition of "politics") can go back to the times of the Judges. When there was no leadership or government, people did what was right in their own eyes. This typically led to disaster. Even the Church has "politics" (people making decisions) in the sense that God has given "[i]some apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, some pastors and teachers[/i]." It is my belief that we can use every opportunity afforded to us in our temporary citizenships to influence this world for Jesus -- including those who are in the White House.

Like Krispy (and brother Mike) stated, abortion is not an issue of "politics" except that it is the people who can ultimately decide whether it is right or wrong. Thus, it ultimately boils down to whether or not it is right or wrong (righteous or unrighteous). I think that the answer is clear in this case. But be warned: Those who attempt to tell a government official about an act of unrighteousness might end up like John the Baptist.

Joseph Parker said it best: "[i]The man whose little sermon is 'repent' sets himself against his age, and will for the time being be battered mercilessly by the age whose moral tone he challenges. There is but one end for such a man - 'Off with his head!' You had better not try to preach repentance until you have pledged your head to heaven[/i]."

:-(

Chris, well said. Those were my thoughts, exactly.

thanks for what you said Krispy. I was too tired at 6am this morning to put what you said into my own words at that time.

I think we also suffer from gross ignorance of what abortion actually is. I was asking a 20 year old male this morning about it. He did not know at all what the process is. I am fortunate enough to have had a church in our area to allow people to come in and lecture on the topic. Before that I had no idea what it was. I think for some, especially young people, they need to be educated about it.

KrispyKrittr wrote:

Can we get off the politics now?

I'm kinda tired of people equating abortion with politics. A discussion about abortion in America is [b]not[/b] a political discussion. Unfortunately it does involve the government because the government makes the laws... but I truly hope you're not suggesting we not discuss abortion because you view it as a political issue. I've met a lot of people like that.

Can I assume that I misunderstood you?

Krispy

Yes, you can assume that. In fact, you can go even further and say that my distain for abortion is close to THE leading factor on who and how I vote.

The poster of this thread said specific statements on voting habits because of abortion. To state that this has nothing to do with Obama (or politics) is like stating speaking about upcoming policy has nothing to do with politics. Doesn't hold water.

I am not a moderator, but in the last week, this forum went from speaking about revival and keeping true to the word of the Lord, to a political discussion. Just read some of the threads at the moment, all have an undertow of politics.

Love ya Krisp :-)

Why were abortions not decreased, let alone banned, during Bush's term?
This has nothing to de with Obama as president. If I was American I would not have voted for either him or McCain (who had some evil views on abortion/stem cell research himself).

Before that I had no idea what it was. I think for some, especially young people, they need to be educated about it.

Your are absolutely right. The ignorance of people concerning abortion is appalling, considering all the info out there.

When I became involved with the pro-life movement 21 years ago, many in my own conservative church were ignorant of this procedure. Some have thanked me for raising their awareness of this procedure.

And to add insult to injury, you will have a pregnant woman who is experiencing difficulty with her fetus and then her OB-GYN will convince her that for the best of both she needs to go to Jackson to the university hospital and have a surgery, meaning "a therapeutic abortion" but she won't be told that! BEWARE! it has happened to a lady in our church and not until years later did it dawn on her what happened and I can promise you there was one very unhappy woman! And I have had clients who were deceived by this medical diagnosis/advice/recommendation and were they MAD! But this knowledge does not set in until after the fact...and then it is too late.

ginnyrose

Hi Miccah...

I am not a moderator, but in the last week, this forum went from speaking about revival and keeping true to the word of the Lord, to a political discussion. Just read some of the threads at the moment, all have an undertow of politics.

However, is it possible that an output of revival (or a recognition that we aren't there yet) lay in knowing the difference between the holy and the profane, righteousness and unrighteousness? This is not a discussion of Biblical doctrines (like which words do we use when we get baptized, or about music, etc...), but the extent of involvement of the Church in calling out a practice as horrendous as abortion. Did anyone in the New Testament ever publically call out sin?

Of course, our focus is not on the sins of commission, but the fact that this present world has simply ignored its Creator -- of Whom the Heavens declare His glory!

Yet, this world does not realize it is lost. It even now justifies sins like abortion or homosexuality...and the Church remains silent. Perhaps we do this out of fear of looking like fanatics, or perhaps we truly don't think that it is our place to say such things (or to even vote). Perhaps this hits closer to home for me because my biological father tried to get my mother to abort me...and even beat her in an attempt to induce an abortion when she refused. Nonetheless, this is not really an indictment about involvement in the political process, except that this nation just chose a man who subtly PROMISES to promote the continued slaughter of the unborn.

What should we do? Silence? Non-participation? Avoid the issue?

Of course, our first priority is to seek God -- especially that He would bring a true, Biblical revival to this world. But we must still stand for a recognition truth. Yet it is much more difficult when the sick do not realize that they are sick. Before someone can figure out that they need help, they must first realize that something is wrong (ala [i]Hell's Best Kept Secret[/i]). During grad school, I used to proclaim my faith in the classroom. There was one woman who would boldly defend abortion. Yet I proclaimed it over and over again from a logical, legal, scientific and spiritual point of view. Finally, she broke down in tears. She was trying to cover up her sin. Once she realized the wretchedness of it, she realized that she was a sinner. It was easier for her to repent and realize her need for God's forgiveness once she recognized that she was guilty of murder.

Of course, voting is an attempt to stop fellow citizens in our temporary country (who will possibly get elected) from continuing the slaughter. I wonder just what would happen if Christians did or said nothing? What if we only said our apprehension but stopped with our voice? Would it not be the same as those who voiced concern for the multitudes of ethnic killings in Rwanda or Darfur but did nothing?

Today, thousands of tiny, helpless unborn babies will die at the request of their own mothers. Why? Simply because the mothers are too selfish to want a baby to interfere with their lives. I just feel too strongly to say and do nothing. I will pray, preach and vote. What does this have to do with revival? Perhaps it can be a catalyst to people in this world -- a shaking of their own realization -- that will cause them to realize their need for God. For the Church, revival is a realization of who God is and how central He must be to our very lives. For the world, perhaps it is a wake up call about the seriousness of life without Him? After all, "those who believe in Him must believe that He is..." (Hebrews 11:6).

I agree that we must be careful not to let this issue turn to politics, but focus on the thoughts of the Creator of all things.

Good post ccchhhrrriiisss. Well said.

As stated in a different post, I am all for debating politics and what it means to this nation and others around the globe, just not in these forums. I have a long history in the unseen aspects of politics and truly can give people a run for their money when debating such.

No biggie. If folks want to speak on politics and there is not a problem with that here (at this time of change in our nation, America), then I will submit to that and speak of it no more. :-)

Blessings

Therapeutic abortion

After posting this I got to thinking about this term, "therapeutic abortion', that there may be people who do not know what is meant by this so I want to explain.

Sometimes a fetus is not developing normally, or has birth defects. To remedy this situation, a doctor may suggest 'surgery', making the mother believe this is a therapeutic procedure when in reality it is an abortion. The mother either has a C-section or has labor induced whereby the child is born prematurely, thus ensuring its demise - no life support is given because this is the purpose of the procedure. Now if a fetus does have a problem and it can be repaired without its separation from the mother that is something totally different.

Of course, doctors are always modifying procedures and the info I shared is several years old - I am no longer actively involved in the pro-life ministry. But the stories I shared occurred over a span of years. Because of lawsuits more doctors may be too scared to hoodwink a client - we had one that ran roughshod over females they deemed ignorant and weak.

ginnyrose