Obama "abortion reduction" vs. Prolife "abortion prohibition"

Many are asking, is his "abortion reduction" meme surrendering philosophical ground?

Tom McFeely, a writer for the National Catholic Register, says the debate over whether Obama is serious about reducing abortions by helping pregnant women with social programs "can't be answered now."

"A more conclusive judgment must await the introduction of the actual programs and an assessment of their effects. But in the meantime pro-lifers have every reason to be skeptical, given the concrete pro-abortion actions Obama has taken already since becoming president," McFeely writes at NCR.

However, McFeely points out comments from U.S. News & Report’s Dan Gilgoff, who notes that Obama's use of pro-life language about reducing abortions is perhaps an acknowledgement that the pro-life side is winning the abortion debate.

"But in articulating a goal of reducing the need for abortion, hasn't the White House already made a judgment about its undesirability?" Gilgoff writes. "Why reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there’s nothing wrong with the procedure?"

For McFeely, the point that Obama may have given up the high ground in the abortion debate is well taken.

"Obama has ceded ground to the pro-life cause simply by claiming he wants to reduce the number of abortions," McFeely says.

"It would be a mistake for pro-lifers to read too much into Obama’s concession, which has obvious parallels to Bill Clinton’s dictum that abortion should be 'safe, legal, and rare,'" he continues. "At the same time, it also would be a mistake to read too little into it."

"When even pro-abortion presidents like Clinton and Obama feel obliged to acknowledge abortion as something to be avoided, they contribute to fostering a wider appreciation among all Americans that there’s something seriously wrong with abortion," McFeely concludes.

I've always found that people who are "personally opposed" to abortion, because they know it is taking the life of a child and yet support a "woman's right" to proceed with taking the life of a child, confusing.

A lot of very good, sincere and decent peopl who would otherwise champion the rights of the oppressed and those victimized by societies and individuals, have been spoon fed the idea that a nation can take a position that we can't infringe upon something we know is killing because other people think it's a "woman's right to choose what to do with "their bodies". The "body" that ends up in the trash, actually is no more "theirs" than the ones sleeping soundly in their cribs in every nursery in America.

McFeely brings the ruse into the light.

Pro-lifers should really capitalized upon the "abortion reduction" cards being played by the Administration and hijack it to the reasons why a country that knows abortion is killing will never compromise until there is a "prohibition". We can never stop people from killing other people.

At some point, women whose consciences have been pacified into "choosing" to kill their own child will want to become pregnant. From the first moment that pregnancy test is positive, a woman knows she has a child in her womb that she is nurturing. She makes conscience decisions about doing healthy things and avoiding the unhealthy because she has a child that is relying upon her to make those choices - and she realizes what she did years ago.

We can never stop people from enslaving other people. We do, as a country, prohibit them by law.

Unless the President supports the right for North Korea to build a nuclear weapon empire and use them sparingly, the philosophy will eventually fall short on intellects above 100.

I think this is where we pick up the pieces off the ground and run. He is giving us the ammunition.