Recently at the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback Church in California, Barack Obama stated the following: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways -- in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground, and by the way, I have now inserted this in the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions ..."
In examining his belief, the conclusion is that a woman can be for the destruction of a life, as long as the woman doesn't make the decision casually. Because someone wrestles with a decision, then that is reason enough to believe that they are right in carrying out that decision. In other words, according to Obama, there are no moral absolutes on this issue. It's just the same as saying, "Bank robbery is fine as long as the decision to rob the bank was done as a result of deep introspection." Also, it helps if the robber consulted those close to him before he committed the act.
Barack Obama says he is pro-choice, but he wants to reduce the number of abortions. He should be asked why does he want to reduce the number of abortions. Whatever answer he gives probably will contradict being pro-choice. Most politicians respond to the abortion issue in a similar manner. There are a few who are strictly pro-abortion or pro-life, but most fall in a category that attempts to please both sides. When faced with this issue, they will usually say, "Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but if a woman wants to have one, that's her decision." Often they will respond with, "I think abortion should be rare, but I can't stop a woman from having one. It's her choice." This type of logic is also shared by quite a few Americans. When they take both sides of the argument, it seems that their real purpose is to avoid the issue completely because they don't have a desire to debate either side.
This response sounds foolproof and a very nice way of answering the abortion issue. But if you think closely about the response, it could be asked, "Why do you personally oppose abortion, or why do you think it should be rare?" It seems that their answer would be that it is the taking of a life, or a similar response. The rebuttal would be "So you're against abortion because it takes a life, but it's perfectly fine for someone else to take a life." "You're against the killing of a human, but also for the killing of a human."
What if we settled other issues this way? "I'm personally opposed to murder, but if a person wants to commit it, that's their decision or choice." In 2001 Andrea Yates killed her five young children. Using this logic one could say, "I'm personally opposed to Andrea Yates killing her children, but it's her decision, her choice." We basically could use this logic concerning any law in this country.
So typical of an Obama response. He's for less abortions but doesn't explain how to achieve that goal. In the meantime, continuing partial birth abortions is fine with him.