Obviously, one of the biggest moral issues in my life has been abortion. Since I was sixteen years-old, I have been writing about abortion, attending pro-life events and educating my friends and co-workers about the issue whenever I get an appropriate chance. I have always been known as the “pro-life guy” among my friends (as well as the guy who enjoys the smell of skunk).

As more and more of the people I have known come to realize that I have left Christianity and am no longer resisting homosexuality, the number one question I get is “Are you still pro-life?” This question is not a hard one to answer, because the answer is an emphatic “yes”.

The issue of homosexuality can change in a snap depending on one’s religious views, for the simple fact that one’s religion generally decides one’s view on it. However, as stated often by pro-lifers, the pro-life position is not solely dependant on religion. It is the fundamental belief that all human life is of value, and that every step should be taken to preserve it. One does not need to be religious to remember that life is sacred and easily—in an instant—snuffed out.

It is really “easy” to kill a 10 week-old fetus. It cannot speak, cannot cry and is less developed than you or I. It is quickly vacuumed out of the uterus, generally doing little damage to the woman and leaving not a trace. Sometimes I ask myself, “Are the early-term babies worth it? Am I wrong on this? Is it really that big of a deal?” Is it possibly true, as many people either advocate or believe, that an early term baby—which admittedly has no self-awareness—is worth anything? I really do ask myself these questions and have my doubts every once in a while. That’s what’s so scary.

When we cannot hear the voices of those whom we are killing, it is easy to go on and say that killing them is morally acceptable. We subconsciously believe that if we cannot hear it, it is not our problem. Because we are gay, it is not our problem. Because we may be men, it is not our problem. Because it is not us doing it, it is not our problem. But it is our problem: it is society’s problem. We create and then destroy human life without discrimination, and while I don’t know if we ever will be punished by a deity angered by our actions, it doesn’t take a lot to see what abortion has done to our society, our children and our women. Abortion is the ultimate, silent, and state-sanctioned method of exploitation and discrimination of people in modern American history.

Is it crazy to view the results of abortion as eugenics in all but name?  It is a conclusion I've reluctantly come to lately, because it has terrible implications for where the world is at right now.  And it does sound conspirarist to even my ears, but I can't help but believe we are approaching the vision held by eugenics enthusiasts early in this century.  The eugenics movement was designed to discourage reproduction, sometimes through sterilization usually with bigoted justifications.  It was a desire to limit (or eliminate) reproduction by those with disabilities, the poor, and those of certain ethnicities.  Well, isn't that basically what abortion rights have done?

If you look at current trends, does it seem to anyone like abortion has become a substitute for sterilization?  Abortion rates are higher among the poor and among minorities.  And there are people now who openly advocate abortion for those who detect disabilities in their offspring at an early age.  Maybe the former is just a product of other problems, but undoubtedly the latter is a purposeful occurence.  I do not diminish how difficult it is to care for a child with disabilities at all, but it is inhuman to abort individuals because they do not match the expectations of the parents.  The argument that children should be aborted for their own sake is even worse.

So I cannot help but wonder, have we unconsciously embraced the horror of eugenics and can it be stopped?

What are your opinions about children who survive an abortion attempt and are born alive?  Should they be given medical care?  Should they be allowed to die?

We have all heard about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, both the Federal version and the version from Illinois.  The purpose of these bills is to insure that a child who survives an abortion attempt and is born alive is given medical care.  Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a Senator in Il.  His excuse was that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act didn’t include the right kind of language needed to protect Roe v Wade. 

Well then . . . .

How true is that?  Redstate.com has done some research on this. 

“The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.”

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

But today Obama’s words have come back to haunt him.  In 2002 the then Senator of Illinois stood up and told the real reason he opposes a law that protects children that are born alive after a botched abortion.  From the article again:

“In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law. He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

‘In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

‘Here is what he said:

‘’As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

In 2002, Barack Obama Supported Infanticide and I've Got the Transcript of His Words  http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

I know some may say that such laws are not needed,  Surely children born alive are already protected by the laws of the state of Illinois. Medical care would have to be provided by law.  I thought so too.  I was wrong. 

“In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.” http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

If you would like to read or compare the  federal bill and the IL. bill, you can at  this site.  http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html