Barack Obama's Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
www.LifeNews.com
August 22, 2008
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- How strongly does Barack Obama believe in unlimited abortions? Strongly enough that the only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama's name wasn't attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.
In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion. (see below)
The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review.
In the work, Obama considered a parenthetical abortion issue -- whether unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs.
Obama says no and writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists.
According to Politico, Obama wrote: "[T]he case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior of pregnant women."
In a discussion of abortion itself, Obama wrote that government has more important business than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."
He also decried any limits on abortion, saying the government has an interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
Politico said the Obama campaign confirmed the pro-abortion presidential candidate wrote the piece in question and that it was one of the typical articles law students would write briefing and opining on federal and state court decisions.
In an email to the web site, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt also confirmed that Obama "remains committed to" the sentiments he expressed in the piece.
Obama's article is on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review and would likely be located in larger public libraries and databases that chronicle legal articles in scholarly publications.
Notice this line, "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair". Sounds good at face value right? Who wants kids to suffer in this life from being born to a mom strung out on crack or being consigned to poverty? Question: Why not kill kids out of the womb who are in these conditions. If we can kill it in the womb why not give moms the right to kill the kids say within 28 days (like Peter Singer believed) if they are under a certain poverty level, or the mom can't take care of them based on certain criteria.
If preventing "pain and despair" is a good reason to allow kids to be killed what other reasons is this line of thinking going to lead to? Mentally handicapped? Gender preferences? The more we go down this road, the sooner we land in the good company of guys like Hitler who wanted to create the master race based on certain characteristics. Power to the strong. Cleanse the world from all that drains on society. I don't want to live in this kind of world.
1 comment:
Actually, Zach, this way of thinking is already somewhat in place in America, relating to mentally handicapped unborn children. 90% (90%!!!) of fetuses who are determined to have Down's Syndrome in America are now aborted.
In the 1980s-90s, the ABC network aired a TV show titled "Life Goes On," in which the main character, Corky (a really sweet guy) had Down's Syndrome. "Corky" also had DS in real life. If he were an unborn child today, he would (by percentages) probably be aborted.
In a suburb of Maryland (near D.C.), I lived for almost eight years in an apartment complex for mentally and/or physically disabled people. At least two adult residents in this complex had Down's Syndrome. I think of them now and their precious, created-by-God lives, and I shudder to think of what their fates might be if they were unborn children today.... Barack Obama would not be on their side.
Post a Comment