It seems recently that in response to Obama’s controversial activity, a pro-life versus pro-choice war has evolved.
The Obama administration has been flooded with personal feedback in the ultimate church vs. state debate.
My standpoint? Let’s just say I’m pro-opinion.
If you have been struggling to understand the logistics of Obama’s actions, which have brought our government and the varying religions to a dead-on clash, don’t worry you are not the only one.
I summarized the basics so you can understand. Obama lifted the “Mexico City Policy,” which banned distribution of federal money to international groups that either provide or offer information on abortions. Ronald Reagan established the policy in 1984 for Bill Clinton to revoke it in 1993 for Bush to reinstate it. Well, you get my point.
Obama also reversed limits on stem cell research in order to advance the fight against Alzheimer’s, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease.
Finally, Obama is supposed to revoke the Conscious Clause, which has allowed those in the medical profession to deny care that conflicts with their religious views.
Pretty heavy-duty stuff, huh?
I’ll admit I’m still not completely sure how I feel about Obama’s actions. Growing up in a Catholic and Republican household, I only ever knew and believed in pro-life.
As I have ventured into college, I have still kept my pro-life views for my own personal reasons. I basically believe that all, even tiny embryos, should be given the opportunity to live.
I have come to this bizarre conclusion, however, that Americans should not formulate an opinion about Obama’s actions based merely on their religious views. I know I’m crazy, right?
I’m completely pro-life, yet, I’m not sure I completely believe in the “Mexico City Policy,” and I add emphasis on the word completely.
Yes, I believe that taxpayers should not have to support international groups, whose morals and belief systems go against their religion. I believe that is entirely unfair.
While I don’t support a lot of these international group’s actions, mainly abortion, consider the following statement. Five hundred thousand women die in developing countries from pregnancy-related issues and eight million suffer from serious complications.
I would not by any means want these women to abort their children, but I would be in favor of funding medical assistance so that they can survive and live to raise their child.
Maybe I’m just an optimist but I would like to believe that each of those 500,000 or eight million women wanted to keep their child. They couldn’t, however, due to the financial instability of their country.
When I say that I am pro-opinion, I’m saying that all should be entitled to their own opinions. No, I don’t believe all taxpayers should have to support these international groups, but I believe the ones that want to should be able to.
I’m not hypocritical, don’t worry, I have not finished my argument yet. I know I still have yet to address another issue.
Along with my pro-opinion standpoint, I believe that Obama does not have the right to revoke a bill that keeps those in the medical profession from denying care, which goes against their religious views.
I believe that each medical professional is providing a service and they therefore have a right to deny procedures.
Why should someone be subject to giving an abortion if they are in opposition to it? Furthermore, why would anyone want an abortion from someone who opposes it?
Please do not by any means take my argument out of its context.
I just don’t believe this religious vs. governmental debate should be purely fought on the basis of religious values. After all, I am pro-opinion!
