Section Banner Next entry » « Previous entry
January 30, 2012

Roe v. Wade and Fulfilling Dreams

I want my daughters to fulfill their dreams, but not like this. I’m John Stonestreet, and this is The Point.

Commemorating the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion, President Obama issued a statement acknowledging personal objections folks may have but concluding that the law must be preserved to protect the health and reproductive freedom of women and to prevent the government from intruding on private family matters. The statement is a red herring -- the government intrudes on family matters all the time if the potential victim is already born. The only difference with unborn victims -- as my friend Scott Klusendorf articulates – is size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency.

It’s a rhetorical slight-of-hand, but the President’s statement got even worse by claiming that abortion ensured our daughters the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. That’s flatly false. Fathers have no rights when it comes to unplanned pregnancies. And it’s immoral. No one should be encouraged to pursue their dreams with an ends justifies the means mentality that the President promoted.

Tell me what you think, at I’m John Stonestreet.

Further Reading

Obama: Roe v. Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance to Fulfill their Dreams as Sons
Becket Adams | The Blaze | January 24, 2012

The Arugment for Life Simplified
Discerning Citizen | February 28, 2008

The Case for Life
Scott Klusendorf |

Start a discussion