As noted, While Biden is a supporter of Roe v. Wade, his record on certain pro-life issues is contrary to Obama’s positions. For example:
Obama vs. Biden on Partial-Birth Abortion
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted in 2003, with Senator Biden’s support, and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April, 2007. (For more about the content and significance of this legislation, click here and here.) At that time, Barack Obama sharply criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling, saying, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling . . .” Regarding Biden: “I voted for the partial-birth abortion ban,” said [Sen. Joe] Biden while answering a woman’s question at a conference sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council. “I think it’s an extraordinary circumstance, I make no apologies for it.” ABCNews.com, April 24, 2007.
Obama vs. Biden on tax-funded abortions
Barack Obama advocates federal funding of abortion, and while in the Illinois legislature he voted against legislation to restrict state funding of abortion on demand. That is consistent with the policy advocated in the proposed 2008 Democratic Party platform, which says, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay . . .” In short, Obama and the platform favor repeal of the Hyde Amendment and the other laws that prevent funding of abortion in federal programs such as Medicaid. But Senator Biden has been voting for those laws for decades. Biden has written, “I might also add that I find it difficult to understand how those who refuse to limit the right of abortion in this country can at the same time support the expansion of the government’s financial involvement in providing for abortions. That is why I have been a consistent supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of Medicaid funds to finance abortions. I believe that it is not the government’s business to be promoting abortion in any way.” (Letter, June 16, 1983)
Obama v. Biden on Born-Alive Infants Protection legislation
On 2001, Biden voted for the language of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which recognizes babies who are born alive during abortions as legally protected persons, while Obama killed a virtually identical bill in the Illinois State Senate in 2003.
For further information:
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com

Obama chose Biden for many reasons, the least of these was his stand on partial birth.
Obama chose “Just Joe” Biden because of his stands on military intervention, working Women’s rights, Veteran’s rights and the living wage votes.
Joe Biden is not the idle rich elitist that McCain wants to paint Obama as (which is false) but the average guy who rides the train home from a hard day at the office to be with his wife and kids.
He is a man of faith from a poor Irish working family from a blue collar town who spent his entire life fighting for the average guy and for the good of a Nation.
Unlike the Republicans who have been in the pockets of Big Business and pass out the plums of tax breaks to the wealthiest of people, he has fought for real income for the working class, medical benefits and protection for the working women and proper care for our veterans.
His final words at his speech today were, “God bless America and protect our soldiers.”

Curiously, in the United States, the Democratic candidates who are Catholics (Ferraro in 1984, Kerry in 2004 or now Biden in 2008) are pro abortion. The only improvement of the right to life of the unborn has taken a non-Catholic, George Bush. This president has undeniable flaws but banned one type of abortion more bloody, the partial birth abortion. Regards, Santiago Chiva, Granada (Spain)
http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/

If we stand by faith, we should look to the values God has provided us. Murder, homosexuality, and free speech are topics that should unite Christians. God knew us before we were in the womb – life begins at conception. How is muder a choice? As Christians we should look for a candidate willing to defend life, promote values in line with our Christian faith, speak out against endorsing sin (homosexuality), and someone who will protect our free speech rights.
In an Obama/Biden ticket we see pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, and restricting free speech. Do these values speak for you? As a Christ follower, they certainly do not refect my values. Always place principles first!
Jay Peroni, CFP
Author of The Faith-Based Millionaire
http://www.jayperoni.com

Can Christians who oppose abortion,cite the specific verses in either the Old Testament or New Testament where abortion is denounced? Also did Jesus speak one word about abortion in the New Testament?
Thank You
Leonard Mandel

Have you noticed that as the news about our economic situation in this country continues to stink, the GOP and their followers are focusing more and more on abortion, homosexuality, and other fringe issues?
I guess when you are responsible for some of the worst economic news since the great depression you will do anything to prop up your campaign, including trotting out pictures of dead fetuses.

When the Old & New Testament was written the word abortion was not used.
There are many examples in the bible that all murder(killing human life) is wrong. The taking of any innocent life by choice is wrong. The bible condems it, but we all have the choice to do evil or turn from evil.
Anyone who reads, understands and accepts the bible knows this TRUTH.
Again, we all choose right or wrong and as christians or non-christians we must also accept the Creator judgment of us based on the choices we make.
The 6th commandment Thou Shall Not Murder Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17
Matt: 15:19
Rom. 9:21
Rev. 9:21

As a scientist, it has been proven that life begins at conception. Not a relligious belief, but a scientific fact. Killing a baby in the womb is murder, period.

He’s “personally against abortion” (the killing of an innocent human life) but he feels he should not impose his beliefs on others. In other words, he thinks it’s ok if they want to kill an innocent human life. His concern should be FOR the innocent human life.
Cafeteria Catholics. Don’t you just love them? First Kerry, now Biden.

Ok- you are against abortion, the taking of innocent life.
But so many who are against that are also for war, and torture, and economic policies that starve poor people or drive them off their land. That is also the taking of innocent life, and I hear relatively little said about it.

RG must be talking about China or else he has a bad case of liberal delirium. Maybe he’s one of those who faint at Obamas speeches.

In partial-birth abortion, the baby’s head is crushed with obstetrical forceps, the body and limbs are then torn apart and pulled from the birth canal. Biden and obama are in favor of this. Other issues like farm subsidies and gasoline prices may be important but pale in comparison. Thats like saying, “other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play”?

Phillip George:
Yes, science has proven life begins at conception
what you left out in your attempt to deceive us is
that same life you pontification is present at the
conception of a pig as well. By your reasoning,
killing a pig would be murder as well.
The truth is that no one knows nor will no one ever
know when the soul is placed in the body.
It is people like you that give a bad name to Christianity
with your lies, misinformation and deception that you
profess to be the truth of God.

DG, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. A human life is equal to that of a pig?
And if life begins at conception (something that anyone who’s ever purchased a pack of condoms can attest to), then upholding the dignity of that innocent life should be a primary concern for any “practicing” Catholic.
It’s as simple as that.

No Bridget, that was not the point.
All life begins as conception, whether human, porcine, bovine or a tadpole … all life begins at conception. That is fact.
In the anti-abortion debate, it is also a broad sweeping generalization used to support the anti-abortion position. Using that as justification for an anti-abortion argument makes as much sense as stating that because it is life that began at conception, it is a sin to kill a tadpole.
The abortion question hinges not on when “life” begins, but on when does human life become a human soul.
The argument “life begins at conception” is a deceptive argument that some anti-abortion proponents use as a fear tactic to win support for their position. That argument is flawed, and it is unnecessary. That argument is a testament to the unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of this issue.
The truth is, only God knows when He places a soul. For all we know, that moment could be fixed, or it could be variable. It is conceivable that a stillborn child never received a soul after conception. It is also conceivable that the soul is added sometime after conception and before birth, or perhaps not until after the first “breath of life” is taken. We simply dont know.
Just as God has kept the moment of our first and last breaths to Himself, so has he kept the answer to that question to Himself as well. Any human who claims to know the answer to that question, regardless of their title, is lying. Any answer is speculation, nothing more.
For those of us who hold a TRUE pro-life postition, the appropriate argument is “we dont know when human life becomes a human soul, therefore, we should err on the side of caution. In erring on the side of caution, we arbitrarily decided that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception. Even though it cannot be proved, this is a valid premise to which there is no further justification necessary.”
That is why I am pro-life.

40 million abortions since R v W
that dwarfs Hitler’s 6 million Jews and we’re giving that Stalin guy (75 million) a run for his money.
I don’t think anyone in public office or public running is trying to answer the question of when the soul enters the body. That is not a purvue of law or politics, but of religion. Law, in particular, does not base itself on ephemerals or philosophical unknowables but on facts, dates, times — things that can be measured.
I don’t think the “life begins at conception” argument is at all flawed or unnecessary. It has all the concretes and specifics that are needed to create viable, constitutional law that our Supreme Court has for 37 years, completely ignored based on a bogus assumption of having the right to do whatever we desire with our own bodies. There is no such right in the Constitution nor was such a right ever implied.
I would ask Senator Obama “at what point in your wife’s pregnancy did you believe your daughters were human and had human rights?” He should be able to answer. After all, he is The Messiah.

BTW — 50 bucks says we catch Stalin by the year 2025.

Perhaps, but the 40 million, is dwarfed by the hundreds of millions of lives that have been destroyed by illegal drugs. Interesting how those who are so vocal about their anti-abortion position are so deafeningly quiet about that topic.
Oh, excuse me, I forgot, abortion is the only issue that matters. Once a person is born, their value as a human being is substantially diminished. To the anti-abortionist, an adult has no value, unless of course they support the anti-abortion platform.

DG,
Wait a minute, you’re pulling a bit of a switch. Pro-lifers, as far as I know, have a range of views on, say, illegal drugs and appropriate policies regarding them. What that has to do with legally sanctioning the taking of innocent human life is beyond me.
You write “The abortion question hinges not on when ‘life’ begins, but on when does human life become a human soul.” It does? Where in our laws do we elsewhere have any test for whether a human being is a soul? You apparently concede that unborn babies are human beings, but would argue, that perhaps they are soulless, and, in addition, it is worth allowing their destruction on the chance that they are soulless.
Is that correct? Shall we codify this throughout our laws? Perhaps an unconscious person is soulless. Perhaps some people manifest consciousness but are really automatons. Is the state in the business of determining spiritual predicates, or, rather, are all men endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights, chief among these being the right to Life itself?

All people deserve very good life time and personal loans or consolidation loan can make it better. Because people’s freedom is grounded on money.