Obama vs. Abortion Survivor

Barack Obama when a state legislator opposed a measure to protect infants who survive abortion. He really did. (According to FactCheck, the bill applied only to fetuses that were unlikely to survive and that it wouldn’t be “infanticide” unless a person considered an aborted fetus an infant, which Obama doesn’t, but I do, but the facts are confirmed.) So abortion survivor Giana Jessen did an ad calling him on it. Now he is running a counter-ad calling the ad “vile” and a lie. But it isn’t a lie! See here for the various ads. Here is Giana’s response to his attack on her:

“Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice would have left me to die if his policies were in place when I was born. Thank God they were not.”

I know that Christians who support Obama say that the president really can’t do much about abortion, so it really doesn’t matter. But doesn’t a person’s beliefs about life issues tell you much about that person’s character and moral convictions? Not to mention that the president’s appointment of Supreme Court justices IS going to have an impact on abortions.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to Barry Hussein Obama, Gianna was merely something that was a punishment for a “mistake” her 17-year-old mother made.

    Gianna is correct; Barry is a coward. Furthermore Barry is unfit to be an American (naturalized or otherwise), much less running for office.

  • Mary Ann

    This election is chilling in that Obama has come this far so quickly with a horde of followers that don’t care one hoot what he stands for (or doesn’t stand for). Or worse, the more depraved he is shown to be the more they cheer him on. I worry more about the string pullers behind the scenes that are propping him up. I need to worry less and pray more!

  • John

    “I need to worry less and pray more!”
    As Christians we need to educate ourselves, and do our civic duty and vote. But to pray more should be our first, and unceasing response.

  • Nemo

    Here are his various explinations defending the vote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Dr. Veith asks:
    ‘But doesn’t a person’s beliefs about life issues tell you much about that person’s character and moral convictions?’
    Being able to gloss over those beliefs in order to make a candidate ‘your guy’ should tell a person a lot about himself.
    Everyone supporting Obama is supporting abortion, whether they like it or not, or admit it or not. That he can add the gloss of his inner conflict on the matter, or of his appreciation for diversity of belief, is not a testament to his political skills, as some would have, but to the lack of clear conviction and honest thought among many of his supporters.
    It stinks to High Heaven.

  • Nemo

    Susan,

    Let’s try to raise this conversation to a little higher level of civility, shall we?

    Not every Obama supporter supports every part of his platform, just as not every McCain supporter supports everything McCain does.

    Remember, we’re trying to pick the better/more preferable of two sinners.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Aren’t there more sinners to choose from, Nemo. Or is voting for a 3rd party really throwing away one’s vote?

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Thanks, Nemo, but no thanks.
    I fail to see what gutter I stepped into.
    Either you choose life or you don’t. And not only life, but honesty.
    Obama’s various statements on what he did or didn’t do on that bill are not honest. There’s a useful (I can’t say ‘good’) reason for his dishonesty, or lack of clarity or full disclosure: it’s his way of letting people feel off-the-hook in voting for him. They can allow themselves to think his true position is inderminate or undeterminable, therefore irrelevant.
    Maybe I should’ve used the word mud instead of gloss to describe the technique. He’s muddied not only his positions, but his actual actions, and that alone is testament to his character.
    I don’t see that that’s de-elevating the discussion, your scold notwithstanding. If anything, I’m underlining the essentials: a candidate’s approach to truth-telling, and his beliefs about life, not just about abortion.
    Abortion is not just about killing babies; it’s about understanding and believing (or not) ‘who is alive?’
    How high a paygrade does one have to have, in order to answer that question definitively?

  • CRB

    Whoever is elected, I still believe (in light of the current
    discussion on abortion) that this nation will get the leader it deserves!

  • Nemo

    Susan,

    By all means, expose hypocrisy. But don’t engage in the “guilt by association” argumentation of projecting a candidate’s sins onto his supporters. They my be deceived, they may be misled, or they may be holding their nose and voting for Obama like many on this blog seem to be doing about McCain.

    Bryan,

    First of all, that’s a false dichotomy. The answer to your first question is clearly yes, and I should have written something along the lines of “the better/more preferable among sinners.” Technically, speaking, if one considers the write-in option, there are millions of possibilities.

    As for my opinion on third parties, that is another discussion. However, regardless of their viability, I don’t much care for any of the candidates offered there either.

  • fw

    as far as i can tell, obama clearly saw that the legislation would have been clearly an overturning of roe vs wade. This is specifically why he voted as he did.

    of course i dont agree with him on this. but I will vote for roe v wade.

    I agree that this particular ad is accurate about obama.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Nemo, this isn’t cheap guilt-by-association, but guilt-by-willful-blindness.
    It’s not being deceived by a candidate’s serial obfuscations, but being deceived–willfully–by oneself.
    I don’t doubt for one second that anyone who’s anti-abortion will use Obama’s muddiness as an excuse for voting for him, and do that for the purposes of some other position in that person’s self-interest.
    And I don’t doubt that Obama knows, and depends on, this human characteristic. Otherwise, why not just come clean?

  • The Preacher

    As I believe in God, I must believe that there are absolutes. There are those things which are commanded. There are other things which are prohibited. Then there are things on which we are allowed to use our God-given reason. It is my conclusion (you’re free to have your own, of course) that any candidate who would willfully and persistently err on either of the first two disqualifies himself from this high office. On the other hand, if one should err or turn away from his wrong conclusions he shows true wisdom which comes from the proper fear of the One who set the absolutes.

    I believe that there is no clearer prohibition than the slaying of innocents. “It would be better for such a one to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea.” And he certainly should not be elected President.

    I am not thrilled with McCain and would rather have another option, but I do not see how I can support the candidate who does not see as evil something so plain as this without becoming complicit in his error.

    Some would say that we’re all “sinners.” But I would rather have even a shallow or a false contrition than reward the one who is blind to the evil of something as clear as withholding mercy and compassion to a newborn — and especially to one who is unwanted. My goodness, people! Can that be tolerated simply by “holding your nose”?! If that is not evil, then tell me what would be.

    Without some absolutes, then every discussion or decision would be meaningless indeed and God has abandoned us to our destruction.

    Or do we allow him a “pass” because there are some absolutes which we ourselves wish to willfully and persistently ignore? That would be a convenient arrangement.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Amen, Preacher.

  • Anon

    Susan is being civil. It is the pro-aborts who are the savages.

    CRB, the president of the executive branch of the federal civil government isn’ t -supposed- to be our leader. . .

    May God give us both the leader we need and also the president that we need, not the ones that we deserve.

    If not opposing a bill requiring hospitals to not murder born babies by exposure is overturning Roe v. Wade, what should that tell you about Roe v Wade?

    There is such a thing as being an accessory. There is such a thing as being guilty of material complicity. There is such a thing as mortal sin/turning your back on your baptism. Know this that: “no murderer has eternal live in him”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Susan, regarding your statement that (@8) “Either you choose life or you don’t. And not only life, but honesty” … So you’re voting third-party, then?

    Or do you support embryonic stem-cell research and I didn’t know it? After all, it would be your argument (@5) that everyone supporting MCcain is supporting embryonic stem-cell research, whether they like it or not, or admit it or not, right? Or is it possible to consider more than that single issue, wrong though McCain might be on it?

    If you want to vote for a candidate who is correct on all life issues (and not only life, but honesty), then you won’t be voting for a Democrat or a Republican this year.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    The point of this exercise, tODD and nemo, from my point of view, is that Obama has obfuscated his positions and his actions. That alone says lots and lots about a person’s character.
    McCain, on the other hand, has lots of positions I don’t hold to. No I won’t be voting 3rd party or even abstaining, for lack of a Christ-figure on the ballot. But McCain hasn’t pretended, as a matter of tactic, to believe one thing or clouded what he believes in lofty or crafty rhetoric, then done another, then tried to hide it. Not in what matters.
    It’s the honesty about life and his positions on it; not only the positions.
    Is this finally clear?
    Believe what you want about how a person will approach abortion or Roe v Wade or partial birth abortion or even embryonic stem cells. But believe it on the basis of what the person has said and done, not on the basis of what they say as opposed to what they’ve done.
    Otherwise, you’re having to ignore a ton of evidence to the contrary. Ignoring is not the same as not knowing.

  • WebMonk

    Susan, McCain certainly does support embryonic stem cell research, has for many years, still says he does, and has a legislative record to back him up. No question on the topic.

    How can you possibly support a candidate that favors the murder of children through ESCR? How can you, in any sort of good conscience vote for McCain while knowing that he supports the murder of children?

    Can you see that there is a possibility that the way you vote for McCain in spite of his support of murder-via-ESCR is similar to how others vote for Obama in spite of his murder-via-abortion support.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Add Webmonk to those who don’t get it.
    I know exactly where McCain stands on escr. Because he’s told me.
    He never claimed it was above his paygrade, or a religious belief he couldn’t presume to impose on others, or even that he never said that and anyone who says he did is telling outright lies or that he voted against his belief in some arcane legal tangle.
    Don’t doubt that I’ll go into the voting booth with a clothespin on my nose. I already detest his positions on illegal immigration, campaign finance, etc. almost-to-infinity.
    But one of these men is going to be President, not any third party person. And one of them is far more known than the other, not just because he’s been around longer and received more scrutiny, but because he’s been open and consistent in what he believes and does, in how he votes and how he defends his votes.
    You do *not* see McCain’s supporters having to parse what he really meant, or explain away his votes.
    He doesn’t obfuscate, and he doesn’t do so consistently.
    See, I’m one who thinks that 9 times out of 10 people aren’t so much misled as they allow themselves to be misled. They see what they want to see, and nothing more.
    Like I said, ignoring isn’t the same thing as being ignorant.

  • Nemo

    Susan,

    There is a difference between disagreeing with you and not “getting it.” We’re disagreeing with you, specifically regarding comments such as: Everyone supporting Obama is supporting abortion, whether they like it or not, or admit it or not. (Susan @ 5) If that is the case, you by extension must be supporting McCain’s positions as well. However, I already detest [McCain’s] positions on illegal immigration, campaign finance, etc. almost-to-infinity.(Susan @ 19)

    If you can allow yourself to support a candidate whose positions you oppose “almost to infinity,” than you really should allow the same privilege to those who support your candidate’s opponent.

    Susan @ 8
    Abortion is not just about killing babies; it’s about understanding and believing (or not) ‘who is alive?’

    You have just indicted McCain again, since he supports embryonic stem cell research. You know this, as he is clear on the matter. How do you excuse this and still hold that supporting a candidate is partaking in his errors?

    Susan @ 12
    I don’t doubt for one second that anyone who’s anti-abortion will use Obama’s muddiness as an excuse for voting for him, and do that for the purposes of some other position in that person’s self-interest.

    Let’s see if I get this right. There is abortion, and then there is self-interest. No other policies or motives whatsoever are in play?

    I follow what you are trying to say—it is Obama’s attempts to obfuscate his positions that you are complaining about, not the position itself. May I then conclude that you have no objection to those who understand his stance on abortion and vote for him anyway?

    Oh, for the record, Obama is wrong on abortion (and, I believe, other issues) and I do not support him. Largely I even agree with your assessment of him. I just don’t believe that all those who support him are necessarily accomplices to abortion or somehow of a less noble character, and telling them so isn’t going to help persuade them to abandon their candidate.

  • WebMonk

    Unfortunately Susan, I do get it. The reason that you support McCain in spite of his support of ESCR (murder as you’ve said) is that he doesn’t try to wiggle around or obfuscate it.

    Lovely.

    Because of some outside factor (McCain’s non-obfuscation) you have decided that you will support him even though he supports ESCR/murder.

    Stretch your imagination and see that other people can have some outside factor (similar to yours) which lets them support Obama for the same general type of reason that you can support McCain.

    Obama supports abortion/murder, but some Christians still support him for various other reasons that are similar to your reason for supporting McCain.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condemning voting for someone in spite of a failing because of some virtue that you feel is more important. What I am saying is that claiming that your candidate is the only one for whom some virtue overshadows a flaw is ridiculous, and that’s what you’re doing.

    By your own statements you realize you are supporting death/ESCR by supporting McCain, but you have an outside reason that it’s OK for you to do that. (he doesn’t try to hide it) Then you turn around and have the nerve to tell Obama supporters that the question is just a straight life-or-death boolean option and they have chosen to support death while you support life.

    Nonsense.

  • fw

    #4 nemo

    do you have something you can point us to other than a world net article. I would like something that does a better job of attempting to allow obama speak with his own voice.

    world net ….

  • Nemo

    There is also this one, but it is more of an analysis of Obama’s position than excerpts form his speeches/writing:
    http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/obama-abortion.html

    I wish the first link wasn’t WND, but posted it because it largely used his direct quotations, rather than paraphrases.

    I am by no means claiming that these are exhaustive. If you find something better, please post it.

  • Nemo

    There is also this one, but it is more of an analysis of Obama’s position than excerpts form his speeches/writing:
    http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/obama-abortion.html

    I wish the first link wasn’t WND, but posted it because it largely used his direct quotations, rather than paraphrases.

    I am by no means claiming that these are exhaustive. If you find something better, please post it.

  • Bruce

    I’ve read Obama’s positions on the measures to protect babies who survive abortion. My thought when I read them was amazement at how far people can be pushed–to the point of supporting the murder of children outside of the womb–in order to protect their commitment to killing children in the womb.

    You would think Obama would have woken up screaming in fear and shame at some point, when he grasped just how far his logical conclusions had pushed him. I would like to think that he did.

  • Booklover

    “I know that Christians who support Obama say that the president really can’t do much about abortion, so it really doesn’t matter.”

    I wouldn’t want a person with his beliefs to clean my toilets.

  • Carl Vehse

    For Lutherans on this blog, Martin Luther clearly explains in his Large Catechism what the fifth commandment means:

    189] Secondly, under this commandment not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him, so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him, and yet does not do it….

    191] Therefore God also rightly calls all those murderers who do not afford counsel and help in distress and danger of body and life, and will pass a most terrible sentence upon them in the last day, as Christ Himself has announced

    In this Lutheran confessional understanding, voting for a pro-murder-by-abortion politician like Barry would be a violation of the fifth commandment.

    LINOs may disagree.

  • Anon

    Is it not the case that McCain has revised his views on embryonic vivisection after conferring with some knowledgeable Christians? Can anyone provide confirmation of this?

  • Carl Vehse

    To Rick Warren’s question, “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”, McCain answered, “At the moment of conception.” That answer is a contradiction to advocating embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

    Elsewhere, Sarah Palin has noted that she disagrees with her running mate, John McCain, on the issue of arctic drilling, but she said, “I’m going to keep working on that with him.”

    I suspect that if he has not already changed his mind and now opposes ESCR, Gov. Palin is also working on that with him.

    BTW, Chuckie Gibson misquoted Palin in asking her a question bout her skepticism on manmade global warming. Without a pause, Sarah answered back her correct view, not falling for his trap. Chuckie quickly switched subjects. Better put that manmade global warming nonsense of McCain on Sarracuda’s “work on that with him” list, too. ;-)

    As for the upcoming VP debate, my opinion is that Biden will end up as moose-meat.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl (@29), what you “suspect” is not nearly as interesting as what McCain says, especially given the overwhelming evidence thus far that McCain supports ESCR.

    I’m also not sure why it’s considered a favorable quality in a presidential candidate that he would change his mind on key issues in the space of a few weeks because he nominated someone. Perhaps Palin is also working with McCain to change his mind about earmarks as well?

  • Susan aka organshoes

    ‘The reason that you support McCain in spite of his support of ESCR (murder as you’ve said) is that he doesn’t try to wiggle around or obfuscate it.’
    Thanks, Webmonk. That’s it in a nutshell.
    We know the man.
    The other man is calling a woman a liar for pointing to the truth of his position. Regardless of how this woman came into the public spotlight, she’s stated the truth and he’s claling it a lie, and he’s convincing a lot of people, apparently.
    That’s what stink to high heaven.
    Either we believe him, or we believe the record. If we don’t accept a record, but would rather see vilified anyone who points it out, and all because of something he represents than because of who he really is or what he’s really done, then that stinks to high heaven also.
    If Obama wins, I don’t doubt it’s because a lot of people cared more about Obama than about the truth, on that and on many other matters as well.

  • LAJ

    #30 Is it not a mark of reasonableness to be persuaded by another person to change your position even if it disagrees with the one you previously held if you are convinced hers is the truth? Isn’ this why we discuss issues with each other? If Sarah Palin can convince her running mate of the truth in matters, isn’t that a wonderful thing? That’s one reason I’m thrilled she’s his choice.

  • WebMonk

    McCain is currently running radio ads boasting of his support of ESCR. He has not been changed in any way on this issue by Sarah Palin, and McCain apparently lives with an internal contradiction between his still-strong support of ESCR and his statement that life begins at conception.

    Susan, I’m so glad to know that you feel you can support a person who supports murder (McCain) just because he doesn’t try to hide it.

    What can finally get through to you that there are people who support a person who supports murder (Obama) because of some of his virtues?

    Argue with them that Obama’s other virtues don’t exist, or that Obama’s vices outweigh his virtues, or that honesty on this particular issue is the only virtue that counts, or whatever – but don’t be such a hypocrite by claiming that you are the one supporting “life” while Obama supporters are supporting “death”. You’re both supporting “death” in some way but have some external reason that you feel it is OK.

    For McCain, you feel that external reason is his “straight talk”.
    For Obama, others feel that external reason is his ________ (fill in the blank).

  • Susan aka organshoes

    Well you certainly can’t fill in that blank with ‘straight talk’ can you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Susan (@34), I couldn’t fill either candidate’s blank with “straight talk”. Given the ads that McCain has run lately (to say nothing of other misrepresentations), I’m not sure how you can do for McCain.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    (Sorry for the presumptive two-party nature of my comment @35 — I couldn’t really say if any third party candidates could be accused of “straight talk”.)

  • Daniel Gorman

    Carl Vehse states, “To Rick Warren’s question, ‘At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?’, McCain answered, ‘At the moment of conception.’ That answer is a contradiction to advocating embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).”

    Yes, Sen. McCain advocates having the government actively participate in the murder of the unborn babies for medical research purposes. In the October Glamour magazine, McCain will reiterate his support for the murder of the unborn children of rape/incest. Sen. McCain, like many liberal Christian politicians, is able to separate his political position (killing babies is okay if it helps me get elected) from his theological position (ensoulment at conception).

    Sen. Obama’s political position is, at least, consistent with his theological position. Time of ensoulment is “above his pay grade” so he will not go beyond his understanding of scripture and the constitution in protecting the unborn. On the other hand, Sen. McCain has clearly demonstrated that he has no true Christian conviction regarding ensoulment at conception and has merely staked out a political position.

  • Don S

    Daniel @ 37:

    I can’t let you get away with that one. So are you really saying that Obama’s “cop-out” answer at the Saddleback Forum (“above my pay grade”) was a genuine reflection of his theological uncertainty about ensoulment, and not an attempt to stake out a political position? Are you kidding me? So when Obama supports the principal of murdering babies after they are born alive during a botched abortion, he is merely reflecting his genuine theological uncertainty as to whether that baby is really a human being, and his reverence for the Constitution? Excuse me while I vomit.

    On the other hand, even though John McCain has consistently voted and advocated pro-life except for ESCR, in your view he is the cynical political operator.

    That is the saddest rationalization I’ve ever seen on this site.

  • Bill

    Don, are you saying that ESCR is not murder or that the abortion of a baby conceived through rape or incest (or aborted to save the mother’s life) is not murder? If I have misunderstood you, please explain. And try not to use the word “Obama.”

  • WebMonk

    Bill, where are you getting any of that? If McCain is pro-life except in his support of ESCR, then DonS is saying that pro-ESCR is not part of pro-life.

    Where are you possibly coming up with the idea that DonS is saying ESCR or abortion in cases of rape/incest is OK?

    Why not use Obama? At times “Barry” or something is used as a specific diss, but most here use “Obama” and “McCain” as shortcuts and don’t mean anything by it. I’ve even seen that used in various large newspapers where they are supposed to be using formal language.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@40), I believe you’ve misread Bill’s comment (@39), at least in part. I believe the request “try not to use the word ‘Obama’” could be read, “… and don’t try to excuse McCain by bringing in Obama’s faults to point the finger elsewhere; let’s just talk about McCain being wrong in this area.” Bill will explain if he meant something else.

    Also (and I’m less sure on this one), I believe Bill was responding to Don’s phrasing, in which he said McCain was “pro-life except for ESCR” — a somewhat sad statement. Yes, well, Obama’s pro-life except for abortion and ESCR, too. The point being that “pro-life except for ESCR” isn’t really pro-life. Again, Bill, do clarify if I got it wrong.

  • Bill

    Webmonk, tODD explained my post very well. Though no one but us three may be reading this comment any longer, I was essentially asking your question @18. Any takers?

  • Daniel Gorman

    Don S opines, “I can’t let you get away with that one. So are you really saying that Obama’s “cop-out” answer at the Saddleback Forum (”above my pay grade”) was a genuine reflection of his theological uncertainty about ensoulment, and not an attempt to stake out a political position?”

    Yes. Do you have any evidence that Sen. Obama was being insincere at Saddleback Forum? Has Sen. Obama ever supported the rights of the unborn? On the other hand, there is massive evidence that Sen. McCain has been willing to sacrifice the rights of the unborn whenever it was politically advantageous.

    Don S asks, “Are you kidding me? So when Obama supports the principal of murdering babies after they are born alive during a botched abortion, he is merely reflecting his genuine theological uncertainty as to whether that baby is really a human being, and his reverence for the Constitution?”

    Yes. Sen. Obama’s theological and political positions are horrible, offensive, and erroneous. However, there is no reason to believe his views are not sincerely held.

    Don S opines, “On the other hand, even though John McCain has consistently voted and advocated pro-life except for ESCR, in your view he is the cynical political operator.”

    Sen. McCain also wants to murder the unborn babies of rape/incest victims. His public record speaks for itself.

    Yes. Sen. Obama’s theological and political positions are horrible, offensive, and erroneous. However, there is no reason to believe his views are not sincerely held.

    On the other hand, even though John McCain has consistently voted and advocated pro-life except for ESCR, in your view he is the cynical political operator.

    Sen. McCain also wants to murder the unborn babies of rape/incest victims. Yes, his record speaks for itself.

  • WebMonk

    Hmmm, how the times turn.

    First it was Susan saying McCain is at least a straight shooter when it comes to his less than perfect record and Obama is the obfuscator.

    Now Daniel says Obama is the more sincere in his beliefs, as wrong as they are, and it is McCain who is talking out both sides of his mouth.

    I can’t help but giggle!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@44), “Giggle”? Or cry?

  • WebMonk

    I have a warped sense of humor.

    Giggle.
    :-)

  • Jim Kruta jr

    And yet, I still have not seen any counter argument to the main point of this posting, that is, “But doesn’t a person’s beliefs about life issues tell you much about that person’s character and moral convictions? Not to mention that the president’s appointment of Supreme Court justices IS going to have an impact on abortions.”
    At no point in the original post does it say “and so you must vote for Sen. McCain.” No, if you believe this argument eliminates Sen. McCain as well, by all means, vote for a 3rd party who correctly represents your views. But don’t give this intellectually dishonest argument that “McCain is just as bad as Obama” nonsense.

    Seriously, Sen. Obama has stated time and again what his views are on abortion with phrases like “punished with a child” and “undue burden on the mother” and “undermining Roe v. Wade.” Or how about “I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.”

    Now, in all honesty, which of the two men do you really think is more likely to cut the number of abortions in this country? The one who has all but promised federal funding for unrestricted abortions, or the one who has voted pro-life on every issue but ESCR and rape/incest?
    Personally, I think both are terrible choices, but if you do not see that one is obviously better than the other, you are deluding yourself and proving the point made by earlier posters. And it is this type of tolerance for evil that has placed us in this position in the first place.

    Can you even imagine Sen. Obama attempting to run for any office 100 years ago while being on record as supporting the policy of allowing children do die in a hospital without care? The man would have trouble getting a job as county dog catcher.

    And yet, here we are in the 21st century, having allowed what we *want* to be true to outweigh what we *know* to be true, time and time again.

    I am reminded of I Samuel 8. The whole chapter is worth reading, but of especial relevance is 18-20:

    18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
    19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.
    20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

    As someone mentioned earlier, either way, we are getting the leader we deserve. And that is a truly sad commentary on the moral condition of this country.

  • Don S

    Daniel @ 43: Well at least you are honest. Presumably, you will be voting for Obama because, though he openly advocates the right for women to murder their babies at any time during the term of pregnancy, and even beyond (!), his views are “sincerely held”.

    Amazing.

  • Bill

    Don, will you answer my questions @39?

  • Don S

    Bill @ 39, 49 — I was not expressing my opinion concerning ESCR or abortion in the case of rape or incest. I was merely recoiling at Daniel’s apparent position that the choice to vote for Obama was a superior one, because he is, at least, sincere in his beliefs. I have heard a lot of rationalizations in my day, but that one took a prize. There are many fine folks on this blog who have expressed their preference for Obama DESPITE his position on abortion. There is only one, that I know of, who prefers Obama BECAUSE of his position on abortion.

  • Don S

    Or, Bill @ 49, perhaps I am wrong once again. Are there two?

  • Bill

    Don, what is your opinion of ESCR or abortion in the case of rape and incest? Please answer, if you can, without using the word “Obama.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jim (@47), you asked, “in all honesty, which of the two men do you really think is more likely to cut the number of abortions in this country?” This is an interesting question. It is not, as you imply, the same as asking, “who will appoint pro-life/’constructionist’ judges?” (or whatever other thing a pro-life President is supposed to do — what did Reagan do, for instance?)

    If you look at actual abortion rates (I found one graph here — feel free to point to better data if you find it), it seems likely that abortion rates will decline under either major candidate, simply because that’s what abortion rates have done since 1980. It is interesting to note that the steepest decline in the abortion rate did not occur only under Republicans. No, the rate was almost flat under Reagan’s two terms, began to decline steeply in GHW Bush’s term, which continued in Clinton’s first term, where it slowed a bit, and that rate of decline continued through Bush’s two terms (well, through 2005, the last data I could find).

    But we’re not talking about reducing abortions. We’re almost never talking about reducing abortions when we talk about “abortion”. We’re talking about political stances, and about claims of appointing judges.

  • Jim Kruta jr

    It is not the same as asking who will appoint pro-life judges? Why is that? Pres. Bush appointed 2 Justices who lean towards pro-life instead of abortion. With one more Justice, the court tips 5-4 the other direction. Of the two candidates, who is more likely to appoint the pro-life Judge? The one who has promised to only appoint Judges who believe abortion is a Constitutionally protected right or the one who votes against it in nearly every circumstance?
    Yes, abortion rates have dropped. Yes, this is a good thing. But if I had to hedge my bets, a man who promises to re-institute federal funding for abortions and who holds the stance that failed abortions should be discarded instead of being helped is *not* the role model I want to assist in decreasing the abortion rate further.
    And you are right, I’m not talking about reducing abortions, I’m talking about eliminating it entirely. And I ask again, who is more likely to help us towards that goal? It may not be Sen. McCain, but it assuredly is not a man who believes abortion is a Civil Right. Sometimes progress starts with small steps back towards what is good and right. For far too long we’ve allowed ourselves to tolerate what we know to be wrong for what we want to be right.
    And as I said before, it is this very mentality that presents us with this unfortunate situation. If more Christians had taken a stand in the past against candidates who pushed for abortion, perhaps there would be more legitimate Democrats and Republicans who were truly Pro-Life.

  • LAJ

    In order to end legal abortions in our country it will take more than a president or the Supreme Court. We the people need a change of heart so that we all value life and understand life to begin at the moment of conception. How will that happen? Only a miracle. That said we need a president and Supreme court that value life so that things don’t get any worse.

  • Don S

    Bill @ 52: I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you, like Daniel, intend to vote for Obama BECAUSE of his stance on abortion?

  • Bill

    Don, my answer is no.
    Now, yours?

  • Don S

    Bill @ 57: No

  • Dave

    Is Obama a true Christian or a Muslim?
    Does he really believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ? Can Obama pass the Jesus Test?

    Take the Jesus Test to find out if you are a true Christian at http://www.sentforlife.com/jesus.html

  • Daniel Gorman

    Don S presumes to know how and why I will vote: “Do you, like Daniel, intend to vote for Obama BECAUSE of his stance on abortion?”

    The Don S’s presumption is off topic. The question being addressed here is whether “a person’s beliefs about life issues tell you much about that person’s character and moral convictions?”

    Sen. Obama teaches that killing of the unborn should be sanctioned by the government. Sen. McCain teaches that unborn babies of invitro/rape/incest may be killed by the government for the benefit of society and/or their mother. However, scripture teaches that government may only kill as “a revenger of wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4).

    Sen. Obama and McCain both condone murder without just cause. Only for the sake of Christ can the wicked disposition of their hearts be forgiven in the baptizing and believing.

  • Don S

    Daniel @ 60: I apologize for presuming, based on your prior comments and seeming defense of Obama’s horrendous abortion positions, that you were a supporter of his. You now appear to deny that, and I will take you at your word, and presume that, on principle, you will not vote for, or advocate voting for, either candidate.

    I’m not sure that your statement as follows is correct: “Sen. McCain teaches that unborn babies of invitro/rape/incest may be killed by the government for the benefit of society and/or their mother. However, scripture teaches that government may only kill as “a revenger of wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4)” . I have never understood McCain’s position as being that “unborn babies of invitro/rape/incest may be killed by the government”. Does he actually advocate that the government do the killing? I would need to see evidence of that. My understanding of his positions, as set forth in the past, is that he would not favor the government prohibiting ESCR or abortion in the case of rape or incest. That’s a bit different than advocating the governnment actively engaging in these positions or funding them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@61), you said, in conclusion, “That’s a bit different than advocating the governnment actively engaging in these positions or funding them.” I believe Daniel was referring (@60) in that part to government-funded ESCR. I have read nothing that suggests he would allow ESCR only for non-government-funded scientists. I do not know his position on government funding for killing babies produced by rape or incest.

  • Don S

    tODD, @ 62: I don’t know either. But I found it interesting that he only identified Obama as advocating that the government “sanction” killing of the unborn, while he made a point of stating that McCain “teaches that unborn babies of invitro/rape/incest may be killed by the government for the benefit of society and/or their mother”. A bit disingenuous, to say the least. No matter what you think about McCain’s views on ESCR or rape exceptions, it’s a real stretch to insinuate that Obama’s position is better.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@63), agreed.

    (I really hate leaving comments like that, but I also hate to leave the impression from silence that maybe I am stubbornly refusing to concede the point. What do you think — if I hadn’t left this comment, would you have read it as stubbornness, or merely that I had nothing to add to what you’d said? Just curious, since I don’t usually respond with “I agree” comments.)

  • Don S

    LOL, tODD, I appreciate the comment and the dilemma, as I have found myself in the same situation at times.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Don S opines, “I have never understood McCain’s position as being that “unborn babies of invitro/rape/incest may be killed by the government”. Does he actually advocate that the government do the killing? I would need to see evidence of that. My understanding of his positions, as set forth in the past, is that he would not favor the government prohibiting ESCR or abortion in the case of rape or incest. That’s a bit different than advocating the governnment actively engaging in these positions or funding them.”

    The senate bill that Sen. McCain supported reads as follows, “Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. . .”

    In others words, the government may kill the unwanted babies itself or hire someone else to do the killing. Morally, that’s a distinction without a difference.

    With regard to public vs. private funding of the killing of unborn babies of rape/incest victims, I don’t know Sen. McCain position. Again, morally, that’s a distinction without a difference. The doctors and pharmacists who do the killing are licensed agents of the government. If the government authorizes its agents to kill unborn babies, the government is guilty of their murder.

  • Don S

    Daniel @ 66: I don’t really understand what you are trying to accomplish with your posts. It’s completely unclear whom you are advocating as a presidential candidate. Are you saying we all need to vote third party? I’m unwilling to throw my vote away, and will vote for McCain because he is much more pro-life than is Obama. Maybe his motives are “less pure”, I don’t know. I will let God judge his motives. But his voting record is a lot better. As long as we are on this earth we are not going to have the opportunity to elect the perfect candidate. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

    If you have a bottom line point, make it. If not, then let’s be done.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Don S,

    My purpose here was not to advocate for Obama, McCain, or a third party candidate. I was intrigued by the question that engendered the blog entry (i.e., “doesn’t a person’s beliefs about life issues tell you much about that person’s character and moral convictions?).

    Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain pro-death political positions demonstrate a total corruption of their character and moral conviction. Does their wickedness disqualify them for public office?

    I don’t believe in a doctrine of “lesser evil.” God wishes to lead us in the paths of righteousness; however, our mind and will are horribly corrupt.

    Is a righteous path a vote for Obama, McCain, a third-party candidate with a pro-life record, or none of the above? That’s a decision for each voter.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X