The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

Princeton University professor Robert George has penned a chillingly accurate description of Barack Obama’s record on abortion:

“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

He goes on:

“Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these tiny members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. . . What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion.”

This article is a must-read, but here’s the conclusion:

“In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.”

Albert Mohler interviewed George today on his radio program. You can download the audio here or listen to it below:

[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/totl/2008/AMP_10_14_2008.mp3]

86 Responses to The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

  1. Derek October 15, 2008 at 12:08 am #

    Robert George has spoken the truth. I don’t understand how Obama could have had an encounter with Christ, and then take such strident positions on abortion. There isn’t even a sign that his faith in Christ has moved him to take moderate positions of any kind on abortion. Not that moderate positions on abortion are any better than a moderate position on say, slavery would be, but seriously! Can this guy be for real, when he utters in one breath that Christ inspires all that he does and then he stands up at a Planned Parenthood event and fervently rallies them for support and money?

    I also don’t know how a Christian can stand idly by and pretend that this candidate and his party is value neutral.

    There are six things the Lord hates — no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family.

  2. Truth Unites... and Divides October 15, 2008 at 1:04 am #

    Robert George’s terrific essay is getting distributed around the blogosphere.

    I hope all professing Christians who are thinking about voting for Obama will read and re-read Professor George’s essay.

  3. T October 15, 2008 at 4:34 am #

    Bush-Cheney are the most pro-torture Administration in America’s history. McCain is the most pro-war candidate in America’s history. Palin is the most incompetent and perhaps ranks among the most unethical candidates ever to run. I don’t see how any professing Christian can be silent about this.

    As Derek said:

    I don’t understand how McCain could have had an encounter with Christ, and then take such strident positions on war and death. There isn’t even a sign that his faith in Christ has moved him to take moderate positions of any kind on war and death. Not that moderate positions on war and death are any better than a moderate position on say, slavery would be, but seriously! Can this guy be for real…

    or, Truth:

    I hope all professing Christians who are thinking about voting for McCain will read and re-read…(oh, that’s right, no evangelcials actually care about the double standard.)

    All of this in the not-so-strange absence of comment on Troopergate.

    You guys are pathetic. Obama is very flawed. He is human. Abortion is awful, no doubt. But give me a break you moralizing hypocrites, who cannot even see the ‘un-Christian’ behavior of your candidates from ‘God’s Old Party’.

  4. T October 15, 2008 at 4:39 am #

    Can we please get one freakin Troopergate analysis by Denny Burk so as to re-balance the radicalism of the evangelical right?

  5. Truth Unites... and Divides October 15, 2008 at 7:22 am #

    “The shadow of abortion looms large over the American conscience. Over thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the abortion controversy has not gone away. If the U.S. Supreme Court majority really thought that their decision to create a new “right” to abortion would resolve the issue, history has rejected that assumption. The nation is even more divided on this question in 2008 than it was in 1973.. The question comes down to this: How many lives are we willing to forfeit — to write off as expendable — in order to “move on” to other issues of concern? There is no way to avoid that question and remain morally serious. The voting booth is no place to hide.

    Dr. Albert Mohler: The Abortion Question and the Future

    P.S. Do you believe that God holds His professed disciples accountable for how they vote, especially in this Presidential election?

  6. Darius October 15, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    T,

    First of all, thanks for the anonymous post, I’m glad you have the guts to stand behind your comments.

    Secondly, since you asked for it, here is a review of the Troopergate issue (from Wikipedia’s coverage of the bipartisan report):

    “Although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.”

    Furthermore, let us review the actions of Mike Wooten, the man she supposed wanted fired as a state trooper. First of all, he threatened to kill Palin’s father. Second, he tasered his own 11-year-old son. Third, he was seen violating state law by drinking and driving his trooper vehicle while off duty. Why is no one talking about this scumbag and why he was not fired immediately??? If the report is right (and I don’t know that it is), Palin did what any sane person should do, seek by any means necessary to get fire the moron.

  7. James October 15, 2008 at 9:17 am #

    T,
    If you are anti-war and anti-torture, I completely understand. And yes, I understand that those are moral issues as well. But the number of humans that are murdered each year through abortion is much greater than the amount of lives lost in the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I just have a hard time voting for someone who advocates the murder of millions of humans every year.

  8. CH October 15, 2008 at 9:20 am #

    T,

    Everything you say about Bush-Cheney and McCain doesn’t change Obama’s record one iota. He is still a radically pro-abortion candidate.

    I agree that our troops should not be torturing prisoners, but the incidents of torture greatly pale in comparison to the mass slaughter of the innocent unborn.

    As for war, I would also agree that war-mongering is horrible, both morally an politically. But war itself is not categorically immoral, abortion on the other hand is.

    If you want to debate these issues, then debate these issues, but do so separately, for they are very different things. Bringing up war and torture in the context of abortion is a poor show.

  9. Derek October 15, 2008 at 9:25 am #

    T-
    The war in Iraq, etc. is not comparable in any way to abortion. Romans 13 demonstrates that one of the God mandated functions for government is to bear the sword against evil. Genesis 13 demonstrates that when we see atrocities, we cannot stand idly by, if we have the capability to stop it.

    Even if you are against war under any circumstances, you cannot be intellectually honest and claim that deposing a ruthless dictator who was holding a gun to his own people’s head is the same as abortion. Did innocents get caught in the cross fire? Of course, that happens in every war. But for you to imply that innocents caught in the crossfire of a battle between Saddam Hussein and then al Qaeda is equal to abortion in any way is ridiculous.

    Additionally, on the issue of torture, can you show some proof that Bush and/or Cheney ordered authentic torture? The real issue here is that the left has been changing the definition of torture to encompass almost any level of discomfort (including turning on the air condition “too high” for detainees!) for prisoners. Again, an intellectually dishonest argument.

    But again, the left seems to have more compassion for terrorists and criminals than they do for truly innocent life, which is why I placed the quote from Proverbs on my initial post. That is perverse, T.

  10. Nathan October 15, 2008 at 9:37 am #

    We shouldn’t let T turn this conversation into defending why Christians must take a stand against the murder of the unborn. All of his accusations are hypoerbolic at best and are intended to destroy prudent discussion on this topic.

    The one thing I am saddened by is that Sen. McCain has not been willing to “duke” it out with Obama on these “meaty” issues. He has one last chance tonight.

    Frankly, I am disturbed that McCain, since selecting Gov. Palin, has refused to take chances and project to us his version of where America is going.

    As Timothy George stated so well in his essay, there is no doubt where Obama is taking America.

    “Life matters more than any economic crisis”

  11. Derek October 15, 2008 at 9:42 am #

    Nathan, you’re probably right, that we shouldn’t let the war issue intrude here. But a surprising number of Christians truly seem to believe that the two issues are comparable, so I think it does have to be corrected in a Biblical framework.

  12. Nathan October 15, 2008 at 9:48 am #

    Derek,

    Perhaps, but I think T was simply trying to throw a bomb in this case. Case in point: Arguing to have the so-called Troopergate issue discussed instead of this issue.

    If I thought he actually was concerned on the other issue I would cede to your point, but his comments are not intended for that purpose.

  13. Darius October 15, 2008 at 10:01 am #

    Good point, Nathan. He’s a troll.

    I also agree that McCain has not seemed willing to really fight Obama on some of these issues. As a caller to Bill Bennett’s show this morning said, if McCain would fight half as hard for the presidency as he did for the Republican nomination, he could win.

    I’ve been disheartened to see absolutely zero mention of the abortion issue in any of the debates, and almost no mention of Obama’s radical pro-abortion agenda from McCain’s campaign. Not surprising in the former, since the media wants that issue to go away, but very odd in the latter.

  14. Nathan October 15, 2008 at 10:25 am #

    I agree Darius and I would enjoy other’s input on why they think it is that McCain has been so shy on the campaign trail.

    As bad as Bush’s ratings are it was going to be a difficult task for McCain, but Obama has not been able to run away (and he should have) which shows people are concerned with his ability and character.

    This make McCain’s unwillingness to go toe-to-toe on issues like abortion, ACORN, Ayers, Wright, etc. all the more frustrating.

  15. Darius October 15, 2008 at 10:36 am #

    I heard a discussion of this by some pundit or Republican strategist who said he believed that McCain preferred to win clean, so that’s why he is only mentioning Ayers now because he realizes that winning “clean” is not an option.

    On a related note, this day was coming for McCain. He used Democratic and Independent support to gain the Repub nomination, which is a losing strategy for the general election. In almost every state that allowed registered Dems and Inds to vote in the Republican primary, McCain won the primary but, according to the exit polls, lost the Republican and conservative vote to Romney or Huckabee. In most early states where only Republicans were allowed to vote in their own primary, McCain lost the primary. In the handful of states with caucuses (like here in Minnesota), McCain finished a distant third or fourth because party members stayed in their own party. In 2000, McCain had his campaign run “re-registration” drives where they would enlist Democrats and Inds to temporarily vote in the Republican primary, even though they would switch back to the Dems immediately. He used that same method to win in 2008. Pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

  16. T October 15, 2008 at 10:42 am #

    “Obama has not been able to run away (and he should have) which shows people are concerned with his ability and character.”

    Or, it shows many Americans are still racists (before you jump on me, remember that Ohioan and Pennsylvanian Democrats are on the record for saying they can’t trust a black man).

    Or, it shows Palin has been successful at stirring up fear.

    Or, it shows American Christians are complicit in going along with this Muslim Terrorist nonsense.

    If you want to hit at Ayers, go ahead. It’s a campaign. Let the best man win (he is). But first note that McCain’s transition team leader was a lobbyist for the real Hussein. Obama may have been in the living room of a 1960s terrorist, but McCain’s team is currently employing someone who LOBBIED FOR ONE. (Don’t forget also that some very rank and file Repubs, the Annenbergs, gave $50 mil to the Ayers education project. Oh, and those same Annenbergs are close to McCain. Go figure.)

    The Palin pick is all that is necessary to gauge the seriousness of McCain’s candidacy. Are you people on this board serious that you think she could step in on Day One? Seriously? I can’t believe American evangelicals are that deluded. Though maybe I’m the one who is deluded for holding out such a high hope.

  17. Derek October 15, 2008 at 10:47 am #

    I would argue that there is absolutely nothing “dirty” about bringing up Ayers, Wright, Raines, Rezko, Pfleger, Alinsky, etc. McCain allowed himself to be spooked by the media, plain and simple.

    You could pretty much field a baseball team with the shady people in Obama’s past. Its getting a bit absurd to even hear his spin on how “he had no idea” what these people were doing or what they were up to.

    If McCain had an association with an abortion clinic bomber, this campaign would have been over months ago.

  18. Darius October 15, 2008 at 10:52 am #

    Is “T” short for The Daily Kos? 🙂

    You are such a troll, you completely ignored my response to you regarding the Troopergate so-called scandal. I would show you how you’re incorrect on these new issues you bring up, but as Nathan already pointed out, you don’t really care about them, you just want to be a troll.

  19. Darius October 15, 2008 at 10:56 am #

    I agree Derek, but the media calls it “dirty” so it’s dirty and dangerous for a politician to go to those type of issues.

    Yeah, he was mentored by Wright and Ayers (a racist and a unrepentant terrorist), business buddies with Rezko, and nothing sticks to him. It is interesting how hypocritical the media has been. They sent teams of reporters to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin, but have almost completely ignored the Ayers and Rezko stories (the Rezko situation is particularly dirty for Obama, because he actually involved himself in corrupt dealings whereas he’s never indicated any vocal support for Ayers’ past).

  20. Derek October 15, 2008 at 10:59 am #

    You certainly don’t have to tell me this, Darius. I live in Chicago. It’s been so frustrating to see even our local media in the tank for Obama, for at least 5 years now, with no shame.

  21. T October 15, 2008 at 11:02 am #

    Not even sure what a troll is. But good one.

    Ayers and Rezko have been in the media for a LONG time now. They aren’t ignoring it. It’s been done and there was nothing there. Palin just pops onto the scene a bit ago. No one knew anything about her. Imagine that. Reporters want to get to know who could be running the free world.

    I didn’t respond to your Troopergate post because I was laughing too hard. Deflection. Good strategy. When someone on my team is found guilty of unethical conduct, make it about how evil the other person is. You still didn’t answer my question about why Christians aren’t outraged at her. Not only for the unethical charge, but her blatant lies about the Bridge, her energy record, etc. But forget all that. Why not be outraged at how pathetic she is as a candidate of a major party? Will you avoid answering me the question of how on earth you think she is qualified?

    I have no problem saying Obama has some shady people in his past. He is a politician. But this one-way nonsense is unbelievable.

  22. Nathan October 15, 2008 at 11:04 am #

    It’s amazing that the race card is still in play for those who really wish to discuss the two candidates.

    I’m concerned about McCain’s refusal to deal with La Raza and other partnerships he has had that seem contrary to some positions he has taken.

    However, Obama’s team (and T) always want to plop down the race card if Obama’s past associations are brought up. This is even more unbelievable in light of Obama gaining the DNC nomination.

    But, if you want to bring up Ohio and Pennsylvania the issue is over Obama’s “racist” comments that they cling to their guns and God.

    That is why Hillary kicked his butt in those states.

    But again, the fact that McCain wants to run “clean” is, in my opinion, a cop-out, although I agree with Darius’ comment.

    Politics are not clean and if you are not going to hit the other guy in the face with the stuff he is shoveling then you will get buried by it.

  23. T October 15, 2008 at 11:16 am #

    Ok, now you’ve made a second question necessary.

    First, the same as always, is Palin presidential?

    Second, now that you brought it up, do you really think McCain has played ‘clean’?

    Are you serious?

  24. CH October 15, 2008 at 11:27 am #

    I thought this thread was about Obama and his stance on abortion, not whether or not Palin is presidential material.

    Talk about diversion.

    So T, do you, or do you not, agree with Prof. George’s assertion that Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever?

    Can you answer this without a shot at McCain or Palin?

  25. T October 15, 2008 at 11:32 am #

    Of course, he may well be.

  26. Darius October 15, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    T,

    Fine, since you appear willing to actually dialogue on these issues, I will respond (though I believe you are probably still just a troll).

    Re: Troopergate. You apparently didn’t read my comment, because I did not just deflect. I linked to the report which basically said that firing the guy was within her rights and was primarily due to other reasons and POSSIBLY due to her issues with Wooten. POSSIBLY. Let’s tar and feather her then!

    Re: racism. Anyone honest knows that Obama wouldn’t be where he was if he was 100% white. He gets more support from white and black voters because he is partially black than rejection. 95% of blacks are voting for him, which is a good 7-10% more than a usual election. Throw in all the white liberal guilt and a bunch of whites feel that they have to support him to or be called a bigot by someone like yourself. Compare that to the handful of nutcases who are worried about a black man in office, and it’s not even close to equal. If Obama was white, he would have lost to Hillary by a mile. If you’re honest, you’ll admit that.

    Re: Ayers, McCain, etc. You rip on me for deflection and then do it yourself. Hilarious how blind liberals can be to their own hypocrisy. Some random leader in McCain’s campaign who got paid some money to lobby for Hussein or whatever is very different than a close friend, ally, and mentor like Ayers was to Obama. Your bias obviously doesn’t allow you to see this difference, but it’s big. The Annenbergs are connected to Ayers? Really?!? Ayers won the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge grant for public school reform in Chicago, so yes, the Annenbergs just might be connected to Ayers (albeit ever so slightly, since I’m sure the elderly Annenbergs had little to do with the actual awarding of their grant money). Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

  27. Darius October 15, 2008 at 11:44 am #

    Re: Palin’s qualifications. Sure, she’s not the most qualified person for the job, but she’s not going for the job, just a heartbeat away. Obama, on the other hand, is zero heartbeats away and has almost no experience at all. Palin has executive experience which is significantly more than Obama, plus Obama skipped half of the votes in the Senate, and he didn’t bother to make a decision on a bunch more of the votes and instead voted “present.” He’s an empty suit, and while Palin isn’t super impressive, she’s going to be the VICE PRESIDENT. Obama will be the PRESIDENT. Big difference.

  28. CH October 15, 2008 at 11:46 am #

    Does that fact disuade you from voting for him?

  29. disputatio October 15, 2008 at 11:48 am #

    It sounds like evangelical Christians are getting really scared. Some trust in horses, some trust in chariots…George’s comments are tremendously important, but why is his article being circulated as a must-read? He says nothing that evangelical Christians do not already know about Obama. Obama is horrible on abortion. McCain is better on abortion. Does Obama’s *extremity* on this issue disqualify him from the office of President, or is it sufficient that he is pro-choice? If the latter, then McCain, who supports federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research is also disqualified. But most evangelicals will not take this position. In the end, we are all pragmatists. But apparently, some are (self-righteously) more principled pragmatists than others. If the Christian position in this election is so clear, and voting for Obama is patently sinful, then why are so few evangelicals willing to back up their condemnation of Obama-voting evangelicals with the threat of church discipline?

  30. Darius October 15, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    Re: Palin’s supposed flip-flopping, corruption, etc. Palin temporarily supported the bridge project when she was running for governor, but quickly changed her mind once she was in office and had all the facts in front of her. I don’t have a problem with that, that’s called discernment. I applaud politicians who change their minds when the facts change or they learn new information. I don’t like politicians who change their mind for political expediency. I’m not sure what lies you supposedly believe she’s told regarding her energy record, but I’m sure they are likewise uninformed liberal rants.

  31. John October 15, 2008 at 11:59 am #

    Darius,

    Why worry about the speck when you can’t see past the plank?

    I just think it’s funny that the conservatives are heightening their rhetoric since their candidate is losing in the polls. Of course, the way to do this is mention their favorite issue…you know, the one they’ve mentioned every election year since 1973, the one where they’ve had a pawn in the white house for half of those years and it’s still legal, the one where every election they say it’s the most important election ever since it will determine whether Roe is overturned (and it never is, even when their pawn is in there for 8 years).

    This is actually becoming comical. You can rally the troops all you want, but I still refuse to put my hope in a candidate for a party that never follows through on their promises.

  32. Nathan October 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm #

    disputatio,

    The church does not put people on a polygraph and ask them questions in order to invoke church discipline.

    However, when a church is selecting leaders for teaching positions, pastor, elder, deacon, etc. and they refuse to ask these type of questions then they are, in my opinion, being naive.

    The question of one’s belief in the legality of abortion should be one of the paramount questions of qualification for leadership in the church. I do not think it is appropriate however to ask who one voted for.

  33. Derek October 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    Disputatio,

    Here’s the narrative that many Christians, particularly younger Christians are buying into:

    I don’t agree with Obama on abortion. But Roe V. Wade is unlikely to change, so this is just an issue that the Republican Party uses to manipulate Christians.

    The importance of Robert George’s essay here is that he demonstrates how the tentacles of Obama’s philosophy will impact this nation in the short and long term.

    I would additionally argue that nearly every restriction on abortion currently in law books across this country are in jeopardy, particularly since Obama will be nominating hard core liberals to many judicial vacancies. Especially since he will have a liberal Senate and House to support him.

  34. T October 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    Sorry for being an uninformed liberal and one who throws around the label ‘bigot’ as easily as you allege.

    Obviously, since you are so intellectually superior to my ignorance, manifested in my willingness to just blithely accept whatever liberal slanted material I read, without actually studying and following the election, I will withdraw from having this discussion. It is clear that my ineptitude is a strain to your brain. I apologize for stopping by this board. I shall never bother you all again.

    Though, I suppose the blessing in this is that I have been able to act as a foil to you: my inanity has highlighted the astuteness of this board.

    In FAR I trust,

    T

  35. John October 15, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    T,

    You’re not alone. We need more like you around these parts to balance those who drink the right-wing kool-aid.

  36. John October 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    Denny,

    Okay bro, you have about 2-3 people who post on your blog who are 10 times the troll I am (re:TUAD, TUAD, and TUAD). I guarantee you that you don’t moderate him out just because he agrees with you on everything. Yet, me, since I don’t, you moderate me out.

    What’s your problem dude? “Liberal” posting policy my rear. I’m just trying to dialog here, and you prohibit that by moderating all of my comments. If you were mature you would at least give me an explanation.

  37. Darius October 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm #

    “If you were mature…”

    Yeah, that’s a way to dialogue. What got moderated, John? Just so you know, sometimes the spam filter takes stuff and since Denny is a busy man, he doesn’t get right to it to get it posted.

  38. CH October 15, 2008 at 1:21 pm #

    Ha, one of my comments was just “moderated” and I share most of Denny’s views.

  39. Darius October 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

    “I share most of Denny’s views.”

    Ah ha! You share MOST of his views, but not all. This goes deeper than John even realizes; Denny is so intolerant that you have to agree 100% with him to get your views posted. After all, have you ever seen him let Paul or John post in the past??

    Oh wait…

  40. John October 15, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    Darius,

    My last 5 comments I have typed on this blog have been moderated (both yesterday and today). A few of them have been short, 1-2 sentence comments just to see if I was being moderated. Then, when I type a response to Denny asking for an explanation, he posts it for the whole blog to see and doesn’t respond…classy.

  41. CH October 15, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    That’s the second post “moderated”. I think Denny hates me because I’m a conservative who’s not voting for McCain.

  42. John October 15, 2008 at 1:34 pm #

    Alas, #40 was moderated.

  43. John October 15, 2008 at 1:34 pm #

    So was #42

  44. CH October 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    The sad thing is, the post of John’s that was “moderated” might have been the only post of his that consisted of an actual argument.

  45. Derek October 15, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Is anyone getting a “Forbidden” error when you click through to the George article?

    The link on this blog entry (to the article) was working earlier this morning but appears to have been disabled as of right now.

  46. disputatio October 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    Nathan,

    There is no inconsistency in believing that abortion should be illegal and voting for Obama. You probably doubt this. But many Christians believe that the destruction of embryonic stem cells should be illegal, yet they plan to vote for McCain. Presidential elections are not the same thing as referendums. If that were the case, then I should I assume that you agree with every position held by the candidate you intend to vote for?

  47. Darius October 15, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    Disputatio, the error in your thinking is that all issues are equal. This is wrong. Abortion is a transcendant issue.

  48. disputatio October 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    Darius,

    I’m sorry, but were you attempting to make an argument? If so, I missed it. I do not believe that all issues are equal. Show me where I have said or implied such a thing. You may assign great weight to the issue of abortion when voting for President. Good. So do I. Probably more so than you, since I will not vote for a man who would take my tax dollars to fund experimentation and destruction of human embryos. How can you support McCain given this position? Pragmatism, that’s how. But for some reason you believe your pragmatism is superior to the pragmatism of those Christians who will vote for Obama. You are compromised, and in no position to sit in judgment of others who do the same thing as you, but come to a different conclusion.

  49. Derek October 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm #

    Disputatio and John,
    Robert George wasn’t writing the article for our sake, he was writing it for yours. He is addressing people who are pro-life, but are supporting a candidate who is going to effect wholesale change in this arena.

    If we were talking about a mayor and maybe even a governor, you guys would actually have a fair point.

    Based on the arguments you’re using, it doesn’t even seem like you read the article. And to bring up the differences between McCain’s and Obama’s positions on stem cell research is to totally confuse the forest for the trees.

  50. Darius October 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm #

    McCain does not support the creation of embroyos for stem cells. He did vote to fund the use of embroyos which are slated for destruction anyway. That is very different from Obama, who supports the wanton destruction of any and all unwanted babies. That you can’t see the difference is telling of your moral compass and, as Derek said, totally confuses the forest for the trees.

  51. disputatio October 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm #

    Derek,

    Robert George wasn’t writing to me. Now pay attention carefully I…AM…NOT …VOTING
    …FOR…MCCAIN…OR…OBAMA.

    Darius,

    The difference between McCain and Obama’s position on unborn life is a difference in degree, not in kind. McCain supports taxpayer-funding of the wanton destruction of human embryos…and so do YOU!

  52. Darius October 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm #

    Nevermind, disputatio. To debate you is to ignore any sense of logic or perspective. I am certain that you would agree with the following statement: McCain=Obama=evil.

    Furthermore, I am certain that you are/were a Ron Paul supporter.

    Am I right? I talk shop with libertarians a lot, and you sound just like them.

  53. John October 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    still being moderated…

  54. disputatio October 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    Darius,

    I don’t refer to my political opponents as “evil.” And I’m not sure what Ron Paul or libertarianism have to do with anything. I vote 100% pro-life. You and Derek do not. But I’m sure you love the unborn just as much as I do. You just have a different way of showing it. It’s a matter of Christian liberty.

  55. Derek October 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    OK, disputatio,
    You may not be voting, but…

    You are helping perpetuate the false notion that:
    There is little material difference between McCain and Obama on abortion, stem cell research and life issues
    a vote for the pro-life party and/or candidate is “trusting in horses and chariots, not in God”
    Bush, the Republicans and McCain have had, and will continue to have, little impact on life issues

    All of this plays into Obama’s hands. It plays into the abortion lobby’s hands too. And Robert George has done a good job of articulating this.

  56. Derek October 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    Disputatio,

    One other thing. If anti-slavery voters had used your 100% purity standard, they would not have voted for Abraham Lincoln either. And Lincoln wouldn’t have been elected either.

  57. Darius October 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    Disputatio, no one here is arguing that McCain is as pro-life as we would like (or as Bush was in his 8 years). But we would all rather go with a guy who supported life 75% of the time than one who supports it 0% of the time. Are you really so stubborn (I daresay self-righteous) that you put your own uncompromising beliefs above the value of human life? Because that is in fact what you are doing by saying that McCain=Obama on life.

  58. John October 15, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

    …….still being moderated……..

  59. Truth Unites... and Divides October 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    Sorry for the off-topic comment, but I’ve been moderated out in my comments before.

    Also, I want to extend my thanks to John for thinking so kindly of me.

  60. Greg The Anonymous Troll October 15, 2008 at 4:08 pm #

    What was wrong with my comments Denny?

  61. Michael Metts October 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    #1 is a great comment.

  62. Darius October 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    John, your comment #31 is no longer in the spam filter. And in response… you must think that a Republican president has dictatorial powers from the hogwash you keep saying about how he doesn’t change abortion laws even though he’s in office for 8 years. You are amazingly intellectually dishonest, and it never changes.

  63. Darius October 15, 2008 at 4:44 pm #

    “My last 5 comments I have typed on this blog have been moderated (both yesterday and today). A few of them have been short, 1-2 sentence comments just to see if I was being moderated. Then, when I type a response to Denny asking for an explanation, he posts it for the whole blog to see and doesn’t respond…classy.”

    Again, this is quite possibly due to the spam filter, which seems to have a completely random setting that catches comments from time to time. This could also be because your comment was either vitriolic or downright off-point, which wouldn’t be the first time for your comments (I recall that two of yours disappeared last week because they were needlessly combative toward some woman commenter). Here’s a clue which should help you figure out if you’re being moderated or just randomly filtered (Denny can correct me if I’m wrong): if after you hit Submit Comment, your comment does not appear when the screen is refreshed, you have been filtered by the spam. If, however, your comment does appear and later it is no longer there, then you have been moderated.

  64. Denny Burk October 15, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    dear anonymous commenters,

    I’ve decided to crack down on anonymous commenting. You’ll need to sign your real name and a valid email address if you want to post here.

    thanks,
    Denny

  65. Brian (Another) October 15, 2008 at 5:02 pm #

    As much as I should resist the scab, if #31 is a moderated comment, it was there before John posted #36 (but I don’t think that was the comment to which John was referring). Actually, I had already seen 40 when 42 was posted. Just to add further, John, I think the unfounded vitriol towards Denny on this subject (comments) is in stark contrast to his threads. Just see the Bruce Ware thread alone and your stance becomes a joke. I can understand if you vehemently disagree with a position, but the argument you make about being moderated somehow in spite or oppression (which is, if I understand, what you are saying).

    If I am wrong in what you are accusing, though, please correct me.

  66. Brian (Another) October 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm #

    Disputatio:

    I’ll bite. How are you voting “100% pro-life”?

  67. Darius October 15, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    By never voting. 🙂 Oh wait, or is that infinitely pro-life? Or 0% pro-life?

  68. Greg The formerly Anonymous Troll October 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm #

    My name is Greg
    What: Do you want my social insurance number, drivers licence, credit card number? You have my email; whats the problem! Half the commenters here use a single name, why are you picking on me?

  69. John October 15, 2008 at 5:21 pm #

    Brian,

    I don’t know what you’re accusing me of (unfounded vitriol?). My stance was that everybody else was posting comments and every single one of mine were in moderation. I didn’t claim spite or oppression, I just figured Denny did something where he would have to check and approve before he let me post. He finally let us know in #64. I don’t know how I’m an “anonymous commenter” though, given my name and valid email address.

    Denny, what is the criteria for you deciding on whether someone is anonymous or not?

  70. John October 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Is it anybody who does not have a “website”?

    I’m confused

  71. Paul October 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    Here’s a question:

    what’s been gained in essentially talking about the same thing for the 987th time?

    Yes, we all knew that Obama is pro-choice. Even more pro-choice than NARAL. Pretty frightening.

    Yes, we all knew that McCain is a pathetic candidate who was censured for his actions regarding the Keating Five.

    Yes, we all knew that the Troopergate report noted very clearly that Palin didn’t break any laws, but DID abuse her power in getting someone fired. And we also knew that she only publicly changed her mind on the bridge to nowhere after it was nixed from the congressional budget, and not a day beforehand.

    Yes, we all knew that Darius would defend lackluster Republican candidates to the death, and that John would do likewise with lackluster Democratic ones.

    So, what has been gained? How have we become better Christians?

    Okay, now I can say I commented in this political discussion. Carry on.

  72. Ferg October 15, 2008 at 6:59 pm #

    Paul,
    very well said.

    “So, what has been gained? How have we become better Christians?”

    I’d like to see that answered.

  73. Derek October 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm #

    Ferg and Paul,

    On election day, some Christians will:

    1. Not vote at all
    2. Vote according to their pocketbook
    3. Vote for the personality they like the most or the politician that has the best sound bites

    I’m not trying to be inflammatory and neither is Robert George. We’re just presenting the case that we as Christians cannot stand on the sidelines, given the set of circumstances and mounting body count George described in his fine essay.

    So, I don’t know what you consider to be Christian. I do not consider sitting on the sideline, playing the cynic and taking cheapshots, especially not on this topic, is the “Christian thing to do”. And I do not understand how you could be asking this question if you did indeed read the essay.

  74. Greg The formerly Anonymous Troll October 15, 2008 at 8:59 pm #

    So… clicking on Ferg’s name lets me know that he likes Metalica and a group called Sparklehorse. I’m a big fan of My Little Pony, but how does this make him any less Anonymous or more accountable? Is it going to change his views or language that I know what Country he’s from or how old he is? I think not. If you would like to know who I am I have no problem telling you; I’ll even give you my phone number but I do not want to post this information publicly for reasons of personal safety and security. I have had a couple of bad experiences with people using info I posted to get my address and phone number and then making veiled threats to come pay me a visit. Freedom of speech is sometimes costly but it’s worth it. Why don’t you lay some guidelines down and then ban posters who violate them? I think the boys over at Pyromaniacs have a pretty good handle on this. The last thing you want to do is turn into Micheal Spencer.

  75. Barry October 15, 2008 at 10:29 pm #

    10:16pm
    I hope all of you heard Obama’s ridiculous answer to the abortion question. If there was already a law on the books that would require care be given to survivors of abortions, then why did the Illinois nurse (Jill Stanek) witness the death of a viable infant, and testify as to this grisly account and many others? She wrote:

    “I was a registered nurse in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, in 1999 when discovering babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room.”

    Denny did a commendable job bringing Obama’s lies to light. Read on, for all fooled by this gifted man’s rhetoric.

    http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2343

    See also http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2000

    Barry

  76. Barry October 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm #

    See also:

    “What You Might Not Know About Obama” in the Washington Post:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301783.html

  77. Barry October 15, 2008 at 10:46 pm #

    Obama is for FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act), which would effectively end all limitations on abortion. It would force doctors who object to perform them or be punished, and would use taxpayer money to pay for them.

    And, McCain’s calling him on the mile-wide “health of the mother” exception was great.

    For FOCA, please see the following site. Notice that it’s a NARAL site, before one thinks that it’s biased against FOCA. It’s biased, alright.

    http://www.naral.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/freedom-of-choice-act.html

  78. John October 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    Fear mongering is not the best tactic to use….

    still being moderated 🙂

  79. Barry October 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm #

    “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”

    — Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

  80. Barry October 15, 2008 at 10:55 pm #

    Here’s the full text of FOCA:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

  81. Paul October 15, 2008 at 11:21 pm #

    Derek,

    way to dance around the question.

    Look around this blog. Denny has basically posted the same thing at least 5 different times, all of which got 50-100 comments.

    In other words, Obama’s pro-choice.

    Some Christian leaders think that you can’t vote for a pro-choice candidate.

    I get it. And nothing has changed. And the conversation has been the same every time.

    Conservative stances:

    a) you cannot be a “REAL CHRISTIAN” and vote for a pro-choice candidate.

    b) abortion is a transcendent issue, so vote for the pro-life guy no matter what.

    Liberal stances:

    a) nothing meaningful has been done about abortion in 35 years (remember, there were what, 400-500 late term abortions done per year prior to the ban?) so, don’t treat it as a transcendent issue.

    b) I plan on voting with my wallet.

    In other words, nothing has been gained by this discussion being had again.

    So, I ask again…how have we become better Christians by having this discussion again?

  82. Darius October 15, 2008 at 11:54 pm #

    Paul, that could well be said of quite a few issues. So what you’re proposing is we not talk about any issues where opinions are stubbornly divided? Fine, then pistachio ice cream rocks, and so does Big 12 football.

  83. Paul October 15, 2008 at 11:59 pm #

    You know, Darius, you’re right. My sincere apologies.

  84. Derek October 16, 2008 at 8:32 am #

    Paul,
    Do you have anything meaningful to say about Robert George’s essay? Did you read his essay? If you are tired of this topic and if you haven’t read the actual essay, then there are plenty of other places you can go on the internet.

    Many of us do believe that one part of our Christian responsibility is to be citizens that use our right to free speech and to vote. Further, we also believe that the world, the media and Hollywood will not:

    a) Help clear the pettifog that the media and politicians create – and get to the truth. Why? Because many Christians are tuning in at the last moment to get caught up on the election and many of them are understandably confused because of all the smoke and mirrors that we saw on display even last night on the debates.

    b) Articulate concerns about life issues clearly, logically and carefully, not create straw man arguments and sarcastic oversimplifications, like you did in post #79.

    If millions of lives didn’t hang in the balance, as Robert George’s essay states, then maybe it wouldn’t be so urgent to spend so much time on this topic.

  85. CJ October 16, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    Sure you can be a “REAL Christian” and vote for a pro-choice candidate…even one as radical as Obama.

    It just means you are a moral midget.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes