Why This Man Should Never Be President

I already knew what his views were, but it is jarring to hear the words coming out of his mouth. In a speech to Planned Parenthood from last year (see video above), Senator Barack Obama favors the right to an abortion at every stage of pregnancy.

In addition, he cites his opposition in the Illinois State legislature to the legal protection of babies that are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. This opposition was based on the argument that giving medical treatment to such babies after they are born might erode a woman’s right to choose as established by Roe.

In Obama’s America, some babies who are born simply do not merit the protection of the law. For him, as with the broader feminist movement, the unborn baby’s right to life is shredded in the meat grinder of so-called “equal rights” for women. Here is Obama in his own words:

“I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional law, not simply as a case about privacy, but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. . . We fought together in the Illinois state legislature against restrictive choice legislation, laws just like the federal abortion laws—federal abortion bans—that are cropping up. I have stood up for freedom of choice in the United States Senate, and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito. So you know where I stand. . . There will always be people who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield” (7:49-9:30).

By the way, Obama knows how critical the Presidency is on the issue of abortion. The next President need only make one more appointment to the Supreme Court to tip the balance against Roe, and Obama aims for that never to happen. He says,

“With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade, and that is what is at stake in this election” (4:00-4:13).

He’s certainly right about that, and that is why he should never be President.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

79 Responses to Why This Man Should Never Be President

  1. Matt Svoboda May 20, 2008 at 7:27 am #

    I know a lot of people on here are not going to like this post Denny, but I am glad you put it up!

    I do not know how a Christian can watch this video and still vote for Obama with a clear conscience. I know they will say that they aren’t one issue voters, but I think it is a bad excuse. I am not a one issue voter, but that doesn’t mean I can support a guy who not approves abortion at all times, but also doesn’t feel some born babies don’t merit the protection of the law.

    You cannot hardly get any worse on this issue than what Obama is. I truly don’t understand Obama logic in why he feels he must be as pro-murder(choice) as he can be.

    Matt

  2. Adam Omelianchuk May 20, 2008 at 7:39 am #

    Obama’s views are extreme. Last night I was reading through Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Defense of Abortion” and near the end of her article she made the point (following from her unplugging from the famous violinist analogy) that it does not follow from the right to “unplug” that the person MUST DIE. A salient point from one of the debates most cited defendeders that flies directly in the face of Obama’s irrational views.

  3. Ted May 20, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    As evangelical single issue voters get slammed here and elsewhere for their narrow mindedness, keep in mind that Obama in this YouTube video is speaking before a single issue audience.

    Liberals are also single issue voters.

  4. Paul May 20, 2008 at 8:39 am #

    “Liberals are also single issue voters.”

    really Ted? Please, tell me which single issue I am devoting myself to.

    This seals it for me. I will now proceed to vote green party if Obama gets the nod.

  5. JNG May 20, 2008 at 9:03 am #

    What I found interesting was his argument that this election is vital because of judicial nominations, and the very real implications those nominations have on Roe. I keep reading from the liberals on this site that Roe doesn’t matter and judicial nominations aren’t important, we just need to do a better job educating the young folks. Yet here we have a plea from the very left leaning liberal candidate asking for support because Roe is important and this president will nominate judges. Interesting.

    I am with Matt, I don’t know how any Christian could watch that and still cast a vote for Obama. Single issue, multi-issue matters not. Those comments should disqualify him from contention among Christians, period.

    FWIW, I am not a single issue voter, abortion, tax policy, 2nd amendment rights, foreign policy, fiscal conservativism are all high on my radar. Obama fails at all of them for me, but as a Christian his biggest failure is on the issue of abortion.

  6. Denny Burk May 20, 2008 at 9:06 am #

    I have to say, it’s heartening to read comments from pro-life readers. Blessings on you all!

  7. Derek Cox May 20, 2008 at 9:41 am #

    Denny,
    You are right brother, this man should never be president. Thank you for your effort in exposing who he really is and what he reallly believes about the most critical issue I can imagine. He might be smooth and charismatic in his presentation, but underneath it all he is dangerous. May God make us a discerning nation that is able to distinguish between impressive style and irresponsible substance.

    Derek

    Derek

  8. Denny Burk May 20, 2008 at 9:42 am #

    Derek! This is a first, I think! Great to hear from you, brother!

  9. Adam Omelianchuk May 20, 2008 at 10:04 am #

    Paul, if you take a look at Obama’s speech you will find that Obama takes a “one-issue” approach to Judicial nominations that is akin to the pro-life approach. He think it is an issue to not yeild on. However, it is true that he thinks that it isn’t so important that a culture war must follow and that we cannot unite one truly important matters. That’s fine if he wants to hold to that, but it is nonsensical. There can be no “bridge-building” when there is a clarion call to dig the heels into the ground.

    I’m sorry but his rhetoric about “coming together” is just that: rhetoric.

  10. Joshua May 20, 2008 at 12:36 pm #

    Re: JNG

    Its nice to here someone say that. While there are many other issues I’ll look at for a president, abortion or otherwise, there could be one issue that might totally discount someone due to being a Christian. I don’t believe thats one-issue voting. If you agree with everything someone says, but one thing, and you discount them, or vote solely on one issue without looking at other issues, and thats one-issue voting I think.

  11. Ted May 20, 2008 at 8:01 pm #

    # 4 Paul

    Which single issue, if any, will decide YOUR vote? I know not.

    But do you really think those in that Planned Parenthood audience would vote for someone pro-life, even if the candidate agrees with every other position dear to them?

    Yes, many liberals too are single issue voters– they’ll vote only for a pro-abortion candidate.

  12. Paul May 20, 2008 at 8:38 pm #

    “Yes, many liberals too are single issue voters– they’ll vote only for a pro-abortion candidate.”

    Not one liberal that I know (and I know MANY of them) would vote for a candidate STRICTLY because they are pro-choice.

    Thanks for playing though.

  13. Barry May 20, 2008 at 8:49 pm #

    Denny,
    The video is supposedly “no longer available.” Do you think Obama reads your blog and now knows that you have “outed” him?

    Seriously, what’s with the link? Is the trouble on my end?

    That said, I too am nauseated by the supposed naivety of “one issue” pro-life voters. Someone raised the valid question: do we really think that the right wingers are the only ones who are “one issue” voters when it comes to abortion? Do we really think that someone on the far left would vote for a pro-life candidate? Now THAT is true naivety.

    Barry

  14. Matt Svoboda May 20, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

    Paul,

    I have talked to plenty of liberals that would not vote for a person if they were pro-life! I love to play.

    matt

  15. JNG May 20, 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    How about the many liberals that won’t vote for anyone who supports the war in Iraq? This is a fun game. I like playing too.

  16. Paul May 20, 2008 at 9:36 pm #

    JNG,

    that’s the long way of saying that most liberals are smart.

  17. Barry May 20, 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    OK, though I disagree with Paul on the war, he wins that one due to the quip. It’s all about timing.

  18. Brett May 20, 2008 at 11:12 pm #

    And John McCain is in favor of blowing Iraqi and Iranian’s brains out…and THAT is why he should never be president.

  19. Darius May 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm #

    Hyperbole alert!

  20. Brett May 20, 2008 at 11:33 pm #

    Pedantic alert!

  21. Matt Svoboda May 21, 2008 at 8:10 am #

    We’re all being morons alert!

  22. Paul May 21, 2008 at 8:30 am #

    It’s a side effect of voting Republican, Matt.

  23. Yvette May 21, 2008 at 10:43 am #

    Liberals are smart? Morons? When did our nation get 57 states? Did anyone notice that Kentucky borders Illinois?

  24. Paul May 21, 2008 at 10:53 am #

    Yvette,

    thank you for proving my point.

    And, yes, Kentucky does border Illinois. Did it really take you that long to figure this out?

    Also, please keep in mind that the only reason that Indiana exists is to keep Kentucky out of the midwest. 😀

  25. Yvette May 21, 2008 at 10:57 am #

    I figured it out before Obama. 🙂

  26. Lucas Knisely May 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

    MY HEAD JUST EXPLODED

  27. Derek May 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    Paul-
    Only the hardest core of liberals (as well as the most honest) actually admit that they vote purely on the basis of the abortion issue. Usually, they’ll tell you that they are voting on global warming or “against torture at Guantanamo” or some other issue.

    Case in point, if you listen to Obama’s public position on abortion, you’ll see that he is “in favor of reducing abortion”. Of course, he’s singing a completely different tune in front of the PP audience in this video.

  28. Scott May 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    Derek,

    Not all who you affectionately call “liberals” are so cleverly clandestine about their voting motives. I’m as ardent a pro-life advocate as you’ll find. However, pro-life encompasses all life, not just that which is unborn! I doubt the husbands, wives, and children of the 4,000 plus who have lost their lives in the war are quite so cavalier in dismissing the other issues as most evangelicals.

  29. rafe May 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    Where does McCain stand on abortion? Didn’t the “Focus on the Family” dude say he’d never vote for McCain?

  30. Matt Svoboda May 21, 2008 at 3:08 pm #

    Paul,

    I only vote for a party because every person runs with a party. I vote for the best person, not a party. One problem with Christianity today is partnering with political parties. And you are just as guilty as the religious right.

    Matt

  31. Matt Svoboda May 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    Rafe,

    He is 1,000,000 times better on the issue of abortion than Obama. James Dobson did say he wouldn’t vote for McCain, but that is primarily for other reasons and I personally think it is ridiculous.

    Matt

  32. Alando Franklin May 21, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    Matt,

    Where does McCain stand on the issue was the question? Is he Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

    Saying 1,000,000 times better to me is like saying my wrong isn’t as bad as the next mans wrong. Wrong is wrong my friend…..

  33. Derek May 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm #

    Matt and Rafe,
    Dobson and a number of other pro-life folks aren’t happy with McCain because he opposed some of Bush’s conservative judicial nominations. McCain is fairly pro-life, but he has a mixed record on this issue because he has a mixed record on judicial nominations, which is the most crucial aspect of any candidate’s position on abortion (at the federal level, anyway).

    McCain really ruffled a lot of feathers a few months ago when he told some people that he would not likely nominate someone like Samuel Alito (a somewhat conservative judge recently nominated by Bush to the Supreme Court) because he “wears his religion on his sleeve”.

    So I can see where Dobson and others are coming from, although I think it is pretty clear that you’re right, Matt- there is a world of difference between Obama and McCain on this issue.

  34. Paul May 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm #

    If Alito is “somewhat conservative” I’d love to see what kind of a freakshow you’d call a conservative judge.

  35. Truth Unites... and Divides May 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm #

    “If Alito is “somewhat conservative” I’d love to see what kind of a freakshow you’d call a conservative judge.”

    Granted, it won’t be as entertaining as the hyper-militant liberal freakshow by the name of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  36. mlm May 21, 2008 at 5:23 pm #

    Well, it’s good to know that all the Manifesto peeps can rest easy, along with Paul and Brett, since Dobson (KING OF PRO-LIFE CAUSES) isn’t a one-issue voter. McCain’s pro-life and Dobson isn’t voting for him. Hmmm…

  37. Derek May 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm #

    Paul-
    Alito had a number of people left, right and center speak up on his behalf during the nomination process. Of course, Ted Kennedy, NARAL and many people on the left consider anyone who opposes abortion to be an extremist. And they say so often and loudly.

  38. mlm May 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    Well, it’s good to know that all the Manifesto peeps can rest easy, along with Paul and Brett, since Dobson (KING OF PRO-LIFE CAUSES) isn’t a one-issue voter. (Darn those pesky pro-life one-issue voters!!!!) McCain’s pro-life and Dobson isn’t voting for him. Hmmm…

  39. Paul May 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm #

    Derek,

    you are the king of the ridiculous quotes today…

    “Only the hardest core of liberals (as well as the most honest) actually admit that they vote purely on the basis of the abortion issue.”

    And you know this how? Most of my friends are liberal, and we focus our votes in a number of ways. But rarely is abortion at the forefront. Come hang with us, listen to our discussions, and then tell me that only the honest liberals admit that they vote purely on the basis of the abortion issue.

    that one can only be topped by this statement…

    “Alito had a number of people left, right and center speak up on his behalf during the nomination process.”

    So did Roberts, who was probably one of the most purely right wing judges to have ever been nominated. Senators, even liberal ones, are supposed to vote on the merits of the judge, not their political views. Many democrats who voted for those justices (especially Roberts) did just that.

    So, what’s your point? All liberals are bad? I’m so tired of this, because it’s so pathetic and lowest common denominator. To think that some of you people that yammer on like this actually run churches scares me to no end. If you can’t analyze people and ideologies properly, how are you possibly equipped to deal with the books of the prophets, or Revelation?

  40. Matt Svoboda May 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm #

    Alando,

    He is pro-life. I figured you would of got the hint. He isn’t wrong. He is right on the issue. That is what makes him so much better than Obama. get it now?

    Matt

  41. rafe May 21, 2008 at 10:03 pm #

    Derek,

    I appreciate the clarification. I’m familiar with a number of Christians who will be casting a conscientious non-vote.

  42. Derek May 21, 2008 at 10:55 pm #

    Paul,
    FWIW – I am very familiar with liberals and what they think. For many years, I worked with journalists- I’m not sure if you can find a group of people more authentically liberal than that crowd, except maybe in Hollywood. It was in the process of listening to liberals talk honestly that it slowly began to dawn on me that many (certainly not all, but many) of them have a visceral antipathy for Christians who take the Bible literally (that means me).

    In any event, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn’t saying that all or even most liberals only care about abortion. I’m saying what everyone knows to be true – that there are many – including some in the audience Obama addressed in this video – who see that issue as paramount, though you will very rarely hear them publicly acknowledge it.

    I’m sorry you don’t like my point of view, but I believe that the practical effect of pro-abortion policies leads to millions of dead children – that, while we have long waiting lists for parents wishing to adopt. And that, my friend, is wrong. Tragically wrong.

  43. Brett May 21, 2008 at 11:57 pm #

    I agree that some people consider a pro-life candidate as not an option. I know some people like this. However, I must say though, you really cannot even compare the 2 (pro-life vs. pro-choice) in regards to one-issue voting. I’m pro-life and I’m voting for Obama, so I don’t consider myself to be “one-issue.” What strikes me as funny though, is how many on here vehemently deny being “one-issue voters” and say you look at a whole host of issues…and then you make your decision on who you will vote for on one issue! And while you do this, you demonize the other candidate and talk like he rejoices in the fact that babies are killed in their mother’s womb…which couldn’t be further from the truth. If you were to make that conclusion in an ethics class on a paper, you would get an “F”. I just wonder if misrepresentation, slander, and demonization is a bigger sin than voting for a pro-life candidate…

  44. Derek May 22, 2008 at 12:24 am #

    Brett,
    Many people, self included, see the abortion issue as very important issue. But we also see it as a litmus test of one’s character. If someone cannot be depended upon to protect the most innocent among us, how can that candidate also be trusted with our tax dollars, security, etc?

    BTW – have you had a chance to read the article I passed on in an earlier conversation?
    http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

    If you get a chance to read that story, you’ll get an idea where many of us are coming from (in terms of having a character litmus test). Quite frankly, I don’t see how any Christian can read this article and not come to the conclusion that He has demonstrated profound moral weakness and will be held accountable by God for failing the weakest among us.

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.Isaiah 5:20

  45. Truth Unites... and Divides May 22, 2008 at 12:41 am #

    Brett: “I’m pro-life and I’m voting for Obama…”

    Derek: “Quite frankly, I don’t see how any Christian can read this article and not come to the conclusion that He [Obama] has demonstrated profound moral weakness and will be held accountable by God for failing the weakest among us.”

    I agree with you Derek.

    Brett: “I just wonder if misrepresentation, slander, and demonization is a bigger sin than voting for a pro-life candidate…”

    In all seriousness, I think you should seriously ask yourself whether you commit misrepresentation, slander, and demonization in addition to you voting for a pro-abortion candidate….

  46. Paul May 22, 2008 at 12:50 am #

    Derek,

    I am going to take you apart piece by piece here because you’re so emphatically wrong that you’re an embarrassment to Christians that can claim that they think.

    “I am very familiar with liberals and what they think. For many years, I worked with journalists- I’m not sure if you can find a group of people more authentically liberal than that crowd, except maybe in Hollywood.”

    So have I. For the last 13 years. And without fail, it’s the journalists that were actually the most conservative people in my workplace (a public radio station — you know, the last bastions of culture and fine arts in America — that Republicans keep trying to cut funding to). So, that leads me to ask…Liberal for what reasons? And remember, it doesn’t make you “liberal” if you thrash on George W. Bush or 12 years of Republican stranglehold on the legislative branch. It simply meant you were paying attention to bridges to nowhere, assaults on net neutrality, the idiocy of No Child Left Behind, or the not so subtle racism of wiping out the Empowerment Zones act on Bush’s first day in office. And oh yeah, a war in Iraq based almost entirely on bad information. You know, the kind that journalists are trained to sniff out.

    “It was in the process of listening to liberals talk honestly that it slowly began to dawn on me that many (certainly not all, but many) of them have a visceral antipathy for Christians who take the Bible literally (that means me).”

    Change “many” to “some”, and I’ll agree with you. But, outside of workplaces like seminaries, you’d be hard pressed not to find that in most lines of work if you can find people that will actually talk faiths and beliefs.

    “In any event, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn’t saying that all or even most liberals only care about abortion.”

    Uh yes you did. In post #27, you said…

    “Only the hardest core of liberals (as well as the most honest) actually admit that they vote purely on the basis of the abortion issue.”

    It’s that “as well as the most honest” part that is obnoxious and painfully naive. Those people that are pro-abortion as opposed to pro-choice (and there is a difference) are in the minority, and when “conservatives” try to paint us in any other way, you’re being just as awful as you paint the left out to be.

    “I’m saying what everyone knows to be true – that there are many – including some in the audience Obama addressed in this video – who see that issue as paramount, though you will very rarely hear them publicly acknowledge it.”

    I don’t deny this. Just don’t say that the only honest liberals are the ones saying that they want to kill babies.

    “I’m sorry you don’t like my point of view…”

    I have no problem with your point of view. I have a HUGE freaking problem with you telling me why I vote how I vote or what my reasons are for doing so, or what I really mean by it.

    “but I believe that the practical effect of pro-abortion policies leads to millions of dead children…”

    okay, we’re not in disagreement here…

    “…while we have long waiting lists for parents wishing to adopt.”

    There’s no shortage of kids now. It might help if people would adopt the black and hispanic kids that need parents just as much as the white kid that’ll look like them or the chinese kid that’s fun to show off to the other soccer moms (sorry, seen it too many times to not be callous about it…).

  47. Paul May 22, 2008 at 12:51 am #

    TUAD,

    do some reading, then try to make that comment.

  48. Brett May 22, 2008 at 12:52 am #

    In all seriousness you might be at the forefront of my statement and maybe you should ask yourself those questions.

  49. Brett May 22, 2008 at 1:01 am #

    Exactly Paul, it’s when people type in “pro-abortion” as if all people who vote for a democrat rejoice at the practice of abortion that bothers me so much and what I consider misrepresentation, demonization, and slandering. My mother is pro-choice, she is NOT pro-abortion. So TUAD, you’re dead wrong bro. “Pro-choice” is not synonymous with “pro-abortion” and I would really appreciate it if most people on here would stop using that rhetoric. It’s dishonest (which is a sin). “Pro-abortion” means that somebody wants and rejoices in the practice of babies being slaughtered. “Pro-choice” means that somebody is in favor of it being the woman’s choice (while they could be completely opposed to it and think the women are dead wrong for choosing it). Big difference guys. Big difference. It’s a good strategy though, demonize and misrepresent the candidate you don’t like and make him look like he applauds and rejoices in the act of abortion.

    So my question still stands, I wonder if the greater sin is voting for a “pro-choice” candidate (in regards to abortion, b/c McCain is not pro-life in other areas mind you), or in slandering, demonizing, and misrepresenting other people. Hmmm.

  50. Adam Omelianchuk May 22, 2008 at 8:11 am #

    Brett said,

    Pro-abortion means that somebody wants and rejoices in the practice of babies being slaughtered.

    That is ridiculous. Being “pro-abortion” means you think that abortion services should be available to women who can make their choice to have one. Being pro-abortion is contained in being pro-choice, because you have to have something to choose. You may not like how it sounds, i.e. abortion is good, but the fact of the matter is you think it is better to have available than to not have available and that matters quite a bit.

    The strange thing that really plays into a one-issue voting mentality is when many-issued voters imply the abortion issue doesn’t matter and fault other many-issue voters (like myself) for thinking it does.

  51. Derek May 22, 2008 at 8:25 am #

    Paul- For a second time, let me state emphatically – I do not believe that all or even most liberals vote only on the issue of abortion.

    The context of my comment was to address what you said:

    Not one liberal that I know (and I know MANY of them) would vote for a candidate STRICTLY because they are pro-choice.

    I won’t presume to know your liberal friends the way you think you know mine, but I was pointing out that:

    a) many liberals DO vote on the issue of abortion at the exclusion of other issues (personally, I learned this issue the last time I voted for a pro-life Democrat here in Illinois – he lost handily b/c many liberals crossed over to vote for the Republican b/c he was “moderate” on abortion)

    b) You’re rarely going to hear liberals who believe this to trumpet this reality to their friends.
    However, there are some intellectual, hard core liberals who I have heard say out loud that they think our world is overpopulated with “breeders” (their terminology, not mine) and that they really believe abortion is a moral good. Margaret Sanger, who coincidentally founded Planned Parenthood just so happened to share those heartfelt convictions. I happen to think that a lot of liberals share this conviction, but again, you won’t hear most of them share this view out loud.

    Why do I bring all this up? Because, Paul, your statements implied that abortion is something of a tangential issue for Democrats and liberals.

    My response to this is, why then is it so hard for pro-life Democrats to gain any power or influence in the Democratic party?
    Why is the abortion lobby so powerful in the Democratic party?
    Why does the Democratic party join forces with groups like Emily’s List for the purpose of destroying the reputation and career of conservative judicial nominees?

    Paul, there are many people who would love to adopt a baby of any color or ethnicity. I personally know two white families who have adopted black children. It is true that we have a big problem right now in the area of adoption for older children (we simply don’t have enough parents willing to be foster parents and this is sad). I find your soccer mom comment to be unfortunate, divisive and mean spirited.

    Finally, Brett:
    I agree with you that there are many Democrats and liberals who believe abortion is wrong, but that they do see the issue as an issue of choice.

    But here’s how I see this – today, we rightfully criticize Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and many others who expressed regret about the reality of slavery. But they failed to make hard choices in their political policies and personal lives that would ensure the removal of slavery. That made them a part of the problem – which is a shame, because they understood they were protecting an evil institution but didn’t have the personal courage to step up (John Adams, 2nd president, did oppose slavery both personally and politically, to his everlasting credit). The same can be said of pro-choice voters who believe abortion is wrong, but prop up the institution of abortion via policy (and even sometimes personally).

  52. Paul May 22, 2008 at 9:36 am #

    Derek,

    even as you say that you don’t believe that most liberals base their votes strictly on abortion, you then turn around and in the next paragraph claim that they do. Pick one. Either we’re evil baby killers (and you’re a liar) or the pro-choice single issue voter is a fringe element (at which point, you’re telling the truth).

    “Why does the Democratic party join forces with groups like Emily’s List for the purpose of destroying the reputation and career of conservative judicial nominees?”

    I’m a liberal, and I will gladly do my part to destroy the careers of some of these conservative judicial nominees, and it NEVER has a thing to do with their stance on abortion. But, their stance on business, the environment, victimless crimes, etc, etc, etc is very important to me. And if they’re going to go out of their way to protect businesses more than individuals (as one of the judges that brought about the senate compromise did consistently), then yes, I will slime that person every chance I get because they have no business interpreting laws.

    “…I find your soccer mom comment to be unfortunate, divisive and mean spirited.”

    Find it however you want. That said, practically every rich, trying way too hard to prove their Christianity to everyone on the block, obnoxious, give Wheaton, IL a bad name “Woman of God” that I’ve met in the last 10 years has made the hajj to China to go get their cute brown kid. Sorry, I’m only reporting on what I’ve seen firsthand. Every one of these ladies could have done a huge service to some deserving child down the street in Chicago, but instead went halfway around the world so they’d have a story to tell or something. So, really, call it as divisive as you want. But I’ve seen not a thing to prove me wrong on that count.

  53. D.J. Williams May 22, 2008 at 10:09 am #

    Paul, I sympathize with many of the concerns you express on the blog, but I think we can find better people to criticize than people who adopt kids from China. You really come off as cynical by essentially saying, “They did a good work, but I would have done it better.” You may not have seen “a thing to prove [you] wrong,” but you also haven’t seen the hearts of those people, either.

  54. Derek May 22, 2008 at 10:17 am #

    Paul-
    You are distorting my words in an effort to cast them into the worst possible light.

    It is possible for MOST democrats/liberals to not vote singularly on the issue AND at the same time for there to be MANY democrats/liberals who do view abortion to be paramount. It is not an either/or equation.

    The issue of abortion is not a tangential issue in the Democratic party – it is central to liberal orthodoxy, it is central to their platform, it is a big part of their fundraising apparatus, and “choice” (a euphemism if I ever saw one) is a core requirement for candidates (exceptions to this are only made in strongly pro-life districts/states).

    Intellectually honest people on both sides of this debate can acknowledge this.

    You don’t like it when pro-life folks like myself paint liberals in the worst possible light. I am sensitive to this and don’t want to make ad hominem attacks, because my aim is to persuade, not denigrate. Therefore, I am more than happy to concede what I believe to be true- that most democrats/liberals do not vote singularly on the issue of abortion. I never intended to imply it and as a point of clarification I am happy to agree with you on this point. Yet you have made the decision to paint adoptive parents in the worst possible, most malicious light.

    To suggest that race is the only component an adoptive parent considers is simply inaccurate. Many Christians are very concerned that in Asia, many girls are being aborted strictly on the basis of their gender. It also needs to be pointed out that U.S. based adoption agencies have made the adoption process more difficult for cross-ethnic adoption (the reasoning has less to do with racism than with a preference to match a child’s ethnicity with as close a match as possible). There are many other factors in addition to this and it is less than charitable of you to ignore them.

  55. Derek May 22, 2008 at 10:57 am #

    Scott,
    Thanks for your comments. I wouldn’t use the word “clandestine” either – I’m simply saying that it is socially unacceptable, even in liberal circles, to espouse enthusiastic support for abortion (like Margaret Sanger and her modern day adherents). There are many other topics in addition to abortion that are important in our democracy that are sometimes difficult to communicate to our colleagues, families and friends. Usually, those reasons have nothing to do with being clandestine or dishonest. Frankly, many pro-life people are afraid to voice their opposition to abortion because they too are afraid of criticism and of making their views known.

    Also, I’m happy to clarify for the 3rd time that I don’t think MOST liberals view abortion as paramount. But many do.

    I’m glad that you believe we should extend pro-life views to other areas of life. What are your thoughts on euthanasia?

    Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

  56. Derek May 22, 2008 at 11:27 am #

    It looks to me (on my browser anyway) that Scott’s comments came through on email but not on the blog- here is the message he sent that I replied to:

    Derek,

    Not all who you affectionately call “liberals” are so cleverly clandestine about their voting motives. I’m as ardent a pro-life advocate as you’ll find. However, pro-life encompasses all life, not just that which is unborn! I doubt the husbands, wives, and children of the 4,000 plus who have lost their lives in the war are quite so cavalier in dismissing the other issues as most evangelicals.

  57. The Zoner May 22, 2008 at 11:43 am #

    “Pro-abortion” means that somebody wants and rejoices in the practice of babies being slaughtered. “Pro-choice” means that somebody is in favor of it being the woman’s choice (while they could be completely opposed to it and think the women are dead wrong for choosing it). Big difference guys. Big difference.”

    I agree with Adam. It’s all semantics. Being pro-choice means what? What are the choices? There are 2: life or death. It’s much like how you will hear the choicers call Prolifers “anti-abortion” instead of Pro-Life.

  58. David Hamilton May 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    His argument, as far as equal rights goes, seems to be that a woman should have the same right to sex without subsequent pregnancy that a man does.

    So will his next argument be that a man should have the same right to sex with subsequent pregnancy that a woman does?

    The argument seems just as foolish to me either way. Obviously, the way that we happened to have evolved from monkeys is that women have babies and men don’t. No law can change the way that we have, apparently, evolved. 😉

  59. Adam Omelianchuk May 22, 2008 at 12:21 pm #

    Or think of it in terms of war. Bush supporters are often labeled “pro-war” in contradistiction with “anti-war.” It does not follow that they love war, but that they think it is better to engage in than not.

  60. David Hamilton May 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    my abortion poem that I wrote a couple months ago:

    http://bigham.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/the-american-dream/

    somebody tried to distinguish between “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice” in a comment here by saying basically that “pro-abortion” = wanting babies to be slaughtered, whereas “pro-choice” = wanting it to be a woman’s right to choose. Thank you for defining abortion as baby slaughter. Does it not logically follow, when we ask the question, “the woman’s right to choose what?” that our answer, according to your definition, is that “pro-choice” = the woman’s righ to choose to slaughter a baby?

  61. Quixote May 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    I think the basic problem is our collective understanding of abortion. Some of us in this world think it is “murder” and others do not. If everyone believed it was murder, then there would be no “choice” left in the matter. After all, no one fights for his/her right for choosing any other type of murder, do they? So it must be that these adamant “pro-choicers” don’t believe abortion is murder. Why, by the way, reminds me of what abortion should be against the law. It’s sort of like raising a child…if they are too young or naive or uneducated to make the RIGHT choice, and that particular choice will scar them and others for life, then you ought to not give them the choice to make.

    The government already tells women what they can and can’t do with their bodies: smoking bans, prostitution ban, can’t drive 100 mph, can’t ask a doctor to kill you, can’t kill, molest, or attack another (born)human…so in once sense, I don’t see what the big deal is. If women can’t be trusted to make the RIGHT choice, and they are going to choose to murder innocents, then take away their “choice” and outlaw abortion.

    That is, unless we don’t believe abortion is murder.

  62. Quixote May 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm #

    Typo: Why, by the way, reminds me of what abortion should be against the law.

    SHOULD BE

    Which, by the way, reminds me of why abortion should be against the law.

  63. David Hamilton May 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    bad analogy between war and abortion. there are obviously times when it is just to go to war.

    if abortion was not so far out of whack, and we were ONLY discussing whether or not abortion is just as a result of rape or sexual abuse (which make up a very small per centage of abortions) or when the mother’s life is in danger, then that analogy might work.

    tell me when, outside of those cases, it is just to slaughter a baby- as you guys have defined abortion? By a very significant margin, most abortions happen because the baby is deemed “inconvenient.”

    A person has to come up with some pretty ridiculous logic to defend baby slaughter on the basis of inconvenience.

    Make no mistake, this is what Barack Obama is defending.

  64. Brett May 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm #

    Adam,

    You didn’t read a word I said and I am not accusing you of anything. I could care less if you vote for Republicans or not and wish you took the same attitude towards me. Just b/c you’re so vehemently against something doesn’t mean you should mischaracterize to strengthen your point. In fact, your whole post demonstrated my point for me exactly…so thanks a lot for clarifying what I was trying to say. And I don’t appreciate you telling me that I think abortion doesn’t matter. Again, that is dishonesty and a mischaracterization…which strengthens my point even more and causes you to lose credibility. “Pro-life” “Pro-choice” and “Pro-abortion” are not “just semantics” and the only reason you guys use “pro-abortion” is to demonize the candidates and those who hold to a pro-choice belief in regards to abortion. If you don’t see the difference then you’re blind. “Pro-abortion” = they are for abortion, they see no problem with it, they rejoice in it. “Pro-choice” = they are for it being the woman’s right to choose, they could believe abortion is terrible, they may possibly never consider getting one, but they prefer choice. Big, big difference. Checkmate.

  65. Quixote May 22, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    Brett,

    Did you read my recent comment #61? (Or, my final comment way back about your being confounded in your conviction?)

    Would you agree that labeling one side as “pro-choice” DOES imply that the other side is NOT “pro-choice”?

    Pro-Lifers/anti-abortion people DO want women to have choices. We just don’t want murder to be a choice. It’s not a choice in any other area, so why the moral double standard?

    And yet, if the liberals are honest and correct (which is arguable as shown on this thread) in declaring that the “choice” they are adamantly defending and fighting for is not limited to abortion-on-demand but rather all encompassing of women’s rights over their own bodies, then let it be known that the term “pro-choice” isn’t a good one at any rate.

    1. No one should have the “choice” to murder. (And no one but pregnant women do. In fact, if I were (by homocide or car accident or medical mal-practice) cause a woman’s unborn child to die, I would be held liable by the courts and could face serious prison time for either homocide or manslaughter.

    Of course, this is because the mother WANTS the unborn child. In these cases (and there have been many), the offender pays a high price and the courts and doctors and jurors all AGREE that the dead unborn fetus was a CHILD. Then again, if the mother DOESN’T want her child, she has the right to kill it. Even if the father doesn’t want her to. And in these cases, courts and doctors all pretend it’s NOT a child. Do you see the hypocrisy?)

    2. If women are allowed to have free choice over their own body, then men should have choices over their own bodies too…but they don’t. And I’m glad the courts mandate that they can’t kill, rape, steal and molest. Of course, this strict protection of human life is only offered to the humans outside the womb. The courts still allow women to murder the unborn.

    Brett, you said that some people personally think abortion is terrible…and still want women to be able to choose it for themselves. “Terrible” is one thing. Do those same people also think abortion is “murder”? I can’t see how ANYONE would want to give someone the choice to murder.

  66. Quixote May 22, 2008 at 1:40 pm #

    Brett,

    One more thing. I don’t know you nor will I pretend that I do. But you SEEM to be a young man with admirable intentions. You want to know and do right. But you also SEEM a bit “confounded in your convictions.” And by that I mean, your good intentions for the planet and the people on it seem to have been snared by romantic rhetoric that not only contradicts the Bible but also contradicts moral law.

    Obama is a masterful speaker. He has intelligence, polish, class (not in the moral sense but in the societal sense), and he knows how to win an audience. I’m saddened to see how he has won your heart…or at least your vote.

    To me, votes express our beliefs. And for any Christian to believe that Obama is the best candidate is so far beyond me, I can’t even begin to grasp it.

    But beyond politics, I feel a sense of sadness and “loss” for you. I don’t know if it’s because I think you’re a good-hearted sucker and Obama truly has you on a pied piper path or if I think you’ve bought a bigger postmodern lie (that many people your age have believed) and that it’s affected your politics.

    Yet, then there’s a part of me, when reading your comments, that thinks, “The man doth protest too much.” And that in all your defenses and battling for this issue, you are really still struggling within to reconcile what your heart knows to be true with what your head has been taught.

    Just my thoughts.

  67. Brett May 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    You said,

    “One more thing. I don’t know you nor will I pretend that I do. But you SEEM to be a young man with admirable intentions. You want to know and do right. But you also SEEM a bit “confounded in your convictions.” And by that I mean, your good intentions for the planet and the people on it seem to have been snared by romantic rhetoric that not only contradicts the Bible but also contradicts moral law.”

    Can’t you just see what’s behind this? “I’m right, you’re wrong. Everything should think like me b/c I’m right. I’m the judge for morality and correctness. I’m being biblical, you’re not. You’re confused, I’m not. I know it all, you don’t. I determine right and wrong, you don’t. I know what’s good for the planet, you don’t. You contradict the Bible and moral law (whatever that is), I don’t. I’m voting right, you’re not. You’ve been brainwashed by Obama, I haven’t. You’re less of a Christian for voting for Obama, I’m not. You’re a postmodern brainwashed idiot, I’m not. You’re lying to yourself, I’m not.”

    Quixote, I’m sorry, but those are some of the most arrogant, prideful posts I have ever seen. Because somebody disagrees with you or has different nuances on politics you make claims like this about them. This makes me feel ashamed for you that you can actually think like this. You need to move out of America for a few years b/c the good ol USA and our “democratic” society has caused you to “confound” it with Christianity…sorry to break it to you, but that’s exactly your problem, and it breaks my heart.

  68. Quixote May 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Oh, Brett.

    Sigh.

    I’m sorry if my comment seemed prideful to you. I wrote it in sincerity of heart. I’m not your mother or your conscience or your god, so you are free to dismiss my words out of hand if you’d like.

    However, if you really don’t know what “moral law” is, then perhaps you should research it, or take a college course on it, or you could read Mere Christianity in which Lewis explains natural law and moral law. Basically, it’s a rule of law that people (except for deviants) innately adhere to apart from a religious code (such as the Bible). For example, most nonChristians, even athiests, would agree that murder is “wrong.” Why? Those people don’t adhere to the 10 Comanndements, so why do they believe murder is wrong? What sort of rule of law says so?

    Anyway, as far as all the other things you said…like it or not, there IS an absolute RIGHT and WRONG.

    1. Postmodern thought doesn’t like this fact, nor agree with it, hence my reference to you and postmodernism.

    2. I did not and do not determine what is right and what is wrong. (No human does.)

    3. I do not presume to say that I am always walking in RIGHT and never in WRONG.

    4. But when it comes to abortion as murder, and a subsequent vote, I will admit that I believe I am RIGHT in NOT voting for Obama, and you are WRONG in voting for him. There are many policies I disagree with Senator Obama on, but I’m not even facotring those in to my thoughts here. On these issues, you and I can each think we’re right and I’ll be open to persuasion. But it is your being a Christian and his stance on abortion that leads me to believe and staunchly declare that it is WRONG for you to vote for him.

    5. All those other “I’m right/you’re wrong” things you wrote in your list are a bit exagerrated and off point, but I know my comment offended you, so I will not retaliate.

    I was trying to sincerely dialogue with you. I would have done it privately, but your screenname on Burk’s blog has no email link.

  69. Adam Omelianchuk May 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm #

    Brett,

    Checkmate? Are you serious? I care a lot about who you vote for when I don’t? How did I mischaracterize you? Being “pro-abortion” is not about “rejoicing” in abortion just like being “pro-war” doesn’t mean you “rejoice” in war. My argument, that you didn’t address, is that such euphemisms as “pro-choice” contain a “pro-abortion” ideal, because abortion must be available and legal in order for there to be a choice made. That is precisely what it means to be “pro-abortion.” Under you definition no one is “pro abortion”—can you point to anyone who taken politically seriously who leaps for joy when a woman has an abortion? An anti-abortionist is one who believes there can be no choice because under no circumstances (except for those that are normally employed, i.e. rape and certain death of the mother) is an abortion appropriate. The labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are euphemisms that try to communicate an appeal to high ideals, but contain the anti/pro-abortion stance. It is as simple as that. I am not sure why you are so defensive and triumphalistic in the face of this reasoning.

  70. Derek May 22, 2008 at 3:30 pm #

    Brett,
    I appreciate where you’re coming from and I certainly agree that Christians can come to differing conclusions on many issues, theological, political and otherwise. I think it is also true that we are all wrong about a number of convictions that we have. We’ll find out about those issues in eternity – hopefully each of us is pliable enough to be persuaded towards uncomfortable truths on this side of eternity as well. I endeavor to do so, though I readily admit this is a hard thing and requires humility that I sometimes lack.

    Therefore, Christians – of all people – should challenge one another to think as precisely and as Biblically on all issues of conscience, so that we will be all the more ready for our accounting with God. We should also be free to share what we have witnessed (for instance, Obama’s deliberate rejection of the Born Alive Infant Protection bill) and once that knowledge has been shared, we have some responsibility to acknowledge it and not hide from its reality. After all, this is exactly what many people did during the Slavery era and during the Holocaust- many decent and otherwise honorable folks didn’t really want to know what was going on and tried to ignore what was happening because it was happening “in the South” or “over there in Europe”.

    Of course, there are many evil things happening in our world and we can’t possibly address all of them. But if we become aware that a leader or politician is knowingly and deliberately turning a blind eye to evil that is happening directly under his or her purview and jurisdiction, this is a very serious issue and at the very least, we ought to voice our strong, unapologetic objections to that leader or politician.

  71. Brett May 22, 2008 at 3:55 pm #

    Thanks for your comments Derek. I appreciate the tone and thoughts you bring to the table.

  72. David Hamilton May 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    “A Video Portrait of Barack Hussein Obama”
    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

    wow.

  73. Brett May 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm #

    That was the most ridiculous, bias-driven, dirty video I have seen in a while. Shame on you for believing such lies that have been proven false and worrying about what his middle name is.

  74. Paul May 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    David,

    seriously? I mean, I’m no fan of Obama, but play on the level. David, you’re supposedly a Christian. Since when is it cool to slander someone with half-truths? I missed that verse.

    If you get to worry about Obama’s muslim past (and by the way, did you get to pick which school you went to when you were 10?), then I get to call George W. Bush the retard in chief. Except that such a thing would be a massive slap in the face of the mentally handicapped.

  75. Jared May 23, 2008 at 7:55 pm #

    Paul,

    I fear that you are the exact person most liberals accuse conservative Christians of being. Sarcastic, rude, cutting and misrepresenting.

    I am taking no position in the overall debate. I’m simply asking you to consider the way you address your brothers and sisters in Christ.

    If you can’t speak the way liberals ask conservative Christians to speak then you really undermine your own argument. It’s tough for us to believe that you care about “women’s rights” or people at all when you talk like that.

    Same goes for conservative Christians. It’s just we’ve all heard it before and I thought it would be good for someone representing the other side to own up and make a difference in the dialogue.

  76. Derek May 24, 2008 at 8:19 am #

    Jared,

    As you rightly state, these admonitions apply to Christians of all stripes. I am personally convicted by your rebuke. You could have replaced Paul’s name with mine and it would be applicable in many contexts, online and in “real life”.

    Indeed, it was Jesus who said:

    I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak

    Lord Jesus, please help us to tame our tongues. We are incapable of doing so ourselves. Grant us the humility and sensitivity to apologize to those we have hurt with our words. Amen.

  77. JNG May 24, 2008 at 10:28 am #

    Brett can you tell me what parts of the video have been “proven false” because it seems that all of the facts were backed up with video evidence. Just wondering which parts were proven false. I realize that positive or negative spin can be applied to some of the implications of the facts and I have heard both sides, but that doesn’t mean that things didn’t occur.

  78. Tasiyagnunpa June 7, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    Just wanted to thank you for the video. It was forwarded to me by a pastor friend. I do disagree with your take on some of it, but nonetheless, glad to have seen it.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Denny Burk » A Historic Candidacy That I Can’t Be Happy About - June 4, 2008

    […] The irony of Senator Obama is that the injustice that his candidacy overcomes (the slavery and racism that excluded black people from the human community) is exactly what undermines his moral credibility as a candidate (his pro-choice opinion that excludes the unborn from the human community). What is particularly troubling is Obama’s more than casual commitment to this point of view. He is doctrinaire when it comes to defending abortion rights and has said “On this fundamental issue, I will not yield.” […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes