In tonight’s debate, Senator Barack Obama did not tell the truth about his record on abortion. You can watch the exchange above, but the short of it is this. John McCain brought up the fact that Obama refused to support legislation to protect the lives of infants born alive after botched abortions. Obama denied it. Obama’s denial was false. I won’t rehearse all the facts here again. I simply direct you to Robert George’s essay and my previous posts on this subject.
Obamaâ€™s record on abortion is abominable. He refuses to recognize the human rights of an entire class of human beingsâ€”the unborn. As far as Obama is concerned, living persons in the womb and living persons outside of the womb who survive abortions do not have an inalienable right to life.
Obama unequivocally supports the regime of Roe v. Wadeâ€”a decisions which legalized the killing of 50 million babies since 1973. In other words, Obama believes it should be legal to kill babies at any point from 0-9 months gestation, and he also believes that babies who are born alive as a result of botched abortions should not have their right to life protected.
Obama’s rhetoric and tone is that of a moderate, but he is not moderate on this issue. He is the most pro-abortion candidate of all time. And any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.
In case you missed it, hereâ€™s the full debate:
Truth Unites... and Divides
In tonightâ€™s debate, Senator Barack Obama did not tell the truth about his record on abortion.
Or in other words, God might call what Senator Barack Obama did a lie.
Obamaâ€™s record on abortion is abominable.
Obama says he’s a Christian.
And any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.
That may seem obvious to you (and me), but there are a number of professing Christians in battleground states who are voting for Obama.
Does God hold His professing disciples accountable for how they vote in this year’s Presidential election?
(Truth Unites… and Divides Says:
Does God hold His professing disciples accountable for how they vote in this yearâ€™s Presidential election?)
Your question is puzzling to me. I believe God holds me accountable for all my actions. Because of my free will to make choices in all areas of my life, I am accountable for those choices as to how they line up with His Word. To all you intellectuals on this blog, my comments will sound too simplistic, I’m sure. I’m no theologian or even much of a lay Biblical scholar, but after 60+ years on this earth, I have learned that aligning my actions with His principles is essential to maintaining close fellowship with Him. Isn’t that alignment what the phrase “Vote your conscience” means? Maintaining close fellowship with Him is far more important to me than who gets elected President.
Most of us have a tendency to compartmentalize our lives. However, God sees the total being all the time and expects us to follow Him in totality. In my view, praying and seeking God’s direction before voting is as necessary as praying and seeking direction before changing jobs or making any other potentially life-altering decision in life.
He has equipped me to make hundreds of on-the-spot decisions daily, but when it comes to my participation in deciding who will lead the most powerful free world country in the world, I believe He would like for me to pause first to make certain He and I are on the same page. I believe He holds me accountable for that process.
Both candidates have taken things out of context and could be accused of being “misleading”. But when Obama started with blatant denial when this subject came up, it was infuriating. Last night was nothing more than damage control. Obama is leading in the polls and figured lying was the best approach to keeping any accusation from sticking. So not only do we have someone who voted against saving the lives of born alive infants, but he has consistently distorted the truth every time the subject has come up.
Anybody catch Obama’s remark that “one of us will be making at least one, maybe more than one [supreme court] appointments, and Roe v. Wade probably hangs in the balance.”
All I ever hear from Obama supporters is “Well, McCain won’t do anything about it anyway, nothing’s gonna change, etc.” It seems Obama himself thinks McCain will do something about it. 🙂
Where has this John McCain been for the previous five weeks? The sad part for me is that the truth of his accusations against Sen. Obama will probably be seen as an attempt to “blur” the issues by a candidate who doesn’t believe he can win.
The rhetoric of last night’s debate should have been the daily feature of Sen. McCain’s team. Obama is a liar and yet will probably get away with it due to McCain’s unwillingness to attack him till late in the match.
By the way, Hillary made this same tactical error against Obama in the primaries. Too little too late.
This is the main reason I wont be voting for Obama. Anyone who devalues human life to the extent of Obama is scary…almost gruesome. I cant vote for someone who thinks that killing babies is ok.
Secondly, I wont vote for people who are into big govt. and higher taxes.
So, how could I possibly vote for Obama?
Explain to me how Obama brings you higher taxes.
Again, I would like to know how reckless war policies that result in the deaths of thousands are any more justifiable than abortion. As I see it, the difference lies in quantity, and this is disturbing. Where is the outrage when bombs kill women and children in Iraq? Is collateral war damage ok, so long as a Republican carries a “big stick?”
Again, I maintain a pro-life position. Legislation isn’t the best road.
Scott, you may have forgotten, but Saddam was killing those women and children. We killed the bad guys and terrorists, and while some innocent civilians died (they always do in war), more innocent civilians are now free. Thanks for playing, next time be intellectually honest.
“Is collateral war damage ok, so long as a Republican carries a â€œbig stick?â€”
Collateral war damage is never “ok,” but it is sometimes necessary. Civilians die in all wars, so unless you’re going to say that war is always wrong, you can’t avoid civilian deaths. I’m not interested in debating whether or not this war was a good idea, because frankly, I don’t really know.
However, you asked the difference, and I think the difference is pretty clear. Nobody’s going to Iraq to deliberately kill innocent civilians. The aim of abortion is pretty clear. To say that there’s no difference is akin to saying that there’s no difference between reckless endangerment and 1st-degree murder.
I think many conservatives have withheld the whole truth about this “infanticide” thing. Not once have I seen Denny, Justin Taylor, or Albert Mohler mention that there was a law already in place to protect babies who survived abortions, so the other law was basically pointless, Obama was not the “lone man out,” there were others who were with him that just didn’t deem it necessary since there was already a law in place. You heard it from his lips, he believes babies who have survived abortions deserve treatment.
You can say he’s lying, just like I can say you’ve withheld the truth to further your agenda.
Both sides agree that we want a reduction in the number of abortions (Republicans basically say this since they know it goes back to the states if Roe is overturned, so abortion will never be illegal given many states will keep it legal). The shame is that we can’t work together and find common ground to reduce these numbers. We think it has to be one or the other, we think we have to side with one party and adopt one ideology.
You know who’s suffering b/c of our partisanship?
The unborn…and that’s tragic. And what’s even more tragic is that McCain and Palin both have spent very little time talking about this, which should tell us where their priorities lie. Transcendent to us may not be so much to them.
“And any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.”
If you plan to vote for McCain, then you don’t honestly believe this statement. His support for federal funding of the destruction of human embryos demonstrates a failure to recognize the right to life. I respectfully ask that you edit your statement to conform to your true convictions.
The United States does not target innocents in war as a matter of policy. When innocent non-combatants are killed, it is an unintended tragedy. Under current U.S. and international law, it is a war-crime to target innocents. In other words, it is illegal.
Abortion is different in this sense. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human. In the United States, it is legal to kill unborn innocents from 0-9 months gestation. The current nominee of the Democrat party thinks that the legal killing of innocents should be funded by taxpayers as a matter of public policy.
I hope that helps to explain how this issue differs from the war issue.
I would say intent. The intent of the Iraq war is as Darius says. To free the people who are being slaughtered and oppressed. The intent of Obamaâ€™s policy (and pro-abortion is his policy, he wonâ€™t deny it, though he might soft-pan it as choice) is to specifically kill**. As an example, Obama has stated that one of his litmus tests for a SC nomination is to ensure that womenâ€™s choice of abortion will not be threatened in any way. Robert Georgeâ€™s article goes into more detail about upholding the idea of continuing to kill. In a war, soldiers do everything they can to protect the innocent. In upholding the values that Obama has, it is ignoring that we should even protect.
You are right, though, to say that Legislation isnâ€™t the best road. The best road would be to share with those women (and, in some rare instances, men who are able to be involved) Christâ€™s love, his grace of forgiving and, overall, the gospel. But what is advocated is not a policy of informed choice. But a continual and specific uninformed choice. And, if I understand correctly, this includes reduced funding for crisis pregnancy centers*** and increased funding for planned parenthood (Iâ€™ll have to find the link to that portion of his policies). To dwell for just a second on that, what it then does is take more and more of the repercussions off of the action and puts the focus on how to avoid or eliminate what happens. Reactionary versus proactive along with a concept of a lack of any responsibility/accountability. So when I hear â€œchoiceâ€, it too often means any choice, as long as it is what I want you to do or think you should do (of which, of course, some would accuse me).
* – though, I would say, Darius, the tone might have been a little lessâ€¦â€¦impassioned? At least less snarky.
** – The intent of keeping RvW, born alive, etc., is to continue to allow someone to specifically kill. Even if someone (hey, letâ€™s take Obama) says I donâ€™t want to kill, itâ€™s hogwash since they (he) want to maintain people legally setting out to kill the innocent and unprotected.
*** – Also, though, I think this sort of function should come first and foremost with the church anyway.
Both nominees think that the legal killing of innocents should be funded by taxpayers as a matter of public policy.
And you are wrong about collateral damage. During WWII, civilian casualties were NOT “collateral.” It was part of the military plan. When you drop bombs in civilian-rich areas, as our military currently does, you are going to kill lots of innocents. To say that this is unintentional, when it is a natural and expected result of such actions, is simply disingenuous.
Brian, you are right, I was a bit over-the-top. I just get fed up with people knowing that the Iraq War wasn’t about killing civilians but about saving them, yet they keep repeating the same ol’ lies like their brains are on autopilot. Sorry for being so “snarky” as Brian put it.
Oops, didn’t see that Dr. Burk commented. Uhhhh…..what he said.
Also, Scott, as far as taxes go, Obama is for far more government programs and assistance handouts. Those have to be paid for (and thatâ€™s a question you canâ€™t answer and â€œjust get byâ€). Either you go into debt (yikes!) or you raise taxes. And the Joe the plumber exchange highlights where some of this money comes (higher taxes). Though Obama did actually highlight the subsidy to insurance companiesâ€¦â€¦.who canâ€™t manage to do it now with subsidies.
I think, too often, that is the misguided nature of some (I dare not say â€œliberalsâ€ because it is from both sides, just in different manners). Instead of focusing on the problem, letâ€™s create a band-aid to cover it (or, for some, itâ€™s letâ€™s just ignore it and let those who suffer, suffer).
Something that struck me about what Obama said, but I think is reflective of both candidates. â€œ I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page. Programs that donâ€™t work, we should cut.â€ He was in the legislature. Heâ€™s running for president. Why has this suddenly struck him to do after he is elected president? The first two debates were so lacking in content that, it seemed, neither one had any in-depth knowledge in the government they were being asked to lead. I know most of it is because no candidate wants to say the hard decisions, but man is it frustrating.
Oh, and John, the Illinois bill came up prior to the federal bill (if I remember correctly). So while there is a bill now, it was not redundant then.
So a man who kills his wife because of adultery in the heat of catching them together is the same in your mind as a man who intentionally flies a plane into the World Trade Center?
Your line of argumentation is flawed. Both are moral failures; both commit murder, but they are not the same.
Your reasoning that McCain’s poor choice on an already created line of embryo’s is comparable to Obama’s desire to continue to fund abortion at all costs and in any circumstance is petty.
Or, to put it another way. The fight you got into on the elemetary playground is comparable to an armed assault on the subway. Please!
Denny explained it very well. I dont see how those of you in here who dont agree cant see it.
One is the intentional murder of innocent children…the other is war. It is regrettable that women and children and other non soldiers get killed in war, but it’s one of those things that’s a consequence of war.
Also, Scott, were you for Saddam and his hynchmen raping women and murdering children’s parents right before their very eyes? Do you think that maybe it was a good thing to knock Saddam out?
What about in Darfur, Scott? Would you be for our military going there to stop the genocide that’s taking place? Even if it meant some “innocents” getting killed in the process? Because, there’s almost no way that an army can go to war without “innocents” getting killed, too.
I still wont vote for Obama. He’s for raising taxes and for the murder of the unborn. Scott, he has been for raising taxes every since he has been in Congress. He talks about raising taxes. He talks about big govt., i.e., healthcare, etc. So, I will not vote for someone who thinks that they have to raise taxes, rather than cut spending. I will not vote for a man who thinks that the govt. needs to grow in order to straighten out our problems.
And….And, the thing that concerns me the most about Obama getting elected….is that he will have a democrat controlled congress. There will be no checks and balances to stop radical liberals like Pelosi and Harry Reid from carrying thru with their agendas. It would not be good for the U.S.
A wwii policy does not translate to the current climate. It is not the intent of the soldiers there (at least not the ones to whom I’ve spoken who are back) nor is it in the minds of the strategists. Of course, I’m not in the war room, so I suppose I don’t really know……
“When you drop bombs in civilian-rich areas, as our military currently does, you are going to kill lots of innocents.”
Are we still talking about Iraq? Cause that never happened in Iraq. Yes, bombs were occasionally dropped in civilian neighborhoods, but they were as accurate as possible in attempting to kill their target.
As for the bombing of Germany or Japan, that’s a different subject. Yes, we specifically (and justly, I might add) targeted the civilians of governments that were wiping out humanity. The only way to stop their destruction was to hit them where it hurts: their supporting populace. When the Germans and Japanese realized that this war wasn’t quite as fun as it had been, they turned against their government.
I should modify my last comment. During WWII, we didn’t target the civilians so much as the infrastructure. Of course, civilians lived in most of that infrastructure, so we knew that there would be heavy casualties.
Nathan, the analogy that would probably fit even better is the guy who shoots at an armed bank robber and instead kills a bystander. That guy is not morally equal to the man who walks into a business and kills his boss.
I personally think that argument, though applicable to some, doesn’t apply to McCain’s past positions on embryonic testing. I believe McCain has moved away from that earlier stance, but there is point where disputatio’s comments resonate. Even so, the two cannot be set side and side and given the same weight.
I think it’s important that we not minimize the tragedy of innocents who die in war. Imagine if it were your family (your wife or children) who were numbered among the “collateral damage.” We must not minimize the horror of war or of those who suffer in it.
That being said, as horrible as war is, there are many nations whose laws make it illegal to target innocent non-combatants during war. That is the case for the United States as far as war is concerned. As far as abortion is concerned, it’s legal to kill unborn babies at any time.
(1) Darius, you had it right the first time–we did TARGET civilians in WWII. But you are wrong as to the justice of such actions. Your moral equivocation on this tragic occurrence in American history demonstrates that you are not pro-life, but merely anti-abortion. By your logic, the Iraqis and Afghans would be justified in attacking American civilians because we are the “supporting populace.”
(2) Brian (Another), the “intent” of the Iraq War was NOT to “free the people.” Our military was sent to War because they were told that Iraq possessed and intended to use WMDs against our country.
(3) Nathan, my line of argumentation is not flawed. Rather, your straw man is flawed. Nowhere did I argue that Obama’s and McCain’s positions on abortion are “the same.” Pay attention carefully, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. McCain’s disrespect for unborn life does not run as deep as Obama’s, but it is nonetheless disqualifying. To put it another way–Obama scores a 7 out of 100 on an exam, and McCain scores a 44 out of 100. So what? They both fail the exam. Denny or anyone else may exercise their Christian liberty to vote for McCain for President, but they are being disingenuous to do so and then say that “any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.”
“As far as abortion is concerned, itâ€™s legal to kill unborn babies at any time.”
Not any more it’s not. The late term abortion ban IS in place.
Your argumentation is flawed because there is no candidate called “NONE OF THE ABOVE”
So if you simply want to “wax eloquently” fine, but this is a discussion on Obama lying about his abortion record and who has a legislative history of mass murder of the unborn.
Again, there are five kids drowning in a lake. Your line of thinking says that because one guy will intentionally let all five drown and the other guy can only save one, you will not vote for either.
Actually, when it comes to this quote:
“any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.â€
Denny really, really, really needs to take a civics class.
A President’s job is to be in charge of the military and be the point man in foreign relations. Other than that, he has to work in tandem with the legislative and judicial branches in order to get anything done.
The only qualification for the job is that the person is born in the US or a US territory and is over 35 years of age.
To say that a pro-choice candidate is unqualified to be president because they are pro-choice is to jump up and down with a big sign that says, “I know nothing about politics and shouldn’t be voting!” To say that they don’t share your views and that you don’t think that someone with their views should be president, that is a valid argument.
“To put it another wayâ€“Obama scores a 7 out of 100 on an exam, and McCain scores a 44 out of 100. So what? They both fail the exam.”
Even kids know exams are often graded on a curve. So 44 becomes a passing grade and a 4 still remains a complete failure.
On another note to even try to compare war deaths, civilian or otherwise to abortion is like comparing apples to oranges.
As adults we are able to MAKE A CHOICE about whether we go to war or not, where we choose to live and what side we choose to support.
A fetus has no choice about whether it lives or dies!
It’s very different!
The arguments a diversion away from the truth!
Vote for life! God does!
“As adults we are able to MAKE A CHOICE about whether we go to war or not, where we choose to live and what side we choose to support.”
You know, I’ve really tried in the last few months not to make any ad hominem attacks anymore, as they don’t add anything positive to the conversation.
However, Chris, that has got to be the single most ethnocentric, the single most naive, and the single dumbest thing I’ve read since the last time I read the Weekly Standard.
You can choose whether or not to go to war? Tell that to the residents of Georgia. Or the folks in Northern Israel or Lebanon a couple of years back. Tell that to Iraqi civilians now.
You can choose where to live? Maybe in America, but not in 9/10th’s of the rest of the world. Heck, look at all of the people who want to build a wall on our southern border so that mexicans can’t get across to live where they want to live!
What side we support? Maybe. But, really, so what? Should you always just support the winning side to make sure you don’t get killed? Of course not.
Seriously, dude, you need to get out more.
Paul, you are wrong about abortions being banned. The Partial Birth Abortion ban does NOT ban late term abortions, just one procedure. Late term abortions are still accomplished via another procedure.
disputatio, you continue to show flawed logic, so I am beginning to think that there is no way to discuss these issues with you. Until you can give a logical argument for your position, it’s of no use to reply to you.
If I remember correctly, part of the reason was to depose Hussein. Regardless, though, yes, it was (primarily) to destroy stockpiles (which were never found), to depose the government that was developing WMD’s to prevent them from further attacks and to root out the groups that would try to use WMD’s to attack. I still say that is different from a methodic strategy of targeting civilians.
“By your logic, the Iraqis and Afghans would be justified in attacking American civilians because we are the â€œsupporting populace.â€ ”
In case you come back with a question asking where your logic is flawed, this sentence is just the latest in many nonsensical statements. In WWII, the American government was at war with the governments of Germany and Japan. In contrast, perhaps you haven’t paid attention to the conflicts, but we are not at war with the current governments of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Furthermore, your inability to make moral judgments (and thus your moral equivalence) is breathtaking in its inanity. Germany and Japan were evil governments, the current American government is not (at least, not in its involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan). We are not conquering other lands but freeing them.
Oh Paul! A little sensitive I see? Maybe a little convicted as well? Or just blinded by your own selfish political agenda?
I am not even sure your post deserves an intelligent response but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and break it down for you.
First war is executed by adults who have been given free will to use how they wish! Adult humanity’s free will has led us to war, violence etc…. OUR CHOICES!
Fetus’ have NO CHOICE!
So what exactly is your position? Are you pro-life or pro-ADULT choice (Pro-FETUS-no choice)?
I mean this is a thread dealing with our abortion choices, right?
“the â€œintentâ€ of the Iraq War was NOT to â€œfree the people.â€ Our military was sent to War because they were told that Iraq possessed and intended to use WMDs against our country.”
This is one of the more intellectually dishonest statements anyone’s made on this blog, or you honestly were not around any media sources during the leadup to the Iraq War. Bush gave something like 20 reasons for the war in Iraq, and freeing the Iraqi people from a vicious dictator was most CERTAINLY one of them. You’re trying to obfuscate the truth doesn’t make your side of the argument look any better.
Paul, I don’t believe that Denny was giving a technical definition for the qualifications for the presidency. What he WAS doing was pointing out that any candidate who doesn’t honor the sanctity of ALL human life is not qualified on a moral basis to lead the greatest, most moral country on the planet.
Well put, Dr. Burk.
Chris (in #36), obfuscation be thy name!
First off, while there are many things for me to be convicted about, none of them have to do with my choice of candidates to vote for.
Secondly, this whole bit about humanity’s free will leads us to war and violence, while true, is rubbish nonetheless, as it completely sidesteps practical application.
Sure, this is a discussion on abortion choices, but that does not give one a free pass to make brazenly stupid remarks about how adults can overcome regional conflicts, generational poverty or make callous decisions of right and wrong.
The world is much bigger and much more complex than the average single issue voter would have you believe.
John, you said in post #11:
John, actually it’s pretty much the opposite of what you and the abortion lobby say. The law you reference has a clause that excludes incidences where “the health of the mother” is at risk. The abortion lobby loves it because it provides cover for them. The abortionists routinely apply the “health of the mother” clause, which can include the risk of depression after the pregnancy. This is applied especially often when a woman discovers that her child is handicapped and feels totally overwhelmed by the needs their child will have. And this is why an estimated 80-90% of children with Down’s Syndrome are aborted.
Gosh I didn’t realize that truth was rubbish! I guess that explains why any Christian is able in good conscious to support abortion.
Can’t help but notice that you avoided answering the most relevant question. Not surprising!
And BTW when the next president most likely will be able to affect whether Roe v Wade stays or is overturned by their choice for Supreme Court justices, it raises the importance of this single issue in this election!
Oranges are orange. That is truth.
What relevance does it have in this discussion?
As for your question, I innocently passed it over on accident, as my answer was part of a paragraph that I deleted. My apologies.
I am pro-life.
“And BTW when the next president most likely will be able to affect whether Roe v Wade stays or is overturned by their choice for Supreme Court justices, it raises the importance of this single issue in this election!”
And, Chris, what exactly does that mean?
Does it mean that all abortions will be criminalized?
Thanks for your answer! So what role does your pro-life belief play in your choice for president?
Oranges are oranges, war is war, abortion is abortion! Seems clear to me!
I don’t know what will happen Paul but I am for anything or anyone who will reduce abortions and fight for a fetus’ right to a life that God himself has given them!
I think you know full good and well if Roe was overturned that the issue of abortion would return to the states.
However, if you are insinuating that evangelicals should desire that all abortions be criminalized, then I would say absolutely.
Furthermore, I will not presuppoe your answer, but for the sake of the conversation, “Do you believe abortion should be criminalized?” or “Do you believe abortion to be a secondary concern over other issues in this election?”
Denny’s frequent posts on this subject show that he believes it to be paramount.
And, getting back to the original discussion. If Obama is lying on his stance on abortion, and, as stated previously, is the most radical abortion candidate ever to run, does this transcend other issues?
That is the question of the day?
Denny & Brian,
Great replies! Thanks for the interaction. Sorry I couldn’t respond earlier – student responsibilities!
I do understand American war policies, it’s part of the territory when you’re an Army brat. Unfortunately, war is not nearly as clean as we would like to think it is. Denny, I assure you that legalities have little to do with “effective war.” There’s stated policy and there’s unstated policy. Wars are fought and won in the former – it’s been the motto of American special forces since Kennedy’s inception of SEAL schools. Is the point that Republicans fight “cleaner” wars than Democrats? Should we compare the atrocities in Nam with a more “advanced” war in Iraq? There’s more happening than the precision bombing broadcast on CNN/Fox. Sorry to diverge from the point!
My point is that war is nasty. Deaths happen. It’s not intellectually dishonest to question how abortion is transcendent to war casualties. Yes, I was for the first Gulf war. I have not been and never will be for the current debacle – that incidentally had nothing to do with removing Hussein. And yes, the Darfur tragedy is horrific. That exemplifies my point! How can we morally justify abortion as a transcendent value in this election without attaching equal value to life across the board? If the Iraqi war, as it now stands, is about injustices, then why not the same outrage against the injustices in China?
It speaks to gross naivety to assume war participation is by choice.
Again, I do think we can limit abortion far more effectively without legislation that with it. If we refuse to explore these possibilities, than I think we have reached a point when political affiliations truly outweigh our collective concern for the unborn.
“Again, I do think we can limit abortion far more effectively without legislation that with it. If we refuse to explore these possibilities, than I think we have reached a point when political affiliations truly outweigh our collective concern for the unborn.”
Scott, I am wondering what these “possibilities” are and how Christians are currently refusing to explore them.
Paul has good reason to think of abortion as a secondary issue because he lives in a very pro-choice state (Illinois). Overturning Roe v. Wade would only return the decision to the states. I live in Texas, so I see it very differently than him.
You may argue that his vote for McCain could save the lives of the unborn in other states, but the problem is that I know plenty of Republican women that are pro-choice. Sometimes they aren’t even willing to take responsibility for their actions.
You really need to read the article by Robert George (from Denny’s last post). There is far more at stake with this election than Roe v. Wade. Many things will change literally on inauguration day for all Americans. And the womb will be a more dangerous place to be.
I understand that, and I did read the article. I’m very pro-life and want Roe v. Wade overturned. I’m also voting for McCain based on the fact that he is pro-life and a couple of other issues (economy and foreign policy). I was in no way defending a vote for Obama.
you seemed (to me) to imply that Roe v. Wade was the only skin in the game.
Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Thanks for replying (I, however, donâ€™t have a hall pass like you did. Sorry, trying to be punny.). You know, youâ€™re are spot on about war. It is not like how we want it to be in our minds. When I picture casualties, given that I have never been in a war, I cannot imagine the actuality, the horrific action of it all. While I may watch Saving Private Ryan or one of the like, itâ€™s gruesome. Itâ€™s probably a real depiction of the animation of it all, but itâ€™s still not real for me. I can still depart from it (my dad, on the other hand, was completely silent when watching full metal jacket). And Iâ€™ll also agree that itâ€™s not intellectually dishonest to ask the question, either. But I think there are two things that provide a miniscule ledge onto which I will climb.
First, take my statement of what I just said. I was not in a war, but there are many who have been (or are collaterally involved like yourself, perhaps). They can depict the awfulness. They can tell me how horrible it is. They can relay the true realities of it all. Even if I donâ€™t truly fathom it, they can impart at least a little of the brutality. In contrast, though, an aborted child cannot. She cannot tell me about what it was like. Even if he survives, there is not a way of relaying the true emotion of it. We come close, sometimes, but when it gets boiled down, itâ€™s nothing more than pictures as those who are involved are still just bystanders watching.
Second (and this is, I will say, razor thin) is that people in conflict, war or violent areas have a bare minimum of protection. And the analogy that I came up with (wow, two dangling preps, beat that!) is a slave seeking freedom. He could run away and try to simply hide. He could try to get smuggled out or seek shelter to simply be hidden. In either case, he was afforded some level of protection (razor thin though it may be, he had some form of protection), some way to try to protect himself. What if there were no sympathizers or buildings into which they could sink into the recesses? In that last manner, an infant in the womb has no protection. There is no one to protect that child. I am simply pointing out the defenselessness of that child. And there are equal war analogies that Iâ€™m sure you can imagine, too. I was trying to keep with the last couple of articles, though.
In the end of it all, there are three major things that, I think, have to come to light (specifically related to abortion, that is). First and primarily is to protect those innocent and not relegate them, as I have a tendency to do with war, to a simple animation or graphic or statistic. Second is, as Paul continually and rightly points out, we have to reach out to those who are in need in the times of a crisis pregnancy. And thirdly is to do what we can (which is very little, unfortunately) to ensure that no potential mother who aborted her child feels that she is somehow out of the grace of forgiveness of God.
Scott, no hurry, but please don’t forget to answer my question in #50. I am honestly interested in your reply.
Who said that war is clean? We all understand that war is a dirty business, we all understand that innocent people get harmed in a myriad of ways in a war. We also understand that whether we’re talking about the Civil War, the world wars or Iraq that our leaders understood they were sending men to their potential death.
All these things are also true of a SWAT team that has to deal with a hostage situation. A SWAT team leader must also be prepared to make hair trigger decisions that may also mean death to his SWAT team members or other innocents.
So what have we proven here? I still say we’re talking mostly apples and oranges here by comparing war and abortion.
“And any candidate who will not recognize the right to life of innocent human beings is not qualified to be President.”
I would say he is not qualified to be garbage collector, much less president. His position on abortion is nothing less than barbaric. We talk about previous cultures being barbaric because they would “expose” their children to die in the woods, throw them in the river, etc. All we have done is sterilized the process, but we are no less barbarous.