Infanticide? Yes We Can!
25 comments | PermalinkDuring the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.Read the whole thing.The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."
How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.
Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.
posted by JT at Monday, March 03, 2008
25 Comments:
It's so important for the Church to hear this. thanks for posting this. May the word get out is my prayer.
The Lord has a way of exposing our hearts, and the abortion issue is one of those ways.
My daughter was born premature, and wiehged in at 2 lbs. I get sick to my stomach. if I think of letting her die in a bin, or a closet.
May the grace and mercy of God fall upon Obama heart, and may he see his heinous self-righteous sin, and repent. Amen.
I live in Ohio, where we can select either party's ballot when we arrive at the polls tomorrow.
I'm a life-long Republican, but our nomination is essentially decided.
I have to decide whether I want to cast a vote of prinicple for either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee (I would pull the lever for Paul, I think) or if I want to vote as a matter of helping to determine the outcome of a competitive Democratic primary.
I am, at this point, leaning toward voting in the Democratic primary. It is shocking, to me, that I will be doing this. More shocking than that, though, is that I am leaning toward pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton.
My main motivation is as follows:
1) If she wins the Democratic nomination, I think that she might be slightly weaker as a candidate than Obama.
2) Even if McCain were to lose, I would prefer that Clinton be President than Obama.
Although both candidates are terrible on all these issues, I believe that Clinton is marginally better: abortion, understanding Islamic terrorism, Iraq, health care, and the economy.
Almost on the issue described above by itself, I can not in good conscience cast a vote for Barack Obama.
Further, I fear that Barack Obama's image and rhetoric (which is all his candidacy amounts to) will encourage young people to misplace their trust, placing their hope in a government and in a man, which is perhaps more destructive than any policy positions held by either him or Clinton.
Mike,
You wrote,
"Further, I fear that Barack Obama's image and rhetoric (which is all his candidacy amounts to) will encourage young people to misplace their trust, placing their hope in a government and in a man, which is perhaps more destructive than any policy positions held by either him or Clinton."
Wouldn't you be doing this by not voting your conscience? If our hope is in God and not government then why go to such great lengths and reasoning to vote for a candidate that you otherwise would never vote for?
I would have you vote Huckabee, I think he is the best candidate and most represents the idea that we are salt to this society. He will stand for the strengthening of America through God, families, life and principles. Even though you'll probably vote Ron Paul, I would still rather see you do that and take whatever opportunity to show your conscience to this misguided country. Voting lesser of three evils in order to put #3 against the lesser of two evils just doesn't seem like standing for what is right, but rather settling for what is less wrong.
Who cares if your vote is "wasted"? Our hope is in God. Standing for the best is better than manipulating the system in order to settle for the lesser evil. Standing for the best will say more about where your hope is and what you represent than settling.
I'm not trying to debate. I can see your struggle and was hoping to encourage you to go with your conscience in light of God's Word.
great piece there. it truly is nothing less than infanticide.
although (and this is not a commendation of obama on this), at least obama is consistent in his views. he seems to hold to the belief that personhood is determined by whether or not a child is wanted by its parents. he may not say that, but that is how it works out practically. he rightly recognizes that if we call these babies human simply because they are outside of the womb, then there is no reason to call the baby non-human simply because of its location inside its mother.
the real question is why many pro-choicers would be opposed to the infanticide law obama pushed for. how is the child any different simply because it is in the womb or outside of it?
Casey,
Good points. In this thinking, what prevents killing a human being at any age so long as he is not wanted? Does this not encourage us to determine who is human and who isn't based on what our personal preference at the moment might be?
An 11 week old baby has arms and legs, a head, a mouth.
Abortion tears there arms out, and rips their legs off.
How would we like to have our arms puuled out of their sockets? Or our head rip off its body?
Casey, you are right about Obama being coherent, dreadfully coherent... that is except for the part of him calling himself a "devout Christian."
Some evangelical Christians in America tend to equate being a republican with being a Christian. In this respect, those who do not favor the main tenets of the Republican Party are quickly dismissed in political conversation. Issues such as abortion and marriage perhaps reflect the evangelical voice in American politics. I wonder why issues such as poverty, social justice, racial reconciliation and harmony, immigration, war, etc are belittled by the Evangelical voice, and not given a fair treatment in their on-going political discourse. When would the church learn to be "scripturally truthful" not "politically correct"?
How does one weight these issues above? What criteria should we use to measure these factors? Must we continue to contend that pro-choice /pro-life and traditional marriage are more important than other social issues? Should we elevate them above other shared concerns? If we are going to be the people of God reflecting divine justice and righteousness, should we not raise our voice about other public matters?
We need to be a people who not only fight for the baby in the womb and traditional marriage but citizens who are committed to transforming culture and lives, confronting issues that are basic to every human existence and society by showing acts of kindness and compassion, and being more committed to social issues and taking a stand for those who are demoralized, subjugated and disinherited. In a sense, all issues should be weighted on the same scale respectively and be given an equal hearing. On the other hand, we need to be wise in our assessment as we seek to glorify God in all things.
"I wonder why issues such as poverty, social justice, racial reconciliation and harmony, immigration, war, etc are belittled by the Evangelical voice, and not given a fair treatment in their on-going political discourse."
Even if abortion was taken off the table, it's exactly because of issues like those that I would be a conservative (not necessarily a Republican, although I would definitely vote that way much more often than Democrat). If anyone takes seriously issues like poverty, for example, I cannot even begin to fathom how they could vote for Obama. It is precisely because I want to fight against poverty that I oppose raising taxes to keep giving indiscriminate handouts, programs which have spent trillions and trillions of dollars with little positive effect and which have led millions into becoming wards of the state, ensuring their continued poverty.
"Must we continue to contend that pro-choice /pro-life and traditional marriage are more important than other social issues?"
They are to me. Killing innocent babies is the foremost issue for me.
I'm also concerned about all the other issues as well. But not like I am for making the Federal Government get their 9 noses out of deciding that it's a woman's right to kill her baby.
Well said trogdor.
The reason why abortion is so core and can never be taken off the table is that when disregard the dignity of life at any stage, there is a cultural downward spiral that will always ensue to disregard people at every level. I think the social justice issue stems from allowing abortion so freely. Yet all the issues aforementioned need to dealt with passionately and aggressively by the church - no one is denying that...
Last thing, I have often wrestled with what to do regarding the homeless asking for money. Sometimes I would simply give them money, sometimes I would try to share the gospel, or sometimes I will take them to get a meal if that's really what they need. But I recently discovered, in some places by giving I working against what inner city social programs are trying to achieve. There are some cities trying to implement programs that say please don't give. These people, sometimes working for the city or non-profit love the homeless and are asking us not to give because we are otherwise empowering those to keep begging for money. Because many get by this way, they don't seek outside help and many times remain in addiction and poverty.
I know this description is not exhaustive for all cities or all homeless people...just a few thoughts.
Celcin,
Let me take a stab at your questions. Issues like normalizing homosexual marriages and abortion are matters that are talked about at the 'government level' in Scripture. They are clear in Scripture as to being an abhorrence.
Issues like poverty are talked about at the personal and church level. Unfortunately we have abdicated the role of 'helping the least of these' to a huge, largely non-Christian, government agency. This is to the shame of the church.
The government can never solve the problem of poverty, we must do it personally and as the church.
The government can protect those who need protection and protect the fabric of the institution of marriage.
I too am concerned at my own personal involvement in one party being taken for granted, but ask yourself, "Have Christians abandoned the Democratic Party or has the party abandoned them?" One of the planks in the Democratic platform is pro-abortion. When they run a pro-life candidate (think Penn., and NC) they win many evangelicals.
Hayden (accidentally posting on my wife's account)
Great post...I just wonder how many more will read it and take in what it says? I fear there are not enough Christians in this country that care more about the eradication of abortion then the amount of money they get taken out in taxes each paycheck.
I agree that we should look at all social issues as a whole argument. However, is the murder of innocent, unborn babies not worth more of our prayer life and energy in debates then say, homelessness? I say that not to minimize the issue of homelessness, as I know God desires those who seek justice and mercy (see the parable of the Good Samaritan). I only say that because if we are called to seek justice amd mercy, how else can we do so without asking God to open our hearts to see what He sees, namely the merciless killing of children without a voice?
Lastly, I often wonder about Senator Obama's Christian faith. It grieves me to see him have such a huge wave of support for his stance on social issues, but I wonder: what an awesome amount of good he could do for the Kingdom of God if he would say that he follows Christ and adheres to the Lordship of Christ. Something to pray for indeed.
Thank goodness we have sensible op-ed writers and blogs like this to balance out the liberal media.
Sure Obama says the bill "would essentially bar abortions" and so voted against it to get the language changed, but seriously, this guy is SATAN.
First he wants to surrender to the islamofascists and stop our conquest of the ME and the war on terror, then he wants us to start killing live babies!!
It makes me sick to me stomach, those godless liberals, they don't need bigger government, they need CHRIST! They don't need to hike taxes, they need CHRIST! They don't need to provide costly, universal health care (as The President said - what do you think emergency is for????) they need CHRIST!
I hope you'll all join me in praying for bigger jails for the baby killing women ABORTERS and those who support them (Obama), smaller govt so the poor learn the value of an honest day's WORK, and most of all the spread of the word through the efforts of our armed forces to bring peace to the ME.
Amen.
I don't understand why everyone feels that it is so horrible to vote "for the lesser of two evils."
Whatever happened to Total Depravity? Are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee somehow above it?
The fact is, no candidate is perfect, so every vote is a vote for an imperfect candidate. No matter who you vote for, you are settling for someone who will represent you imperfectly.
The point, then, is to try to accomplish the best possible end with your vote. That's the nature of politics - you work through imperfect means and imperfect people to try to accomplish the best possible ends.
I would prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama. Make no mistake: I want Clinton/Obama to lose in November. However, the reality is that the winner of the Democratic nomination process has approximately a 50-50 chance of getting elected President. Why is it so bad for me to try to influence the outcome of that process?
To pretend that we have to find a perfect candidate and vote for him is foolishness and borders on idolatry.
I can understand voting for someone with no chance of winning because you feel that making your voice heard is an effective way of influencing American politics. I don't fault you for that. But it is silly to fault me for trying to be pragmatic and strategic with my vote.
Every vote cast for an imperfect sinner is a vote cast for the lesser of two evils. People need to understand that and quit expecting politicians to deliver us from all evil.
This is a troubling article about the real Obama. His stance on abortion is too much.
I read and appreciate the comments people have made. Abortion is not the only issue. But people are right to be upset about Obama's stance on this.
There is no way to overlook Obama's faults and flaws. We are voting on a person to lead this country and to make decisions; that person better have morals and standards at least close to our own.
Vote your conscience. I could not live with myself if I voted for someone like Obama.
We have more than a right to be upset. If someone says that they're OK with murdering a bunch of kindergarten children we'd have them arrested and we'd probably give them a psych evaluation.
That we as an entire nation don't show the same audacity for infants (born or unborn, wanted or not wanted) is a loud testimony to God's abandonment of this nation and His giving us over to our own lusts.
For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience. - Col 3:6
"To pretend that we have to find a perfect candidate and vote for him is foolishness and borders on idolatry."
Nobody is doing that here, I don't think.
There are those who call themselves Christians, and are trusting in the political system though. I agree.
I'm voting for a pro=life president, who is weak in some other areas, but overall I like John McCain.
If Heath Schuler were running, and he's a Democrat, I might vote for him, he's pro-life.
I know some good friends who are not going to vote at all, because they have no respect for the political race at all. And I bow to their convictions.
And I can do that, because God is sovereign. The king's heart is in His hand.
At the same time, I need to vote my conscience in His grace.
Great article. It's time that evangelicals stop equating Christianity with the Republican party. In fact, it is dangerous. Our Lord is Jesus, and not democrat or republican parties.
I'm a student at Fuller Seminary (but I spent time studying at Gordon Conwell too) and I've see how younger evangelicals are tired of the same old "good ol' boys" style of evangelicalism. The new generation actually cares for the poor, the widow, the sick, and is concerned with social justice issues. The tide is turing (read Jim Wallis The Great Awakening) and I can only pray that most readers of this blog can join the movement.
jerry
theologica.wordpress.com
please read my response:
http://theologica.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/weightier-matters/
Mike,
That's not at all what I was meaning to communicate. I don't think America's politicians are going to deliver us from evil... that's why I'm voting my conscience even though Huckabee has a very small chance of winning (if not insurmountable).
It seems that you are more closely doing what you accuse me of. I'm not made, nor was I mad or trying to argue in my last post. However, it's clear that we see this differently and that you misunderstood what I was conveying.
Sorry for the confusion.
This story is nothing but a myth circulating around because people are afraid that Obama might actually win. He never voted or wanted any such thing. He did an interview with Jeff Berkowitz in 2004 and vehemently denied any such claim. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
I guess we'll believe anything if it's negative about a Democrat though.
Luke wrote:
"This story is nothing but a myth circulating around...He never voted or wanted any such thing. He did an interview with Jeff Berkowitz in 2004 and vehemently denied any such claim. THIS IS NOT TRUE.I guess we'll believe anything if it's negative about a Democrat though."
I looked up the interview you referenced and found this which appears to fit the bill.
I'm not seeing how it contradicts what's been presented on this blog in the couple of recent related posts. Obama, in your interview stood against a piece of legislation that would have protected "pre-viable" out of the womb babies because he saw it as a threat and/or an attempted threat to abortion "rights."
In 2002, while Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the US Congress passed a law:
That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
The law was already a federal law, passed in 2002. States have a right to make stricter laws. Illinois Senator Richard J. Winkel, Jr, introduced a similar bill to the Illinois Senate 2/19/2003 with almost identical language to the federal law, but it changed the reference to Roe v. Wade in section c:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.
This basically says that any aborted fetus, viable or not, is considered a human person. This would have outlawed abortion. Obama objected to that change in phrasing.
In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.
That isn't the full quote, Obama was saying that pre-viable fetuses do not have the same rights. Here is the full quote:
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
The story goes a bit further. The Illinois Senate sponsor for the bill rewrote article c to be identical to the federal bill. Obama, chairman of the Human and Health Services Committee that was considering the bill, squashed it. What's the point of voting on a bill that is already the law?
This is an example of how the Republicans in the Illinois Senate would bring bills to the floor to try to put the Democrats into a difficult position and build fodder for future campaigns. It works, as is seen in the Santorum's article. Obama was the only person who spoke out about this; this is a good example of why people didn't speak out.
for a more in-depth analysis, please see: http://tinyurl.com/26kxgb
Too bad this last comment was posted a week or so after the rest. Most won't read it.
I have the interesting experience of spending significant time around (1) Christians who consider it obvious that Roe v. Wade is evil, and (2) other Christians who consider it obvious that Roe v. Wade is good. More bizarrely, both sides question whether the other side truly loves Jesus. And, of course, the answer is that all these folks are TRYING to love Jesus. They just disagree about how.
I wish my lefty Christian friends, who think that the pro-life movement is anti-woman, could see how passionately concerned my righty Christian friends are with the life of unborn children. And I wish my righty Christian friends, who think that the pro-choice movement is anti-life, could see how passionatley concerned my lefty Christian friends are with justice for women. Look: it makes all kinds of sense to be righteously indignant about abortion. But consider a comment like this one: "The reason why abortion is so core and can never be taken off the table is that when disregard the dignity of life at any stage, there is a cultural downward spiral that will always ensue to disregard people at every level." Though this worry makes sense, I'm in a position to report that it doesn't actually pan out. What I mean is this: I have lots of Christian friends who like that abortion is legal, and they're as concerned as anyone for the dignity of life (at every other level). After all, about 60% of Americans think abortion should be legal most of the time. Is this because 60% of Americans deny the dignity of life? Clearly not. The point is this: it's far easier to demonize those we disagree with, than to figure out why the heck they hold the views they do, which seem so outrageous to us.
Here's something else to think about. The scandal, it seems to me, is abortion, not the legal status of abortion. The United States is not a theocracy, it's a representative democracy, with lots of competing views and interests. Laws, in such a system, are not designed to codify morality. And it turns out that 60% of the citizens of this country want to keep abortion legal. Maybe we should overturn Roe v. Wade; but we need to recognize that that's really going against the grain of the democratic system we've set up. And I'm not arguing that the democratic system is God's system; it's got lots of problems. But it is the system we've got.
Here's the upshot: maybe our fight ought not to be against the legal status of abortions, but against the practice, and against the systems that make it seem a necessary solution for a lot of desperate women.
All this to say that there's more than one Christian way to think about this issue. (And in the event a reader thinks to have me pegged, take note: I haven't claimed any particular position here, I'm just contributing to the conversation.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home