August 17, 2008

Obama: No 'Change' or 'Hope' for the Unborn

During the August 17th conversation between Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren and the presidential candidates, Obama & McCain, the cultural crisis of abortion was given significant attention.

Warren asked both candidates, pointing out that 40 million abortions have occurred since Roe v Wade, "a what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

McCain: "at conception."
Obama: "Well...i think...whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, ya know, is, is uh above my pay grade."

Clearly, Obama doesn't believe that a child should have any human rights until birth--and even then that's been called into question. To be generous, he probably believes that life does begin at conception, but like secular feminists, he avoids the question of what is life and when does life begin and when does this person have rights and focuses instead on what are believed to be the rights of the woman.

Obama persists,
...But but but let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion...I am pro- choice, I believe in Roe v. Wade and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro- abortion, but because ultimately I don't believe women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or family members.
Here Obama is simply naive because I don't believe we can account for 40 million abortions as the result of 40 million introspective women and families. In fact, Planned Parenthood isn't interested in women wrestling with this decision or else they would be in full support of the facilities that educate women about the alternatives. Crisis pregnancy centers provide women with an understanding of the life they are carrying and communicate options such as adoption or continuing the pregnancy and raising the child. Planned Parenthood's existence depends upon large numbers of abortions while hiding their history of promoting abortion as a matter of societal cleansing.

Obama continues,
So for me, the goal right now should be and I believe this is where we can find common ground, and by the way [I've now inserted this into the democratic party platform (unclear)], is how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is that, even though we've had a president who is opposed to abortion the last 8 years, abortions have not gone down....
Interestingly, the Guttmacher Institute says otherwise. In January 2008, it was reported that the abortion rate had dropped to a 30 year low. Accurate or not, it's clear that Obama doesn't even know what his pro-choice colleagues are saying on the matter.

Obama doesn't want to enter into theological or scientific discussion on when life begins and when a child has human rights because he doesn't feel qualified, yet he's willing to take a position on the issue without doing the research. He prefers to settle on the issue by an appeal to women's rights. How is it that he knows a woman's rights ought to trump those of the unborn? He really expects Americans to believe that someone as learned as himself can't study this issue and come to an understanding. But on the otherhand, how often do we hear politicians admit that they don't have the answers? When Joe Carter and I testified before the Illinois State Legislature on embryonic stem cell research, it was clear we were dealing with clueless politicians who not only did not know what they were talking about, but didn't know what they didn't know. Obama clearly doesn't know what he needs to know and demonstrates a lack of integrity by his unwillingness to pursue these answers. Politics as usual. Where's the change in that?

5 comments:

Dr. Alan Seymour said...

Loved the blog. I linked it to mine (www.aleris.blogspot.com), as I have struggling with all these "Christians" that support Obama with his casualness with abortion. I do not understand how Believers cannot see this as so important to still vote for him.

Katie said...

I just read this site randomly through a friend's link. I feel the need to make this point in response to your comment, Dr. Seymour. Hey, if that's not what the internet and democracy are for, I don't know what is. :)

The Christians, in quotations or not, choose to believe in specific verses of a compilation of stories while ignoring other verses in order to gain politcal advantage. The believers of the Bible are also the descendents of the believers of the rights to stone women to death for moral crimes such as adultry, wage the crusades and the Spanish Inqusition, the people who suppress the rights of others while attempting to gain rights for themselves. Most importantly for this topic, the people who believe in a text that suggested infertility as a punishment for groups of non-believers.
So, if the lives of people who have been born no longer have rights under your jurisdiction, then why do the unborn receive these special rights? Because it's a hot, emotion driven political topic. Because abortion comes with the connotation of 'murder'. Sounds like propaganda if you ask me.
Also, to be fair, if a woman decides to have an abortion, it is likely that she isn't very religious. In turn, the baby she would've had probably would have never been baptised. Christianity believes that if a child isn't baptised, it carries the sin of Adam and Eve. Therefore, no matter when the child dies, it will go to hell. If you know that the child will most likely be unable to ascend into heaven, why would they matter to your religion at all? Not everyone is willing to be 'saved', and it clearly just adds to the number of sinners in the world.
To be honest, I would never have an abortion, and I agree the number of abortions should decrease. I thought I should also make that point. Oh, as well as the fact that I grew up in a strictly Catholic family.

Now, in reference to the article, I recommend you check your links thoroughly. The article which describes the decrease in abortions also acknowledges the increase of 'Plan B'. The author has no basis to stand on when stating that without it, abortions would have decreased, because clearly these women are still having 'medical abortions'...and their numbers are rising.
The author of the article also links a page discussing the negative consequences of 'abstinence only' sex education programs. These programs have proven time and time again that they simply don't work. It is only human nature to rebel and seek out the mysterious. Abstinence only programs have the opposite effect in many cases. Planned Parenthood have the ability to teach adolescents about sex, and about the consequences. They do, in fact, discuss alternatives available for pregnant women. They also provide birth control at a very affordable price for sexually active teenagers, as well as free condoms. Prevention is the only method to discuss here, not to declare war after the suspicions have been aroused.

I am not trying to attack or create conflict. I just like to give people an opportunity to question their beliefs and consider being empathetic toward the other side's cause. Then, the choice is yours. You will likely disregard this comment completely, and for that, I am sorry. I took the time to read your blog, contemplate it and research it. I'm happy to attatch any sources if you question any fact that I gave. Thanks for reading.

Sarah J. Flashing said...

"Christianity believes that if a child isn't baptised, it carries the sin of Adam and Eve."

Thank you for your comment on this post, Katie. I appreciate that your tone is professional and not seeking conflict. However, the above statement of yours shows your narrow understanding of theology as this is not the view of evangelicals.

"Now, in reference to the article, I recommend you check your links thoroughly. The article which describes the decrease in abortions also acknowledges the increase of 'Plan B'. The author has no basis to stand on when stating that without it, abortions would have decreased, because clearly these women are still having 'medical abortions'...and their numbers are rising."

Please read the tone of my post again. I'm merely citing that Obama's camp is disagreeing with their own primary source for information. To be clear, I agree that Plan B is not contraception but an abortifacient and adding its victims to the abortion tally increases the numbers dramatically. These are the same folks who downplay the impact of abstinence education. Which could you possibly choose to believe and on what basis (noting their lack of credibility?)

Anonymous said...

Sarah,
I routed through to your blog through a friend's blog. I was also frustrated by Obama's answer to Rick Warren's question. I believe Joe Biden does a much better job of answering the Pro-Choice stance taken by a person of faith. Here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26591154#26591154

Ray said...

If the Republican candidates aren't using the abortion issue (which is important, i am anti-abortion) to get votes and then "put it on the back burner", why is Roe v Wade still law when the Republicans have held the Presidency the past 20 of 28 years.

I am voting for Obama because when I make a choice, I like to consider all the issues, not just one. Furthermore, I don't believe most Republican candidates have much interest in overturning this abortion law. At least, by most accounts, educating women about their choices regarding their pregnancy would REDUCE the number of abortions.

Jesus was on the side of the poor and downtrodden. Can the Republicans say that? Is giving Big Oil and the wealthy tax breaks Christ-like? Obama want's to give people who are poor tax cuts.
That seems more Christ-like to me.