Tuesday, October 14, 2008

If You Are Still Thinking of Voting For Obama Please Read This Article

This is one of the most profound indictments against voting for Barack Obama that I have ever seen compiled in one place. Justin Taylor highlights an article by Dr. Robert P. George dealing with the arguments that Christians are giving in favor of voting for Obama. Please read it. Dr. George's conclusion:

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the laws. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: “that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy—and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

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

(HT: Vitamin Z)

technorati tags:


Anonymous said...

I think that article pushes the envelope. It was written to gain votes for McCain from pro-lifers. I'm not sold on everything that article says, especially the part of no comfort measures given to a survived abortion candidate. Twisted---that's what this article is.

the sife said...

The star struck Obama supporters who also claim to be 'Christians' want so desperately NOT to be reminded of what they're about to vote for: the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president.

He's fine with killing LIVE babies who have survived an abortion attempt.

None of this matters to Obama supporters, however, and they'll jump through whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to justify and rationalize their vote.

Regardless, they'll have to sleep at night knowing what they voted for. Millions more kids will die because of their vote, and these 'Christians' who vote for it will stand up and account for that action at some point.

The rest of us should not allow them to get by with this. Christians who profess support for Obama should be reminded of it with every opportunity. They desperately hope that they can just vote for him and not be held to account. The rest of us need to call them on it.

Hags said...


Please take some time to educate yourself on what this author is saying. Sadly, the information about the Born Alive act is true. Obama supported some truly evil legislation as a member of the Illinois legislature.

Even if you like Obama on other issues, please understand that he would be the most pro-abortion President in our nation's history.

erikw said...

hey tim...hope all is well with you. just a quick thought...i'm an unapologetic obama supporter. i'd rather abortions not exist but i don't think that my government should intervene on this issue. as for obama, i feel quite strongly that his contribution to this issue would likely be through supreme court nominations. unlike bush/cheney who appoints strict constructionalists, obama is from the school of thought where the constitution should have a certain plasticity that evolves with the times. although this tends to be a democratic credo, it tends favor nominations that don't require party line votes, revokation on single issues and strict interpretation (yay, no more slavery!). in the end, obama is not going to take our unborn and dance on their souls, but he will nominate SC judges that will allow the constitution to breathe and live with the times. given that the palin-tology school of thought on abortion and birth control is viewed by the mainstream as a bit archaic is no doubt a bellwether for the times to come.

Vitamin Z said...

Erik W,

Would you want the gov to interfere if we were killing infants?


erikw said...

i'm not sure who is gung-ho to kill infants...i didn't see that bill up for a vote. the point i was trying to get across was that from a strict conservative viewpoint a pro-life appointee to the court will favor pro-life agendas as conservatives tend to freak out when conservative appointees tend to stray from the party line. obama's philosophical approach is probably to appoint someone with similar views but can consciencously deviate from that viewpoint where the law warrants and without the white house foaming at the mouth. i think this election is too multifaceted to be a hardliner on these divisive issues. obama's not going to appoint SC judges with infanticidal tendencies. he will, however, appoint judges that can think about the spirit and not the letter of the law though when the constitution needs interpretation. there needs to be a moratorium on this debate until we can settle our adult-icidal tendencies that we have overseas and our suicidal economical policies @ home.


Hags said...

"evolves with the times"
"breathe and live with the times"

This scares me.

The founding fathers intended the vehicle for Constitutional modification to be through amendments, NOT through liberal judicial activism.

the sife said...

"i think this election is too multifaceted to be a hardliner on these divisive issues."

- Right, because Obama's not a hardliner on this issue at all. [/sarcasm]

erikw said...

liberal justice activism? hmm. i see it this way... there are some good guidelines in the bible that are worth noting and perhaps applying to every day life but it is difficult justifying taking the bible literally. i don't think i should stone anyone or have fun Yahweh-style. the same goes for the constitution...it was written at a time w/o FISA, w/o gay rights and w/o many current issues. that doesn't mean that we have to amend the constitution every time it doesn't afford clear, concise guidance. it was written especially to be open to interpretation (see jefferson, thomas, madison, james et al.). to see the world from the constructionist's viewpoint would be akin to taking the bible literally: leading one's life waiting hand and foot on chapter and verse. obama doesn't need a SC judge to tell what the constitution says, he wants someone who can in the next 50 years use the constitution to offer guidance where current laws are vague. this is in essence, my friends, why obama is not pro-baby water-boarding. obama '08!

Vitamin Z said...


Here is my point: If it were toddlers people WOULD freak out and we wouldn't be having any debate. The gov. would get involved and everyone would be glad. Thus, if you are going to be pro-abortion, you have to articulate the difference between abortion and infanticide or at least admit that you are being inconsistent in your voting. Does that make sense? My take is that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide (at least Obama is the only one to actually be honest about this, sadly he is cool with killing babies) thus I can never vote for any candidate that is pro-abortion, ever.



Leah Kamienski-Vos said...

"Thanks for the information on your blog...I have been struggling the last few weeks with the election, John Piper's section helped reaffirm me that it's ok to make my decision based on life rather than money:) Why it took me so long, I don't know! Have a great day."

-Leah Kamienski-Vos

MTR said...

Eric -

You're right, Jefferson and others were in favor of the Constitution having a certain 'elasticity' so that it could change with the times.

However, the mechanism for this "change with the times" characteristic is the amendment process, NOT judicial activism or legislating from the bench, as others on this post have suggested.

You referenced slavery. Clearly, slavery in America is a dark chapter in our history, and it took us too long to get it right, but we finally did ... through the Constitutional Amendment process.

Judicial activism has been increasingly ruining our country, since way back in the 1940s and before, when they made an unconstitutional decision about church and state and the first amendment.

erikw said...

zach...hey. hope all is well with you and your fam. my comments are getting a bit long so i'll try and keep it short. first of all obama is not pro-baby killing. he is against supporting bills that don't recognize the health of the mother in extreme circumstances which (as mentioned last night int the debate) has permitted the bastardization of his beliefs. zach, i think you're a great guy but can't debate the point w/ you any further if you can't parse why obama has not supported bans on late term abortions...ie i'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is for aborting live-born babies.

hags, i need to get back to my original point...obama is going to appoint SC court justices who are capable of ruling on cases where laws don't exist requiring using the intentions and spirit of the constitution as guidance. i agree that amendments allow for best plasticity and are the best source for preventing interpretation and for determining intention. but we can't amend the constitution every time current laws lapse in coverage. i'm not pro-activist judges but i'm pro-independent thinking, independent of party line.

the sife said...

"ie i'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is for aborting live-born babies."

- Again, why does it matter what he's personally for or against, if he supports policies and legislation that allow something to continue?

If I don't personally support lynching blacks, but support legislation that allows it to occur, what difference does it make that I don't personally approve of it?

The "no one wants to see babies killed" is an astoundingly weak argument.

Vitamin Z said...


I fear you are uninformed about the candidate you are supporting. Do you know what the Freedom of Choice Act is? Obama said it is his #1 priority.
I think Obama clearly has a plan for abortion rights far beyond the "health" of the mother clause. Which we both know could mean anything.


Vitamin Z said...


Read this: