Dr. Robert George, professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, analyzes Senator Obama's legislative positions on abortion and the unborn:
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it....
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Father of Heaven
Please be with the American people in November please help us make the right desision when we vote. Please place a strong desire into the heart of everyone who loves you to vote for the person who will best serve you.
In Jesus name I pray
Amen
Posted by: Wanda Zippler | October 15, 2008 at 04:14 AM
Sadly, regardless of the victor, both candidates represent a demonstrated move towards socialism, and indeed I believe the fundamentals are in place for the next generation to be, practically speaking, socialist. I believe the principles of republic governance have been abandoned, incrementally. To wit, we shall continue to move away from constitutional priorities as we slowly abandon the practice of checking governmental abuse without deference to that constitution.
I believe a death has taken place that most are presently in denial over, thinking two sparring parties are going to set things back on course. But the termites of socialism have eaten through the supports already. Pres. Bush is complicit. The main beams are compromised and the collapse seems inevitable.
Fortunately, the gospel is not likewise compromised, and is indeed a transcendent gospel, inasmuch as it is not bound to or dependent on any particular governmental system.
Its over for kingdom of men, but not the Kingdom of God!
Posted by: Patrick Lacaire | October 15, 2008 at 07:04 AM
He makes it sounds like Obama isn't just pro-choice; he's pro-abortion. It even sounds as if he's out to get the unborn!
Posted by: Sam | October 15, 2008 at 05:15 PM
As Christians, or even as non-Christians who oppose abortion, we need to get the word out:
THE OPPOSITE OF PRO-LIFE IS NOT PRO-CHOICE.
There are many choices available for those who choose life over death for their unborn child, including adoption and a myriad of programs that assist new mothers in caring for their child.
Unfortunately, people like Senator Obama are not even remotely pro-choice. They are the true opposite of pro-life: pro-death.
Senator Obama couldn't care less about women's rights or choice. He cares about radical pro-death extremists and the money they pay him for his support.
If you are a Christian, please carefully consider how you will answer God when he asks "What did you do about this?"
Posted by: ShawnSTL | October 18, 2008 at 04:29 PM
I thought that was a wonderful article when I ran across it a couple of days ago. We ought to be thankful for public thinkers like George. It makes me wonder if anyone has read books like "1984"? In it, a coercive government controls the opinions of the masses though "double think." They label their ideas in terms that sound good but mean the opposite of what they sound like they mean. The reader is intended to react to double think with something like incredulous fear. Can a group of people really be so ignorant as to fall for something so obvious?
Can it really be true that masses of young evangelicals are taken in by a form of political coercion this brazen and intellectually thin?
Posted by: Phil S | October 20, 2008 at 07:10 AM
Great comments.
Please, nobody fall for the "None of the Above" nonsense. In every election, every person is flawed; we ALWAYS choose the lesser of two (or more) evils. Polls are easily manipulated (especially when you're a relativist), and they don't include the "cell-phone-only crowd", which is an increasing segment of our population, so there is still hope. Also, many of the loudest, most opinionated people never even get off their @$$ and vote, so let's make sure that WE DO!
God save our country.
Amen.
Posted by: Steve W. | October 20, 2008 at 08:40 PM
Educated decision to vote for McCain
With a high degree of civility and respect, I welcome any reader's thoughts on the below writings
****************************************************
For several months now I have been trying to find an alternative to voting for McCain. I have attempted to embrace Obama’s rhetoric, decipher the truth out of it, and see if I would be able to live with myself if I chose to vote for him. I cannot do it. The reasons for this are multi-layered, and I have thought long and hard about this decision. It is not because his middle name is Hussein, and don't have an overwhelming fear that he will secretly shove a Muslim worldview down our throats. It is not because he is an African American, an “Ivy League” guy, an elitist or any wishy-washy things. Big boy and big girl decisions are based off of sound, proven, and reasoned discussion and contemplation. I owed it to Obama and my country to look into their views.
McCain and Obama both have good points, and then there are those blaring warts on their careers, character, and moral makeup. I can honestly say that I have read and listened to more Democratic material than I ever thought I would, because certain parts of our country are broken, and George W. has been the one with fingers pointed to him more often. I honestly think that most of those fingers should be pointed inwards, but that is a digression I will not fancy right now.
I have downloaded, broke down, and sectioned off Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” and McCain’s plan, have listened to the debates, and I have spent hours looking up their voting records and where they have been in their careers.
I don’t have blind faith in anyone or anything. Faith, when it comes to my religious views, should be full speed forward with my eyes and mind open. This is how I have approached my voting as well. Barack Obama’s health care, economic plans, ethics, and education plans do not fit with my views of where I want America to go.
Not being an economist, politician, or formal educator I have to lend my opinions and the introduction of several of my thoughts to the discussions and debates of those men and women more experienced than I am. I will be listening, reading and fact-checking what I hear, then will form an educated opinion, which will then form my view, and that will legitimize my vote.
One issue keeps coming to the top of my list, and that is the taboo “women’s rights” issues. Anyone who abuses anyone should be abused themselves, and needs to face just punishment. Equal pay for equal work should be ingrained in the hearts of any ethical workplace and/or management structure. Children are the future of this world, and are gifts from God, to be taken care of and loved through every day of their lives. Obama's campaign squeezes in equal pay, domestic abuse, childcare needs, and other points into his blueprint, but the campaign's descriptions are light in his stance on the elephant in the middle of that section, abortion. As a father that looks after my son during a good part of the day, I am first of all offended that day care and workplace paid time off are always defined as “women’s issues,” but that is another one of my famous digressions which I am postponing for another day. Obama’s voting record is so very disproportionate to my moral views that I have not found one vote that I agree with. Obama’s voting on the IL partial-birth abortion ban act , (FOCA)S1173, IL - SB1095(Infant Born Alive), even with his proposed wording, and several other votes and speeches assure me that Obama’s views on the unborn are diametrically opposite from my views. Obama’s side-step about the decision of when life starts (Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008) was infuriating to anyone who has spent more than a day in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, with babies who are struggling and fighting for life. When will it be in his pay-grade? Why not have your rhetoric be backed by your actions? Probably because if the average Obama supporting "undecided" heard the truth, then they would make a more educated decision to vote for McCain.
The resolution that I have about the unborn is that is cannot be an issue for the back-burner. It defines a person’s views and worldview, and is the main reason why Obama will never get my vote, no matter how hard I have tried to switch gears.
So, because I don't agree with the wealth distribution to those that may not earn it, I will vote for McCain. Because I don't trust Obama's motives when it comes to fiscal discipline within politics, I lean towards McCain's less imperfect view. Because I want to give the unborn a chance to come into this world, my vote goes for the one that is least likely to use my tax dollars to pay for underage abortions without parental consent, "partial-birth" decisions to terminate a viable baby, and what some have termed infanticide (leaving an unsuccessfully aborted baby to die on a table or in the waste container.
He may win, and I will respect my elected leader. If someone needs to distort the truth to gain a position of leadership, then the entire chain of command under that leadership is tainted with lies and deceit. This is my country, of which I am proud of. Too many have fought and died for these freedoms to have deceit and empty rhetoric steal away my country's character and honor. So, I vote for Obama's opponent, because he and his Vice President will be better for the country. Although imperfect, John McCain and Sarah Palin offer a plan for the country that better represents a worldview and ethic that I agree with.
Posted by: Erik Fjel | October 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Erik and Steve have come to the same conclusion as all thinking adults who live in the real world -- you will never get a candidate with whom you agree on every issue, so you must choose the one who most closely aligns with your views. Some may call this "choosing the lesser of two evils" -- I call it "living in the real world where people must make compromises".
If you want to throw away your vote on some Liberterian Party, Green Party, Socialist Party, etc., you are being an unrealistic dogmatist. Those parties will never be elected because they aren't willing to expand their "tent" large enough to make enough coalitions to get someone in power. Instead they will just be the circus side-show and never have the chance to put their ideas to work.
Politics is about winning elections. You can have the greatest ideas about government in the world, but they are useless if you can't gain enough support (usually by making reasonable compromises) to put someone in power to act on those ideas.
Posted by: Paul | October 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM
My theory has always been: I am a political idealist until I enter the voting booth, where I become intensely practical. The person who represents the best shot at coming closest to the most of my ideals gets my vote. And clearly, no single candidate will fulfill my entire wish list.
Posted by: Phil S | October 22, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Why do we not hear more about this? I am convinced more and more that as information, knowledge, and clear thinking increase, support for Barak Obama decrease.
Can we discuss what believing Christians will do (or can do) when Obama as president forces us to pay for abortions with our tax dollars? I refuse to do it. See you in jail.
Posted by: Ryan | October 22, 2008 at 08:17 PM
Could we see the return of Christ in our lifetime? Globally the stage is set like no other time in human history. We are looking at a global economic collapse. The mindset of the world is perfect for it. So we have a condition globally that would cause the people to look for a global leader, and a mindset that would embrace it. All we need now is for that last chip to fall and the final player to take the stage. All that to say; when I read this article I couldn't help but thinking there was something profoundly evil and sinister in this man, more so than others. There is just something about him, that when I hear him speak, it creeps me out. He is too calm and too smooth, almost sinister.
Posted by: Robert | October 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM