UPDATE: Did Obama protect infanticide in Illinois? Cast your vote here.
An interesting comment was left on this post. I commented back, but felt it was important enough to repost here. Obama seems like a nice guy, but nice does not equal moral. When one's behavior is indefensible, I feel it's highly immoral to keep defending him.
*******************************************
A reader commented:
Some food for thought on why a Christian man would vote against a bill. I think as Christians we should do our research before putting the cart before the horse. I remember voting for George Bush simply because my pastor at the time told us too...in many such words, I swore after all that has happened I would not let that happen again. I am not against you, I am simply hoping that we as Christians will be intelligent about our decisions in this election. Have a good day!
often bills will be voted against and fail because of amendments or small clauses that the general public and many members of Congress are not aware of. For example: Katrina Aid was held up because Congresspeople were adding on their own side projects which the general Congress did not want to approve, so the bill has to be reintroduced.
In Illinois, many other states, and at the federal level, the "Born Alive" bill was introduced stating that a child is breathing or moving then it is alive. This seems hardly required and is as silly as a congressperson asking the quorum to vote on whether or not 2+2 = 4. If a baby is breathing and moving it is alive by standards going back to the beginning of time, no bill is needed. So why have the bill at all???
No matter what a doctor's position is on abortion, it is a difficult procedure to endure. This procedure would be even more difficult if the doctor had to fear legal repercussions from all parties. Those people could include: Parents of the mother, boyfriend/spouses,etc.
The "Born Alive" act included a small clause which stated that if a infant was born after an attempted abortion and is alive then legal action could be taken against the doctor. You might equate it to suing your contractor if your house isn't built to code (not the same but you get the point).
Obama as well as many other realized that if this act passed, then doctors would refuse to perform abortions and their malpractice insurance would skyrocket. We have seen frivolous lawsuits push many good doctors out of business and this would do the same.
Additionally as a constitutional scholar, Obama realized that this would have weakened Roe v. Wade. If you disagree with the law that is fine and go make effort to change it but you and I must follow the law and Obama and other sworn officials must uphold the law.
This type of political game has been played for as long as there has been politics and this is just another attempt. A look at the congressional roll sheet shows that this bill was introduced federally in 2000 as well (3 years before Obama was in the U.S. Senate). There is no need to provide rights to a living being, those rights (as stated in our Declaration of Independence) are given by our creator. This bill was just an attempt by political sleaze balls to cast congresspeople who actually read the bill and did the common sense thing as baby killers.
****************************
Our response:
Thank you, Melissa, for your challenge to be intelligent. Unfortunately, the reasoning above is pseudo-intelligent.
1. Why was a bill needed? Because babies that were living, breathing, and moving were left to die unattended without even comfort measures. An "abortion" procedure, which simply induced labor and then left the live baby to die was being practiced throughout the country.
2. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act THREE TIMES.
3. As the chairman of the senate committee to which the bill was sent, Obama blocked the EXACT wording from being introduced that passed unanimously at the Federal level a year later. (All pro-choice politicians including Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Kennedy voted for the BAIPA!)
4. Here is the exact wording of the BAIPA:
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/Baipatext.pdf
There is no clause about being able to sue your doctor. However, why shouldn't you if the doctor lets a living person die? (And of course you should be able to sue your contractor if your house isn't built to code!)
5. As a "constitutional scholar" Obama should know that it is NOT his job to "uphold the law." That is the job of the judicial branch of government. He is in the legislative branch which has authority to make new laws and change bad ones.
For some real some real "food for thought" try this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
Notice God's unutterable waste of saints, according to the judgment of the world. God plants His saints in the most useless places. We say - God intends me to be here because I am so useful. Jesus never estimated His life along the line of the greatest use. God puts His saints where they will glorify Him, and we are no judges at all of where that is. ~Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest, August 10
13 comments:
Sometimes, it's immoral to follow the law. A law stating that children can be killed at the request of the mother is immoral. These doctors are making their money by immoral means. Whether their actions are LEGAL or not is immaterial, don't you think?
As I've mentioned on my blog before, it's legal for public school teachers to lock my child in a closet. Moral? No, it isn't. But legal.
Good grief. I'm sorry, but I lack the intelligence to separate my morality from my ideas of what ought to be legal and what ought to draw condemnation from every civilized being in the hemisphere.
Your "food for thought" article regarding if Jesus would vote for Obama is completely biased and in my (Phil) opinion a very skewed version of Christianity.
First as a side note to the commment above. I am sorry that a child was locked in a closet by a teacher. As a teacher myself, I and every colleague I have ever met would find this abhorrent. However, to say that public school is immoral based upon the poor choice of this person is wrong. When teachers (if these people could be called such) have done these horrible things they have been punished, and if they haven't then I encourage the victims to seek judgment.
Back to the Obama article, the political debate in our country has become so off-track. All too often Christians are frustrated that their faith is condensed into "pro-life" vs "pro-choice". Scan the gospels and even the entire Bible for words regarding abortion. You will not find them save for a few verses in Levitical law calling for restitution. This is in spite of the fact that abortions for health and convenience were being carried out since before any portion of the Bible was written.
However, you do find in the Bible and especially from Jesus, calls to care for the sick and needy. Calls to love all as they are and to not judge lest you be judged with the same measure.
Now Obama has a track record of striving for health care for all, education for all, and equitable conditions for all. While McCain has been a moderate Republican for his time in office. It is only because of the failing of his last campaign to capture the Christian vote as Bush did by making abortion the only topic that he has changed to a full "pro-life" Republican.
I don't know if we remember that McCain is not well liked by Dobson and other conservatives ever since McCain called them anti-Christ (smartest thing McCain ever said).
Finally, the attached document of the Born Alive Bill was the House of Representatives version. If you could find the Senate version (since they often come up with similar but slightly different versions) I would appreciate looking at it.
Not to belabor the point again, but writing a bill which states that something born alive is alive seems unnecessary. It was a completely political move which sought to undermine the law of Roe v. Wade just as was done with Terri Schiavo. If you wish the law to change, then go through the proper method of a supreme court appeal not legislation.
Roe v. Wade however has been upheld through multiple courts because America should not be directed by any one group's ideology. Many Christians are appalled at this notion but I ask you, if Christian morality was not the dominant religion/value in the country, would you want Atheist/Radical Muslims/etc. to tell you how to live? The checks are in place to prevent this scenario just as much as a Christian Theocracy.
First of all, Phil, Mrs. C. who commented above did not say that public schools are immoral. She said locking a child in a closet is immoral and yet it is legal. And she makes a valid point.
I don’t know why McCain and Bush were even brought up. I have not said anything about McCain or Bush. I have only been addressing Obama protecting infanticide in Illinois, saying nothing about my feelings on McCain or Bush. It matters not to me if Dobson or others like them or hate them. I have my own mind.
The fact that abortions have been being done throughout history is not in the least evidence that it is right. The first murder occurred in the first few chapters of Genesis, but that does not mean the murder is right. Lying occurred in the Garden, but does that make it right? Prostitution is called the oldest profession, but that doesn’t mean it’s a valid career choice. To say that “abortions for health and convenience were being carried out since before any portion of the Bible was written” is not only unsubstantiated, it is also irrelevant. Historical facts do not equal moral license.
The Bible does indeed tell us to care for the least of these. However, it does not say that such is the responsibility of the government. That is the job of the Church and individuals.
As for what the Bible says about the pre-born, I will make a whole new post out of those verses soon. So, check back.
For the exact version of the federal BAIPA bill that was signed into law look here:
http://www.operationrescue.org/?page_id=439
The House of Representative version as far as I know is the same as the version signed into law. It passed unanimously at the Federal level, without changes.
The fact that a breathing and moving child is obviously alive does not mean that a law was unnecessary. The fact that something is natural law does not mean we don’t need the government to protect it. Following your logic there is no need for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Because it’s “unnecessary” for a piece of paper to affirm and protect that I have inalienable rights given to me by the Creator. Why did we even need a 15th Amendment giving black people citizenship—wasn’t it “obvious” that they were human and citizens and therefore “unnecessary” to pass the law? That’s where your logic takes us. But, in fact, black people were not treated as citizens and so a law was needed to protect that which was actually given them by the Creator/nature/God/whatever.
And that is why we needed the BAIPA. Because LIVE CHILDREN were people left to die of exposure and neglect. They needed a law that said that they had to be treated with respect because they were not being treated with respect.
One last point for the moment, you wrote: “If you wish the law to change, then go through the proper method of a supreme court appeal not legislation.”
Let’s have Government 101. Let me refer you to a third and fourth grade government book just to show how elementary this is.
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html
The Judicial Branch of government (including the Supreme Court): “Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.”
The Legislative Branch of government (that is both houses of Congress): “Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws.”
In light of the above, be it known, that the proper course of action to change a law is through LEGISLATION, not through judges. The Supreme Court is to uphold and enforce the laws that the legislative branch enacts. Congress is to legislate. (Look up legislate in your dictionary—a child’s or grown-up version will do. It means “to exercise the function of legislation; make or enact laws; to create, provide, or control by legislation.”)
Daja, I have commented and dialoged in person and online in many blogs and forums and there is always an unspoken rule of cordiality and respect for opinions even if they are different from one's own.
Your condescending words seem to show that you are only wishing to dialogue with people who agree with you and if that is the case then I apologize. If I have made a statement which is in error there are more appropriate ways of saying so.
I hope you find a more appropriate way to channel your zeal. As for me however, I do not continue to frequent arenas where different views are not respected, especially from fellow Christians. Consider this my last viewing of your page.
My best to you and your family.
Thank you, Phil, for visiting our blog. As it states in the description of this blog, this is a place for our "random and slightly eccentric thoughts and opinions". We know some blogs might boast that they are a place for debate and dialogue. We have never said so. This is sort of like my living room. It's our house; in our house we are free and easy with the expression of our views. If you wish to come to our house, you are more than welcomed, but we aren't going to tailor our expressions to suit the visitors.
Feel free to visit again and even to express your thoughts. Just keep in mind, if you can't take it, don't give it. We are rather opinionated, but that's OK, because we are right.
How intolerant that sounds to the soft postmodern man. Yet, it is intellectually and morally honest.
GK Chesterton wrote, "At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on a road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics [sic] are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem." (GK Chesterton in Orthodoxy)
Although we do not boast this to be a place of debate, we also don't shy away when debate is brought to our doorstep. If you come again, bring your A-game. ;-)
Oooo, I was going to comment on this little train of thought, but seeing as Phil has decided that his rules are the only way to play, I guess I won't.
I did visit his (their) blog and, sorry, but I did not find an "open forum" of dialog. What I did find was a one-sided debate that basically said that if you did not agree with them, you did not have the love of Jesus. If you discerned or "judged" something differently than they did, you were without the love of Jesus. How is this "respecting other Christians"?
Since I am blessed enough to know the Gombojav Tribe very personally, I would say that I have had many debates and dialogs with both of them where we have not agreed. However, we try to do so with logic and facts. Iron sharpeneth iron, and all that.
Okay, I changed my mind. I will comment on this.
Phil said, "Back to the Obama article, the political debate in our country has become so off-track. All too often Christians are frustrated that their faith is condensed into 'pro-life' vs 'pro-choice'."
I believe that pro-life has much more involved to it than just anti-abortion. It covers many facets of what we believe and stand for.
However, I do believe that LIFE TRUMPS EVERYTHING! I have many political beliefs, but none of them are more important than life. If a candidate will not protect the most vulnerable of life, I don't think I can trust him to do the honorable thing in other areas. I definately believe that life is more important than taxes, energy, environment, and the right to government handouts. So, yes, I often condense my choices to pro-life or pro-abortion. Again, life trumps all other issues.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was asked in an interview last year if Catholics could in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. I think his advice could apply to any Christian:
"I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion."
Daja--
Hmmm....the Poor V the Unborn....
and other thoughts:
Although the word *abortion* is used the same number of times as the word *trinity*, both ideas are plainly laid out in the principles of Scripture. How can God prohibit Murder often and much and have somehow overlooked abortion, babies made in His secret place, in that mandate?
Interestingly, I did come across this verse in my reading recently:
Jeremiah 2:32-35 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
[NKJV at Thomas Nelson] [Thomas Nelson, Inc.]
32 Can a virgin forget her ornaments,
Or a bride her attire?
Yet My people have forgotten Me days without number.
33 “ Why do you beautify your way to seek love?
Therefore you have also taught
The wicked women your ways.
**34 Also on your skirts is found The blood of the lives of the poor innocents.**
I have not found it by secret search,
But plainly on all these things.
35 Yet you say, ‘Because I am innocent,
Surely His anger shall turn from me.’
Behold, I will plead My case against you,
Because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’
I often have two defenses come to mind when considering why abortion cannot be seen as "just one issue" among many more pressing issues: first, who are the MOST defenseless, most oppressed in western society? By world standards, even our poorest are not very poor. Even the poorest can find shelter and be fed. Even our poorest can appeal to the state for protection and rights and legal defense and education. Even our poorest can live the American dream and rise to higher levels than their family members before them, for some even as high as people like Oprah. In contrast, the unborn are the MOST oppressed and defenseless and, therefore, more to be pitied than the poor who reside outside the womb.
Second, I often say to my husband, "Ya know, if it were baby white seals they were slaughtering by the millions, you can be sure that folks (emergent church included) would be beating down the hallowed doors of the abortion clinics to rescue those animals! If those were 6 year olds in there being killed by the millions because a law had been passed allowing it, same thing. Battering rams would suddenly be in order in a world that wags it's finger of disapproval at the extremely rare, nearly fabled abortion clinic bomber(not advocating for this here!). The proverbial shoe would be on the other foot. Suddenly, a world absolutely numb to the plight of the unborn--as people exposed over a long period of time to gratuitous violence are wont to become--would *get it*.
Why is a child, fearfully and wonderfully made, less valuable as a human being merely because it is veiled behind its Mother's flesh?
For years I have intended to design and print a bumper sticker (thought of it in high school):
What if Wombs Had Windows?
Now they do, sort of, with ultrasound. Thus the pro-life battle to get ultrasounds in every clinic in the country. Thus the battle by Planned Parenthood to keep them out. AND WHY? What is so reprehensible about letting people see their "fetus" before it gets discarded.....what's wrong with making and informed decision?
Follow the money, folks. Blood money. And Christians feel this is just another issue. Somehow, I don't think so. As we treat the least of these, the *very* least, so goes our country and the church morally.
And what if the church decides that the GOP has done nothing to change this, so excuse yourself from fighting the fight and throw up your hands and join the party of the "good people" who help the poor??....with that decision, the resulting Supreme Court will insure that this will *not* change for years to come. It will be cemented all the more. You add brick and mortar to that heinous decision, or you chip away at it. There's the choice in all we do politically. I know black and white slays you post-moderns, but there you go.
Sadly, McCain is not much better on all issues social, but we have at least a slim chance of him appointing decent Supreme Court justices (like Scalia!). With Obama, we have NO CHANCE. We will get a Blackmun or Ginsberg. Hands down. Slam dunk.
Don't even remind me of David Souter.....grrrr...
Thanks, Daja, for keeping the faith.
RCG
"If you wish the law to change, then go through the proper method of a supreme court appeal not legislation. "
--Phil and Melissa
Sadly, actually, according to our constitution, we are supposed to change laws via legislation, but with an activist, revisionist court legislating from the bench, we have to play the game back to front along with the left.
RCG
Oh, bother. I just saw a spelling error in my comment. Do you know how much that bugs me? :-)
Wow, RCG, that is quite the verse from Jeremiah! I'm going to have to look into that verse some more! THANK YOU for sharing it!
Daja - How I would enjoy being friends in real life!
Thanks for visiting my blog! My sister (who lives in Illinois) just told me about all of this with Obama last night. I think it's very important you are bringing this to light.
Post a Comment