Monday, October 20, 2008

Born Alive Infants Protection Act

According to the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus was born, King Herod gave orders to slaughter every child in Bethlehem under two years old. Skeptics, of course, argue that the story is unhistorical.

It is, after all, hard to imagine someone so heartless, so cruel and so evil that he would order the death of innocent little babies!

And yet, Americans are about to elect a President who fought to do just that! The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would protect babies who survived attempts to kill them in the womb or birth canal, and Barack Obama fought to defeat those attempts!

He argued before the Illinois legislature that if we recognize these live babies (the ones who survived abortion) as human beings, it would imply that they were human before being born and this recognition could therefore endanger a woman’s “constitutional right to abortion.” Barack Obama’s commitment to killing pre-born babies is so strong that he wanted to allow living babies to die also.

Had the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” been defeated, as Obama wanted, it would have had the same effect as ordering the death of innocent little babies! And for reasons beyond comprehension, there are actually Christians who are planning to vote for Obama. God help us!

See Jill Stanek for documentation.

11 comments:

Amy said...

Dennis,
Obama's radical stand on abortion is one reason why I cannot understand how serious pro-life believers who have chosen to vote for him can feel so "inspired" and gush on and on about him. How can you feel all warm and fuzzy about a man who not only wants to remove any restriction at all on abortion, but he would take away funding for crisis pregnancy centers? What kind of statement does that make about supporting a woman's choice to keep her baby?

I'm not saying that true believers would never vote for Obama, I'm just saying I cannot understand being "inspired" and "electrified" by him when he has such a terrible record on abortion.

Robert said...

They'll vote for him because they're not true believers.

There, I said it.

Alcamadus said...

So, voting indicates a Christians fruit? When was voting a window into a Christian's eternal salvation? A Christian's morality?

I think you should rethink your statements.

Robert said...

I didn't say it indicates their fruit. They can be a very good person, but that does not make them a "true believer."

It's a fairly black and white issue. If you believe that abortion is murder as it has been declared by our faith, then how can you enable it to continue? People are free to pick and choose those things they believe in our faith. In the end if they reject the doctrine of our faith, can it still be said they're a "true believer"? I'm not saying people can't sin and be forgiven. I'm not saying we can't disagree on issues. I'm not saying you can't be Christian and argue about beliefs. However, we're not talking about St. Paul's position Government here. We're talking about a bedrock, fundamental understanding of abortion as it relates to our faith. No matter how we couch the issue, it is a deadly sin.

Look at it another way. If another politician was perfect on all the other issues (ALL of them) and was the perfect candidate EXCEPT, we knew he supported genocide of some ethnicity, could you still vote for him? That's the level of decision I think Christians have to be asking themselves. We're talking about nothing short of one of the most massive civil rights violations in history. We can't even be sure how wide scale the practice is since many states don't even want to keep accurate records.

Make no mistake, abortion is one of the most horrific evils in the world and just because we don't have to personally deal with it on a day-to-day basis doesn't lessen our responsibility for it. Our complicity in allowing it to continue is one of the reasons it does continue. We cannot continue to brush it under the rug and then say, "Well, it was just one of many issues."

Jason said...

Christ said we are to judge one by their fruit, we are to judge our Christian brothers by their fruit, we are to know them by their fruit. Regardless of being a "good person" you are equating the civic duty of voting to sining, and or denying Christ, or what have you, which I think is a ridiculous accusation.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport the entire African American population back to Africa. Would you vote for him if you knew he wanted to do that? Abraham Lincoln took a strong stance against slavery, but he knew he could do nothing about it and said he wouldn't. Would you vote for him? Slavery is a heinous and evil crime against humanity. How dare Abraham Lincoln do nothing, or just want to send America's people back to where they came from! Abraham Lincoln is probably one of the best presidents we've ever had.

The problem with a one sided "value-voter" perspective is that you aren't taking over variables into account that could lead to good outcomes. I understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate your fervor, but to cast all people who may vote for someone who is pro-choice as not Christian, to me, is baseless and arrogant.

I don't equate the civic duty of voting to one's morality, otherwise we better stop voting quick.

Your analogy doesn't connect with reality. You know as well as I that there will NEVER be a perfect candidate on all the issues. As voters we are supposed to make the best judgment we can with what we are given and do our civic duty. Candidates are going to be flawed and going to support things that we don't. In an increasingly immoral world, we are going to see increasingly immoral candidates. Are we to stop voting?

Robert said...

Jason,
You misunderstand. I’m not saying you’re sinning by voting. What I’m saying is that people who are truly in sync with the fundamentals of their faith wouldn’t vote that way in the first place. I understand your desire to be inclusive of the differences of people and your belief that we should judge people on their acts. I don’t disagree with this. However, I believe there is a line in the sand that once you cross you have differed enough with the Christian faith that you no longer fit within the designation of true believer. If you allow it to be watered down enough, it eventually has no meaning.

There are “scholars” who consider themselves “Christian” who do not believe in the divinity of Christ and believe if he existed at all, he was just a man. They don’t believe in the resurrection or the salvation of humanity based on his sacrifice. In fact, one of these scholars has a wife who is a minister and attends church regularly, he just doesn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity. Is he Christian?

If we can agree there is a point where the rejection of the fundamentals of Christianity makes someone something else, then all we’re really arguing about is where that point lies. If you’re arguing that you can believe pretty much whatever you’d like to believe and you’re still Christian, then we’re going to have some difficulty finding middle ground.

Finally, in regards to being a “single issue voter”, I think you deeply misunderstand how deep that issue runs. Without life, there is nothing else. If someone is willing to accept the mass murder of people, what other huge violations are they willing to accept? What other problems are they willing to turn a blind eye to? In the case of Obama, apparently killing of a child outside the womb is acceptable. All the other issues are completely irrelevant if you don’t have a life to live.

As luck would have it, I happened to watch the end of season 7 of Deep Space Nine. As a sci-fi nerd, I love these types of shows. However, one of the last episodes caught my attention when there was a conversation between Ezri and Worf. Worf solicits her opinion on Chancellor Gowron and she says that she believes he’s a symptom of a larger problem. Klingon society is in deep denial, priding itself on its honor, but accepting corruption at its highest level (and that its killing them slowly). She states that Worf is the most honorable and decent man that she’s ever met. However, if he’s willing to tolerate men like Gowron, then what hope is there for the [Klingon Empire]?

In our case, if we as Christians are continually willing to take deeply flawed or outright corrupt candidates, then what hope do we have? If we continue to allow ourselves the indulgence of turning a blind eye to this then why would we ever expect it to end?

Jason said...

By your logic, war and capital punishment should also be included in the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith. John McCain and Obama would use both. Who should I vote for without apparently being "outside" the Christian faith. I mean they both obliterate human life. If life is essential then how can I vote for two men who are going to do things that are apparently against the protection and preservation of life?

I never realized that the civic duty of voting is somehow a integral cog in the salvific act of Christ. I'm wondering where in the gospels it indicates this. Your line of thinking is on the lines of a Judaizer who demands circumcision to be a Christian.

But, lets get back to things, if preservation of life (as you indicated) is the most important thing then how am I supposed to (with a clean conscious) vote for two men who will obviously support capital punishment and military action, war, and tactics that destroy life? Obviously, you are going to give me some ridiculous "justified" answer about how they are "evil" men and should be killed for their actions. Would Christ agree when he said not to cast the first stone against an adulterous woman? Would Christ agree with the onslaught of cities, towns, villages, and total obliteration? You'll try to justify it, I know you will, and you can sleep well thinking like that, but the bottom line is this...

We are going to have flawed presidents with flawed views that do NOT fall in line with our own values. Thats the bottom line. Me voting for someone like that does not make me them, it does not throw me outside the realm of Christianity, it does not make me out of sync with its world view just because you say it does. I hate war, I hate capital punishment, I hate abortion, but I know that there are leaders who dont agree with me...should I not vote because of my convictions or should I say that as a citizen of America, I have a civic duty to vote for the person I believe is going to be the best leader for the job. Then pray that God guides them and makes the best decisions. I will pray for my leaders, and even if I don't agree with the things they do I will still perform my civic duties.

But I will not follow your logic that voting has any way of making me or anyone else outside of the Christian realm. It is ridiculous to think so and it would make you and everyone else guilty of being outside the Christian realm.

Robert said...

Jason -

You are again equating voting itself as the act. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I’m not saying that by casting your vote for or against a particular candidate you place yourself in or outside the realm of Christianity. I’m saying that a person who is reflecting the values we’re supposed to lead would not condone the murder of innocents through their vote (specifically when we have options). This is especially true when we know that the issue is the proverbial slippery slope. It’s a subtle difference, but I think a very important one. As a side note, downplaying the issue as though it were similar to circumcision makes me question whether you’re actually interested in a valid discussion or whether I’m made a supposition that’s upset you (if that’s the case, I apologize that you’ve been angered). The questions you made in relation to war/capital punishment are a far, far stronger part of your argument.

Secondly, both capital punishment and war are horrible things. Without getting into another topic, the Bible has recognized instances where the government is granted rights that we citizens are not. Among these abilities is the decision to wage war, make laws, and imprison or execute people. It is known as justified force (as you’re obviously well aware). As far as I'm aware, the Church has never wavered on abortion.

You said, “We are going to have flawed presidents with flawed views that do NOT fall in line with our own values. Thats the bottom line.”
You’re absolutely right. Men are fallible and there is no perfect candidate. We could search our entire lifetimes and be find ourselves disappointed over and over again. However, there are candidates who will be a better match and who try to walk the path Christ laid out for us. I think Christians have a duty to vote and to vote those candidates who best represent those values. I just believe there is a strong hierarchy and abortion is at the top of that list. If they can condone murder, what other values are they likely to violate and why would a true believer allow themselves to support that?

If we don’t put pressure on our elected (like withholding our vote), what sort of reason would they have to change? If one looks at the Republican Party, they’ve proven that they’ll actually move further away from what we’ve asked. Finally, I will concede that there are instances where we’ll have to hold our nose and vote, but I don’t think that decision should ever be made lightly or for a candidate as cavalier about abortion as Obama is. That seems clearly out of the realm of acceptable.

Though, I’m curious. Do you believe there is no point and no vote a Christian can make that would make the behavior antithetical to Christians?

Jason said...

Once again, any sense of tunnel vision voting or hierarchal voting is ridiculous, especially when you demand that all Christians follow in line with your hierarchy. There are several other variables that people need to consider before just blindly asking "do they support pro-choice?" yes. "then, no I wont vote for them". While that may be your choice, pushing your hierarchy on others and guilting them and saying they aren't Christians is exactly what the Judaizers did. And I am being very serious, so don't shrug it off as if it isn't applicable. Especially when VOTING is an amoral issue.

If voting = my condoning of ALL the acts of an elected official and that voting is a moral choice, then (once again) we have to stop voting immediately! I know Christians who are economic Democrats, but abhor abortion. Many are going to vote for Obama. These are good Christian people who have followed Christ their whole lives, you are going to tell me that their vote makes them not Christian? Because they don't follow your hierarchy?

You can push your morals on your leaders all you want. I'm going to focus on Christ and the gospel. I'll be a light unto the world, but I refuse to be a Pharisee forcing my morals on people at gun point.

I'm done. I feel like I've run around in circles.

Robert said...

Jason,

Alright, I won't rehash arguments with you. It seems we sit on two sides of the fence. On my side, I believe that exercising your right to vote is a moral responsibility as well as a political one (though not necessarily clear). Based on your arguments, I can only assume that you believe that a vote carries with it no moral responsibilities and that is completely ambiguous in regards to Christianity. Your argument seems to imply that no vote (informed or otherwise) can be construed to have any responsibility on the Christian voter leaving them to be fully justified in voting for whomever and whatever they like. I would argue that sometimes being a “…light unto the world” is exercising the freedom you have to ensure that we as a society are following the path Jesus laid out for us.

With that in mind, I have not suggested that any candidate must be pure. I even conceded that we may have to “hold our nose” when voting at times. However, you are creating a straw man argument by suggesting I’m implying otherwise or that I have indicated that all actions taken by a candidate somehow are conferred to the voters. I do not believe this nor have I written that. I have also not implied that I would push my opinions on others through force (gun point as you put it). Absolutely not! I’m not for any sort of forced coercion. However, our vote certainly should carry the weight of our beliefs and certainly should be withheld from candidates who would violate the fundamental tenets of our faith.

This all said I believe you’re getting too wrapped up into this discussion and that you’re taking personal offense where none has been deliberate. Again, that was not my intent. I have obviously failed in getting you to look at your vote as an exercise of moral responsibility. You honestly seem quite upset and for that I’m sorry. In the future, perhaps we can approach this subject again with less volatility.

knowitall said...

This is unbelieveable. How are Christians going to support someone and his left-wing illuminati who want to kill innocent children? This world is doomed!