Monday, November 03, 2008

Obama and baby killing

The editor of my campus newspaper published an article entitled “Thou shalt not assume” complaining that pro-life people were erroneously calling supporters of Obama, “baby-killers.” If they publish my response at all, it will not be out in time for the election so I thought I’d post it below:

To the editor:

I read your article "Thou shalt not assume." I appreciate your courage in taking a stand that is probably not very popular on this campus.

I agree with you that voting for Obama does not make someone a baby killer.

Many people on both sides of the debate argue about whether or not the fetus is a "person" or whether the fetus has a "soul." This really just clouds up the issue.

The undisputed scientific fact is that the fetus is human.

It is entirely arbitrary to apply the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" to a human two minutes (or two months) after he or she is born, but not to a human two minutes (or two months) before he or she is born.

Barack Obama understands this. This is precisely why Obama fought so hard against the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.”

Obama understood that if the product of a failed abortion has the constitutional right to life, then that same human baby should also have had those rights before the abortion was attempted. But as a constitutional scholar, Obama understood that this would endanger abortion “rights” in America.

Therefore, rather than concede the scientific fact that unborn babies are human, and therefore have a constitutional right to life, Obama argued strongly in favor of allowing living babies who had survived abortion to be left alone to die in a cold, stainless steel pan!

Beside the fact that this is just plain evil, if living babies do not have a constitutional right to life, what is to prevent society (and an Obama Supreme Court) from deciding that babies born with mental or physical defects do not have the right to life either?

What Obama seems to forget is that this is the same kind of arbitrariness that led people over 150 years ago to argue that those with black skin are not really "persons" and don't have a soul. The result was a horrendous evil!

Considering the enormous number of unborn babies killed in America (a disproportionate percentage of which are black), the result of the pro-choice position is really not much different than the result of genocide.

If we had a candidate for President who was practically perfect in every way, except for the fact that he or she supported genocide, would we support that candidate anyway? Would we really just say, "Well, the issue is complicated and after all, we don't want to be one-issue voters"?

I don't think so.

So no, I don't think voting for Obama makes someone a baby-killer. But I am convinced that voting for Obama does support the killing of a huge number of babies in violation of God's command.

7 comments:

Steve said...

If Obama is elected President these people will be in power!

Robert said...

Wow... where have a I heard that argument before? :)

Jason said...

"So no, I don't think voting for Obama makes someone a baby-killer. But I am convinced that voting for Obama does support the killing of a huge number of babies in violation of God's command."

So, they aren't directly baby killers but they are supporters of baby killing. Hmmm...Not the best distinction.

Dennis said...

Jason,

It is a very good distinction. They are not necessarily baby killers themselves. But they are voting for a guy who strongly supports the killing of unborn babies (and even living babies if they survive the abortion attempt).

St.Lee said...

OK - I'm sure someone will think I am a monster for this analogy, but....

So it is the same distinction as between the good German citizen that supported the Nazis and the soldiers that actually put the Jews (and sick and lame and helpless)in the gas chambers?

Robert said...

St. Lee -

It depends. There is evidence to suggest that the citizenry was initially unaware. As they became aware, some actively opposed the government while others still chose to support the government in a time of crisis. Many claim to have been ignorant of the scale of the holocaust.

From Why Germans Supported Hitler, Part 1

Among the people around Hitler was 22-year-old Traudl Junge, who became his secretary in 1942 and who faithfully served him in that capacity until the end. She states:

All these horrors I’ve heard of ... I assured myself with the thought of not being personally guilty. And that I didn’t know anything about the enormous scale of it. But one day I walked by a memorial plate of Sophie Scholl in the Franz-Joseph-Strasse.... And at that moment I actually realized ... that it might have been possible to get to know things.

Abortion makes the holocaust seem small in comparison. It's approaching 50 million in the US alone according to the MCCL (Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life).

Why do we let it continue? I think the greatest challenge we face is making people understand that we share responsibility for allowing it to continue. You can't put your head in the sand and expect it to go away just because we'd like it to go away. We have to be willing to address the issues that will result from the success of our movement. Once the practice is outlawed, we need to make sure that our private infrastructure is there to help these people - whether it is adoptions, counseling, or financial aid (notice I said private, not government).

Jason said...

So they are supporters of a supporter of unborn baby killing? Now thats the ticket.