Obama vs. Lincoln

This is another part of my conversation with a Christian Obama supporter...

I’m glad you believe in the intrinsic value of life. I’m a believer in intrinsic human rights. If you peruse my blog much you’ll see I’ve surveyed the history of genocides and atrocities and the role of Christians in those both as accomplices and as prophets. At this time in our country’s existence, all humans under 9 months gestation lack basic human rights. In our pluralistic country this requires a political and legal solution, unless the Lord brings a massive revival.

The human rights violations in the treatment of immigrants, minorities, Iraqis, and capital offenders are also important, but since more children die every year in the womb than all these others combined I don’t see how you can de-prioritize this greatest need. Obama is a repackaged Lyndon Johnson, who accomplished many great social changes, through legislation, including welfare, which Clinton ended. Welfare removed the concern of poor mothers regarding provision for their babies. Welfare addressed the poverty reasons for abortion. Yet when Roe legalized abortion, the numbers soared above a million executions per year, but eventually settled around that number for the past 35 years. This shows that poverty is not an adequate reason. When abortion was illegal, most unwanted babies were adopted or taken care of by the larger family network. That is still an option today. I personally know people who have adopted unwanted children and babies from Georgia, Texas, Mexico, China, Haiti, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Only two of them were Christians. There are more than enough families in this country who can’t have children but will adopt them where they can find them and afford them. George Bush signed an act on Adoption in 2003 that provided money to incentivize national adoptions. He is an example of someone working on many fronts to reduce abortions.

How will the fight against abortion proceed politically without a force within government acting on behalf of those lacking those rights?

The root cause of abortion is sin. Legislation will not change hearts. Legislation will protect lives. Teen pregnancy is a result of sin. Audacious hope will not change teen pregnancy. Nor will free condoms. But laws that guarantee human rights to tiny humans will preserve a million lives a year. Perhaps this may not be the best method, but electing someone who firmly believes that any human before 9 months of age is not a person with human rights will definitely set back the quest. Obama’s ideas have been tried and found lacking in the administrations of Carter and Clinton. Doing the same thing again will result in the same results we have seen for 35 years and 40 million lives (the population of New York City 5 times over). How is that different from voting against Abe Lincoln who was the only candidate that thought slaves were people and not property? How can you vote for someone who considers babies tissue and not persons? Did you read his words? “…whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term.” That was the same issue as in Lincoln’s time. Are they persons? Do you choose to give someone a better job and let them kill their baby, or do you protect their baby first?

See follow-up.


Popular posts from this blog

Why did Peter put his coat on before jumping in the water? John 21:7

book report: Heart and Mind by Alexander John Shaia (2017)

bike review:men's Simple 3 by Giant