Obama - what does this mean?

[cslewislover]

As Christians, we are obligated to follow our leaders and the law of the land (as long as they don't go against God), and in this country we are free to help form laws. So it makes total sense that we should try and put into affect laws that follow God's principles for life and living. I don't know about retribution--I'm only thinking of prevention--but abortion kills on purpose. Other things like alcohol may cause deaths, but they're normally accidents. Any other activity that would cause a purposeful killing of a human life would be outlawed, yet abortion is not.

I guess it was in one of the other Obama threads where cross.eyed and I mentioned Scott Peterson's conviction. He was convicted of the murder of his unborn child. It's pretty ridiculous that he could receive that conviction, yet other babies are killed every day.

And I don't like how Obama is using our country to promote abortions in other countries.

[Gman]

Anyway, take it, or leave it. I love both you and G-man and God knows I haven't arrived yet.

blessings,

bart

Thanks for that Bart... It's always nice to have your coolness and professionalism here on the board...

G -

[Kurieuo]

Pro-Choice in itself is no more the murderer than alcohol is the murder of those that are killed/murdered as a result of drunkenness. Because pro-choice is the law of the land doesn't make all those living in this land murderers. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, it will still take place (at these astronomical numbers) as our society has not outlawed sex outside of marriage. The root problem of abortion is not whether it's murder or not, but on what circumstances cause the abortion. There are consequences to our actions. Having sex outside of marriage, having unprotected sex, being promiscuous and the like are the cause(s) of abortion and THESE are what should be campaigned against, not whether abortion is legal or not. Murder is already illegal...but allowed by God. What do we as Christians care if abortion is legal or not. A Pro-Life society does not eradicate abortion does it? The abortion issue has only been with us for less than 50 years! Did it miraculously begin in 1973 all of a sudden? No, in fact secular society has existed without the need of such a "law" for a few thousand years.

So you're pro-choice Bavarian?

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people—Thomas Jefferson was one—reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewa ... .001.pdart

[Kurieuo]

I am of the opinion that those like Gman and more-so BavarianWheels are inconsistent with their stated stances as being against abortion. I can not see how anyone who really does sincerely believe a human life could be taken, who does in fact believe a genocide is taking place in society at large today, why such would try to reduce the tragic nature of such an issue or try divert the topic of discussion away from the taking of human life. Let me provide examples.

Jac's comment about voting for Obama being a sin served as an easy out. However, along the way I think it is clear Bavarian is taken by many of the arguments perpetrated by those who support abortion since many are restated is some form or another. Such arguments do not deal with the real issue - the status of the unborn being a human life made in God's images and therefore entitled to full human rights like every other human being - but detract from the issue to something else in order to blow smoke to screen this real issue.

Gman has not seemed to have perpetrated these same arguments, although has diverted to other issues such as war, etc. This makes me think a full realisation of the tragic nature of killing unborn human life has not really hit home. Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

[BavarianWheels]

I am of the opinion that those like Gman and more-so BavarianWheels are inconsistent with their stated stances as being against abortion. I can not see how anyone who really does sincerely believe a human life could be taken, who does in fact believe a genocide is taking place in society at large today, why such would try to reduce the tragic nature of such an issue or try divert the topic of discussion away from the taking of human life. Let me provide examples.

Jac's comment about voting for Obama being a sin served as an easy out. However, along the way I think it is clear Bavarian is taken by many of the arguments perpetrated by those who support abortion since many are restated is some form or another. Such arguments do not deal with the real issue - the status of the unborn being a human life made in God's images and therefore entitled to full human rights like every other human being - but detract from the issue to something else in order to blow smoke to screen this real issue.

Gman has not seemed to have perpetrated these same arguments, although has diverted to other issues such as war, etc. This makes me think a full realisation of the tragic nature of killing unborn human life has not really hit home. Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

I don't know that I've stated my stance on abortion, but I will say that if the secular world wants it pro-choice or pro-life is no concern of mine. It's not that I don't care about the lives of the unborn...it's that the issue doesn't affect me. There are all kinds of human life lost in all manners of instances...ALL of which are tragic. IMHO, the life of the unborn child that is aborted is no more or no less important than the life of one taken at the hands of a drunk. ALL human life is created in the image of God...isn't it?

AGAIN then...My issue here is not whether abortion is better pro-choice or pro-life (while I guess I would lean to the choice side) but the point is HOW is it Jac3510 is able to blanket every voter that voted for Obama as having the blood of all past and future aborted babies on their hands AND...AND...AND that their vote is a SIN...and stated and repeated dogmatically?

Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

I'll answer this on my part. This doesn't even fit the point. Here Hitler is *THE* killer. Obama isn't the killer of the children. It is the mother that decides/chooses WHETHER to go ahead with the abortion and the Dr. that performs it. Just because pro-choice is the law of the land, doesn't make the whole of the country murders.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

I'll answer this on my part. This doesn't even fit the point. Here Hitler is *THE* killer. Obama isn't the killer of the children. It is the mother that decides/chooses WHETHER to go ahead with the abortion and the Dr. that performs it. Just because pro-choice is the law of the land, doesn't make the whole of the country murders.

Actually by your same logic which wouldn't the soldiers be the killers and not Hitler?

[Kurieuo]

I am of the opinion that those like Gman and more-so BavarianWheels are inconsistent with their stated stances as being against abortion. I can not see how anyone who really does sincerely believe a human life could be taken, who does in fact believe a genocide is taking place in society at large today, why such would try to reduce the tragic nature of such an issue or try divert the topic of discussion away from the taking of human life. Let me provide examples.

Jac's comment about voting for Obama being a sin served as an easy out. However, along the way I think it is clear Bavarian is taken by many of the arguments perpetrated by those who support abortion since many are restated is some form or another. Such arguments do not deal with the real issue - the status of the unborn being a human life made in God's images and therefore entitled to full human rights like every other human being - but detract from the issue to something else in order to blow smoke to screen this real issue.

Gman has not seemed to have perpetrated these same arguments, although has diverted to other issues such as war, etc. This makes me think a full realisation of the tragic nature of killing unborn human life has not really hit home. Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

I don't know that I've stated my stance on abortion, but I will say that if the secular world wants it pro-choice or pro-life is no concern of mine. It's not that I don't care about the lives of the unborn...it's that the issue doesn't affect me. There are all kinds of human life lost in all manners of instances...ALL of which are tragic. IMHO, the life of the unborn child that is aborted is no more or no less important than the life of one taken at the hands of a drunk. ALL human life is created in the image of God...isn't it?

AGAIN then...My issue here is not whether abortion is better pro-choice or pro-life (while I guess I would lean to the choice side) but the point is HOW is it Jac3510 is able to blanket every voter that voted for Obama as having the blood of all past and future aborted babies on their hands AND...AND...AND that their vote is a SIN...and stated and repeated dogmatically?

Your comments here just support what I said, only rather than being inconsistent, you are more positively showing you are for allowing the killing of unborn human life.

You didn't read my post (third one back from this) about 'pro-choice' did you Bavarian? Seems like you only see one of two options which just backs up my thoughts that you don't really consider the unborn as valuable human lives. What does it mean to be pro-choice? I wonder if you would be pro-choice on infanticide, or slavery, or how about pro-choice drink driving?

[Gman]

Gman has not seemed to have perpetrated these same arguments, although has diverted to other issues such as war, etc. This makes me think a full realisation of the tragic nature of killing unborn human life has not really hit home. Let me pose this question Gman. Would you vote for Hitler if you knew he would encourage genocide against a particular people he deemed less than human, if he still had all the same decisions as Obama on other issues such as war, the economy, etc? You don't have to answer publicly, but I'd like you to just seriously reflect upon that question. If you find yourself abhorred by the thought of voting for Hitler, but not Obama, than obviously there is some inconsistency going on where you subconsciously or otherwise don't really consider the unborn as important to the same level of those born?

First, let me again reiterate what I think about abortion... I think it is wrong... For the record, I'm a member of the "National Right to Life group" and give to them regularly. However I also think it wrong to say that McCain is completely a vote against Abortion.. Again I believe that I've clearly shown that McCain was a flip-flopper on the abortion issue. He is NOT a true supporter against Abortion... So it is a moot point to say that a vote for him is a vote against genocide.. Also Roe v. Wade is still in effect and will probably stay there, so I think we have to move on to other issues then. I never saw him trying to change it...

Comparing Obama to Hitler, is also a rather rude and unfair treatment of our President.. In Obama's own words, Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoptio and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances." Again, I could also call McCain, a murderer and a Hitler (genocide) against the Arabs in the middle east... It's a knife that cuts both ways...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 7469.story

[Canuckster1127]

As I've stated before too, I am pro-life and I've never voted for a pro-choice candidate at the national level.

I don't however accept that a pro-life position is a litmus test for any and every vote for the following reasons:

1. The traditional pro-life, republican candidates have not ultimately delivered on their promise to reverse Roe V. Wade in 39 years and their primary attempts to do so have been judicial, not legislative or constitutional. I agree that judicial appointments are derivitive of executive power which should factor strongly into a presidential vote. However they also require Senate confirmation and the overall political environment or liklihood of such a placement being successful could therefore be a legitimate consideration in the mind of someone to where I wouldn't automatically consider a Christian voting for a democrat the be a "sin."

2. Where you have the two primary candidates and one's pro-life position has either been inconsistent or non-existent it could render the issues, in terms of the practicality of the vote, moot.

3. Political activism is only one venue for addressing this issue. In fact, the most effective and most direct means of addressing this issue is ultimately one on one communication, support and reaching people with the demonstrable love of Christ. That is done through financial support of women whose abortion decision may be driven by economics, emotional support for those who are in distress and afraid for their futures, going to and establishing relationships with those who are lonely etc.

Some of the same people (not on this board, I'm generalizing) who would be the most vocal in their use of political power to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (and I'm fully in support of that) are ironically also the very first people who would drive a pregnant teenager from their church, would vote to eliminate the social safety net for the weak and poor in our society. They have not personally worked to reach the hurting and weak either politically or personally following Christ's model of meekness (not weakness) by which He emptied himself of power in order to communicate to us in love and show us the way, instead of beating us with the club of the law.

I agree it's a difficult issue and despite these considerations and issues in this last election, I chose to vote for McCain for my own reasons, which were a personal weighing of all the issues and in which abortion played a very significant role. I would not however, presume to accuse any fellow believer of "Sin" for their vote in this or any other election because I could in theory construct a case for my vote going for a candidate who didn't agree with my position on abortion where the other candidate themselves wasn't pro-life, or the political environment was such that even with their pro-life position there was no chance that they could or would effect any change in that area, while there were other issues that could be impacted. Politics in a democracy often achieves small things incrementally and it's not wrong in my opinion to choose in that context for what can practically be achieved.

That's a hypothetical. What I've responding to as I read this thread, is not the pro-life position or emphasis which I espouse, but the assumption that anyone who votes differently than me on the basis of one issue is therefore a "sinner." That's a strong charge, something that is God's purview not mine and further, not a given as there are multiple issues which are impacted in an election, several others of which impact life and death and we're to exercise our votes in a manner which reflects our sense of God's leading.

I fear the past 35 years in the US have been more evidence of emotional appeals to the Christian evangelical base on the basis of this primary issue for which we've voted as a block and that the drive to have a political impact has been to where the message of Christ has been tainted or taken out of balance with many of the other issues that that party we've married to, have promoted as well. Political reform is an individual responsibility of every individual person. Social reform is better demonstrated collectively through the Church and the ultimate solution to the abortion question is not political reform but the changing of lives and hearts through the gospel of Christ.

Would I see abortion outlawed were it in my power to make it happen? Yes I would. That wouldn't change the statement above however nor would it ultimately solve the problem. Illegal abortions would continue both in this country and then people travelling elsewhere.

Political power is a very poor subsitute in the changing of hearts and minds and it trades in the appeal of the gospel for behavioral modification whether a heart change has taken place at all. It has it's place, but it's secondary as opposed to the power of the gospel. Trading political power as a Christian community at the expense of all other issues is a case of accepting good at the cost of the better or best. I'm not inclined to continue in that pattern moving forward.

[Kurieuo]

That's a hypothetical. What I've responding to as I read this thread, is not the pro-life position or emphasis which I espouse, but the assumption that anyone who votes differently than me on the basis of one issue is therefore a "sinner." That's a strong charge, something that is God's purview not mine and further, not a given as there are multiple issues which are impacted in an election, several others of which impact life and death and we're to exercise our votes in a manner which reflects our sense of God's leading.

Hi Bart,

What I've seen written here goes far much beyond Jac's labeling a vote a sin, which I do not fully agree with, although I do see democracy does tend to implicate us all. Read over Bavarian's posts again and you should notice what he writes is a lot more than responding to the issue of voting the wrong person in being a sin.

The taking of innocent human life of the unborn is for me is a core issue, and it is a cause I'd be prepared to die for. I believe we have a responsibility to protect human life especially the innocent and weak and those who can not speak for themselves. I would not endorse a government which encouraged and gave money to a cause to destroy any such human life. Sadly, with the way democracy works we tend to be limited in our decisions. It is hard finding someone else in the world who shares many of our same views, let alone a leader of a country. We can however make the best choices possible given what we consider to be core issues.

Obama's past and present actions to me show he is beyond "pro-choice" (if it could be said such a position really ever exists), but rather pro-abortion. Actions speak louder than words, and while Obama may speak nice-sounding words his past action demonstrate his true positions. Gman may be fully convinced Obama will not endorse or increase the the killing of unborn human life, that he is best morally and economically, and that more lives lives would not be lost under someone else, in which case he voted with his conscience and I can commend that (however strongly I disagree). Bavarian on the other hand has proclaimed himself as pro-choice so is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm not defending Obama or minimizing the importance of a Pro-Life position. Sadly, in the US with a two party system, I actually think Christians have willingly allowed themselves to be politically exploited by one party on this particular issue and have traded their votes and support for over 35 years for no real change.

That was what I was responding to, and not specifically supporting anyone else on this thread beyong what I said.

Sorry if that was unclear or came off as more than I intended.

blessings,

bart

[Kurieuo]

I'm not defending Obama or minimizing the importance of a Pro-Life position. Sadly, in the US with a two party system, I actually think Christians have willingly allowed themselves to be politically exploited by one party on this particular issue and have traded their votes and support for over 35 years for no real change.

I know Bart.

To respond to exploitation of Christians, I personally do not care what the majority of churches or Christians say. I am not sure how this came into this discussion, however I dare say the many intelligent posters we have here like Jac, Zoegirl, Byblos and others, including yourself, were not exploited either but based their vote and opinion on their own judgment.

I agree one should personally look into the issues rather than depend upon the opinions of others (non-Christians I know are just as guilty in this respect). I am not American, but in the case of Obama I saw past actions which justified what has been discussed here against him. One should base their vote on correct understanding and reason. The issue of taking unborn human life is not a trivial issue for me, but an outrage like the Jewish holocaust. It is a central issue that I do not think any self-professing Christian should ignore. One of primary significance. I predict we are going to see a lot of bad come from Obama on this issue. Time is the best judge, but the steps that have already been taken do not bid well for unborn human lives.

Anyway, I agree with all you have said, especially the part about hearts needing to change. On the other hand, whoever is in power has a great impact on change for the better or worse. I don't think this should be underestimated. And as Christians we should always strive to defend the helpless no matter if through politics, heart to heart discussions or putting even putting our own life on the line for theirs and Christ's sake. You do well to draw attention to other aspects of this debate though, and I fully agree a heart change needs to happen, and I am sure you will agree that we should take a holistic approach.

[Canuckster1127]

I think we're very much on the same page. Thanks for hearing what I was trying to say without assuming I was attempting to obfuscate or cloud the issue.

blessings,

bart

[zoegirl]

To say that one does not vote for McCain because he flip-flopped seems bizarre when we were facing a candidate who is so fully and aggressively *for* proteting abortion access and rights. IT was obvious to me that between the two candidates, Obama is 100% for protecting abortion whereas McCain, while perhaps motivated my political pressure, was still a candidate that wanted to limit and place conditions upon abortion.

At least with McCain we stand a cahnce to pressure him to remain with the pro-life position whereas Obama clearly will seek opportunities to open access, repeal whatever limitations Bush established, and fund all of these activites.

There were plenty of reasons for me to vote against Obama, but I must confess, abortion will always remain one of the top five litmus tests for me.

[Gman]

Again... I think Obama flunks on the abortion issue... I do NOT support him on this topic as well as other issues.. Since McCain was a flip-flopper on abortion, I really don't think that he is truly against it either... He did not want to repeal Roe v. Wade.. And did McCain call Obama a murderer? I never heard him say this..

So that is why I say... Let's examine the other issues then of the candidate and move on.. Abortion doesn't seem to be the highest on the candidates topics...