The fourth and last in a series of posts written by a Christian friend of mine who is a lawyer and works for a major pro-life organization.
Folks, this last post is long but it is awesome. I am humbled to be friends with the author.
<><
DISPELLING SOME FURTHER MYTHS
Myth 1: You shouldn't be a one-issue voter.
Response 1: Oh yes you should, when the issue involves the murder of innocent human life, created in God's image. Nothing is more important. I submit there is nothing more dear to God's heart than a little child. For more on that, see Response 2 below. Furthermore, I can't imagine voting for a pro-choicer, and then later having to account for that vote before the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't want that blood on my hands.
So then I hear a follow-up myth: Isn't it hypocritical to vote for a candidate who sends men to war, who ignores the poor, etc.? First of all, anyone in the war is there because he or she voluntarily joined the military. None of us WANT to be in a war. But we were attacked, period. But I digress; that is a different discussion. The fact is that we don't have a draft; men and women in the military choose to join, and in doing so know the possibility that they may be sent to war (especially those who join post-9/11). Contrast this to a child, who has no choice in conception.
Furthermore, both sides of the aisle want to help the poor; the underlying dispute is HOW to do so, not whether to do so. Contrast this to abortion, where there is a difference of morality between the two sides--not a difference of strategy.
And finally, if we do not have a culture that values life from the very beginning, we are in a hopeless situation. There is no chance that our culture will value any stage of life--pre-born, infant, elderly, homeless, etc. We need a bedrock culture of life before we can effect change in any other area.
Myth 2: The Bible says nothing about the abortion issue.
Response 2: The Bible is replete with passages applicable to the abortion issue. Here are JUST A FEW (indeed, entire books are written on this subject alone):
*The Commandment is very clear: You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).
*When the Law was given, God included a "fetal homicide" law. See Ex. 21:22 ("If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the women's husband may demand of him, and he shall surely pay as the judges decide. BUT if there is ANY FURTHER HARM [such as the death of the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc.").
*God states plainly that He knows us from the womb (and even before), that we are a human being with a soul, separate and apart from our mothers. See, for example, Psalm 139: 13-16 ("For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.") and Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you....").
*And perhaps nothing sums it up more plainly than Mark 9:37 ("Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.") Even as a grade-schooler (when I first felt the call and declared my intent to fight the evils of abortion), I understood the direct application of this passage: if I don't welcome the little child, then I welcome neither Christ nor God. In fact, failing to accept the little children is a rejection of Christ and God.
Again, these are just a few passages that I thought of in the 10 minutes it took to type them out. A study would yield many more applicable passages.
Myth 3: My candidate doesn't advocate "abortion on demand"--just that abortion be safe, legal and rare.
Response 3: The presidential candidates' responses to the April Gonzales v. Carhart (partial birth abortion) U.S. Supreme Court decision reveal otherwise. Every major Democratic candidate was horrified that the Supreme Court would prevent a woman from obtaining a procedure that--as both sides admit--involves pulling a usually viable (and moving, struggling) child almost completely outside of the mother, stabbing it, and sucking out its brain. Eyewitness accounts revealed during trial that the babies were wriggling, struggling, and then went limp as then were "terminated."
Obama supports this practice. And he supports FOCA, which would ensure abortion on demand (i.e., for any reason) throughout all nine months of pregnancy. And as stated earlier, his policy positions are inapposite to the reduction of abortion in America.
Myth 4: Even under Roe v. Wade, the "abortion right" is only present through the first trimester.
Response 4: The framework set up on Roe (and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) actually permits abortion on demand through birth--unless a state promulgates a law otherwise. And of course, such state action is explicitly condemned by the Dems. According to the definition of "health" in Doe, a woman can get an abortion for any reason. This is because "health" is defined so broadly as to take into account mood swings, a last-minute decision that a girl wants to play athletics instead of carry a baby to term, etc. This interpretation of the definition of "health" is not disputed (although the pro-life movement is fervently trying to change it). Thus, a woman can get an abortion at any time and for any reason. That is abortion on demand--and it is supported by every Democratic candidate (including Obama) who demands that Roe and Doe be upheld.
CONCLUSION
My heart grieves every time I hear of another Christian friend who is supporting a candidate who advocates actions clearly outside "the pale of orthodoxy"--in other words, outside the basic tenets common across the creed-professing Protestant and Catholic denominations. Matthew 7 immediately comes to mind. There, Christ explains the following:
"... [E]very good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits."
Note that the "bearing fruit" references throughout the Bible commonly refer to Christians who bear good fruit versus Christians who bear bad fruit--NOT Christians versus non-Christians. Christ then continues,
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'"
Wow. My friends, think--no, PRAY--before you vote. You are either with Him, or you are against Him. There is no middle ground.
We are held accountable for the way we vote. And at the end of my time here, when I face the Lord, I can't stand to think I didn't do everything in my power to protect the unborn. The Bible is replete with passages commanding us to work for the orphan and the fatherless. Who is more of an orphan than an "unwanted" child? I will not have innocent blood on my hands.
No. I will vote for life. Innocent life. I will vote for women. For laws that have demonstrated an ability to protect women from the harms of abortion. For laws that are put in place to protect the woman as well as the unborn child. For parental rights. For informed consent before abortion. For humane conditions in abortion clinics.
Only one candidate has voted this way. His fruits demonstrate his commitment. And that is not Obama.
I hear your position, and partially agree with it. I plan to write in Jimmy Carter for President, and Ron Paul for Vice President. But I would have a problem with speaking my voice in this way, if Obama were not so apt to win the presidency. Because Palin is so fake, someone who the book Snakes In Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work, was written to warn us about, and to show us how to avoid; and because it has become increasingly clear that McCain is apt to die in office, I consider Obama the best choice. Really, I would rather have Obama than even McCain, because Obama is not really for any abortion, but he is realistic about what the American public will support of godliness at this time. Most teenage abortions would not happen if the teenagers were given a decent chance to bring up their own child, with the help of an older christian couple. It is getting the teens who wish to support their child into private christian homes which would be most helpful to The Lord Jesus Christ. But I believe that Obama is the candidate who will fully support those ways, to save the lives of the unborn, which he can actually get pushed through Congress and into our national life.
Obama himself said, "If my daughters make a mistake I don't want them PUNISHED with a baby." Sounds very pro abortion in any instance to me. Nice try, though.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/348569.aspx
Coronella Keiper replying to:
Dawn B. replied to comment from Coronella Keiper October 10, 2008 9:00 AM :
Obama himself said, "If my daughters make a mistake I don't want them PUNISHED with a baby." Sounds very pro abortion in any instance to me. Nice try, though.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/348569.aspx
...
Well, Dawn, I clicked onto the page above, and at the end of the short article, the whole of his reasoning stood out: He wants information given so that morals will keep youth from so called experimenting, but he also wants information given so that fewer pregnancies will occur with the few who still make a real mistake, outside of marriage. First, he is pro life. Second, he is also against unwanted pregnancies. So the article you suggested proves my point. Obama will do whatever he can to both increase morality and decrease unwanted pregnancies -- before they happen.
He never said that either of his precious daughters would make a moral mistake; and he never said that, if they did, that they wouldn't keep any child which occured: He did say that if a young woman makes a mistake, that is not a good reason for a baby to get started, just because she did not know how to protect herself.
I like that God has made it so that the only way to make 100% sure that a baby does not get started is WAIT! PERIOD! PRAY! FOR SELF CONTROL!
But, for those who do not have an adequate chance to strongly receive and believe this (yet), it is best they not get pregnant when they "experiment". Sigh.
Coronella Keiper
Coronella,
How do you define pro-life?
Is a candidate pro-life if he votes against protecting babies who survive "botched" abortion attempts and are born alive? Obama did this.
Is a candidate pro-life if he vows that the first thing he will do as president will be to sign a federal law that would wipe away laws protecting pregnant women and their unborn babies? Obama vows this.
This is the truth. He is not pro-life, not even close.
Please read the other three parts to this series and then I'd like to know your thoughts in response, if you don't mind. Thanks.
Part 1: http://dontdrinkthekingswine.com/2008/10/07/know-obama-a-pro-life-lawyers-perspective-part-1-voting-records/
Part 2: http://dontdrinkthekingswine.com/2008/10/08/know-obama-a-pro-life-lawyers-perspective-part-2-women-are-harmed/
Part 3: http://dontdrinkthekingswine.com/2008/10/09/know-obama-a-pro-life-lawyers-perspective-part-3-reducing-abortion-baipa/
Please watch this video and then answer one question. If Obama supports abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, and if this is what abortion looks like, how can Obama be pro life?
http://www.durarealidad.com/
Hadley Arkes nailed it: Sen. Obama so adamantly thinks abortion is just that he was unwilling to protect the lives of those ACTUALLY BORN AND ALIVE in order to protect that right.
Update to Dawn B.:
This letter to the editor appeared in the Providence Journal of Rhode Island. It expresses my position on Barack Obama concerning the very important question of loving those yet unborn, and how to actually pass pro-life legislation in this country at this time:
Grace O’Malley: Less rhetoric on abortion, please
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, November 13, 2008
In his Nov. 8 letter, “Obama’s pro-abortion plan,” David O’Connell uses the term “pro-abortion” repeatedly. Now really, is anyone actually pro-abortion? People undergo medical procedures for a host of things, but I have never heard of anyone referred to as pro-hip replacement, or pro-hemorrhoidectomy. So why pro-abortion?
The term is in the same category as the term abortion-on-demand, which calls to mind a drive-up operation like grabbing a latte on the way to work. It trivializes the personal anguish that attends abortions in so many cases. Studies show that women who have abortions do so under great duress. The options for choosing life often are presented in theory but not in practice.
Feminists for Life as well as the Democratic Party platform stand for the right to choose life and to be supported in that choice. There is much David O’Connell did not tell us about the president-elect’s plan. Here is a direct quote from the party platform:
“The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family-planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
“The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”
Imagine what that could mean to so many women who have no support in their time of need and little hope for what lies ahead! This is a plan for the kind of real policies that women need if they are to be supported in choosing life. It is a real pro-life position.
Let’s have less rhetoric, name-calling and demonizing and channel our energies into the kind of efforts that will provide real support for all women who choose life.
That is president-elect Obama’s plan, Mr. O’Connell: Supporting women who choose life.
GRACE O’MALLEY
Tiverton
CC: Practicing Radical Hon(our)sty
The only lawyers opinion I respect, is the lawyer who says to his clients:
I defend you on behalf of truth and justice; to tell the truth, whether that makes you guilty or innocent. I DO NOT LIE; IF YOU WANT A LAWYER WHO WILL LIE FOR YOU, 99.9999999999% OF THE LAWYERS ON THE PLANET WOULD NOT THINK TWICE ABOUT IT!
If the truth makes you 'guilty', the truth may also be your legal defence, for example provocation, political necessity, self defence, etc.
If you want me to lie on your behalf; you are herewith informed that I will not represent you if you put a gun to my head.
If I choose to represent you, and you are found guilty, then I too am considered guilty of your offence, and shall require of myself the same punishment. [Why do you think Al'Qaeda's offer for Osama Bin Laden to stand trial in the Hague has not been taken up on? His lawyer demanded that if Osama receives the death sentence; his lawyer expects the same sentence!]
AS A 'LAWYER (Paralegal)' MY OPINION IS THAT ANY LAWYERS REPUTATION IN RESPECT TO THE LAW IS EITHER ABOUT JUSTICE AND TRUTH; OR IT IS ABOUT MONEY; BUT IT CANNOT BE ABOUT BOTH.
As a result of my aforementioned legal opinion; I have spent 14 months in an African prison; in support of the truth about the issues brought before the court in HC-CPD A 696-04/JAG 07-146:
Brief Description: of JAG 07-146:
18 June 2002 Al’Qanoon Political Necessity Bomb Threat to P.W. Airport:
ISSUES: Political Necessity Disclosure of: (i) AIDS is a biological warfare depopulation virus; (ii) Root Cause of Terrorism is Overpopulation; (iii) Exponential Population Increases colliding with Finite Depleted and Scarce Resources exacerbate Terrorism; (iv) Political Policies encouraging Population Growth, and Economic and Religious Policies encouraging Population Growth exponentially increase the factors contributing to current and future terrorism; (v) Peak Oil, Peak Arable Land, Peak Water, Peak Food indicate Exponential ‘French Lilly Pond Tipping Point’ of humanity overshooting resource limitations, with potentially disastrous consequences; (vi) Political Necessity of urgently educating citizens on importance and exponential future benefits of loving zero and negative growth procreation population policies.
As for Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion: IF THESE MEN AND WOMEN USED CONDOMS TO FORNICATE; AND PRACTICED SOME OF MOHAMMED'S GUIDANCE IN PRE-EMPTIVE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE PLANNING FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL, EMOTIONAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AS TO BEING COMMITTED TO EACH OTHER OUT OF LOVE, TO BRING A CHILD INTO THIS WORLD, OUT OF LOVE.....
The Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion lobbies might finally wake up and find themselves an issue to focus on wherein they did not go around applying their religious and legal bandaids to religious and legal braintumours.
Pardon my blunt honesty.
JMCSwan