The title sounds like I am going to endorse Romney and shoot down President Obama however, that is not my intention at all. What this post is about is President Obama’s disgusting stance on abortion. Planned Parenthood (PP), a group that your tax dollars go to, is a pro-abortion group and, they have recently endorsed President Obama in the upcoming election. Why would they do this? It is probably a mixture of a couple of things. #1 Romney has vowed to stop PP from getting your tax dollars. #2 President Obama has not voted against anti-abortion bills during his time in the Illinois State Legislature.
Here is a list of 7 different abortion laws that Obama voted on. His vote in all of the following was “present” according to a WashingtonPost.com article:
- SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
- HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
- HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
- SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
- SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
What strikes me is that a couple of these bills involved partial birth abortions and, President Obama voted “present”. Not only that, Obama also voted “present” when it comes to protecting “Liveborn children”. Liveborn children are babies that survived the initial attempt of abortion. This means that the baby is actually alive outside of the womb and Obama voted “present” in preserving the life of these newborns.
You may be thinking, “So what? Obama didn’t vote against the partial birth abortion ban?” Well, in a way he did. In the same article quoted above, author Michael Dobbs notes this:
Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
Since only “yes” votes count as to whether a bill passes or falls in Illinois, President Obama’s “present” votes were essentially “no” votes. If that isn’t enough evidence check this out:
‘We worked on the ‘present’ vote strategy with Obama,’ said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. ‘He was willing to vote “no”, and was always going to be a “no” vote for us.’
There you go. President Obama is in the back pockets of Planned Parenthood. They worked out a strategy where he could for their pro-abortion agenda while saving face. This is contradicted by the Bible and cannot be supported by any Christian that truly follows Christ. Here are the words of Job in Job 31: 14-15:
What then shall I do when God rises up?
When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?
Did not he who made me in the womb make him?
And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Job’s rhetorical questions highlights that God is the creator of everyone. God has made every human being no matter what stage of development they are in. Every person has God’s image stamped on them and, that gives every person value. We, as humans, have worth because we have been created by God but, the moment we embrace abortion is the moment that we deny the value of every human being. The moment we adopt abortion as a woman’s right is the moment we deny human rights to the most vulnerable human beings. So, when you go to the polls in November, remember to stand for human rights by not voting for President Obama.
Thanks for reading.
Before I talk about the video I want to thank T.J., a regular reader of this blog, for bringing this topic up in previous posts.
There are a few of things that I really enjoyed about this video.
First, Piper is extremely transparent and real. So, often we see “famous” preachers and they are larger than life. Some come off as arrogant and untouchable, but Piper is not like that here. He mentions that he and his wife used contraception early in their marriage and that is not something people typically talk about, especially pastors.
Second, I really enjoy the way he approaches the abortion issue. Obviously, this video is not specifically about abortion but some birth control drugs, like “the morning after” pill, do not prevent the fertilization. They eliminate the fertilized egg. His line at about the 56 second mark resonated with me the most. This is what he said:
I think a child should be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he exists or not.
That statement is powerful! It does not pretend to be scientific or decisive, but it is wise, reasonable, and logical. I think whether we are examining the issues of birth control or abortion that statement should stay in the forefront of our minds.
Lastly, I really like how Piper describes the amount of children we have as a “legitimate Kingdom decision”. What I liked about this is that he uses the principles that Paul used for singleness and applies it to child bearing. The Bible says that marriage is God-ordained and God created but Paul said that he wished everyone would be single. Paul is not contradicting Scripture but he is announcing that some people may need to remain single to do the work of Christ. Piper uses that same logic for this issue.
God says that having children is a blessing but we may need to limit the amount of offspring so that we can do ministry and serve God. That is what Piper would call a “Kingdom” or “redemption” issue. Sometimes, it is probably more wise to serve the Lord with the 3 children you have instead of worrying about trying to make ends meet so you can raise your 10 children. That is why Piper calls this a “Kingdom” issue. Limiting the amount of children we have, just like Paul’s wish that others would be single, can help us reach more people for God’s Kingdom.
Thanks for reading.
An article posted on the Star Tribune website was brought to my attention the other day. It was a story about a man who horrifically attempted to kill his unborn child while beating up his ex-girlfriend. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
Kenneth L. Turner, 28, assaulted his ex-girlfriend at a home for three hours, at one point ordering her to lie on her back and stomping on her stomach with both feet, the charge said. He told her she didn’t deserve the baby and that he was going to kill it, the complaint said.
The woman is two months pregnant. It’s unclear whether her embryo suffered any permanent injuries.
Turner was charged with felony first-degree attempted murder of an unborn child and felony domestic assault. He has previous domestic assault convictions and two other violent felony convictions.
I think any rational person would agree that what this 28-year-old man did was horrendous and disgusting. I completely agree with the charges and he should be put in prison for a long time regardless of the damage done to the unborn baby. I do have an important question though…Why is this considered attempted murder but abortion isn’t?
This story, and similar ones, highlight the glaring flaw in the pro-choice position on abortion. They cannot answer this question honestly. If one says that what this guy did was wrong, yet holds to a pro-choice position they need to explain why this unborn has more worth than an another? Is the unborn’s worth determined on whether the mother wants him/her? If that is the case then how can we ever have any moral standards? Truthfully, the pro-choice position doesn’t have a moral standard.
When we forsake a moral standard we become inconsistent. On one hand the pro-choice advocate must reject Turner’s actions while on the other hand they accept the mother’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. When they hold that position they are taking away an unborn’s worth and placing his/her worth in the hands of his/her mother. This is a recipe for moral chaos.
With this in mind, on what grounds could the pro-choice advocate agree with the words of Tony Palumbo (County Attorney)?
This type of criminal behavior is shocking and will be dealt with severely if these allegations are proven.
Wasn’t the 1st degree attempted murder charge part of the “criminal behavior” that Palumbo was so disturbed by? To the pro-choice advocate I ask…
Why should you be disgusted with what Turner did?
Thanks for reading.