As people have probably figured out if you read my blog or know me at all, I tend to be a fairly classic conservative in terms of not liking tons of federal government involvement in things, not being a huge fan of large entitlement programs, pro-life, pro-capital punishment (justly administered), and so on.
So Senator Obama is not exactly my cup of tea. That’s pretty easy for me.
However, there has been a clear shift among certain segments of Christendom that claim to be evangelical and pro-life, yet have swung pretty far into Obama-fandom, something which I don’t really understand.
Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton and a member of the President’s Council for Bioethics, recently wrote a very well-written, insightful and indicting article on Senator Obama’s positions and actions, in the form of sponsored legislation, as they relate to the sanctity of life, especially the unborn.
I strongly urge you to read it, but here are a few quotes for those who don’t want to read it all:
In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
[Obama] has promised that ”the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA)… In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ”sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws.
I don’t know how anyone who is pro-life could ever claim that Obama is in line with that position. I’m not saying that pro-life Christians must be single-issue voters, but I think John Piper said it well in this article:
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office.
If you’re a Christian and are considering voting for Obama, please prayerfully consider what that means for the millions of unborn children who have been murdered in the US, and the many more who will be murdered around the world should he become president. Our responsibility is to protect and care for those who cannot do so for themselves, and that includes interventions like adoption and crisis preganancy counseling, as well as preventing the government from making it easier to kill them.