Saturday, September 06, 2008

One More Time: What an Obama Presidency Would Mean

Let me put it plainly: Too many Christians are supporting Obama. Perhaps they do not understand the implications of an Obama Presidency. Consider just three issues: unborn human life, terrorism, and poverty.


All humans are made in God's image and are such from conception. God forbids murder (unlawful killing). The killing of the unborn is, therefore, immoral and sinful--especially so, since they are utterly helpless. They are among "the least of these" that Jesus told us to care for. (I take abortion to save the life of the mother to not be sinful, but this accounts for only a minute percentage of abortions in the US).

1. Obama would sign The Freedom of Choice Act if it comes to his desk. This would annul every state or local restriction on abortion in the 50 states.

2. Obama would appoint several Supreme Court justices. They would be pro-choice with a vengeance, thus wiping out the possibility of reversing Roe v. Wade, which (along with Doe v. Bolton) opened the floodgates to abortion on demand in the United States. In other words, over 40,000,000 legal abortions in the United States since 1973.

3. Obama would fund abortions through tax payer's money. That is chapter and verse from the Democratic Platform.

4. Obama even opposed the ban on partial birth abortions, and would likely do what he could to bring them back. He opposed a born-alive statute in Illinois that would have allowed hospitals to save aborted babies that survived their own execution.

5. Obama admits he is an ignoramus on when a fetus gets any human rights. It is "above his pay grade." He has also said that we don't know when human life begins. This is a crock. Biology tells us life begins at conception (once a complete genetic code comes into being); since that life comes from humans, it is human life from conception. What else could it be? This is not difficult. But even if one is not sure when human life begins, that does not justify abortion on demand! We should, rather, err on the side of caution, given the momentous stakes at hand.

The National Right to Life gave Obama a rating of o%--the worst possible. The National Abortion Rights Action League gave him a rating of 100%--the best possible. See their documentation of Obama and Biden's views on abortion.

John McCain has become more pro-life recently. He said at Saddleback Community Church that the fetus has human rights from the beginning. He is the polar opposite of Obama on this, as is Sarah Palin.


Evil is real in the world. The Bible does not forbid the use of force in a just cause. The innocent should be protected against attack.

1. Obama has no military experience. In fact, he has anti-military associations, such as William Ayers, a confessed bomber of American military sites. Like most political liberals, he views terrorism as a criminal justice question, not one of military concern. He has opposed funding for the Iraq war and would likely lose that war if elected, thus turning Iraq into a bloodbath and likely a terrorist stronghold, with the Iranians reigning down on it like vultures. They are already supporting terrorism around the world.

2. Obama views himself as a "world citizen" and would conform to international pressures rather than putting the US first. This would weaken us and make us more vulnerable to attack and lessen our ability to do good in the world.

McCain is a military man and has served in the Senate for over twenty years, getting more experience on these matters. He supported the recently successful troop surge (when it was unpopular) and realizes we cannot pull out of Iraq until the job is done.

The Poor:

Some Christians are deceived into thinking that political liberalism is better for the poor than conservatism. So, since the Bible tells us to care about the poor and the oppressed, we should support the Democrats. Not so fast. Saying you care about them and actually providing meaningful assistance are two different things. The liberal mindset is based on centralized, tax-funded programs. This slows down the economy and encourages dependence. This was the lesson of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Poverty won. Read Winning the Race by John McWhorter (an African American) on that.

The conservative approach is to limit the power of the state, to cut taxes, and to give people more freedom to develop their skills and work on and give to the causes that concern them. It is not "Let them eat cake," but is based on a different philosophy of economics.

Moreover it is a leftwing fable that conservatives don't care about the poor. Studies show that conservatives give four times more to charity than do liberals. This is because liberals think the state should do this work, not individuals and private associations. (See Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares? and The Acton Institute.)

McCain has articulated his concerns to help those out of work get reeducated and those without adequate health coverage to have more options. However, he does not want to socialize medicine and create a huge bureaucracy.

It is not an option for Christians to neglect the poor and marginalized. However, it is far from obvious that the Democrats have the best plan to help these people. They would certainly not help the unborn, the poorest and most marginalized of all.


Darrell said...

Some Christians are deceived into thinking that political liberalism is better for the poor than conservatism. So, since the Bible tells us to care about the poor and the oppressed, we should support the Democrat

I am so tired of hearing this narrative. There's a smug, hip contingent of evangelicalism that seems to be saying "either you can be a closed-minded, single-issue, robot and vote for pro-life candidates OR you can be like Jesus and vote Democrat."

Call me closed-minded.

Jeremy Williamson said...

Plus, McCain is so well-versed on economic issues:

Jeff Burton said...

Thanks, Professor. It must get tedious to repeat what seems so obvious, but I guess someone has to do it.

a said...

McCain supports abortion.

He won't outlaw the pill. The pill is abortive. Voting for McCain vs. Obama is only a difference of degree.

Don't gloss over a salient fact. Sophistry is unacceptable.

One question DG: Do you think that the pill should be outlawed? Do you think that it is an acceptable form of abortion.

a said...

The Pill as is the daily birth control pill, not the day after pill (though both do the same thing if conception occurs).

Claude said...

You present solid argument in the 3 cases.

The Catholic Church, probably considering that a mother would prefer to give her life so that her child could live, doesn't agree to abortion to save the mother. It also preconises a Calendar System instead of birth control pills. Of course, the Catholic Church is not trying to win an election in America!

I was curious as to why you mentioned that Jack Mc Whorter (I hope I got the name right) was African American. Does it make his book on poverty more valid? We seldom say African Canadian in my country. Canadian seems to be sufficient. We know someone is black when we see her/him. I'm not criticizing. I'm just curious.

The only reason I would add French to Canadian would be to explain my imperfect English.

Rob said...

claudia, as someone born Canadian and now living in the US, I'd suggest that the term "African Canadian" isn't used because of the different history of race relations in the two countries and the difference in demographics. And I suspect for many "French Canadian" is about *much* more than explaining language skills!

Ben said...

DG - well said. Thorough yet succinct. Thanks especially for making explicit the bit about poverty; people need to understand exactly what you have to say there.

One wondering you've inspired - what would the statistics on charitable giving between conservatives and liberals looked like if they were normalized for wealth (or possibly even religious commitment)? Wealthy people tend to be conservative, and wealthy people tend to give more to charity (both in sheer volume and in percentage). Ditto for religiously committed people (I think and hope). The classic example of a rich liberal giving very little to charity is Al Gore (I forget the year), but we would commit a fallacy to generalize from his case. Anyhow, just curious to about the numbers; if you have a source, I'd love to see it.

Ben said...


There's more to the story.

Your concern arises from the fact that the major forms of chemical birth control (the daily pill, the patch, and the ring, all of which function in basically the same fashion) create a uterine environment that is less stable for a newly conceived child. This is true. A conceptus has a lesser chance of implantation and survival in the uterus of a woman on chemical birth control (hereafter CBC) than in a woman who is not on CBC.

However, this is a secondary cause of CBC. The primary purpose of CBC is to prevent ovulation. It does this very effectively. Another secondary cause of CBC is the thickening of cervical mucus, which provides another barrier to conception in the unlikely case that ovulation occurs.

At the same time, spontaneous abortion is perhaps more common than you realize in women who are not on CBC. One in three embryos (implanted conceptuses) in these women end in spontaneous abortions, and over half of those occur before the woman is ever aware that she is pregnant. (Statistics for conceptuses that never implant are not available.)

CBC prevents a lot more than one in three conceptions. Therefore, even if every conceptus was terminated in women on CBC (which it's not), a woman on CBC is much less likely to have a spontaneous abortion than a woman on no birth control. By preventing the vast majority of conceptions, CBC actually prevents a lot more spontaneous abortions than it causes.

Therefore, a pro-life woman can use CBC in good conscience. For many couples, there are other good reasons not to use CBC, but its abortifacient properties should not be a deterrent.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...


I've ordered the book I referenced. I got the basic statistic elsewhere (Action Institute), but will follow up by looking at the book in more depth.


Ben said...

Looks like my assumptions were faulty about rich people being conservative:

"In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush, 56-39, among the 4 percent of voters who identified themselves as 'upper class.'”