Current Challenges to Pro-Life

I found this article from Newsweek a bit disheartening: Why The Right-To-Life Movement Faces A Difficult Future

More Obama Inconsistency

(HT: MTR)

Obama as Pro-Abortion as is Politically Possible

Doug Groothuis:

Trying to Wiggle Out of the Obvious Contradictions

If you think you may have read this column before, stay with me anyway. There are certain stubborn realities in this presidential election year that are like stains that have resisted the first half-dozen applications of the strongest stain remover.

Too many people whose opinions I ordinarily respect are so caught up in the "promise" of pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama that they refuse to face facts. Or, more specifically, they soft soap the grim reality that Obama is the most anti-life presidential candidate to run since Roe v. Wade was laid on the shoulders of unborn babies.

Obama is like an instrument that vibrates in sympathetic harmony with the Abortion Establishment. While you know the litany, unfortunately only a tiny percentage of the American public is aware of his abysmal record.

They don't know Obama's support for taxpayer funding of abortion, which increases the number of dead babies. They don't know that he approves of abortionists not notifying parents even when they are performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.

Nor do they know that Obama supports cloning human embryos, is a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act" (Roe on steroids), or that he bitterly denounced the Supreme Court for upholding a law that banned the hideous partial-birth abortion "procedure." This is no small deal. Even some pro-abortion senators drew the line at partial-birth abortion. For example, according to the Congressional Record (Sept. 26, 1996, at S11373), the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus, and what on Earth is this procedure?"

Prof. Paul Kengor recently wrote a thoughtful piece about this whole phenomenon. Although he was talking specifically about Roman Catholic apologists for Obama, his analysis applies across the board.

Kengor does a masterful (and emotionally gripping) job of painting a picture of what happened to those few babies who survived an abortion. The neglect of these victims was so revolting that, in spite of the best efforts of the usual congressional suspects, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002. All BAIPA does is require that these babies receive the same medical attention given a baby spontaneously born prematurely.

"Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress," Kengor writes. "But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level." Obama voted against the legislation.

All this and more is outlined by Kengor by way of setting the stage. For all of his egregious pro-abortion positions, Obama is vigorously supported by people who ought to know better--or perhaps do, and pretend otherwise.

Part of the explanation is a variation of the argument that while abortion is (or may be) important, it does not match, let alone override, a panoply of other issues taken as a whole. If this is their position, so be it.

But the website of these same Catholics begins, Kengor explains, with a long quote "from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states, 'The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of the moral vision for society. … In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.' "

So there must be some heavy-duty rationalizing at work to explain why "they are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade." (I'm not dealing with those who simply want a Democrat elected President.)

Kengor offers a very illuminating example of one man who at least addresses the abortion issue. This guy concedes that he "may disagree" with Obama "on aspects of these important fundamentals," but nonetheless is "convinced, based upon his [Obama's] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of views and, as best as is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them."

In other words, I like his smile, so what if he is a force behind FOCA, which would undo with the stroke of a pen decades of pro-life achievements? Obama doesn't raise his voice, so what if he would allow abortion survivors to die unattended? He gives me goose pimples, so what if pro-abortion justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg--the kind that would allow partial-birth abortions--are Obama's ideal?

Kengor is right that there are psychological mechanisms (and rationalizations) aplenty at work, allowing even some who would proudly call themselves "pro-life" to wiggle out of the obvious contradictions.

We need to keep the Truth Squad working 24/7, not for these people, alas, but for those who may be influenced by them. One important component is Today's News & Views.
Be sure to pass this edition on to friends, family, and colleagues. And also, please encourage them to sign up to receive this daily feature.

Please Think This One Through

Joe Carter:

Today, the term shibboleth is used to refer to a word or phrase that can be used to distinguish members of a group from outsiders. It can also be used to refer to customs, practices, or cultural touchstones that identify a person as being a member of a particular group.

For example, I have my own shibboleth that I used to identify members of the class, Civilized Human Beings. I call it the infanticide shibboleth. Opposing the blatant killing of human infants is admittedly a low bar of entry. But I figure you have to start somewhere.

Regrettably, the current Democratic nominee for President may not meet this minimal standard.

Of course most people--including Senator Obama--would say they oppose infanticide. This is why it would be necessary to present them with a test. For instance, I would ask them to read this description of the procedure known as "intact dilation and extraction", commonly referred to as "partial-birth abortion." I would also ask them if they thought that a baby that had survived a late-term abortion should be killed after it was outside the mother's womb.

After asking those questions I would gauge their reaction. If they recoiled in horror at the mere mentions of such actions I would warmly welcome them as fellow Civilized Human Beings. But how should I classify the moral prevaricators who would attempt to justify such atrocities? And what about a politician who voted in favor of protecting partial-birth abortion and voted against protecting born-alive infants?

Read the whole thing.

Abortion Debate

Amy Hall from Str.org reports:

I attended an abortion debate between Nadine Strossen (head of the ACLU) and Scott Klusendorf (President of Life Training Institute) at Cal Poly last week. Since they had debated a couple of times before, I knew Nadine was familiar with Scott's arguments, and I looked forward to hearing her address those arguments. Unfortunately, it didn't quite turn out that way.

Read the whole thing here.

Here is a news report on the debate. May the Church have humble and compassionate arguments like Scott's to interact with the culture. I guess this assumes that we actually know and love people who believe that abortion is right. Do we?

Just Make An Informed Decision This Election

JT reports:

Every evangelical should watch the first 10 minutes or so of this speech by Barack Obama, delivered to Planned Parenthood in July 2007. It is an impassioned defense of partial-birth abortion.

Note carefully:

"This is what is at stake in this election."

"It is time to write a new chapter in American history."

"I have worked on these issues for decades now."

"This election is not just about playing defense, it's about playing offense. It's not just about defending what is, it's about creating what might be in this country."

"On this issue, I will not yield."

Logical Flow Sinks Obama

Dr. Doug Groothuis:

1. Obama says he doesn't know the status of the unborn.

2. Obama, therefore, supports abortion on demand as do all good Democrats today. It is an item of (bad) faith for them.

3. If one does not know the status of the unborn, one should be conservative and protect that unborn living, human being, which, if left alone, will develop into someone just like us. (One cannot dispute that the fetus is a living human, even if one has--unjustifiable--qualms about personhood.) Because the stakes are so high, the benefit of doubt should be given to the human life; the burden of proof should be on the life-taker.

4. Obama, on the contrary, thinks that his ignorance justifies the ongoing killing of well over a million innocent humans a year without any legal restriction.

5. This reveals Obama to be morally incompetent at the deepest possible level. If he cannot see the truth at this level, why expect him to recognize it elsewhere--just because he has a good speaking voice? His supposed concern for "the poor and oppressed" is given the lie. Who is more oppressed than the aborted unborn today?

Gospel Love and The Horror of Abortion

Yesterday I met with a friend who told me a troubling story. A lifelong friend of his had gotten pregnant. This gal was like a sister to him. She told him she was pregnant and was thinking of abortion. He tried to reason with her and even told her that if she gave birth to the child, he and his wife would adopt it. A few days later he got a text from her saying that she went ahead and terminated the child. My friend was utterly heart-broken and asked to meet with me to help him think through this tragedy. How should he proceed in his relationship with his friend in light of this horror that she committed? Here is what we talked about:

1. Some time and space from your friend for the purpose of grieving might be wise, healthy and necessary. In the face of such a complex situation emotionally, sometimes a little distance is good for the sake of healing and prayer. Emotional flooding can lead to confusion in our thinking in light of the pain of a situation like this.

2. We can't expect non-Christians to act like Christians. Should we appeal to them and reason with them to do what is right? Surely. But we should not be surprised when unbelievers act out of pure selfishness as opposed to understanding that "it is more blessed to give than receive" (Acts 20:35). May we do our battling on our knees in prayer as we ask God to remove a selfish heart that desires to kill for the sake of convenience and replace it with a heart that loves to serve in light of how Jesus served. Our reasoning can only go so far. Sin is never reasonable or rational. Though we should seek to reason with people in light of God's word, we should not be surprised when they forsake it. Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead and hated him for it.

Thus we have to start with the gospel with unbelievers and not with asking them to stop sinning. Unregenerate people are doing just what comes naturally to them. Thus, we can't ask them to get cleaned up and then come to Jesus. This is pure legalism. We ask them to see their need for a Savior and then we trust his Holy Spirit to "clean them up" after they are united to Him by faith in his work on their behalf.

3. The pain of this experience gives us a front and center window into the gospel. The Bible does not say that Christ loved us when we did all the right things and followed the law of God perfectly. What does the Bible say? "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). So if we are going to love like God loves we have to love in the face of horrific sin. Did not God do the same with us? Forgiveness and love are certainly costly and uncomfortable. Those descriptors would be an understatement when it comes to crucifixion. If we want to follow Jesus, should we not expect gospel-centered loving to be costly and painful as well?

So we move forward with a tear-filled and broken, yet prayful and hopeful heart remembering that we too would be selfish and murderous if not for the grace of God in our lives. Read what Paul says here to the church in Corinth:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

"Such were some of you" rings loudly in my head as we come face to face with the gospel in this situation. May God's grace to us inform how we love those who are far from him.

On the Abortion "Art" at Yale

Steve at str.org blog writes:

The saga I described on Friday included a new episode over the weekend. Yale University, frustrated that Aliza Shvarts won't recant on the truthfulness of her abortion-as-art senior project, has decided that either she must say the whole thing is a performance art fiction or she can't display the project.

This is a curious demand. If abortion doesn't kill a human being, what could possibly be wrong with Shvart's project? It's a bit crude, I suppose, but with all of the other things that pass as art these days, it seems odd to exclude abortion from the mix. If someone were displaying the tissue that was removed during their liposuction surgery, people would recoil, but I doubt the university would censor it.

And if Yale is censoring this project because abortion kills a human being, and Shvart's art may have included that sort of killing (she claims one point of her project was to be ambiguous about this), then is Yale willing to follow that logic and discourage all Yale students from getting abortions? Why is Yale so concerned about such a small-scale abortion operation as Shvarts's when the Yale Medical Center Family Planning Department teaches doctors to perform abortions and appears to offer abortions as a service?

So, the question remains: Why is Yale censoring the Shvarts art?

Regardless of the answer, I contend that the situation continues to create a good opportunity to begin a dialogue on abortion with common ground. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, don't most people agree that Shvarts's art project is not a good reason for abortion? Once we have agreed that we think abortion shouldn't be used as art, we're ready to discuss why.

See Common Ground Without Compromise for 25 other topics you can use to build common ground in order to discuss abortion effectively.