Sure, he’s inspiring. Yes, he offers hope and change. I’m not sure what it is we’re supposed to hope in or exactly what kind of change he wants — he’s big on generalities, not so much on specifics, like they all are — but we’re supposed to believe in him, believe that he is the man to get us there, the man to lead our nation to an unprecedented era of opportunity.
Thing is, at least some of Barack Obama’s ideas of change aren’t exactly what I would call hopeful. Some are calling him the “most pro-abortion candidate ever.” And with good reason. As Terence Jeffrey says in a column on townhall.com:
He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”
Read the whole column to get a better idea of the issue. Obama did not support a bill that would provide protections to a child who survived an “induced labor abortion.” Other ardent abortion protectors supported a similar bill in Congress because it provided protections to Roe v. Wade. These other Democrats at least drew a line, however arbitrary, that they wouldn’t cross. Obama did not, and he knew exactly what he was doing:
“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
He gets it. If we call a fetus a child, then we can’t abort it. It’s protected. He just refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a person. He should read this book. One other question: If a fetus is just a blob of cells, and not actually a person, why do people call abortion a difficult personal choice with emotional consequences? If an embryo is only a bunch of cells, an abortion should be exactly the same as having a wart removed. Not many people struggle with that kind of decision.
I’ve always been against abortion, of course, but the more I think about it lately, the more the evil of it strikes me. Human life is sacred, not because of a few lucky breaks that made it so, not because of a built-in instinct for survival, but because it’s made in the image of a holy God. His imprint is on each new embryo that’s formed in a mother’s womb.
Obama (and others) want people to have the choice to destroy those embryos. Is this really the kind of change we need?