Barak Obama on Abortion
In this chilling video, Barak Obama exposes himself as a zealous defender of the woman’s “right” to have an abortion – i.e. the supposed “right” to kill another person who lives in her womb. What is perhaps most sickening about this is Senator Obama’s perversion of the American heritage of liberty to justify this wickedness. However, if Senator Obama would bother to actually read Thomas Jefferson’s words in the American Declaration of Independence, he would find that abortion is the precise opposite of historic American ideals of liberty. The Declaration states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Now before all you hard-core Calvinists start complaining that this is humanism, it is not. The Colonists recognised that the rights of man came not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God the Creator – therefore man’s rights are inalienable (the reference to being created equal refers to equality before the law, not modern egalitarianism). And one of the rights of man is a right to life. No man may take the life of another – including that of an unborn infant – unless commanded by God in warfare or capital punishment. So although Senator Obama may be presenting himself as some sort of Libertarian, he is in reality promoting a tyrant state which will not protect the fundamental rights and liberties of those who cannot defend themselves (i.e. the unborn).
August 15, 2008 at 12:57 am
Daniel,
Thanks for this post. What a wicked man, this Obama really is! You were right this video is indeed ”chilling”. I wonder how many in the parties here hold similar ‘convictions’ that we just do not know about yet?
August 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Dear Daniel,
thank you for posting this video. It is just yet another sign of the sin-sick age we are living in.
However, I would like to point out that the traditional ‘libertarian’ view on abortion is that it violates the non-aggression principle and the principle of ’self-ownership’, and hence has to be opposed. Do you have another view on that?
Thomas
August 16, 2008 at 4:18 am
I am a bit confused on how Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is a Christian standard, or even inalienable?
-We earned death through the fall.
-Bondage to sin and misery.
-And for the 3rd one… who knows how the Bible could support that one? I am sure that they are not thinking in a Westminster Shorter Q/A 1 sense of happiness.
August 16, 2008 at 8:16 am
Nate
Sadly, this is the confusion created by the pietistic-antinomian Calvinism that is trumpeted by Banner of Truth et al. People in these kind of circles are fond of saying things like “Man has no rights”, but this is only a half-truth. Man has no rights before God, however man does have rights before OTHER MEN. For example, if you have no rights, then there is nothing to stop me from lifting an axe and chopping your head off. However, the Bible does recognise that you have a civil right not to have your life unjustly taken away by other men, even though through Adam’s transgression we all earned death through the fall, but only God has the right to determine when a person should die – not the State. Again, if we have no right to liberty, then there is nothing to stop people stealing all your property, locking you up in prison for no reason, interfering in your family etc, etc. Yet, since the Bible forbids these things, then you have the God-given right to private property, government of your family, and so on. You do have a civil right to these things, and it is only God’s prerogative to take them away. That is why Job said “The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord’, and not ‘The State gave, the State has taken away, blessed be the name of the State.’ Again, as for the third point about the pursuit of happiness, you do have the right to pursue happiness under God, and no man has the right to interfere – that is why it is an inalienable right.
August 17, 2008 at 12:33 am
Daniel:
Thanks for the clarification on those matters. I have never looked at them as rights before other men- only as rights before God. Of course, as you stated, if they are rights before God then you have no ‘rights’; but there is something there when looking man to man at them.
As for the rhetoric against the Banner, Westminster, etc. I am not sure that is very helpful in the discussion (or in any). Banner and Westminster really held the banner for the reformed faith in a time when even the best reformed denominations were slipping into social gospel and/or hypercalvinism or moralism. The Lord really used both of these groups to sustain the Reformed faith and helped to purify her to some degree.
I wonder about the Banner and how much influence it had in reviving the RPCNA? My guess is that there are many many people (like myself) who are in churches like the RP because of the influence of Banner.
Thanks again for the clarification. Have a good Lord’s Day.
August 17, 2008 at 8:18 am
Nate
Thanks for your comments. While it is true that Banner and Westminster Seminary have done much good, they have presented a truncated version of the Reformed faith which has not enabled it to be salt and light in the world; doctrinal orthodoxy is NOT enough, if we are not salt and light, then we are only fit to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men.
And let’s not forget, I came to Reformed views myself through reading Iain Murray’s books. However, I have become increasingly disillusioned with cloister Calvinism and the near-total impotence of the modern Reformed faith. It is a sad testimony that it is mostly non-Reformed Christians who are doing sending out missionaries and Bibles to the ends of the earth, building Christian schools, promoting Christian welfare agencies, etc, etc, while the Reformed spend most of their time in nit-picking debates over small matters.
August 19, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Every American President takes an oath before God to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Obama is a socialist and despises these very words of the Declaration of Independence. If elected he will uphold socialist principles and seek to strip the U.S. of its Constitution. What amazes me is that some who profess faith in Christ are voting for him because he wants to introduce change. Beware of any politician who promotes himself as a messiah wanting to introduce change. No godfearing person would every support this man as President. Obama claims to be a Christian but belongs to a denomination that rejects the authority of Scripure and all that it teaches. This man is certainly not a follower of Christ and should not be elected as President.
August 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Amen, Daniel to your last comment. I graduated from a seminary whose vision was cast by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy that men should be trained for ministry who believed in both the Great Commission and Cultural Mandate. Dr. Kennedy was not a theonimist but was a reconstructionist. Amazingly Gary Demar, George Grant and other theonomists have been working with Coral Ridge Ministries for years. He certainly led me to become a pastor who understands clearly the creation mandate. Ironically this view of the creation mandate led me to embracie post-millenialialism and reconstructionism.
August 20, 2008 at 5:16 am
[...] to kill another person who lives in her womb. What is perhaps most sickening about this is Senatorhttp://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/barak-obama-on-abortion/Declaration of Independence – Thomas Jefferson Library of Congress …This exhibition focuses on the [...]
December 7, 2008 at 11:34 pm
barack obama needs to look up abortion on the computer and see what they do to the babies, the babies need protection to. the devil is working over time to blind people.