Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Then Good-Will told Christian he would come to the house of the Interpreter...who would show him excellent things." from Pilgrim's Progress
Welcome, Pilgrim!
Who Am I?
What a portrait!
Who Am I Really?
International Man of Mystery
Sites I Check Everyday
Don't Mess with Me!
The Most Amazing Woman I've Ever Met
We have 21 years together and counting!
Books I'm Reading
- The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter, by Robert E. Wallace
- Augustine of Hippo, by Peter Brown
- Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg
- Homilies on the Statues, by John Chrysostom
- Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, by J.N.D. Kelly
Faith Bloggers
News Sites
Other Useful Links
Newspapers
The Whole Family
Outside Our Church Downtown
About Me
- Crutch
- I am a college professor of Biblical Studies. I enjoy thinking and writing about issues of faith and the interaction between a person's faith and the rest of life.
Followers
A Final Message from Dr. C
Thanks for stopping by. I'm new at this, so any helpful feedback is appreciated.
2 comments:
It paints an odd, almost in-human picture of Obama that I'm not sure is completely accurate.
Anyone who has ever read a single legislative bill knows that a person's simple "yes" or "no" or "present" vote cannot stand as that person's "position," especially on such a hugely divisive issue as abortion. Those bills are so long, so wordy, so convoluted that it happens all the time that a person will vote against a bill that actually promotes something they support.
There are a lot of reasons a person will vote against a bill that covers a topic they actually support. For example, even Ron Paul voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban. He's opposed to abortion so why would he vote against a ban on it? His answer: this is a state issue.
Obama is clearly pro-choice -- No question. But to look at his record in the way Jeffery did is simplistic and incomplete. Besides that, Obama has mostly voted "present" on pro-choice bills, not "no" or "yes." He has also been very vocal about mending ties with staunch pro-life conservatives such as on the Christian Broadcasting Network's story here:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/175180.aspx
Zac,
I see. So there may be multiple reasons - perhaps even "nuanced" reasons - why BO does not want to provide legal protection to a child born alive. I guess that makes me feel better about his interest in protecting human life.
Regarding BO's willingness to "mend ties with staunch [read "stubborn and intolerant"] pro-life conservatives," we pro-lifers have been trying to mend ties with pro-abortionists for years, but it is awfully difficult to reason with people who have abandoned reason for a radical political agenda.
I suspect BO is simply playing with words. He wants to appeal to both sides of an issue that allows for very little compromise. Does he want innocent human life protected or not?
Post a Comment