1797 Hwy 72 W, Clinton, SC 29325
A Reformed Fellowship
July 2: The Lord’s Supper–morning service;
Extended Session: lunch following morning worship
with afternoon session beginning @ 1:15.

President Obama: affirming the indefensible

It is distressing to be led by ungodly leaders, especially when they consistently pronounce as good that which is evil. President Obama continues to do so, as illustrated in his recent affirmation of a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her unborn baby:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Notice the President’s argument. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision affirmed “that government should not intrude on private family matters.” The ending of an unborn child’s life is a “private family matter.” What if the baby were brought home and the mother decided that there was more involved in caring for this child than she had anticipated? She had thought she could continue her college education without too much of a problem, but now she realizes she had miscalculated. This is “a private family matter,” right? Why is it now suddenly government’s matter to say that taking the life of a two-week old baby is murder, but the government blesses the taking of a two-month old unborn baby’s life?

The President calls this “a woman’s right to choose.” To choose what, Mr. President? Please complete that infinitive phrase? To choose what? To choose to end the life of her unborn child. Then again, putting it that way sounds much less innocuous than simply saying “a woman’s right to choose.”

The President informs us that a woman’s having an abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right.” A fundamental constitutional right? Something fundamental would be spelled out, right? Not only does the Constitution not explicitly affirm a woman’s right to end the life of her unborn child, it does not even imply it. There was never, to my knowledge, a document written in the latter 1700’s concerning the Constitution which even discussed the idea that having an abortion is a legitimate right. Put quite simply, such a notion was unthinkable.

The final sentence in the President’s quote almost defies description: “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” Again the President makes an illogical statement based on unmitigated emotion. The lives of our sons are not detoured by bearing a child, so evidently neither should the lives of our daughters. If we want equality, why don’t we make the biological father really accountable for his actions? Why must the unborn child pay the price for selfish pleasure of others.

The taking of the life of an unborn baby, unless the physical life of the mother is unquestionably jeopardized, is murder. Those who seek it and those who agree to it, as well as doctors and abortion clinic owners who profit by it, have blood on their hands. Do not legislators who approve and defend abortion on demand have blood on their hands? Does not a president who defends abortion have blood on his hands? Does not an America which refuses to raise its voice about the barbarism of a “woman’s right to choose” have blood on its hands?