Prometheus 6

Good and evil and Obama
To the Democrat, it's OK to act on a religious conviction if it serves a liberal cause.
Jonah Goldberg
August 19, 2008

So...is it NOT okay to act on a religious conviction if it serves a liberal cause?

For Obama the politician, such scriptural quotations often serve as an all-inclusive writ to impose his religious views on others when it comes to fighting poverty, global warming, racism, etc.

I can't believe someone arguing against reproductive rights would have the balls to make that statement. Though, come to think of it, most folks who actively campaign against reproductive rights are naturally endowed with them.

But when the question turns to abortion, political Obama insists on a policy of moral agnosticism and political laissez faire. Asked directly when life begins as a legal matter, he punted, insisting the answer was "above my pay grade."

First: yes, he punted. However he was not asked when life begins as a legal matter. He was asked when life begins. That's not even a subtle difference.

At Saddleback, Obama offered the ritualistic support for Roe vs. Wade expected of all Democratic politicians, "not because I'm pro-abortion" but because women "wrestle with these things in profound ways."

Now, this is surely true in a great many instances. But political Obama isn't inclined to explain why "wrestling" with a serious moral question is an adequate substitute for deciding it correctly. People wrestle with all sorts of moral quandaries in "profound ways," but that is not enough. Many slave owners wrestled with whether they should free their slaves, but that did not obviate the need for the Emancipation Proclamation.

I would like to see evidence that enough of them wrestled with the idea of freeing slaves to characterize them as "many." Proportionately you didn't have very many non-slave owners against the idea. 

Besides, that supports an argument to protect womens' rights better than an argument to curtail them.

Goldberg is one step removed from the absurd equivalency Conservatives want to draw between slavery and abortion.

In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Obama received a statement from Jill Stanek, a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. She testified that at her Chicago-area hospital, she'd seen a baby accidentally delivered alive during an abortion and then "taken to the Soiled Utility Room and left alone to die." ...

Alas, the abandonment of babies to suffer and die on the modern equivalent of a Spartan cliff did not require confronting evil. Indeed, Obama led the battle to defeat Illinois' version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have treated babies living, albeit briefly, outside the womb as, well, babies.

Because the law was unnecessary. Assuming Ms. Stanek isn't a liar (something it is NOT safe to assume when you're dealing with Conservatives that disagree with public opinion), who can doubt what she claims to have seen is illegal? Who can doubt she should have reported it at the time?

Who can help but wonder why Goldberg is so stupid today?

I'm no expert on the Christian Gospel

Oh.

That explains it.