eRevolution.us: No to Obama: Reason 1 of 5

If you’re wishing you had better options this election cycle, you’re not alone. But we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt, so I’ll offer the official eRev commentary on things. As always, I hope you’ll leave helpful comments to assist all of us web browsers make the best decision about the future of America.

Reasons NOT to elect Barack Obama: Part 1 of 5

He lacks moral convictions on the issue that matters most: human rights.

At the Saddleback Forum, Obama was asked a straightforward question: “At what point does a baby receive human rights?” His answer – complete with characteristic hemming, hawing and “uhhhh, uhhh” was that issue was “above my pay grade.” (McCain, when asked the same question, replied directly, “At the moment of conception.”)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html

Now, regardless of your personal stand on abortion issues, consider carefully what Obama did, and what he didn’t do.

He did dodge the question, recognizing that most Americans do not share his radical pro-abortion views.*

What he didn’t do was stand up for what he believes in – abortion on demand. Why would a future president not offer an opinion on this most basic question? As a conservative, I was surprised he would take me for such a fool. If I were a liberal, I would have been disappointed that he could not forcefully articulate something—anything—in response to such an important question.

If Obama is afraid to tell the truth about himself in a friendly discussion with an American pastor, how will he react at the bargaining table with Middle Eastern dictators, or Communist bosses, or hostile world leaders? How can we trust that he will stand up for human rights, when such issues are “above his pay grade?” And how can he stand up for something that he cannot even define?

Here’s why I contend that his answer demonstrates a lack of core moral convictions:

IF Obama told the truth about his beliefs (that babies do not receive human rights until they are born AND wanted by their mother), he would lose the election.

IF Obama were to lie, and offer a “pro-life” sounding answer, he would lose his funding from the left and, thus, lose the election.

So, what did Obama do, when a moral conviction threatened his political career? He jettisoned his beliefs and offered an insulting non-reply.

* The reason I refer to Obama’s abortion views as “radical” is that he goes much farther in his support for abortion than the average Democrat. Three times in his state Senate career, he sought to protect doctors who kill born-alive babies that survive abortion attempts. Killing a baby who is outside of the womb, breathing and crying, is not “abortion,” it is “infanticide.” The Obama campaign has made this issue into a battle of “interpretation” – forgetting that killing children is not really a “what-I-meant-to-say-was” issue. Ask yourself, as an American – Republican or Democrat – if you had a chance to protect the life of a living, breathing baby – would you do it? If so, then your value system differs substantially from Barack Obama’s – who voted “no” to such protections, fearing that they might hamper unrestricted abortion rights.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html