President Obama speaking at the Newtown prayer vigil on December 16, 2012
President Barack Obama was the keynote speaker during the prayer vigil in Newtown, Connecticut last night. While I appreciated the President’s compassionate speech for the families and community of Newtown, I could not help but consider his words valuable and applicable to all children, both born and pre-born.
Some Christians and pro-lifers do not believe this is an appropriate time to address the issue of abortion, and the evil tragedy on December 14 should especially not be used in the conversation about abortion. While I do believe great care, concern, and wisdom must be employed when speaking of this delicate issue, the tragedy in Connecticut speaks to the vulnerability of all children, whether born or pre-born.
As I watched President Obama speak at the prayer vigil last night, I immediately concluded he was writing the following Whitehouse Petition for us. The abbreviated petition (full version below) is posted at We the People: Your Voice in Our Government and is waiting for you to sign your name for the immediate abolition of abortion.
The We the People website states,
The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response…To cross the second threshold and require a response, a petition must reach 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
With your help, we can significantly exceed the 25,000 signature requirement by January 16, 2013, just a few days before the Presidential Inauguration on January 21 and the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22.
We pray that President Obama will be consistent and God will open his eyes to the tragic death of over 3,600 babies slaughtered at abortions mills everyday in the United States of America. We also pray for President Obama’s salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he will lead this nation in the fear of the Lord.
Read it. Sign it. Spread it. Everywhere: WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Immediately Abolish the Legalized Murder of Pre-born Children
We Demand that President Obama be Consistent with his Call to Protect All Children
During the Newtown, Connecticut prayer vigil that took place on December 16th, President Barack Obama gave the following address to the families of this community who tragically lost 27 loved ones, including 20 children, to the evil act of mass murder. We stand with President Obama in his love and support for these families, as well as his call to protect all children from evil and harm.
We, therefore, call for the immediate abolition of legalized murder of pre-born children, who are persons made in the image of God, who deserve to be protected and given, as President Obama stated, “the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose.” We also agree with President Obama that our nation is not doing enough and these tragedies must end; and in order to combat our culture of death, we as a nation must change, or we will be judged for the 54 million deaths of pre-born children by abortion since 1973.
The following are statements made by President Obama on the evening of December 16th:
“…And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.
“This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
“And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?
Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?
“Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?
“Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
“I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change…
“…We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.
“We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this…
“…If there is even one step we can take to save another child…then surely we have an obligation to try…
“…Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?
“Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom…?
“…We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that…” (full transcript here)
We agree with President Obama and demand the total abolition of all practices of abortion without exception. This is not a political issue, but a moral responsibility to protect and care for all children, born or pre-born.
We believe abortion is the most vicious act of dehumanization and oppression ever practiced in human history. We do not believe that the planned-and-paid-for-murder of an unborn human being is ever morally justified. Abortion is never the right choice, never the only option, and never the best solution to any situation.
Jesus Christ called us to care for the weakest members of our society, not abandon them to destruction. Children conceived in rape and incest deserve our protection and adoption. Children diagnosed with serious developmental abnormalities deserve our compassion and assistance. We are to care for the fatherless and the infirm, not abandon them to violence at the hands of well-paid strangers.
We believe that allowing abortion in some cases along the way to its abolition in all cases is neither strategically sound nor consistently Christian. You cannot abolish abortion by allowing it to continue or pretend that it is justified in some cases. You cannot abolish abortion by compromising with the culture of death that undergirds its approval. Any strategy for ending abortion in this country which allows for the continued occurrence of some abortions for the sake of outlawing the rest, though seemingly pragmatic and deceptively promising to be effectual, is just that: compromise. Like the abolitionists of old who stood their ground and bellowed, “No compromise with slavery!” we declare: “NO COMPROMISE WITH ABORTION.”
We will be silent when abortion is abolished. A//∀
Additional Resources:
Weeping with Those Who Weep – a firsthand response from Newtown
How Does Jesus Come to Newtown?
Rachel Weeping for Her Children – the Massacre in Connecticut
Perverted Love, Sex, and Abortion
airō 
Tammy
December 19, 2012
I am horrified by this article. The families in Newtown are mourning the loss of their brutally murdered children. It is cruel and insensitive to make this tragedy about abortion.
Justin Edwards
December 19, 2012
The article did not make the evil massacre of Newtown about abortion, Tammy, the article highlights the urgency to stop additional massacres from happening. Are you horrified about 3,600 babies being barbaricly tortured every day in America? Please read this: https://airocross.com/2012/12/19/exposing-the-hypocrisy-of-the-culture-of-death/
S
January 16, 2013
“Horrified,” you say? “Brutally murdered children,” you say? “Cruel and insensitive, ” you say? We who are cognizant that right now dozens of babies in their mother’s womb are being in some way made to die are the ones who are truly horrified! In fact, we are horrified that you and doubtless others like you are supposedly horrified that we are horrified at the horrifying slaughter of 6 week and 6 month old children, some of whom doubtless were being horrifically slaughtered while Lanza was slaughtering the 6 year olds! We moral don’t have to “make this targedy about abortion” — it already is! What is “cruel and insensitive” is that you would venture to deny the targetted and already slaughtered of human abortion the same right to life that those poor born children of Sandy Hook Elementary also had! It is “cruel and insensitive” that you would attempt to make us who mourn the victims of abortion along with the Sandy Hook murdered to appear to be the odd ones and guilty of aberration. I don’t think your misguidedness poured forth upon us will dissuade any who really understands what is going on, anyhow, thankfully.
jchocutt
December 21, 2012
great article and I pray the petition gets 25k votes….
Linda
December 21, 2012
I believe the article is pertinent NOW. Obama can shed a tear or two for children being massacred along with adults but he is dessicated from any tears when it comes to promoting the murder of unborn babies? Come on where’s the TEARS for our CHILDREN OBAMA? I can’t stand such hypocrisy!
Robert Hopkins
December 21, 2012
Here’s a question Tammy. Why is it that when someone on the right asks a valid question during this time it’s “horrible and insensitive?” And yet, the blood hadn’t evened cooled on the ground before President Obama and the entire left wing started pressing the need for gun control legislation. But somehow they’re showing “initiative and leadership?” I’m confused. If one side can use this tragedy as a means to push their own agenda why can’t the other?
S
January 16, 2013
Very, very good observation, Robert Hopkins! Very good! Indeed, “the blood hadn’t even…cooled on the ground…” before the duplicious began demonizing guns in general and thus at once seeking to rob us of the basic need of self defence. And yet we, who are arguing for the lives of the pre-born, are the ones who are “cruel and insensitive.” Very good observation!
Linda
December 21, 2012
Tammy go to http://www.silentscream.org/index.html –go down and click on where it says “CLICK HERE FOR GRAPHIC VIDEO OF AN 11th WEEK ABORTION”. After you’ve watched the abortion performed IF you can stomach it, let us know, are these abortion tools any different than guns mowing down our children?
Linda
December 21, 2012
Oh, if it doesn’t work then lemme know and I’ll send you to my blog where you can watch.
piouseye
December 27, 2012
I found my way here from your abridged petition on whitehouse.gov (http://piouseye.ws/Tm5Edm). Your remarks above suggest no complexity or uncertainty in any case of “abortion,” so that even a “self-defense” exception is ruled out. I have in mind two hypothetical (but quite possible) cases of self-defense “abortion”; perhaps you could comment on them.
One such case would ostensibly involve a long shot attempt at premature delivery, but would be virtually guaranteed to yield the same results as abortion. The case I have in mind is one where a pregnant woman is certain or very likely to die if she brings a child to term, or just delays attempted delivery to some point later in pregnancy when her child’s survival would be more likely. Would you outlaw such self-defense pre-viability “delivery,” abortion in all but name, or leave it legal?
A second self-defense case would involve a woman who, because unable to get to a physician earlier in pregnancy (having been held by a kidnapper whose child she is carrying, for instance), has reached a point where failure to have an actual abortion (in name as well as in effect) will result in her certain or very probable death. Would you outlaw such self-defense abortion, or keep it legal?
I’m glad to see you calling attention to Obama’s hypocrisy on this issue, and I agree that calls for “rape and incest” exceptions are inconsistent with the pro-life belief that the pre-born are persons. I’m not comfortable giving up the self-defense exception, however, rare though situations to which it applies might be.
Justin Edwards
December 27, 2012
Thanks for your comment, piouseye. I believe this will adequately answer your question: https://airocross.com/2012/11/02/abortion-never-saves-a-womans-life/
I look forward to your response.
piouseye
December 27, 2012
Thank you for the response, Justin.
The older post you link to would seem to answer that you would not consider my first hypothetical “abortion,” and so would not outlaw it, since it would only qualify as a “risk” to the life of the pre-born child in the attempt to preserve the mother’s life. The point of the hypothetical, however, was that in some cases the level of “risk” could rise to the point of near-certain-death of the pre-born child. In such a case, would you leave the “risk” legal, or outlaw it as abortion-in-all-but-name? If you would leave it legal, would you place any limit on permissible risk to the pre-born child? If so, what would that limit be?
Given the long history of death of women during pregnancy and during the birth process, it’s hard for me to believe anyone is claiming that every woman capable of getting pregnant is necessarily capable of carrying her child to viability without endangering her life. If medical science has indeed advanced to the point where a baby may be delivered early enough in pregnancy to preserve the life of every mother regardless of health issues, then I’m surprised but pleased to learn so.
I don’t believe your response or the older post you link to (or the “keep abortion illegal in Ireland” video you’ve embedded in the older post) addresses my second hypothetical. Admittedly, it would only apply if a woman were somehow very likely or certain to die in any delivery attempt, whether normally (at term or induced prematurely) or by Caesarean section, but I do not have the medical expertise to be comfortable claiming “that could never happen.”
The self-defense exception I’m unwilling to give up would only apply if there really were a case of self-defense; if no real case ever involved self-defense, then the exception could never be invoked. I would still want the exception specified in the law “just in case.” Since you rule that out, I’m unable to sign you petition, though I mostly agree with your perspective.
piouseye
December 27, 2012
Correction: “your petition,” not “you petition.”
Justin Edwards
December 27, 2012
Thanks for the follow-up, David. My position is that it is never morally acceptable in accordance to God’s law to murder a human being. I think any notion of a “self-defence” clause suggests the baby is actually attacking the mother and she must then defend herself against the baby. All of these hypotheses and other propaganda are just ploys to keep all abortion legal (not that you are propagandizing). The bottom line, God fearfully and wonderfully creates each child in the womb in His own image, and we have a holy responsibility to do everything possible to protect and save mother and child, even if one perishes at the attempts to save the life. There is no biblical support to murder one human to save the life of another.
Kyle E
January 7, 2013
I found my way here from the whitehouse.gov petition. There are so many things wrong with this page that I don’t know where to begin.
First of all, I find it disgusting that you’re using the tragedy that recently happened in Newtown to further your political agenda on abortion.
Second, are you really in favor of getting rid of abortion entirely? You say “We agree with President Obama and demand the total abolition of all practices of abortion without exception.” Even in cases of rape, in cases of incest, in cases where there is a danger posed to the mother? If you, a family member, a close friend were raped, would you really force upon them the burden of carrying that baby to term?
Third, your petition shows a complete misunderstanding of how the government works. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that during the first trimester, women have an inalienable right to an abortion. NOBODY except the Supreme Court itself can overturn a SCOTUS decision.
Fourth, all of your arguments on the morality of abortion stem from “God’s law”. Your points of view not only show a complete lack of understanding of the concept of church & state, but also propose a “my beliefs are better than your beliefs” ideal. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by President John Adams. The US is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.
I would appreciate it if somebody would give me a contrasting opinion to mine as I’m interested in discussing this issue. Deleting this comment would simply continue to validate my opinions.
Justin Edwards
January 7, 2013
Hi Kyle, I am glad you are here and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Before I answer your questions, I think it’s important to establish if we are speaking the same language. Once I hear back from you, I’ll be able to better answer your questions:
1) Is the baby in your second paragraph a person?
2) Does absolute truth exist?
piouseye
January 7, 2013
Kyle E: Not to interrupt your dialog with Justin, but I grappled with the “cases of rape” issue in a post on my site about the Akin controversy (August 2012): http://piouseye.com/eyesite/2012/08/akin-and-achin-for-the-unborn/. I’d be happy to get your thoughts on that post once you wrap things up here. It seems to me that rape, incest, and danger to the mother are very different cases needing to be debated separately (note my earlier discussion with Justin, above, my side of which is reproduced with some commentary at http://piouseye.com/eyesite/2012/12/abortion-dialog-concerning-preserve-the-life-of-the-mother-exception/).
Concerning the church/state question, I note that the philosophy underlying our nation’s founding documents, and so the foundation of our legal system, was a “natural law” or “natural rights” doctrine that saw such rights as the right to life as inherent in human individuals by their nature (that nature with which they were “endowed by their Creator,” the nature that made them individuals of the human type rather than of some other type). Whether or not you agree with the doctrine, it is the doctrine underlying this nation’s founding documents and in terms of which those documents (the basis of U.S. law) must be interpreted. Because the moral law in Scripture was generally perceived by our Founders as comporting with this doctrine, even the Deists among them can be found making positive reference to “God’s Law” in the Bible and lauding use of the Bible’s moral precepts to guide both private conduct and public lawmaking. (A good review of the implications of “natural law/natural rights” for lawmaking may be found in Geisler and Turek’s text, Legislating Morality, http://piouseye.ws/XEPRu1.)