- Posted by Christopher on August 14, 2008
It's a good thing that Mary was pro-life, huh? But if you believe Marc Hill, a professor of Urban Studies at Temple University (can't you taste the Irony? I'd say it tastes like chicken, but someone would call that a racial slur since Dr. Hill is probably black, but I digress...), Jesus Himself would not only support Obama, he would be more even radical in his abortion views:
O'REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?
HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.
O'REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, "Partial-birth abortion: No problem"?
HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are --
O'REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?
HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues.
Oooookay. Well, then.
You'll notice that they aren't talking about Choice here, but about abortion. There's a difference. I was made a strong case (in my opinion) that Joseph Smith (the Mormon Prophet) actually could have been pro-choice on the grounds that he taught, "we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" and that without the option to choose evil, they dont' actually choose good. If you understood Mormon/LDS theology, you'd know that "agency" or the freedom to choose right over wrong is central to our faith. That is, if you offer a man nothing but health food then you can't say that he chose to eat well because he had no choice. But that is the issue of choice. My point was that he may well have been more Libertarian.
But Obama and Hill aren't talking about choice here. They are talking about specific actions not being wrong. Can you see the difference? I believe that conspicuous consumption and opulence is morally wrong, is bad for society and is in itself an evil practice. But I don't believe (like liberals) that the government has any right to take that choice away from me. But by the same token, I don't think that the right to consume and financially succeed gives the wealthy or the capitalist the right to engage in economic slavery or discrimination based on anything that doesn't affect your ability to perform the job being offered. (Note my careful wording there. Sorry, feminazis and gay boys. You still shouldn't be able to force Hooters to hire ugly girls or men. Big breasts (not moobs) and a face that won't curdle milk are requirements for specific reasons. Those reasons may be sexist, disgusting and reprehensible, but you don't have to work there or eat there). The right of the wealthy ends when it infringes on the basic rights of someone else.
As I said, Obama and Hill aren't justifying it by saying they should be able to choose (evil). They are saying that it's a right of a woman, even if the "tissue-mass" is 90% delivered. Obama has argued in the IL senate that a doctor had no responsibility to treat an infant if it was born alive after an unsuccessful abortion. The doctor could literally throw the baby in a medical waste container without liability. His reasoning was that to permit this law would allow abortion to be restricted. As I said, it's not about choice, it's about permitting abortions.
Apparently, Hill thinks Jesus would be just fine with that. That's natural for Hill to assume that, because Obama can do no wrong. If Barry said it, Jesus would go along with it.
And Barack looked over the multitudes, the scribes and the publicans, the physicians and the scholars and said unto them, "Behold, render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's and render unto a woman that which she bears. Yea, though she has conceived, what hath she done, really? Can a woman create life unto herself? I say, nay, for God only creates life. But a woman she creates nothing save more of herself. Yea, though her conception has a beating heart, a working brain, and eyes that can see, it hath no soul and is not alive. Verily, I say unto you, it hath not life until it hath left the woman. Though her conception can breath and is but a moment from birth, it is still part of the woman. Behold, no man can serve two masters and no body can house two lives. Can a woman kill a part of herself? Nay.
Barack 2:18-21
Fortunately, no claim can go untested these days and Dave Pierre at NewsBusters literally destroys any notion that Jesus, being a Jew, would ever have supported abortion and offers a multitude of contemporary writings to back that up.
First-century Jews were unequivocally anti-abortion. (Note to Dr. Hill: Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.) For example:
-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."
-- The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who "produce
abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as
sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.
There is more and well worth reading.