Print Friendly
View Comments

Comments:


126 thoughts on “Thank You, Mr. President, for These Pro-Life Marching Orders”

  1. Shayne McAllister says:

    Fantastic.

  2. Kathryn Stegall says:

    Thank you, Justin. I am reposting.

  3. Nathan says:

    I have two problems with this: First, it is taking words that were not about the issue being presented and making them about said issue. Can I do that with scripture? No, I cannot proof text scripture, therefore, one cannot take flashy video making and make people speak to an issue that they are not speaking about. Second, what does it say to the people affected in Newtown, that’s the speech being co-opted in this video, to make a video like this? It illustrates that what happened to you, the violence in your lives is no longer what is at issue. We are going to take what has happened to you, neglect to stand with you in your suffering, and co-opt the words of those seeking to speak comfort into your lives for our own agendas. Shame, shame on those who made this video, I am not making an anti pro-life statement. However, I am saying that one cannot co-opt rhetoric from wherever one so chooses and make it fit a purpose for which it was not intended because it defrauds those it was intended for, and that is what this video has done. Additionally, I ask another question to the pro-life agenda, If one is to be concerned for the sanctity of life should the death penalty be abolished, or is it only the sanctity of birth? Further if you want to curb the Abortion rate should you be giving more sexual education, teaching people what happens when you have sex and the responsibility that comes with it, instead of simply teaching that sex is bad and to be avoided at all costs until one is married? Maybe the pro-life movement is attacking a symptom instead of the real problem.

    1. Chad says:

      Come on Nathan… At least be honest. Of course you are an anti pro-life statement. The second half of your comment proves it.

      1. Nathan says:

        Chad,

        My comment does not state that I am not pro-life, I very much value the sanctity of life. However, I am also capable of remaining objective in a conversation., ie what I am doing here. That also gives me the ability to not take everything that comes from every camp as gospel truth, but to ask hard critical questions of arguments given by these camps.

      2. Melody says:

        As if what P. Obama says is scripture, instead of the ironic hypocritical words that they are.

        A right to kill in secret with a scalpel and suction machine is so much more honorable than a lethal injection of a mass murderer that has had a trial and jury of his peers. Not to mention many automatic appeals over the course of many years. Yet the pro-abortion people have a problem with a mandatory ultra-sound. A woman should at least have to face who she is putting to death.

        It’s a good video. A little too heavy on the smiling crowd scenes. Loses some of the impact with such a serious subject.

        1. Josh says:

          It is a common misconception to construe this false dichotomy of pro-life and pro-abortion. Let us be clear here. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion stance in the mainstream liberal/democratic ideologies (perhaps an odd, sadistic fringe group might be pro-abortion). It is called pro-choice because that is what it is. While many don’t push or advocate for women to do it, there are necessary reasons that it may need to happen. I keep thinking of the poor young woman in the Dominican who had leukemia and was denied a life saving abortion. Rather than having 1 of them live, a “pro-life” nation caused the unnecessary death of two. I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-abortion.

          1. J. Clark says:

            Josh, every abortion leaves 1 out of 2 dead. Do you also think about those poor, unprotected babies? Do you think about their unnecessary deaths? I’m sure you do since you are not really pro-abortion.

      3. Marin Stinca says:

        No, it doesn’t! The guy (Nathan)is perfectly right!

    2. David says:

      Normal proof-texting would entail a miscontrued context. But, in fact, this video gets the context of the President’s words as being about protecting children who were murdered because that’s a primary indicator for how the nation will be judged. Thus, such words should motivate the nation to stand up for children. The video shows the President’s words to support what his words DO support. Life for the youngest and most defenseless. The fault of his inconsistent political positioning and words remains entirely his own. (Please pray for the Obamas in these and other matters if you read this.)

    3. Chad says:

      Nathan,

      Comparing abortion to the death penalty is absurd. There is a huge difference between innocence and justice. It is ludicrous to think that pro-lifers should appose the death penalty when it is clearly put in place to bring justice to those having been found guilty of crime. You obviously can’t accuse or convict an unborn child of any crime so its a bad illustration at best.

      Secondly I take offense to your statement about sex education. As a conservative evangelical Christian I believe sex is a gift from God not only for pro-creation but for pleasure as well. I would in no way teach sex is bad to anyone. I would however give the cautions found in the Bible about how to handle sex. Sex can be a very emotionally damaging thing. That is why God has outlined his expectations for us about sex. The problem of abortion stems mostly from our inability to communicate to our children about sex properly. “Sex Education” today means you teach kids what it is, say that it’s ok to start doing it whenever they want as long as they use protection, hand them a condom, and send them on their way. You want to know why there are so many unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion? You want to know why men and women are raping and taking advantage of each other? You want to know why sex has become this casual thing you do when you want to? We have perverted the original intentions for sex. Thats why those things happen. That’s why we’re even talking about abortion at all.

      We have long forgotten the quote by John B Finch who first said “…your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.” We have a country full of men and women swinging their fists at a generation of children and abusing their civil right to life.

    4. George says:

      Only a fool cannot tell the difference between and unborn child and a convicted murderer.

      1. brian says:

        God must be a fool, then.

      2. Dustin Kunz says:

        That’s an ad hominem attack that fails to account for the variables at play.

        ____________________
        Only someone either ignorant of how capital punishment actually functions in this country or an outright racist AND economic elitist can uphold the death penalty because they think it’s “just” (and I mean that in an American usage, not anything vaguely resembling a biblical one).

        See, that’s an ad hominem attack I can prove.

    5. Ryan says:

      It’s not proof-texting; it’s irony to show the hypocrisy of one’s position. The same excellent principles Obama uses to condemn the Newtown tragedy apply exactly to the daily abortion tragedy.

      1. leigh anne says:

        well said Ryan!

    6. Devon says:

      Nathan, to whom are your questions directed? You make a very broad inquiry when you say “I ask another question to the pro-life agenda, If one is to be concerned for the sanctity of life should the death penalty be abolished, or is it only the sanctity of birth? Further if you want to curb the Abortion rate should you be giving more sexual education, teaching people what happens when you have sex and the responsibility that comes with it, instead of simply teaching that sex is bad and to be avoided at all costs until one is married?” I speak for myself and many others when I say that the sanctity of human life includes ALL life, not just the unborn. The pro-life movement make up a body. You have those that are the hands and the feet, those that are the eyes, those that are the mouth… We cannot do it all as individuals, but together we DO and will CONTINUE to make an impact against this injustice. I serve in a ministry where we do all in which you accused the pro-life movement of not doing. We provide sex education, parenting classes, community resources for parents, and referrals for adoption agencies if that is what the client desires. We have a holistic approach. So again, your questions are vague. This video is highly relevant for the simple fact it is HYPOCRITICAL of a president who supports the murder of innocent children, yet “sheds tears” at the murder of these beautiful children. There is no difference.

    7. Kat says:

      Nathan,

      I am pro-life and I agree with you. I have a very hard time understanding those who claim to be pro-life but are also anti-health care, anti-sex education, and pro death penalty! Who are we to determine whose life has value and whose does not?? (Especially if you are viewing this argument from the Christian perspective…all are sinners!)

      Your ministry sounds spectacular. In my humble opinion, providing education, resources, and other options, such as connections to adoption services, is more “pro life” than walking the streets with some type of condemning sign. Keep up the good work!

      1. Nathan says:

        Thanks Kat,

        I tend to operate from the perspective of no one will care what you have to say until they know how much you care. Far to often, in a very broad general sense, the Christian majority shouts at the top of its lungs about an issue but does nothing to deal with the symptoms that create that issue. Broken Windows theory says if you fix the symptoms then the end result will be fixed.

    8. Lizzy says:

      Nathan,
      In regards to what you said about this video pushing a political agenda, reconsider. 20 children died. It was sad, it was horrific, it was scary, and it horrified our nation. But what people fail to realize, or refuse to accept, is that millions of children die every day, and no one even cares. This video is not pushing a political agenda. The pro-life movement isn’t about politics, it’s an outcry against murder. This video is trying to make the point that Americans can be very hypocritical sometimes. Abortion is one of them. A little child is intentionally murdered outside the womb and the people cry out, as they should. But a little child is intentionally murdered inside, and the people support it. It’s wrong, and it’s unjust.
      I am not trying to demean what happened at Sandy Hook. I literally cried every time I heard about it on the news, and eventually stopped listening to the reports about it because it was so appalling to me. I have the utmost sympathy for those families who were affected.
      But this video makes the point that we should be just as outraged every day, even more so, because not just 20, but millions of children die.

      1. Dustin Kunz says:

        I just want us to be honest here: 3,288 children die per day in the United States (that stat come from the American Life League).

        Poor nutrition plays a significant role in the deaths of 10.9 million kids every year.

        Now, more to my own personal complaint:
        If a fraction of the people claiming Christ in the US alone adopted an unwanted child instead of voting *alone*, the world would be fresh out of adoptable orphans. THAT is a stat any pastor would love to share when a teen mother-to-be is in tears in his / office.

    9. George says:

      Nathan,
      I understand you are trying to be sensitive to the Newtown tragedy. But the point of this video is incredibly relevant to the horror of Sandy Hook. A nation that holds so little regard for human life creates tragedies like this. The President is right… this is a complex issue. But NO ONE in the government is talking about issues of life. They only want to regulate the “evil” guns. Why aren’t people willing to talk about the real evil. Our nation can try to explain away the horror by saying an inanimate object is the culprit. They are wrong… it is the evil that exists in the human heart. It is the evil of legislated approval of mass murder through abortion. It is the evil of failure to evenly enforce existing laws against criminal behavior.

    10. Morris says:

      Nathan. You are mistaken. It is not wrong to apply these words of the President, about one unspeakable horror to an even larger unspeakable horror (not a greater unspeakable horror, but larger). Can you not see the extreme irony of His remarks? He says he has been “reflecting”. He’d better do some more of that, he’s not done yet. Also — are you so dull that you cannot see a vast, vast difference between abortion — inflicted upon innocent life — and capital punishment by soceity upon a proven-guilty murderer? If you cannot see that, you are to be pitied.

      1. Dustin Kunz says:

        Can you tell the vast difference between a black man from a low income neighborhood and a white man from the middle class?

        Juries and sentencing judges can.

    11. Michelle says:

      Very well said Nathan, I agree with you completely!

  4. Scott Davis says:

    Nathan,
    I think that your first point is a valid one to consider. I too was troubled by listening to the President, who is without question the most pro-abortion president in our history, being used to promote a position that he neither holds nor was talking about. I assume the purpose of the video was to highlight the short-sidedness, at best, and hypocrisy at worst of his statements in view of life (i.e. we should value the life of children who made it out of the womb, but not the ones aborted).
    In my opinion, you weakened your concern by adding the remainder of your post. Your last points, rhetorical as they are, detracted from a potential good discussion on the first point.

    1. Nathan says:

      Scott,
      My overall point, regardless of Obama’s position, is that this video is a reprehensible use of rhetoric for a premeditated agenda, it should have never been made. If all the pro-life camp can do is co-opt language that has nothing to do with their agenda, and make it purpose their agenda, I question the validity of the agenda. However, I do think that the pro-life camp is very narrowly focused and is attempting to deal with a symptom of a larger problem, and the camp should attempt to focus upon what causes abortion, ie sex education, abstinence education cannot and must not be the only answer. If the church wishes to be effective in the “battle” against abortion the church must take a new approach to sex education. I am not saying that pushing for abstinence is wrong, what I am saying is it is not the only answer. The church must educate people about the effects of sex, and the fact that unprotected sex has a great chance of ending up in pregnancy. Marching for abortion, making it illegal, or any of the things the camp is attempting to do will not serve to help those who really struggle with the issue. The pro-life camp must get involved in education beyond abstinence, provide the tools for preventing pregnancy, do not expect everyone to subscribe to your way of thinking. The pro-life camp is expecting that everyone must think the same way that they do, and I do find that mode of reasoning to be absolutely hypocritical, especially when it comes to capitol punishment, or war. Where is the sanctity for human life there?

      1. Brian says:

        Nathan,
        Any responsible Bible teacher will never teach that “sex is bad” as you suggest. The Bible does not teach that sex is bad; it teaches rather that sex is a gift given to marriage. You are also arguing that the church needs to teach sex “education beyond abstinence.” The Bible teaches that sex within marriage is a good and gracious gift, but abstinence is the only option outside of marriage. Those who promote abstinence outside of marriage promote a biblical teaching. To require anything more would be to give in to the spirit of this age.
        Finally, while I have problems with the apparent racial biases that creep into our justice system, I agree wholeheartedly with Mike Miller’s distinction between abortion and capitol punishment. I also agree with his point that the maker of this video is using “irony” to show the distinctions between the President’s remarks on the Newtown shooting and his own rather public stance on abortion.

      2. David says:

        First, throughout your posts you construe pro-life camp to be an entirely political gathering. Are you suggesting you know who comprises the “camp” and that they are for the death penalty and war?

        Second, your supposed objectivity is nothing of the sort if God takes a stand in a matter. He’s not impressed by our ability to keep emotionally distant from something he emphatically hates or respects. Do you hate abortion?

        Third, do you really think education about sex is the root solution? Does that education consist almost entirely of Christian teaching on the matter or just a-moral explanation of observable cause-effect relationships?

        Fourth, what role do you think legislation plays in incentivizing behavior and industry-promotion?

        Fifth, should Christians only stand with people who agree with them in everything they believe, absolutely, in order to fight against reprehensible evil? For instance, was it righteous for Christian Americans to be involved in World War II efforts?

        1. Nathan says:

          1. No, I am simply asking the question, because of the connection between the “Religious Right” and the Pro-Life camp. I admit that I am being generalist here and it is a weakness in my argument.

          2. I do not think it is as simple as you are making it, nor do I think god is as simplistic as you are making him out to be.

          3. I think education is a better place to start than legislation. I think the church should teach both “moral, and or abstinence education, but also not be stupid enough to think that simply telling people to say “no” will fix the issue. Instead the church must talk about what happens if you have sex in a real way, not simply “spiritual.”

          4. The question makes one wonder what the role of the church is in society. Take for examples Niebuhr’s classifications in “Christ in Culture” Christ of Culture, Christ against Culture, Christ above Culture, or Christ Transforming Culture. My answer to your question reflects more of Stanley Hauerwas, meaning that the church lives by a different narrative, and as such cannot expect people who do not subscribe to its narrative to live by it. Therefore, I don’t think legislation is an answer to the problem, but the church offering other options, instead of seeking legislative change, what is the church doing to offer options to people who are seeking abortions, or are people to busy marching to do anything?

          5. No, Christian’s should look for commonalities with all groups of people, regardless of belief, however, at the same time they should be willing to have conversations about hard issues with those they choose to engage in. Your question is obviously loaded, and I cannot give a yes or no answer to your question because it is a complex issue. Should Christians be anti-war? Yes, I believe so, additionally I do not believe that War is ever just, ie Augustine’s Just War Theory. Violence is reprehensible in all senses, and violence begets violence. Christian’s are to be a Parable People and seek to find a third way forward, see John Howard Yoder, Hauerwas, Richard Hays, and a host of other respected scholars and ethicist.

          1. J. Clark says:

            Oh, this is gonna be good. Let me go find my narrative. Where are you Derrida???

      3. mary says:

        Nathan, I have worked with many women who have experienced unplanned pregnancy. I have never met one who was uneducated in the possibility that sex could lead to pregnancy. Education – technical and clinical education of the type you are suggesting is not helping prevent “unprotected” sex. Anyone who thinks that must not work closely with women/young girls who have unplanned pregnancies. The desire to be loved, the promise of a relationship, the lure of sexual intimacy itself – these things hold out a hope that overshadows the practical knowledge of what may happen. And then afterwards, fear, abandonment and other emotions lead to the selfish act of murder. None of that is helped by simple education.

        1. Dustin Kunz says:

          I just want to augment Nathan’s statement, here:

          Most kids know sex can lead to pregnancy. Quite a few young women I and my compatriots in the nonprofit world were not, however, familiar with the relationship between their menstrual cycles and fertility. Further, significantly more of them are seeking the approval of men, and the correlation between fatherless households and teen pregnancy has been documented to the point of exhaustion.

  5. Mike Miller says:

    Nathan,
    I’m afraid I have to comment about your remarks concerning the death penalty. Do you honestly not see a difference between meting out justice on a convicted murderer and ripping a child to pieces then suctioning out of its mother’s womb? The reality is that capital punishment is a pro-life position in that we who support the death penalty do so because we value life so highly. We believe that the only true justice for the intentional and malicious taking of a human life is execution. Any society that does not demand such justice is a society that devalues the life of the victim.

    As for the video, I think it’s brilliant. It uses irony to to show the abject hypocrisy of those (including our president) who talk about the importance of protecting children and then promote infanticide. Can you not see that? Yes, the president’s words were used out of context, but that was only to show the absurdity of what he said when compared to his advocacy of child murder. In that respect, the use of his own words against him is completely legitimate.

    1. Nathan says:

      Mike,

      You just directly contradicted yourself: Killing someone is a pro-life position? How? The question is whose life do you value highly? Your own? The victims? It is obvious that those who value capitol punishment do not value the life of the offender! So what you are saying then is capitol punishment allows people to pick and choose whose life is valuable. Additionally, what gives anyone the right to take a life? Also any society that believes that the only justice for the victim is the death of the offender devalues the life of the offender. Speaking in a Christian context, all life is sacred the only person with the right to take life is god, not the state, and the church should most not support it. Also, what happens when the offender is killed? New victims are made, violence cannot overcome violence the result is more violence. The fact that violence is redemptive is simply a myth (See Walter Wink: Engaging the Powers.

      As to the video, the claim is marching orders to the pro-life camp, the intent is not irony, nothing in the video claims to illustrate how the President does one thing and yet says another. The video uses his words to legitimize a movement. The attempt is not irony but support. Irony, while an interpretive lens, seems to be a way to spin the video in a positive manner for the pro-life camp.

      1. Brian says:

        The state does have the power of the sword–read Romans 13:1-5.

      2. Stephen says:

        Nathan,
        I’m afraid I’m gonna chime in here as well. It’s obvious your mind will not be changed, and GOD who is sovereign would have to change your heart as to the value of life. Life is sacred, with the greatest example being that Christ was violently slaughtered for your life and mine. To your point that violence doesn’t overcome violence you couldn’t be more wrong. Tell that to the authorities who showed in Newtown. Guess what everyone of them had on them. GUNS prepared for further violence if necessary in order to gain control of the situation in effort to protect the innocent. I haven’t thought extensively through the death penalty but I know if they showed more of them on mainstream media, and less of our life devaluing government, My guess is we’d probably have less murders. Just a thought

        1. Nathan says:

          Stephen,

          Christ is the perfect example of how violence does not overcome violence. Why? Because he suffered, and died, he chose not to react violently to the violence being committed towards him. Instead, he took the approach of suffering for the sake of those who were inflicting the violence. Christ’s response to violence was not to fight back, but to stand firm to his convictions. How did Christ take control of the situation? He did not allow the violence being committed against himself to bring him down to a state of reactive violence, but instead, he showed that even in the midst of violence one must remain peaceful, and live by the fact that God is in-charge of life, not man. That is not an answer in favor of abortion so please don’t hear me say that. So again I ask you how does Christ represent the idea that violence overcomes violence?

          To your point of wanting to show more executions on television, I though we already did in movies. We show people being killed or murdered all the time, and all it seems to do is feel our fascination with it, instead of teaching us anything.

          1. Scott C says:

            This is not the primary reason Christ responded to the violence against him. It was to offer himself as a sacrifice for human sin (Mark 10:45). Furthermore, he saw the bigger picture. This was not violence perpetrated by men. It was God who perpetrated the violence to satisfy his demands of justice against sin (Isa. 53:10 – “But the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief”). See my post below for further comment on the matter.

      3. Scott C says:

        Christ affirmed the power of the sword when he said, “all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52). He is simply affirming the principle of Lex Talionis (the law of just retaliation) codified in the OT justice system (“eye for an eye”). IOW, the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of murder, we have the universal maxim given to Noah (Gen. 9:6) in the post-flood world to establish this principle I believe so as to avoid the senseless violence that marked the pre-flood world (Gen. 6:11, 13).

        The basis of capital punishment from Gen. 9:6 is that man is created in the image of God. The prohibition against murder protects the dignity of man, but more importantly it upholds the integrity of God who has stamped His prime creations with Himself. Anthony Hoekema says, “To touch the image of God is to touch God Himself; to kill the image of God is to do violence to God Himself.” Claus Westermann says, “Murder… is a direct attack on God’s right of dominion. Every murderer confronts God; murder is direct and unbridled revolt against God… Throughout the whole sweep of human history, the murderer by his action despoils God.” This affront upon the character of God must be dealt with.

        Thus, God is designating mankind as His agents in the execution of justice (i.e. CP). This is not an endorsement of renegade justice since the divine institution of governing authorities to carry out justice are spelled out elsewhere in scripture. For example, Romans 13 draws the application to duly authorized and constituted governing authorities. These are the only proper agents to carry out punitive justice otherwise evil will remain as unchecked as it was in the pre-flood world.

        Furthermore, this whole principle of justice is what undergirds the Biblical teaching on penal substitutionary atonement. The death of Christ is what satisfies God’s demands of justice against human sin which is deserving of death as the just penalty for it. Death would not exist as the penalty for sin if God did not render it as the just recompense for our assault upon his just law and character. Thus, if we attack capital punishment, in one way or another we undermine the basis for substituionary atonement that forms the foundation for the gospel.

        1. Nathan says:

          Scott,

          Just a few questions: You built your argument on a few passages of scripture, what does the rest of the biblical narrative communicate, what does Jesus say ie Sermon on the Mount? Does Christ come to Abolish the law or to fulfillment? Further, you have stated what several well respected scholars state about Murder and I do not dispute that, however, what do they say about CP? Finally, your argument sets up Subsitutionary Atonement as the ultimate theology. It seems to be to reductionistic, and androcenrtic. Atonement is not about man simplistically, but about all of creation, and substutionary atonement is but one way of looking at that picture. What about ransom theory, christus victor, or various others? See NT Wright, Bruce Longenecker, Walter Wink and other NT Scholars. Scripture can be made to say anything the reader wants it to say the question we must ask, “Is what scripture says consistent with the overall narrative?”

          1. Chad says:

            Nathan,

            It is mind-bogglingly breathtaking how you claim to know the scriptures so well and can even make the slightest argument that abortion may be acceptable and that sex is something to be enjoyed outside of marriage. Yours is classic example of out-of-context proof-texting and manipulation of the Holy Word of God. I suggest you come up with a cohesive worldview and theological conviction before you try to argue your position any further.

            It is sad to think about how many people in this country claim to be “Christians” and have such little knowledge of who God really is. As for me, I’m done with the absurdity and futility of any further discussion without consistently biblical bases for discussion.

            1. Nathan says:

              Chad,

              First I am claiming neither of what you have said. I am simply attempting to illustrate that the argument is not as simple as people think. It requires a thoughtful response that begs the question how does a decision here affect a decision somewhere else, ie if I am for the sanctity of life in the abortion conversation, how does that decision affect the way that I view other things. Also, if I am anti-abortion how can I have an impact on the things, and issues that are related to it, ie what is the role of the church in sex education? In no way am I engaging in out of context proof texting, as I have been merely asking questions that press the position of this post, I am not attempting to manipulate the word of god, I am simply reading it within the Christian tradition as I understand it. In making that statement you lay claim to the idea that you have authoritative interpretation and are infallible. When in all reality the principles of hermeneutics state that the subjective element cannot be escaped, meaning I will read scripture as a result of who I am socially and so will you. Therefore, we will arrive at conclusions based on the way we read, and this is neither right nor wrong, as long as the conclusions reached fit within the stream of Christian theology.

              I have a cohesive world view, it just may not fit your definition of what that looks like, the question is can you engage someone who thinks differently than you do, or do you tell them to go away until they agree with you?

          2. Scott C says:

            My comments were primarily based on Gen. 9:6 which is pre-Mosaic law. Furthermore, the context of that passage is the Noahic covenant which has universal application. Most responsible exegetes interpret the passage to affirm capital punishment. You have to do some awfully contorted interpretive gymnastics to avoid that reading. If you disagree with the support I provide from the passages I cite for CP than give me the counter-argument from those passages. I would be curious to see how you read them.

            If you reject the substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Christ’s death then I’m afraid this is not the place to argue the issue. There is certainly a multi-faceted dimension to his death, but the preponderance of the evidence makes the penal substitutionary focus central notwithstanding all the assaults upon that view from NPP.

  6. ChrisB says:

    The hypocrisy is breath-taking.

  7. Ryan says:

    Nathan,

    Have you not read that Jesus will make war on his enemies at his return? He will overcome them with overwhelming violence.

    Can you not see that “pro-life” means the protection of *innocent* life, not a simple-minded attempt to prolong all life under all conditions?

    The video does, indeed, mock the president for not seeing the clear implications of his own words. This is not an inherently problematic stance to take; indeed, the Scriptures themselves often mock those who commit themselves to wickedness; we, of course, must be very careful about how we employ such devices, but it is certainly not forbidden territory.

  8. Jonathan Garner says:

    Was this video showing the contradiction in Obama’s view regarding life or was it trying to use his speech to support pro life ( and possibly make it sound like Obama isn’t pro-choice???? Please help because this is the main point of this video.

  9. Ian Thompson says:

    There are two problems with this video 1] is that Americans don’t do irony well and so you have this argument going on above! The whole point of the video is that what the President says in other contexts SHOULD be consistently applied in this one. The point of the video is “Be consistent in your beliefs Mr President” 2] It doesn’t give a date for the march – if this is supposed to be a way of getting people to act then it fails because its call to action is so weak

    1. J. Clark says:

      Jenius post of the day. Why do we have to work so hard to explain irony and satire.

  10. Marti Lowder says:

    POWERFUL!!!! I’m sending this to everyone I know! Thank you!!!!

  11. I only wish our President could see that abortion is the murdering of children.

  12. Meghan Thompson says:

    I find this video very disgusting. The fact the maker of this video used a speech about something so tragic and saddening and twisted it around to make a statement on a current political argument is repulsive and bad taste. Anyone watching this video I want you to know, Barack Obama was not making a statement on abortion, that speech was about the Sandy Hooke Elementary shooting.

    1. rcjr says:

      Meghan, when you refer to the wholesale slaughter of 3000 babies every day a “current political argument” you are showing the world your cards. Why is Sandy Hook not a “current political argument” while the murder of babies is?

    2. Ryan Green says:

      The video is showing the irony of the President’s beliefs. He calls us to care for and protect the children of the USA, yet laws allow for the slaughter of unborn children. That is the point. the BIG IDEA here… if you listen to Obama’s words (to protect our children) it should spur on pro-lifers to continue their stand.

      And I agree with Ian Thompson, irony is lost on many Americans.

    3. BobRoss says:

      As if the legalized murder of over 3000 children a day isn’t disgusting?
      The video maker used this speech to show the irony of Obama picking and choosing which deaths to mourn over, and the hypocrisy in his statements.

  13. Jason Moll says:

    I think people understand he was addressing the Sandy Hooke Shooting. What I find disgusting is that some of us who acclaim to be Christians can see the evil in this shooting but be completely blind to the evil in abortion.

    “a speech about something so tragic and saddening and twisted it around to make a statement on a current political argument is repulsive and bad taste.”

    How is a shooting more repulsive and disgusting than removing a child from its mother’s womb and sucking its brains out? Are the birthdays, future spouses, future careers and future families of the shooting victims more important than those events for aborted children? NO!

    Was the Sandy Hooke shooting repulsive and evil? Without question. But it’s over. The makers of this video effectively used a horrible situation to shed light on an equally disturbing occurrence in our society.

    Church, stand! It’s time.

  14. BWW says:

    Tragically ironic.

    So often people(including myself) make some strongly articulated statement and think their actions are in line, not realizing that they are really speaking to themselves.

  15. Kim Payne says:

    Irony and hypocrisy is what I got from this video. It was using the very hypocrisy of the stand that our children are to be protected at all costs while the very least are slaughtered in vast numbers with the blessing of the government.

    It is ironic to shed a tear over the ones we can see and not blink over those that seemingly we can’t.

    Not to mention the special evil of partial birth abortions.

  16. B. Warshaw says:

    Can’t see the video right now, but I would caution many of the commenters here who are mishandling Nathan. There is little testimony to the love of Christ in most of the comments responding to him. Nathan may indeed be incorrect, but the quickness with which many have obviously responded is reckless. Nathan isn’t an issue–he’s a person. While it can be hard to make that distinction when we participate in internet discussions, it would do us all well to remember it.

  17. D Benton says:

    well done video, but one thing is glaringly evident and has been for sometime. this video demonstrates this….statistically most of the abortions in the US are being done by minorities and those below the poverty level. unfortunately we can march all we want but if we do not endeavor to go to those that are facing these decisions, our mission of anti-abortion is without the Gospel. the vast majority of those marching in Washington will be middle to upper class white people. what if we were to amass such an “army” to invade the inner cities and impoverished areas with the Gospel and teach the sanctity of life and the foundational principles of imago Dei? I find the issue grievous and sad that our government endorses such murder. however, the only reason planned parenthood and the like are doing abortions is that they have customers…love young single moms, dont look on them with the disdain of pharisaism, preach the gospel visit pregnancy crisis centers and donate your heart, time and money to the people that feel as if they have no choice, and have no hope…our time would be much wiser spent

  18. Eug says:

    Before I say anything I want it to be known that I am vehemently pro-life.

    I feel quite uneasy about this video. Yes, I understand that abortion is as horrific as the murders that occurred at Sandy Hook. But it doesn’t change that this is completely out of context. I understand the President’s irony and hypocrisy when he articulates that the murders were evil yet stands silent on abortion. But is this the best way to portray that? This is just a open invitation into asking abortion proponents to hammer us that we are taking things completely out of context. It almost seems like a political ad…this isn’t an election to win voters. We have to stand with integrity and honesty, as I believe Christ would have.

    1. Mel says:

      He is anything but silent on abortion. He doesn’t even support a child being saved that lives through abortion. No one is saying that he meant all lives should be protected. That is the point.

  19. Kaerina says:

    As a self-identified Feminist who disagrees with most of the people among my own ranks on abortion issues (I think that often resorting to abortion is yet another instance of women being forced into violence and doesn’t speak to the Feminist ethic of justice and care to the most vulnerable), I think this video is very twisted and inaccurate. It is taking a tragedy wherein precious children were murdered and equating it with a totally different issue. If I were the parents of the children who were massacred and saw this video, I would be extremely hurt and angry. This is a totally different issue and is using the tragedy to which the President responded with strength of leadership and grace, to push a different agenda. I think it is offensive to all of those who were killed last month and the families who are still grieving.

    1. Kaerina says:

      p.s. I have no doubt you meant well with the video, but I just can’t agree with the way in which this was presented. Again, I think it is a conflation of separate issues.

    2. Ryan says:

      The point, I believe, is that the principles Obama preaches should be applied consistently. They are separate issues, but the principles of protecting our innocent children apply to both a tragic shooting and mass abortions. This highlights the inconsistency of Obama’s words.

    3. BobRoss says:

      Issue #1: The murder of innocent life
      Issue #2: The murder of innocent life

      How are these issues “totally different”? I can understand if you for some reason don’t view babies in the womb as alive, but surely you see how it’s the same issue from a pro-life perspective.

  20. Brock says:

    If irony isn’t the intent, this is a misuse of the President’s words. If irony is the intent (and that is how I took it while watching) then it is a masterful use of it. Actually, I think to not see this as irony, even if not intended as such, is to be willfully blind.

    As for the death penalty and abortion, if pro-life advocates agreed to outlawing the death penalty could we reach common ground and outlaw abortion? If so, let the outlawing begin.

  21. Christian and Libertarian says:

    Kaerina, I’m a little surprised that you can’t see that the use of this video is to highlight the disturbing “pick and choose” ethic of the President in picking which children and at what stage of development they deserve protection. If I were one of the parents, and I were watching this, I might be excited to see support for less death and aggression pointed toward all children everywhere – including the unborn and Afghani children, as well.

    1. Kaerina says:

      Admitting to the shades of gray (as opposed to black and white clarity) that characterize our existence, I do not believe that “life begins at conception.” I can’t say “when” precisely life begins- at the point of a heartbeat perhaps, which is very early on, thus constituting a vulnerable human life. However, the issue is complex. I can’t help but see a difference between children who are part of a community and a family, who have names, a bedroom, friends, and a family, and a mass of cells. To deny this difference would be quite an incredible feat. However, as a culture, I think we all, including the President, need to work for greater pushes for life. The issue is not simply about abortion or having a baby, but feeds into deeper issues about how women are treated in society (do they have fair-paying jobs, substantial time for maternity leave, partners who are willing to equally share in the responsibility for the child, access to resources such as healthcare, and the assurance that they won’t be raped when simply trying to live their lives- THESE are the questions we should be asking, while also as a country, promoting responsible attitudes towards sex and relationships.

      1. Scott C says:

        I would love to see your considered feminist perspective on this short documentary about the tragic botched abortions and deaths of mothers in a Philadelphia abortion clinic. This is not an unusual occurrence. My mother is a health facility investigator for the state of Florida and she has confirmed to me that this sort of unregulated practice is far more prevalent than the media lets on. Abortion practices in America far outweigh the Sandy Hook tragedy; and that is not to down play that horrific event whatsoever. Please watch. The 20 minutes or so may change your mind:

        http://vimeo.com/44824447

  22. Kaerina says:

    Ditto about the death penalty…and a couple of wars that we put on credit cards. Why do pro-lifers work so hard to protect their “right” to carry guns? It seems to me a pro-life culture would discourage the brandishing of weapons of potential mass destruction.

  23. Sojo_Truth says:

    Yet more of the same from an Americanized Evangelical community obsessed with one injustice and sin in America. When I start seeing the demographic of people/Christians like Reformed Protestant folk that make up the majority of the TGC and their fans take all sins in America seriously, then make I will take biased propaganda like this seriously as well.
    We literally sit perched on top of our self-righteous hill, yelling to the masses about the sin of abortion while we’re mired in the sin of divorce, gluttony, pride, greed, self-righteousness, intellectualism, materialism, racism, and obsession with weapons and violence, a indifference to the poor and the list goes on and on. We yell at the top of our lungs to world about this sin and one other as if fixing this will help us to avoid God’s wrath against this country.
    It’s as if no one even Reformed Bible-loving people have ever read the book of James or the book of Revelation that warns – woe to the great Babylon, who loves wealth and who poisoned all the nations of the earth with her wealth, greed and materialism. Strange, eh? How some of the most supposed “biblical” evangelicals turn a blind eye to their own sins, but love to jump on the sins that afflict the least of them. As if the world is not smart enough to sniff out the hypocrisy. 100’s of millions spent on huge megachurch buildings, supposedly for the sake of the gospel, while people go starving all over the globe, but that’s not sinful – right American bible-believing Christian? Nah, we’ll make up any excuse we can to keep sipping Starbucks lattes and living the good life in the burbs with clean fair-skinned people who look just like us. We preach hard against the prosperity gospel, while few of us every give an offering, so that we can consume it on ourselves, our lifestyles, our kids. But nah, that’s not sinful. We’re not overgleening our fields. We’re just being good ole’ Christian Americans.
    Keeping those brown folks at bay overseas with unjust wars and living the cush life, while yelling at all “those sinners” who just won’t hear us out. It makes us feel good and more-righteous when we compare how righteous we are to the unrighteous. We don’t want to adopt those poor folks kids, who often have abortions because they are oppressed, underpaid, pay higher mortgage rates, and discriminated against for housing. Yep, historically by the same people who say that God loves all folks, even those poor brown people. But, nah dealing with this type of deep-seated sin is too hard to deal with, too excruciating, too….. inconvenient……
    So, instead we spend our time promoting videos about sins that are far from home, and tell the masses that God’s going to destroy America for “their” sins. You think they don’t know the game that you;re playing.
    But, if I can see it, and I’m a Christian may they can too…

    Not meant to be critical, just trying to point out how cliche “your” cause has become in light of the fact that the world has caught onto this dog-and-pony show. Millenials and the younger generations have caught onto it as well. They don’t even want to attend your/our churches anymore because even they know the truth, and are tired of the hypocrisy.

    Wake up Christian America, we’re only fooling ourselves. God sees those other sins that we conveniently decide not to preach about. We’re not hiding them from him. If you ask me, we’re sitting on a pile of other sins that are just as likely to destroy us as abortion. Who’s brave enough to admit it?

    You can blame Obama all you want, but God’s not fooled by the Ladeocian ways of American Evagelicalism. By relentlessly attacking only two sins your causing people not to repent of all of their sins. Your miseducating people when it comes to the full counsel of God. Your training generations to have a lopsided view of God, and sin. Your creating a nominal form of Christianity that says salvation and repentance comes down to repenting or not committing only two sins.

    1. Mel says:

      because we don’t want brown babies to be killed here we are hypocrites? You do understand that we are talking about human lives and not the abstract of it being a sin, right? How else do you get the killing to stop if you don’t speak up? Or do you want us to sit and sip coffee and let the killing go on because we can’t possibly ever be perfect in the way that you are? Your post makes no sense.

      1. Sojo_Truth says:

        No, I want many of you to be just as passionate about divorce and materialism and the love of money, which is the root of this evil. The type of love of money that makes people create blockbuster movie soundtracks on their ultra-thin mac book, while sitting down for a snack at Whole Foods, and creating “moving” videos instead of getting out and tutoring the young kids that grow up in environments that foster abortion. The rich young rulers disease that makes people shake their head at the poor who overwhelmingly get abortions, but lack understanding of their own complicit hand in the problem. The environments caused by injustice in the educational system, which is rooted in the fact that people hoard their wealth and resources because they are greedy. Leaving many with low paying wage jobs, and black-sheeped from the center of society. The people that the Old testament writers acknowledged as having “contempt for their maker”. Many of them whom reside in the pews of churches who rail on Sundays against abortion.
        It’s hypocrisy at it’s highest level, yet so many of you folks don’t see it.
        My post makes plenty of sense, but your convicted, because I’m turning the tables and pointing out the hypocrisy of your own agenda. Disproportionately, white evangelicals, who live like slave masters once did in their own theological world. Wielding the whip in the name of God, yet blind to their own sins. Don’t get me wrong, people of all colors have their sins embedded deep within their culture. Much of the brown baby abortion that I mentioned above, if not most of the blame are on the very people who are living in sin. However, they are not the only one’s to blame. Systematic oppression also plays a large part in it.
        I’m only pointing out the things that many of you never are interested in discussing. As I said, it’s harder to search for personal solutions to fixing sin, then it is to make videos and rail on blogs about how horrible abortion is. Like Jesus said, the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Want to end abortion? Find a way to fight poverty in our greedy nation, it’s one of the most highly correlated indicators when it comes to the likelyhood of abortion. There’s a reason for that!

        I’ve known plenty of women who’ve had abortions. They’re not inherently evil people. Most of the time they are young mothers who grew up in incredibly challenging environments. When the baby out of wedlock comes from a sinful relationship they don’t know what to do. Their lack of education and the poor educational system that they grow up in limits their opportunities as well as the young men who fathered the baby. For instance, right about here, middle-class white evangelicals will say that’s their irresponsibility that got them in that position. While that’s true, I’ve found very few of those people willing to go to places like Jesus did and teach these people. They’re the equivalent of the “untouchables” in the India society right here in America. I’ve found very few who donate money to their broken schools who have old and outdates books, to mentor young kids that often times don’t even eat balanced meals at home. So, what happens? They feel hopeless like most people would in their condition and they decide not to have the baby. No one cares about them. Society discards them. They feel worthless, so they act in ways that people who feel unloved act. It’s a vicious cycle. Remember, many of these brown people are only 3 or so generations removed from working for no wages, not knowing how to read, and being kept from advancing in society. They haven’t had the historical time or resources to accumulate wealth like others.

        But again, I’m used to your typical responses. “Your post doesn’t make any sense”. I know, that’s the whole problem!

        Trust me, I’m not trying to come off arrogant, but I’ve grown tired of the hypocrisy myself, especially when it comes from TGC types and Reformed folks that like to play the “we’re the most biblical card, and love to talk about Charismatic theology and false teaching. All the while, some of the most hands on evangelicals that I know, that are actually out doing the hard work are again the types you guys love “making videos” and writing critical theological blog posts about.

        TD Jakes comes to mind in the Elephant Room. Thousands of blog posts and status updates on FB about his belief in the trinity. Meanwhile his ministry is taking in prostitutes and hookers – educating them, counseling mothers considering abortions, feeding the poor, and so on. All in the name of Christ and the “Gospel” that you guys love to pontificate about. And I have yet to see him make a video about the “sin” of abortion. While he’s against it, he’s actually working to stop it by touching the people that need counseling and financial help.

        What’s the TGC doing to fix the problem at large? Writing blogs about it.

    2. J. Clark says:

      How do you keep up with what every Church does? That is an amazing feat! I would love to know your secret.

      1. Sojo_Truth says:

        Look around you J. Clark and read some Barna statistics. The evidence is there. 2007 – 9% of evangelicals tithed/grace gave 10% of their income. Where are the 91% of evangelicals?
        We could eradicate many of these problems, like poverty that lead to abortion choices if people would give more of their resources (time/money).
        Don’t get angry with me guys. I’m not attempting to stir up strife.

        1. Stephen says:

          There’s some good logic, self-professing evangelicals don’t give money to the church so other self-professing evangelicals should not talk about abortion?

          1. Sojo_Truth says:

            You built the logic that you’re assigning to me, but it’s false. I never said that evangelicals can’t speak on abortion because they don’t give. We should speak up about abortion. My point was that there was a double standard that evangelicals approach their political agendas with. They refuse to admit to the fact they don’t reflect or practice their own doctrines on sin. All sins are equal in God’s eyes, but yield different consequences. That is biblically sound. Yet, we refuse to preach as often on divorce and greed as we do on abortion. Face it, we’ve made an idol out of two sins. It’s idol worship my friend, and it’s out of alignment with scripture. I’m just willing to admit to it.

            We’re engaging in typical idol worship type behavior. Denial and blame shifting.

            1. J. Clark says:

              How in the world do you know so much about what is preached in thousands of churches? In 5 years I have preached regularly on divorce, greed, gossip, lust, abortion, homosexuality, pride, racism, stealing, nondiscipleship, etc. Most of that is just by preaching through books of the Bible. Could you give your sources on your information pertaining to what is preached in churches?

              1. Sojo_Truth says:

                I’m proud of you for preaching directly from the bible then. Sounds like your teaching style is more or less expository. That’s powerful.
                Unfortunately, I still think your taking the central idea behind my comments the wrong way. I’m not attempting to put down anyone or any church in particular. What I’m simply attempting to highlight is that I have yet, for instance, to see a video go viral like the one above that features Christians all over this nation picketing against greed, divorce, or racism. As a matter of fact the most shameful thing I’ve noticed is that the secular world is more dedicated to fighting these things then the church. If you don’t understand what I mean by this I’m afraid I’m running out of words to explain it. It’s very straightforward and obvious to me, but I very well may be projecting from my own point of view.
                Don;t take what I’m saying so personal. God bless brother.

        2. Grace says:

          Sojo,

          You are hitting the nail on the head. Might I recommend checking out reknew.org. Your grace and desire to not see some injustices elevated above others are mirrored there. Also, check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySkB30rf5Ao

          Blessings.

        3. J. Clark says:

          Ahh, statistics. My favorite stat is 50% of the people will be agains you 100% of the time. There is no wayt Barna can know what churches do both collectively and what Christians do privately. Our little church in backwards MS gives 30-40% of our total income away every year. In 5 years that’s over $300,000. It goes to Baptist Children’s Villages, Central MS Crisis Pregnancy Center, Son Vally Homes (for mentally handicapped adults to live relatively independent), Pure Water (clean wells around the world), Church Planting, SBC Disaster Relief (3rd largerst relief agency in the world), cooperative program (supports over 10,000 missionary families), local Scott County Baptist Crisis Center (center for food and clothes distribution and evangelistic outreach), World Hunger relief offering, 3 church plants, local benevolence, Free Bible distribution, Gideons international, support of 7 SBC seminaries, support of 3 Baptist Universities, scholarship for 1-2 outstanding, godly students in our area for one semester, etc. How come Barna never tells me about these things? I am just touching the beginning for our church because people give regularly outside of our church (i.e. a couple from our church used their steak house to host a fundraiser for a family with a boy born with heart problems – about $10,000 raised that night). These are simply coming from my small church in MS (about 100 average in Sunday School). There are 2200 SBC churches in MS. Now give me some more statistics.

          1. Sojo_Truth says:

            That’s awesome! Thanks for sharing. One interesting stat in particular that I’ve heard about MS is that they maintain the highest average of giving amongst Christians in the states. All the while being the “poorest” state in the union. There’s a very powerful correlation there.

  24. If you liked the video, be sure to sign this White House petition to further expise the hypocrisy: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-abolish-legalized-murder-pre-born-children/JRJRZ092

    Share it everywhere, only two days left!

  25. Natural miracles, How gods creation is being nip in the rear by the one who is against all creation, of his creation! like the innocent is being sent to become satans angels??? by this harden hart ed people! This is our majority vote?
    God’s people, those angels lost to be Transform VS The unfaithful What side are you on? The satan kills us by the innocent, taking our innocent by the resent school shooting and by abortion sacrifice (The Incas disappeared, they sacrifice practice?)This speaks more than it ever had!!! Also the unfaithful that don’t make it to his kingdom,(because they chose sides, so it is true the gate is narrow?) Don’t be anti Christ, don’t be a god to His Creation that lives in us …

  26. Mel says:

    This is the reality of what our laws allow to happen.

    http://vimeo.com/44824447

  27. Brian says:

    I agree that it may not be in the best taste to use words that were well written and well applied to a specific tragedy and to use them like this. It is like trying to gain from someones loss and it looks a little bad, IMO.
    Perhaps I am too PC, and in this sound byte era you don’t always have time to properly word everything when you want to hit people hard with something true. But I hate making enemies when you attempt to share truth. I don’t think it helps.
    I think a better approach would have been something that more concisely and eloquently offered the following (perhaps before the same content of the video): President Obama made a profound speech in response to a horrible tragedy that reminded us of important truths regarding society’s duty to protect and love its children. And we in know way want to rob it of its comfort to those who are grieving. But we also find it sad and ironic that the President can be so correct with these comments, and not clearly see that they should also be the standard by which we evaluate the issue of abortion.
    That is basically what the video is attempting to say, but without the disclaimer, which, in my opinion is necessary.

  28. Gramma says:

    For what it’s worth, and for whatever y’all want to do with this comment, there is an important difference between abortion and the Sandy Hook tragedy: every aborted child is murdered by his/her own mother. They choose to kill their own child. School shooters murder other people’s children. The president cannot make laws to change either of these wrongs- the congress has to do it. Btw, Congress can ammend the constitution to declare personhood for the unborn, thus giving them legal protection. They DO NOT need the president’s signiture to do so.

  29. Thank you. Mr. Obama says he wants to save children. Well, how about mourning the 53 million sterile murders from abortion and stopping the bloodshed of more of these…NOW.

  30. Andrew Bolden says:

    I’m no fan of abortion, but this video is disingenuous and disrespectful to the families who lost their children at Sandy Hook. This is not the Gospel. This is conflation of politics and religion, and it’s nauseating.

    1. Kaerina says:

      Thank you, Andrew. Precisely.

    2. Justin Taylor says:

      No one is saying this is the Gospel.

      The video uses the form of irony to show that the President is saying true things about life and death, though his version of life and death only extends to those who are of a certain size and level of development. It’s implicitly calling him to be more consistent and compassionate and to practice true justice.

      1. Scott C says:

        Thank you, Justin. Precisely.

        And I might add – if we care about the Gospel, we should care about both tragedies.

    3. Grace says:

      Check out this video Andrew. I think you might find some of your sentiments expressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySkB30rf5Ao

      Blessings

  31. John says:

    Completely and utterly terrible. Even worse, this does not convince any pro-life opponent of the humanity of the fetus. Filth.

  32. Scott C says:

    Many here appear horrified that the this video is disingenuous and that it someone trivializes the Sandy Hook tragedy. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, what it does do is highlight how the tragedy of abortion is routinely trivialized by so many in our culture even many who claim the name of Christ. That is what I find disingenuous. The video is simply a call to consistency in what we say we believe. Mr. Obama has not shown such consistency so it makes his comments about Sandy Hook at best ring hollow and at worst it show he really does not care about the sanctity of human life at all.

  33. Pingback: Graycie Bay
  34. Nate D. says:

    Sure, the President wasn’t talking about abortion, but the point of the video is to show that our President says one thing about protecting our children, but he contradicts himself with his pro-choice position. Sandy Hook was a tragedy, but thousands of babies die everyday because of abortion and no one talks about that.

    Also, someone who is pro-life is not a hypocrite because he is not against the death penalty. Israel had the death penalty for committing murder, adultery and idolatry. “If a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar that he may die.” (EX 21:14)

  35. Brian says:

    I know what the video is trying to say, and the point is valid. I also know that the way it does it is insensitive and could be done better, even if using a similar tactic.
    Say, for instance, you are at a funeral for a loved one. And a relative comes to comfort you and says similar things to what Obama said. Yet you also know that said relative is very pro-choice. You could still find comfort and love in that moment and you would not choose that time and place and context to get in to a fight about abortion, or use their words against them. I think certain things are sacred (like mourning), or need to be left alone for a while or only used when in a complimentary and cautious way.

    If I lost a child in Sandy Hook, this video would not bother me, because I am pro-life and if this tragedy could wake people up to deeper realities and act upon them, I would be happy. But some of the victims’ families may be pro-choice people and I think that when they see something like this video it makes us look less than compassionate or too manipulative.

    So, again, my point is, if this kind of perspective or video can hep enlighten or convict people, then good. But I do not see why it can’t be done more carefully.

  36. Tim says:

    We know that Mr Obama was talking about the killing of the children in Connecticut, but as others in the past, as in the bible, have spoke out about issues during their time, Mr Obama may just be speaking prophetic words without even realizing it.

  37. John says:

    I find it interesting that most of the comments against this video are horrified that the Sandy Hook massacre would be associated with abortion. I suspect that was the intention of its creator. It is mind-boggling that we could have people who are horrified that 20 children were killed in one day, and completely non-plussed that 3000 children are killed every day. Christ have mercy.

  38. Thom says:

    What an act of pure shame to distort our Presidents words in theses times i.e school shooting… Do you have no since of decency or shame in your distortion? At least produce your on words to match the video! Using this was just criminal?

  39. Thom says:

    Taking something out of context would horrify any group! Comparing something legal with something illegal is an abomination? How our society has changed from a law abiding to one of uncivil discourse!

  40. Sojo_Truth says:

    It’s evident that the TGC is become the new Herodian Religious Right. I wondered which new crop of evangelicals would rise up and take up the new leaven of Herod. Exit Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell and enter Al Moehler, Richard Land and the TGC crew. It’s the same thing, minus the old traditional Baptists/Charismatic tinged gospel of politics. Now, enter the new-fangled Neo-Reformed gospel of politics in the name of all things (even secular) having a Christ-centered worldview and political legislation to follow. Same old dog, new tricks.
    Except this crowd hides behind the idea that politics is poisonous yet their hand is constantly in the cookie jar. At least Pat and Jeery admitted that they were comfortable being married to politics.

    I swear Al Moehler writes a political “pseudo-gospel” commentary for every social issue as the secular media rolls each new story out. That guys pen is fast.

    Gun shooting? Here’s what you should believe about guns….
    Destructive Hurricane? Here’s why God sent it……
    Voting for Romney? Here’s why God loves those who vote for people who promote a false Christ…….

    Thanks so much Al – LOL

  41. momofone says:

    I find this video offensive. The families of Sandy Hook sent their children to learn not be killed by a man with a behavior disorder. Abortionist walk freely into legal clinics we as a society have deemed lawful. Yes abortion may kill 3000 children a day make that point without including Sandy Hook. Please accept my apologies for the harshness this video portrays to those we are probably deeply grieving the loss of their children. As a conservative christian this is not the gospel. God is the one who convicts the soul. He is the one who establishes His kingdom. I do not see how this video portrays the kingdom of God. It shows harshness and a lack of love. Love is what the gospel is all about.

  42. Martin says:

    The video is very effective in exposing the inconsistency in the ethic of life subscribed to in politically liberal circles. I have always been disappointed that the Democratic Party fails to protect the most defenseless among us (i.e. the unborn). And although God does not specifically instruct humans regarding abortion, we can strongly infer from Scripture that God is overwhelming “for” life … and saddened by loss of life (“Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!” … Deut 30:19). If we are to err, let us err on the side of ‘life.’ Besides, sometimes we don’t need a Bible verse to know what is right and what is wrong – God has written it on our hearts.

    In the same way, however, the Church needs to take a good look at itself. After all, Jesus saved his most caustic words for the religious elite … in our case, those who teach Scripture and pronounce judgments on others. As the Church judges those in the video who hold to an inconsistent ethic of life, it needs to look at itself and critique its own ethic of life.

    I see the conservative Church very wanting of consistency in its “pro-life” stance. I don’t see any attempt by its celebrated teachers to challenge our political and industrial leaders regarding ‘life’ issues such as war and the collateral ‘damage’ of innocent deaths, health care, creation care, socially responsible gun laws, capital punishment in light of wrongful convictions, immigration, disparity in education, economic policies that favor agricultural and livestock conglomerates to the detriment of local merchants and our own health, imbalanced resource consumption by the West, etc… These are all profound issues “of life”. They neither minimize nor are minimized by the abortion issue (the concept of ‘shalom’ is a consistent ethic of life). For the most part, their apologetic for these issues is fashioned by a conservative political stance – not a godly perspective.

    I believe that if the Church would embrace and preach a truly consistent pro-life ethic, a prophetic call to ‘shalom’ (wholeness, completeness) would go forth. We would see young people, in particular, returning to churches and the anti-abortion apologetic would be strengthened. That would be a wonderful witness of the Kingdom of God.
    Shalom!

  43. Lynda says:

    One Comment to which I will not reply further:

    Many who are pro-life have a consistent view: no abortion, no death penalty, no euthanasia, no artificial creation or ending of life, war only with a just war doctrine [i.e. WWII]

    Being active in the pro-life movements takes on many activities: awareness [i.e. marches], prevention [i.e. education, unplanned pregnancy, and adoption support] and post pregnancy care. It is not a question of “this or that” but “all of the above”.

    Being pro-life does NOT mean we neither care about nor address problems such as: divorce, hipocrisy, lying, cheating, stealing, materialism, selfishness, hunger, pridefulness, gluttony, greed, health care, guns, poverty, etc, etc, etc….. Again, it is not “either/or” but “both/and”.

    Some people who are pro-life are not even theists, they merely look at the scientific evidence and realize that every unborn baby is a completely and utterly unique human being. It has its own DNA and its own blood type. If that unique individual gets aborted, it does not get into some weird cosmic line to be born to somebody else, he or she is just dead. We should all be thankful because the major difference between an aborted baby and each of us discussing this is that we were wanted. Do we want to establish the value of people in our society by whether or not they are wanted, affordable, convenient…?

    I don’t think anybody misunderstands the fact that Obama is pro-choice. This was clearly used to demonstrate what many see as a hypocritical stance. While some Sandy Hook parents might see this as offensive, some might see it as a comfort that a pro-life message was generated from such terrible tragedy.

    Discuss the issue. Don’t just throw out a bunch of stuff and see what sticks. We all do things that are wrong and need to keep working on them. It does not mean we don’t keep trying to do better. In addition, we cannot each address every issue of the world, we work on what moves us the most. A pro-life person would never argue that you should not waste time feeding the hungry while unborn babies are dying so please do not insinuate that standing against abortion is wrong unless world hunger is abolished first. It is both. Not one or the other.

    Thank you and have a lovely evening.

    1. Sojo_Truth says:

      Agree whole-heartedly with your comment above ;-)
      The difference is that I’m simply pointing out the tinge of hypocrisy in it all. Yes, I’m sure tons of pro-life people care about more issues than abortion, but for some reason those videos never go viral on the internet. Look at any Facebook status by John Piper about abortion and it easily yields 300+ comments. Look at any one of his posts in February during black history month, about racism an you’ll be lucky to find 7 likes, and 10 comments.
      The church has a problem. While it’s problems should not detract from us supporting good causes like pro-life agendas, we should at least be able to stop for a moment and reflect on whether or not we have an imbalanced and unbiblical view of sin. When we do, our light doesn’t always shine quite as bright in the world as it could/should, because to non-belivers we look like Religious hypocrites. As a matter of fact, to them we look Pharisaic. And if Jesus had a problem with blatant and out of balance religiosity and legalism (even if only in appearance), so should we. When the Pharisee invited Jesus to his house and accused Jesus of “sinning” for not washing his hands, what did Jesus have to say back? We’re committing a similar crime here. We promote abortion as the gravest sin in the nation (hand washing), but are quiet about greed by the wealthy that’s created the largest income gap in the history of the country, and have record levels of poverty and unemployment (tithing, and caring for those in need). See the parallels??? When the Sand Hook tragedy does strike, our “representatives” (Richard Land – SBC), and the ChristianPost argue that guns keep us all safer. The hypocrisy at times is mind-blowing. You uphold one slanted version of the gospel, and make convenient and clever arguments to support agendas that suite your political views for the other parts of the gospel that don’t coincide with your worldview (ie – turn the other cheek, vengance is mine, put away your sword, and so many more…)

      Were we able to take a more even-handed approach to how we address all sin, perhaps “sinners” of all stripes would be more eager to hear the message of repentance. I’m putting that nicely. But when we preach such an imbalanced message to the world we are misrepresenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. As much as Reformed people love to stand for what’s biblical, they should be the first to acknowledge that perhaps the wagon is missing a wheel in this regard.

      As you said it’s not supposed to be an either or, but both. I’m making a separate point from yours. I’m saying that it should be about “both”, but too often it’s not. And that alone is an injustice in and of itself. Especially when you can’t bring it up without ruffling so many feathers. That alone should be evidence of something off-kilter……

  44. Jim-N-NC says:

    While Mr Obama was talking about the killing of the children in Connecticut, words to have concrete meaning, do they not? Children killed is a tragedy, is it not? Of more offence is the President’s use of children for political purposes. That is offensive. Deeply.

  45. We should be taking care of the lives that is given by God to us. Abortion is not good, no matter what is the reason for it. No one can defend this action.

  46. doug says:

    Political views over creation, wow how blind we are?
    people are so prideful,stuck In their sinful life,that they make everything about them self? All sin comes with in our heart, know ourselves before we speak!
    This issue about abortion has to be lead by woman,man and the church, We can’t except abortion… Whether we are saved or not!
    1.2 million abortions are performed a year in the US alone,
    30 million world wide, How immoral and blind we’ve become?
    This clip is about a door that is opening, a calling if it speaks to your heart? Abortion not only effects how God sees us, but it also effects those lives involved, these poor souls that carry this burden? through out there life! I say poor because without God and Love we are bankrupt of life, God shows us why? while we live! We continue to ask why? Surrender is due!
    This all has to be address now with Love of the everlasting…

    Sodom and Gomorrah might have practice abortions and Immorality?
    These are issues we see Today in time!
    If we don’t decide on these issues and put god 1ST we might mist the blessings, Check out Steve Jobs Biography and let your mind be transformed, let us learn the Now and how god loves us so!
    Also Roe Vs Wade case that was ruled in 1973 was built on lies the deed of the lair,cheater,killer… Sounds like the curse of Adam and Eve a syndrome we all are born into, Lets not live in the dark NO MORE!!! Thank you Father, Son, Spirit…

  47. John Harris says:

    This thread inspired me to write the following letter to the President last week. I was quite surprised that the local newspaper ran it today in the editorial section.

    http://www.gracechurchmarietta.org/2013/01/thank-you-mr-president-for-protecting-our-children/

    John Harris

  48. Edmond says:

    There is a set of conjoined twins. They are 14, one is named Derik and the other is Steven. Derik has a mental disability. They are joined at the pelvis and only one can live if separated. Shouldn’t Steven be able to have Derik killed and removed? After all, Derik won’t argue as his IQ is substantially lower.

    Exactly what is the argument then? Is it because the “human fetus” doesn’t have 46 human chromosomes. Or is there an IQ threshold that one must make to have a right to life?

    I love how they always call it a “women’s” issue. I’m sorry, did I miss something? Since when did they stop “aborting” males?

Comments are closed.

Justin Taylor


Justin Taylor is senior vice president and publisher for books at Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books