Three Questions for the President

If I could ask only three:

  1. Mr. President, why do you champion the cause of the poor and needy on issues like health care while at the same time campaigning and voting to kill the poorest and the neediest of our country – the unborn? Can you truly be said to care for them?
  2. Mr. President, what are you doing to keep your campaign promise of reducing abortions in this country? Was reversing the Mexico City Policy – giving millions to kill international babies – one of the ways you meant to reduce abortions?
  3. Mr. President, some people in this country think that you are pro-life for unborn children, while others know that you are pro-choice (pro-murder). Could you clear this up for us, or is this a deliberate attempt to confuse voters?

Vote or write your own at CitizenTube.


About B Treece
loved by God before I ever loved Him, saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by the authority of the Bible alone to the glory of God alone, made to enjoy Him forever, happily married with wonder-filled children.

4 Responses to Three Questions for the President

  1. kip says:

    No problem.
    Poor people sometimes need a little help. The unborn aren’t people.
    Giving aid to those who desperately need it is considered a good thing by most human standards.
    The President has spoken time and time again about fixing the causes that lead toward so many women to having to make that choice.

    • B Treece says:

      Kip, thanks for the comments. I’m glad you dropped by to talk with me and the rest of my (four) readers. I’ll respond in the order of your comments:

      1. You say dismissively, “The unborn aren’t people.” Yet scientists and even abortionists agree that life begins at fertilization, not birth. As says, “Every new life begins at fertilization. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.”

      This is exactly why former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton said in a 1997 interview that everyone already knows that abortion kills: “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”

      So, Kip, you would be disagreeing with your own party-line-tuggers, scores of scientists, biologists, and doctors, and the Word of God to say that the unborn aren’t people. Let us pose the question to you, then: If the unborn aren’t people, what are they exactly? Are they a different species of person? Are they less than human because of their size, location, or development? Are they less than human because their mother, the President, or Planned Parenthood says so?

      In the end, none of these arguments (size, location, development, choice, determination) hold up for any other type of life or personhood, yet the pro-choice facade still blinds many from seeing the true truth – an unborn child has the same “inalienable rights” as every other human on the face of our planet because he is made in God’s own image.

      2. You mention, “aid to those who desperately need it.” If a born child was in danger of murder, would they not at that very moment be the most desperate person in the planet? Your presupposition that grown people are more needy than the unborn simply stems from the root of your denial of the personhood of the unborn. If we can prove that the unborn are, in fact, people, then your second comment holds no weight as a denial of help for the unborn.

      3. The President surely has “spoken time and time again about fixing the causes that lead toward” abortion, as you say, but has he truly done anything about it? All we can see is the advancement of a pro-death agenda. How can he be said to be working against it when he’s working for it? No one can serve two masters, Kip.

      If Obama truly wants to limit abortions, then he must either think it is wrong or think it is politically wise. If the former, then he should work to end abortion, not expand it. If the latter, he is simply a man of bankrupt morals who changes his beliefs to fit his own desire for political power.

      The last word, however, is that all humans need Jesus Christ to see why He is most beautiful, true, and precious, and then and only then will they fully understand why our self-centered goals (like killing undesired children) are ugly, false, and damaging. He took our sin on the tree so that we might die to this and all sin and come to God Himself.

  2. cindyinsd says:

    Hmm, let’s see . . .

    1. Unborn babies and people under 18 don’t vote. By the time they’re old enough to do the prez any good, he’ll be too old for politics–possibly even dead. Nothing in it for him.

    2. Barak lied; babies died (and go on doing so)

    3. See #2.

  3. B Treece says:

    Yeah, basically it boils down to lies for political power versus truth to defend the unborn. You’re right, Cindy, we see where our President stands. But we know sadly that his foundation is shifting sand and will soon fall. We only pray that he be converted before millions more children die with his lies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: