In response, a lot of talk was thrown out to try to mask what one can only guess was a restless itch to fit in better with the world.
The predictions we made about Obama were about as bold as saying that a lemon will taste sour. Since then, they've unfolded, sadly and obviously.
Here's the latest.
The man for whom so many "evangelicals" shot a tranquilizer dart into their conscience has appointed John P. Holdren to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is Obama's top science adviser.
The Bible makes clear what natural revelation alone also puts beyond argument: what a male human conceives in union with a female human is fully human, from conception.
What did Holdren write, in 1973?
That we don't know whether the fetus begins life as human?
That the fetus becomes human in the first, second, or third trimester?
Here is the published view your man Obama legitimized by appointment to a position of influence, emphases added. In 1973, Holdren co-authored a book presenting this view:
The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.Not human at conception, not human during conception, not human after birth, not human at first birthday, perhaps not human at second birthday....
Perhaps a "becoming human" ceremony should be held in addition to birthday parties? And who will certify humanity? Perhaps a government agency? A subdivision of the agency that will determine who does and doesn't deserve particular medical treatments?
The authors actually try to paint abortion as the best thing for the (poisoned, burnt, dismembered) baby. Hear the chilling torture of logic your man Obama just anointed, emphases added:
From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion.... On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens.Holdren was not questioned on this specifically in his confirmation hearings.
There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation.
But we already knew what Obama thought, well before the election. Inconvenient children are a punishment, and their lives are forfeit at a whim.
Seems like a close ideological fit, to me — simply a natural extension.
And nothing that a Biblically-faithful Christian could remotely accept.