This comment alone speaks volumes about the character and courage of this pretender to the throne. I suppose I should go easy on the guy. After all, one cannot have courage of his convictions if one has no convictions. I don't mean the type of convictions his friend Tony Rezko now has, but the type by which men are measured. But what kind of weenie can't muster the courage to answer this question? That's easy. One who doesn't want to highlight that which he knows is abominable. One who doesn't want to highlight what horror he supports.
Even most pro-abortion lefties see problems with both partial-birth abortions and denying medical care for living breathing infants. Not this guy. Screw the kids, we can't deprive women their right to do away with them. Hell no. What would this nation come to if people cared about the most innocent and helpless among us?
Geoffrey said something recently along the lines of abortion not even being on the radar in this election. More's the pity for this nation. And Les has big problems with the suggestion that he and other abortion "rights" supporters are labeled by some as equal to murderers. Hopefully, they don't disagree with the heinous nature of either partial-birth or opposing BAIPA. These are fully formed infants we're talking about here.
We can set aside every other position and issue and campaign promise. None of that matters. His position on these two issues are enough for honorable men and women. Barak Obama does NOT deserve consideration for President of the United States of America. Those who support him dishonor themselves.
I can smell another bumper sticker:
It's Obamanable!
It's an Obamanation!
It's
OBAMACIDE!
NOBAMA
13 comments:
Love the bumper sticker!
Remember, Obama doesn't just see the right of unrestricted abortions in the Constitution, he sees the right to a corpse. If the abortion fails, then that shouldn't be a barrier to a dead human.
A most reprehensible perspective on the issue and enough to disqualify him for pubic office in my view.
Obama and Infanticide
From the article Marty linked to:
"Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.""
What a nice summary.
Abortion - perfectly legal medical procedure supported my a majority of Americans.
Fetus=human beings. Matter of interpretation.
I honestly don't thing there is more to be said.
As for Obama's "above my pay grade" comment, I thought it was a nice quip. He's running for President, not Philosopher-King. In the context of becoming President, the issue is not one of personal philosophy, or even conviction, but of legal precedent and constitutional priority (we are a nation of laws, after all, and the President, as Chief Executive, has a duty to "execute" those laws, like his title says), it is an silly and irrelevant question anyway (I realize Marshall disagrees, but that's OK). A better question might have been, say, "Sen. Obama, will you work to support Roe v Wade and PA v Thornburg, or will you seek to place further legal limits and restrictions on the practice of abortion?" That's a Presidential question.
"Abortion - perfectly legal medical procedure supported my a majority of Americans."
The fact that it is legal merely states the obvious.
Re. "supported by a majority" - Dig a little deeper into specific questions. Most people have no idea of what Roe really means in the abortion debate.
80%+ are opposed to late term abortions, for example.
I yearn for the day when people are more educated about what abortion really does and how easy it is to refute the pro-abortion sound bites pumped out by the 90%+ wildly pro-abortion media and fake Christians.
Unless people have seared consciences, they are quick to graps basic scientific truths that any embryology textbook will teach you, namely that life begins at conception.
Obama's abortion answers were a logical fallacy-fest.
We could work with Obama-Nation.
Ben,
Not sure what you mean in your last.
Good post. Partial birth abortion sounds like an act of infant murder which would be considered psychopathic if committed against a baby who had been born. That people can justify it shows the human capacity for extreme dishonesty in serving their own convenience.
Well put, Andrew.
I understand what you are saying...however, you call yourself "pro life" That would seem to exclude a lot of the things you support like preemptive war, the death penalty and the "you're on your own" attitude. What kind of things reflect your pro life status once the baby is born?
Honest Marshall, I am not trying to tweak or argue with you here. These are questions that liberals have and things they don't understand. The whole morally superior idea is something we have a very hard time understanding. I understand you can rationalize reason why the above can be the thing that needs to be done but that seems to be a nuanced view of "pro-life". Do you understand that the abortion issue is that nuanced for some? What is your post birth pro life stance? Can you enlighten me?
Ron,
Perhaps by now you've read on one of the other posts that which could answer your question, at least as far as being expected to adopt every unwanted child by every couple too concerned with getting their rocks off to worry about what can happen by doing so. It's a lame argument to suggest that because I'm not willing to do that that I should not defend the lives of those taken by their immature and immoral parents.
So what to do with them after they are born...how about putting them up for adoption like an honorable person would do after understanding how immature they had been?
There's nothing nuanced about protecting the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. There's nothing nuanced about the selfishness of those who's desire for self-gratification supercedes their common sense and the reality of potential and likely consequences of their actions.
Now, as far as pre-emptive war, you may have, by now, read the article I posted regarding the authorization for the war and the justifications for it. It is not like Sadam was just sitting there knitting and we decided to kill him. He provoked our actions by his actions.
The death penalty is for those who have committed the crimes for which death is the known penalty. It is justice exacted for their actions. It shows the value we place on life that the taking of life would carry such a penalty. It is the life taken by the perpetrator for which we are "pro-life". That would be the life he had no right to take.
If by the "your on your own" attitude you mean the basic conservative attitude regarding welfare and caring for the poor, it is an overstatement or a misrepresentation. Too many people cry poor who have the ability to care for themselves but don't for reasons that aren't justification for seeking welfare. We on the right are concerned for the poor by advocating and engaging in direct donations to charities we feel are actually helping the truly needy and not those who aren't. We advocate policies that result in more opportunity for more people which arise in an environment of low taxation and reduced federal spending.
Let me know if you need me to flesh this out more for you, but this is an overall synopsis to get you started.
Sorry, it's been a while since I got around. I need a lot more flesh. It appears to me that you just reenforced what I said. You gave what you saw as reasons for people to die or suffer. Your reasons were nuanced. In other words,they left the idea of Pro-life because of this circumstance or that circumstance. That is precisely what I am talking about. I remain confused by the moral superiority you pose to present. If those of the Pro life position hold any moral high ground I fail to see it. Let's put it a little more clearly if I can. What positions do you adamantly take to prove that your love for that baby extends beyond the womb that are not connected to the abortion issue. What things do you support that make you a lover and protector of that babies life when it is 5,15,35,55?
Once again, Ron, you insist that because I abhor the notion of abortion and hope to see it outlawed except to save the life of the mother, that I should be concerned for the lives of those kids beyond the date of their birth, that I should somehow track their progress and contribute to their staying on course. What nonsense! I care about them as much as I care about every life, but I do not go beyond common practices of charity or service. Why would I do so for these children simply because I believe that they deserve the life into which they were invited by their parents?
As far as showing my caring for peopel in general, it shows in my support for conservative ideals and Christian philosophy. Beyond this, perhaps a bit more clarification of your request would help.
Post a Comment