Obama and the "punishment of unborn life" - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 03-31-2008, 11:30 PM

Obama and the "punishment of unborn life"

I wonder how pro-life Democrats will react to Barack Obama’s pregnancy-as-punitive and pregnancy-as-inconvenience-on-par-with STDs rhetoric? There’s a careless callousness in Obama’s phrasing yesterday that’s definitely not going to sit well with the staunch Pennsylvania pro-life voting bloc.

What do you think? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...bortions_.html

Quote:

Out in western Pennsylvania, the issue of abortion can strike a nerve. Democrats there often describe themselves economic liberals and social conservatives who favor gun rights and oppose abortion rights.

So, it was not unusual to see a woman stand near the end of Barack Obama’s town hall meeting in Johnstown, Penn., and offer a hurried, passionate plea for him to “stop these abortions.”

…The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Blogger reax…

The Other McCain: http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03...with-baby.html

Quote:

Huh? Who thinks of babies as “punishment”?

Better yet, what kind of father would describe babies as “punishment”? As a father of six children (three of them teenagers), I was dumbfounded by Obama’s use of this phrase. Of course, this being a Democratic primary, there’s really no difference between Obama and Hillary on the abortion issue, but Obama’s bizarre phrasing is still remarkable.

STACLU: http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008...re-punishment/

Quote:

Regardless of your feelings on sexual education, this statement oozes with animosity. It also reveals the true heart of Barack Obama. Despite his so-called “understanding” of both sides of the abortion issue, any person that could utter such cold, abhorrence when discussing a fellow human being has no intention of displaying any goodwill to pro-lifers.

I am so not surprised when last July he stated, “What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One’s ‘late-term’ and the other’s ‘postpartum’. Who’s to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons.”

That floored me.

I may get some flak for this, but I have stated before that I think there are three valid reasons for an abortion:

1. rape
2. incest
3. danger to the mother’s life

But that’s it. Using abortion as birth control or as a solution to a voluntary “life mistake” is wrong.

I believe that at some age sex education is a must. I don’t know what that age is and it must be determined by the parents because all children are different and react differently to information.

Maybe a solution is to have class in school, but not make it mandatory to a certain age. Let the parent determine when a child should go to that class.

If a sixteen year old has casual sex, she has made one bad choice.

If unprotected sex, that is bad choice number two.

If she becomes pregnant, that is consequence number one.

If she gets a STD, that is consequence number 2.

Now explain how another bad choice, the killing of a baby, will result in anything other than another consequence that would be undesirable.

Obama’s words are beyond reprehensible. And they echo a theme well beyond the issue of teenage sex: the abdication of personal responsibility.

There are consequences for the poor decisions one makes in life. Engage in unprotected sex and get pregnant. eat more calories than you use and face obesity. Spend more money than you make and face bankruptcy. Ignore the educational opportunities this country offers and prepare to be destined to a life of menial jobs.

Obama stands for the proposition that the government’s role is to absolve people of personal responsibility. Why should one practice abstinence, live within one’s means and endeavor to succeed when the government can provide the solution. Obama’s world would have peole trade their freedom to be responsible for their own lives for government intervention relieving them of that “burden”. The barter of one’s freedom for security. A people willing to make that trade, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, deserve neother freedom nor security.

The real irony here is that Obama’s own mother and father conceived him out of wedlock. Is it his belief that his birth was a punishment on his parents? And, based on his mother’s atheist beliefs and her extreme liberal view of the world, had the climate for abortion been as permissive then as it is today, would there even *be* a Barak Obama? Why should she have had to endure the punishment of unprotected sex?

Jolie Rouge · 08-22-2008, 11:53 PM

In 2002, Barack Obama Supported Infanticide
I've Got the Transcript of His Words
Erick Erickson
Thursday, August 21, 2008

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/reds...infanticide-a/

Editorial Note: People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama's concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.

---------

What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

Obama has made several points, which we should recount.

First, Obama claimed doctors must render the care anyway. As David Freddosso has regularly pointed out, that was not true.

In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.

Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.

This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.

Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, "even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law."

But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama's excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

What did he say?

I've got the transcript. I've got Senator Obama's own words.

Here is what you need to know.

The legislation came up more than once. In 2001, Senator Obama was concerned about the legislation's impact on abortion. But when the bill came back in 2002, the issue about the law undermining abortion had been redressed.

In 2002, Senator Obama was not concerned about Roe v. Wade. He was not concerned with undermining abortion laws in Illinois. No, what Senator Obama today claims were his concerns were not his concerns back in 2002.

In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law.

He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

Here is what he said:

Quote:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

SHORTER BARACK OBAMA: Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.

That's it. If a baby comes out and is alive, Barack Obama thought it too damned burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby was viable.

Don't believe me? Read the transcript here. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcrip...2/ST040402.pdf

No one else spoke out against the legislation. Only Barack Obama was so concerned about the doctor performing the abortion, he did not think it worth having a doctor used to live babies coming in to see if the baby might live. Only Barack Obama

----

So even if it comes out alive, Obama would prefer to let it die rather than try to save a living baby outside the womb. In any other context this would be called murder to just let someone die when you could save them.

It was chilling enough that Obama could see fit to be against the Born Alive Infant Act solely to protect Roe v Wade, but to argue that it raised a burden on another doctor being called to verify the viabiity of an aborted infant, is just WRONG. Especially after witnessing the wrenching testimony of Jill Stanek. To call it chilling gives ice a bad name. I came across Obama’s choice of words on the floor of the IL Senate thanks to Jill Stanek who became the martyr when she got fired from Christ Hospital where she was an RN for exposing that live born children at Christ Hospital were being discarded in a soiled utility room to die since they survived the abortion procedure. I guess the abortion docs on hand couldn’t stomach killing the child outright after making it out of the womb alive so they dumped them in a storage room to die. It is damning and I hope world sees Obama’s view word for word.

A baby is only a person if it’s wanted, hence, a person’s humanity is based on if they are “wanted” or “needed”.

Pure utilitarianism.

Pure socialism.

They already have a champion for that cause: Peter Singer, who holds the Ethics Chair at Princeton, one of our illustrious poison ivy league schools.

I’m not a big fan of Wiki, but this does sum up his opinion on abortion & euthanasia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Quote:

Although some critics may find this comment anti-human, it is a consequence of Singer’s ethic which denies that a being’s species membership has any moral relevance. According to Singer, whether a being is or is not a member of our own species is, in itself, no more relevant than whether a being is or is not a member of our own race; the claim that a fetus is a member of the human species tells us only that a fetus is a member of our species and breeding group, but it does not communicate any information that one can use to make a moral decision.

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother’s preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” [23]- and therefore “[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”[24].

Peter Singer has also extended the same arguement to the disabled and the elderly.

Jolie Rouge · 08-23-2008, 11:04 PM

[quote]Colorado Planned Parenthood Finishes New Denver Abortion Center Early
by Steven Ertelt
July 8, 2008

Denver, CO (LifeNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood in Colorado has finished its new building three months ahead of schedule and the massive facility will do abortions and serve as a political headquarters for its election campaigns. The building, located at East 38th Avenue and Pontiac Street in the suburb of Stapleton, opened last week.

The three-story facility has seen pro-life advocates protesting outside since construction began in November on the renovated United Airlines building. They ultimately boycotted Weitz construction company and were able to get some of the subcontractors to quit the project, but Planned Parenthood acted as its own general contractor and moved ahead.

Leslie Durgin, senior vice president for community development of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, talked with the Denver Post about the new abortion business. "It's really important to us that we are open to the community," she said. "We really want to be part of this community and this neighborhood."

But Leslie Hanks of Colorado Right to Life, says her group will continue protesting at the abortion center. "The unjust taking of human lives will be opposed for as long as the killing goes on," she said.

During the building process, pro-life advocates complained the building was constructed in secret and without full disclosure to the community or local officials. Planned Parenthood purchased the land it's using to build the new abortion center from United Airlines. During the approval process for starting the building project, Iowa-based contractor Weitz Company listed United as the owner of the property to hide Planned Parenthood's ownership of the land.

Planned Parenthood set up a front group called Fuller 38 to set up all of the operations. According to documents from the city of Denver, Planned Parenthood created Fuller 38 in December 2006 and purchased the land at 7155 East 38th Ave from United weeks later for $1.35 million.

No one knew about the new abortion center until August or that the new facility will house the pro-abortion group's headquarters and an abortion facility in the same 50,000-square foot space.

Will Duffy, a spokesman with Colorado Families Against Planned Parenthood, told WorldNetDaily that the demolition permit in May and the construction permit in October both say United owned the building. He said the city indicated Weitz is responsible for putting the owner on the proper documents.

Colorado pro-life advocates met with representatives of the building firm and hoped to persuade it to boycott the project and refuse to build the abortion center, but found considerable resistance.

Durgin previously admitted to the Denver Post that she hoped the abortion center could be built secretly. Planned Parenthood purchased the property, located down the street from Martin Luther King park, under a different name to keep the purchase secret, she said. Now that construction is set to begin, the abortion business is changing tactics. "We changed that several months ago. We just decided that wasn't right for us," Durgin said. "We anticipate we will have protests."

Planned Parenthood began using the secret tactics when pro-life groups successfully got construction workers and firms to boycott building an abortion center in Austin, Texas. The abortion center eventually opened but the tactics delayed that for several months.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains does about 8,800 abortions annually on women from Colorado and four surrounding states.

http://www.lifenews.com/state3361.html

DNC Dispatch: The Planned Parenthood protest

DENVER — I attended the abortion protest at the new Planned Parenthood mega-facility here in Denver this morning.

The pro-abortion presence was measly. I counted about seven or eight demonstrators who tried to compensate for their low numbers with their loud mouths.

The ignorance of the pro-abort activists is, frankly, astonishing. One woman, Elaine Brower of NY, stood with the small gaggle of pro-Planned Parenthood cheerleaders attacking pro-lifers as racists. But when asked whether the barbaric eugenics legacy of Planned Parenthood godmother Margaret Sanger bothered her, she told me: “No, I don’t believe that. That’s made up. This has nothing to do with black people.”

( http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger )

Speaking of which: All of the pro-abortion activists I saw were white.

Meanwhile, across the street from Planned Parenthood’s palace, I spoke with black and Hispanic mothers who had very strong feelings about abortion. They weren’t there to take part in the protests. They were there because Planned Parenthood had the disgustingly bad taste to build their bloody business right next to a large park and playground. It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Park — and it was filled this morning with families watching their sons practice football.

One of the moms, Priscilla, was angry about the construction of the clinic right across from her neighborhood park and said bluntly: “I don’t want a f**king abortion clinic in my neighborhood!” A Hispanic mother added: “It’s against the Catholic Church.” ( Someone tell Joe Biden.) And another black mother of three I spoke to while sitting in her minivan, when asked about her views on abortion, told me simply: “I don’t believe in it.”

But our tax dollars pay for it.

And you’re a woman-hating racist if you oppose it.

And if you want to make your views known at the DNC, you better be quiet about it.

The People’s Press Collective, an impressive group of Denver-area bloggers who have united to provide multimedia coverage of the circus, caught a Democrat clean-up crew quickly dispatched to scrub away pro-life chalk messages left on the sidewalk at the Pepsi Center yesterday:
http://www.peoplespresscollective.org

The message they didn’t want the public to see:

“True change ends abortion.”

Quote:

But when asked whether the barbaric eugenics legacy of Planned Parenthood godmother Margaret Sanger bothered her, she told me: “No, I don’t believe that. That’s made up. This has nothing to do with black people.”

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge."
-Margaret Sanger What Every Boy and Girl Should Know 1915, p. 140

Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Sanger considered the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization."[15] She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

1/71

renaissanceman · 08-24-2008, 12:08 AM

You can't seem to get people to understand that Abortion is ONLY truly supported by the Godless. (IMO)

IF we really are made in the image of a Creator who has blessed us with life and the ability to reproduce.....

It is the HEIGHT of arrogance to think we have the right to end a human life for convenience.

It is also funny to me that the people who MOST supported Abortion in its early days were Atheists, Liberals and Racists!!!

Sometimes they were ALL of the prior.

janelle · 08-24-2008, 04:16 AM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28127

Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban
08/20/2008

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

renaissanceman · 08-28-2008, 08:12 PM

More and more, Abortion is being proven to be indefensible!!!

HOW can "Pro Choice" advocates support these procedures KNOWING how barbaric they can be and often are???

WHAT about how some people (including Obama) support these laws that would make it ILLEGAL for medical personnel to render aid to LIVE babies who have survived the "procedure"???

This is EVIL, there is NO other description for medical professionals standing by and allowing a child to suffer and die.

OR that our legislators are trying to FORCE medical personnel to do the same through fear and intimidation!

read this story....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html