Thursday, October 30, 2008

Pro Abortionist Obama

Let’s look at Barack Obama’s pro-abortion stance and see why he is referred to as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

There is an excellent review and summary at the following site: Public Discourse - Obama's Abortion Extremism, by Robert George

Some of the highlights in the article are that he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment. This amendment protects pro-life citizens and their tax dollars from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.

Obama has also promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This piece of legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons."

Obama’s voting record showed that he opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

Obama has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

Obama is a radical pro-abortion extremist with a public record supporting this conclusion. Although the media and left-wing fanatics try to portray him otherwise, the truth is clear for those who really care.

Anyone who values the life of unborn children cannot justify voting for Obama. They can rationalize their decision and their vote, but they cannot justify it based on any of the known facts.

Labels: , ,

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see there are no comments to this one Dr. Dan! I guess that means when it really gets down to the actual issues, your antagonists don't have a rebuttal? Maybe they don't like how it makes them feel when they stand up and try to rebuke a man that supports killing full term babies?

10/30/2008 08:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, I think what would be interesting is to just let women vote on this issue and keep men out of it and see what happens.

10/30/2008 08:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a Republican. Fiscally conservative, socially moderate. I feel like Ronald Reagan did years ago, "I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me."

10/30/2008 09:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you said in your post. You can rationalize his stance, but you cannot justify a decision to vote for him if you believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.

My impression after watching his infomercial last night was that he came across as a pompous, self-righteous, elitist who really thinks he is God's gift to the USA.

Never in my 50 plus years have I watched a candidate paint America as such a horrible place. I have traveled all across the states and he evidently lives in a different world than I have personally observed.

His viewpoints and philosophies will certainly harm this great nation.

10/30/2008 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

You know, Doc, it would have saved much time had you merely cut to the chase and posted about abortion first, omitting the contrived propaganda about socialism and the rest of it. Indeed, here's an issue that divides the populace, and probably cannot be resolved without compromise.

Unfortunately, taking the most extreme anti-abortion position imaginable makes compromise unlikely ... but perhaps that's the point.

Obama is a radical pro-abortion extremist with a public record supporting this conclusion. Although the media and left-wing fanatics try to portray him otherwise, the truth is clear for those who really care.

Any person arguing against Dr. Dan on this topic has already been characterized as:

radical
extremist
left-wing
fanatics

Amazing, isn't it? With the "truth" so obvious, people still insist on making a case for the practice of abortion.

What on earth could be the issue with these people?

Is it scientific ignorance? Are they rebelling against one or the other God?

The question I have for the good doctor and any other reader is this:

Assume that under John McCain, the conditions described here are reversed, and abortion becomes illegal in all caes, period, with an exception made for violent rape (statistically a cipher, anyway, but for the sake of argument, let it go. My guess would be that rape suddenly would become harder to prove legally than it is now).

What happens to the women who still seek abortions under the new guidelines?

Those women who do -- will they be criminals, sinners, or both?

How intrusive will government be to enforce the law?

Won't government have to e fairly big and powerful to prevent abortion from occurring?

How does government that big jibe with the goal of small government?

Will their be entrapments and sting operations? How many new jails will have to be built?

Or, will the death penalty be enforced against women and doctors who commit "murder" under the new legal regime?

Am I being unfair here by describing a worst case scenario? If so, then how would you describe the scenario painted by Dr. Dan in the posting above?

The most disturbing of HB's tendencies is his fundamental belief that conscience is his exclusive domain, and this posting is ultimate proof of this trait.

In essence, he holds that there cannot be another viewpoint on this topic, that people of good conscience must be on his side or be consigned to the flames. In essence, it's "My God's way, or the highway."

I agree with the anonymous commentator who suggested we allow women to decide. It strikes me as an equitable compromise, but as we've seen, the argument as Dr. Dan frames it is that compromise is impossible.

Jake made light of my suggestion earlier in the week that my friend and personal physician might benefit from anger management counseling. But today's posting makes my case better than I ever could. If I didn't trust and respect him, I would not make such a suggestion. I do, so I am.

This is not an outline for a workable society. It is an outline for a police state dominated by theology. Now, please, go ahead and explain to me how this corresponds with anything approximating the American experience.

10/30/2008 09:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading through all of this crap, I think we just gotta a bunch of Kentuckian Bubba voters on here.

10/30/2008 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger Christopher D said...

Abortion should not be used as a means for repeated birth control, that I will say.
However, completely wanting to do away with abortions is, in my opinion, just as reckless.
*Is adoption a feasible alternative to a 13 year old girl who was raped by her uncle?
*Is carrying full term an acceptable scenario to the married, stable couple who's unborn child massively deformed either physically or mentally?
* What about the pregnant woman who if she carries the child to term that there is a distinct chance that both she and the child will die, if not both?
If we pass laws to limit abortion to these situations only, who gets to sit in judgement of these women and decide who qualifies for a government sanctioned abortion?
And should it be the "job" of politically driven individuals to force their beliefs on this subject on person(s) whom they will probably NEVER know what its like to be in their shoes?
And how about if the government and activists spend a little more time and resources on figuring how to responsibly care for, feed, teach, and provide comprehensive health care for the millions of children in this country who are RIGHT NOW living in poverty with out proper nutrition, education, medical, dental, and vision care.
Of course we can just sit back and shake our fingers at the parents for criticise them, while doing nothing for those children

10/30/2008 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And should it be the "job" of politically driven individuals to force their beliefs on this subject on person(s) whom they will probably NEVER know what its like to be in their shoes?"

I wouldn't be so sure of yourself christopher d. You have no way of knowing everything about everybody. I just so happen to know very well how these women feel when they are in a situation where they have to make a choice. I also know what it is like to live the rest of your life knowing you made THAT CHOICE and the guilt that you carry with you.

Do I support abortion now? Absolutely not. I do view this whole issue differently upon realizing my salvation in Christ. Oh but wait....some would call me out on my "theology" and wave that term around like a red flag. Where are my rights to believe what I wish to believe? That's right....they are being taken away. Slowly....so slow that most people don't realize their Christian rights are being taken away. I thought I had MY freedom of religion protected under the Constitution as well but that will only be a matter of time. People want nothing to do with the fact that this country WAS founded on Christian principles and "theology". If you don't like that fact.......move to Europe. They will welcome your secular beliefs.

The people that will end up being the ones surprised are not "us Christians" if Obama gets elected. We've read the last chapter in "The Book". We know where this world is heading. Although no one is promised the exact date and time, we know the season for the Lord's return. And if Obama's beliefs are where this country is headed, the season just might be staring us in the face.

Oh darn....my "theology" is showing again.....

10/30/2008 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher D said...

"Do I support abortion now? Absolutely not. I do view this whole issue differently upon realizing my salvation in Christ. Oh but wait....some would call me out on my "theology" and wave that term around like a red flag. Where are my rights to believe what I wish to believe?"
You have every right in the world to believe what you want to believe, and if you have a strong faith in God, then GREAT for you, and I mean that.
However, your right to believe your interpretation of the bible as presented in the modern context and translation does not give the right to force those beliefs and standards on others. So yes that would be a theocracy, and our current administration has made it clear that theocracies can not be tolerated in the modern world (think of Iran).

"I wouldn't be so sure of yourself christopher d. You have no way of knowing everything about everybody. I just so happen to know very well how these women feel when they are in a situation where they have to make a choice. I also know what it is like to live the rest of your life knowing you made THAT CHOICE and the guilt that you carry with you."
Important to point out here, I stated I DO NOT agree with abortion as a means of repeated brith control.
Yet I do not believe that abortion should be outlawed either. You did not answer the fundamental question that if we were to retain certain criteria for abortion, who would be the ones to sit in judgement of the women who NEED an abortion for medical reason, or if the pregnancy was a result of forced incest, rape, etc.
And I come from a position where I too have experience in helping those who are forced to make difficult choices, and to deal with the consequences of those choices.
Our Clinics do not provide abortions, nor do we advocate for facilities that do provide those services, nor do we refer to such places.
Before you lay your bible down to tie a noose to hang me with, please be sure that you know the totality of the circumstances from where my stance has originated from.
Because unlike an anonymous poster I am willing to stand up for my beliefs, and put my name to them, which is more than can be said in your case.

10/30/2008 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

NAC,

I made light of your suggestion the other day because you were completely lacking the finesse with which you normally post.

As to your questions, I think the answer is the woman would be a criminal only if she filed a fraudulent suit in order to get an abortion and abortions would not be performed without a police report being filed simultaneously.
As to the big government thing, no government wouldn't have to be big because it would be up to local police, it doesn't affect small government because it is just local law enforcement enforcing local law, no there won't be sting operations just like there aren't sting operations on assisted suicide, you shouldn't need more jails because if it is a known law people theoretically wouldn't be breaking it often enough to matter, and finally yes, if the law stated that abortions are illegal and considered to be murders, then a doctor and/or woman performing one would be tried for murder. Just like doctors get tried for murder in assisted suicide cases.
No it isn't an unfair thing to hypothesize.

I have yet to hear one of those taunted arguments based only on facts and logic for why abortions aren't murder, and I haven't heard any good answer for when a fetus becomes a human. Mathematically if they aren't human in the first trimester, but at birth they are human, then there is some time in between, some day, hour, second, nano-second, some event which bestows humanity upon them. What is that event?

10/30/2008 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher D said...

"As to your questions, I think the answer is the woman would be a criminal only if she filed a fraudulent suit in order to get an abortion and abortions would not be performed without a police report being filed simultaneously."

I am extremely pro-police, its in my blood, but what kind of madness is it to even suggest that the law enforcement agencies of our country get involved in a medical issue such as this? That is insanity!
In this effort to outlaw abortion, has much thought been given to the fact that outlawing it will drive desparate women from clean, sanitary medical settings to underground procedures, increasing the mortality rates amung those who would seek an abortion, who would not be swayed by laws, but driven by their own sense of self preservation?
Of course in the eyes of most strict anti-abortionists, any woman under any circumstances that seeks an abortion is probably not fit to live anyway, at least not in this Christian Society.

10/30/2008 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is that event?

When the fetus starts to play with it's sex organ.

10/30/2008 04:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roger,

HB's statement;
Obama is a radical pro-abortion extremist with a public record supporting this conclusion.

is based on the facts. I don't see anyone giving any refutation on this.

You just automatically turn the issue around and make the argument a religious one because of your underlying bigotry towards Christians

This bigotry against Christians is no different than race-baiting as you have accused HB of doing.
Shame on you!

A pro-life stance is just one more issue given to support many peoples vote in support of McCain and against Obama

10/30/2008 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger Iamhoosier said...

anon 1:54,
Your "rights" are protected. No one is forcing you or anyone else to have an abortion. If it is against your religion, then don't do it. That's your freedom. I fail to see what you are having "taken" from you. You are free to drink alcohol if you choose and free not to drink alcohol if that is against your religion. There is example after example.

As for the Christians who founded this country. Would these be the same people who said a black man was worth 3 fifths of a white man when it came to the census? Would this be the slave owner(and "more"), Thomas Jefferson? Would this be Benjamin Franklin, who tried to "electrify" practically every women that he met?

You need to need a little more reading and research.

10/30/2008 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Chris D,

I was responding to NAC's hypothetical society. The answer is that abortions would require a police report just like AIDS diagnoses require reporting, just like child abuse cases require reporting. In his scenario, abortions would be another situation that require reporting.

As for driving women to unsafe measures, it would be the same as driving drug users to unsafe measures.

10/30/2008 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger Iamhoosier said...

Edit(last sentence)

You need to do a little...

Sorry.

10/30/2008 04:39:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Gillenwater said...

because if it is a known law people theoretically wouldn't be breaking it often enough to matter,

Hmmm...

So if we restrict gun ownership, it wouldn't effectively curb the number of guns on our streets and black markets would thrive, but if we restrict abortions, they'd be so few and far between that we'd hardly notice?

...and I haven't heard any good answer for when a fetus becomes a human

Me neither. And since the definition of murder is predicated upon the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human by another, it logically follows that terminating a fetus can't be classified as murder.

10/30/2008 05:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you remember correctly....long before Thomas Jefferson...the Puritains were the ones who first came to this country escaping religious persecution. You don't think their values had any influence on our founding fathers?

10/30/2008 06:06:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Gillenwater said...

Yup, Puritan society was a beautiful thing. They came to escape religious persecution and therefore took it upon themselves, you know, in the spirit of freedom, to persecute anyone who didn't share their religion.

I can't disagree. There's a lesson there somewhere.

It's a bit like someone saying they're against big government. Except in those cases where the government should intervene more.

I think someone already made that point today.

10/30/2008 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Bluegill,

You're batting 500. Pretty good! There will always be someone who breaks some law, it doesn't mean we should remove the laws.
As for your comment about murder and fetuses, you missed the point. At some point DURING the pregnancy that fetus becomes human as witnessed by the outlawing of full term abortions and murder charges that would follow if a doctor were to terminate a fetus at the time of delivery. It follows that killing a fetus should at the very least be attempted murder since you're incapable of showing that it isn't a human.

And yes I'm assuming that it is human. Either at the time of conception or possibly at the time of the very first cellular determination or differentiation.

10/30/2008 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Gillenwater said...

Besides your apparent misunderstanding of logic, I'm left to ponder how our society would function if citizens were convicted based on what they might or could have done in the absence of evidence.

Under your system, you or I could be convicted of any given crime if we couldn't specifically prove we didn't do it, regardless of whether or not the prosecution could prove we did.

Luckily, our current legal system largely works to protect against assumptions rather than promote them.

I'd like to keep it that way if you don't mind. Well, OK, even if you do.

10/30/2008 07:09:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Bluegill,

Are you suggesting that if you killed a fetus right now, that you would not be charged with murder?

As for our current system, driving drunk gets you attempted manslaughter charges, killing pregnant women sometimes gets you 2 counts of murder, and criminal arson can also land you an attempted homicide charge. My logic is sound, your positions are ridiculous.

10/30/2008 07:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Doc,
Just wanted to say love your blog & I'm trying my hand at it, too. Never too late, I say. Check it out if you get an opportunty.

(www.xanga.com/indyzona)

And, with regards to this current topic, you might want to look at www.catholicvote.com for an absolutely terrific video, if you haven't seen it yet. Thanks & keep up the good work!

10/30/2008 09:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It should be pointed out that nobody in the abortion debate believes they are supporting murder.

My pet peeve, by the way, are people who are against abortion "except in cases of rape or incest." If it's murder, it's no less murder if the unborn child is a bastard.

I think a logical criterion for the beginning of life is "brain birth," the point when the central nervous system begins to function. I've read that this is at week 7. Too late for those who believe that life begins at conception. Too early for most pro-choice people.

10/30/2008 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is interesting to see so many experts on the medical and legal implications of abortions.

The fundamental problem, which seems to have escaped most of the commenters thus far, is that none of your opinions matter. It doesn't matter when you think life begins. It doesn't matter whether you think women should have the right to have an abortion. It doesn't matter if you think there should be an exception for cases of rape. The Supreme Court has taken the decision out of our hands.

To provide the short story, the power of the federal government comes from the states. The states have constitutions which restrict the power of state government. In the absence of the state constitution, there would be no limit on the power of the state. The federal constitution is a grant of power from the states. Without the federal constitution, the federal government would have no power.

The police power of the states allows them to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. This includes regulating such things as what constitutes a crime. This is why each state has its own criminal law. A crime in Indiana may not be a crime in Tennessee. What is required to prove murder in one state may be different from the proof that is required in another state.

Before Roe vs Wade, each state decided how to handle abortion in the context of its criminal laws. Some states made abortion illegal. Some states did not. Some states provided exceptions to the general rule. But it was no different from any other crime that is defined differently by different states.

Then, the Supreme Court slowly crafted a new area of rights it found hidden away in a corner of the Constitution. This was the right to privacy. Previously unrecognized and certainly unmentioned, the Supreme Court found that the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights included the right to privacy. In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court said that the choice of whether to have an abortion is under the umbrella of privacy rights. Other rights have since been found by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.

As a result of Roe vs Wade, what was once an issue for the states to handle under their criminal law became a Constitutional issue that is now overseen by the Supreme Court. It is no longer a state issue, but a federal issue. And it is no longer in the hands of the political branches of government, but in the hands of a few who happen to wear black robes.

Whatever your views on abortion, they are, at present, moot. What we must first confront is the usurpation of democracy by an out-of-control judiciary. The issue of abortion is properly left to the states to regulate. Only then will the voice of the people matter, and only then will we be able to have this debate in a meaningful forum.

Some have pointed out in previous comments their desire for compromise on this issue. Compromise is only necessary in politics. The Supreme Court was not intended to be political; the other two branches of government were. If you truly desire compromise, then you surely support the overturning of Roe vs Wade so as to return the issue to the political branches of the several states.

10/30/2008 11:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should add one thing to my last comment so that it relates to the current political decision we have to make:

John McCain has properly addressed the issue of abortion by stating that it is an issue for states to decide.

I suppose I'll start the list of reasons to vote for McCain. I never thought I would write that sentence.

Anon 11:08

10/30/2008 11:16:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

I understand you're upset, but that doesn't make the discussion of an issue moot, irrelevant, or otherwise unimportant.

10/31/2008 04:44:00 AM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

My logic is sound, your positions are ridiculous.

Gads. Are HB and Jake the same person?

10/31/2008 08:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd say as an undecided voter and after reading some of these comments from the left, I'll stick with my original plan and vote for McCain. I just cannot see myself being associated with the likes of bluegill, nac and iamhoosier.

And for iamhoosier, how come everytime abortion and religion is brought up, you comment on slavery. People admitted it was wrong, history showed it was very, very controversial from early on and many wanted it gone before the nation took hold. How many years is it going to take for you and the others to admit abortion and infanticide is wrong? You are on the wrong side of this argument.
And NAC: attacking Jake again rather than responding to his arguments is not a very strong position. you never have addressed the post itself about Obama's radical stance. In fact, none of you have. Wonder why!

10/31/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger The New Albanian said...

I haven't addressed it the way you'd like me to because:

(a) The case in favor of the position, as presented by HB, is another in a series of straw men, in which he conjures horrific unrealities and bashes them to bits for the edification of the like minded.

(b) As such, HB's case is just as fanatical and extremist as the "other" side he freely impugns.

(c) I illustrated that by taking HB's position to the logical conclusion, i.e., the intrusive police state that will result from implentation of his own extemist views, and how this differs from the "get government off our backs" claims.

I might have gone a step further, and will now.

HB's case ultimately rests on a specific religious viewpoint. If he's willing to use the power of the state to enforce draconian anti-abortion edicts, official implementation of the theocracy's only a step away.

Actually, I've given HB's position exactly what it deserves. A bit of refutation, a bit of scorn, and a bit of principled opposition.

Biblical righteousness plays well in Cecil B DeMille flicks, but in the real world, it leads to intolerance. I'm opposed to that.

10/31/2008 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Gillenwater said...

It's interesting to note that, when one peruses the results of national polls concerning attitudes about abortion, the option of making abortions completely illegal generally rates the fewest agreeable responses, rarely tracking above 20% of the population or so.

It would seem then, that either 80% of the country's population are extremist, left-wing fanatics or, perhaps more reasonably, that HB's view is more a departure from the country's traditional, majority position on the matter than are the ones held by those he seeks to demonize, ironically making him more of a radical than they are.

10/31/2008 10:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole point of the article was the first paragraph:
the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket

The rest of the post was simply the evidence supporting that statement. It really cannot be refuted because it is all true.

For those voters that believe this is an important issue, this posting is very educational and supportive of the position.

You cannot show anything in Obama's history that refutes this other than his outard lying rhetoric.

10/31/2008 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Daniel Short said...

The question...Is Obama an extremist when it comes to abortion. One should look at what he has said about his future grandchildren. "If my daughters made a mistake, I wouldn't want to punish them with a baby." Seems pretty extreme to me.

10/31/2008 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My pet peeve, by the way, are people who are against abortion "except in cases of rape or incest." If it's murder, it's no less murder if the unborn child is a bastard.

O.K., so if you are raped by your father and the odds are the child could be retarded, thinking that abortion shouldn't be a choice is, retarded.

10/31/2008 10:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question...Is Obama an extremist when it comes to abortion. One should look at what he has said about his future grandchildren. "If my daughters made a mistake, I wouldn't want to punish them with a baby." Seems pretty extreme to me.

Seems pretty logical to me.

10/31/2008 11:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous of 10:57 AM: Killing a child because he is, or might be, mentally handicapped is still murder. If abortion is indeed murder.

10/31/2008 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As the snow flies
On a cold and gray Chicago morning
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries
’cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need
It’s another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto

People, don’t you understand
the child needs a helping hand
or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me,
are we too blind to see,
do we simply turn our heads
and look the other way

Well the world turns
and a hungry little boy with a runny nose
plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the ghetto

and his hunger burns
so he starts to roam the streets at night
and he learns how to steal
and he learns how to fight
In the ghetto

Then one night in desperation
a young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car,
tries to run, but he don’t get far
And his mama cries

As a crowd gathers ’round an angry young man
face down in the street with a gun in his hand
In the ghetto

As her young man dies,
on a cold and grey Chicago morning,
another little baby child is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries

In the ghetto
In the ghetto

10/31/2008 04:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, Jake. No one is upset. And I didn't say discussion of the issue was unimportant. My point was that there is more than one issue in the abortion debate, and it's important to separate them and take them on in order.

First, correct the process. Then, debate the substance.

By attacking my comment, you're attacking someone who's on your side. I believe we must protect the sanctity of life, and I believe that life begins at conception.

10/31/2008 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

I was only attacking the portions of your post (First Paragraph you say it doesn't matter several times, Another paragraph you say it's a moot point) I agree with you about the history and the problem. I'm more of a federalist on this issue, just like you seem to be. I believe the government overstepped its power over the states in passing Rowe v Wade, and would overturn it for the purpose of letting states and specifically the people of the state decide whether that particular behavior is to be tolerated.

10/31/2008 07:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home