Farah: “Life, a tricky issue for Obama to stomach”
by Joseph Farah, CEO of WorldNetDaily.com, yesterday:
Barack Obama is so confident, so well-spoken, so self-assured, so articulate.
Most of the time.
If you want to see Barack Obama uneasy, at a loss for words, tentative, halting, just ask him one of the simplest and most profound questions to be debated in the public square for the last 35 years – since he was 12 years old.
The question: “Do you believe life begins at conception and, if not, when does it begin?”
I urge you to watch what happened when he was asked that question last month in a candidate forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
Watch him melt. Watch him squirm. Watch him reach for words that fail him. Watch him admit he hasn’t really come to grips with one of the very hottest public policy issues of our time. Watch him try to come up with an answer that won’t offend anyone….
Now try to imagine this man going toe to toe with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il or Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin.
The man cannot even express coherently what he believes about when human life begins.
And despite the gibberish coming out of his mouth, he has studied this issue. He has been coached on it. He knows what he believes. He has voted on this issue as a state legislator in Illinois and as a U.S. senator in Washington.
Continue reading at WND. I previously blogged my thoughts on the jibberish both Obama and Clinton sputtered in answer to that most profound question.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What an absolutely disgusting sham. Both candidates made inept attempts to feign ignorance on the physical facts of human reproduction, as if they were not yet out of kindergarten. And neither of them had the courage to say that IF there is any doubt on anyone’s mind about the beginning of life, that perhaps, just maybe we ought to err on the side of life? No, both of them stumbled through a paper thin attempt to justify the slaughter of unborn human beings as if they were ashamed of each word coming out of their mouths, even before they spoke those words. How anyone could vote for such blood soaked, dishonest hypocrites is beyond me.
That was sad…
Gee, in your January 28th entry you ragged on McCain for being ambivalent on the subject of enbryonic stem cell research and the value of human life:
“He (McCain) continued, saying, “All I can say to you is that I went back and forth, back and forth on it and I came in on one of the toughest decisions I’ve ever had, in favor of that research. And one reason being, very frankly, is those embryos will be either discarded or kept in permanent frozen status.”…
Your comment:
“McCain needed to say out loud he understands this is killing unwanted humans.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your assesment of McCain continued:
“The Republican I least want to see as the presidential nominee next to Rudy Giuliani is John McCain. Over and over McCain has betrayed pro-lifers, and badly, from McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which shuts us out of the political process close to elections, to the Gang of 14, when he neutered not only us but his own party.”
Laura,
What is your point? Your continued extraneous attacks on Jill are getting very very tiring.
Laura,
What is your point? Your continued extraneous attacks on Jill are getting very very tiring.
Posted by: Sandy at May 6, 2008 2:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quoting Jill is an “extraneous attack?”
Hillary admitted that she bases her beliefs not on science or morality but upon whatever jives with her political aims. She said that to beleive life begins at conception would promote government interference in protecting children from destruction- so she’ll choose to believe it’s not.
Shouldn’t our beliefs fuel our politics rather than our politics deciding beliefs?
Quote Jill all you want, Laura, but make a point, please!
Yeah, go away Laura.
Wow, maybe the next question for Mrs. Clinton should be when does the “potential life” become actual “life”? At 4 weeks when there is a beating heart? Exactly when, Mrs Clinton?
What absolute garbage. Clinton looked like she’d been asked to swallow a pig.
I think Laura is trying to say that Jill contradicts herself by attacking all three candidates… as if one of them was actually perfect. Which they’re not.
I’m mostly sick of the “I believe there’s POTENTIAL for life…” argument.
#1: As if there was no potential for life before the conception?
#2: Even if you don’t think it’s a human yet, I don’t think I can imagine anyone actually arguing that it isn’t at the very least an existing, distinct life form as soon as conception occurs. In other words, you must kill something to enact an abortion. So, I don’t see how that qualifies as “potential” life.
Laura,
Better to have an 80% pro-life candidate than a 0.0%
Quote Jill all you want, Laura, but make a point, please!
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2008 2:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, I totally agree with Jill that John McCain wants to slaughter all the babies and had stabbed the pro-life movement in the back.
Anyone who would vote for the man who “betrayed” and “neutered” the pro-life movement and the Republican Party is the kind of person who would feed toddlers into a wood chipper.
Shouldn’t the next leader of the free world have at least a
rudimentary knowledge of basic biology?
23+23=1 new unique human being – from the moment of
fertilization.
Just read Jerome LeJeune!
“Life has a very, very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning:
the moment of its conception.”
touche, lesforlife!
Laura, you wrote the same complaint against me yesterday and I responded that obviously circumstances have changed, and the alternative to McCain is a dastardly duo of extremist pro-aborts like you.
Now if you continue to xerox my past misgivings with McCain to which I’ve already responded, then I’ll ban you again. I’ve told you before if you can’t stick to legitimate debate then you can leave.
Laura and anon,
Check the name of this site…we are “guests” here, we don’t own this site and are not free to do as we please.
If you don’t like it, you can leave…maybe you can post at the PP blog?
Ps…anon, if Jill bans those who disagree with her views…there would be less people here.
Ta ta, Laura. You’re rebanned.
Laura,
No matter what Jill writes you attack.
If Jill hadn’t posted her remarks on John McCain, you would attack her for not including a post on him.
Jill has been open and honest regarding her life, you have made personal attacks on her for decisions she had made in her life. If Jill had not been open and honest about her life, you would attack her for that.
What do you want? This is Jill’s blog. Don’t like it, start your own.
I have never heard such bull-hockey in my life…
Well, I suppose I have..but not from people who claim to want to lead this nation to a better place.
“such an intrusion of government authority…”
Plllllleaaaassseee…Hilary Clinton would have no problem intruding on ANYBODY’S personal rights if it means she could have more power.
Somebody needs to tell Hillary she’s hanging out with the wrong people. We pro-lifers would be much more fun!
“I think Laura is trying to say that Jill contradicts herself by attacking all three candidates… as if one of them was actually perfect”
Jill never made any such inference or implication. That was in your imagination.
“Now if you continue to xerox my past misgivings with McCain to which I’ve already responded, then I’ll ban you again. I’ve told you before if you can’t stick to legitimate debate then you can leave.”
Jill, I’m quite sure you had past misgivings with McCain.
Sorry if that fails to be “legitimate debate.”
If you’re going to have a “legitimate debate filter” here, you’re going to lose a lot of John L, yllas, Heather (where’d she go anyway?), and a few others. I won’t mention my new friend HisMan, as he’s been absolutely a gentleman lately.
Bobby,
You’re right. These responses are so sad. It’s like they got caught by Mom with their hand in the cookie jar and don’t know what to say.(Except God and the American people are the ones watching them try to weasle their way out of this one).
If McCain wins, I will be more worried about the government’s fiscal solvency than about abortion rights.
McCain has promised lots of government spending (continuing the Iraq occupation, for instance). He will face a large increase in legally-mandated government spending (entitlements) which cannot be avoided unless the laws which mandate entitlement spending get changed, which is unlikely with a split government (Republican president and a Democrat-majority congress).
He has said nothing substantial about where the government will get the money. On the contrary, he has promised to make permanent the Bush tax-cuts on the super-rich and the hyper-rich. That means more national debt, which we cannot afford. Our currency is already losing its value at home and abroad.
Imagine if each dollar you own could only buy as much as a nickel buys today. How would that affect you personally? Think about it.
Where is Ross Perot now that we need him?
Jill,
You seem to find laura bannable when I generally see nothing terribly out of line in her comments. She seems to have really cleaned up since last time. Compared to how she was this time and how some people here have been acting up lately that ban seems out of line.
SoMG,
Haven’t you heard…any sort of military spending is GOOD, any sort of domestic spending is BAD. How can people say we can’t “afford” universal healthcare (which decreases health care spending, actually), when we expend $60 billion of the defense budget on weapons that were designed to thwart Soviet Union aggression during the Cold War (and other obsolete programs)? We spend $11 billion a year on missile defense, $20 billion to maintain our nuclear arsenal (many don’t even have practical utility and more), and will spend over $50 on the V-22 Osprey, which is fraught with technical problems and has cost 30 US lives.
Oh, but domestic spending….bad.
$50 million**
OMG I can’t type today
$50 billion***
PrettyinPink,
I’m not sure but I think the reason that Laura is being banned is not necessarily so much about her being so rude, but because her main goal has always been to be one of the first commenters on every post Jill makes, every single time she posts, she is trying to turn the subject around and start everyone talking about something else.
I can imagine that Jill spends several hours a day writing her articles, and many times has something that she really wants her readers to see, only to have Laura come, using Jill’s blog as her platform to change the subject entirely and get everyones focus off of what the main issue is.
Now, before you say we get off topic all the time, I realize that this happens a lot, with everyone. But usually, we stay on topic at least for a day before getting to off topics.
But every single time Laura posts, it is always an attempt to change the subject and spin Jill’s intent purposefully, and I think after a while that can be very frustrating, especially when you consider that this is Jill’s blog, not Laura’s.
Sure, there are many, many rude posters here, but most of them seem to keep on topic.
Also, just remember that Jill doesn’t read all of the comments in all of the threads. She is rarely able to catch up on the comments because she is so busy doing her pro-life work and writing articles for the blog and world net daily. So she may have very well never seen the other nasty comments to be able to deal with them properly.
I don’t know if that really helps, but that’s my two cents!
Ouch… That was painful to watch.
A simple yes or no would have done just fine.
Jill,
You seem to find laura bannable when I generally see nothing terribly out of line in her comments. She seems to have really cleaned up since last time. Compared to how she was this time and how some people here have been acting up lately that ban seems out of line.
I’m pleadin’ the fifth.
The potential for life is carried in the testacles of a man and the ovaries of a woman. Most adults know this. Once the entites meet, fertilization occurs, and a life is conceived or begun. It is no longer potential life, it is life, a life at an initial stage of development. The potential for life has been converted to life actual.
These two people are very smart and they can understand this, in fact, they know this without a shadow of a doubt. The apparent wrestling they banter is not about their struggles to determine when life begins, it’s about saying the right things that get them elected. This is indicative of a degenerate and reprobate personality rife with character flaws. Most psychologists will tell you that this type of condition is irreversible.
As a mechanical engineer, I have studied mechanics and physics. Potential energy is let’s say a soap box car sitting in the gate at the top of the hill waiting to get the green light. This would be analagous to a sperm waiting to fertilize an ovum, following sex. Kinetic energy is when the gate opens and the soap box car starts to roll down the hill and the potential energy that was stored in the vehicle at the top of the hill is now kinetic enrgy or life. Once the sperm and the ovum unite the potential has converted to life and is not longer potential; the race, the life process, has begun. The soap box car’s end as in the baby’s end in the womb are sure, i.e., the finish line, unless the vehicle’s or baby’s trip is aborted by an intentional act of external sabotage (a robber or abortionist murder of the baby), the driver’s intentional or unintentional crashing of the vehicle (a mother’s choice to murder her child), or a malfunction in the vehicle (a miscarriage), the latter result being the rsponsibility of the soap box’s maker (God).
Without potential energy there would never be any kinetic energy. Similary, without the unification of a sperm and an egg there would be no pregnancy or initial life stage of human development. Potential does not beget potential. Potential begets kinetic. To call potentiality anything other than potential is ludicrous. In all life and energy processes there is always a conversion or a exchange. This is how God designed things to work.
While Obama appeared very uncomfortable with answering the question, as if a tug in his heart was telling him to be totally honest, he just couldn’t bring himself to tell the truth. This is called self-deception or, exchanging the truth for a lie, and a very grave state to be in, especially for a potential leader.
Hillary on the other hand is a pathological liar. She hs been practicing the art of deceipt for many, many more years than Obama.
Both views are an abomination and equally damning.
And for Hillary to attach what she believes to her Methodist faith is extremely troubling. It’s akin to blasphemy or using God’s name in vain. How dare she do this.
You’ve got to hand it to both of them. They are deceivers par excellence.
WHY is this called Compassion Forum??!!
Carla:
When you can explain “pro-choice” to me, I’ll explain “compassion forum” to you. Is it a deal?
PiP, 5:35p, said: “Jill, You seem to find laura bannable when I generally see nothing terribly out of line in her comments. She seems to have really cleaned up since last time. Compared to how she was this time and how some people here have been acting up lately that ban seems out of line.”
PiP, Laura has intentionally antagonized me, reasking the same questions and remaking charges against me I’ve already responded to. Her only reason is to undermine me personally.
I don’t have time or inclination to reanswer Laura every day on every post. If I ignore her, she gets away with making unfounded or incorrect claims against me – on my own blog – that others may read and not know I have refuted.
On this McCain point, I responded to Laura yesterday. She copied and pasted the same charge today. I answered her AGAIN and asked her to knock it off. She did not. So her being banned is her own doing.
Dear Jill,
There’s nothing unusual or shocking about Obama’s answer here. It is typical of pro-choice people.
Take this poll for example:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/printerfriend/index.asp?NewsID=94
People were asked “when does life begin?” 47% said conception, 24% said viability, 12% said when brain waves or movement is present, 9% said birth, 2% said other and 7% were not sure.
Among pro-choicers, 38% said viability, 23% said conception, 15% said birth, 14% said brain waves/movement, 2% said other and 8% weren’t sure.
Remember Jill, Obama is a liberal, and liberals don’t really care about anyone’s personal beliefs about abortion. We just want everyone to be free to practice their own beliefs in their own lives.
Sincerely,
reality
Reality:
Are you saying that when life starts is determined by a show of hands?
You are certainly enamored of democracy.
Pro-lifers maintain that God is the author of life.
Now Now Hal,
My position is real simple. You be for a killin’, I be for a livin’.
I happen upon this site and was amazed at the anti-Catholic posters here. The leader of the pack being Sad Eyed Sally. A three generation anti-Catholc poster. And her pride in being a bigot is from some past problem in her family.
As for you Hal, your a child mind, a person whose life was summed up for me by your little trip to a island where you exhibited your homophobia. In essence, your a hypocrite Hal.
Your faith in abortion is based on wealth, health, and the will power to execute what you created.
End of story, Hal.
Great post Hisman,
explaining potential energy and kinetic energy.
When life begins really doesn’t matter for abortionist, but to use God as the final appeal/authority to “doing it”, is truly against a God of Love and makes God “the father of lies, and murderer from the beginning”.
You go Hisman.
I wasn’t homophobic yllas, I only asked if he was cute.
Hal,
Did you go sweet on me?
What’s yllas know that I don’t know?
Here’s my take: It’s Jill’s blog and she can ban whomever she damn well pleases, for any reason or no reason at all.
I think she’s way too cordial as it is. If this were my blog, there’d be no Zekes, Yallases or Sallys, for no other reason than that they freaking piss me off.
yllas: 10:58: I agree. Awesome post, HisMan! Worth a second look if you missed it the first time!
The potential for life is carried in the testacles of a man and the ovaries of a woman. Most adults know this. Once the entites meet, fertilization occurs, and a life is conceived or begun. It is no longer potential life, it is life, a life at an initial stage of development. The potential for life has been converted to life actual.
These two people are very smart and they can understand this, in fact, they know this without a shadow of a doubt. The apparent wrestling they banter is not about their struggles to determine when life begins, it’s about saying the right things that get them elected. This is indicative of a degenerate and reprobate personality rife with character flaws. Most psychologists will tell you that this type of condition is irreversible.
As a mechanical engineer, I have studied mechanics and physics. Potential energy is let’s say a soap box car sitting in the gate at the top of the hill waiting to get the green light. This would be analagous to a sperm waiting to fertilize an ovum, following sex. Kinetic energy is when the gate opens and the soap box car starts to roll down the hill and the potential energy that was stored in the vehicle at the top of the hill is now kinetic enrgy or life. Once the sperm and the ovum unite the potential has converted to life and is not longer potential; the race, the life process, has begun. The soap box car’s end as in the baby’s end in the womb are sure, i.e., the finish line, unless the vehicle’s or baby’s trip is aborted by an intentional act of external sabotage (a robber or abortionist murder of the baby), the driver’s intentional or unintentional crashing of the vehicle (a mother’s choice to murder her child), or a malfunction in the vehicle (a miscarriage), the latter result being the rsponsibility of the soap box’s maker (God).
Without potential energy there would never be any kinetic energy. Similary, without the unification of a sperm and an egg there would be no pregnancy or initial life stage of human development. Potential does not beget potential. Potential begets kinetic. To call potentiality anything other than potential is ludicrous. In all life and energy processes there is always a conversion or a exchange. This is how God designed things to work.
While Obama appeared very uncomfortable with answering the question, as if a tug in his heart was telling him to be totally honest, he just couldn’t bring himself to tell the truth. This is called self-deception or, exchanging the truth for a lie, and a very grave state to be in, especially for a potential leader.
Hillary on the other hand is a pathological liar. She hs been practicing the art of deceipt for many, many more years than Obama.
Both views are an abomination and equally damning.
And for Hillary to attach what she believes to her Methodist faith is extremely troubling. It’s akin to blasphemy or using God’s name in vain. How dare she do this.
You’ve got to hand it to both of them. They are deceivers par excellence.
Posted by: HisMan at May 6, 2008 8:17 PM
While Obama appeared very uncomfortable with answering the question, as if a tug in his heart was telling him to be totally honest, he just couldn’t bring himself to tell the truth.
Hillary on the other hand is a pathological liar. She hs been practicing the art of deceipt for many, many more years than Obama.
You’ve got to hand it to both of them. They are deceivers par excellence.
Posted by: HisMan at May 6, 2008 8:17 PM
I think this is probably a very accurate assessment of what happened here. It seems like Obama was blind-sided. I think he’ll be getting some extra coaching on these types of questions.
hmmm. Another take on the same interview:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27820
MALIBU, CA (Catholic Online) – In the last few weeks, I have been repeatedly asked if my endorsement of Senator Obama stands.
To some of my fellow Catholics, Senator Obama’s answers on abortion make him categorically unacceptable.I understand that view, respect it, but find it prudentially the second-best answer in 2008.
Not because Senator Obama’s position on abortion is mine; it is not. Not because I don’t believe Senator Obama could improve the articulation of his position; he could, but because I believe that my faith calls upon me at this time to focus on new efforts and untried paths to reduce abortion practice in America.
me too ;)
He voted against the BAIPA cause he is in bed with Planned Parenthood. Don’t you see the hypocrisy in his stance? He says he is not sure when life begins. He says it could be when two cells divide. He says it could be when the “soul” stirs. I got news for you. He couldn’t give a rats ass about the baby’s life. He voted against PBA ban. He voted against the BAIPA. The whole while he talks about the morally wrenching issues involved and calls himself a Christian. He calls himself a uniter but he falls on the far-far side of NO rights for the unborn or the babies that were “supposed” to be aborted. Don’t you see the hypocrisy?