CNN: “Obama leads in baby smooches”
Every morning I read my Bible and pray. Otherwise I know I’d not fare well mentally through the day trying to promote the sanctity of life against anti-life liberals and media. Today though, despite the great start, I’m really close to losing it.
This just blows my mind. Click to link to video:
I almost can’t get my arms around this one. The audacity of Obama to push abortion to its most radical ends – pba, live birth abortion, and FOCA – and then relish kissing babies? He really is maniacal….
And the idiotic parents of these infants? Obama plants their children with the Kiss of Death, don’t they understand? SendBarackYourBaby.com? What, to kill the baby?
And CNN. How could anyone put a fluff piece together like this and ignore Obama’s extreme positions on abortion? Only someone like-minded who wants to cover for Obama and make him look the opposite of what he is. And was anyone else bothered by the way the reporter threw the baby in the box?
[Link: friend Leslie at the Passionate Pro-Lifer]
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.
The true test is whether he’ll kiss a Down’s baby.
His smooching the babies don’t give me the same warm fuzzy that I got when watching John Paul II do the same.
I’m sure he would, but does it really matter?
Jill,
Your personal grudge against Obama and his alleged “extremist position” on abortion, which is primarily a product of your imagination, apparently has little or no effect on the parents of these babies, or the voters. The polls show him up to 15% ahead of McCain.
The “Kiss of Death”? Once again your hysterical hyperbole makes you appear ridiculous.
There is nothing inconsistent about loving babies and supporting abortion rights.
Obama!
For me, Stephanie, it would.
Kissing the very same babies he voted against protecting from dying in the closet…
Little wonder why Jill almost lost it today.
You scare me, Hal.
“And the idiotic parents of these infants? Obama plants their children with the Kiss of Death, don’t they understand?”
Understand what?
Carder, you don’t thin that pro-choice people are parents too? You don’t think we love our children? You don’t think we’d be excited to have Obama kiss them? (well, I’m not that interested in Obama kissing my babies, but that’s just me)
Hey, “The Baby Borrowers” premiers tonight.
Just a note about the quote of the day; I know quite a few kids who’ve attended the World Youth Days in the past. These kids are stronger in their faith than most adults I know. I’d love to see the look on the faces of these people when the kids turn down the condoms in no uncertain terms. These people really don’t know who they are targeting, go figure.
Of course there are prochoice parents, Hal. Of course they love their kids. I don’t argue that.
The problem I have is when they select which child they are willing to parent and love.
He’s not smooching – he’s tasting them!
Obama kissing babies gives me the screaming heebi-jeebies!
What a hypocrite!!!
Hal @ 3:07 PM
There is nothing inconsistent about loving babies and supporting abortion rights.
I dare you to say that while holding a dismembered 28 week old gestational age baby in your hands. Or even a photo of one.
I dare you.
Jill, I suggest the QOTD be its own article.
Kristen’s right. The youth at World Day aren’t there for a frat party.
Those fringe activists better be ready to keep their condoms and have some bags handy for all those rosaries that are going to be pushed their way.
There is nothing inconsistent about loving babies and supporting abortion rights.
(ooops, I forgot to hold the dismembered baby while I said it)
Jill -we need to do a parody site!
Hal..does your daughter know that?
RSD, does my daughter know what?
(I’m not ignoring you if I don’t reply right away, I’m leaving for at least a few hours)
RSD, does my daughter know what?
That you have no problem with dismembering babies or advocating the same.
Translation: Michelle Malkin and/or Bill O’Reilly/etc. failed to deliver the Fabricated Obama Story Of The Week, so Jill took a completely silly and innocent story and twisted it in to …. The Daily Barack Hate-Orama!
Find me a politician who hasn’t participated in the whole baby photo op thing. Its practically a requirement to run for high office. And he’s certainly not the first Pro Choice person OR Pro Choice politician to kiss a baby for Gods sake.
Find me a picture of John McCain kissing a Vietnamese baby and then calling his parents Gooks. Now THAT is worthy of a new story.
Man with Down’s Syndrome Endorses Obama on YouTube:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/04/28/obama_endorsed_in_youtube_vide.aspx
=)
Jill -we need to do a parody site!
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 25, 2008 3:29 PM
Is any one as worried as I am that someone with a few screws loose might take the web site and/or the CNN report seriously and try to send a LIVE baby in the mail? I’m not concerned about the political ramifications of this story at this point. I’m tempted to write CNN and tell them what a poor job they did reporting the story and making fun of “the boxing of your babies”. Nothing against you personally, Chris, but it’s not a laughing matter, IMO.
Amanda @ 3:46 PM
Pretty sad Amanda – equating someone who calls another a ‘gook’ with someone who voted against lifesaving legislation when there was no solid reason to do so.
By doing so Obama advocated infanticide – “live birth abortion” – and there is no indication that he would vote differently today.
Like Obama, and Hal, you suffer from empathy and lack of imagination. Try an experience like Jill’s where you hold a baby in your arms that has been left to die, where the intent was to kill the child.
You know the unborn are undeniably human beings – but anything for choice -right?
Janet – I thought it was so over the top – but now people are doing so many crazy things, it’s become almost impossible to do a parody or satirical comedy, so you might be right.
BTW – my parody site idea had more to do with smooching.
Chris, I really didn’t mean to come down on you, I want you to know that. I’m hoping everyone reads my post. I’m having trouble finding much reporting on this story and it really bothers me!
Thanks for understanding.
I think this site is already a parody.
(Barak Obama Gives Infant Kiss of Death!!!)
Amanda, 3:46. I think I may have coined the term “Obama Hate-o-Rama”, but you and anyone else are welcome to use it. Good term to describe the daily smear by Faux News, isn’t it?
Janet – understood.
Bystander @ 4:32 PM Thanks Bystander! (We appreciate all your hard creative work!) Go spread the news far and wide.
Amanda 3:46PM
If you were imprisoned and tortured for 6 years do you think you might have less than kind words to describe your captors?
Thank you Chris for your support and appreciation.
By the way, since the quote of the day refers to abortion and homosexuality being “inextricably linked”, and since the link to Passionate Pro-Lifer above features an anti-homosexual lead article, perhaps someone will explain why nearly every “pro-lifer” is also a homophobe.
Carder, you wrote: “Kissing the very same babies he voted against protecting from dying in the closet…”
No, not the same babies. The ones he kissed were not aborted.
I’ll be more specific, then.
Kissing the same kind of babies.
It was a Down’s baby, after all, that got Jill started.
Why didn’t you get into late term abortions? Why do you do exclusively first trimester abortions? Is it just overall easier for everybody involved?
Bystander, 4:59: I don’t know anyone who is afraid of homosexuals.
Carder, late term abortions are a bit too gory for my taste. I like gore IN MOVIES. Also, there’s very little demand for them and that makes it hard to succeed.
My thoughts Bystander?
If one sex is not necessary for children, then neither is the other – meaning that two same-sex pairs cancel each other out. Since such a union is naturally sterile, legally recognizing them as being equal to a naturally fertile couple is to negate children completely as a primary reason for marriage. In effect, the state says marriage is worthless as far as children are concerned.
Only one of three conditions must be true for offspring to be present in such a situation:
1. One party was not being truthful in their original child producing sex: was it a lie then or is it a lie now? How do we know? You think Jim McGreevy is telling his kids he was disgusted that he had to sleep with his wife to conceive them? That he lied to her not only verbally, but physically. And we’re supposed to think he did this out of love?
2. Adultery would be permissible. State okayed. All adultery laws should be struck from the books, and to be fair – all paternity laws as well. Otherwise you’re discriminating against heterosexuals based on their sexual orientation.
3. Artificial insemination for lesbians and the same + surrogacy for homosexual men. Sperm banks, IVF, surrogacy & lawyers, all profiting at the expense of this condition. Congratulations, the state has incorporated a market. (BTW – Massachusetts is a prime mover in IVF – wonder why?)
In short, the moral basis either leans towards permissible adultery or the creation of a market in human by judicial fiat.
Whatever the case may be – the focus is anything but on children as a unique human gift, but more on children as products. If you know anything about IVF and such it it notoriously abortion oriented.
Treating each other as products is morally wrong, and is historically cruel, leading to prostitution, slavery, genocide etc.
All that said – although I’m opposed to the homosexual agenda, I’m not homophobic. Your framing people as such is a slur against their moral and religious beliefs.
Maybe you want to explain why those who have no interest in children on a whole should be involved with the making of legislation which is usually reserved for the posterity of a nation? (Other than it being a self-centered need that focuses on the explicit use of sexual organs for recreation and not procreation.)
Jill, 5:42
Homophobe does connote fear, which is present in most who hate homosexuals, but the more accurate question would be “why do almost all ‘pro-lifers’ hate and condemn homosexuals?”
And Chris, as usual, your exercise in sophistry fails to address, much less answer the question.
Bystander,
First of all, your question falls victim to the “have you stopped beating your wife” fallacy as pro-lifers in general do not hate homosexuals any more than we hate abortionists, adulterers, and thieves.
Also, simply using the word “sophistry” to blow off what Chris wrote in response to a question that YOU asked is unimpressive. He made a lot of good points that need to be addressed if you wish to disagree with him. Show where he is wrong; don’t just throw some arrogant one-liner out there. God love you.
And furthermore, what IDIOT allows their infant to be passed in the air through a crowd of cheering supporters?
I’ll answer that myself: An idiot who supports a candidate that believes in PBA, and feigns an interest in the welfare of children.
I wouldn’t let that man within 50 feet of my kids.
If you were imprisoned and tortured for 6 years do you think you might have less than kind words to describe your captors?
Posted by: Mary at June 25, 2008 4:47 PM
Mary, if McCain had said – those damn North Vietnamese or Vietcong, etc. – OK. But he used a slur that encompasses a whole lot more, from Filipinos to Koreans to Japanese, generally just a derogatory term for anyone of Asian heritage.
Gee Mike,
something we can agree on. I feel the same way about Catholic priests.
SoMG,
Have you observed a late term abortion in your career? What were the circumstances surrounding the particular case(s)?
If you were imprisoned and tortured for 6 years do you think you might have less than kind words to describe your captors?
I suppose then you see it as perfectly okay that he called his wife the c-word, since she’s kept him imprisoned and tortured for almost 30 years, right?
Good suggestion Bobby B.
CA:
“If one sex is not necessary for children, then neither is the other – meaning that two same-sex pairs cancel each other out. Since such a union is naturally sterile, legally recognizing them as being equal to a naturally fertile couple is to negate children completely as a primary reason for marriage. In effect, the state says marriage is worthless as far as children are concerned.”
Phylosopher:
Then why recognize the marriages of those not fertile – that cute little 80 y o couple, for instance?
Could it be, that the primary reason for many marriages is not children, but commitment and companionship?
CA:
Only one of three conditions must be true for offspring to be present in such a situation:
1. One party was not being truthful in their original child producing sex: was it a lie then or is it a lie now? How do we know? You think Jim McGreevy is telling his kids he was disgusted that he had to sleep with his wife to conceive them? That he lied to her not only verbally, but physically. And we’re supposed to think he did this out of love?”
Phylosopher:
Or was it a good faith attempt to conform to the pressures of society at the time? To overcome the imposed guilt and ostracism if he didn’t succumb to those pressures?
CA:
“2. Adultery would be permissible. State okayed. All adultery laws should be struck from the books, and to be fair – all paternity laws as well. Otherwise you’re discriminating against heterosexuals based on their sexual orientation.”
Phylosopher:
Excuse me, but doesn’t adultery have to do with the act of sexual intercourse itself? Not the in vitro or “turkey baster” method used for conceiving with a sperm donor.
CA:
3. Artificial insemination for lesbians and the same + surrogacy for homosexual men. Sperm banks, IVF, surrogacy & lawyers, all profiting at the expense of this condition. Congratulations, the state has incorporated a market. (BTW – Massachusetts is a prime mover in IVF – wonder why?)
Phylosopher:
Any studies that show homosexual couples as the prime mover in the growth of IVF? Probably not, because, at least for lesbians, IVF isn’t necessary. And not requisite for surrogates who are also egg donors. Surrogacy payment in some states is restricted – based on that very idea of “baby selling” – then again, payments are permitted in some cases for “time and discomfort” in addition to medical, clothing expenses to biological birthmothers choosing adoption.
CA:
“In short, the moral basis either leans towards permissible adultery or the creation of a market in human by judicial fiat.”
Phylosopher:
As the above responses show, it doesn’t do either.
CA:
Whatever the case may be – the focus is anything but on children as a unique human gift, but more on children as products. If you know anything about IVF and such it it notoriously abortion oriented.
Phylosopher:
The triumvirate was abortion, contraception and homosexuality – please stay on topic.
CA:
“Treating each other as products is morally wrong, and is historically cruel, leading to prostitution, slavery, genocide etc.”
Phylosopher:
The idea that two individuals who love and care for each other, have a stable homelife and want to share that life and love with another human being, to continue their genetics and their culture (and by that I don’t mean necessarily homosexual)but their interests and talents, religion, family ethnicity, all things that we call family heritage, to contribute a fully formed human citizen to future generations will lead to slavery, genocide, etc. is truly ludicrous.
To show how ludicrous, the same could be said of encouraging “Junos” so that wealthy couples don’t have to bear their own young.
CA:
“All that said – although I’m opposed to the homosexual agenda, I’m not homophobic. Your framing people as such is a slur against their moral and religious beliefs.”
Phylosopher:
At present, there is no other word to describe someone who wants to discriminate against and demonize homosexuals (that agenda you refer to puts you in this category).
Create one: homosexist, anti-homosexual, pro-procreationist?
CA:
“Maybe you want to explain why those who have no interest in children on a whole should be involved with the making of legislation which is usually reserved for the posterity of a nation? (Other than it being a self-centered need that focuses on the explicit use of sexual organs for recreation and not procreation.)”
Phylosopher:
“To whom are you referring when you write “those who have no interest in children as a whole?”
Thank you, Phylo. That’s all I ask; good, rational give and take discussion.
Now that I think of it, Carder, I have never actually watched a third-trimester abortion.
phylosopher – I actually answered almost all your responses, but a glitch blew them away.
I have no problem responding, but it will have to wait.
Chris –
maybe it was a sign.
Speaking of signs, nothing says “time to take a break from reading this blog!” better than the gay bashing.
Take care for now everyone!
Here’s the real SendBarackYourBaby.com based upon his voting record…
a SendBarackYourBaby.com.
Mike
Oh, here it is…
http://www.klannedparenthood.com
Laura, you never responded to my previous question to you so I’ll post it again here for you:
Many responsible women choose abortion rather than pitch a less-than-“desireable” child into that nightmare system…
Posted by: Laura at June 1, 2008 1:07 AM
Laura, that is so sad. They feel so helpless that they actually decide to kill their baby’s before they are even born, “in order to protect them from society”. These mother’s need emotional counseling to help them understand that even “difficult” life is precious. We all go through difficult times in life and it “IS” acting irresponsibly to presume future difficultys as being a valid reason for killing her baby. Women often kill their newborns after birth for that same type of reasoning. Do you consider them to be responsible also?
That’s frustrating, Chris. Feel free to post it as separate points – it can get cumbersome/confusing to do the whole thing.
pro-lifers in general do not hate homosexuals any more than we hate abortionists, adulterers, and thieves
I honestly would not even put homosexuals in the same category with these kinds of people. People who are attracted to those of the same sex in the same category as people who chop up babies for a living? Not really.
P.S. Bystander…Here I am..:waves: pro-lifer who is in no way shape or form a homophobe. Nice to meet you.
Liz:
Homosexauls, murderers, liars, thieves….all sin…all separate one from God.
The problem with homosexuality is that it is the “practice of sin”…it’s a lifestyle and a chosen mindset of perversion.
One may murder in a rage and then confess, repent and be forgiven.
Homosexuality is much more devious in that it becomes a mindset, an acceptable way of life that people then believe there’s nothing wrong with. That’s why is is such an abomination to God, because it literally blinds oneself to one’s sin and lost condition and therefore the need to repent of it.
Epic fail HisMan, epic fail.
I agree with you Elizabeth!
Hey Bystander! Here is another PLer who is not homophobic either! Nice to meet ye!
*goes back to drooling over Doctor Who*
jill: “And CNN. How could anyone put a fluff piece together like this and ignore Obama’s extreme positions on abortion? Only someone like-minded who wants to cover for Obama and make him look the opposite of what he is.”
CNN is pretty much working for the Obama campaign. No doubt. Along with MSNBC.
“And was anyone else bothered by the way the reporter threw the baby in the box?”
Yes, the reporter from CNN is an idiot.
..maybe this country will get what it deserves in Obama. This is the Fall Of Rome all over again. A greater punishment will come, it’s just a matter of time. Look at some of the filth of TV and in our culture, compare it to 50 years ago.
Mike, are you kidding? That site is sponsored by Life Dynamics, Inc. Don’t you already know what they think about things? And remember, LDI’s garbage is responsible for the creation of Medical Students for Choice, an organization whose existance and size guarantee that there will be no shortage of abortion docs.
As as far as I could tell the site contains no mention of my original question which was is there any CURRENT OR RECENT collaborative contact between PP and AMERICAN Nazis.
All the stuff I read about Margret Sanger really demonstrates only one thing: most cultured/educated people in Europe (including England) and America were much more racist in the first half of the Twentieth Century than we are now in the first half of the Twenty-First. Just read what they wrote, read their newspaper articles, read their fiction, read their children’s books. Watch popular movies from the time. Margret Sanger and for that matter the German Nazis were just the extreme manifestations. Most literate people and probably most people generally in the USA and Europe believed ideas that would qualify them as extreme racists today. What most people consider to be the defining doctrine of racism, that you can confidently infer something about a person’s character or intelligence from racial characteristics alone, was common sense then.
I think most people are able to separate the eugenics history from PP’s charter mission today which is to provide reproductive control and simple-routine reproductive health care at minimal cost. And the site demonstrates that there is no evidence of a current or recent collaborative connection between the KKK and PP because if there were they would have posted it.
In short, another shot directly into its own foot by LDI, one which will surely cause more right-to-lifers to leave the movement in disgust than pro-choicers to become rtls or pregnant women to choose life for their unborns.
Note the commonality language between the Nazi positions and the claims of abortionists and today’s “pro-choice” supporters. In Nazi Germany, the killing of Jews was not against the law, the killing centers were “medical centers” that the killers were “doctors” and the killing was done in the name of promoting “health.” In pro-choice America, the killing of babies is not against the law, the killing is done at “medical clinics”, the killers are “doctors” and abortion is called a woman’s “health” issue.
Abortion is commonly referred to as a mere “procedure” or “minor surgical operation” and abortionists are often called “service providers.” Compare this to the Nazi death squads called “special service groups”. The IRS lists Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinic operators as “charitable organizations” engaged in “promoting health.” Compare this to the official name of the Nazi organization for implementing euthanasia, the “Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.”
Jasper, you wrote: “Abortion is commonly referred to as a mere “procedure” or “minor surgical operation” and abortionists are often called “service providers.” Compare this to the Nazi death squads called “special service groups””
Weren’t the “special service groups” the people who rousted you out of bed and sent you to a concentration camp? Sort of like the secret police division of the army? I think the word service here refers to military service, not to services someone provides as in “goods and services”. Your argument appears to be based on a pun.
“SS” as in “Waffen-SS”, does not stand for service at all but for the word Schutzstaffel which means protection squadron.
SoMG,
How about 2nd trimester abortions?
Laura,
Your comment was waaaay out there. It had to go.
And if it’s any consolation, I just called foul on Hisman on another thread.
HisMan,
Your post didn’t even have anything to do with what I said in my post. Abortionists do not murder in a rage, they make a profit chopping up babies for.a.living. If you put those people in the same category as someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex, well, sorry for you. Homosexuals are not evil no matter how many times you say it to yourself. You believe homosexuality is a choice, I do not.
Rae,
Let’s start a club! We’ll call it Non-Homophobic pro-lifers!
What Elizabeth? You don’t think TEH EVUL GAYZZZ made the CHOICE to have several notable differences in brain composition from heterosexuals – supported by several studies? You have been brainwashed by the liberal “gay agenda”!!!!
=)
You, Rae, Pip, Jen R, X, and anyone I’m forgetting – you really do need to start you own movement. Even if I’m still on the fence, its a movement I’d be able to support.
Just because you’re attracted to someone doesn’t make it ok for you to have sex with them. I’m attracted to women other than my girlfriend. I abstain. If I was attracted to other men, I would abstain. If I was attracted to girls under the age of 18, I would abstain.
Nobody considers it a sin for someone to have those types of urges. In fact, I know the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically accounts for that occurrence. Now, I don’t think I have any right to make the action illegal, but I think I do have every right to tell others it is sinful and to petition my government to not endorse the activity. I have several bi and gay friends, and I share with them my viewpoints.
Please, o great authorities, tell me if I am ‘homophobic’.
Elizabeth,
who are the homophobic pro-lifers? what do you mean exactly?
maybe this country will get what it deserves in Obama.
Well, Jasper, I think it was HisMan that said if Obama wins it will be God’s will….
Jasper,
Bystander was wondering if all pro-lifers were homophobes..I just was putting it out there that I am not.
Alex,
I don’t have as much of a problem with people not condoning the homosexual act of sex, just like people don’t condone the act of sex outside of marriage. The ACT itself can be described as sinful, but I do have a serious problem with people demonizing homosexuals, and placing them in the same catergory as abortionists.
P.S. Law & Order: SVU has an episode on right now about homosexuals..the victim was supposedly a “converted” homosexual. Oh, the irony.
Elizabeth,
The only reason I listed homosexuals (and I should have been more precise, as you alluded to; participating in homosexual actions as opposed to just having same sex attraction) along with abortionists was to illustrate that just because someone does something that I don’t approve of doesn’t mean I hate them. I wasn’t necessarily equating any of those actions on the same “badness” level. Just trying to express the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude. God love you.
… just because someone does something that I don’t approve of doesn’t mean I hate them. ..
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 26, 2008 8:43 PM
However, when you want to ban gay marriage or prevent anti-sexual orientation discrimination, you are seeking a way to discriminate against those folks for who they are, not their acts- and in some cases, the same acts that hets participate in.
So, unless you want to do bedroom surveillance….
Prevent anti-sexual orientation discrimination?
Hi Anonymous.
Just post a name next time and we’ll keep your comments posted.
It helps us to know you are you.
:0)
… just because someone does something that I don’t approve of doesn’t mean I hate them. ..
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 26, 2008 8:43 PM
Repost, edited, thank you for proofread heads up, ts:
However, when you want to ban gay marriage or permit (through omission) sexual orientation discrimination, you are seeking a way to discriminate against those folks for who they are, not their acts- and in some cases, the same acts that hets participate in.
So, unless you want to do bedroom surveillance….
Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2008 9:06 AM
Well Phylo, I have no problem with the idea that that is “who they are” but that in and of itself does not make it right.
Some people are alcoholics but that doesn’t make it right. There are all sorts of examples of people who have a proclivity towards certain types of behaviour, but that doesn’t make that behaviour necessarily right. Now obviously that alone isn’t an argument against homosexual behaviour, but I see no reason to say that it is justified just because that is who many people are.
Also, no I would not want to survey bedrooms. What I am saying is along the same lines as Chris that I do not support a state recognized union between a same sex couple. I also will strongly encourage those with same sex attractions to abstain from sexual relations with each other, but when it comes down to it, I do not think it is realistic to police people’s bedrooms.
Well said BB