New report shows voters most interested in Obama’s abortion position
From LifeNews.com today:
A new report shows voters are interested in the position Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama takes on abortion. The Internet traffic monitoring firm HitWise indicates abortion is now the number one political issue voters are looking for when they conduct a search on Obama’s campaign web site.
Hitwise analyzed the top 200 U.S. search terms that sent visits to the presidential candidates’ websites for the first half of 2008, revealing the types of content searched for the most among Internet users.
Issues like education, the environment, health care and immigration are important to visitors on Obama’s web site, but HitWise says abortion tops them all.
In the first quarter of 2008, abortion came in as the number two most important issue on the minds of voters looking to Obama’s web site to learn more about him. As news of Obama’s pro-abortion position has filtered throughout the nation, the abortion search term moved up to the top spot over the last three months.
McCain’s pro-life position on abortion must be more clear to voters as abortion came in as the third most important issue in searches on his web site in the first quarter but slipped out of the top five in the second quarter.
Heather Dougherty, research director for HitWise, says the topics that voters put in searches on the candidate web sites, give an indication of what political issues are most prominent on their minds.
“This has implications for what content should be featured on the candidates’ websites, and broadly across all communications with voters,” she said….
[HT: moderator Bethany; graphic courtesy of FinanzNachrichten.de]
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.
I’ll keep this in mind the next time a talking head appears on television claiming voters are more concerned about a candidate’s position on the economy and foreign policy.
The more you look into it, the more explaining he needs to do.
I just posted a new article on this over at ThruFire.
Obama think’s it would be unconstitutional for a doctor to render aid to a human being “born-alive” during an abortion.
He defends induced infanticide.
Voters probably went to the Obama website to find out the truth about Obama’s positions in response to the lies and smears by extremists.
Obama’s website had nearly 80% of all traffic, and McCain about 20%. Perhaps, like their candidate, the McCain supporters don’t know how to use computers or the internet.
Jill:
All the more important to drive information seekers to your site to get the truth on Obama’s abortion positions and not the distortions on website.
I’m also looking for that interview with Hannity.
Go get ’em.
I am happy about this result. Kind of contradicts the idea that some commenters have put forth recently, that Americans don’t really care about abortion…
The truth about Obama is coming out and the pro-aborts’ response is to insult the intelligence of McCain supporters?
…Sticks and stones, people…sticks and stones.
“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
Barack Obama (June 2007)
Jasper: Amen.
On the Obama website under “learn” and “know the Facts” is a “fact check” dated 6/30/08 addressing Bill Bennett’s (and Jill’s) inaccurate claims.
Obviously no anti-choice extremist will be influenced by facts, but most voters are fair-minded and will consider the facts, to the extent the issue is of significance to them.
Since there is no reasonable possibility the issue could arise or have significance in the future due to subsequent legislation and judicial rulings, I expect it will have as much significance to the average voter as the non-existent “I hate Whitey tape” and other absurd smears by the extremists.
searching more doesn’t mean “care more.” It is probably just because Obama’s views on other issues are more well known. Also, don’t forget about all the people voting FOR Obama because he is pro-choice.
Actually Bystander, rather than going to Obama’s “facts” you can just go to this page: where Jill provides links to the relevant documents.
Oh – by the way – these aren’t newspapers – they are the official records of the state of Illinois.
Bystander – why use the term “anti-choice” when the issue is clearly about abortion – in fact, it’s about a specific kind of abortion- an induced birth “abortion”.
Why paint people who believe this pollution of the birth process (generally known as infanticide) as being extremists?
The facts stand out pretty clear once people know where to look.
Why didn’t Obama’s team simply post the legislative record that clearly they knew about?
Hal, generally, if I’m at a politicians’ website, and I’m searching for something, I’m not going to search for something I don’t care about.
“McCain’s pro-life position on abortion must be more clear to voters as abortion came in as the third most important issue in searches on his web site in the first quarter but slipped out of the top five in the second quarter.”
Great spin! Only John McCain is NOT pro life. The pro aborts won’t vote for him because is not pro abort enough, and the real pro lifers won’t vote for him because he supports abortion for rape and incest victims without investigation. There’s nothing that needs to be looked up.
Well Bethany, if I’m leaning towards Obama, and I didn’t know much about Obama’s views on abortion, and heard all the attacks on him regarding abortion, etc. (espeically after some recent news coverage) I might go have a look and see. Even if I’m not concerned about the issue in general. I might be on some pro life blog and hear “Obama likes to kill new born babies” and so I go to his site, search his real views on the issue, cut and paste them as a reply to the nuts who think he’s the ant-Christ.
As a person who has lived in the same state that BHO has, it has been a real joke to see him rise to prominence and be hailed the answer to the problems of the entire U.S. He did absolutely nothing of substance in the IL legislature except stand for the most radical left-wing agenda. When he did vote which was almost never he took radical positions. Then Emil Jones (Democratic leader of IL senate) took him under his wing and said “I’m gonna make me a Senator”, proceeded to hi-jack legislation other A.A. legislators had been working on for years, so he could put BHO’s name on it and passed some bills. (see the article by Todd Spivik “Barack Obama and Me” http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/). You want to talk about being a part of the Chicago Democratic machine, he is it. He is the most arrogant, self-serving person who has not worked across the aisle on anything until he decided to work on a obtaining higher office so that he could pad his resume with Emil Jones’ help. He has been known to refuse to talk with people on issues he does not agree with unless it will help his political agenda.
The people in this country want “change”, there are some things that need to be changed, but they have no idea the “so-called change”, radical socialism and political corruption they will get with him. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, AMERICA. People in with the Democratic machine here in IL say that they are working on setting up patronage jobs, croyism and the Chicago-style Democratic political machine in D.C. Make no mistake the mess in the State of IL is only the tip of the iceberg that will have national reprecussions. Yes, I know there is croyism with Republicans also but you haven’t seen the Chicago version go national. PRAY, PEOPLE PRAY IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY. Any AA who speaks out against him is going to be called “an Uncle Tom” and a traitor but the journalist who wrote the above article stuck his neck out to expose the truth about BHO. The pro-aborts will probably not care but this man’s issues go deeper than being pro-death to the unborn. His sitting under the tutilage of Jeremiah Wright, being close friends with Ayers and Pfleger is only the beginning. There needs to be a lot of investigation to expose his true philosophy.
Since he is not sure when life begins why not error on the side of life and do no harm, he will not even consider the most barbaric way of murdering unborn off limits. May God help him and us if he gets in office.
I think Obama will make a fine president. Can’t wait til January.
I just knew you would feel that way Hal. I already said that you pro-aborts would.
Well Bethany, if I’m leaning towards Obama, and I didn’t know much about Obama’s views on abortion, and heard all the attacks on him regarding abortion, etc. (espeically after some recent news coverage) I might go have a look and see. Even if I’m not concerned about the issue in general. I might be on some pro life blog and hear “Obama likes to kill new born babies” and so I go to his site, search his real views on the issue, cut and paste them as a reply to the nuts who think he’s the ant-Christ.
Why would you be on a pro-life blog, in the first place, if you weren’t interested in the topic of abortion?
Hal – have you actually read what he said in the Illinois Senate?
John McCain might not be 100% on the prolife side, but at least he didn’t say he’d sign a bill called the Freedeom of Choice Act which will negate pro life laws in every state in the US, that restrict abortion as much as possible.
A woman can get an abortion up to the day she is DUE to give birth to the baby – most people have no idea of this, and think R vs. W only legalized it in the first three months.
And they can get even an abortion if they’re
“Attending a rock concert” which has no impact on health whatsoever.
Hi Chris. No. I haven’t. Do you think I’d change my support of Obama if I had? I’m voting for him, among many other reasons, because he opposes state regulation of abortion.
John McCain said of his own daughter that if she were pregnant, aborting would be a “family discussion”. He has said he does not support requiring proof of a rape or incest to allow a woman to abort, so any woman could just say she was raped and be given the benefit of the doubt AND an abortion. Do you honestly believe any legislation will turn in the pro life favor under this administration? All BHO has to do in a debate is ask how a fetus from rape has no rights when another fetus does, and BHO will be declared the winner of the debate as McCain stumbles over himself trying to answer that question.
Kate, you almost make John McCain sound reasonable there.
But, I agree with you. The abortion status quo is unlikely to change under McCain or Obama.
Liz: John McCain might not be 100% on the prolife side, but at least he didn’t say he’d sign a bill called the Freedeom of Choice Act which will negate pro life laws in every state in the US, that restrict abortion as much as possible.
Has Obama said he’d sign the act? FOCA would not “negate pro-life laws” since the states can’t restrict abortion prior to viability now, per the Roe decision. FOCA seeks to solidify the reproductive rights from the Roe case, not expand them.
……
A woman can get an abortion up to the day she is DUE to give birth to the baby – most people have no idea of this, and think R vs. W only legalized it in the first three months.
No – most states have restrictions after viability.
I have indeed seen lots of people think that Roe only applied to the first trimester – I wonder where in the heck that came from.
Hal – do you believe induced delivery of a child is a constitutionally protected form of abortion, and that once born the child should be left to die?
Also is murder wrong?
Yet abortionists get away with aborting babies close to FULL TERM (e.g. Tiller in Kansas) for fake ‘health’ reasons like attending a concert.
Hal – do you believe induced delivery of a child is a constitutionally protected form of abortion, and that once born the child should be left to die?
Also is murder wrong?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 3, 2008 1:37 PM
Chris, I don’t know know if induced delivery of a child is a constitutionally protected form of abortion. What do the courts say?
Once a child is born, I don’t see that it should be “left to die” but I could imagine some circumstances where heroic and futile efforts to keep it alive should not be taken. I don’t know that we need the government passing laws about what a doctor should do in that circumstance.
Is murder wrong? Yes, murder is wrong. (try to refrain from asking me next “why is murder wrong?” and then asking me to say “how is abortion any different?”)
Liz why is that worse than aborting during the FIRST TERM (e.g. every abortion clinic in the country) for fake “health” reasons like attending a concert?
Kate, it isn’t, not to us, but to many abortion proponents, it is (since most claim that the baby should be protected after viability).
Hence, her emphasis on FULL TERM.
Hal @ 1:48 PM
So what should the doctors do Hal?
What’s been shown through national legislation and now through the partial-birth abortion ban is that there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed in terms of what is called an abortion.
Inducing a delivery for the express purposes of killing the child crosses that line. It’s not only abortion, but also euthanasia, because it kills a citizen of the United States.
Obama asks about pre-viability, knowing how this procedure is used. Additionally, he talks about the nebulous “health” of the mother, but not her life. He calls the child what it is – a child, but then goes on to state this child, who is no longer within her mother, a “constitutional” non-person. (Really? Yes. ) His objective is not the end of pregnancy, but the intent of the abortion in it’s rawest form. After 22 weeks LMP, arguments about humanity are nullified, it’s clear what the child is; then when the child is outside the mother, there is no longer a question of “pregnancy” so even SoMG’s foolishness about “property rights space” is nullified. The picture, regardless of the gestational age at birth is the same as all children who are “born”. We have no other way to propagate here Hal. No artificial wombs – no science fiction.
I have numerous friends who have had premies – premature babies. One of these just became a mom herself. Is “wantedness” a criteria for our humanity?
Obama argued that such children as my friend should not have been allowed to live if unwanted. That argument shows this method of abortion is beyond elimination of the pregnancy, but revealed for what it is – killing the child. Removing the life. Destroying a relationship.
With a child outside the womb, every irrational argument that’s been used regarding abortion falls away except one: that this particular person who has now been born should not live.
What do you call that Hal?
I call it evidence that Obama doesn’t understand the constitutionality of U.S. citizenship, nor the moral basis thereof, because murdering your child is acceptable to him.
Ok, fine. I have a nephew who was born very premature and just graduated from High School. I have nothing against premature babies. I wish them well.
I rather doubt that there are very many viable aborted feti coming into the world each day. Seems like a lot of outrage and handringing over an almost non-existant problem. I’ll trust the woman and doctors on site to make the right decision based on the circumstances. Most people are good and moral, even if they view these issues differently than you (or I).
Hal,
It is interesting that Obama is being compared to the anti-Christ and Hitler already.
I’ll make a prediction:
The right wing will say that he is a flip-flopper elitist that is out of touch with the common people and will attract terrorist attacks like Cheney to pretzels.
Therefore, fear for your life should a Democrat come to office.
I’ll pay everyone here one dollar if I’m wrong..
…but it’s already started happening so I probably already won.
PIP @ 2:49 PM
Google “ObamaMessiah”
That’s a pro-obama site!
It is irrelevant how many children are being accidentally born and then left to die – one is too many. and the fact is the doctors and hospital staff couldn’t be “trusted” at least not at Jill’s hospital, which is why there had to be a law passed. Which Obama fought against.
It is irrelevant how many children are being accidentally born during an abortion procedure and then left to die – one is too many. and the fact is the doctors and hospital staff couldn’t be “trusted” at least not at Jill’s hospital, which is why there had to be a law passed. Which Obama fought against.
PIP, are you going to vote for Obama?
Pro-lifer L: 11:55: …People in with the Democratic machine here in IL say that they are working on setting up patronage jobs, croyism and the Chicago-style Democratic political machine in D.C. Make no mistake the mess in the State of IL is only the tip of the iceberg that will have national reprecussions. Yes, I know there is croyism with Republicans also but you haven’t seen the Chicago version go national. PRAY, PEOPLE PRAY IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY
Excellent points. Having lived in Illinois, you probably know the great record (sarcasm alert) of our past governors. How many have gone to prison in recent years? (I don’t know have the exact number, but it’s been several.) It would be very scary to see Illinois Democrats take control in Washington.
Bethany,
Yup. After careful consideration and discussion with my friends and a few strangers I have decided that he would be best for the country at this juncture.
And as has been agreed upon here, not much about abortion will likely change within either administration.
Chris,
Some people thought that MLK Jr. was the messiah. I guess that means he was the antichrist.
He was also a great speaker. Much like Hitler, right?
Some people thought that MLK Jr. was the messiah. I guess that means he was the antichrist.
Did he support abortion? Hmmm. No similarity to Obama.
He was also a great speaker. Much like Hitler, right?
Did he support abortion? Hmmm. Bingo. Same as Obama.
Could you rethink that reasoning?
Janet,
The reason why people are saying these things is because he is a great speaker and has a large broadbased and grassroots support structure within the American people.
The fact that he brought in over 20,000 people in St. Louis to hear him speak, and the fact that his speeches are so amazing, and has a well-thought out platform, scares the right, and therefore started to immediately calling him the anti-Christ and/or likening him to Hitler.
Abortion is something I disagree with on Obama. Same with the death penalty (for the first time in three years MO has set an execution date-for the end of this month. Sad news indeed). But most people I know look at Obama the way I do–he is a politician and as such there are going to be things we disagree with and probably some of his own beliefs have to be toned down. But he’s just a politician. And we need to look at the whole package.
Noone I know sees him as anything more, or less than that.
PIP – when I was serving in the Army in Germany I used to run into older Germans who absolutely revered Adolf Hitler. Their eyes would light up and they would get really excited to talk about him. At the time I had a friend who spoke German and he could get them riled up.
Later, after having spent some time in Warsaw and seeing the anti-semitism still there, it creeps me out when people get to that point of adoration.
Adoration should be reserved for Jesus Christ alone – when He comes in Power & Glory there will be no mistaking who He is and what He’s about.
As for Obama being the Anti-Christ? No – he’s like the rest of us sinners. In other words, I don’t condemn him – I think he’s doing a good job of that on his own – like all of us.
Yup. After careful consideration and discussion with my friends and a few strangers I have decided that he would be best for the country at this juncture.
And as has been agreed upon here, not much about abortion will likely change within either administration.
What about the FOCA, PIP?
“Later, after having spent some time in Warsaw and seeing the anti-semitism still there, it creeps me out when people get to that point of adoration.”
I understand. There will always be adoration for public figures. It’s always good to be cautious though.
Bethany,
Yes, I am pro-life, so I do not support FOCA.
Hi PIP,
Hope your doing well, haven’t heard from you on a while :)
Yes, I am pro-life, so I do not support FOCA.
By supporting Obama, you are also supporting the FOCA. Obama has said that the FIRST thing he plans to do as president is to sign the FOCA.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061010.html
Thanks Jasper :) Hope you’ve been doing well.
I’m on the wireless at my school. I’m still doing my penance, though I don’t think I can go much longer without Colbert. I may have to call next week ;)
Bethany,
I do not agree with it. What else can I say?
PIP, don’t you understand it’s immoral to vote for someone who doesn’t agree with 100% of your positions?
Ha.
I do not agree with it. What else can I say?
What other issues that Obama stands for, that are so important that you would just decide that you’d accept him regardless of the fact that he would allow babies to continue to be murdered as long as possible?
Does it not bother you at all that Obama supports induced infanticide either? How can that POSSIBLY not be more important than any of the other issues, whatever they may be?
PIP, Suppose a presidental nominee supported a measure that would make men have the freedom to rape, and that it would be nearly impossible to do anything to prevent them from doing so.
But, suppose that same presidental nominee on every other issue, was exactly the same as you.
Would you still vote for him?
If not, then how much do you really care for the unborn, in comparison to women? Do you really, and truly consider them people who should be protected from harm, as much as you do women?
Here you go, the “you are not pro-life if you don’t vote for a certain politician.”
BECAUSE NO POLITICIAN TODAY REALLY CARES.
To be honest. Really. No politician really cares. They either use abortion as a hot button issue to get votes or they give voters nods without doing anything in office. Pro-choice politicians nowadays just sit there and veto things or draft bills under vague political pressure, pro-life politicians rile people up about the issue and do absolutely nothing about it. I’ve never seen one politician that didn’t disappoint me about this issue. But maybe if they start getting over the gay-bashing, war-mongering, fend-for-yourself attitudes, it might be more believable. There are some good pro-life Dems out there. Get one I can vote for personally and I will. I still doubt that the unborn are the first priority on their (or any politician’s) list.
Call me cynical. But most of the legislation I’ve seen is either anti-woman or has absolutely no chance of passing. If the politicians actually cared they would start enacting a strategy. Things like the war and economy tend to overshadow these things so they pump out pure bull to make it seem like they are doing something.
PiP: 5:07: Call me cynical. But most of the legislation I’ve seen is either anti-woman or has absolutely no chance of passing. If the politicians actually cared they would start enacting a strategy. Things like the war and economy tend to overshadow these things so they pump out pure bull to make it seem like they are doing something.
You may be cynical, but I think you are also pretty realistic. Politicians generally care a lot more about the issues before they are elected than afterwards. That said, it shouldn’t stop someone from voting for the “lesser of two evils”, IMHO.
Quote of the Day?
“There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the ‘Born Alive’ bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill,” Obama said Tuesday. “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.”
So effectively Hal, what Jill experienced in Christ Hospital was a massive breaking of Illinois law? Obama didn’t mention that.
Hal,
I just read the “Get the Facts” part of Obamas site, and it did a great job of telling me what NARAL did and said, but I was unaware that NARAL and Obama were the same person.
The only thing it said about Obama was that IF he had been in the country when the federal law was being voted on he would have voted FOR it. Convenient is what I say!
Also, why is his whole campaign site written in the third person. Why does it say “Obama believes”, instead of “I believe”…can’t the man speak for himself?
This was his reasoning for voting against the BAIPA:
BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04
If it was already law, then why is Christ Hospital still in business? Why wasn’t someone charged with murder????
Hal, why weren’t the doctors from the Christ hospital investigated and thrown in jail, since those babies were supposed to be protected by Illinois law?
Marykay!! You’re back!! YAY!
Hey Bethany,
I’m still pretty lethargic…lots of staring at walls and saying “huh?”…but I should be back in full swing by Saturday (tomorrow is the 4th, a Graduation Party and fireworks, so I won’t be around after the am)…
I heard it was pretty intense around here! I met Suki…she’s awesome. Her little Max is ADORABLE!!!!
Anything I should know?
Bethany,
Did you go to the site that Hal was talking about? It’s creepy how he doesn’t talk for himself. And how only NARAL’s opinions are given. What’s up with that? Why doesn’t Obama himself, tell us what his feelings on abortion are?
So effectively Hal, what Jill experienced in Christ Hospital was a massive breaking of Illinois law? Obama didn’t mention that.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 3, 2008 6:15 PM
………………………………………
What did Jill experience Chris? She knows that such a premie doesn’t have functional lungs. She knows that attempting to ventilate at such a stage of gestation could tear the premie’s lungs to pieces.
What laws were broken Chris? What sane measures were withheld in Jill’s experience?
You met Suki????? I’m so jealous!!
About Obama, yes, I totally agree. Why can’t he speak for himself?
What laws were broken Chris? What sane measures were withheld in Jill’s experience?
Ask Obama, Sally.
Marykay, did you take pictures???
Kate:
I have to say this in the sternest possible way possible way: “you are someone who hasn’t got a clue about John McCain and is in fact lying about him”.
I live in Arizona and am heavily involved in Arizona politics.
Here’s the truth about Senator McCain written by one of the most pro-life people I know, Len Munsil:
http://www.lenmunsil.com/2008/03/why_conservatives_should_suppo.php
Welcome back Mary Kay!
(It’s good to see you jumped right into things behind the scenes)
Finally came across the article Hal was talking about at 5:52 at Yahoo:
It looks like Obama is reacting to BIAPA questioning.
“And as has been agreed upon here, not mu stch about abortion will likely change within either administration”
no, thay hasn’t been agreed upon here PIP. SJC, FOCA, etc, etc. Veto’s….PBA ban?
I noticed how PIP avoided Bethanys post 4:43 PM.
it says alot.
MK,
What happened???
Jasper,
I don’t know what else to tell you. I have already elaborated on this. Although, I hope on principle you will not vote as McCain allows for “women rape” in cases.
From the article:
Yup- the heat is being turned up. He needs to explain in his own words how that bill was designed to overturn Roe.
PIP,
as a prolifer, I will vote for the person who is more pro-life than the other. Especially when the difference is so clear between McCain and Obama.
“I hope on principle you will not vote as McCain allows for “women rape” in cases.”
what do you mean?
Yes, its sad that McCain supports the “exceptions” like rape and incest, but its better than “Abortion on Demand with no restrictions” and “tax payer funded abortions”, etc.
PIP, the big issue when it comes to pro-life politics in this county is the SC. McCain has pledged to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench.
Because the SC is likely to see some turn around in the next 4 years, we need to insure that a conservative is in office.
As someone who is pro-life, I believe it would be irresponsible to vote for someone who is likely to nominate judges who will continue to invent constitutional “rights”. If Obama gets elected it could take decades to undo the damage done.
Pro-lifers are more poised than ever to confront the unconstituitional wishful thinking that created legalized abortion in this county. We can not simply throw our hands up and say “well, McCain isn’t 100% pro-life, so I guess I’ll stay home!” or worse “well, McCain’s not really pro-life either, so I’ll vote for Obama.”
Good point Lauren.
Jill:
You must clear up the confusing lies about John McCain that many pro-lifers believe.
Please direct them to Len Munsil’s blog about why we must vote for McCain:
http://www.lenmunsil.com/2008/03/why_conservatives_should_suppo.php
If you would personally like to talk to Len, shoot me an e-mail and I will ask him if he will allow an interview.
Janet, you wrote: “He [MLK Jr} was also a great speaker. Much like Hitler, right?”
Hitler was not a great speaker, not even a good one. Watch some of the videotapes of him. He rambled, screamed, and harangued his audience. The reason they cheered and saluted was not that he was a good speaker.
PIP, if you are pro-life then you ought to support FOCA. It will for the first time guarantee on the Federal level the right to keep a pregnancy and have a baby and be free of coerced abortion.
You’ll be glad of it when it is law, just as many rtls are glad of the Freedom of Choice Act because it protects churches from blockade and vandalism.
I also am supporting Obama despite important policy disagreements. In particular, I very strongly object to his plans to expand government support of faith-based activities.
Oops–I wrote: ” …just as many rtls are glad of the Freedom of Choice Act because it protects churches from blockade and vandalism.”
I should have written “…the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Law…” instead. Sorry.
FOCA
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3856.html
Carla, I have commented on this in the “NEA protests” thread above.
Janet: Having lived in Illinois, you probably know the great record (sarcasm alert) of our past governors. How many have gone to prison in recent years? (I don’t know have the exact number, but it’s been several.)
And that rascal Dan Rostenkowski, congressman from IL, was in prison and was getting his pension – almost $125,000. Sheesh.
Did he support abortion? Hmmm. Bingo. Same as Obama.
Janet, Obama is pro-choice, while Hitler was the embodiment of anti-choice. He wanted some women compelled to have abortions, and others forbidden from having abortions.
and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04
I would have thought the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would have already taken care of it:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…..”
Actually, Doug, you could make an argument that the phrase “All person’s born or naturalized…” does not apply to abortion survivors. Remember, the witches’ prediction that “no man born of woman” could kill MacBeth did not apply to MacDuff because he was “from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d.”
SoMG – http://bloggingtherenaissance.blogspot.com/2006/10/macduffs-untimely-ripping.html
SoMG – your line of reasoning is precisely why BAIPA was passed – to protect against such a perversion.
Chris A, was MACBETH mentioned during the debates on BAIPA?
By the way, Verdi’s opera MACBETH is almost as exciting as Shakespeare’s play, for very different reasons. There’s a fantastic video-taped performance you can buy featuring the powerhouse-soprano Mara Zampieri and the excellent baritone Renato Bruson. The acting as well as the singing is superb.
http://www.amazon.com/Verdi-Macbeth-Sinopoli-Zampieri-Deutsche/dp/B00005ABW0
SoMG: Actually, Doug, you could make an argument that the phrase “All persons born or naturalized…” does not apply to abortion survivors. Remember, the witches’ prediction that “no man born of woman” could kill MacBeth did not apply to MacDuff because he was “from his mother’s womb untimely ripp’d.”
Like in the Lord of the Rings when Sauron’s main helper says, “No man can kill me.”
And then Eowyn takes off her helmet and shows she’s a woman, and the big guy is like, “Uh-Oh…”
I imagine you’re being humorous there, at least partly, but to me born is born, though it does seem that the Infact Protection Act is designed to settle it, i.e. that it doesn’t matter if the umbilical cord is attached or not, etc.
SoMG: Janet, you wrote: “He [MLK Jr} was also a great speaker. Much like Hitler, right?”
Hitler was not a great speaker, not even a good one. Watch some of the videotapes of him. He rambled, screamed, and harangued his audience. The reason they cheered and saluted was not that he was a good speaker.
Just to clarify, I was actually quoting PIP’s comment from 3: 20 PM about MLK Jr. and it should have been italicized. Sorry for any confusion.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…..”
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
“secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”
Why is this even an issue? It’s a private family matter, not a national election campaign matter. Time to open up our scope of voting issues.
Jasper,
I only meant that she said would I vote for a politician that supported rape. Both candidates therefore support rape, so by that principle noone here should vote. I get the point but I stand by my decision that nothing will be done by politicians until we change the strategy. And also “conservatives” on the supreme court will probably not mean much–didn’t the Roe court come out of republican presidents?
SoMG,
That was my quote, and I said it mainly because these are the accusations. Obama is a good speaker and orator with mostly good policies. Let the comparisons to Hitler ensue. I’ve seriously heard that a lot.
Interesting, though. I haven’t really heard that, before.
Tyler that is what people in the South said about slavery. It is a private matter “if you don’t agree with slavery then don’t own any slaves”, “these folks are less than human”, they are “the unfit” (what Margaret Sanger the founder of PP called African Americans). Germans said what was done to the Jews was not their concern unless the SS knocked on their door to take them to the death camps. Hitler called Jews and Blacks the “undesirables, the parasites” they were unwanted. Those who have the “right to choose” to mutilate and suction out an unborn baby have already been born and given the gift of life. The right to life is the RIGHT TO EXIST, the constitution says we “are endowed by our Creator with the RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”, not based on whether someone chooses whether you can live according to the circumstances of your birth or whether it is convenient for your mother.
What laws were broken Chris? What sane measures were withheld in Jill’s experience?
Ask Obama, Sally.
Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 7:17 PM
…………………
Obviously there were no measures to be taken. No laws broken.
Prolifer L, you’re incorrect about the Constitution, and the slaves, etc., were not inside the body of a person, so there’s a big difference.
But much of their posterity were inside the body of a person at the time it was written…
But much of their posterity were inside the body of a person at the time it was written…
Bethany, at most a semantic argument. Whether by intention or chance, whether by human design or godly purpose (if any), abortions and miscarriages mean there won’t be a descendent, there.
No, it means that the descendants were there, and are now dead.
Not necessarily, because of course many people don’t consider the unborn as “descendents.” As far as I know this concept is also applicable in law.
Same as for “heirs.” When does one become an “heir”? At birth, often.
Seems to me it’s a semantic deal (at the least) much akin to “when does one become a father or mother – at conception or at birth?”
For many people it’s at birth. “I became a father today,” i.e. I had a son or daughter born.
“I just became a grandmother today,” i.e. my daughter or daughter-in-law gave birth, etc.
And for many people, it’s “not that way”, Doug. So?
The fact that people have differing opinions on this subject hat isn’t what I base the objective fact that human beings are descendants of their parents from.
From the dictionary:
Descendants-
all of the offspring of a given progenitor; “we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity”
Offspring:
In biology, offspring are the product of reproduction, a new organism produced by one or more parents.
By the way, one can be a *presumptive heir*, before birth.
Seems to me it’s a semantic deal (at the least) much akin to “when does one become a father or mother – at conception or at birth?”
It’s not semantics. It’s a question of reality, Doug. Objective, unquestionable facts.
When a child is conceived, it unquestionably is a new, living human organism, which has a human biological father and mother. That is scientifically observable and provable, and it’s silly to say that someone’s opinion could counter that.
Bethany: And for many people, it’s “not that way”, Doug. So?
So then stating that it has to one way or the other is faulty.
…..
When a child is conceived, it unquestionably is a new, living human organism, which has a human biological father and mother. That is scientifically observable and provable, and it’s silly to say that someone’s opinion could counter that.
There’s no agreement that the connceptus is “a child.” That’s mixing the subjective in with the objective, and yes – agreed there is a biological father and mother. If asked, one would truthfully say, at conception and afterward that “I am the biological father,” for example, if that was the case. However, that is a different thing than “becoming a parent,” and thus we have the prevalence of people saying it takes place at birth. “Hey guys, I just became a father/grandfather,” etc.
Descendants- all of the offspring of a given progenitor; “we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity”
Okay, and “offspring” meaning literally, (coming from the Old English), “to spring off.” Obviously the unborn have not yet sprung off.
The Constitution was written at a time when abortion, at least to quickening, was legal. The context is that “our posterity” did not include the unborn, but rather the descendents that one would have – meaning they really would have “descended” and “sprung off,” etc.
Doug your argument has so much verbage and twist it doesn’t make sense. For most Americans slave or free to willfully and willingly murder their unborn is a new concept, that goes against their human nature, maternal instincts and their belief in Divine providence. The promotion of legalized murder of your unborn did not really take hold until the sexual revolution of the 70’s because of the promotion of avoiding the consequesnces of promiscuous, pre-marital sexual behavior. Why do you think Margaret Sanger was run out of town and the country when people got wind of her eugenic ideas? Why would she have to “recruit the Negro ministers to rein in some of their more rebellous members” if they got wind of her proposing the “Negro sterilization project”? Go to http://www.blackgenocide.com. I don’t think you have a clue of what you are talking about so I won’t waste my time. Even the poorest and most destitute Americans considered their children worthy of the gift of life. That is why so many immigrated to this country, to find a better life for their children. Even slaves who were brought here in chains against their will prayed for the day and told their children that there was hope for them to have a better life. The fact is at the time the Constitution was written most people believed Biblically that “Children are a heritage to the Lord”, although there were a few exceptions most people had large families and most were NOT abusive to their children, but loved them. My great grandparents were loving parents to 12 children, their children filled them with HOPE.
To those who are not pro-death but have an iota of second thoughts and a conscience about abortion being wrong, the analogy of the tragedy of slavery compared to abortion is a very good analogy.
Aborted babies are considered the property of their mother’s to do with as they choose.
Aborted babies are not considered persons.
Aborted babies are killed to save them from the fate of growing up poor and unwanted. Their mother’s are actually being merciful by killing them.
Since aborted babies cannot speak for themselves, they really should not be afforded the right to life.
Substitute the words “The African American slave” for the words “the aborted baby” above.
The Dred Scott Decision in 1857 ruled that Black people were not “persons” in the eyes of the constitution. Slaves could be bought, sold, used or even killed as property of the owner. That decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment. Now the court has determined that unborn people (which we ALL were at some point) are not “persons” in the eyes of the Constitution. They can be killed at the request of their owners (mothers). Look up the video “The Silent Scream” on the http://www.priestforlife.org website, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist, shows an abortion under ultrasound, if you can come away from the video saying the baby doesn’t mind what happens to it, you are either a cold-hearted person or truly deceived.
Oh by the way, slave owners in the South, said since, slaves weren’t “persons”, “it was for the slaves own good that they kept them in slavery”. “The slaves could not take care of themselves, they are too poor and ignorant to be freed from slavery”. “They needed to have slave owners to make decisions for them”.
The slave owners said it was their “right to choose to have slaves”, “if Northeners don’t want slaves and think it is wrong, then don’t own any”.
How many times have I heard pro-choicers say “It is my right, if you pro-lifers don’t want abortions and don’t agree with it, don’t have one”.
Prolifer L: Doug your argument has so much verbage and twist it doesn’t make sense.
What I said is the truth, however much you don’t like it. It’s not always the case that things can be stated in one word, a few words, etc., but actually I was fairly economical in my response.
…..
For most Americans slave or free to willfully and willingly murder their unborn is a new concept, that goes against their human nature, maternal instincts and their belief in Divine providence.
Here is where we get to the “twist” – and it’s from you. Abortion is not murder. You may not like it, but your likes and dislikes are not what make for murder or not.
…..
The promotion of legalized murder of your unborn did not really take hold until the sexual revolution of the 70’s because of the promotion of avoiding the consequesnces of promiscuous, pre-marital sexual behavior.
Again, it’s not “murder” that you are talking about. Abortion, to a point in gestation, was legal under English common law, and in the US before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution. In the 1800s some states began to further restrict it or make it illegal for midwives to perform abortions – doctors felt what was their rightful territory was being encroached upon – and they were successful in getting laws passed where doctors were the only ones allowed to perform abortions.
…..
Why do you think Margaret Sanger was run out of town and the country when people got wind of her eugenic ideas? Why would she have to “recruit the Negro ministers to rein in some of their more rebellous members” if they got wind of her proposing the “Negro sterilization project”? Go to http://www.blackgenocide.com. I don’t think you have a clue of what you are talking about so I won’t waste my time.
You’re not wasting your time – yes, Sanger had some attitudes we now feel were extreme. Heck, so did Abe Lincoln. So did a great many people outside the US as well as in it. Yet nothing you are saying refutes anything I said.
……
Even the poorest and most destitute Americans considered their children worthy of the gift of life. That is why so many immigrated to this country, to find a better life for their children. Even slaves who were brought here in chains against their will prayed for the day and told their children that there was hope for them to have a better life. The fact is at the time the Constitution was written most people believed Biblically that “Children are a heritage to the Lord”, although there were a few exceptions most people had large families and most were NOT abusive to their children, but loved them. My great grandparents were loving parents to 12 children, their children filled them with HOPE.
Okay, but the fact remains that people still had abortions, often, when the pregnancy was unwanted. You want to generalize incorrectly about “everybody,” and while what you say is true for some people, it wasn’t for others, not at all. The Founding Fathers of the US wrote what they wrote with the full knowledge that not all pregnancies were wanted, and that abortion was legal to a point in gestation. That had been the case, was the case, and would be the case for years afterwards.
…..
To those who are not pro-death but have an iota of second thoughts and a conscience about abortion being wrong, the analogy of the tragedy of slavery compared to abortion is a very good analogy.
The slaves were not inside the body of a person. Slavemasters wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own. You appear to want the will of pregnant women subverted to yours.
…..
Aborted babies are considered the property of their mother’s to do with as they choose.
The unborn are inside the body of the woman. Yes, it is their decision – to continue a pregnancy or to end it. You can say “property” if you want, but your desire does not trump the desire of the woman in this case, regardless of what terminology you favor.
…..
Aborted babies are not considered persons.
Personhood is attributed at birth, as has been the case in almost every society on earth for all of recorded time. You may not like the fact, and wish it would change, but as of now that’s the way it is. You are free to feel any way you want about the unborn, but here too society is not letting your desires hold sway over those of the pregnant woman. I’m not saying it is impossible that personhood would be attributed earlier than birth, either.
…..
Aborted babies are killed to save them from the fate of growing up poor and unwanted. Their mother’s are actually being merciful by killing them.
Your words, not mine. I’m Pro-Choice, and I leave the decision to the pregnant woman, whatever her motivation is, to viability.
…..
Since aborted babies cannot speak for themselves, they really should not be afforded the right to life.
Now you’re just making straw man arguments. You seem to want to generalize, but the way we have it now is that wanted pregnancies may be continued per the will of the pregnant woman, and unwanted ones can be ended. There is no necessary “should” there as you stated. It is up to the woman.
……
Substitute the words “The African American slave” for the words “the aborted baby” above.
Had the slaves been inside the bodies of people, it’s reasonable to say there would have been much less sentiment for protecting them. If your body has something in it, the principles of bodily autonomy and liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc., are going to come into play as far as society allowing you to make the determination about what is to be done. There is still slavery in the world today, but there is also a vast amount of law and sentiment on the side of bodily autonomy and personal freedom. “Where one person’s rights begin, another’s end.” The individuals are “in their own space” so to speak. If something is inside your body, it’s a much different deal.
…..
The Dred Scott Decision in 1857 ruled that Black people were not “persons” in the eyes of the constitution. Slaves could be bought, sold, used or even killed as property of the owner.
That had been the status quo for hundreds of years in North America. The Scott decision basically said that while the states could treat slaves or ex-slaves as citizens, that did not negate federal law nor the laws of states that permitted slavery.
…..
That decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment. Now the court has determined that unborn people (which we ALL were at some point) are not “persons” in the eyes of the Constitution.
No, personhood has never been attributed prior to birth in the full sense of right-to-life, etc. That was true in 1776, and during all the years when abortions was illegal, and it’s still true today. (The act of abortion being illegal in some circumstances is not the same as deeming personhood to be present for the unborn, not by a longshot.)
…..
They can be killed at the request of their owners (mothers). Look up the video “The Silent Scream” on the http://www.priestforlife.org website, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist, shows an abortion under ultrasound, if you can come away from the video saying the baby doesn’t mind what happens to it, you are either a cold-hearted person or truly deceived.
Heh – you’ve been deceived if you think that movie is any proof of anything other than that deceitful people will do such things once in a while. It’s an acknowledged fake (even the makers of it finally admitted it) and it’s been de-bunked well.
Boil all this down, and you more want the unborn lives to continue, pretty much no matter what, and I more want women to keep the freedom they now have. You want your desire to hold sway, and I say let the women decide.
How many times have I heard pro-choicers say “It is my right, if you pro-lifers don’t want abortions and don’t agree with it, don’t have one”.
Well yeah, it’s their body, not yours, and yours is yours, not theirs.
The slaves weren’t inside the body of a person, and just as somebody else’s desire doesn’t trump yours with respect to your pregnancy (if you can have one), neither does your desire trump theirs.
To anyone who has doubts about abortion and has an open-mind, I want to express the following thoughts. I know that Doug does not care about anything that I will say but others please listen to me. During slavery the mother and her unborn baby were both considered the property of the slave master with NO rights. Before the baby was born and when he was born he was still considered a slave and the property of the slave owner to do as the slave owner wished. The slave owner was given this “legal right” by the Supreme Court. This unborn human being who had it’s own DNA, hands, fingers, heartbeat, blood type and may be a male (which could be a totally different sex than its mother) was a SLAVE. IF it was wrong to have the right to own or to kill the slave mother, then it was wrong to have the right to own or kill her unborn baby as well. IF it was wrong for the slave owner to kill the unborn baby even though it was “his right” can we today consider it the mother’s right to kill her unborn because the baby is her “property” as well, although a totally separate human being from her. Just like the slave owner could do what ever he wished to slave mothers, is it right for expectant mothers to do whatever they wish including kill their unborn? Today we consider a pregnant mother who is murdered and her baby dies to be a double murder. Does it make sense that only if she wants her baby and was not planning to abort it that then it is a double homicide, but if she did not want her baby it is only a single homocide. Can you see how psychotic that is?
We consider it child abuse for the expectant mother to take drugs into her body that cause harm to her unborn baby and cause withdrawal, seizures, brain damage or death. To take the INNOCENT, LIFE OF HER UNBORN BABY BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT WANT HER BABY by dilating her cervix, dismembering her baby and suctioning it out is the ULTIMATE form of child abuse, because this baby is a separate human being who is innocent. The mother is performing a death sentence on her own child in it’s most innocent, vulnerable state.
I know none of these things will get to Doug, for whatever reason he will say it is not murder and justify the shedding of innocent blood. But for any who have an open mind, if it is NOT taking a life then why do we need to make sure the baby is DEAD for the abortion to be successful. I have to go now.
I know none of these things will get to Doug
Some of them are simply not true, as I noted in the previous post. No, falsehoods don’t “get to” people, often. Why should they?
……
if it is NOT taking a life then why do we need to make sure the baby is DEAD for the abortion to be successful.
With abortion the unborn life ends, no doubt about it. You are acting like this is an issue, but it’s not.
…..
We consider it child abuse for the expectant mother to take drugs into her body that cause harm to her unborn baby and cause withdrawal, seizures, brain damage or death.
That’s not true as stated. In general in the past it wasn’t true at all. I’m not sure in the present time – there may have been some few cases or a case where the woman was penalized for it. Overall, though many women do it to varying degrees, very few are said to be “abusers” under the law.
This IS an interesting topic. Where would we draw the line – at a certain level of effect on the unborn? At a given number of doses, etc?
…..
Before the baby was born and when he was born he was still considered a slave and the property of the slave owner to do as the slave owner wished.
We now say that nobody else can tell the woman what to do, prior to viability. We hold that she’s not a slave, and you don’t see many people saying she should be – they’re not advocating slavery. We want her free from other people’s desires, in that respect.
You want to tell the pregnant woman what to do. You want your desire to trump hers, and just as there are many people who don’t want the woman to be a slave, there are many people who don’t want you being able to tell her what to do with respect to her pregnancy.
There’s no agreement that the connceptus is “a child.”
Opinion cannot change the fact that it is a child, Doug.
Child: a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age;
Oh and “offspring” means:
something that comes into existence as a result;
“To spring from”, means simply that they “sprang into existence” (because of something). It clearly does not mean “springing out of the womb”. You’re pulling out a totally different meaning out of your head for your own purposes.
You can’t deny that the child is in existence as a results of the parents actions, unless you want to deny reality.
By the way, the word “fetus” is derived from the latin word for “offspring”.
Bethany, “child” is an opinion, in the first place.
“Age” starts at birth, if you want to look at it that way.
“Fetus” in the Latin was “sometimes transferred to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring,” etc. That does not mean that “offspring” are the unborn. The unborn obviously have not “sprung off” yet.
In the Old English it was literally, “those who spring off someone” i.e. those who are born.
Bethany, “child” is an opinion, in the first place.
No, it’s not. Child is a factual description of what a human fetus IS.
# a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age;
You might be able to argue away the word “offspring” but you cannot argue that a son or a daughter does not exist before birth!
“Age” starts at birth, if you want to look at it that way.
In oriental culture, the child is considered to be “one” at birth. They start aging from the moment of conception and count the first 8-9 months as the first year of the baby’s life.
Conception is a stage in a person’s life. So is birth.
By the way, if birth is the time when the unborn become persons, and not anytime before that…then why do you oppose abortions after viability?
They aren’t “children”, according to your logic…nor are they “people”, or “offspring”. So why should they be protected?
Doug, answer this.
What would you call a female human being?
How about a male human being?
Can you be a female human being and not be someone’s daughter?
Can you be a male human being and not be someone’s son?
“In biology, offspring are the product of reproduction, a new organism produced by one or more parents.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offspring