JivinJ’s Life Links 8-22-08
by JivinJ
The shocking extremism of that position – giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life – is profoundly embarrassing to him now.
So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because IL law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t – and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?).
What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 IL senate debate….
Aug.22, 2008 5:39 pm |
Blogs, Born Alive, Campaign, Obama |
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.
Jill:
I hope someone is working on a visual for this Obama thing so the average Joe can see and go:
“Aha, the guy really was for infanticide or else he was pretty dumb. Either way he shouldn’t be the president”.
Hey Antis, not happy with the anti-cred of the Republican candidate? Here is some good news: it looks like Alan Keyes will be running for president as the candidate of the America’s Independent Party. He’ll be a write-in in Illinois…get that pen out!
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30681
The proposal to legalize research on HUMAN EMBRYOS in MICHIGAN will be on the ballot in November. It will be Proposal 2. So VOTE NO on PROPOSAL 2 if you live in MICHIGAN!
PROLIFERS – HAVE YOU REGISTERED TO VOTE????
Hisman, I think that Andrew McCarthy’s article is an excellent expose of Mr. Obama. It may have the best quotes yet. Read it and realize, as you said, “Aha, the guy really was for infanticide or else he was pretty dumb. Either way he shouldn’t be the president.”
Here’s one quote. Mr. Obama said, “If these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”
What are those “things” being born alive if they are not children? Kittens? Tadpoles?
Who is that “doctor” who is in that room? He’s an abortionist paid to kill the child. Mr. Obama has confidence in him?
translation: “Children are not being born. I trust the abortionist to finish his job and neglect the thing that looks the same as it did as a fetus in the womb a few minutes earlier.”
Some of you have asked what motivates abortion docs. Read this:
http://abortionclinicdays.blogs.com/abortionclinicdays/2008/08/why-do-this-work.html#comments
Good news for Democrats: Serial-adulterer Randall Terry intends to commit civil disobedience at the Dem Convention. Go Randy! Continue embarrassing your cause.
Incredible article, SoMG.
We’ve heard Dr. Romalis’ reasons. Now the question is what motivated YOU, SoMG, to perform abortions for a living?
“Safe abortions”–what a contradiction! I suppose they’re sort of like “safe sex,” only worse; in an abortion someone ALWAYS dies. If BAIPA is in effect, there’s at least the chance of the child’s survival. Dr. Romali boasts that he saves the woman while he kills the child. He pretends that it doesn’t exist.
Dr. Romali is sincere but depraved. So is Dr. Morgentaler, Canada’s most infamous abortionist. He was a survivor of the Holocaust, but he has initiated and “propagated” another. Welcome to the twenty-first century and the “doctors” whom Mr. Obama trusts. What a culture of death!
Carder, many factors, including some of the same ones that motivate Dr. Romalis.
But I’ll tell you the final straw was when RTL terror went from being an occasional event to a regular pattern.
Every abortion I do, every student I train, and every advance in abortifacient technology I help develop is partly a way of pissing in the faces of those who promote RTL terror.
Jon, you wrote: “If BAIPA is in effect, there’s at least the chance of the child’s survival. ”
Nope.
“Every abortion I do, every student I train, and every advance in abortifacient technology I help develop is partly a way of pissing in the faces of those who promote RTL terror.”
Spite is your biggest motivation?
Women, be assured that SoMG will never botch an abortion. Children, thank God that he never got his hands on you.
It’s a good thing for abortionists that most pro-lifers are Christians who do not personally take revenge.
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:19-21
SoMG, were you ever a target of aggression?
I’m asking you to be specific: What first piqued your interest in termination of pregnancies? A colleague? A friend? Were you witness to the effects of illegal abortions like Morgentaler and his colleague?
No, Bobby B., but it is one of my motivations.
It’s worth pointing out that something similar motivated the creation of the organization Medical Students for Choice, which effectively guarantees that there will be no shortage of abortion providers. Good going, LDI!
Carder, yes I have been the target of RTL aggression.
I first became interested in abortion as a little kid. Mom used to take me to pro-choice demonstrations.
But SoMG, you must realize that the majority of RTLers are non-violent and would condemn those actions taken against you. Not to downplay any violence against you or others PCers, but I don’t think there is a single one of us on this blog who would condone violence.
What were those demonstrations like? Were you old enough to understand what was going on? How did your prochoice view evolve over time?
Bobby B, some people would argue that RTLism is inherently violent because it seeks to force women to undergo childbirth, which is a violent, damaging process.
Also, anyone who opposed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Law is pro-RTL-violence whether they admit it or not.
I’m not so sure HisMan is against RTL violence. If he is against it, I don’t understand why. If abortion is murder, then killing in order to prevent abortion is justifiable homicide.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981276-1,00.html
Carder, yes I was old enough to know what was going on. The demonstrations consisted of marching around carrying signs and chanting pro-choice slogans. Over time I went from the abortion-as-non-homicide argument (“blob of tissue”) to the abortion-as-justifiable homicide argument (“body-ownership”).
So prochoice rallies were a source of inspiration. As you breezed through Stuyvesant, did you consider med school to exclusively learn abortion techniques or was there another area of medicine that interested you?
SoMG, a fetus doesn’t choose its mother; the mother chooses the fetus. (She has sex.) Why do you blame the fetus and not the mother? Why not kill the mother and try to save the fetus?
Better yet, realize the implications of human anatomy and let the female body naturally do what it does. You actually violate her body as well as the fetus’s.
If abortion is murder, then killing in order to prevent abortion is justifiable homicide.
No, SoMG, it isn’t. Abortion is murder according to God’s law, but the civil government currently isn’t treating it as such. Even if the civil government was treating abortion as murder, my killing of the abortionist would not be justifiable homicide.
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:19-21
The civil government is a “minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). It is the civil government’s job to execute justice (get revenge and punish). The civil government must defend the lives of pre-born children. Roe vs. Wade is therefore abhorrent and evil; it must be replaced.
Some day all rulers will also give account for their rulings. They include the emperor Nero, who was the ruler at the time that the apostle Paul wrote the epistle to the Roman Christians. Nero was not a nice guy; he used Christians as human torches for his garden parties. (I’m pretty he was the one. He certainly blamed them for a fire which he started.)
By the way, SoMG, Hisman was the person yesterday who asked me, “Do you know that you have just broken a federal law?” I was pretending to be a consistent pro-choicer. Do you remember? Hisman does not seem to be one who would take justice into his own hands. Christians are not vigilantes.
Jon, you wrote: “You actually violate her body as well as the fetus’s.”
I “violate her body” by doing what she pays me to do??? Disconnection-from-reality alert. So far that makes THREE DFR-alerts for you.
And I don’t “blame” anyone. The fetus is not guilty; it’s just unlucky.
The Emperor Nero was insane. I think Charles Laughton did the best job of playing him–better than Peter Ustinov. Watch SIGN OF THE CROSS, whose cast includes the great Fredric March. Also Claudette Colbert naked in a milk-bath, with her boobs clearly visible. Hot porno from 1932!
Carder, my non-abortion medical interests include epidemiology, drug-development (especially drugs that include antibodies), suicide, contraception, and history of medicine. Plus a hobby interest in vocal anatomy.
You must be a talented singer.
Vocal anatomy. Public speaking a natural for you?
These non-abortion interests must have taken you many places. Which did you find the most fascinating?
Jon, you also wrote: “Even if the civil government was treating abortion as murder, my killing of the abortionist would not be justifiable homicide.”
Why not? If you killed a would-be murderer in order to prevent him from immediately killing an already-born child, wouldn’t that be justifiable homicide? If not, why not? If yes, then why not also in order to prevent killing an unborn person?
And your blanket claim that Christians are not vigilantes has zillions of counterexamples, including Paul Hill and Jon “this is what you get, you should PRAY THE ROSARY” Salvi (who is no longer Catholic because he did the world a favor by committing suicide in prison, but was certainly Catholic when he murdered two women.)
Carder, so far the best has been inventing a drug and naming it after an opera character.
I once worked for someone who invented an NMR technique called Proton-Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy. One of his students later gave a talk entitled “PENIS at the Magic Angle”. (Oops I guess you don’t know there’s a very common NMR technique called Magic-Angle Spinning.)
I “violate her body” by doing what she pays me to do?
You violate her body by violently and prematurely removing the child that her body has been designed to nourish and develop. Then you neglect the child to kill it. (Or you kill it first. Whatever.)
Don’t talk to me about C-sections. The doctor doesn’t kill the child.
Sorry, SoMG. Generally speaking, Christians are not vigilantes. But we could talk about people who Marx inspired. Some of them were revolutionaries.
By the way, SoMG, you never answered my question. Why do you favour the mother over the fetus? The fetus did not choose its mother; the mother chose the fetus. (She slept with a man who should be her husband. In some particularly abhorrent cases, he even is.)
Jon, once again, I favor the mother because the fetus is living by engaging in bloodstream-to-bloodstream chemical exchange with her, by occupying her body, and by subjecting her to major medical/surgical trauma, all against her will.
An opera singer drug! What did it do, alter vocal mechanisms? ;0)
Every abortion I do, every student I train, and every advance in abortifacient technology I help develop is partly a way of pissing in the faces of those who promote RTL terror.
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 7:16 AM
Sad, you strike out at innocents to piss in the face of judgemental people. That is very sociopathic. Reminds me of this guy who convinced himself he was striking out at the justice system by torturing children:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26225791/
Jon, why do you think abortions where the father of the pregnancy is the patient’s husband are “particularly abhorrent”? Abortions are less abhorrent if the patient’s partner is not married to her???
Please answer my justifiable homicide question. I’ll reproduce it for you: “If you killed a would-be murderer in order to prevent him from immediately killing an already-born child, wouldn’t that be justifiable homicide? If not, why not? If yes, then why not also in order to prevent killing an unborn person?”
SoMG, I already answered your justifiable homicide question. In fact, I answered it twice, both times on this thread, once before you asked, and once after you asked. Read especially my response after you asked.
Women’s bodies are wonderfully designed for reproduction. The violence and damage that can happen during birth is a result of the curse. With Adam and Eve we sinned and chose death. You’ll find the curse on Eve on about the fourth page of the Bible: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16).
I don’t think much of the logic of your argument at 10:07 AM. You shouldn’t favor the mother. After all, she chose the fetus; the fetus didn’t choose her for a mother. Also, to use your kind of terminology, she imprisons its body. Also, she subjects it to major medical/surgical trauma against its will. (Ever watched “The Silent Scream”?) But thanks for answering my question.
Jon, you did not answer my restatement of the JH question which was: “Jon, you also wrote: “Even if the civil government was treating abortion as murder, my killing of the abortionist would not be justifiable homicide.” …Why not? If you killed a would-be murderer in order to prevent him from immediately killing an already-born child, wouldn’t that be justifiable homicide? If not, why not? If yes, then why not also in order to prevent killing an unborn person?”
THE SILENT SCREAM was exposed as a fake long ago.
SoMG, I didn’t read carefully enough. You responded to my response.
: “If you killed a would-be murderer in order to prevent him from immediately killing an already-born child, wouldn’t that be justifiable homicide? If not, why not? If yes, then why not also in order to prevent killing an unborn person?”
No, I don’t think it would be justifiable homicide. I would be disobeying the civil government which wrongly protects abortionists who kill already-born children (except if BAIPA is in place). I may only disobey the civil government when it forces me to disobey God. God is the highest authority. I also don’t believe that one sovereign state has the authority to punish another sovereign state–except in self-defense. Actual living is very messy because of sin, and I do have great understanding for someone who stands up to protect a baby from being murdered. Still, he’s wrong unless the baby is his own (parental authority). The baby’s parents, the abortionist, and the politicans and supreme court judges who wrongly ruled will all some day have to give account.
And, SoMG, a person doesn’t have to kill an abortionist to stop him. There are other ways. Many prolifers stand outside abortion clinics to try to persuade every desperate woman to choose life. They also have crisis pregnancy centres, adoption centres, etc. Many are foster parents. In their churches, they teach new converts to be responsible parents.
And now, I really am going to go. I’ve spent too long on this.
Every abortion I do, every student I train, and every advance in abortifacient technology I help develop is partly a way of pissing in the faces of those who promote RTL terror.
Posted by: SoMG at August 23, 2008 7:16 AM
I wonder how many women know the reason the “doctor” is providing the service is kill their baby in order to get back at RTL’ers. You are a sick person and I hope just one pro-choice woman who comes to this blog sees you as an example of the type of person it takes to kill their baby. It may be enough to change their heart.
WEll, SoMG, if you have been the victim of said terror, care to share in what form did this terror take shape? Stalking? Bombing? Recorded messages?
Carder, I didn’t say I had been the victim of RTL terror, just RTL aggression.
As in being spoken to in a hostile manner?
Ok, aggression. As in the-pencil-in-the-eye type of aggression?
Maybe it was more like RTL annoyance.
SoMG, I already addressed Gary Romalis’ little spiel. What is it with you prochoicers that you envision some advantage in dying from a legal abortion? What, is Laura Smith gloating in the afterlife, taunting Geri Santoro? They’re BOTH EQUALLY DEAD. Why aren’t both deaths equally tragic and unacceptable?
SoMG,
Do you perform second and third trimester procedures?
SoMG:
I am not for personal violence against baby killers by individuals.
Why should I be when I know they’re going to cook in hell apart from repentance? Therefore, I urge to repent from the evil you are now performing.
However, I am for punishment by the state for all murderers. Therefore, I’m for changing the law so that all baby killers rot in prison or die by execution, and hopefully retroactively enforceable. My Lord did say this: “It would be better had they not even been born”.
HisMan, “retroactively enforceable”. You need to google the phrase “Ex-post-facto”. Have you ever taken a class in Civics? Tsk tsk. Tut tut.
Christina both deaths are equally tragic. Duh. The difference is that deaths and other complications appear to be much more common with illegal abortions than with legal ones as was demonstrated in the 1990s in South Africa. I don’t see what you imagine you will gain by pretending not to know this. Do you WANT people to see that you are detached from reality?
SoMG,
Do you perform second and third trimester procedures?
Posted by: just a nobody at August 23, 2008 10:51 PM
Second, seldom. Third no.