New Stanek WND column, "Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide"

WND%20logo.gif

On June 25, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked conservative commentator Bill Bennett what question he would ask Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama if he could.

Bennett said he would ask Obama:

Why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there?.... I got to question the guy's moral judgment who doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born.... What is the answer to that question?

Bennett was speaking about Obama's opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act as state senator....

(To which Obama defender Donna Brazile responded, "Bill, you want to have a conversation about narrow issues... but the American people want to talk about gas prices....")

Over the years, Obama or his surrogates have mischaracterized Illinois' Born Alive Act and his reasons for opposing it at least 10 different ways.

But Obama's most flagrant lie, perpetuated by both NARAL* and the Obama campaign* after CNN ran a fair analysis on June 30 of Obama's opposition to Born Alive, is as NARAL wrote in a rebuttal....

Continue reading my column today, "Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide," on WorldNetDaily.com.

*See NARAL press release on page 2. Go here to read Obama's attempted refutation that he is pro-infanticide.

Alert: CNN Coverage Includes False Description of Sen. Obama's Record
From: Donna Crane, Policy Director
Date: June 30, 2008
Subject: Bill Bennett Distorts Sen. Barack Obama's Record

On today's edition of CNN's "Situation Room," Bill Bennett made outright false statements about Sen. Barack Obama's record on choice.

Bennett claimed that a so-called "born-alive" bill on which Sen. Obama voted during his time in the Illinois Senate was identical to a federal bill that NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose. Bennett is absolutely wrong.

The Illinois bill did not include a provision that explicitly avoided entanglement in the abortion debate, as the federal bill did. It is inaccurate for any reporter, commentator, or surrogate for the McCain campaign to suggest otherwise.

Please see the following language from the federal version (which did not appear in the Illinois bill):

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."

Source: H.R.2175 (2002)

As a final note, this federal bill was signed into law on August 5, 2002--not in 2003, as Bennett repeatedly claimed on CNN.

If you have questions, please contact NARAL Pro-Choice America at 202-973-3032.

Ted Miller
Communications Director
NARAL Pro-Choice America
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 973-3034 (direct)
(202) 973-2034 (fax)
TMiller@ProChoiceAmerica.org


Comments:

I posted this already on the 527 thread, but it fits here too. The Illinois Act (and the Federal Act as well) was written in such a way that you could argue that a pre-viability infant/fetus/whatever (the threshold in Roe v. Wade before abortion could be prohibited) was a "person" and thus protected under the Constitution. The FEDERAL Act threw in a clause that prohibited anyone from arguing that, which thus took away the issue that Obama was concerned with. Jill calls it a "fig leaf" but in fact it was essential to making the Federal Act not liable to prohibit all abortions, and thus unconstitutional under Roe.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 1:38 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpNQRp2R9Oo&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Christians supporing Obama. Gotta love it.

Posted by: Hal at July 2, 2008 1:59 PM


Why would Christians not support Obama. Contrary to popular opinion, the Christian religion spans the spectrum from very liberal Episcopalians/UCC/Unity/Quaker to very conservative Evangelicals/Pentacostals. In between Catholics span the spectrum all within their own denomination. Not only that, if you actually sat down and read the Gospels, Jesus hung out with a lot of folks that would be voting Democrat today, and had not much nice to say about the Pharisees that were the "values voters" of their time. And Jesus' description of the stuff that gets you into heaven (feeding the poor, tending to the sick, visiting people in prison) sounds a lot more like the Democratic Party platform than what I hear on Rush Limbaugh or the Fox News Channel. (Jesus, unlike Paul and later theologians, was not so much a "grace alone" kinda guy). So if you're a Christian and NOT supporting Obama I think you have a lot more rationalizing to do than if you do support him.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:29 PM


JohnS, didn't Obama block an amendment that would have made the illinois law mirror the federal law? or was that something else?

Posted by: Alex at July 2, 2008 2:30 PM


Hal: The group you refer to is a PAC for supporting Obama, which claims to be Christian.

The Matthew 25 Network is a new Political Action Committee (PAC) that is reaching out
to and engaging diverse Christian communities in support of our endorsed candidate for
President-- Senator Barack Obama.


The election of our public officials, and the politics they stand for, are a reflection of our
core values as a nation. We believe those elected to public office carry a sacred trust, as
their decisions will have a great impact on our country and our world.


Matthew 25 is proud to endorse Senator Barack Obama for President because we believe
in his vision for America and in his leadership that brings people together from across
different political and faith spectrums.

Our 2008 activities will focus on reaching out to targeted religious communities that are
key to electoral success for Senator Obama, including Catholics, moderate evangelicals,
Hispanic Catholics and Protestants.


Matthew 25 Network will coordinate grassroots mobilization in these Christian
communities, develop credible religious surrogates in the media, respond to negative
faith-based attacks, and communicate directly with undecided voters through paid
advertising and direct mail.

Matthew 25 Network Founding Staff
Mara Vanderslice is the founder of the Matthew 25 Network and Senior Partner at Common Good
Strategies, LLC (CGS). CGS is a political consulting firm that provides Democratic elected officials,
candidates and state parties with the expertise, and resources to connect with America’s diverse religious communities.
Before founding CGS, Mara was the Director of Religious Outreach for the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign. CGS worked on numerous successful campaigns in 2006, including Senator Bob Casey (PA), Governor Ted Strickland (OH), Governor Jennifer Granholm (MI), and Governor Kathleen Sebelius (KS). Mara and the work of Common Good Strategies has been profiled in TIME magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, PBS, NPR, and most recently in the book Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power by John Harwood and Gerald Seib.

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 2:38 PM


The above @2:38 was taken from this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/Matthew25Background.pdf

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 2:39 PM


Hal: I don't know or really care, the argument being made was that they were identical, which they were not. But whatever they are both law now, Obama has not said he is going to repeal them, so this is really now all a moot issue.

Janet: I'd love some so-called Evangelical Christians to actually read Matthew 25, particularly v. 31-46. It might be eye-openning as to what Jesus actually says we should be doing here.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:48 PM


JohnS @ 2:29 PM How well do you know the Scriptures?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 2:50 PM


JohnS

Yes Christianity teaches these things. There are numerous charities YOU can donate to and activities YOU can volunteer your time for.
Correct me if I'm wrong but did Jesus advocate giving your money to some gov't program to care for those in need, or did He instruct us to do so as individuals?
I prefer to make those decisions for myself and donate my money and time to who I want as I see fit, not turn my money over to some faceless bureaucracy to take care of "them".

By the way, Rush is a big supporter of private charities and volunteerism, as well as having donated generously to charities.

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2008 2:50 PM


"Jesus hung out with a lot of folks that would be voting Democrat today"
---------------------------------------

Sure JohnS, then when asked why He hung out with sinners and tax collectors...

Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the SICK"
(Matt.9:12)

and...to clarify, IF you're a Christian and VOTING for Obama I think you have a lot more discerning to do about your faith, morals and values if you still want to continue to be a Christian.

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 2:54 PM


Chris:

How can I answer that? Well enough...just tell me what your trying to say.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:55 PM


RSD:

1. His disciples were all working class people, as was his family. And he did not have much nice to say about the "rich" (eye of the needle and all of that), I doubt he'd be a big proponent of capital gains or dividend tax cuts.

2. Jesus (and the Bible as a whole) has a LOT more to say about taking care of the little guy than moralizing to wayward sinners. That's the Pharisee position. (Do you know what a Jubilee year was? Look it up...and run that one by your Republican Congressman! Talk about income redistribution!).

3. As a Christian I am not only confortable but feel compelled to vote Obama to rid our country of the "compassionless" conservatives that have run our economy, military, and country as a whole into the ground. 4 more years of Republican rule will destroy this nation, and since we're (for the most part) the major force for good in the world, we need to rebuild this nation.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:06 PM


I see the conservative talking points sink in well. THERE IS NO "GOVERNMENT" OUT THERE TAKING YOUR MONEY! The "government" is you and me, every citizen of the United States. WE vote, we decide who we want to lead us, based upon their policies. So we CAN vote for people who want to initiate policies that fit in nicely with Matthew 25, or we can vote for people who initiate policies that fit in nicely with Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life." But all of us, together, acting thru our government, can do more than any of us individually. And some things (health care for instance) are so expensive and so complicated that they NEED a systematic solution. One charity here and another there are not enough to solve the problem.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:15 PM


Janet: I'd love some so-called Evangelical Christians to actually read Matthew 25, particularly v. 31-46. It might be eye-openning as to what Jesus actually says we should be doing here.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:48 PM

I'm sure they've already read Matthew 25 and might be able to sight it from memory. The last two sentences sum it up pretty well.

Matthew 25: 45-46....He (Jesus) will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

"The least of these ones" - How has Obama protected unborn babies?

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 3:16 PM


Relax JohnS, It's too early in the day to be all riled up.
Gotta run and do some errands. Have a nice afternoon.

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 3:19 PM


JohnS,

You're making a lot of assumptions on things I haven't said...

Jesus did not object to rich people per se but to the WAY these rich people lived. He was talking about Social Justice.

Sure, I know what a Jubille year is....do you know what the Magisterium is? Or would you know what the Pope said on abortion and politicians that support abortion and the people supporting them?

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 3:20 PM


That's "cite by memory", I think!

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 3:23 PM


Do you know what Bennedict had to say about Iraq? How about capital punishment? And yeah about social justice...the Catholic Church's position is pretty far to the left in American political terms. Neither Obama or McCain is perfect, but on balance for a Christian and even for a Catholic Obama is better.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:29 PM


JohnS - do you read verses, chapters, or when you study the Scriptures, do you work to comprehend what is being conveyed in it's fullest sense?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 3:30 PM


JohnS,

Do you think Jesus would support abortion?

Posted by: Jasper at July 2, 2008 3:36 PM


CHris:

My take on the Bible is first you have to look at overall themes that are mentioned throughout, because there are always passages here and there that you can cite out of context to support any position. To me the Bible is a story of God struggling to get creation and mankind right, and reaching his ultimate solution with Jesus's life, teachings, death, and resurrection. So I think you have to read the Bible in the context of that overall theme. I also think you have to prioritize between what God or Jesus had to say and what the punditry (like Paul) had to say. Does that help?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:36 PM


JohnS asked about Matthew 25, particularly v. 31-46.

Matthew is a very Jewish book.

What do you know of the scapegoat and atonement?

How would you show you understand the true meaning of chassid?

Who is the least of our brothers?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 3:37 PM


Jasper:

I would say in general no, although I think he would allow for truly medically necessary abortions.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:38 PM


JohnS,

Pope Benedict is against the war and capital punishment...he is against these since he has lived thru them (similar to JP II) and know the horrors these produce.

You stated you care about what happens to people and their well-being that's why you're voting for Obama....well, if you drill down to the root of your concern...you're basically stating you care about LIFE and the lives of people.

If you care about these lives, you should also care about the most BASIC life issue...the UNBORN.

Well, guess what...your precious Obama doesn't care about the most basic life issue.

And if he doesn't get that most BASIC Life issue right, most likely he'll get the other life issues wrong. You think about that.

PS...the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church on matters of the Gospel. We look to them for guidance so we don't skew the Gospel readings into what we want it to be...just like what you did.

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 3:40 PM


JohnS 3:15PM

No government out there taking our money? I wish! You know what JohnS? I finally only recently got the IRS, which I know doesn't really exist, off my back. Its been after me for 3 years because my accountant turned out to have Alzheimer's. Sure I could challenge them but you know what? They slapped on fines and charges until I did pay them or settle.
Please, if you think there's no government out there taking your money try to get past April 15th without coughing up what the gov't says you owe. I promise the gov't that isn't taking our money will come after you.

JohnS there are all kinds of charities! There are all kinds of volunteer opportunities for all of us. I live in a mid size city. We have free clinics, homeless shelters, special olympics, several pantries, the Salvation Army, battered women's shelters, mother's and infants homes,a social services agency, and....that's just a few that I can think of. Guess what, the gov't doesn't pay for any of them. They survive on donations and private grants.
By the way the gov't spent trillions, that's with a "T" on the so-called War on Poverty. I think this makes my point on how useless the gov't is when it comes to solving problems.

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2008 3:40 PM


JohnS,

You know who finally nailed Al Capone? The IRS!
These guys will get you when no one else can!

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2008 3:43 PM


Chris:

1. Matthew is a very Jewish book. (All the early Christians were Jews, so you can't understand any of Christianity without having a good understanding of contemporary Judaism.)

2. What do you know of the scapegoat and atonement? (Is this like a pop quiz? This was all part of the ancient Yom Kippur ritual.)

3. How would you show you understand the true meaning of chassid? (Now we're getting very Jewish. This is where the modern "Hadisic" Jews get their name.)

4. Who is the least of our brothers? (You can get that from the context of the verses, it's poor, sick, hungry people, people in prison, people at the end of their rope, people who need help).

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:49 PM


I gotta go guys. Fun talking to you, I think this is going to be an interesting election!

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:52 PM


"Jasper:

I would say in general no"

Really John? why would Jesus be against abortion?


Do you think this should be legal, Obama does:

Abortion

should I vote for Obama, as a Christian?


Posted by: Jasper at July 2, 2008 4:00 PM


JohnS @ 3:36 PM Could you explain the plain meaning of Deut 18:15-19.

Also what did Jesus mean in John 14:6?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 4:27 PM


JohnS 3:49PM

Could the "least of my brothers" possibly include the unborn?

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2008 4:35 PM


Mary - given JohnS's response at 3:52 PM, it seems he found himself in over his head and decided to bolt.

It sure looks like a sign-off to me!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 5:38 PM


John S. anybody who supports Obama and still considers themselves Christian has got a lot of wierd stuff going on. Denial, delusions, ignorance. How can you reconcile "Even as you do to the lest of these, my brothers and sisters, you do to me," with being okay with throwing away live-born premature infants as if they're just so many pathology specimens?

Posted by: Christina at July 2, 2008 5:44 PM


JohnS:

>>Matthew 25, particularly v. 31-46. It might be eye-openning as to what Jesus actually says we should be doing here.

Matthew 25 says "Even as you did for the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did for me."

So, what's up with that? Do the "Matthew 25" people figure that since Jesus was willing to be crucified, He's cool with being ripped apart by forceps, shredded with a canula, or poisoned with abortion drugs?

SINCE WHEN IS KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN KEEPING WITH CHRISTIANITY?

It's bull to say, "Sure, we kill lots of babies -- but we use the money we save on diapers to buy Unimix for Ethiopia!"

Posted by: Christina at July 2, 2008 5:49 PM


Obama would be bad news for unborn babies...

USA: the demographic winter is coming.

Aging workforce.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash

P.S. Also new website prowomanprolife(dot)org

Posted by: SM at July 2, 2008 8:02 PM


SoMG's prediction comes true:

WICHITA, Kansas, July 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- The citizen-called grand jury that investigated late-term abortionist George R. Tiller was dismissed today without issuing an indictment.

Eat your guts out.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 9:08 PM


oh no, that's terrible news SOMG!I have to find out what happeded...how could they let that monster off the hook...

Posted by: Jasper at July 2, 2008 9:36 PM


WOW, he'll be celebrating tonight. Lord have mercy.

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 9:43 PM


Janet, I doubt he was ever very worried.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 9:57 PM


Grand jury adjourns with no charges against Wichita abortion doctor Tiller
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle

...."The grand jury said it found "questionable late-term abortions" but said Kansas law needs to be clearer before any investigation is likely to yield criminal charges against Women's Healthcare Services, the clinic Tiller runs. Tiller is one of only a handful of doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions."

"Kansas law has limited late-term abortions to cases of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." The Kansas Supreme Court has interpreted that to include the mental health of the mother.?

"As the current law is written and interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, late-term abortions will continue for many circumstances that would seem, as a matter of common interpretation, not to meet the definition of 'substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,' " the grand jury said in its statement."

http://www.kansas.com/news/updates/story/452458.html

So it is now presumed that Tiller and his patient can both see the future regarding a woman's mental health?

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 10:07 PM


Not only did I predict non-indictment, I also predicted that it would be because the laws Tiller was alledged to have broken were of doubtful constitutionality.

I think this makes up for my prediction that Hillary would be the next president. ;-D

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 10:40 PM


"Once again, we are suspicious that corrupt influences in the government, which have been influenced by Tiller's large financial involvement in Kansas politics, may have thwarted justice once again."

They do realize it was a grand jury, not legislators, lawyers, or anyone involved in the government who made this decision, right? Does clinging to some far fetched conspiracy theory make them feel better? I think it makes them look silly and will hurt their credibility.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 2, 2008 11:14 PM


Anon, I don't think they have any credibility. Is there anyone who doesn't know the whole thing was a publicity stunt to improve RTL fund-raising? I bet most RTLs understand that including Jill. Maybe there's someone--the same type of people they chose to be jurors at OJ's trial--very out-of-touch people.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 11:27 PM


SoMG,

I should have given you the hat-tip for the QOTD... it looks like politics was involved -no doubt.

Posted by: Jasper at July 2, 2008 11:31 PM


It was a gross violation of the spirit of the Kansas grand-jury law, if not its letter, a parasitic use of Dr. Tiller's success and fame to increase RTL donations. If earthly justice were the same as moral justice they'd be ordererd to share their takings with Dr. Tiller.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 11:40 PM


By "it" I mean the convening of the grand jury, not the non-indictment.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 11:43 PM


You know, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it again. Convening another grand jury to investigate Dr. Tiller again, I mean. They could, legally. That is, I'm not a lawyer but I don't know what part of the law would stop them from doing it again and again forever. I think all they need is a certain number of citizen signatures on their document.

The hate campaign against Dr. Tiller could end up costing the State of Kansas a significant amount of money. Convening a grand jury is not free.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 12:12 AM


I think that Jesus would have voted Democrat on the economic issues and Republican on the social issues. Abortion is definitely an issue that He would have voted Republican on (except where Guiliani is concerned).

Posted by: Ceecee at July 3, 2008 12:23 AM


I don't know, Ceecee, according to most reports Jesus was a pretty smart guy, not as naive as one might think, and I think His judgement would be better than to vote Republican on just about anything if he were alive today. I think He would understand the ultra-commercial, cultish character of contemporary right-to-lifism, also its reliance on lies. I doubt He'd be pleased by the continuing for-profit hate campaigns against Dr. Tiller and others. Didn't He preach against that sort of thing? And didn't He experience something not unlike them Himself? You all know scriptures better than I do so please advise. I guess He might vote for right-to-lifism in the end but He'd certainly be holding His nose.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 1:40 AM


Also Giuliani is not by any means the only pro-choice Republican politician. Pro-choice Republicans outnumber Right-to-Life Democrats, at least RTL Democrats who vote RTL, which excludes Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and to some extent Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa) and maybe a few others.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 1:50 AM


And as President what exactly will he do concerning either the Federal or State Born Alive Acts? Has he said he wants to repeal them? If not, then again, this issue is moot. Move on to something relevant.
Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 12:12 PM

JohnS,
It is SOWhy would Christians not support Obama. Contrary to popular opinion, the Christian religion spans the spectrum from very liberal Episcopalians/UCC/Unity/Quaker to very conservative Evangelicals/Pentacostals. In between Catholics span the spectrum all within their own denomination. Not only that, if you actually sat down and read the Gospels, Jesus hung out with a lot of folks that would be voting Democrat today, and had not much nice to say about the Pharisees that were the "values voters" of their time. And Jesus' description of the stuff that gets you into heaven (feeding the poor, tending to the sick, visiting people in prison) sounds a lot more like the Democratic Party platform than what I hear on Rush Limbaugh or the Fox News Channel. (Jesus, unlike Paul and later theologians, was not so much a "grace alone" kinda guy). So if you're a Christian and NOT supporting Obama I think you have a lot more rationalizing to do than if you do support him.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:29 PM
John S, It is SOOO relevant. It goes to character. In 2003, which is a year after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed unanimously in the US Senate, Obama refused to pass a similar law in Illinois because it didnt have a specific provision protecting Roe. Then when the rest of the law was amended to inclide said provion, Obama, as Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committe, held the law up in commitee and would not bring it up for vote again. But if he had any inkling toward showing compassion for babies, then he would have been biting at the bit to show his compassion by passing the amended law. He says he would have voted YES to the 2002 law if he were in the Senate at the time, but he made great effort making sure the EXACT SAME law got held up in committee so it could not get voted on and passed in Illinois in 2003. Goes very much to character if a guy can claim abortion is a morally wrenching decision while single handedly fighting to keep the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of Illinois. How many ounces of BHO Kool-aid does it takie to blind yourself to his hypocrisy?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 3:02 AM


Sorry, try this again:
And as President what exactly will he do concerning either the Federal or State Born Alive Acts? Has he said he wants to repeal them? If not, then again, this issue is moot. Move on to something relevant.
Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 12:12 PM

John S, It is SOOO relevant. It goes to character. In 2003, which is a year after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed unanimously in the US Senate, Obama refused to pass a similar law in Illinois because it didnt have a specific provision protecting Roe. Then when the rest of the law was amended to inclide said provion, Obama, as Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committe, held the law up in commitee and would not bring it up for vote again. But if he had any inkling toward showing compassion for babies, then he would have been biting at the bit to show his compassion by passing the amended law. He says he would have voted YES to the 2002 law if he were in the Senate at the time, but he made great effort making sure the EXACT SAME law got held up in committee so it could not get voted on and passed in Illinois in 2003. Goes very much to character if a guy can claim abortion is a morally wrenching decision while single handedly fighting to keep the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of Illinois. How many ounces of BHO Kool-aid does it take to blind yourself to his hypocrisy?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 3:55 AM


Why would Christians not support Obama?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:29 PM
John S,
What could Barack and Michelle Obama say to Jesus in order to get his blessing in their personal decision promote Partial Birth Abortion. You know the procedure right? This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description:
“‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides thefingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetusand “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
“‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fin-gers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of bluntcurved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it con-tact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.“‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Havingsafely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.“‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he appliestraction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’”

Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed thebaby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and un-clasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked thebaby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the pla-centa. He threw the baby in a pan, along with theplacenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

John S, BHO voted against the law banning PBA. Tell me what BHO would say to Jesus in order to get him to give his blessing and support to this procedure. Michelle Obama held "fund raisers" to support the legalization of PBA, tell me what she would say to Jesus in order for him to give his blessing on her actions?

You may be able to fool some of the kids some of the time. But not on my watch John. BHO is the farthest out, most fringe, leftist liberal, abortion supporting politician in the US. How can anybody trust a guy who claims to follow Jesus teaching and thinks he should allow the slaughter of children at all, let alone with such barbaric procedures as PBA. And save your moot point crap cause this is not moot. Twice in 2007 he voted against outlawing this "procedure"; later that year the US Supreme Court outlawed PBA. That was just LAST YEAR. And he is calling himself a Christian and a person driven to do the Lord's work. Question for you John. Are you Christian and do you think PBA should be legal? How about using a forceps to pull a 20 month old baby out of her mother's womb in fifteen pieces, is that o.k. with your version of living your faith? Woe to you John S. God will not be mocked and on judgement day you will answer for your trechery and pay a hefty price for any of Jesus children you lead down that deceitful, murderous path. You cause tremendous grief to the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 4:48 AM


"Truthseeker" You wrote: "Goes very much to character if a guy can claim abortion is a morally wrenching decision while single handedly fighting to keep the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act out of Illinois."

Maybe I'm slow but I don't see any hypocrisy or contradiction in this. For morally wrenching decisions, it's usually better to have more options than fewer. Unless there are so many that it becomes difficult to choose among them, which is not the case with abortion. And it's better still to prevent the need to make the morally wrenching decision in the first place, which Obama is more likely to make a rational, realistic attempt to do, than McCain, who might actually do something self-thwarting like defund PP. There seems to be no limit now to his willingness to French-kiss the backsides of the professional irrationals he once scorned. This is the second most significant of his reversals (some would say flip-flops); the other is his pro-torture vote. Compared to these reversals Obama's (so far) are insignificant.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 4:52 AM


JohnS,
What did BHO say about people clinging to their religion and their guns. Well thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, BHO will have a lot harder time taking away our guns. These young victims are God's precious children, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. And Obama condemn's himself every time he opens his mouth and professes Jesus name while he enables the slaughter and lies in bed with the abortion industry. JohnS, it is really sick and disgusting to any true Christian.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:03 AM


I wil bless the Lord at all times,
his praise always on myn lips;
in the Lord my sould shall make its boast.
The humble shall hear and be glad.

Glorify the Lord with me.
Together let us praise his name.
I sought the Lord and he answered me;
from all my terrors he set me free.

Look towards him and be radiant;
let your faces not be abashed.
This poor man called; the Lord heard him
and rescued him in all his distress.

The angel of the Lord is encamped
around those who revere him, to rescue them.
Taste and see that the Lord is good.
He is happy who seeks refuge in him.

Revere the Lord, you his saints.
They lack nothing, those who revere him.
Strong lions suffer want and go hungry
but those who seek the Lord lack no blessing.
Psalm 34

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:12 AM


My take on the Bible is first you have to look at overall themes that are mentioned throughout, because there are always passages here and there that you can cite out of context to support any position.
Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:36 PM

JohnS, Look at the overall themes and tell me how the overall theme of Jesus' teaching leads a Christian to abortion.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:17 AM


To me the Bible is a story of God struggling to get creation and mankind right, and reaching his ultimate solution with Jesus's life, teachings, death, and resurrection.
Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:36 PM

JohnS, you are so obviously either complete lost in your understanding of God and Jesus, or you are an imposter. God does NOT struggle, it is man who struggles.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:20 AM


So I think you have to read the Bible in the context of that overall theme. I also think you have to prioritize between what God or Jesus had to say and what the punditry (like Paul) had to say. Does that help?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:36 PM
yeah, the overall theme. Mercy and love. Thou shalt not kill. Respect Life. Choose life. The wages of sin is death. And maybe yu clarify which parts of what the "punditry" (the Holy Bible) you choose to discount. Maybe you should start your own faith then. you and BHO could start a congregation and pick and choose which passages are not wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit. lol


Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:27 AM


The devil is a bust man. He has attacked the traditional family, he has attacked marriage, he has attacked the clergy and the church, he has attacked the infant in the mother's womb.

Next up I see Satan trying to get Christians to discount parts of the Bible.

Pater Noster, qui es in caelis.
Sanctificetur nomen tuum.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum
Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo et in terra.
Give us this day our daily bread
and forgive us our trespasses.
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:38 AM


Maybe I'm slow but I don't see any hypocrisy or contradiction in this. For morally wrenching decisions, it's usually better to have more options than fewer. Unless there are so many that it becomes difficult to choose among them, which is not the case with abortion.
Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 4:52 AM

SoMG, What Obama is talking about is choosing abortion. I thought that was obvious. It is morally wrenching for a woman to choose to have
her baby sucked out of her womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 5:51 AM


SoMG, I would suggest reading Jesus Sermon on the Mount. It is Chapters 5-7 in the Book of Matthew. Let me know if you see any parts that would either counsel a women to commit abortion, or counsel a woman to raise the baby. By the time you are done with those short readings you should understand why it is hypocritical for a Christian to particiapte in, or even to assist a mother in killing the baby in her womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 6:08 AM


"Truthseeker", I don't think Barack Obama has ever participated in, or assisted a mother in killing the baby in her womb. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You wrote: "It is morally wrenching for a woman to choose to have her baby sucked out of her womb."

I see no contradiction between acknowledging this and opposing efforts to restrict the right, including BAIPA.

And it's only morally wrenching for SOME women.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 7:03 AM


Obama supports a mother killing a baby in her womb.
Obama supports leaving a living, breathing baby to die alone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: Carla at July 3, 2008 7:43 AM


Also
Obama supports his daughters, if they should be punished with a baby in the killing of that baby through abortion. His grandchild. Morally wrenching to some or not, it still leads to the death of a baby.

Posted by: Carla at July 3, 2008 8:23 AM


"Truthseeker", I don't think Barack Obama has ever participated in, or assisted a mother in killing the baby in her womb. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You wrote: "It is morally wrenching for a woman to choose to have her baby sucked out of her womb."

I see no contradiction between acknowledging this and opposing efforts to restrict the right, including BAIPA.

And it's only morally wrenching for SOME women.


Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 7:03 AM

SoMG, You are wrong. His political career has tied to PP and the abortion lobby so he has fought as an enabler to allow and to fund the practice. You don't need to hold the scissors to assist.

SoMG, here is the definition of hypocrisy:
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;

How can you not see the hypocrisy? What if he was to say he sees the destruction caused by crack cocaine but voted to use federal dollars to leagalize the use of crack and to put up not-for-profits where people could smoke it in a safe environment where they wouldn't hurt themselves. That would be a hypocritical position cause he would be using his position as a Senator to enable crack addicts to abuse their drugs while saying he cares about them. HE has NO moderation in his position. He is against the PArental Notifiatio of abortion. He is against laws restricting minors from crossing State lines to avoid Parental Norificaton laws.

It is a commonplace pro-abort tactic to find ways to avoid the will of the people on this issue. Have you ever heard of the Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1995. Here is anexcerpt from the Law:

“The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long?lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long?range consequences.
Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.”

Though this Bill was voted into law unanimously by the Illinois Geneal Assembly thirteen years ago, it still is not enforced. First the US District Court held up the law on grounds that there was no worksable judicial bypass for minors who would be in "danger" if they notified their parents written into the law. Then Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan held it up for nine years before giving it back to the General Assembly to write judicial by pass into the law. The General Assembly then wrote the judicial bypass in and passed the law again. Then it went back to the US District Court of Judge David Coar where it is being held in limbo under the judicial review. I wrote my Senator Barack Obama about this and his response was that he could not help me because the law does not contain any exception for judicial bypass, but the law does contain an exception for judicial bypass. The pro-aborts have tactically sidelined a unanimousl passed by the Illinois general Assembly 13 years ago. SO Planned Parenthood continues to commit abortion on minors without any oversight. They have a ZERO record of prosecuting the child predators who victimize these children. They leave the predators on the street with no effort to bring them to justice. Parental Notification would insure that these victims had an advocate who would make the effort to get these predators off the street.

I live in Illinois and Barack has consistently worked against his constituents, and for the abortion industry, to keep abortion all abortion oversight out of the State. BHO is a bad, bad man who panders to the public and says anything to get elected, and has no problem being hypocritical if he thinks it will get him another vote.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 3, 2008 10:51 AM


SoMG wrote: Maybe I'm slow but I don't see any hypocrisy or contradiction in this. For morally wrenching decisions, it's usually better to have more options than fewer. Unless there are so many that it becomes difficult to choose among them, which is not the case with abortion.

Ok, the consensus is you ARE slow. For morally wrenching decisions, there are going to be morally good and morally bad choices. Of course, in today's relativistic moral climate, no such thing exists - there are just choices. However, the reality is that there is an objective right and wrong. And abortion is morally wrong because it is wrong to take the life of an innocent child but especially so for the sake of a lifestyle of convenience or for other selfish reasons. Abortion is not a moral choice, it is not a real choice for any woman. It is abusive to both woman and children and irreparably harms both.
You are morally illiterate and have a dead soul SoMG. This IS the only reason you can support abortion.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 11:10 AM


Patricia, you wrote: "You are morally illiterate"

LOL Actually I majored in philosophy as an undergrad and wrote a senior thesis on Kant's ethics. I'm about as good at reading stuff about morality (which is what the phrase "morally literate" means) as anyone without an advanced degree in a morality-related field.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 11:36 AM


You are morally illiterate and have a dead soul SoMG. This IS the only reason you can support abortion.
Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 11:10 AM

What's wrong with abortion?

Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 11:53 AM


Hal, surely that was intended to be a joke.

Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 12:31 PM


"Truthseeker", you wrote: "the US District Court held up the [parental-consent] law on grounds that there was no worksable judicial bypass for minors who would be in "danger" if they notified their parents written into the law. "

That's good. It's wrong for you to put the word "danger" in scare quotes. Sometimes it really is dangerous to inform parents of their minor daughter's sexual activity. Google the phrase "honor killing" and you will quickly see this for yourself. (And by the way not all honor killings are committed by muslims. Sikhs and other non-muslims do them as well.)

You wrote: "What if he was [sic] to say he sees the destruction caused by crack cocaine but voted to use federal dollars to leagalize [sic] the use of crack and to put up not-for-profits where people could smoke it in a safe environment where they wouldn't hurt themselves. That would be a hypocritical position cause he would be using his position as a Senator to enable crack addicts to abuse their drugs while saying he cares about them. "

If he did this because he believed (as I do) that the Principle of Human Personal Freedom makes it morally unacceptable for government to dictate which substances you may or may not ingest, and that the most effective way to put illegal drug dealers out of business is to legalize the drugs they sell (which the history of Prohibition clearly shows), then it would not be hypocritical. It would just be different from your authoritarian approach to dealing with problems.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 12:36 PM


truthseeker,
God bless you for your patience so strongly demonstrated by your many comments here today. Yikes!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SoMG: 11:27: Anon, I don't think they have any credibility. Is there anyone who doesn't know the whole thing was a publicity stunt to improve RTL fund-raising? I bet most RTLs understand that including Jill. Maybe there's someone--the same type of people they chose to be jurors at OJ's trial--very out-of-touch people.

Publicity stunt? You are confusing them with Planned Parenthood. Right to lifers care about babies, not preserving the lucrative jobs of abortionists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SoMG: 10:40: Not only did I predict non-indictment, I also predicted that it would be because the laws Tiller was alledged to have broken were of doubtful constitutionality.

I think this makes up for my prediction that Hillary would be the next president. ;-D

Let's give you a round of applause which you so desperately desire. Just in case you missed this in my earlier post, the grand jury let Tiller off because of a ridiculously written law:

Grand jury adjourns with no charges against Wichita abortion doctor Tiller
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle

...."The grand jury said it found "questionable late-term abortions" but said Kansas law needs to be clearer before any investigation is likely to yield criminal charges against Women's Healthcare Services, the clinic Tiller runs. Tiller is one of only a handful of doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions."

"Kansas law has limited late-term abortions to cases of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." The Kansas Supreme Court has interpreted that to include the mental health of the mother.?

"As the current law is written and interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, late-term abortions will continue for many circumstances that would seem, as a matter of common interpretation, not to meet the definition of 'substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,' " the grand jury said in its statement."

http://www.kansas.com/news/updates/story/452458.html

So it is now presumed that Tiller and his patients can both predict the future regarding a woman's mental health?
Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 10:07 PM


Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 12:55 PM


You are morally illiterate and have a dead soul SoMG. This IS the only reason you can support abortion.
Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 11:10 AM

What's wrong with abortion?
Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 11:53 AM

Hal, surely that was intended to be a joke.
Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 12:31 PM

Why don't we ask SoMG: Since you did your senior thesis about Kantian philosophy - how would Kant justify abortion?

Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 1:03 PM


Janet, I'm pretty sure Kant would have been against abortion if he had thought about it which I don't think he did. If he ever mentioned abortion, I missed it. He could easily have been ignorant of it--he remained a virgin until the day he died, and he was notoriously naive about the world.

Kant believed that an action was only moral if it was motivated by a universalizable categorical imperative independently of personal or worldly considerations. He would probably have made an argument something like the following: If every woman aborted every pregnancy the human race would soon become extinct. Therefore it is impossible to will the universalization of abortion, therefore according to Kant's definition of morality abortion would be immoral. He made a similar argument against suicide.

Also, he believed that moral behavior consisted of treating people as ends in themselves, not as means to another end. That's his second definition of morality--as I recall he claimed that the two definitions were functionally equivalent but I never understood why he believed that; to me they seem very different from each other. I'm not sure whether abortion treats the fetus as a means to an end--it doesn't USE the fetus for anything--but it certainly doesn't treat the fetus as an end in itself.

On the other hand, I suppose you could make a Kantian pro-choice argument that forcing a woman to grow her pregnancy and give birth against her will treats her as a means to an end (in this case the end is to keep the fetus alive until birth) rather than as an end in herself, and is therefore immoral. I find it difficult to imagine Kant himself making this argument though. Even though it technically follows his second definition of morality, the spirit of it seems un-Kantian to me. He was more interested in actions done by individuals than in laws or governments.

Posted by: SoMG at July 3, 2008 2:09 PM


Good comments, thank you SoMG. A few of my thoughts... please bear with me. I think Kant makes a good argument for the immorality of abortion according to your comments on Kant above:

SoMG: 2:09: Kant believed that an action was only moral if it was motivated by a universalizable categorical imperative independently of personal or worldly considerations.

It seems to me in Kant's first definition he may be referring to universal truths and the role they play in defining what is moral.

Also, he believed that moral behavior consisted of treating people as ends in themselves, not as means to another end.

Kant's second definition of morality seems to confirm the dignity of the human person. It may well follow that both the fetus AND the pregnant woman are ends in and of themselves; neither assumed to deserve better treatment than the other.

as I recall he claimed that the two definitions were functionally equivalent but I never understood why he believed that; to me they seem very different from each other.

If you can consider the dignity of the human person as a universal truth, which I believe is true, the two definitions could be functionally equivalent.

On the other hand, I suppose you could make a Kantian pro-choice argument that forcing a woman to grow her pregnancy and give birth against her will treats her as a means to an end (in this case the end is to keep the fetus alive until birth) rather than as an end in herself, and is therefore immoral. I find it difficult to imagine Kant himself making this argument though. Even though it technically follows his second definition of morality, the spirit of it seems un-Kantian to me. He was more interested in actions done by individuals than in laws or governments.

His arguments seem pretty straightforward on the immorality of abortion. One cannot treat a person (the mother)as a means to an end. Obviously, if one doesn't care about morality/immorality, Kant's perspective won't matter.

He was more interested in actions done by individuals than in laws or governments.

Abortion is an act of an individual when it comes down to it. Laws and government seem to be irrelevant, atleast as the PC'rs generally claim. It's a woman's choice after all.

Since you are interested in philosophy, I'd highly recommend that you read the Theology of the Body and other Catholic documents (Humane Vitae, I believe - Bobby or mk could be more specific about titles), as they give excellent philosophical arguments for the dignity of each human person. I've read portions of them, but not all of them. Maybe some day....

Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 2:50 PM


Hal, surely that was intended to be a joke.


Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 12:31 PM

It was Bethany and a lame one at that.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 3:54 PM


Since you are interested in philosophy, I'd highly recommend that you read the Theology of the Body and other Catholic documents (Humane Vitae, I believe - Bobby or mk could be more specific about titles), as they give excellent philosophical arguments for the dignity of each human person. I've read portions of them, but not all of them. Maybe some day....

Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 2:50 PM

This is unlikely to do any good Janet. JP's works are an development of personalist philosophy. Although he took some things from Kant and many other philosophers, JP II studied the person as subject and did not consider a person as an object.
Liberal proaborts view people as objects who can be discarded for whatever reason.
They do not have a dignity inherent in and of themselves.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 3:57 PM



Hal, surely that was intended to be a joke.


Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 12:31 PM

It was Bethany and a lame one at that.
Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 3:54 PM

Sometimes it's a good idea to start again at the beginning and challenge our assumptions. Is a government ban on abortion really a good thing or not? Are there better ways to reduce the number of abortions?

Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 4:09 PM


I don't know Hal? You tell me.
You don't think banning parents from killing their children is a good idea?
If you have to even consider thinking about this question, there's alot wrong with your thinking.
This discussion is pointless since we've had it before.
It becomes tiresome really.
You killed your children so I already know what your answer is.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 4:21 PM


it's also tiresome hearing "abortion is evil" all the time. I'm out of here for the weekend.

Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 4:41 PM


I'm grateful for that Hal

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 4:44 PM


I'm not surprised you are tired of hearing how killing your children was NOT a good choice Hal.
But so be it. We owe it to your children to speak out for them - they had no say and no voice.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 4:45 PM


Patricia: 3:57; This is unlikely to do any good Janet. JP's works are an development of personalist philosophy. Although he took some things from Kant and many other philosophers, JP II studied the person as subject and did not consider a person as an object.Liberal proaborts view people as objects who can be discarded for whatever reason. They do not have a dignity inherent in and of themselves.

Since SoMG can somewhat relate to Kant , the discussion is worthwhile to me. I may look foolish, I don't care...I haven't lost hope that SoMG will have a deep conversion someday. :) Why else would I be here? JP II is a great place to start if you like philosophy.


Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 5:03 PM


JP II is a great place to start if you like philosophy.


Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 5:03 PM

You better believe it!
His Love & Responsibility is very good. It was written before he became Pope and led to TOB.

Posted by: Patricia at July 3, 2008 5:05 PM


Sometimes it's a good idea to start again at the beginning and challenge our assumptions. Is a government ban on abortion really a good thing or not?

Yes!

Are there better ways to reduce the number of abortions?

No.

Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 7:44 PM


I'm out of here for the weekend.

Have a good fourth of July weekend, Hal, and everyone else!

Posted by: Bethany at July 3, 2008 7:48 PM


Sometimes it's a good idea to start again at the beginning and challenge our assumptions. Is a government ban on abortion really a good thing or not? Are there better ways to reduce the number of abortions?

Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 4:09 PM

That's a great question, Hal. Personally, I don't think a government ban is a cure-all to prevent abortions, but it seems to be good goal in addition to many other strategies. In a perfect world we would work to change all people's hearts against abortion. We're far from perfect so that's not going to happen overnight, or maybe ever.

There are many things we can start today that can make a difference and reduce abortions. We can lead by example and vow not to have abortions ourselves, or enable others to have them, by offering money, driving them to the clinic, etc... We can discourage behavior that leads to abortions. We can start to talk about how we feel about abortion to our family and friends. We can give more attention to our teens so they learn their life lessons from mature adults instead of MTV and popular culture. We can support services that provide care to pregnant mothers in difficult circumstances. We can learn more about the adoption process and become advocates The list goes on.....

Posted by: Janet at July 4, 2008 4:43 AM


Bethany, can you cite ANY evidence that shows (convincingly) that any government ban on abortion anywhere has ever actually reduced the number of abortions done? I don't think so.

Remember, illegal abortions are uncountable, and all estimations of their frequency are guesses. Guesses are usually based on the measured numbers of compications from illegal abortion requiring hospital care, and the result depends on how frequently abortions require hospital care, which is also a guess.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 7:21 AM


SoMG,

You're kidding right? You don't honestly think that there were a million and a half abortions done a year before 1973? If you do, you need to stop inhaling paint fumes. Can it be proven? No. But use your common sense!

According to you and your cronies, illegal abortions are dangerous. If 45 million of them had been performed, I'm pretty sure we'd have had a lot more casualties.

Posted by: mk at July 4, 2008 7:30 AM


SOMG,

Can you site ANY evidence that shows (convincingly) that any government ban on rape actually reduces the number of rapes?
Most rapes are unreported. All estimations are guesses.

Would any of us argue that due to these circumstances, there should be no ban on rape?

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 9:01 AM


MK 7:30am

A great point. Certainly if women were dying by the thousands from illegal, as abortion supporters continue to claim, there would be at the least hundreds of deaths to prove their points.

They wouldn't have to go back to the early 20th century and drag these long dead women out of their graves as "examples". They could also let Geri Santoro, who died 44 years ago from an illegal abortion, rest in peace and with some measure of dignity instead of displaying the dead woman and her bare backside to the world to benefit their cause.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 9:06 AM


MK,

In my 9:06am post I should have said ..."there would be at the least hundreds of more recent examples to prove their point".

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 9:18 AM


Here - you'll find this information interesting:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 4, 2008 10:12 AM


Johnston looks like he's just trying to compile everything accurately. Given the enormity of the task - he should be commended.

Abortions were happening before 1973, but there is a clear ramp up after 1965. That's indicative of an elective turn, as opposed to the reported abortions which most likely were non-elective (life-saving) measures.

What's also really interesting is that live births are solid numbers, whereas there is a discrepancy between reported abortions and estimated abortions. Reveals a bit about the "I don't want anyone to know" aspect of this industry.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 4, 2008 10:33 AM


MK, you wrote: "According to you and your cronies, illegal abortions are dangerous."

Not if they're done by well-trained people. Don't RTLs claim that most illegal abortions before Roe/Wade were done by doctors?

One of the problems with criminalizing abortion is that you don't know how dangerous illegal abortions become. That's why you cannot reliably estimate the number of illegal abortions from the number of hospitalizations they cause.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 11:22 AM


Mary, you wrote: "Can you site ANY evidence that shows (convincingly) that any government ban on rape actually reduces the number of rapes?
Most rapes are unreported. All estimations are guesses. ... Would any of us argue that due to these circumstances, there should be no ban on rape?"

There are other reasons to ban rape besides the effort to reduce the number of rapes. (Giving the victims a way to retaliate is one.) Of course, there are also other reasons to ban abortion, but Bethany specifically claimed that a government ban is THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS. That's very different from the question whether it ought to be banned for other reasons.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 11:35 AM


Chris,


Applause! excellent work!

Posted by: mk at July 4, 2008 11:59 AM


SOMG,

Please answer my question, is there any evidence at all that laws actually reduce the number of rapes? If not, would this mean strict laws against rape are not the best way to reduce rape?

Please address MK's post. Do you think there would have been 45 millions illegal abortions if Roe v Wade hadn't passed?
If not, could Bethany be correct?


According to Dr. Nathanson the abortion leadership was well aware the illegal abortion death rate had been steadily decreasing prior to Roe v Wade and was at an all time low in 1972. This was 36 plus years ago when medical care was not what it is now.
It sounds like illegal abortion was either not all that dangerous, or not all that common.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 12:05 PM


Mary, you wrote: "Please answer my question, is there any evidence at all that laws actually reduce the number of rapes?"

I don't know.

You wrote: "If not, would this mean strict laws against rape are not the best way to reduce rape? "

No, it would mean we don't know whether or not strict laws against rape are the best way to reduce rape.

You wrote: "Do you think there would have been 45 millions illegal abortions if Roe v Wade hadn't passed?"

Technical point: court decisions do not "pass". Only laws pass.

I think without Roe/Wade abortion would have been legal in most states anyway.

You wrote: "It sounds like illegal abortion was either not all that dangerous, or not all that common."

Another possibility is widespread underreporting of abortion-related deaths. However, I would agree that the dangers of the black market in the USA were exaggerated. But this is only because the laws against abortion were poorly enforced. It's a little silly to say we should ban abortion because the ban won't be enforced.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 12:43 PM


SOMG,

So until we know for certain strict laws will reduce rape we shouldn't have them? Or if its shown they don't make a difference then we shouldn't have them?

Thanks for the technical point now please answer the question. Would there have been 45 million illegal abortions if Roe v Wade had never overturned all state laws banning abortion?

Underreporting? Perhaps. There's also the possibility abortion was not all that frequent, that the laws did work, and the statistics were accurate.
No SOMG, the death rate and dangers of the black market were a deliberate lie perpetuated by the leadership of the movement to legalize abortion with the assistance of a supportive media.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 1:10 PM


Mary, you wrote: "So until we know for certain strict laws will reduce rape we shouldn't have them? "

I said, "There are other reasons to ban rape besides the effort to reduce the number of rapes. (Giving the victims a way to retaliate is one.)" Read more carefully, (deleted insult)

You wrote: "Would there have been 45 million illegal abortions if Roe v Wade had never overturned all state laws banning abortion?"

I already wrote: "I think without Roe/Wade abortion would have been legal in most states anyway." The implied answer to your question, which anyone but an utter idiot would infer, is no. (deleted yet another insult)
You wrote: "There's also the possibility abortion was not all that frequent, that the laws did work, and the statistics were accurate."

Yes, there is a finite probability that these things were true. As I said, one of the problems with illegal abortion is that it is impossible to measure.

You wrote: "the death rate and dangers of the black market were a deliberate lie perpetuated by the leadership of the movement to legalize abortion with the assistance of a supportive media."

As Bill Clinton would say, that depends on your definition of "lie". I'm not aware of anyone pretending to know for sure or claiming their numbers were anything but estimations.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 2:00 PM


SOMG,

I was asking you a question. Read more carefully (returned insult). If a law doesn't stop something should we have the law at all?

The question was if 45 million illegal abortions would occur had Roe not overturned state laws against abortion. A simple yes, no, or I don't know would have sufficed, (yet another returned insult) (by the way, touche`). I didn't ask if abortion would have been legal in most states without Roe v Wade. Learn to read.

Hey, even you can infer that maybe, just maybe Bethany made a valid point about THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS.

Check out Dr.Nathanson's book Aborting America. The lies and promotion of bigotry were deliberate and part of a well planned strategy.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 2:41 PM


SOMG, making abortion legal didn't change the fact that illegal abortions happen still today, as many abortion supporters will even attest to:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/23/reproductive_regression.php

And like you said, illegal abortion is impossible to measure, therefore, you do not know that you reduced illegal abortion one iota by having it legal, do you?

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 3:01 PM


Thank you, Mary!

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 3:03 PM


Bethany 3:03PM

You're welcome!

Posted by: Anonymous at July 4, 2008 4:32 PM


Bethany, that's actually a very interesting article. And you're right, we can't know for sure that we reduced illegal abortions by making them legal, because it cannot be measured. We can only guess, and cite relevant facts such as that South Africa measured a rapid 90% drop in hospital admissions for complications from abortion in the 1990s when they liberalized their abortion laws. That suggests that either the liberalization made abortions much safer or LOWERED the number of abortions by a lot.

Mary, I have read Aborting America. I am curious to know how much money Nathanson has made from it and from Right-to-Lifism generally. I bet it's more than he made doing abortions. Who knows, it might be profitable for me to convert too!

What did you mean when you wrote the word "bigotry"? Against whom?

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 4:52 PM


SOMG,

I wouldn't have a clue. I certainly don't think he had money problems to begin with. He had been a physician for a number of years and if I recall correctly, he ran either the world's or the country's largest abortion clinic. You might more accurately question the money he made in the abortion industry.
When he wrote Aborting America he was still on the fence and not a RTL supporter. Neither side was particularly fond of him. I have no idea what he made from the book.
I know the man also had a religious conversion so I don't question his sincerity.
I don't know why people seem to the the RTL movement has millions to shower on converts to our cause.
Enough money might make you convert? Well, whatever it takes.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 5:12 PM


I bet it's more than he made doing abortions. Who knows, it might be profitable for me to convert too!

That's a good idea, SOMG. You should do that. I'd rather you be making money for a false conversion, than to be doing what you're supposedly doing now.

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 5:12 PM


SOMG,

Bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Nathanson said the Catholic Church was singled out as a common enemy against which abortion supporters could rally and of course blame for any opposition. Its not that the RCC exclusively opposed abortion, many religions did, its that the hierarchy made such a convenient and visible target.
A supportive media certainly helped.
Dr. Nathanson was surprised the RCC was so tolerant of this as he could think of no other racial or religious group who would have so readily tolerated being targeted in such a way.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 5:18 PM


We can only guess, and cite relevant facts such as that South Africa measured a rapid 90% drop in hospital admissions for complications from abortion in the 1990s when they liberalized their abortion laws. That suggests that either the liberalization made abortions much safer or LOWERED the number of abortions by a lot.

Can you cite your source for this, and also, isn't it possible that the abortion complications are not always listed as such?

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 5:22 PM


Bethany,

A good point about illegal abortion. I remember a nurse who openly talked of how she would self induce herself if she was pregnant. Its not that she lacked money or knowledge, its that she didn't want to bother with a clinic.
Another nurse I know saw women attempt to abort themselves in New York City where she said "there are abortion clinics on every street corner" and said "anyone who wants one can get one, I don't care how dirt poor you are, you can get one."
The human mind is a very strange thing and people don't always follow what we think is the smartest and safest course of action.
Also I have seen people do totally bizarre and inexplicable things to themselves for reasons only they comprehend.
Concerning illegal abortion, such factors as panic, protection of privacy, what looks like a much quicker and simpler way out of the pregnancy, and mental health issues resulting in self injury and mutilation can be at work.

In the book "And I Don't Want to Live This Life" Deborah Spungen describes how her daughter Nancy struggled with mental illness until she was murdered at age 20 by Sid Vicious.
At one point, Mrs.Spungen received a call that her teenage daughter had induced an abortion on herself. It turns out Nancy was never pregnant and no one could understand why she did this. She did attempt suicide at age 11 by slashing her wrists and she became self destructive in her teen years. Though Nancy would maintain she had an"illegal abortion" Mrs. Spungen just saw this as another manifestation of her daughter's illness.

Posted by: Mary at July 4, 2008 5:40 PM


Bethany, I was wrong, it was DEATHS from abortion complications, not hospital admissions, that dropped 90%.

http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Articles/The+health+dangers+of+unsafe+abortion.htm

You wrote: "...isn't it possible that the abortion complications are not always listed as such? "

This would be more likely when abortion was illegal than when it was legal, which means that the true mortality probably dropped even more than the reported mortality. Thank you for raising the point.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 8:27 PM


SoMG,

This would be more likely when abortion was illegal than when it was legal, which means that the true mortality probably dropped even more than the reported mortality. Thank you for raising the point.

I thought you said there was no evidence that there are more abortions now that it's legal...that there were the same amount when it was illegal.

Yet, now you are claiming that there were most likely MORE deaths when it was illegal (without any evidence, mind you), which is exactly what I said would be your evidence that there weren't as many abortions when it was illegal.

Illegal abortions equals more deaths. Which would mean that there would be so many deaths that we couldn't keep up if there were truly 45 million abortions done illegally in the 30 years pre Roe v Wade...

Posted by: mk at July 5, 2008 6:19 AM


Oh dear oh dear, MK, my poor non-logical friend, you wrote: "I thought you said there was no evidence that there are more abortions now that it's legal...that there were the same amount when it was illegal."

Do I really have to point out to you that the absence of evidence that two things are unequal does not imply that they are equal? It implies that we don't know whether or not they are equal.

Also, the line you quoted from me ("This would be more likely when abortion was illegal than when it was legal, which means that the true mortality probably dropped even more than the reported mortality. ...") doesn't say what you said it says--that there were (most likely) more deaths when abortion was illegal--it says only that there was most likely more misreporting of abortion-related deaths as due to non-abortion-related causes when abortion was illegal. That's different from the question whether or not there were more actual abortion-related deaths. You have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "This".

You wrote:"...now you are claiming that there were most likely MORE deaths when it was illegal (without any evidence, mind you),

Wrong. The evidence is the Guttmacher article I linked to. In order to argue that this article is not good evidence, you would have to hypothesize that Guttmacher changed the mortality numbers they got from the South African Government before reporting them, which it is very unlikely they would do and impossible to imagine them getting away with doing.

You wrote: "Illegal abortions equals more deaths. "

As I said, not necessarily. It depends on who does the illegal abortions. The drop in abortion deaths in South Africa indicates one of two things: either there were fewer abortions after legalization (which seems unlikely) or the illegal ones were being done by very unskilled, dangerous illegal abortionists.

Either you are very ... well let's say very imaginative, or you are not reading carefully enough.

Posted by: SoMG at July 5, 2008 2:23 PM


the absence of evidence that two things are unequal does not imply that they are equal

Good stuff, SoMG.

Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 2:50 PM


the absence of evidence that two things are unequal does not imply that they are equal

Good stuff, SoMG.

Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 2:50 PM

Duh

Posted by: truthseeker at July 6, 2008 9:56 PM


Duh

Truthseeker, easy for you to say. It'd be nice if everybody got such concepts that easily.

Posted by: Doug at July 7, 2008 2:25 PM