Good liberal reads on Obama's support of infanticide

A column by David Reinhard, associate editor of the liberal Oregonian:

obama holding baby 1.jpg

It's often said that it's not the crime, it's the coverup. Here, it's the crime and the coverup. Misrepresenting the reasons for a key vote is the coverup. Opposing efforts to help babies born alive in botched abortions is the crime - enabling infanticide....

At the risk of committing blasphemy, you have to ask: What's with this guy?...

A column by Joan Vennochi of the liberal Boston Globe...

[H]ard as it is for some die-hard Democrats to imagine after the last eight years of the Bush-Cheney White House, Obama can still lose.

He can lose if... he keeps responding to debate questions by saying the answer is "above my pay grade."... feeding the Republican script that Obama is not up to calling the shots in the Oval Office.

He can lose if he is cast as an abortion-rights extremist, a theme that Republicans are also pushing. A focus on abortion would give the GOP a wedge issue it can use to undercut Obama on the so-called "values" front.

By Damon LInker of the liberal New Republic:

obama holding baby 2.jpg

The campaign's response to the controversy shows that it recognizes the damage it could do to Obama's ambitions: Instead of defending the vote, Obama and his surrogates have sought to excuse it. First they insisted he would have supported the Illinois bill had its language resembled the federal version. Then, when it came to light that the language of the two bills was virtually identical, they claimed that the candidate opposed the bill because it had no "neutrality clause"....

And yet it appears that the final version of the bill contained precisely such language - a fact that apparently did nothing to change Obama's mind about its merits. If conservatives get their way, these crumbling excuses, along with Obama's refusal to answer a question about when a baby acquires human rights at Rick Warren's recent Saddleback church event, will transform Obama in the eyes of evangelicals from an electoral temptation into a morally and politically radioactive "Senator Infanticide." (That's what the National Review called him on its website's homepage yesterday.)

A couple great conservative reads...

  • Matt Barber, "Obamacide," on The American Thinker

  • Erick Erickson, Human Events, "Obama in his own words: There is no doubt he supported infanticide," - a great overview from which I even learned a thing or 2


  • Comments:

    "Senator Infanticide" Well you know if the shoe FITS.....
    gotta love that one! Almost as good as the cartoon with dumpster and the baseball bat....

    Posted by: Patricia at August 25, 2008 3:15 PM


    I shudder at the pics of Obama holding the babies...reminds me of the cartoon where he shouts .."Ahhhh..Kill it...kill it!"

    Posted by: RSD at August 25, 2008 3:17 PM


    "Obamacide. It means,
    1) Killing the newborn survivor of a botched abortion through a deliberate act of omission; and,

    2) That which a nation commits upon itself by electing one who would allow such a thing."

    ---from American Thinker

    Posted by: RSD at August 25, 2008 3:22 PM


    Here's another fabulous read.

    Posted by: reality at August 25, 2008 3:47 PM


    For such a time as this........I just ran again the original interview with OReilly and I pray he runs it again. When he becomes speechless. You clearly pointed out the connections to UCC in the interview and I hope that comes out again along with the Wright presence on the board. Obama was just cozying up to PP in Il during that time and putting political ambitions ahead of all. Now it is those very things that may be his undoing. I am so glad you are there and hope you get alot of attention. I feel like this is what is needed to bring him down. We have to keep hammering this again and again.

    Posted by: Maria at August 25, 2008 3:55 PM


    Have y'all heard of the Gronigan Protocol? Basically it allows a committe of doctors to decide to kill infants that they decide aren't worth keeping around.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

    Any wagers to Obama's stance on this?

    Posted by: lauren at August 25, 2008 3:55 PM


    See also "Myths and Falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on Born Alive Bills" Media Matters 8/22/08.

    Posted by: PPC at August 25, 2008 4:09 PM


    PPC

    The next time Media Matters writes an honest and fair story concerning abortion or any other subject will be the first time.

    Posted by: Zee at August 25, 2008 4:20 PM


    Reality, you missed it. I already linked to the Media Matters piece about me and took a bow.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 25, 2008 4:22 PM


    "I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me."   (Applause.)

    Barack Obama, at Saddleback Church, 8/16/08

    Posted by: Arlen at August 25, 2008 4:32 PM


    Arlen:

    But according to Obama, whether or not a fetus or a born alive abortion baby is covered by Mathew is above his pay grade. And since he doesn't know, every pregnancy is fair game for an abortion.

    Geez, that cartoon of him pummeling the babies in the trash dumpster is so apt.

    Posted by: Zee at August 25, 2008 4:41 PM


    Zorn's article in the Chicago Tribune 8/20 laid this "issue" to rest for all reasonable people.


    Posted by: PPC at August 25, 2008 5:42 PM


    How exactly did this piece put this issue at rest for you PPC?

    Posted by: Sandy at August 25, 2008 5:54 PM


    Ok, so apparantly my mom ran into Cecile Richards (you know the pres. of Planned Parenthood) and tried to convince her to not vote for Obama! LOL

    Posted by: lauren at August 25, 2008 6:07 PM


    lauren: that must have been quite something!

    Posted by: Patricia at August 25, 2008 6:16 PM


    http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-philip-j-berg-esq-files-federal-lawsuit-requesting-obama-be-removed-as-a-candidate-as-he-does-not-meet-the-qualifications-for-president

    hmmmmmm....interesting

    Posted by: just a nobody at August 25, 2008 6:47 PM


    The lawsuit will no go anywhere. Some legal blogs covered this when Obama's birth certificate and McCain's birth in the Panama zone first became issues.

    Posted by: Zee at August 25, 2008 7:36 PM


    Actually reality, the link you provided to media matters has the title 'Media cite anti-abortion activist and Obama critic Jill Stanek as though she's credible', but if you read the article nowhere does it show she's not credible

    Posted by: Andy at August 25, 2008 7:57 PM


    Andy, unfortunately, they assume she's not credible and then go from there. Assuming someone is inherently correct or incorrect is dumb no matter which 'side' you're on, and it is, sadly, something neither 'side' is immune to.

    Posted by: Alexandra at August 25, 2008 8:21 PM


    In that second photo, the baby is saying, "You ain't MY daddy!

    Posted by: HisMan at August 25, 2008 8:26 PM


    I agree, Sandy, I read Zorn's piece the other day and it just made the whole thing more confusing. I think that was Zorn's idea, you'd quit reading and agree with him.

    Posted by: Andy at August 25, 2008 8:34 PM


    I keep doing google searches of 'obama infanticide', the count keeps going up it was 343,000 the last time. That includes all duplicates of course.

    Posted by: Andy at August 25, 2008 8:36 PM


    Jill - care to explain this? I have no doubt this post will be deleted quickly. You should be ashamed.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column

    Posted by: Big Al at August 25, 2008 9:42 PM


    Big Al,

    were not afraid of the truth here. Jill already addressed that nonsense:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/rh_reality_unch.html#trackbacks

    Posted by: Jasper at August 25, 2008 10:16 PM


    "America should be a place where you can make it" - Micheel Obama, August 25, 2008, Denver, CO......unless of course, you're an innocent newborn baby in the womb targeted for abortion.

    Does anyone with half of a brain believe any of this BS?

    Big Al:

    Wow, that's an interesting name. Bet you really had to think about that one. Probably about as much as you thought about the qualifications of Obama.

    Yeah, I know the type. Squeal like pigs at the sight of a needle and the first one to tell all about little Suzie the night before.

    So you're a big guy huh? Seems to me a big guy like you might want to protect an innocent child in the womb, no? What d'ya say Big Al, you prefer dilation and extraction or just stopping the beating heart of a tiny baby by poison injection? Or maybe Partial Birth Abortion is your kick? Yeah, pull 'em out half way, suck their brains out, and then let it be born....DEAD.

    And tell me this Big Al. What human being would ever vote against any bill that would support protection for a born alive infant targeted for abortion? What kind of human being would make any kind of excuse for voting against such a bill?

    I don't even think a guy like Al Capone, another Big Al from Chicago, would think that killing a pre-born baby was a manly thing to do.

    And Big Al, if you're Italian, you're a freaking disgrace to your heritage. Or don't you know your mama would never dream of aborting a baby? I know my Sicilian mama wouldn't and she was 43 when I was born.

    And what's Obama done for you and what do you think he'll do for you if he becomes president? Maybe restore your manhood? Approve that liquor license. A wink on the zoning issue. C'mon Big Guy, what gives, what's the payoff?

    Anyone that would call himself Big Al is well, anything but. Don't believe me, just take another look. I know, compensatory thinking.

    One more thing Al. If you're a Catholic, you know the kind that thinks by wearing a gold crucifix around his neck and makes the sign of the cross now and then, you know before he gambles, and by doing that gets some sort of holy dispensation from sin, I suggest you go bury your head in a catechism for a couple years because you obviously missed a few lessons.

    Here ya go.......

    Who is God? God is the Sumpreme Being.

    What is the purpose of life? To know, love and serve God?

    Adinfinitum.

    Then write this 500 times: "Abortion is a mortal sin. Committing it, supporting it and promoting it, if not repented of, will send me to hell".

    Posted by: HisMan at August 25, 2008 10:26 PM


    HisMan:

    So why did the truth have to be distorted? Why the lies? Isn't the act itself enough of an argument? What's in it for Stanek other than getting yet another war monger elected to office?

    So where is the righteous indignation of the children that are being killed in the "war" on terror? How can you abhor one act and turn around and support another that is just as heinous?

    Save your self-serving religous zeal for someone that buys into your garbage - my faith in God has never been stronger... my faith in those who claim to spread the word of God has diminished considerably over the years. Your ridiculous attacks on me only serve to strengthen my views.

    I am very much pro-life - so much so that I will not support either of the mainstream candidates. I also have no patience for those that would twist the truth to suit their own needs. You have obviously decided to throw your support behind what you perceive to be the lesser of two evils but at what cost?

    Posted by: Big Al at August 25, 2008 11:05 PM


    Big Al:

    I doubt very much that you are pro-life. Pro-lie is much more likely.

    You come on this site and diss Jill, the most courageous pro-life woman on the planet, willing to put all on the line to demonsrate it. I see, Jasper countered your lies against your liar for hire.

    You try to make people think Jill lied about Obama, when Obama voted, not onece, not twice, but three times, against a bill that would have protected innocent children targeted for abortion at being murdered. What a freaking hack you are.

    So you're outed buddy, another Liberal hack from Chicago or whatever hole you crawled out of.

    Try again, better yet, go away.

    Posted by: HisMan at August 25, 2008 11:17 PM


    Hal:

    Sorry to rain on your "Catholics for Obama Parade" but, here ya go, Mr. 9000:

    "Biden Pro-abortion Stance Will Cost Obama Election

    Monday, August 25, 2008 11:48 AM

    By: George J. Marlin

    The Obama campaign knows it is in trouble in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Public opinion polls show that many practicing Catholics who voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries as the lesser of two evils are now leaning toward the pro-life, pro-gun John McCain.

    To blunt this voting trend, Sen. Obama has chosen as his vice presidential running mate, a baptized Catholic from blue-collar Scranton, Pa. – Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

    The instant media analysis that Biden will help Obama in the heavily Catholic populated rust-belt states, however, may be wishful thinking because of Biden’s pro-abortion stance.

    It appears the Democrats never learn. Four years ago pro-abortion Catholic John Kerry received fewer Catholic votes than the 2000 Democratic candidate, Protestant Al Gore.

    In 2004, practicing Catholics were the decisive factor in numerous swing states. In Ohio, for instance, 65 percent of them voted for Bush, and in Florida the president’s support from practicing Catholics reached 66 percent. Working-class Catholics, many of whom were of Eastern European origins, stuck with the president, because they agreed with him on cultural and moral issues.

    These issues were more important to them then their economic woes.

    Even in Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, one of America’s bluest states, there was a significant shift in the Catholic vote. In 2000, Catholics for Bush totaled 32 percent of the state’s electorate while in 2004 his total was 49 percent. In raw numbers this increase represented 166,000 additional Catholic votes for Bush in Massachusetts (622,000 versus 456,000 in 2000).

    Former Boston Democratic mayor, Ray Flynn, who founded the organization Liberty, Life and Family to register and motivate Catholic voters, while visiting numerous parishes in his home state sensed a shift in the loyalties of old-line Catholic Democrats. “The [Democratic] party,” he said, “thinks that just because a guy’s an electrician or works for the gas company, he will be a traditional Democrat who will ignore culture issues, but that’s not true any longer.”

    In the election of 2004, Catholics were part of a growing voting population who considered the moral and cultural issues the most important factor in their electoral decision-making process, 22 percent of the voting population in 2004. The power of this block explains in part the increased support for George Bush as well as the overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriages in eleven state referendums.

    Here’s the 2008 Catholic challenge Biden faces: Earlier this year in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the Catholic bishops of the United States declared Catholics “have a serious lifelong obligation to form their conscience in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church . . . by studying sacred scripture and the teaching of the Church as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” (The Catechism states: “Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. The teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”)

    The bishops also advised: “As Catholics, we are not single-issue voters. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter, to disqualify a candidate for receiving support.”

    It will be interesting to hear how the loquacious Biden reconciles his pro-abortion views with these Church teachings.

    Biden is in a difficult position because if he resorts to using the Mario Cuomo defense, “I personally oppose abortion but can’t impose my views.” to wiggle out of his dilemma, he will come into direct conflict with Barack Obama, who rejects the position that moral principles are an imposition on the body politic.

    As Obama said in a 2004 speech: “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

    Obama is absolutely right. To argue that one can’t vote one’s conscience on issues is morally and intellectually incoherent — for both politicians and ordinary voters.

    Regardless of how rehearsed, do not expect informed Catholics to fall for Biden’s double shuffle.

    Elitist Barack Obama will learn this November that tossing a political sop to Catholic Reagan Democrats doesn’t guarantee they’ll shimmy back to the Democratic fold.

    George J. Marlin is author of "The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact" (St. Augustine’s Press).

    © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved."

    Posted by: HisMan at August 25, 2008 11:30 PM


    .

    Posted by: Alex at August 25, 2008 11:31 PM


    HisMan:

    Spin it any way you want - whatever makes you feel good about yourself because after all it's really just about you, isn't it.

    So now I'm a liberal hack? Why is that? Afraid to admit that you are just as bad as Obama? That you are willing to turn a blind eye to the killing that goes on in other parts of the world in the name of terror? It's great that your so-called faith allows you this luxury.

    Jasper countered with Jill's "explanation". How about something substantial? Maybe Zorn's retraction?

    And I apologize for all of the questions - I've been hoping that possibly you might have the courage to answer one of them truthfully at some point. Obviously I made a mistake in thinking you may actually be a man/woman of character.

    Posted by: Big Al at August 25, 2008 11:39 PM


    Big Al,

    Big Al: "Jasper countered with Jill's "explanation". How about something substantial? Maybe Zorn's retraction?"

    Actually he refuted the blogger who posted about the issue. He also personally contacted Jill and explained where the confusion in his article arose. Do you want him to send a video of himself begging for forgivness or something?

    Posted by: oliver at August 25, 2008 11:45 PM


    you know what i realized tonight?

    even if i disagreed with everything barack obama said

    even if he was opposed to everything i supported

    i think i could sit back and be happy that we've come far enough for him to be where he is

    it wasnt too long ago that watching videos of the civil rights era seemed closer in time than the possibility of a black president

    no matter how this election turns out, the bigots lost.

    Posted by: JustWitnessedHistory at August 25, 2008 11:58 PM


    I would give you that for sure. Its a shame that his ascendancy is marred by a violation of rights to another caste of people.

    Posted by: oliver at August 26, 2008 12:01 AM


    Big Al:

    Perhaps you don't believe what you wrote about Jill Stanek. You called her a liar. I guess dissing one of the most pro-life advocates out there squares with that?

    Perhaps you should get off your high horse and take on her mantle. I mean you're gonna waste your vote. Now, that's real leadership, a lukewrm pro-lifer. There's no such thing. You sure you aren't Al Gore? I mean not voting for Obama will guarantee legalized abortion for at least another generation. At least with McCain, we'll have a shot at 3 maybe 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices.

    Democrat Barack Obama voted against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice.

    And if you base your decision not to vote for McCain on George Bush's supposed inabilty to eliminate abortion, are you forgetting what the Democrats did? They filibusterd every appointee unless they passed an abotion litmus test. It's amazing that he got Alito and Roberts in.

    McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion; he has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incest. He voted to require parental consent for abortion and voted to criminalize anyone but a parent crossing state lines with a minor to help get an abortion. McCain also supported a ban preventing women in the military from getting abortions with their own money at overseas military hospitals. He also has cast conservative votes on judges. In fact, McCain has never voted against a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court or federal courts, the Democratic National Committee pointed out.

    No one ever said Jill was perfect. But you don't have a clue.

    For you to come on this site and claim to be a pro-lifer and attack her is ludicrous. You cut your nose off despite your face.

    And I do not support an unjust war. Where did you get that? I support a war when we take it to a vicious enemy, who if not dealt with forcefully, would do everything to destroy the country I live in and where my kids and their kid's will be living in the future.

    And my son was a combat pilot in the Middle East for five years, so I had a lot to lose. If I could have taken his palce I would in a heart beat.

    Sorry, I show loyalty and faithfulness to friends and you're not one.

    I suggest you apologize to Jill like a man and then come back on this site and explain why you are pro-life.

    I think you are a liar and I'll prove it once you start posting or I will apologize. Go ahead, so far you've shown me nothing that gives me a shred of evidence that you're pro-life. Match your values to what you say.

    Why are you pro-life? Why is abortion murder? What is the biblical basis for your view?

    And Zorn's retraction as proof that Jill didn't lie? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. You want me to believe anything a pro-abort says, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. The arseholes are willing to kill babies for goodness sake, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

    Posted by: HisMan at August 26, 2008 1:44 AM


    no matter how this election turns out, the bigots lost.

    Posted by: JustWitnessedHistory at August 25, 2008 11:58 PM

    I agree that race, ethnicity should never be a problem when running for an elected office. But I wonder if American's would be so welcoming if a Muslim were in the running?

    Obama shouldn't loose because he's black (although if he does, people will blame it on that).
    HE should loose because he believes it's okay to do something evil (abortion) to achieve a good. That is always unacceptable. Therefore, morally he doesn't qualify to be the leader of his country.

    As for Biden, it's even more terrible because he's a proabort "Catholic". Let's hope his bishop acts in the way he should, and denies him Holy Communion.

    Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 8:01 AM


    Oliver, the unborn are not a caste.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 9:59 AM


    Please remove HisMan's rants and threats.

    Posted by: PPC at August 26, 2008 10:17 AM


    Please DON'T remove HisMan's posts. He shows more than anyone what RTLism is.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 10:54 AM


    SoMg, you are right. His Man's bigotry, ranting and threats accurately depict the RTL's, and the persistent failure to remove or edit his posts shows that Jill and the moderators agree with him.

    Posted by: PPC at August 26, 2008 11:05 AM


    Wasn't it you SOMG who was removed from this site more than once for making death threats to the bloggers on this site?

    Posted by: Sandy at August 26, 2008 12:09 PM


    I thought it was Cameron...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 26, 2008 12:11 PM


    SoMG,

    Does group work for you?

    Posted by: oliver at August 26, 2008 12:13 PM


    Sandy, no. Someone else.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 12:15 PM


    "Democrat Barack Obama voted against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice."

    Roberts never saw government power he couldn't uphold. The man will be a disaster, unless Obama appointments can keep him a permanent minority on the Court.

    Posted by: Hal at August 26, 2008 12:51 PM


    SOMG,
    My bad.
    Was it your alias dr. death??

    Posted by: Sandy at August 26, 2008 12:58 PM


    No.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 26, 2008 1:25 PM


    Sandy, you're not mistaken in your recollection.

    "Doctor Defense" is the name you're thinking of...

    SOMG claims repeatedly that Doctor Defense is not the same person as him (he even goes so far to call him a "highly disreputable character" and has said that he has been investigated by the FBI on more than one occasion).

    Doctor Defense and SOMG share the same IP address, and SOMG says that is because they simply share a computer. I am not sure whether I believe him completely or not, but he has been honest as to other parts of his life, I am trying to give him a small benefit of a doubt.

    Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 5:15 PM


    no matter how this election turns out, the bigots lost.

    Posted by: JustWitnessedHistory at August 25, 2008 11:58 PM

    I agree that race, ethnicity should never be a problem when running for an elected office. But I wonder if American's would be so welcoming if a Muslim were in the running?

    Obama shouldn't loose because he's black (although if he does, people will blame it on that).
    HE should loose because he believes it's okay to do something evil (abortion) to achieve a good. That is always unacceptable. Therefore, morally he doesn't qualify to be the leader of his country.

    As for Biden, it's even more terrible because he's a proabort "Catholic". Let's hope his bishop acts in the way he should, and denies him Holy Communion.

    Posted by: Patricia at August 26, 2008 8:01 AM
    .....................................

    Oooooh! Scary! No wafer for you!
    Hopefully Biden won't drop anything in the collection plate either.

    Posted by: Sally at August 26, 2008 6:49 PM


    "SOMG claims repeatedly that Doctor Defense is not the same person as him (he even goes so far to call him a "highly disreputable character" and has said that he has been investigated by the FBI on more than one occasion). "

    I've read Doctor Defense refer to abortion as "justifiable homicide" before, and SoMG is the only other person I've ever heard refer to abortion as that.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 26, 2008 7:15 PM


    "Oooooh! Scary! No wafer for you!"

    Amen, Sally.

    "Hopefully Biden won't drop anything in the collection plate either."

    Amen again!

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 26, 2008 7:18 PM


    You're right Bobby 7:15...this is one thing that makes me wonder, too. They both use the term "right-to-lifers" instead of pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, etc.

    Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2008 8:01 PM


    "Barack the Baby Butcher" is catchier than 'Sen. Infanticide".

    That said, Arlen should read Aaron D Wolf's Chronicles column a few years back in which he argued that exhibiting photographs of those butchered babies merely compounds the crime. If a relative of yours was raped and murdered, would you want placards with photographs of the crime waved in the street? Treat the not-quite-born with the same respect.

    Posted by: Reg Cae�sar at August 26, 2008 10:50 PM


    Re: the abortion-as-justifiable-homicide idea

    Bobby B., you surely know Professor Robert P. George, the celebrated Catholic legal theologian and member of President Bush's committee on bioethics? Read this:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0041.html

    Money quote: "...supporters of the pro-choice position are increasingly willing to sanction the practice of abortion even where they concede that it constitutes the taking of innocent human life. Pro-choice writers from Naomi Wolfe (“Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic (1995), reprinted with commentaries by pro-life writers in The Human Life Review (Winter, 1996)) to Judith Jarvis Thomson (“A Defense of Abortion,” in Marshall Cohen (ed.), The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion (Princeton University Press, 1974)) have advanced theories of abortion as “justifiable homicide.” "

    Hmmmmmm. Maybe Doctor Defense and Professor George are the same person.

    Besides, I don't think DD says abortion is justifiable homicide. As I recall (s)he mostly says assassinating the first-degree family members of RTL terrorists and pro-terrorists would be justifiable homicide. (S)he supports this peculiar hypothesis with Paul Hill's own letter from prison to his friends and fundraisers at the "White Rose Banquet". In this letter Paul Hill described delaying his murders to coincide with his wife and children being out of town on a trip, in order to avoid the risk of their being implicated as accessories. Surely it's not entirely unreasonable for DD to imagine that if PH had believed that murdering for RTLism would have put them at risk of being killed equally suddenly regardless of whether or not they were accessories, he might have put his murders off indefinitely. Then a murderous act of RTL terror in the name of Jesus Christ would have been prevented. Plus we don't know how many imitators he will inspire who might be deterred from murderous RTL terror by a plausible threat to their families. DD cites Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's book about preventing terrorism as a source for the idea that punishing suicide terrorists through their families may deter other potential terrorists. I've never read Netanyahu's book so I don't know what it says about that but I agree that the correct way to understand PH is as someone very similar to a suicide bomber. Eager to die in order to hurt his victims. His "mullah" was John Burt, who was also mullah to murderous RTL terrorist Michael Griffin, and ought to be in prison as an accessory to three terrorist murders but I'm not complaining too much because he's in prison for child-molesting. Unfortunately he's old enough that he's unlikely to be gang raped but he could be killed violently and I think his sentence is long enough that he's likely to die in prison anyway.

    DD also accuses PH's wife Karen of accepting a large sum of blood money--charity money given by a donor or donors who support PH's murderous terror. I don't know where DD claims to get this information.

    I also agree with DD that the fact that there has still been no spectacular pro-choice reaction in kind to RTL terror is at least remarkable and maybe even surprising. If Obama wins the election I would not be surprised to see a resurgence of RTL terror which I suppose might be answered in kind.

    I wonder what's happened to the Rev. Michael Bray and his brood. Last I heard his computer was repoed and they about to be kicked out of his house. Then, unsurprisingly I suppose, he stopped posting.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 27, 2008 2:02 AM


    Professor George misspells Naomi Wolf's name, by the way.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 27, 2008 2:12 AM


    "Hmmmmmm. Maybe Doctor Defense and Professor George are the same person."

    Haha, OK fair enough. I agree with Bethany that you are always in nothing else honest. I believe you when you say it isn't you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 27, 2008 6:10 AM


    Oh also my point was that you don't hear your average internet pro-choicer using sophisticated language like "justifiable homicide." I'd heard that phrase before, but from the professionals like you mention. That's all.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 27, 2008 6:14 AM


    "Besides, I don't think DD says abortion is justifiable homicide."

    Ah, you are correct about this! I just looked up the Doctor Defense quote I was thinking of, and (s)he says

    "I was in Western Pennsylvania when Clayton Waagner was doing his thing. If he had killed anyone, I would have killed his wife Mary Waagner, and it would have been justifiable homicide, not murder."

    http://www.topix.com/forum/baltimore/TDC9J7S37L7UA27RE/p2

    So I was misremembering. OK, I'm done with this topic now... for real this time...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 27, 2008 6:19 AM


    SOME PEOPLE will believe ANYTHING...that`s the MAIN sickness going around this country today..not the flu!!

    Posted by: RRR at November 2, 2008 4:13 AM