I received a heads up on the following video from CreativeMinority, its maker. He selected the perfect name for himself. His work is excellent... literally gave me chills.
In only 1:50 mins CM nailed Obama's depth of depravity in opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act along with providing tiny heartbreaking reminders of who Obama would let die for the sake of Roe v. Wade.
I love how you keep bringing Obama into the discussions. Makes my day every time. President Obama. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 3:00 PM
No, it doesn't.Posted by: Carla at March 7, 2008 3:10 PM
More importantly, did you watch the video, Hal?Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2008 3:11 PM
Yes, Jill. I watched it. I have no problem voting for Obama. Luckily for you guys, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton will stay in the Senate and be able to beat back Obama's attempts to mandate infantcide.Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 3:15 PM
It is hard to explain but every time I see a baby that has been aborted I feel sick inside. Every. Time.Posted by: Carla at March 7, 2008 3:16 PM
Lord, have mercy on us all.Posted by: Janet at March 7, 2008 3:17 PM
" Luckily for you guys, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton will stay in the Senate and be able to beat back Obama's attempts to mandate infantcide. "
is it that you are disappointed that infanticide is prevented. how should i understand this comment.
" Here is what seems to me to be his argument:
1. The Supreme Court has declared laws banning abortion before viability to be unconstitutional.
2. There is no difference between the moral status of a fetus inside its mother before viability and the moral status of a born baby at the same developmental stage.
3. Therefore, banning the killing of a born baby at this stage is morally tantamount to banning abortion at a pre-viability stage. (from 2)
4. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional. (from 1 and 3) "
we would do well to be certain about what it is we mean and also to understand his logic here.Posted by: roger at March 7, 2008 3:40 PM
Hal, 3:15p, said: "Luckily for you guys, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton will stay in the Senate and be able to beat back Obama's attempts to mandate infantcide."
I agree with Roger. What did you mean by that?Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2008 3:52 PM
I was just remarking that the video indicates that you have lots of Senators (even liberal ones) on your side of this issue. Obama's view, if accurately portrayed (see Roger's comments above) won't matter that much if they are really so "out there."
I read the article Roger linked to, and it seems Obama is trying to grapple with some complicated Constitutional issues, not moral ones. He taught Con Law, I didn't. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Somewhere in a American, a baby accidentally pops out during an abortion procedure.
Somewhere in America, Barack Obama says its okay to let the baby die in a trashcan because a law that requires a doctor to save the baby's life would be a violation of abortion rights.
Somewhere in America, people are applauding and shaking hands with Barack Obama at a campaign rally.Posted by: CrankyCatholic at March 7, 2008 4:51 PM
Hal, Roger, 3:40p described self-proclaimed constitutional expert Obama's faulty constitutional logic.
It seems to me you're comfortable with Obama's support of infanticide, thinking he'll never get anywhere with it, so so what.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2008 4:53 PM
He's not supporting infanticide, he's opposing a law that addresses rights of a fetus/baby. He has concerns about that particular law. He might be right, or he might be wrong, but it doesn't mean he supports infanticide. He's not proposing a law requiring doctors to kill babies.Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 5:05 PM
Does that mean he's pro-choice on infanticide?Posted by: jasper at March 7, 2008 5:09 PM
no. He might very well be against it and would support a properly worded law. I don't know. I'm sure he'll be asked before November.Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 5:11 PM
Thanks, Jill, for this important post. Obama is not the knight in shining armour that many people have been fooled into thinking he is. Just because he taught constitutional law doesn't automatically qualify him as having the last word. In fact, his extreme views put him to the left of the left, even in academia, which is really saying something.
What DO we know about Obama? We know he exercised (at best) extremely poor judgement in his long term association with slum-lord Tony Rezko. We know his views on life issues are way out of the mainstream. We know his views on 2nd amendment rights are out of the mainstream. We know he is a relatively untested senator in only his second year. We know he has exhibited very poor judgement in his usage of illegal drugs. We know he has not disavowed extreme positions taken by the pastor of his church. We know he has said he would ram uninvited into an Islamic republic that possesses nuclear weapons in search of Osama. As to this last point is is hard to picture either Hillary or Obama as commander-in-chief, especially when compared to John McCain, but between Hillary and Obama, Hil seems the better qualified.
Stay tuned for even more revelations. Once the Clinton attack machine really gears up in the final weeks of the primaries, more doubts will be raised about Barack's qualifications.Posted by: Jerry at March 7, 2008 5:27 PM
He's not supporting infanticide, he's opposing a law that addresses rights of a fetus/baby. He has concerns about that particular law. He might be right, or he might be wrong, but it doesn't mean he supports infanticide. He's not proposing a law requiring doctors to kill babies.
Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 5:05 PM
We already have a law that allows doctors to kill babies. Obama opposes the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because it recognizes there is no "magic point of viability" that justifies abortion. At least you admit that "he might be right or he might be wrong" about it. That's a start.Posted by: Janet at March 7, 2008 5:32 PM
MK, Elizabeth this weekend is our best chance to schedule a get together if we are going to have one. Or anyone else that lives in the Chicago area :)Posted by: prettyinpink at March 7, 2008 6:57 PM
He might very well be against it and would support a properly worded law. I don't know. I'm sure he'll be asked before November.
Posted by: Hal at March 7, 2008 5:11 PM
It's an end-run to declare ANY stage of pre-natal development an "infant." It could potentially redefine manslaughter.
"The bill contains only two main sub-sections: The first defines the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', as including "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Although the term "infant" normally refers to a newborn baby, here its meaning is extended to also include a fertilized ovum, pre-embryo, embryo and fetus.
The second explains the term "born alive." As defined for a
"... member of the species homo sapiens, [it] means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." 3
Posted by: FetusFascist at March 7, 2008 7:18 PM
Yes, Laura, because zygotes normally breathe, have a beating heart, and have definite movement of voluntary muscles.
Of course, since you plagiarized your post from religioustolerance.com, I can't really blame you for saying something that silly.Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 7, 2008 7:57 PM
Of course, since you plagiarized your post from religioustolerance.com, I can't really blame you for saying something that silly.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 7, 2008 7:57 PM
The quotation marks and notations make it clear that I quoted the information from another source.
When you quote scripture are you plagiarizing?
"Here is the law. It says that if a baby is born alive, whether by intended delivery or by failed abortion, it is legally a person, a human being, a child, and an individual."
(From Roger's website)
How low we have sunk that we need a law to tell us this. It is self-evident.Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2008 8:52 PM
We are currently attempting to pass the same type of law in Canada. It received second reading in our House of Commons today. Please pray that this law passes in Canada.
WE have no restrictions on abortions in Canada at this time.
WE have also had a rash of murders of mothers and their unborn babies. The mothers were targeted by partners whose intent it was to kill the child they did not want.
The majority of Canadians support this law.
What a great video post. I don't think the US can count much on Ted Kennedy preventing infanticide - didn't he already have a run in with this sort of thing in a car accident once......seems to me a pregnant girlfriend/lover......Posted by: Patricia at March 7, 2008 9:07 PM
Most powerful 2 minutes I've seen!
CM will go far. May his truth rock this nation.
Sadly, I fear there are way too many who will
do little more than shrug their shoulders.
Posted by: lesforlife
at March 7, 2008 10:54 PM
I will commit to praying for Canada. Please keep the prayer requests coming!
DEAR SENATOR OBAMA,
As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”
But do you mean it?
As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.
As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”
You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:
1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?
2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?
3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?
If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?
Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.
Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?
Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.
— Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.
Posted by: Mike
at March 8, 2008 12:31 PM
Sherif Girgis will get no response from Obama. He has no time for little people. His is all ears for those with power and money. They will get what they expect from him. He talks about working together with everyone. Yet he has the slimmest record of doing so.Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2008 5:52 PM
He's losing! He will NOT be our next president!Posted by: heather at March 9, 2008 7:56 AM
He's losing! He will NOT be our next president!
Posted by: heather at March 9, 2008 7:56 AM
Obama is losing?Posted by: FetusFascist at March 9, 2008 2:08 PM
of course.Posted by: heather at March 9, 2008 4:10 PM
yes. Hal, America is just putting on a front. They are hyping people to BELIEVE that we may actually be ready for a black president. We are not ready, and it won't happen.Posted by: heather at March 10, 2008 9:26 AM
skin color doesn't matter to me. If he were a strong conservative republican I would vote for him. I just think he's an over rated motivational speaker with nothing but deep thoughts that won't take America very far.
He keeps touting that he will be the one to bring Americans together. Does he think that conservatives are going to drop their morals and values and miraculously become liberals?
I think not.
" It seems to me you're comfortable with Obama's support of infanticide, thinking he'll never get anywhere with it, so so what. "
no jill i am not comfortable with his position. i think that the logic reveals the true nature of abortion.Posted by: roger at March 10, 2008 2:25 PM
"yes. Hal, America is just putting on a front. They are hyping people to BELIEVE that we may actually be ready for a black president. We are not ready, and it won't happen."
Apparently, you don't have HOPE. If Powell or Rice were running, would you say the same thing? r is it just a black liberal we're "not ready" for?Posted by: Hal at March 10, 2008 3:51 PM
The fact that a couple of people are trying to defend denying care to babies so that they die is very sad. Take this as a loving call to go home and rethink your life's priorities!Posted by: BeingReal at March 10, 2008 5:41 PM
Obama's losing? Thats news to me, last I checked he garnished more of the popular vote alone than all the republican candidates combined in a huge number of the primaries, I think Clinton even came close to the same.
As for the accusation that he thinks conservatives will drop everything and become liberal: no he doesnt, but he is willing to work and compromise as his record shows if you look at bills he sponsors as well as cosponsors, etc.
As for the "we're not ready for a black president" that is complete and utter crap. We are ready, and in a matter of a few months we'll have one. May wanna get used to the idea ;)Posted by: Dan at March 10, 2008 6:29 PM
he fact that a couple of people are trying to defend denying care to babies so that they die is very sad. Take this as a loving call to go home and rethink your life's priorities!
Posted by: BeingReal at March 10, 2008 5:41 PM
What kind of care is being denied? Singing lullabies? What this bill is attempting to do is force the medical community to attempt extraordinary measures to magically turn a non viable fetus born too soon, into a viable infant. There is a wild story held near and dear to the PL that thousands of feti are 'born' alive after an abortion and they are being clubbed over the head like baby seals.
The whole silly concept will force thousands of dollars of expenses upon tax payers, insurance companies and grieving parents.
Sally...wake up. "Parents" in abortion clinics are hardly "grieving"...except when the baby survives it's murder attempt.Posted by: Mike at March 10, 2008 11:50 PM
Sally, you have a cold heart.Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 7:29 AM
Dan, what news channel are you watching? I'll bet you 1 million dollars that he will lose.Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 7:31 AM
Sally...wake up. "Parents" in abortion clinics are hardly "grieving"...except when the baby survives it's murder attempt.
Posted by: Mike at March 10, 2008 11:50 PM
How do you think dead embryos and fetii are removed? They often don't come out on there own you know. Abortion is often required. Don't know much about pregnancy do you Mike.
What do you call 'born alive' Mike? No brain or no functional lungs but a heart beat for a few minutes? What are you going to do Mike? Brain transplant from another preemie? Lung transplant? Exactly what?Posted by: Sally at March 11, 2008 12:47 PM
Sally, you have a cold heart.
Posted by: heather at March 11, 2008 7:29 AM
Heather, you have a dull brain. Do you really think that resortiong to attempted insult supports your position?
You support this legislation. Explain to me what you think should be done to save the incapable of living?
Iâ€™m sure all guys who write comments are teens or even younger. If you are older, than shame on you!Posted by: Gdog at April 6, 2008 2:01 PM
It's gratifying to see not only that such positive things happen, but that they are being REPORTED.Posted by: Blader4Life at April 9, 2008 4:51 AM