In the air and on the ground: CBR to show Obama Truth at Notre Dame

obama truth 1.jpg

Click to enlarge these specially made Obama Truth signs the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest will begin showing around the Notre Dame campus beginning May 4, overhead by airplane tow banners and on the ground by moving paneled truth trucks and street protests....

(See more banners and signs on page 2.)

Obama truth 2.jpg

Read CBR's plan here.

Obama truth 5.jpg

CBR needs donations to defray big expenses. Go here to donate online or mail checks to: Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest, PO Box 360503, Columbus, OH 43236.

obama truth 4 and 5.jpg


Comments:

repeating lies from the National Review doesn't help your argument or make you sound very Christian.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:01 AM


Hal, what about that statement is a lie? We all know Obama's history. He was THE oposition to ILBAIPA.

Posted by: Lauren at April 21, 2009 9:03 AM


Hal, what about that statement is a lie? We all know Obama's history. He was THE oposition to ILBAIPA.

Posted by: Lauren at April 21, 2009 9:03 AM

It was an unsupported assertion from hal. also known as bearing false witness.

Oblahma was indeed exposed on his own self contradictory claims regarding BAIPA.

Posted by: xppc at April 21, 2009 9:08 AM


we've went through this so many times during the election I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out again. Obama never "refused treatment for babies surviving botched abortions." He did nothing that would prevent such treatment. All he did is vote against a law which he and many others thought was a bad idea, was unnecessary, and might erode the rights of women to have an abortion. He might have been wrong, but that doesn't make him a supporter of infanticide or someone who refused treatment for babies. Doctors are free to treat babies under current law. And, if you recall, although this precious law has passed, everyone agrees it hasn't done any good. (how many prosecutions so far?) So, perhaps Obama was right?

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:16 AM


Hal doesn't get it:

we've went through this so many times during the election I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out again. Obama never "refused treatment for babies surviving botched abortions." He did nothing that would prevent such treatment. All he did is vote against a law which he and many others thought was a bad idea, was unnecessary, and might erode the rights of women to have an abortion. He might have been wrong, but that doesn't make him a supporter of infanticide or someone who refused treatment for babies. Doctors are free to treat babies under current law. And, if you recall, although this precious law has passed, everyone agrees it hasn't done any good. (how many prosecutions so far?) So, perhaps Obama was right?

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:16 AM

Stop twisting the truth hal. Jill has pointed out for months that obama voted accurately and clearly against protecting these babies. Obama expressed verbally that the mothers intent to kill the baby even post partem overrides the babies protection.

Hal, the words matter. obama meant he was opposed clearly against the protections of the live born babies.

Posted by: xppc at April 21, 2009 9:28 AM


Yes, Hal, of course. Obama is ALWAYS right. I mean, when somebody thinks that saving a living, breathing, defenseless human being's life would "burden the original decision of the mother" to have it murdered, how could that person POSSIBLY be wrong in any way?? If one has the power to help those who are defenseless and one does NOTHING, in fact, voting AGAINST providing life-saving treatment, on what planet is that okay?

"Doctors are free to treat babies"? That's funny, Hal, because they don't even SEE them as "babies." And I'm not sure you do, either. I guess calling them by another name makes it easier to stuff them into plastic bags full of bleach or to leave them to die in soiled utility closets.

And yeah, I'm not sure the law has done any good. These butchers fight tooth and nail to keep their right to dispose of unwanted, living, breathing human beings at will. Even Tiller can't manage to get prosecuted, with all the proof of his deranged practice right in front of their faces. Blood money has a way of influencing people. Obama is one of those people.

But hey, his hands aren't bloodstained, right? He leaves that to his buddies.

Posted by: Kel at April 21, 2009 9:32 AM


Kel, I said "he might have been wrong." No reason to go nuts about it. We've got the law now. No harm done, right? Such venom directed at Obama seems out of place. There are many many people who disagree with you on this or other issues. Why the such hatred for Obama? Seems like he's trying to do the right thing.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:43 AM


Kel, I said "he might have been wrong." No reason to go nuts about it. We've got the law now. No harm done, right? Such venom directed at Obama seems out of place. There are many many people who disagree with you on this or other issues. Why the such hatred for Obama? Seems like he's trying to do the right thing.
Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:43 AM

oh, of course, why go nuts Kel, over dead babies? Shame on you Kel! You are such a "venomous" woman for going "nuts" over babies killed because they were merely inconvenient. *sarcasm alert*
And doncha just love how Hal equates your hatred of abortion with hatred for Obama.
Tell me Hal, WHO is the confused one here? WHO is the one completely out of touch with reality?
Oh sorry, I must simply be another "venomous" prolifer!

Posted by: angel at April 21, 2009 9:51 AM


"Tell me Hal, WHO is the confused one here? WHO is the one completely out of touch with reality?"


Do you really want me to answer that?

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:01 AM


Kel, I said "he might have been wrong." No reason to go nuts about it. We've got the law now. No harm done, right? Such venom directed at Obama seems out of place. There are many many people who disagree with you on this or other issues. Why the such hatred for Obama? Seems like he's trying to do the right thing.


Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:43 AM

One of Saul Alinsky rules for pushing socialism Demonize.

Hal, you are trying a very immature attempt to make pro life people look inferior by "hating Obama". Why does he hate the unborn? Why do you hate pro life people that have a foundation of morality?

Even Roesgen at the tea parties instantly accused a tax protestor as Anti cnn.
Hal, why do you not hate depravity?

Why the false claim of venom?
You are a typical leftist. dishonesty by reason of drama and over exageration. The bible calls it calling evil good and good evil.

The devil wants the pro life people to be labeled venomous and even dagerous by Napalitano. He wants the killers like the ?tillers to be seen as doing justice and helping the planet.

Obama "the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers" Ed mahmoud.

Posted by: xppc at April 21, 2009 10:02 AM


"Why the false claim of venom?"

xppc, you really don't see Obama hatred all over this site? I wouldn't think the accusation of venom was even debatable. I thought you guys would be proud of it. Look at the advertisements that are the subject of this entry. Look at the outrage over the Notre Dame visit. Look at the election coverage. Look at the tea party coverage. There is a difference between policy disagreements and attempts to demonize the opposition. It's not exclusively done by those of us on the left.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:08 AM


xppc, you really don't see Obama hatred all over this site? I wouldn't think the accusation of venom was even debatable. I thought you guys would be proud of it. Look at the advertisements that are the subject of this entry. Look at the outrage over the Notre Dame visit. Look at the election coverage. Look at the tea party coverage. There is a difference between policy disagreements and attempts to demonize the opposition. It's not exclusively done by those of us on the left.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:08 AM

You seem to lack education. Hatred is stabbing an unborn baby in the head and aborting it. hatred is defending the same and calling it choice. Hatr5ed is dismembering the babies limbs. Hatred is your ranting about christians that have a moral foundation and love and protect life at all stages.

You are a very hateful person ahl and have a passive aggressive way of expressing it by your posts and by what you stand for.

The depravity includes the pro deathers calling the unborn child a parasite.

Posted by: xppc at April 21, 2009 10:22 AM


I seem to "lack education" because I don't agree with you? Ok.

are all Americans who are pro choice "hateful" people?

I'd prefer abortion remain legal. You'd prefer it become illegal. We disagree, that's all.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:30 AM


Jill,
The truth hurts... some of us.
I'm so thankful for all the information you provide! I pray Obama is CONSTANTLY reminded of these evil acts of abortion that he (constantly) fights for.
PRESS ON JILL!

Posted by: Jessica at April 21, 2009 10:31 AM


Hal,

It's not uncontrolled hatred, it's controlled, calculated rage. It's righteous indignation. It's the normal response when a man with a backbone and a conscience sees someone weak and defenseless being tortured and murdered.

Are you a man Hal? I assume by your name that you are. If so, your father failed you terribly. He should have taught you to defend the innocent and the vulnerable.

Or perhaps you're just ignorant. If you've never seen an abortion, you really don't have any business offering your opinion. I would respectfully suggest that you visit www.abortionNO.org.

If you have witnessed this horrific procedure, and you don't feel any obigation to help stop this wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, you're not a man.

There is hope for you though. Just repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart. He's all man and he'll help you take your place in this fallen world as a pillar of righteousness. There's hope, you can still do something good with your life.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2009 10:38 AM


Hal,

Your argument in support of Obama's actions on ILLBAIPA is really lame, You conclude, "So, perhaps Obama was right?" Wow, you sure convinced me.

Before the election, I had a friend tell me I was guilty of "character-assassination" for telling the truth about Obama's voting record and support for abortion. Some people can't handle the truth.

Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 10:40 AM


Sorry Hal,

I lost my internet connection when I tried to send my post the first time. When I resent it, it didn't include my name. I didn't intend to send it anonymously. That would have been unmanly.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 10:42 AM


Ed- respectfully, you are totally off base about Hal. I've been following his posts for more than a year, and he is a wonderful, loving, supportive father and husband. If I had a son, I would hope they would grow up with the same gentle patience Hal has.

Posted by: Erin at April 21, 2009 10:49 AM


Thanks for your comments Ed. I am indeed male. Whether I'm "man" enough for your taste, I don't know. Any faults I have are mine alone, not due to my father.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:52 AM


I am not willing to bash on Obama. He will make mistakes- and, yeah, abortion is a pretty intense mistake to make- but I think that it shall do us better to campaign against abortion than hate the president. I must say, though, we have every right to be upset- he opposed medical care for children surviving abortion. That can't be changed. That's something that- though we can deny it through semantics- cannot be hidden. And I disagree with that, but if we go up against the president, we would only waste time.

That's just my opinion, but I'd be quite interested in knowing anyone else's. :).

Posted by: Vannah at April 21, 2009 10:52 AM


Hal,

I'm sorry for any mischaracterization. You see I have faults as well.

Have you seen the video? I know that is what made me and others so passionate about this subject. We just can't sit idly by and ignore this genocide. Imagine what you would do if you lived near Auschwitz or in Rwanda.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 21, 2009 11:09 AM


Anonymous (Ed),

"Imagine what you would do if you lived near Auschwitz or in Rwanda."

Good question. I just commented on that on another thread. I'd like to think I would have take action against the Holocaust. We can't change the past, but we can affect the future, thank goodness!

Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 11:17 AM


Ed,
to avoid "Anonymous", be sure to mark "YES" by "Remember Me?".

Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 11:18 AM


I quoted Obama, Hal. What did I say that was inaccurate about his position?

And angel, I agree. LOL at the "go nuts" part. But I guess being passionate about saving the lives of innocent human beings makes me a little "nuts" in this world's eyes. I'm cool with that. :)

Posted by: Kel at April 21, 2009 11:27 AM


It shows you what kind of world we live in that you can show the country these (real) photos of tiny, naked, helpless human beings and no one cares enough to speak out for them and their innocent lives. Shame.

Posted by: Jessica at April 21, 2009 11:28 AM


GO CBR!!! Good on you for publicly exposing these atrocities, and the Obamas', and their administrations, part in them.

Posted by: flynn at April 21, 2009 11:34 AM


With the combined ground and air assault, obviously Notre Dame must surrender and give in to your demands, or else cease to exist.

I regret that a 165 year-old institution must be disbanded, but how DARE they defy you?

Meanwhile back on this planet, 58% of Catholics voted for Obama and a majority of Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, agree with his moderate stance on abortion, sex education and birth control. Most Catholics who are anti-choice are mature enough to be polite to a speaker who does not share their views.

Unfortunately, a few extremists insist on forcing their views on others, and will try to disrupt a joyous celebration for grads and families.

Posted by: Bystander at April 21, 2009 11:39 AM


Jessica,
Oh, they will speak out all right. They will call the photos fake or porn or that we are scarring children for life who see them. No outrage about the tiny victims in the photos. The outrage is aimed at the ones who take the pictures and show the pictures NOT the abortionist who produced what is depicted in the pictures.

Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2009 11:43 AM


Yes, a few extremists WILL insist on forcing their views on others. Over 50 million innocent children have died as a direct result of proabortion (face it, the children had no choice, and most of their mothers felt too trapped, by the stresses of an unprepared for pregnancy, to call killing their children a free choice just because, sadly, it remains a legal option)extremists lethally forcing your views on them. And how dare CBR defy you on behalf of these most innocent, vulnerable, and voiceless victims of yours?

Posted by: jtm at April 21, 2009 11:46 AM


Hey Bystander,

We've been asking ouselves what we'd do if we lived near Auschwitz or in Rwanda.

Check out www.abortionNO.org and see if it doesn't compel you to change your name.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 12:06 PM


Thanks for the tip Janet!

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 12:07 PM


That 24 week old babt on the top picture breaks my heart.
Is there a story behind that picture? Does anyone know?

Posted by: AK Krystal at April 21, 2009 12:08 PM


a majority of Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, agree with his moderate stance on abortion, sex education and birth control. Most Catholics who are anti-choice are mature enough to be polite to a speaker who does not share their views.

Unfortunately, a few extremists insist on forcing their views on others, and will try to disrupt a joyous celebration for grads and families.
Posted by: Bystander at April 21, 2009 11:39 AM


There is nothing "moderate" about Barry's policies on abortion. He would have NO restrictions whatsoever, and would remove conscience laws protecting doctors and hospitals from being able to refuse to participate in or counsel others about abortion.

And it's ironic how you refer to those of us who want to stop the killing of babies as "anti-choice." Unfortunately those poor innocent souls killed by abortionists had no "choice" did they?

Posted by: Joanne at April 21, 2009 12:14 PM


Erin, thanks for the kind words. I think the world of you too!!

(and most of the rest of you, even if we disagree)

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 12:47 PM


Bystander,

"With the combined ground and air assault, obviously Notre Dame must surrender and give in to your demands, or else cease to exist."

"I regret that a 165 year-old institution must be disbanded, but how DARE they defy you?"

"Meanwhile back on this planet, 58% of Catholics voted for Obama and a majority of Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, agree with his moderate stance on abortion, sex education and birth control. Most Catholics who are anti-choice are mature enough to be polite to a speaker who does not share their views."

"Unfortunately, a few extremists insist on forcing their views on others, and will try to disrupt a joyous celebration for grads and families."

Congratulations, you have the liberal talking points down perfectly.

There's no military involvement, this is a peaceful protest, and with no call for closing the University.
When quoting statistics about Catholics and their adherence to Catholic doctrine, you need to consider those which are faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and those who are not. Those who are not should be placed in a separate category when reporting statistics on Catholics. Of course, many non-Catholic liberals use the opportunity to support their causes by misquoting these misleading numbers. Thanks, Bystander, for giving me the opportunity to clarify your position.

This is not an issue of being "polite" to our President. (Does your definition of "polite" come from the same root as the word "political correctness"?)

This about giving a voice to the unborn who have no voice.


Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 12:48 PM


"Word" should be "phrase". You know what I mean. :)

Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 12:52 PM


Hal...you can have the world. I prefer The Kingdom in the afterlife.

Matthew 16: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Posted by: RSD at April 21, 2009 12:59 PM


That 24 week old babt on the top picture breaks my heart.
Is there a story behind that picture? Does anyone know?
Posted by: AK Krystal at April 21, 2009 12:08 PM

Yes, I agree. How anyone can look at that picture and still believe abortion should be a "choice" is beyond me.

That is a BABY, not a blob of tissue.

Abortion is murder of the defenseless.

Posted by: Joanne at April 21, 2009 1:00 PM


Janet, I agree, the Church just needs to get rid of the 99.99% of Cathoics who are not as good as you. I am sure there will be no problem with the concurrent loss of revenue and having to close nearly every Catholic church in the country. You may be a bit lonely, but clearly holier and better than everyone else.

Thanks for quoting my post in full. I thought it was pretty good, too. By the way, for the humor impaired, the first two paragraphs were a joke.

Posted by: Bystander at April 21, 2009 1:07 PM


Hal,FYI, you're not alone in here today. I'm reading and scrolling and shaking my head as well. Good for you for keeping up the fight on this particular thread, which seems to have gone off the rails in terms of self-righteous indignation. Aren't the wolves out for blood today...good Lord.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 1:20 PM


Bystander,

You replied to Janet but ignored me. Don't you know I have self-esteem issues?

It's much easier to look the other way and remain in "Bystander mode", isn't it?

You should think twice about offering an opinion on a subject when you haven't educated yourself properly.

Check it out for yourself, www.abortionNO.org, then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 1:20 PM


You mean we're stil gonna get stuck with the rest of the CINO?? Dang, I was hoping they would go home with you and your pro-abort ilk.

Posted by: RSD at April 21, 2009 1:21 PM


Danielle and Hal,
Do these pictures even make your heart hurt, just a little?

Posted by: AK Krystal at April 21, 2009 1:21 PM


Danielle,

What do you think of the video?

www.abortionNO.org

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 1:28 PM


Hal and Danielle,
You support what the pictures show. So does Obama. The truth hurts.

Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2009 1:32 PM


Sssshhhhhh!

It's gotten awfully quiet since the pro-death camp was referred to the video.

That's a good thing.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 1:40 PM


Janet, I agree, the Church just needs to get rid of the 99.99% of "Cathoics who are not as good as you. I am sure there will be no problem with the concurrent loss of revenue and having to close nearly every Catholic church in the country. You may be a bit lonely, but clearly holier and better than everyone else."

"Thanks for quoting my post in full. I thought it was pretty good, too. By the way, for the humor impaired, the first two paragraphs were a joke."
Posted by: Bystander at April 21, 2009 1:07 PM


Was your first paragraph a joke too? :) ha ha.

No seriously, I recognize sarcasm when I see it, and I sense bitterness on your part.
I don't claim to be perfect, I'm human and fail often at my attempt to be a holy person. When I fail, I ask for God's forgiveness and get up and keep going - we can't stop trying. I didn't say fallen-away Catholics are bad people; many are misinformed or disenchanted and I pray that they will come back to the fullness of the faith. This doesn't change the truth of the Catholic Church - which is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2009 1:45 PM


Danielle,
What do you think of the video?
www.abortionNO.org
Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 1:28 PM

-I think they filmed a very graphic depiction of either an abortion, or a d&c.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 2:09 PM


Danielle,

First of all, thank you for having the courage to view the imagery which we would all probably agree is deeply disturbing.

Second, I think you have a very pretty name. I'm sure you are a wonderful person, with your own unique gifts and that you make life richer and more beautiful for your loved ones, friends and acquaintances.

If you could view just one more image for me (not too graphic).

http://www.abortionno.org/GAP/signs/GAP/07.html

Doesn't the child on the right deserve to enjoy the hope and promise of the life that you have just as much as the child on the left?

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 2:25 PM


I believe God equipped Moms with an innate nurturing, caring disposition on the emotional side and a beautiful perfectly designed womb for the physical growth, development and protection of their children. And He gave Men the responsibility to protect and provide for their own.

How hard-hearted we've become as a society to even consider introducing instruments of death into a mother's birth canal to torture and finally murder a young precious life! For what! Convenience? Reputation?

What about a word like, Responsibility?

Words fail me.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 2:39 PM


Jill, thanks for the reminder, despite how much it always hurts to see those pictures... especially as I am at the 20 week point in this pregnancy. We had our ultrasound a couple of weeks ago and watching our son's strong, perfect little body move and kick and seeing his perfect profile... such a blessing. I'm just getting over two weeks of being very, very sick and my every thought has been the safety of my child. I am so sad for those children violently removed from what should be the safest place ever... their mother's wombs.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 21, 2009 2:50 PM


What do you think Danielle?

Is there anything in your mind that would justify the murder of one of these precious ones?

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 2:51 PM


Doesn't the child on the right deserve to enjoy the hope and promise of the life that you have just as much as the child on the left?
Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 2:25 PM

-The key word here is 'you' - referring to me. My position is, it is not up to me. Or you. That question can only be answered by the woman carrying the fetus/baby.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 2:53 PM


Wow. Ok, I'll play along.

What if the woman was carrying the baby out of the hospital, 1 or 2 days after giving birth, (they really rush them out of there these days) decided she really didn't want to have a baby anymore and paid someone to kill her little child, 1 or 2 days old. Do you see any problem in that?

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 3:02 PM


And as you say, the key word is "you". What if YOU heard the woman making arrangements to kill her newborn son? Would YOU feel any obligation at all to intervene, alert authorities, try to get her counseling, help her consider alternatives like adoption? Would YOU feel any obligation to intercede on the behalf of the newborn?

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 3:09 PM


What if the woman was carrying the baby out of the hospital, 1 or 2 days after giving birth, (they really rush them out of there these days) decided she really didn't want to have a baby anymore and paid someone to kill her little child, 1 or 2 days old. Do you see any problem in that?

-Yes.

And as you say, the key word is "you". What if YOU heard the woman making arrangements to kill her newborn son? Would YOU feel any obligation at all to intervene, alert authorities, try to get her counseling, help her consider alternatives like adoption? Would YOU feel any obligation to intercede on the behalf of the newborn?

-Yes, I would alert the authorities and have her arrested.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 3:17 PM


Danielle wrote:
The key word here is 'you' - referring to me. My position is, it is not up to me. Or you. That question can only be answered by the woman carrying the fetus/baby.

If abolitionists had thought this way, we would have left it up to slaveowners whether or not to free their slaves. The American Civil War would have been unnecessary. Approximately 600,000 Americans would not have been killed. Pretty good, eh?

Unfortunately, that line of thinking complete ignores the rights of the victim. Someone needs to speak for the voiceless and defend the defenseless....

Posted by: Naaman at April 21, 2009 3:24 PM


So if the child is being carried on one side of the cervix, he or she has rights. We have governmental agencies like Child Protective Servies that intervene and rescue boys, girls, infants when they are in an abusive situation. If their mother loses her maternal instincts and is either physically abusing them herself or is allowing her husband or boyfriend to physically or sexually abuse them, CPS comes in to save and protect these children, because they deserve better.

But, if the child is being carried on the other side of the cervix, forget it. (At least in America. Thankfully, there are still some countries in this world where abortion is seen for what it really is, MURDER.) Yes, in America, we can kill our children, no problem, you just have to get them while they're really young.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 3:25 PM


Doesn't that just seem wrong Danielle?

I appreciate your willingness to view the images I posted. We all have opinions, convictions and beliefs that are shaped by our parents, friends, teachers, co-workers, etc. Every once in a while, we need to stop and ask ourselves (especially in the light of new evidence that may challenge our belief system), "Do i have this right here?" "Could I be missing something?"

Follow your heart Danielle.

Take care,

Ed

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 3:50 PM


Follow your heart Danielle.
Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 3:50 PM

-Thank you, Ed. I will continue to, as I know you will as well.

I came to my views on abortion and reproductive rights on my own, as a pre-teen. Decades later, my values on this topic has only strengthened.

I have asked myself so many times why I bother with this site - what is the masochist in me begging for that I would expose myself to such an extremely different viewpoint. But, lately I figured out that if anything, reading and listening here has helped me examine my own viewpoints inside and out, upside and down, every scenario. I appreciate the challenge, which I never had before.

I can conclude that I feel as stridently pro-choice as I did before coming here, but perhaps I would not have been able to say that without the spotlight on my opinions.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 4:17 PM


Wow! You're hard core. You took some of my best shots and you're still standing.

I have no idea of your present situation, do you have kids? Would you ever like to have kids? (not with me necessarily jk)

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 5:13 PM


I have no idea of your present situation, do you have kids? Would you ever like to have kids? (not with me necessarily jk)
Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 5:13 PM

-No kids yet. Kids in future is highly questionable, but you never know.

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 5:19 PM


Gotta go to a funeral for a co-worker.

Hopefully we can chat again sometime. I also enjoy the effect it has crystallizing my views.

Plus, I still think I can crack ya'.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 5:26 PM


Take care Ed. Nice to have you here. Stick around, ya?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 21, 2009 5:33 PM


Aren't the wolves out for blood today...good Lord.
Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 1:20 PM
*************************************

Ha! Ironic.

Posted by: Kel at April 21, 2009 5:58 PM


Gotta go to a funeral for a co-worker. Hopefully we can chat again sometime. I also enjoy the effect it has crystallizing my views. Plus, I still think I can crack ya'.
Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 5:26 PM

-Sorry to hear about your destination. I'll look forward to the next go 'round - although I'll bet we both end up in the same place we started!

Posted by: Danielle at April 21, 2009 6:01 PM


You can see that Christians have the only finally effective answer to feminists such as Danielle. In her godless universe, the ultimate author of every child is its mother, and the mother as the potter (Jer. 18) therefore has power over the child, to grant or withold life. According to Danielle, it's none of my business whether someone else's child lives or dies. And even if Danielle herself--as a woman--personally regards abortions as inappropriate, what gives her the right to enforce "her morality" on some other woman? Danielle has no jurisdiction. The civil government has no jurisdiction. This is how she thinks.

You know what I believe. Morality is only relative to God, the source of all good. God has claimed the power of life and death over every human being (Gen. 9). He made the first man in His own image. All other human beings (including all women) derive from that first man. Even the Lord Jesus Christ derives from that first man in a limited way (through His mother but not His Father). God is the potter, and He has said (inference), "Don't kill anyone, not even your child. Your child belongs to Me." Actually, He seldom, if ever, explicitly said that parents should not kill their children: such depths of depravity never even entered His mind, that people might think He would be pleased with such sacrifices (Jer. 19:5). God enforces morality (restricts evil) by means of the civil government, His minister of justice (Rom. 13). To it He gave the power of the sword, which is used to kill.

Subjective morality, an ultimately human authorship, and an ultimately female authorship--these are all lies that secular humanists like Danielle require to justify the forced abortion of pre-born children. Now how do you respond to Danielle without appealing to Christian truth? In the end you must. Even if you convince her that forced abortion is the killing of a human being, she will say, "So, what?" According to her, the civil government has no authority to interfere with family government. According to her, every mother has the power of life and death over her own body and the additional bodies that she produces (never mind that they were each initiated by a sperm). According to her, there are different forms of government (something which I also believe). She apparently believes in something similar to sphere sovereignty and individual liberty.

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 9:14 PM


She apparently believes in something similar to sphere sovereignty and individual liberty.
Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 9:14 PM

I don't know what "sphere sovereignty" is, but I'm a big fan of individual liberty.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 9:33 PM


Thanks for the encouragement Bobby Bambino!

This is a blast. I think I'm hooked. Gotta be careful that I get my work done though. I'd hate to have to fire myself.

Posted by: Ed at April 21, 2009 9:46 PM


Sphere sovereignty is a Calvinist idea, I think, and it basically refers to jurisdiction. God instituted various forms of government, and they are not to go beyond their respective responsibilities. There is the government of the individual by himself (self-disciplined freedom), which is the starting point of all government. There is the government of the family, the company, the Church, and the state. Sphere sovereignty leads to the notion of the separation of church and state. It means that the civil government should not interfere in the matters of the Church (e.g. with "hate crime" laws, or by appointment of its officers), nor should the Church interfere in the matters of the civil government (e.g. by appointing and removing kings, something like what happened in the Middle Ages). So those who believe in sphere sovereignty are not statists. Many feminists and liberals actually are statists: they don't believe in an omnipotent God and so try to replace Him with an omnipotent state government (or even world government, Babel reinstalled). But in so far as justice for murdered children is concerned, most feminists are "pro-choice": the civil government is outside its jurisdiction; the responsibility and the authority lie with each individual mother.

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 9:54 PM


Hal, I'm late to this but I couldn't pass on an opportunity to say that from what I can see, I think you're a wonderful person and a wonderful father.

Posted by: Alexandra at April 21, 2009 10:11 PM


Thanks Jon. I learn something every day.

Posted by: Hal at April 21, 2009 10:12 PM


Ed said, "And as you say, the key word is 'you'. What if YOU heard the woman making arrangements to kill her newborn son? Would YOU feel any obligation at all to intervene, alert authorities, try to get her counseling, help her consider alternatives like adoption? Would YOU feel any obligation to intercede on the behalf of the newborn?"

Danielle replied, "Yes, I would alert the authorities and have her arrested."

I hadn't read the preceding discussion carefully enough. Danielle shows a crack here. Maybe Oliver can show her the nonsense of her parasitic-fetus ideology. It doesn't square with the nature of things (cycle of life and feminine impulse), prior intent of the mother (she had sex), or the continuing dependence of the baby after birth (that's why we call it a baby). Then Danielle should come around to the pro-life position. If it's criminally wrong to kill a totally dependent baby after birth, then why isn't it criminally wrong to kill the baby before birth?

I'm still guessing that Danielle believes as she does because she refuses to acknowledge God. There is no God, so she has the right to do whatever she wants with her body and with those whom she makes. She has to draw the limit somewhere--she can't allow her mother to still kill her--so she reasonably chooses the important and traumatic milestone of birth, when the baby first realizes a world outside of its mother and when the world first sees it as distinct from its mother.

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 10:28 PM


Excuse me, but wasn't bho the only U. S. Senator who voted 'no' on a bill that would limit or prohibit late term abortions, identified by some as 'partial birth abortion'?

Even National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) did not lobby against the bill.

Hillary Clinton voted 'yes' on the the bill.

Here, once again from the late term abortionist Leroy Carhart's own mouth, under oath, in a court of law, is description of the barbarous act.
--------------------------------------------------
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?

Carhart: Yes, sir.

Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?

Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz. I think most...statistically the most common presentation, we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it’s what they world call a transverse lie, so really you’re looking at a side profile of a curved [human] fetus. When the patient...the uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.

Question: What do you do then?

Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes

Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the [human] fetus?

Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

Question: At what point is the [human] fetus...does the [human] fetus die during that process?

Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the [human] fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

The Court: Counsel, for what it’s worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D&E when [human] fetal demise occurs.

Question: Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the [human] fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.

Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know, what the arm is, you know, what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the [human] fetus out. I don’t know where this...all the controversy about rotating the [human] fetus comes from. I don’t attempt to do that. I just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the [human] fetus.

Question: At the time that you bring out the feet in this example, is the [human] fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: Then what’s the next step you do?
Carhart: I didn’t mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.

Question: What is the cord?

Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the [human] fetus to the back to the [human] fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the [human] fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don’t think anyone really knows.

Question: Are there situations where you don’t divide the cord?

Carhart: There are situations when I can’t.
Question: What are those?

Carhart: I just can’t get to the cord. It’s either high above the [human] fetus and structures where you can’t reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.

Question: Let’s take the situation where you haven’t divided the cord because you couldn’t, and you have begun to remove a living [human] fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try ... you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the [human] fetal ... the base of the [human] fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

Question: What do you do next?

Carhart: And you can reach that, and that’s where you would rupture the [human] fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.

Question: At what point in that process does [human] fetal demise occur between initial remove...removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I’m sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I’m not sure what [human] fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the [human] fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the [human] fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don’t think it has any brain function, so it’s brain dead at that point.

Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?

Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don’t die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the [human] fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

Later under cross examination from the AG’S counsel, Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

--------------------------------------------------

This is the cruel violent babarity that Barak Hussein Obama advocates and protects.

How is this any different than the jihadist terrorist who saws the head off his living victim and proudly video tapes the act for all the world to see.

The 'devout' and 'committed' christian pbho gives sociopaths and psycopaths a bad name.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 21, 2009 10:31 PM


Hal, I wish that contrary to Alexandra's provocative commendation, you would come to learn that you have not been a wonderful father for ALL of your children. Carla has acknowledged reality, and I'm sure that she has become a much better mother because of her realization.

Of course, that's the continuing life struggle for each one of us: to realize that he is a sinner, a failure, totally dependent on the grace of his sovereign Maker, who really does hold the power of life and death over him. The Maker offers life, but so many choose death. Choose life! Why do you want to die? You can begin to live...

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 10:36 PM


Ed, I hope I'm not disparaging your attempts to win Danielle over to the pro-life side. It's more that I'm arguing with those who should say that we should not "bring religion into it." I agree with Oliver that we should as much as possible appeal to mutually held ideas, but I also believe that ultimately--with many people, such as Danielle--there is no common understanding. We believe in a different reality. And more and more, I think that this is what C.S. Lewis could show so well: heaven and hell are two different realities, a world with God and a world without God. Anyway, religion encompasses all of life. It's impossible to avoid religion.

So, in the spirit of Oliver, have it out with Danielle, and I wish you all the best! Actually I often like to do the same, and I crave the support of other pro-lifers. And C.S. Lewis, who passed away but whose writings I greatly respect, was a master at sympathetic debate. He was able to show Christianity as something so desirable.

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 11:04 PM


The Obama Gospel according to Planned Parenthood:

He he so loved our money, He killed our only sons.

Posted by: Ponder at April 21, 2009 11:20 PM


You can see that Christians have the only finally effective answer to feminists such as Danielle. In her godless universe, the ultimate author of every child is its mother, and the mother as the potter (Jer. 18) therefore has power over the child, to grant or withold life.
-Who said I was Godless?

According to Danielle, it's none of my business whether someone else's child lives or dies.
-No, it's none of your business whether a woman access a legal abortion.

And even if Danielle herself--as a woman--personally regards abortions as inappropriate, what gives her the right to enforce "her morality" on some other woman?
-I don't think abortions are inappropriate in every case.

Subjective morality, an ultimately human authorship, and an ultimately female authorship--these are all lies that secular humanists like Danielle require to justify the forced abortion of pre-born children.
-Interesting how you correlated subjective morality to females. Not sure where you're going with that one.

Now how do you respond to Danielle without appealing to Christian truth? In the end you must. Even if you convince her that forced abortion is the killing of a human being, she will say, "So, what?"
-For the record, I've always known that fetuses are human beings.

According to her, the civil government has no authority to interfere with family government.
-Not true in all cases, but certainly as it pertains to abortion.

According to her, every mother has the power of life and death over her own body...
-Absolutely.

...and the additional bodies that she produces (never mind that they were each initiated by a sperm).
-She controls that which is inside her body, yes.

According to her, there are different forms of government (something which I also believe). She apparently believes in something similar to sphere sovereignty and individual liberty.
Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 9:14 PM
-Individual liberty, you bet. See? Consensus!

Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 12:06 AM


Danielle shows a crack here. Maybe Oliver can show her the nonsense of her parasitic-fetus ideology.
-A crack? Not quite. More like, we do actually have values we can agree on. Others, not so much. And I can assure you, if there some convincing and persuasion to be done, Oliver is not my choice for smoothest negotiator :)

It doesn't square with the nature of things (cycle of life and feminine impulse), prior intent of the mother (she had sex), or the continuing dependence of the baby after birth (that's why we call it a baby). Then Danielle should come around to the pro-life position. If it's criminally wrong to kill a totally dependent baby after birth, then why isn't it criminally wrong to kill the baby before birth?
-Well Jon, that a lot of variables. It the cases of producing, bearing and rearing offspring, we rely on much more than nature to make our decisions. It's simply not that...simple. As I'm sure to already know.

I'm still guessing that Danielle believes as she does because she refuses to acknowledge God.
-Oh dear, here's where we've gotten terribly off track...

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 10:28 PM

Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 12:13 AM


Ed, I hope I'm not disparaging your attempts to win Danielle over to the pro-life side... I agree with Oliver that we should as much as possible appeal to mutually held ideas, but I also believe that ultimately--with many people, such as Danielle--there is no common understanding.
-Well, in my time here I've certainly discovered some commonalities with some posters. It would be unfortunate if there were NO redeeming qualities to staying on this site. I certainly think there is some common understanding.

Posted by: Jon at April 21, 2009 11:04 PM

Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 12:18 AM


I have a million misspellings above...forgive me - it's almost 1:30 out here.

Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2009 12:21 AM


Danielle, please describe your god (and how you know him, her, or it). Do you claim to be a Muslim as Leah does? I had you pegged as a secular humanist and a feminist. The Christian God does not tolerate forced abortion: for me to kill another human being, small or big, weak or strong, child or stranger, is to commit murder, an act of trespassing on God's property. From the beginning, God has clearly marked human life as sacred. Likewise the Church has consistently recognized the special value of human life through its history. I suspect that you might be a liberal and modernist of some variety, but then you are also a heretic and no real Christian. If you were a Christian, then you would keep Christ's commandments. Or you might be a horribly confused Christian, but I can't see then how you would have persisted in your abortion beliefs as long as you seem to say that you have.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 22, 2009 2:59 AM


Danielle:

If it is impermissible to kill a 24-week-old born child, why should it be permissible to kill a 24-week-old unborn child?

What reason justifies taking action to kill the baby rather than--if the mother no longer wants to carry the child--to deliver it as naturally as possible and give the baby a chance to fight for his or her life, funded by donors or adoptive parents? Why is death the goal at an age when the child could be saved? No additional physical pain or suffering--possibly less--would be incurred by the woman delivering rather than killing the child.

There is no excuse for killing a viable child, yet the practice is more common than pro-ripping-off-the-baby's-limbs-one-at-a-time-ers would have us believe.

Posted by: YCW at April 22, 2009 9:19 AM


I was Anonymous at 2:59 a.m. I was working at a different computer.

Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 9:51 AM


"The Christian God does not tolerate forced abortion:"

He seems to be tolerating it pretty well.

Posted by: Hal at April 22, 2009 11:30 AM


Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:3-9

Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 12:23 PM


Do not be envious of evil men,
Nor desire to be with them;
For their minds devise violence,
And their lips talk of trouble.

Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
If you say, "See, we did not know this,"
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work? Proverbs 24:1-2,11-12

Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 12:30 PM


Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth...." Genesis 6:11-13

Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 12:36 PM


The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7

Posted by: Jon at April 22, 2009 12:44 PM