Americans want to talk gas, not infanticide
Wrote Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters.org yesterday:
Who cares if Barack Obama won’t protect a child who is born alive after an abortion? Gas is over $4/gallon!
So argued Donna Brazile when Bill Bennett pressed her on the matter today. The issue arose during a post-Obama press conference kibitzing session on CNN’s Situation Room. Bennett was making the point that the complaisant media in attendance had failed to press the candidate on tough issues.
Here’s the clip. (Thanks to Mark for being so kind as to post it on YouTube.)
Read transcript of Brazile/Bennett exchange on page 2.
Continued Mark…
Bennett was alluding to the fact that, as CNSNews editor Terry Jeffrey has observed:
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.
He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an IL state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede – as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the IL Senate floor – that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”The IL bill that Obama refused to support had language identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, with such senators as Barbara Boxer voting in favor.
But who cares about such stuff when gas is over four bucks a gallon? Not Donna Brazile or the MSM, apparently.
Transcript of Bravile/Bennett exchange on CNN, June 25:
WOLF BLITZER: If you had been at that news conference, Bill, and you had a chance to ask one question, today, what would you have asked, if you were a reporter?
BILL BENNETT: I think when he brought up Chicago I would have said “why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there?” Not that it’s the only issue in the campaign, but I gotta question the guy’s moral judgment, who doesn’t see a problem with killing a baby after it’s been born after eight months.
DONNA BRAZILE: But he’s had an opportunity in several debates to talk about his position on abortion —
BENNETT: What is the answer to that question?
BRAZILE: Bill, look —
BENNETT: What is the answer?!
BRAZILE: You want to have a conversation about narrow issues —
BENNETT: That is not: that is fundamental!
BRAZILE: It is a fundamental issue, but the American people want to talk about gas prices —
BENNETT: Fine.
BRAZILE: They want to talk about the economy.
BENNETT: Fine.
BRAZILE: They want to talk about housing [inaudible] —
BENNETT: I want to talk about all of that. Wolf asked me if there were one, if there were one [question I could ask.]
BRAZILE: So if you want to go back to talking about same-sex marriages and abortions —
BENNETT: I didn’t say anything about same-sex marriage. I asked about that [Obama’s abortion position].
BRAZILE: Again, Bill, Senator Obama, perhaps you missed all of the Democratic debates–I didn’t–Senator Obama has talked about all these issues.
BENNETT: He hasn’t answered the question.
Read entire transcript here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s like it’s an SNL skit when Donna Brazile says “It is a fundamental issue, but Americans want to talk about gas prices.”
Can you imagine if rape was considered choice and people tried to pull garbage like this? “Rape is a fundamental issue, but Americans want to talk about gas prices.”
Whenever politicians exhibit a desperation to change the subject (as in this clip) it is solid evidence that they are scared to death to discuss the subject.
And why not? Who wants to have to explain their support for killing unborn AND born children?
Wow. Gas prices are more important than Obama supporting infanticide. Really shows you what these people are all about.
Jill, great reminder. A recent confidential poll of 10 battleground states showed that 57 percent of the public was self identified as “Pro-Life.”
Obama is wrong. And polling shows that culture is beginning to understand abortion.
Thank you for making a difference,
Jack and Charmaine
They’ve got a point. For most of us on this blog, the legality of abortion is a major issue, but there are lots of people out there who don’t think about it every day.
If anyone tries to tell you that only one issue should rule an election, start looking for ulterior motives.
Jack, good to hear from you. Thanks for the kind words… :)
DRF,
“They’ve got a point.”
I disagree. They don’t have a point. Suppose a candidate supports pedophilia. Would anyone in their right mind say “I disagree with your stance on pedophilia, but what’s you health care plan?” Or replace pedophilia with rape or terrorism.
I’m sorry, but to a pro-lifer, abortion is murder. When people say that we shouldn’t be “single issue” voters, they are asking us to make other issues as important as murder.
To a member of PETA, meat is murder. I would never tell a member of PETA that they need to consider other issues besides those that affect animals because to them, it’s murder and all other issues pale in comparison.
It’s shows an enormous lack of respect for our position.
They’ve got a point. For most of us on this blog, the legality of abortion is a major issue, but there are lots of people out there who don’t think about it every day.
He wasn’t just talking about abortion. He was talking about infanticide. That is a MAJOR issue, and should be to ANYONE.
“Really shows you what these people are all about.”
Sure does, doesn’t it Bethany….
Kudos to Bill Bennett for bringing this up, I wish more in media would do the same.
It’s amazing to me how they actually ASKED him what his one question would be …he answered the question- then they not only ridiculed him for asking it, but switched topics! How absolutely unfair. If they didn’t want to know what his question would have been, they shouldn’t have asked him that.
It’s not only disingenuous but ridiculous to equate being pro-choice with
advocating the legality of rape or pedophilia. And downright offensive to those who are pro-choice. Let’s get it straight: Obama DOES NOT advocate infanticide.
He is opposed to restrictions on abortion which could ultimately lead to making all abortions illegal. That’s not the same thing.
It’s not only disingenuous but ridiculous to equate being pro-choice with
advocating the legality of rape or pedophilia. And downright offensive to those who are pro-choice. Let’s get it straight: Obama DOES NOT advocate infanticide.
He is opposed to restrictions on abortion which could ultimately lead to making all abortions illegal. That’s not the same thing.
Robert, you totally missed my point. Again, you refuse to look at this from our point of view. To the pro-lifer, abortion is just as evil as rape or pedophilia. So, telling a pro-lifer that there are other issues besides abortion is like telling someone that there are other issues besides rape.
The point is that a pro-choicer trying to coax a pro-lifer to consider other issues than abortion is a priori a failure, and the pro-choicer should know that. However, people who argue along these lines like Donna Brazile have so little respect for us (as was evidenced by the video) that none of this matters.
He is opposed to restrictions on abortion which could ultimately lead to making all abortions illegal. That’s not the same thing.
Show me the restrictions on abortion in the Illinois version of the BAIPA, Robert. Let’s see them.
Way to go Bill Bennett- for not letting them change the topic in that segment.
Whenever you get live interview time…….. this is the kind of stuff you need to do to the liberals.
Soon they’re gonna black the conservatives Completely out of the media, in order to conceal this infanticide problem which Obama has.
Robert, here are some posts with information about the BAIPA and Obama, from Jill (in the Comfort Room thread). Please read them and reconsider your idea that Barack doesn’t support infanticide. You’ve been poorly informed:
**********************************
REALITY: Obama killed legislation that would have made the IL Born Alive bill identical to the federal bill.
Link to bill (read amendment):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93
It was sent to committee Obama chaired:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&committeeID=85
Link to “Actions” docket, showing Obama refused to allow the amendment for a vote and refused to allow Born Alive to be allowed for a vote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93
**********************
Also read from this link:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
*************************
And here is another comment by Jill which explains more (explaining that there was NO important difference in the wording of the Federal and the Illinois BAIPA):
Ok, let’s read the IL version of the act:
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that 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.
And now let’s read the federal version:
a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words
I have so many other questions for Obama, Pro-Abort Politicians, Obama supporters and Pro-Aborts/Pro-Choicers in this thead I have been collecting…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=177553
Mike
thx Bethany for organizing BHO’s efforts to do away with even the most and morally defensible laws restricting restricting abortion and thank you for pointing out what a danger it is to have goverment officials who are such extreme idealogues. And he claims to be a centrist who can work with the other side of the aisle lol.
How about one of the BHO supporters who thinks they are compassionate and moral explaining to me why you support Barack and Michelle Obama who are so idealogically in bed with PP that they won’t even support legimate restrictions on certain types of abortion like PBA, won’t allow laws assuring parental oversight of their childs pregnancy, and won’t even support laws protecting the rights of babies born alive in botched abortions. See how Obama came out yesterday saying he disagreed with the Supreme Court decision not to allow States the use death penalty against child rapists. Yet he has already made it clear that those types of liberal judges are the only ones he would nominate for the bench….Hmmmm
Sounds like he is either really stupid or really naive or ja hypocrite who doesn’t mind using deception to try and appeal to some of the people like the Christian faithful who are publicly bound to support life. I have a question for Barack and or any of his Christian supporters who claim to “live” the faith every day and not just talk it; how do you rationalize devotion to the Lord of unconditional love with PBA or killing babies who are born alive just because the mother didn’t want them to begin with? Doesn’t it make you feel “dirty” as a Christian to support BHO? The BHO campaign realize that the more people come to know about Obama, the less chance he has of winning the election. It is no wonder he wants to avoid the town hall debates with McCain.
I really hate to say this but we are at a time when a possible U.S. President supports Infanticide and Partial Birth Abortion, Homosexual Marriage is legal and all the life issues are under an extreme attack.
I think an Obama Presidency would really be God chastisement on America. I know saying this will not be popular but I believe things will drop to rock bottom under Obama before things will get better in America.
Fr. Groeschel said something like this “If God does not punish America sometime soon, then he will owe an apology to Sodom & Gormorrah.”
Mike
Mike, whoever wins will have a tough go of it, not due to their own policies for the most part, but due to the economic situation the country is in.
I do think the popularity will suffer and that it will extend a good bit to the party of whoever’s in the White House. Nothing unusual there, but this time I think the odds are heavy, almost Hoover-like.
amen Mike.
It’s shows an enormous lack of respect for our position.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 26, 2008 7:55 AM
Bobby, although I have quite a lot of respect for you, I must say that I do have “an enormous lack of respect” for your position on abortion.
I expect you could say the same about me and my position.
It’s a funny (strange) issue that way. We think your position is just as immoral as you think our position is.
Hey Hal. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by respect since there are several ways of understanding the term. What I mean when I talk about respecting someone else’s position is 1) I respect the fact that you have the right to hold that position and 2) I respect the fact that you DO hold that position. In that sense of the word, I respect everyone’s beliefs.
Now Donna is not showing respect to Bill as far as my point 2) is concerned. She is trying to argue with him as if he doesn’t REALLY think abortion is murder, which shows that she doesn’t respect his view.
To contrast this, you in your post showed respect (in my sense of the word) for my views on abortion when you said “I expect you could say the same about me and my position.” You’re looking at abortion from my POV and saying “Although I don’t agree with you, I can see given your stance on abortion why you would think it’s immoral.” And I agree with you completely that you should think my position is immoral on abortion is immoral. It follows logically from your understanding of what abortion is.
He is opposed to restrictions on abortion which could ultimately lead to making all abortions illegal. That’s not the same thing.
Posted by: robert berger at June 26, 2008 9:02 AM
Well this is a complete untruth. Obama’s first intention when coming into office is to sign in the Freedom of Choice act. That’s a restriction on abortion? I hardly think so!
Secondly, Hal, I don’t see how you can believe the prolife position is immoral spiritually, ethically, morally, philosophically. What you are saying is that to allow a newly created human being to live long enough to be born is immoral in some situations? Really?
Hey there Patricia. Well, here is the way I see it; if the fetus is not a human being/ person, then we pro-lifers are forcing women to remain pregnant when they could just undergo an operation to stop the pregnancy that doesn’t hurt or kill anyone. If that is indeed true, if the fetus is not a human being/person, then we are immoral.
Of course, I suppose then that would be just a kind of birth control, which we would argue is still not okay, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
Anyway, I think that’s the idea.
In fact Patricia, just almost any argument in favor of abortion and you’ll see that it is perfectly legit if you assume the unborn are not persons. A good 90% of arguments in favor of abortion beg the question, and I would accept every single one of them if they can show that the unborn is not a human being.
If you’ve ever heard Scott Klusendorf of HLI speak or debate, sometimes (well at least once) he begins the debate by conceding defeat. He will say that abortion should be legal, it should be paid for by the government, a woman should be allowed to control her reproductive life, etc etc. Of course, he then says that he concedes IF…IF his opponent can demonstrate that the unborn is not a person. It’s a great strategy to expose the fact that nearly all the arguments you hear beg the question as to the humanity of the unborn. But I digress.
The point is that if the unborn are just cells or whatever, abortion is fine and we are wrong for wanting it banned.
Bobby, thanks for the clarification. You make your point clear about respect, and I don’t disagree. I think you guys sincerely hold your views, without a doubt.
(not sure about all “pro-life” politicians, however. Some seem to just want to exploit the issue and care very little if abortion laws actually change)
Has Obama taken a look at this guy yet for Vice President? He may not be looney enought for Obama because I am not sure if he would be for killing babies outside of the mothers womb?
http://prolifecorner.com/files/video/Warningkeith.swf
Mike
Can you imagine if rape was considered choice and people tried to pull garbage like this? “Rape is a fundamental issue, but Americans want to talk about gas prices.”
Bobby, if the objections to rape were that much less, it’d be quite a different world in the first place.
“…if the objections to rape were that much less…”
Wait, I don’t know what you mean here Doug. “Much less” than what?
Bobby, I think Doug is saying objections to rape are much higher than rejections to abortion.
Doug…..???
Show me the restrictions on abortion in the Illinois version of the BAIPA
Bethany, that is a good point.
When I first searched for it, Bay Area Independent Publishers Association came up first on Google. =P
And then – Oops – I see you posted some of the text of it. The Illinois “born alive package” came in three parts, and there was no debate on the first two in the text I read.. It was only on the third where there were objections (though some did vote against the first two that day – the first part passed with one vote to spare while the second part passed with no votes to spare).
Obama’s objections were not to protecting born children. Looking at the text of the Illinois senate proceedings, April 4, 2002, Obama didn’t speak against the text you quoted.
He was concerned with the impact the bill would have on the relationship between the doctor and the woman. He also said he thought the Medical Society had the same objections.
He said the requirements for an additional doctor were, in his opinion, really designed to burden the original decision of the woman and physician to induce labor and have an abortion. He said the issue was about abortion, not about caring for born children.
You might disagree with Obama about the bill’s requirements being a burden to women and doctors deciding what is best, but Obama did not object to the principle of caring for babies born alive. He said he was confident that in the case of a child born alive, the doctor in the room would make sure that they’re looked after. Here too, one could disagree, and say, “Hey Barack, it wasn’t always happening that way, and thus the desire for this bill…,” but again it’s not like he was “against caring for babies born alive.”
Oddly – the vote was called, and that part of the “package” was declared passed, again a close vote, with none to spare. Then Senator Madigan wanted a verification, and Senator Klemm, who was listed as having voted in the affirmative, was found not to be present that day. At that point it was declared that it had not passed, having fallen one vote short.
Can you imagine if rape was considered choice and people tried to pull garbage like this? “Rape is a fundamental issue, but Americans want to talk about gas prices.”
“Bobby, if the objections to rape were that much less, it’d be quite a different world in the first place.”
“…if the objections to rape were that much less…”
Wait, I don’t know what you mean here Doug. “Much less” than what?
Much less than what is now the case. Just as you said, “if rape was considered choice…” That sounds a bit weird to me, since it’s already a “choice,” just one with no significant amount of sentiment for it.
If there was as much sentiment for rape as there now is for legal abortion, things would be very different, and where you say, “Can you imagine..” it seems to me you are picturing things as they are now, not as the very much different way they would then be.
…..
And hey, while I gotcha on the line,
here is the way I see it; if the fetus is not a human being/ person, then we pro-lifers are forcing women to remain pregnant when they could just undergo an operation to stop the pregnancy that doesn’t hurt or kill anyone.
You appear to be equating “human being” with “person” and to say the least that’s not agreed-upon. (In fact, it’s that personhood isn’t attributed to the unborn that has you dissatisfied with the situation.)
What really caught my eye is where you say, “doesn’t hurt or kill anyone.” That anyone is a pretty key deal, IMO, i.e. when do the unborn become “someone”? is a valid question, and when are the unborn part of the “us” that we protect under the Constitution.
I realize you feel that it’s a “someone” from conception, soul and all, and I promise not to go around and around over this – just as you and Hal noted, there are some fundamental differences in perception here.
Doug,
“Much less than what is now the case. Just as you said, “if rape was considered choice…” That sounds a bit weird to me, since it’s already a “choice,” just one with no significant amount of sentiment for it.”
Here I just meant if instead of referring to it as “rape” people referred to it as “choice” like they do with abortion.
“If there was as much sentiment for rape as there now is for legal abortion, things would be very different, and where you say, “Can you imagine..” it seems to me you are picturing things as they are now, not as the very much different way they would then be.”
True, I am.
“You appear to be equating “human being” with “person” and to say the least that’s not agreed-upon. ”
No, I totally realize that people differentiate them. I was trying to include both cases though, not so much equate them. Obviously I think they’re the same, yeah, just including both to cover my bases.
“What really caught my eye is where you say, “doesn’t hurt or kill anyone.” That anyone is a pretty key deal, IMO, i.e. when do the unborn become “someone”? is a valid question, and when are the unborn part of the “us” that we protect under the Constitution.
I realize you feel that it’s a “someone” from conception, soul and all, and I promise not to go around and around over this – just as you and Hal noted, there are some fundamental differences in perception here.”
And this is exactly point as far as respect what the other side believes is. While I don’t agree, I do understand that you as well as others believe that until at least a certain time, there is “no one” there. So, if in fact you are correct and there is no one there at least until a certain time, I agree that we pro-lifers would be immoral.
But yeah, as far as understanding and respecting each other’s position, I think we’re in agreement.
What really caught my eye is where you say, “doesn’t hurt or kill anyone.” That anyone is a pretty key deal, IMO, i.e. when do the unborn become “someone”? is a valid question…
How about when a pregnant mother goes for a dental xray and the dentist puts a lead apron over her stomach to protect the baby from harmful x-rays? There’s a “someone” in the womb, not an “it”.
Janet, depends on what you impute to “someone.” Isn’t a “someone” going to have personality, some awareness, etc?
While I don’t agree, I do understand that you as well as others believe that until at least a certain time, there is “no one” there. So, if in fact you are correct and there is no one there at least until a certain time, I agree that we pro-lifers would be immoral.
Bobby, I don’t say you are immoral. You just value things differently in this case, i.e. you’d rather have all unborn lives continue, first, whereas I’d rather women keep the freedom in the matter they now have.
There is no external “correct” about there being “somebody” there. It depends on how we define “somebody,” and we’re not all the same in that.
TS: How about one of the BHO supporters who thinks they are compassionate and moral explaining to me why you support Barack and Michelle Obama who are so idealogically in bed with PP that they won’t even support legimate restrictions on certain types of abortion like PBA
Truthseeker, “legitimate restrictions” is up for argument. I don’t know Obama’s position on it, but banning D & X abortions just means that a different and potentially more dangerous procedure for the woman must be used, while the fetus dies in either case.
Have you actually read what he was said on the matter?
……
won’t allow laws assuring parental oversight of their childs pregnancy,
I’m not sure here, but perhaps he feels there should be an option or a better one provided for judicial bypass in cases where the parents don’t have the child’s best interest at heart.
……
and won’t even support laws protecting the rights of babies born alive in botched abortions.
It wasn’t the “protecting the rights of babies” part that he didn’t support.
Mike,
“Fr. Groeschel said something like this “If God does not punish America sometime soon, then he will owe an apology to Sodom & Gormorrah.”
I’ve heard Billy Graham being quoted on that.
In fact Patricia, just almost any argument in favor of abortion and you’ll see that it is perfectly legit if you assume the unborn are not persons. A good 90% of arguments in favor of abortion beg the question, and I would accept every single one of them if they can show that the unborn is not a human being.
If you’ve ever heard Scott Klusendorf of HLI speak or debate, sometimes (well at least once) he begins the debate by conceding defeat. He will say that abortion should be legal, it should be paid for by the government, a woman should be allowed to control her reproductive life, etc etc. Of course, he then says that he concedes IF…IF his opponent can demonstrate that the unborn is not a person. It’s a great strategy to expose the fact that nearly all the arguments you hear beg the question as to the humanity of the unborn. But I digress.
The point is that if the unborn are just cells or whatever, abortion is fine and we are wrong for wanting it banned.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 26, 2008 1:26 PM
Yes, I would agree – it hinges on the humanity of the unborn.
But they do not accept the pro humanity arguments despite the fact that their arguments against are for the most part irrational/illogical. They also are completely unwilling to accept the fact that once one part of humanity can be denied personhood and rights that others may also be denied based on their same arguments.
Bobby: it’s also about a person’s world view and/or perspective
For example, for Hal, there is no absolute right or wrong. A wrong action for me, might be a morally right one for you in his mind. It is difficult to argue this relativist position. Fr. Hardon has said that the neo-paganism we live in now is infinitely more difficult to work against because people have been innoculated against Christianity and it’s way of reasoning. He preferred to live in pagan Rome, even with it’s devouring lions!
The other interesting concept is a persons world view. If you believe in God, then everything is considered from a totally different perspective. There is a reason for each person in this world, there is a dignity that each person has regardless of their physical attributes or condition. Marriage and sex are definitely viewed from a completely different perspective.
“They also are completely unwilling to accept the fact that once one part of humanity can be denied personhood and rights that others may also be denied based on their same arguments.”
Yeah Patricia. My guess is that people started with the assumption that abortion is morally permissible, then came up with arguments to justify what they had already assumed to be true.
“For example, for Hal, there is no absolute right or wrong. A wrong action for me, might be a morally right one for you in his mind. It is difficult to argue this relativist position. Fr. Hardon has said that the neo-paganism we live in now is infinitely more difficult to work against because people have been innoculated against Christianity and it’s way of reasoning. He preferred to live in pagan Rome, even with it’s devouring lions!”
Oh the dictatorship of relativism… That’s interesting about what Fr. Hardon said. I know exactly what he means.
What good is it talking about abortion, when we’ve sent actual living people to die for oil?
”
What good is it talking about abortion, when we’ve sent actual living people to die for oil?”
Are you implying that the unborn are fake dead people?
Yeah, I don’t know why everyone on the news is griping about gas prices. My husband sends me a barrel of oil once a week from Iraq, because they’re all waist-deep in it out there, and I think he said the ratio is like, 15 dead soldiers for every barrel of crude.
Your world view is very skewed, YLT. You lament many deaths of people in a hazardous line of work that aren’t even happening while totally ignoring the very real slaughter of innocents by the thousands right in your backyard. One day of legal abortion trumps by far the entire span of this war. ONE DAY. “Yo lo tango” una cabeza loca.
X, 7:45 p.m.
:claps:
Could your hubsters maybe send me a couple barrels? I’ll hide em’ in the garage!
Truthseeker, “legitimate restrictions” is up for argument.
Posted by: Doug at June 26, 2008 4:33 PM
Doug, name one restriction on abortion that Obama supports? The legitimate ones I referred to in my post were PBA and BAIA.
Sure, Momma Elizabeth. I mean, there’s plenty to go around, now that the oil war-which is a war for oil which we’re fighting, and definitely NOT a war that we’re fighting because radicals who attacked us happened to set up shop in a country we moved in to attack us there instead of on our own soil once again(funny how that happened, too. almost like someone planned it to happen that way!)-this oil war is in full swing. I mean, I just can’t BELIEVE all the oil that’s obviously flowing now that this oil war’s been going on for 4 years or so. I’m sure that’s all this war is about, yep, and not the boatloads of dead terrorists they’ve killed, and all the non-existent terrorism-suspect prisoners in Guantanimo.
People like YLT really piss me off to no end. They disrespect the sacrifice of my brother and husband to serve this great country by saying it’s only for oil, while our boys are over there everyday taking out militants who would probably sooner shoot YLT than look at him, so he can keep on spewing his hateful propaganda. Sometimes I wish we could send one radical jihadist to each dissenter’s house so they can get up close and personal with the REAL reason my brother has to leave his daughter for half a year, and my husband will have a 1 year old son he’s never met by the time he gets back. It would give at least a little comfort to me when I have to answer my daughter when she asks “When will Daddy be home?”
Doug, name one restriction on abortion that Obama supports? The legitimate ones I referred to in my post were PBA and BAIA.
Truthseeker, BAIA wouldn’t really be a “restriction on abortion.”
I imagine he sees the fallacy in thinking that banning D & X is a good thing, since it means that a different and potentially more dangerous procedure for the woman must be used, while the fetus dies in either case.
That said, I haven’t seen Obama state his opinion on the restrictions. Do you actually think he is against them all?
That said, I haven’t seen Obama state his opinion on the restrictions.
Doug, why is he too much of a coward to state his position clearly?
Do you actually think he is against them all?
I do. Absolutely.
Truthseeker, BAIA wouldn’t really be a “restriction on abortion.”
Well, then Obama should have had no problem with it, obviously.
You might disagree with Obama about the bill’s requirements being a burden to women and doctors deciding what is best, but Obama did not object to the principle of caring for babies born alive.
Oh yeah…he didn’t object to the idea, but he objected to actually doing something about saving them? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Imagine if I, as a presidental nominee, said (in response to an act which would protect women from being raped by dentists- supposing that in this hypothetical there wasn’t already something in place protecting them, of course).
Just imagine that I voted against the act, saying “I don’t object to the “principle” of caring for a woman who is being raped by a dentist. I am confident that in the case of woman being put to sleep for her dental work, the dentist would make sure to be perfectly respectable to her and make sure that she is treated correctly.”
Should we trust ALL dentists to not rape women? Of course not. There are obviously dentists out there who are raping women! In the same way, should we trust ALL doctors to do what they can to save a baby who is born alive? Obviously not. Just look at Jill’s experience, and the experience of other nurses who witnessed the same tragic experience of seeing a baby left on the shelf to die!
Here too, one could disagree, and say, “Hey Barack, it wasn’t always happening that way, and thus the desire for this bill…,” but again it’s not like he was “against caring for babies born alive.”
Oh, well here one too could disagree, and say “Hey, Bethany, it wasn’t always happening that way. Women weren’t ALWAYS being treated well by dentists. Many times, they were raped by them.”.
but then again, would that mean that I was not “against caring for women who are going to be raped., simply because I didn’t support a protection act to help them from the dentists who would”??? Absolutely!!!
Doug, I think you know all too well that I would be supporting the rape of women, by not supporting such a bill to protect her.
“That said, I haven’t seen Obama state his opinion on the restrictions.”
Truthseeker: Doug, why is he too much of a coward to state his position clearly?
You want to rant and rave. I’m not saying he hasn’t stated it; I just haven’t read it.
…..
“Do you actually think he is against them all?”
I do. Absolutely.
I’d say you’re wrong – as with abortions in the third trimester, but again, I haven’t seen exactly what he’s said on this matter. Have you, or do you just want to imagine things about him?
TS: Doug, name one restriction on abortion that Obama supports? The legitimate ones I referred to in my post were PBA and BAIA.
“Truthseeker, BAIA wouldn’t really be a “restriction on abortion.”
Bethany: Well, then Obama should have had no problem with it, obviously.
My point is that BAIA doesn’t have “legitimate restrictions” on abortion, as Truthseeker said. Do you think it does?
Obama doesn’t have problems with what isn’t there, in other words.
His objections to the IL bill came from the two-doctor requirement in some circumstances. I don’t know if the federal law has that same deal.
……
“You might disagree with Obama about the bill’s requirements being a burden to women and doctors deciding what is best, but Obama did not object to the principle of caring for babies born alive.”
Bethany: Oh yeah…he didn’t object to the idea, but he objected to actually doing something about saving them? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
No, he did not object to that. His objections pertained to the doctor-patient relationship as far as the woman and her physician, as he said in the IL Senate debate over the bill.
…..
Imagine if I, as a presidental nominee, said (in response to an act which would protect women from being raped by dentists – supposing that in this hypothetical there wasn’t already something in place protecting them, of course).
Just imagine that I voted against the act, saying “I don’t object to the “principle” of caring for a woman who is being raped by a dentist. I am confident that in the case of woman being put to sleep for her dental work, the dentist would make sure to be perfectly respectable to her and make sure that she is treated correctly.”
You’re leaving out an adverse factor, as with Obama’s objections to the IL bill. Nobody says you neglect the women at the dentist’s, but if there was wording in the act that potentially made other things worse, without being necessary to make rape illegal, then there’d be nothing wrong with objecting to it.
……
“Here too, one could disagree, and say, “Hey Barack, it wasn’t always happening that way, and thus the desire for this bill…,” but again it’s not like he was “against caring for babies born alive.”
Oh, well here one too could disagree, and say “Hey, Bethany, it wasn’t always happening that way. Women weren’t ALWAYS being treated well by dentists. Many times, they were raped by them.”.
but then again, would that mean that I was not “against caring for women who are going to be raped., simply because I didn’t support a protection act to help them from the dentists who would”??? Absolutely!!!
No, in the analogous situation it would mean that you want the women protected, but you also want the act cleaned up – the parts that make things worse taken out.
Truthseeker, “legitimate restrictions” is up for argument.
Posted by: Doug at June 26, 2008 4:33 PM
Doug, name one restriction on abortion that Obama supports?
Truthseeker, Obama has said, “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.”
I also think he’s fine with restrictions in the third trimester, though I don’t know if he has said exactly that.
TS, I do see that Obama said, “Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.”
Thus, a state can have the late-term (after viability, in the third trimester, etc.)restrictions as per Roe,and he said he’s cool with that.
The IL bill that Obama refused to support had language identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, with such senators as Barbara Boxer voting in favor.
Jill, I just looked at the text of the federal law, and it does not include the stuff that Obama objected to in the Illinois “package” of three bills that were the BAIPA.
Doug, I challenge you to find just ONE vote Obama ever made to restrict any kind of abortion. Actions, not talk, make a person who they are. It would be nothing short of an Epiphany if BHO ever voted to restrict abortion. You know he is SOOO in bed with the abortion industry.
xalisae at June 27, 2008 12:17 AM
Amen X, I’m with you. Thanks to the Hub and brother for their service.
Doug, I challenge you to find just ONE vote Obama ever made to restrict any kind of abortion. Actions, not talk, make a person who they are. It would be nothing short of an Epiphany if BHO ever voted to restrict abortion. You know he is SOOO in bed with the abortion industry.
Roe was way before, TS. Obama has said he’s okay with the restrictions that go along with the Roe decision. It’s not like he wants more restrictions, so why would he be voting that way?
I think you just want to rant about him…
Doug, I do like to rant against BHO sometimes but Roe left exceptions for the health of the mother. So far, to him, that has meant NO
restrictions period.
That’s not true, TS.
That’s not true, TS.
Posted by: Doug at June 28, 2008 8:41 PM
Doug, could you be kind enough to point out his vote that makes it false?
That’s really not applicable, TS. The restrictions per the Roe decision have been in place since the passage of state laws, whenever that was, as with after vibility.
In Illinois the laws affecting it were passed in 1975, and amended in 1984/1985, so Obama hasn’t voted on them. And the same is true for many other IL legislators, whether pro-choice or pro-life. By your logic you’d say they all are like Obama.
If, for example, Obama had crusaded against post-viability restrictions, then I’d say you’d have a case.
If if were not for Obama’s position on Abortion I would more enthusiastic about him. I belong to Feminist for Life and Democrats for Life. We are trying to bring more pro-lifers into the Democratic fold and bring the Party into being a pro-life Party. It breaks my heart knowing that Obama does not understand what abortion is all about. I am not looking forward to vote this year. It is so hard. A good person to talk to is Mary Meehan. When I spoke to her she was backing Ron Paul. Mary Meehan is extremely well informed about the issue. She has done extensive research on Abortion and the whole life issue thing. Like me she is against war, abortion, euthanasia and suicide….accross the board.
Mary Meehan has a web-site called the Meehan Reports. Maybe by reading some information from her can help out…,..I hope that you get to air….Best wishes.
It’s pathetic that we live in a country where you HAVE TO DEFINE “BORN ALIVE” because people are too f***ing ing obsessed with killing babies that they want to be able to do it to the maximum extent possible. “Okay, we can’t kill them if they’re BORN. But are they BORN if the cord is still pulsing? I mean, the blood is still circulating through the placenta, right? So the fetus still has BLOOD IN THE UTERUS, so it’s NOT BORN YET, right? We can still kill it then, right? PLEASE let us still kill it then! WE WANT IT TO DIE!”
WHAT THE F*** IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE that they can’t dientify a LIVE BABY?
Christina, I couldn’t agree with your 6:29 post more.
I don’t think people have trouble identifying a live baby.
From the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I would think this would cover born infants, without the need for an “Infant Protection Act.” Perhaps the acts are for reinforcement? And perhaps there was a need to further define what “born” means, as the act does.