Chilling: Obama’s concern for abortionists’ burden
Barack Obama translation:
Oh, what a drag it is on abortionists to detect movement and signs of life in a baby who survived attempted murder.
Such a burden to have to call in another doctor to determine the viability of the baby — or “however way you want to describe it.”
Posted in: Abortion, Barack Obama
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama’s Abortion Alliance: « Riggword Weblog
- Obama is just EVIL ! - Politics
- PAXALLES
- jillstanek.com
- southchild » Blog Archive » The Lying Senator Infanticide
- The lying liar continues to lie. I shall call him “It”. « Because No One Asked
- Obama voted No on Born Alive Legislation : BigMouthFrog
- Obama’s concern over born alive act? « The Daley Gator
- If you are still looking for a reason NOT to vote for Obama…here it is…. «
- Obama’s Abortion Stance Disgraces Christians: « Riggword Weblog
- Sarah Palin Strong Christian Mom and Soon to be Grandmom: « Riggword Weblog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion, Barack Obama
David Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?
TigerHawk
» Gone but not forgottenHot Air
» China feeling the pinch?Gateway Pundit
» 5 Mumbai Terrorists May Still Be Missing-- New Delhi ThreatenedHot Air
» Bollywood as clueless as HollywoodHot Air
» Monsters of StatePower Line
» From Hollywood to BollywoodTigerHawk
» Rough justiceWeekly Standard
» What Do These Two Things Have in Common?Hot Air
» Mugabe’s army getting antsy
The power and influence of the abortion industry are why pols like Obama and his ilk are forced to advocate infanticide and eugenics. They are worried about pleasing the most extreme views of abortionists, NARAL, Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, etc. than standing where most people are on the issue. There is VERY little support for late-term abortions or killing babies who have been born, but the pro-aborts view any humanization of the infant as intrusion into their “right” to slaughter.
“Above my paygrade?” What, he can’t even say that life begins at BIRTH?? Explains why he was hunky dory with letting a baby out of the womb die on a shelf unloved and uncared for.
happyscrapper said:
Sadly, that is a question that doesn’t need to be asked. I mean, we are talking about a guy who talked about his hypothetical grandchild as being a punishment.
I don’t want my daughter punished… with a baby!
Reading the transcript just made me ill. How can anyone be that cold?
We define life based on our own desires; we kill tiny, tiny babies because they’re an interference in the lives we want for ourselves.
God forgive this nation. We cannot elect this man.
I believe as CS Lewis said (paraphrasing) “you are not a body that has a soul, you are a soul that has a body”.
If so, when do soul and body unite? Is it at the moment of conception? What happens to the souls of these fertilized eggs if the egg fails to attach to the uterine wall and develop into a body? Do we know how many times (percentage) this happens?
Why does God give a free pass to some souls and not others? Why am I being tested and tempted with sin and the soul of an innocent goes to heaven without having been exposed to temptation?
I think these questions need to be answered for some to oppose early abortion (say first trimester), or use of RU486 type drugs. I have yet to hear a good discussion of this topic and am generally impressed with the level of discussion of most posters here. Would like to read the discussions.
CWinNY said:
Truthfully, I do not know when an “it” becomes a “human being.” The Bible indicates that a child in the womb is a human life, but it doesn’t say precisely when.
The least arbitrary point of drawing the line between cells & human is sometime between conception and implanting in the womb.
Since it is perhaps impossible to say with absolute certainty, it is best to err on the side of caution. If you are hunting and you see something move, but you aren’t sure if it is a deer or another hunter, you don’t pull the trigger. It really is that simple. You don’t kill what may very well be human.
As far as babies in heaven, I have often wondered about that myself. It seems to me that, sadly most people who reach the “age of accountability” are lost, but if you die before that point, you go to heaven. It has occurred to me that perhaps most of the people in heaven are those that died young.
It is just wrong for a person or group of people to degrade the “personhood” of another individual or group. It was wrong with slavery, it was wrong when Hitler did it.
The abortion enthusiasts are no different from any other extreme fundamentalists in that they cannot have any aspect of their beliefs put into question, or it all becomes questionable, or what TOS calls a “backdoor means of overturning Roe v. Wade.” When that happens, all of their arguments start to fall apart and Roe overturns itself.
That is why there is support for things like aborting babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions or partial birth abortions. No aspect of abortion can be questioned.
I just wonder how any Christian, or one who claims to be a Christian (even in a racist church) as Obama does, can condone the cheapening of life like this for what is mostly an act of convenience. You know, “it was a mistake” or “I can’t afford to do this right now” or “I wanted a boy/girl” etc.
Only the baby pays the price for the indiscretion, rape, drunken action or whatever.
Also, why is it that there are abortion enthusiasts that cry “murder!” when a puppy is abused or a criminal is put to death for some capital crime?
Dimsdale said:
You forgot about those pro-choice liberals that call our soldiers “baby killers”.
Isaiah 5:20
Trollman,
Thanks for the response. But as far as babies in heaven - that is easy to visualize. What about a fertilized egg?
Would that take on the appearance of what it would have developed into? Since we are made in God’s image, surely those in heaven would look like humans - as does God.
I have heard the argument about shooting a deer in the woods. But have yet to find a good response to “When does an acorn become an oak tree?”
Answer that, and you go a long way (in my opinion) toward answering when a fertilized egg becomes a human.
i’m having a hard time believing these are obama’s words simply because they aren’t riddled with “uh’s.”
what a sicko.
This is huge. This should be in the news every day from now until November 4. But Democrat voters are not going to hear about it unless they are targeted. Jill Stanek was on Fox News last night, but Democrat voters don’t watch Fox News.
I looked on dailykos.com and democraticunderground.com and there isn’t any mention of this story anywhere. So liberals are simply unaware of this and it’s important for all Americans to hear about this.
Believe me, the Obama campaign is going ape over this story and trying to kill it as fast as possible, hence the McCain houses story today. But we need to make sure that this story isn’t killed.
This is astounding. Three votes for infanticide and we need to make sure as many Americans as possible hear about this.
I’m ready to donate time making ads for anybody willing to air them:
Michael Eaton
michael@michaeleaton.net
michael@5palms.com
EQ,
I know you’re not making that argument, but I still just gotta respond. (Red meat and all that.) Jesus is not a pacifist:
In other words, the greatest military slaughter of all time will be personally carried out by Jesus. “Who would Jesus bomb?” His enemies.
I totally agree.
CWinNY,
There is one easily identified line where a distinctive human being comes into being as a unique organism, at the point of conception. Once that singular occurrence takes place, that organism/human being will continue to grow until adulthood is reached, barring any intervening event.
The distinction between abortion/murder and natural death—even at the point of implantation—comes down to whether or not another human being takes a deliberate action to interfere with that natural development.
A human which doesn’t survive implantation would be very much like a person who dies in a fire. If the fire occurred as a legitimate accident, then the person’s death, while a tragedy, is not murder. On the other hand, if the fire was deliberately set by an arsonist, that arsonist is guilty of murder.
As for the theological question of babies going to heaven, there is a lot of speculation and numerous theories on the question. The reason there are so many theories is that the Bible is very vague on the subject, therefore they all boil down to one simple answer: We just don’t know.
What is clear, from a Biblical perspective, is that God calls murder “sin” and he will punish murderers for their crimes. Therefore, no matter what happens to the babies who were executed, their untimely deaths are the result of a crime requiring punishment as a point of justice.
CWinNY said:
The Bible doesn’t directly speak to this, but I doubt people who die as babies in this world will be babies in heaven. If that is so, then it would be the same for tiny fetuses.
The Bible teaches that the saved will have their physical bodies transformed into a spiritual body, which will be glorious (1st Corinthians 15:35-58). Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t get into specifics on this subject.
CWinNY said:
That we are made in God’s image has to do with our personhood, our mind, our spirit, not our literal, physical appearance. God is Spirit, so He has no image.
In Colossians 1:15, Paul says that Jesus is the eikon, the icon of the invisible God. That is, He is God with flesh on. Jesus puts a face on Him who has no face since He is a Spirit.
CWinNY said:
About the question of when does something become a human, you run into all kinds of problems if you say it is only a human beginning at the 2nd trimester, or the 1st trimester, and so on.
Conception is naturally the beginning of a human life, because at that point, if you go back further, a sperm (so long as it remains apart from an egg) never develops in a mature human being. The same goes for an unfertilized egg (so long as it remains unfertilized). But a fertilized, successfully implanted egg (assuming nothing interferes with it & no premature death) will develop into a mature human every single time.
“When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.”
Jesus, Mark 12:25
purplepeep, that passage isn’t talking about how we look after resurrection, but how we will act. All it is saying is that we won’t marry or be married in heaven.
I think it does address the nature/makeup of humans “post-this world”, TMan, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.
Hey TOS, I just found out today that a woman that works at our company, just lost the twins she was carrying at six months. If they are not human lives to be cherished, but just a bunch of cells to be disposed of in any manner deemed expediant, why does she and everybody around her grieve so? Search your heart, you know the cosmic answer.
http://22weeksthemovie.com/ True story of two victims of a botched abortion and what they when through to try to save her son. I hear there are some disturbing shots on the trailer, so be prepared.
Synopsis: “A young woman is locked in the bathroom of an abortion clinic after her aborted baby was born alive.
A film about decisions, their effects and the echos they leave behind. Based on the shocking World Net Daily article by Ron Storm, on the victim’s testimonies, and real 911 calls about one of the most controversial subjects of our time, “22 weeks” achieves to confront both sides of the spectrum and their perspective to the on going question: “what would you do?”
I can’t be surprised by Obama’s casual disregard for babies that have the luck to survive an abortion procedure. After all, no needs to be “punished” with the unwanted and the unfit, do they?
Thanks for the responses. I have been debating this topic with others and do not have a good response to the point that a bunch of cells is not a human. There is nothing that identifies it as a human except its DNA (no heart, no brain, nothing except the potential to develop into a human - except perhaps a soul).
I think this is where a lot of people who are neutral on this issue tend to balance the rights of the mother against something that might become a human. Only a really intellectually dishonest person or truly evil person will agree that an abortion of an 8 month old “fetus” is not murder. Infanticide, as supported by Obama for the sake of political support by liberals is beyond evil.
purplepeep said:
The discussion in question is recorded in 3 places: Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:13-27; & Luke 20:27-38. Since Luke’s account is the most detailed, we’ll look at that.
Luke records “they [the resurrected righteous ones] cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” So they are like angels in that they do not die. To say we look like angels goes beyond the context of the passage (not that we have a good idea of what angels look like, since their appearances are varied in the Scriptures).
CWinNY said:
This is how I would argue this point. Say you have a human being who has had a serious brain injury. The brain is no longer functioning, but suppose the medical experts say it is likely that, within a few months, the patient will make a full recovery and have a fully functioning brain again. If that is the case, then you don’t pull the plug.
How is a fetus any different? The brain/heart isn’t there or working - so? Give it a few weeks and it will, the condition is only temporary.
If a person’s brain/heart is going to be working in a few weeks/months, how can you pull the plug in good conscience?
I would also point out we offer protection to unborn animals because we recognize they are animals from conception and are developing into what we traditionally consider “full” animals.
An unborn child is human from conception and the age of “viability” is fast going down to 21, 22 weeks gestation.
As Trollman points out, if someone is defined as “human” by their functioning - there are many disabled persons who should, in theory, be euthanized because they’re not human. Singer already makes that assertion, and other nations are already re-defining who is worthy of life based on their age and health.
This either stops - from abortion to euthanasia - or we live in a world where our humanity is conditional.
And that’s a scary place.
englishqueen01 said:
Even more than that, the problem with the “viability” argument is that it is a moving target. Sometimes, babies that shouldn’t survive, do. As our technology and medicine improves, the “age of viability” will get progressively earlier.
In principle, there is nothing that would make it impossible for our technology to eventually allow even barely fertilized eggs to grow to maturity apart from the mother’s womb. Someday, we may invent the “Incubator 2000″ that provides the protection and nutrition etc. that a mother’s body provides. The viability argument for abortion really is garbage.
Do we kill people that need machines to help them breathe or whatever? No, that would be absurd. Abortion on demand really is monstrous and indefensible.
In regards to the argument of when a mass of cells is human, try:
from Wiki
Submitted too soon. I am no lawyer but Lacy Petersen Law seems to me to imply that a “child in utero” at any stage of development has legal status and is therefore protected by equal protection under the law.
I got so mad when I read this while I was at work that I decided that I couldn’t express how outraged about it on this site.
I decided instead to make a stupid picture that I’m not going to post here because of the nature of it. I’ll give some details of what it is.
It’s pretty much of a picture of the infamous Ha**** picture from Goa***.** with an animated Obama logo in the middle. I’m sure a few here know what I’m referring to because one way or another they been tricked into seeing the original. I’m self censoring the name of the picture and website because I don’t want some hapless person looking it up.
I’m going to use it as a screenshot in Counterstrike Source.
P.S. Michelle, keep up the great work.
“I think it does address the nature/makeup of humans “post-this world”, TMan, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.”
You’ll search in vain for anywhere I’ve cited “we look like angels”, TMan.
Since flesh and blood is ruled out - the Egyptians wasted their time on mumification - we have to look for what Jesus said would be the future existential nature of humans.
As you noted “angels” has different meanings because the term is also used to refer to humans. The word simply means “messenger”. The common popular conception of wings and harps is incorrect, as it is with Satan decked in red PJs, horns, cloven feet and clutching a pitchfork.
But we are here, and Jesus was there, of course refering to the host of “heavenly beings”. It’s obvious they are made up of such stuff that we are not in this life.
If someone were to assert eternity involved something along the lines of a continued human existence, I think they would be falling into the same incorrect thinking as the Sadducees did in these passages. That is, trying to frame eternal existence in purely human terms.
At any rate, your take may be different on this, that’s just mine. (And there’s Someone who trumps us both, of course.)
Interestingly enough, as it applies to the larger topic at hand, in the original writing the word in the passage is not “sons”. The King James version gets it closer on this one in using “children” since the original Greek is “huios” - which is used primarily to refer to human offspring.
The only way to spin this positive for Hussein is to view it as his effort to relieve the ghetto mother of having to care for yet another bastard by yet another man. (Comment on Comment: Anyone ever heard of adoption?) While I would have no problem believing he is so heartless as to not care about the child dying right in front of people, he gained no political points with the pro-murder crowd by this, but may gain some volunteer labor time from the crack-whore voting bloc.
Viewing this from a socialist perspective, he was attempting to emphasize the de-personization and de-individualization of people. ‘It” was not a “person,” certainly not a person with a spiritual potential. It was simply a collection of tissue. It was not an “individual”, certainly nothing with unique value. It was simply part of the collective. While elevating subsets of the collective can sometimes be useful in furthering the cause of the Left (e.g., champion or tolerate Black Nationalism in order to tear down the traditional, White-led, order), doing so with the class known as “nearly-aborted-Americans” (and this child would be an American citizen) would have no such benefit.
In truth, the fear is that to treat such a child as a human would make any honest person realize it was a human prior to the abortion attempt. This would undermine support for “abortion rights” and cut into its social acceptability. This would, in turn, regardless of any changes in the legal situation, undercut an essential part of Leftist-Socialist efforts to indoctrinate society in the equalization-of-outcome for the genders.
Hussein’s earlier comments on Roe v. Wade actually remained vaguely true (from the Leftist perspective). The law could undermine Roe v. Wade. Not by contradicting any legal right allegedly held by females in this regard, but rather by affecting people’s view of the issue. Ultimately such could lead to an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade. Of course, in truth, that is totally different than passing a law which one knows will not pass court-tested Constitutional muster, but in the Leftist-Socialist focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, there is no difference.
Hussein opposed the law simply because abortion is essential to the Left. They do not care about the Constitution. They do not care about “women’s rights.” They only care about the destruction of the traditional and natural order. Abortion does this by reducing the differential of outcome between men and women of loose sexual practices. This in turn reminds people of the reality of the natural order, and thus inhibits the Leftist agenda.
Trying to determine when life forms in the womb under the veil of “when do we look human”? I don’t look the same i do when i was born. Subtle changes accured in me since yesterday. I will not look the same as i do now in twenty years. I was in the womb at conception. There is an oak tree in an acorn. a Senescent oak tree does not appear the same as a sapling. There, ansered that. Who is any one to say when I am human enough to defend? I was there in the womb when egg and sperm became one.
For the same reason that people are willing to argue about what they will look like if and when they go to heaven is exactly why we engage in ridiculous arguments with pro-abortionist. We allow our egos to dictate discussion and spend all of our time spinning our wheels trying to ‘out reason’ others. This issue is not about reasoning. Murder (abortion as some choose to call it) is not a result of logical reasoning, it isn’t a result of what is good or healthy for anyone involved. No amount of reasoning will change that. What you look like when you are heaven will be known by us if and when we are in heaven…why the need to KNOW so much. Satan wanted to know as much as God too. Why get hung up and waste time on stuff that really, in the big scheme of things doesn’t matter - we don’t need to know everything and getting into these arguments play right into the hands of those who want to KNOW as much as God does and perpetuate arguments. Dispite our best efforts of gaining great wisdom and knowledge , we are just people, the created ones,not the Creator…
Misscheryl said:
I disagree, it is good to make arguments and reason over such things.
I used to be pro-choice. I was raised in a pro-choice family, and grew up in a rabidly pro-choice environment. But then something happened. As I grew a bit older, I began to think for myself.
I focused on what abortion really is and said “This is horrific, this is an abomination.” I then managed to convince my pro-choice parents to become pro-life. Only liberals should want to avoid reasoning and arguments when it comes to abortion, because they cannot defend it.
If we could get more people to talk about abortion and really think about it, there is no doubt in my mind it would become less palatable to the general public.
I will say one thing in response, I believe this issue has more to do with the state of one’s soul. You said “something happened” Gee, what could that have been? I believe it was God’s hand on you, God’s voice maybe…God is in His Heavens..and your story has great value! I chose not to argue with the devil…but that’s just me.
One more thing, if you continue to focus on what abortion really is…you will not be drawn into some of these “discussions” pro-abortionist use to justify their view.
I think the Bible says there is a time to discuss and argue, and there is a time just to walk away. Some people are open to the truth, and some people have seared their conscience to the point of no return.
Romans 1 teaches that the Gentiles are under the judgment of God, even though they did not have the Bible. That is because there are certain things that God has made available to man just through common sense.
You don’t need the Bible to understand that the statue/idol you just made isn’t the One who made you. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, it still follows that homosexuality is unnatural. A man is clearly built for a woman, and vice versa. Paul uses this kind of reasoning when debating with the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17).
We are called to sow the seed. The rest is between them and God.
From comment 194:
I noticed that TOS still has not responded to this.