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

1. Obama’s Abortion Alliance: « Riggword Weblog
2. Obama is just EVIL ! - Politics
3. PAXALLES
4. jillstanek.com
5. southchild » Blog Archive » The Lying Senator Infanticide
6. The lying liar continues to lie. I shall call him “It”. « Because No One Asked
7. Obama voted No on Born Alive Legislation : BigMouthFrog
8. Obama’s concern over born alive act? « The Daley Gator
9. If you are still looking for a reason NOT to vote for Obama…here it is…. «
10. Obama’s Abortion Stance Disgraces Christians: « Riggword Weblog
11. Sarah Palin Strong Christian Mom and Soon to be Grandmom: « Riggword Weblog
12. Obama Corruption and Faith, « Riggword Weblog

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #415721
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm, swmbo said:

   I do believe there will be a special ring of fire in hell for abortion doctors and people who glorify the murder of innocent children.

2. #415724
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm, katieanne said:

   Chilling…a good word to use. The thought of a man, with views such as Obama, being President does indeed give me chills.

   I can’t help but believe that the more that comes out about this guy, the more supporters he will lose. Of course, if MSM had done its job a year ago, we wouldn’t be going through all this now.

3. #415728
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

   Barry Obama is a shill for the eugenicists and the pro-choice minions.

   At conception each ‘fetus’ (read: baby) has its own genetic make-up and is a separate being. They are two individuals. No matter how the women’s choice crowd choose to spin it, abortion is a murderous form of birth control. I’d like to hear Barry stammer his way out of explaining these facts.

4. #415730
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm, Regulus said:

   It’s all of the same cloth. Donkeys’ compassion, such as it is, is reserved for the criminal and not the victim; so it’s just a half-step of logical extension for them to be more concerned with the convenience of the abortionist over the life of the aborted.

   At least he’s being consistent in that regard…

5. #415734
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm, b-cat said:

   Such a burden to have to call in another doctor to determine the viability of the baby

   Unless its Dr. Mengele.

6. #415735
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm, walterc said:

   katieanne said:Of course, if MSM had done its job a year ago, we wouldn’t be going through all this now.

   And if Hillary’s people are doing their job, things could get real ugly in Denver next week. Get a bunch of pro abortion liberals together to argue that one of them said the wrong thing about abortion.

   Good times.

7. #415737
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm, Sanddog said:

   This shouldn’t be news. Obama goes far beyond anyone else in the Senate when it comes to his desire for a woman to obtain an abortion at any time in her pregnancy and have the government pay for it.

8. #415738
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm, sonofdy said:

   As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

   So even if it comes out alive, obama would prefer to let it die rather than try to save a living baby outside the womb. That is pure unadulterated evil. In any other context this would be called murder to just let someone die when you could save them.

9. #415742
   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm, Regulus said:

   On August 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm, katieanne said:

   …

   Of course, if MSM had done its job a year ago, we wouldn’t be going through all this now.

   But they did “do their job” — at least from their own perspective. Most media types see their role in politics not as “informing the electorate” but rather getting the donkey past the electorate.

10. #415743
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm, riggword said:

    Obama consistantly contradicts his supposed Christian beliefs with the abotion issue.

    If it is “Above his pay grade” to know when life begins, then how can he decide when a child can be aborted?

11. #415746
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm, flmom said:

    It was chilling enough that Obama could see fit to be against the Born Alive Infant Act solely to protect Roe v Wade, but to argue that it raised a burden on another doctor being called to verify the viabiity of an aborted infant, is downright evil. Especially after witnessing the wrenching testimony of Jill Stanek. To call it chilling gives ice a bad name.

12. #415747
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    BHO isn’t mearly unadulterated evil-he’s pure chaotic evil with a little dose of pixie from tinker bell to make him palatable….hehehe!

13. #415749
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Oh, what a drag it is on abortionists to detect movement and signs of life in a baby who survived attempted murder.

    Call me in and I will make it clear. Idiots, it is moving in the womb. Yet another argument the pro-death people have to contend with. At what point is movement going to determine when the baby can be called a baby.

    Barbara Boxer: It’s not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital.

    Obama: It’s not a baby until it makes enough money to have a pay-grade.

14. #415751
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm, guitarplayer said:

    If this is what he really believes and fought so strongly for while he was a state senator, then why doesn’t he come out and say it and run on it. Instead he gives a wish-washy answer when asked. Do you think it’s because most thinking Americans would disagree? Nah, not with the Obamessiah.

15. #415752
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm, garydt said:

    I don’t think these liberals will be satisfied until all post birth abortions will be legal. They will argue that the mother still has choices to make on her reproductive systems. This is the slippery slope we have been going on the last few decades.

16. #415753
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm, Mulligan said:

    Horrible. How so many people are going to vote for Obama anyway is beyond me.

17. #415754
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm, sonofdy said:

    Obama seems to think human life begins at 1 day old.

18. #415756
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    Yeah when I was debating TOS yesterday on this, I came across Obama’s choice of words on the floor of the IL Senate thanks to Jill Stanek who became the martyr when she got fired from Christ Hospital where she was an RN for exposing that live born children at Christ Hospital were being discarded in a soiled utility room to die since they survived the abortion procedure. I guess the abortion docs on hand couldn’t stomach killing the child outright after making it out of the womb alive so they dumped them in a storage room to die. It is damning and I hope world sees Obama’s view word for word. (pgs 28-35)

19. #415757
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm, atheling said:

    Speaking of Dr. Mengele, where is that Euro med student who likes to come here and pontificate on how easy and efficient they are at killing babies? She’ll probably show up at some point.

    Obama has a heart of stone. I wonder if he felt the same way when he saw either of his daughters when they were born. Did he think, “Wow, that’s my fetus, or child, or however way you want to describe it…”?

    He’s a moral relativist. The baby is only a person if it’s wanted, hence, a person’s humanity is based on if they are “wanted” or “needed”. Pure utilitarianism. Pure socialism.

20. #415758
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm, coffee260 said:

    Here’s the audio clip

21. #415761
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm, mdt1964 said:

    So let’s get this straight. Torture is evil and killing children okay?

22. #415764
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm, sonofdy said:
    Obama seems to think human life begins at after 1 day old.

    Seemed fitting.

    What happened to:

    “Do no harm”?

23. #415766
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” Barack Obama

    What the hell is wrong with this guy? If his daughter was lying sick on the side of the road and I had somewhere I needed to be, am I justified in not assisting because of the undue burden on my time? Would anyone with a soul actually attempt to use such an argument? This is absolutely sick.

24. #415768
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

    I think he meant – not a live fetus.

    I’m truly struggling to find the right words to describe just how cold and callous a person would have to be in order to advocate withholding life-saving treatment for a CHILD born because of a failed abortion….

25. #415772
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm, mdt1964 said:
    So let’s get this straight. Torture is evil and killing children okay?

    No such thing as evil. You’re thinking in absolutes, black & white. There are only shades of grey. /sarc

26. #415771
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm, ajmontana said:

    What the hell is wrong with this guy?

    Not enough space in the comment box CCS.

27. #415774
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pm, CantCureStupid said:
    …Would anyone with a soul actually attempt to use such an argument? This is absolutely sick.

    I think you are onto something there.

    Love the moniker by the way!

28. #415776
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm, tre said:

    This man claims to be a Christian? What will he tell God on Judgement Day? He wants to deny medical care to babies who survived abortions, and even calls babies “punishment.”

    If I even thought about voting for the “lightworker”, all I need to do is look at the picture of my two children that’s on my work station now. And know that this guy would support killing them and thinks they’re my “punishment.”

29. #415778
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    30,

    Evil, pure evil comes to mind first followed closely by vile.

30. #415779
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm, John Deaux said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm, sonofdy said:
    So even if it comes out alive, obama would prefer to let it die kill it rather than try to save a living baby outside the womb.

    Fixed it for ya.

31. #415780
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm, garydt said:

    I don’t think these liberals will be satisfied until all post birth abortions will be legal. They will argue that the mother still has choices to make on her reproductive systems. This is the slippery slope we have been going on the last few decades.

    They already have a champion for that cause: Peter Singer, who holds the Ethics Chair at Princeton, one of our illustrious poison ivy league schools.

    I’m not a big fan of Wiki, but this does sum up his opinion on abortion, euthanasia:

    Although some critics may find this comment anti-human, it is a consequence of Singer’s ethic which denies that a being’s species membership has any moral relevance. According to Singer, whether a being is or is not a member of our own species is, in itself, no more relevant than whether a being is or is not a member of our own race; the claim that a fetus is a member of the human species tells us only that a fetus is a member of our species and breeding group, but it does not communicate any information that one can use to make a moral decision.

    Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother’s preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

    Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood – “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” [23]- and therefore “[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”[24].

32. #415782
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm, Misscheryl said:

    This just proves my point – if you want your child, everything will be done to save it and if you don’t, everything will be done to kill it. I don’t understand where the argument re: when does life begin – it really isn’t about a life – it’s about whether that life is cherished and wanted or not.

33. #415784
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution, to do no harm? Once you have rationlized life to be almost meaningless, you can and will say, or do anything. BO would be comfortable with Hitler’s final solution. I pray that Little BO Peep, will soon lose his sheep. Watch the polls people, his shoes are getting muddy.

34. #415786
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm, Speakup said:

    Barbarity, is thus defined.

    “‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms– everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…. “‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp…. “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’” 550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intact_dilation_and_extraction

35. #415791
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm, sonofdy said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm, sonofdy said:
    So even if it comes out alive, obama would prefer to let it die kill it rather than try to save a living baby outside the womb.

    Fixed it for ya.

    Sorry, but youare wrong. Killing it would be quicker and more kind, these nazi scum leave the babies to die slowly. They don’t kill them they literaly put a live baby into another room and wait for it to stop breathing. I can think of nothing more evil. For this reason alone, Obama can never be president.

36. #415793
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    I don’t feel so good.

37. #415796
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm, sonofdy said:

    Rogue Cheddar: I am ready to put my fist through a wall.

38. #415797
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood – “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” [23]- and therefore “[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”[24].

    Aborting a fetus is one thing (I happen to call it murder) but Singer, who holds the Ethics Chair at Princeton(WTH???), has lowered the bar to infants. How long before the argument for the pro-deather’s becomes:

    When does an infant become a baby?

39. #415798
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm, babbledabble said:

    I still have to wonder if his adoring fans really care, after all “he looks so good in a suit” & he is “so cool” & “sexy”.
    sarc/

40. #415799
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm, flmom said:

    No amount of ‘nuance’ can help BO out of this illuminating insight into his character.

41. #415801
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    I could never vote for anybody that wasn’t pro-life, no matter what their other positions were. I couldn’t stand knowing that I contributed somehow. It’s bad enough I can’t stop my tax dollars for perpetuating this genocide, other than to vote as best I can and hope someday that the boat will right itself.

42. #415802
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm, guitarplayer said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Aborting a fetus is one thing (I happen to call it murder) but Singer, who holds the Ethics Chair at Princeton(WTH???), has lowered the bar to infants. How long before the argument for the pro-deather’s becomes:

    When does an infant become a baby?

    I think this guy, Singer, said something like 2 weeks. He said something along the lines of that for 2 weeks after a birth, a mother can decide to return the baby to the hospital and have it killed.

    He’s also won some science awards for this kind of “thought”.

43. #415804
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm, wighttrasch said:

    Why do they call it ‘abortion’ when it’s very obviously ‘killing’? ‘Murder’? ‘Slaughter’? ‘

44. #415805
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm, emjem24 said:

    Obummer’s and other pro-choicers’ positions are why I don’t trust the medical industry. If a baby isn’t perfect, not wanted, cannot be helped or saved, just get rid of it. Nobody will mind even if there’s a family out there who could love that baby that nobody wants.

    These people are murderers plain and simple. It depends on individual perspective to people like Obummer. As Atheling stated, if a baby isn’t wanted, just get rid of it, it never meant anything to anybody.

    Such an attitude seems so inconceivable. What I don’t understand is if women are so concerned about not getting pregnat, then why don’t they make every effort to use some kind of birth control. It’s not like condoms are that expensive.

    Obummer parses his words (oops changes his mind or places the blame on whomever he wants) like he changes political bed partners. He cannot even decide whether a baby that survives an abortion is a person or worth saving. That’s the part that should give some of those Republicans who support him some pause.

45. #415806
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm, b-cat said:

    He really is an evil, despotic scumbag when you get right down to it, isn’t he?

46. #415808
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm, sonofdy said:

    Even pro-choice advocates must be shocked by this outright bloody murder.

47. #415809
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    As utterly revolted as I am by this man and his stand on this issue, this is information that needs to be proclaimed from the mountain tops, especially in light of Obama’s recent chickensh*t “above my pay grade” dodge (while taking part in a forum in which the audience would have found this particular insight of his highly informative to say the least). I will be forwarding this blog to everyone I know, and I would recommend that everyone here do the same.

    God Bless America!!!

48. #415811
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood – “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” [23]- and therefore “[s]imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”[24].

    Aborting a fetus is one thing (I happen to call it murder) but Singer, who holds the Ethics Chair at Princeton(WTH???), has lowered the bar to infants. How long before the argument for the pro-deather’s becomes:

    When does an infant become a baby?

    Singer is just the next logical step in this evil.

49. #415813
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm, flmom said:
    No amount of ‘nuance’ can help BO out of this illuminating insight into his TOTAL LACK OF character.

    Sorry. It seemed fitting – again.

50. #415816
    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm, sonofdy said:

    I can think of nothing better to motivate the conservative base. We can not allow this advocate of genocide to become president. This over-rides anything else in my book.

51. #415817
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm, tre said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm, 30 pcs of silver
    I’m truly struggling to find the right words to describe just how cold and callous a person would have to be in order to advocate withholding life-saving treatment for a CHILD born because of a failed abortion….

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
    30,

    Evil, pure evil comes to mind first followed closely by vile.

    I have some better words: demonic, satanic, and @#$%*.

52. #415818
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm, atheling said:

    More lowering of the bar from Singer:

    Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, “we are great apes”.

53. #415824
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    Speaking of Dr. Mengele, where is that Euro med student who likes to come here and pontificate on how easy and efficient they are at killing babies? She’ll probably show up at some point.

    Idle Vice?

54. #415823
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm, beenthere said:

    Has McCain put Obama on the payroll yet? He should, because this guy (and Putin, let’s not forget him) are doing their damnedest to make it impossible for the average voter to vote against McCain. This is so ugly one wants to turn away in horror. Even for those who support abortion rights, common decency, basic humanity would compel one to say this is too much.

    Obama reminds me of a sci-fi horror monster, humanoid in appearance with a friendly face and inviting smile — but then there’s the inevitable scene where he’s in the room alone and begins taking off the mask . . . to reveal the ghastly face of a lizard with rows of razor-sharp, bloody teeth.

    Since the beginning of the year I’ve moved from “Let’s hear what he has to say” to “You’ve got to be kidding” to “Oh Dear God save us from this monster!”

    Screwed in ‘08 doesn’t begin to describe it.

55. #415826
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm, sonofdy said:

    I can think of nothing better to motivate the conservative base. We can not allow this advocate of genocide to become president. This over-rides anything else in my book.

    I concur. It’s a disgrace that this man could hold any publicly-elected office in this country. This is not the kind of man we want representing this nation anywhere under any circumstances.

56. #415828
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm, erikwhittington said:

    burden the abortionist? never mind the burden the baby must feel when his/her brain’s are sucked out and/or limps ripped apart…

57. #415833
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    Speaking of Dr. Mengele, where is that Euro med student who likes to come here and pontificate on how easy and efficient they are at killing babies? She’ll probably show up at some point.

    Idle Vice?

    ROFL!!!

58. #415835
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    I encourage those outraged here to read this piece in the Chicago Tribune. I find it to be the most unbiased account.

    The history makes it clear that Obama’s role in delaying “born-alive” legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an “extremist” when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns — though Jill Stanek is apparently having some success pushing this angle with those who don’t have the patience you’ve had to wade through all the bills and arguments.

59. #415838
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm, atheling said:
    More lowering of the bar from Singer:

    Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, “we are great apes”.

    I am pretty sure apes don’t abort their young or babies in the womb.

60. #415840
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm, katieanne said:

    Barbara Boxer: It’s not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital.

    Tell that to all the grieving parents who lost their child through miscarriages…parents who wanted their babies.

    I really want a pro-abortion person to explain to me why a fetus is a baby when it is wanted and a nothing when it isn’t. One is grieved for and the other is thrown is a dirty linen container. Don’t they see the horror in this?

61. #415848
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm, txvet2 said:

    I can’t seem to find any comments from Rusty, Chapoutier, lgm, or TOS on this thread. Wonder why?

62. #415849
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm, katieanne said:
    I really want a pro-abortion person to explain to me why a fetus is a baby when it is wanted and a nothing when it isn’t. One is grieved for and the other is thrown is a dirty linen container. Don’t they see the horror in this?

    No. The pro-death crowd has either never given it enough thought, or they are cold and dead inside.

63. #415852
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm, txvet2 said:

    OOps, TOS slipped in while I was writing. Sorry.

64. #415854
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm, flmom said:

    Soapbox
    Thanks for the correction. You are right. Lack of character sums him up. This shows that he will further the agenda of the far left even in the face of a decision between right and wrong, there are some instances in life when choosing to do the right thing means going against the agenda of the left, but BO has shown that no matter what the circumstances the far left agenda must not be threatened.

65. #415859
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    I really want a pro-abortion person to explain to me why a fetus is a baby when it is wanted and a nothing when it isn’t.

    It is called relativism. Not that I am pro-abortion, mind you.

66. #415862
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm, b-cat said:

    No. The pro-death crowd has either never given it enough thought, or they are cold and dead inside.

    In Obama’s case, it is the latter.

67. #415869
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm, atheling said:
    Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, “we are great apes”.

    Is he advocating sex with apes? And if so, why? Just asking, atheling.

68. #415872
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm, CCM said:

    Please God, do not punish us with an Obama presidency.

69. #415874
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm, Adlib said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm, katieanne said:

    Why do they think adoption is so wrong in light of this? How is that the last option for them? I really don’t know so if someone can explain what reasoning the libs/Dems use to advocate abortion rather than adoption, please explain. I’m guessing that it is similar to the ChiComs “family planning” business and is all about control and junk.

    I guess it all boils down to whether or not you believe man is created in the image of God. If you don’t believe a person in any form is worth something, then I guess it would make sense (not much, but I guess this is what motivates some people) to think abortion is okay.

    As to the pro-choice women who declare it’s their body, so it’s their right, I say a big fat NO. I believe my body belongs to God, and if I mess up and get pregnant, it’s not my “choice” to get rid of it. Life is a natural process designed by God, and no one has the right to interrupt it, no matter how “inconvenient” it is.

    To read what Obama thinks about life just disgusts me thoroughly.

70. #415875
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    Someone mentioned Dr. Mengele.

    Along those lines of thinking, I fear Barack Obama because much like Dr. Joseph Megele, Obama seriously thinks he what is doing is the right thing to do.

    A man being a monster simply for the sake of being a monster is frightening. A man being a monster and thinking it is for the greater good is terrifying.

71. #415877
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:23 pm, flmom said:

    TheOtherSide

    Therein lies the reason Obama voted against this bill, which verifies my thoughts exactly on this. Obama had a problem with the infants in such cases being classed as ‘people’. He had a problem with this as he knew that once classed as people these babies would have rights.

72. #415879
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm, CantCureStupid said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm, b-cat said:
    Is he advocating sex with apes? And if so, why? Just asking, atheling.

    He must be. It’s his only chance. What woman would let him touch her once he opened his mouth? What a revolting pig… um, ape.

73. #415880
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    Gahhh. typo in my post…

    …Obama seriously thinks what he is doing is right…

    Sorry, I’m a Strunk and White, Elements of Style kinda gal.

74. #415881
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm, b-cat said:

    Well said, SuzEQ. I mentioned Mengele for precisely the reason you so eloquently noted.

75. #415882
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm, atheling said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm, atheling said:
    Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[29] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, “we are great apes”.

    Is he advocating sex with apes? And if so, why? Just asking, atheling.

    He sees nothing wrong with having sex outside of species because there is no moral difference between humans and animals.

76. #415901
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm, SuzEQCitizen said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm, b-cat said:
    Well said, SuzEQ. I mentioned Mengele for precisely the reason you so eloquently noted.

    Thanks b-cat, and thanks for attributing. I couldn’t find the post again to quote! This format makes me a bit crazee!

77. #415911
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm, sonofdy said:

    TheOtherSide: Obama voted literaly to let abortion doctors take breathing babies and leave them to die in a room unattended. This is exactly what he voted to do. What possiable excuse for this outright support for killing a baby which is outside the womb and breathing could obama have? I dare you to try to excuse his vote.

78. #415916
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm, atheling said:

    sonofdy:

    yeah, that link TOS gave is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The journalist made a really lame and lengthy obfuscation of the issue. It’s garbage.

79. #415918
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm, Elwood P. Dowd said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm, TheOtherSide said:
    I encourage those outraged here to read this piece in the Chicago Tribune. I find it to be the most unbiased account.

    The history makes it clear that Obama’s role in delaying “born-alive” legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield.

    What were the “very understandable reservations” of the pro-abortion folks in Springfield?

    Also, I’m not terribly interested in how big a role he played in delaying the legislation, I’m more concerned that he did oppose it and interested to know why.

80. #415919
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm, walterc said:

    To read what Obama thinks about life just disgusts me thoroughly.

    But ask him about the death penalty and he’ll give you a whole different take on the value of life.

    As Dave Letterman once joked about conservatives being in favor of the death penalty and against abortion, “it’s all in the timing.” An unborn child is worhtless, but the life of a murderer is precious. The baby could make a great contribution to society, the murderer none (actually a burden on society). Go figure liberal logic.

81. #415925
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm, Trollman said:

    Whenever I think about abortion, what it really is, it makes me sick to my stomach at the inhumanity of it.

    I am reminded of Habakkuk’s prayer:

    “How long, O LORD, will I call for help,
    And you will not hear?
    I cry out to You, ‘Violence!’
    Yet You do not save.
    Why do You make me see iniquity,
    And cause me to look on wickedness?
    Yes, destruction and violence are before me;
    Strife exists and contention arises.
    Therefore the law is ignored
    And justice is never upheld.
    For the wicked surround the righteous;
    Therefore justice comes out perverted.”

82. #415927
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm, b-cat said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm, walterc said:
    An unborn child is worhtless, but the life of a murderer is precious. The baby could make a great contribution to society, the murderer none (actually a burden on society). Go figure liberal logic.

    Ah, but the murderer has taken at least one life, much like the abortion doctor. Thanks for the admission D. Letterman!

83. #415931
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    #76 & #77 atheling & sonofdy,

    Thanks for commenting without even reading the link.

84. #415933
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm, atheling said:

    I did. It’s garbage.

85. #415934
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    Why is it garbage?

86. #415935
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm, sonofdy said:

    TheOtherSide: I dare you to try to excuse his vote.

87. #415937
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    The fact is TOS, Obama was the lone state senator to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I repeat, the lone state senator.

    “I think he was internally struggling with it,” said O’Malley. “His dilemma was obvious. On one hand he holds himself out to be a constitutional scholar, and, of course, our Constitution makes clear that persons born are entitled to all the rights and privileges of full citizens. He consistently characterized the issue before us as being about abortion, but the legislation had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It focused on persons born alive. It was so easy to be on the right side of the angels here, but he wasn’t.”

    He was on the wrong side of politics, too. By the third time Obama tried to snuff Born Alive, he was running for the U.S. Senate. The federal version had passed the year before unanimously in the Senate and almost unanimously in the House. Even NARAL went neutral. Pro-aborts agreed to let it pass without a fight lest they appear extreme.

    Except Obama. He decided to battle alone further left than any other senator – Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. Risky. Odd.

    More here.

    Say what you want… but if Obama being the lone opposition to bill this isn’t reflective of being an extremist. Well, I guess I don’t know what an extremist is.

88. #415938
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm, atheling said:

    Because it’s smoke and mirrors. He doesn’t explain squat. He merely obfuscates.

89. #415944
    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm, sonofdy said:

    TOS: It is a simple thing, what ever his excuse he voted to allow doctors to let a living breathing child outside the womb DIE. Just let it die. Thats what he voted for. That is the guy you support.

90. #415956
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm, atheling said:
    Because it’s smoke and mirrors. He doesn’t explain squat. He merely obfuscates.

    I’m sorry you found the piece obfuscating. It didn’t think it would be that far over your head. I’ll try to find one with more illustrations next time.

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
    but if Obama being the lone opposition to bill this isn’t

    Lone opposition, read the article. And come on WorldNetDaily and Jill Stanek…plesase try to find a source without an agenda.

91. #415958
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm, sonofdy said:

    TOS: I dare you to explain why obama voted to let kids die.

92. #415960
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm, atheling said:

    TOS, your link, like many of the others you dump here, is a POS.

    I know BS when I see it. Just because it’s long winded and pointless doesn’t give it veracity.

    I notice that the commenters also saw through the BS.

    Face it. Your guy is a cold blooded baby killer. The fact that you go to bat for him on this issue says the same about you, you creep.

93. #415962
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm, LibTired said:

    He’s got a funny middle name. And oh by the way did I mention he’s for letting botched abortions die in closets.

94. #415963
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    TOS,
    An agenda… doesn’t everybody have one? What exactly is yours? Obama spoke against a bill that would have given life-saving treatment to babies born alive after a botched abortion… what more do we need to know?

95. #415964
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    On August 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm, sonofdy said:
    TOS: It is a simple thing, what ever his excuse he voted to allow doctors to let a living breathing child outside the womb DIE. Just let it die. Thats what he voted for.

    Question sonofdy, is ignorance bliss? Please do your research before making accusations such as these. I’d post links put I know you want even read them, you just love to stay in your little cone of ignorance.

96. #415968
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pm, sonofdy said:

    TOS: It is a simple thing, what ever his excuse he voted to allow doctors to let a living breathing child outside the womb DIE. Just let it die. Thats what he voted for. Try answering me instead of avoiding the issue. I Heard it in obamas own voice. So now what is your excuse.

97. #415973
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm, guitarplayer said:

    Whether or not he was alone in voting for it is irrelvant. Obama is the one now running for president and the fact is that he did fight against the bill and voted against it. No amount of twisting the facts or word-play is going to change that.

98. #415974
    On August 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm, TheOtherSide said:

    How did he vote to let kids die when this was already State law (Illinois Abortion Law of 1975):

    (2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.