Obama and partial birth abortion, new oil drilling, and McCain.

What I've got to say about Barack Hussein Obama is that he is a, insincere, selfish hypocrite.

When he was cadging votes during the Maryland and Virgina primaries, he said that "we've got to be our brother's keeper" and "hope focuses on the future"..

First, by his vote against the bill, Obama refuses to recognize the little baby who survives an abortion IS  his little brother (or sister).

Second, when Obama says, we've got to be our brother's keeper, he doesn't mean it to include the little baby who survives an abortion .

He selfishly allowed his own little girls to come to term and be born, yet by his 100% pro abortion voting record denies other babies to be born. What about their hope? What about their future?

Obama has promised the pro-abortion crowd that he'll work diligently to deny unborn babies their freedom to be born to enjoy all lifes choices. By his votes, Obama denies unborn babies their unalienable First Amendment right to life.

He claims he's a Christian, yet doesn't obey Almighty God's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".  You can't vote for abortion and be Christian at the same time.

Obama uses people, even his own daughters. At a townhall meeting in Pennsylvania, he said something like this:

 when it comes to HIV/AIDS, education is most important, teaching children about contraception, becasue I've got 2 daughters 9 and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them about faith and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.  

His solution is to KILL THE MISTAKE. His solution is to KILL HIS GRANDCHILD.

We've got to get the truth out....as far as the Democrat's presidential candidate, Obama is concerned.  He sees some unborn babies as punishment, not gifts from Almighty God.

His message is----if elected, I will continue the killing our progeny in the womb by keeping abortion on demand.  Some unborn babies arent' hope for the future...and they certainly aren't our little brothers and sisters.

 

   

 

 

 

Eh abortions are fine and I usually find ignorance to blame for a large portion of people in the U.S. still being pro-life... but still I must agree abortions should be kept before the third trimester, it is basically murder after that point.

What's your reasoning here? The baby in the womb isn't "alive" before the third trimester and so it isn't murder then?

Alive is a relative term wouldn't you say? I don't consider minor brainstem activity as "alive" personally in the first and and second trimesters, but by the time the baby has significant sensory input (third trimester) I do feel it is developed enough to be considered a human being.

I think the issue is best discussed from a practical standpoint rather than one of mixed sciences or clashing ideologies. The ideal (for both sides) would be to never have an abortion performed in this country ever wouldn't you say? No one wants to destroy human potential.* The reality however is that women will always be seeking abortions for an array of reasons, so rather than expose a large segment of the population to dangerous back-alley abortion conditions, why not provide a healthy and safe means for the mother to realize a decision she has long made about her own body.

It is a last resort after all; as this country pushes more toward distributing birth control means and educating young people about sexual activity (rather than hysterically demanding abstinence) we will inevitably see a decline in abortions. In the mean time, abortion is not murder - forcing a woman to bear a child she is not fit to raise is much more sinister in my opinion.

Check with any medical doctor and you'll find that they've determined that life begins at fertilization. Yup, at fertilization a unique human life begins.

I guess you haven't seen any ultrasound photos of how wonderfully formed little babies are even at 6 weeks brainwaves are detected. By 8 weeks, the baby is kicking and fingerprints form. A week later, the baby can hear, turn his head, frown, hiccup, and react to loud noises. By 11 weeks, all bodily functions are functioning, and the baby can grasp, yawn, suck and swallow. At 12 weeks, bodily parts that enable pain sensation are in place. At 13-15 weeks, a baby's taste buds resemble a mature adults and the baby is able to taste the flavor of his mother's meals through the amniotic fluid.

So, no "alive" isn't a relative term at all, at least when it comes to unborn life in the mother's womb.

Something tells me its not any medical doctor that would tell me as much as any pro-life medical doctor haha. But like I said before (which you so kindly chose to disregard :P) we can dissect the science as well as the abstract/morality of it all day, but when it comes down to it women will seek abortions and we as a society have the obligation to provide them a healthy and safe means of obtaining them.

Once again to quote myself:

Yes, we sure can...however, I gave my reply based upon your fully loaded questions.







Please humor me while I make one more point on when life begins in the womb becasue that happens to be one of the most fundamental issues for both the pro-life and pro-abortion camps.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former champion of abortion, admitted he performed some 10,000 abortions ought to know. He's now converted and tells how he and the pro-abortion camp worked hard to confuse us on the status of the preborn baby.

Truth is the science of embryology has long known that a person starts life as an embryo within the body of a female and that embryo is formed from the fusion of 2 single cells. the ovum and the sperm. It's really quite simple: life begins at fertilization.



Do we say the same of women addicted to smoking?

This is the rationalization of the culture of death that says if your gonna kill an innocent in the womb, you better convince yourself and others that it's right....that you do it out of compassion, blah, blah. After this, the rationalization requires that society affirms the spread of death from the unborn to the nearly born (partial birth abortion), and then to the infirm, disabled, chronically ill, or otherwise burdensome individuals.

This is the abortion movements claim but it's absolutely not true, right or correct. Just because some women seek abortions as a solution to their "problem", doesn't mean society has an obligation to provide them. No sir, not at all. That would be societal affirmation that abortion is a positive good, when it's not. It's just the opposite. Abortion is taking an innocent human's life and that can never, ever be morally justified.

Sure, people will inevitably try to advance their own moral disorders. However, once a society adopts those justifications for those moral disorders as its own (public policy), it's headed for the ash heap of history.

The "back alley abortion conditions" is yet another utilitarian argument for the need of legalized abortion. This was thoroughy discussed on another blog. It would be well worth it for you to read Locamama's "The anti-choicers do it again."

Before Roe v. Wade (1973), there were far fewer abortions and most were performed by medical personnel in proper conditions. Bottom line: "Legalization" produces increased, now some 1.3 million per year in the USA, numbers of abortion, but not necessarily safer ones.

Actually, permissive contraceptive classroom sex instruction has more school kids fornicating, thus the rates of STDs, STIs, and of abortion of young girls, ages 13-19 is higher.



I've already said:



No sale with me.

Every time Obama votes for abortion and its related issues, he's furthering the culture of death and cooperating in evil and I'll have no part of it.

Let me guess, you're against stem cell research as well? I liked Horton Hears a Who as much as the next guy, but telling me a ball of cells = "a person is a person no matter how small" is scientifically inaccurate, any grad student with a microscope will tell you that.

Life begins at fertilization eh? Well I hope you and your blastula live happily ever after. Any freshman biology book will tell you that (mind you I'm a history major) the developments in the first trimester comprise of no significant brain activity, nor does the fetus have any sensory ability. Any argument that contradicts that is pro-life nonsense (not to say their isn't nonsense on the other side of the issue either.)

Furthering the culture of death and cooperating in evil... Your rationale seems to have slipped a tad wouldn't you say? I'd save the melodrama for the confession box, no one is out to do anything inherently evil; it is a conflict of morals I agree, but you have no right to declare that Obama furthers "the culture of death."

Actually, I'm all for stem cell research...

but not embryonic stem cells...they are little people in their first stages of life, much the same as you and I were at one time.




No, I believe in absolutes...and also that you gotta draw the line somewhere or there won't be a line drawn at all.

With most things, I question not so much the legalities (mainly because in reality I can't do too much if anything about that angle), but the moral implications of the issue. The slaughter of the innocents by Herod was legal.



Ya, right...and are you in the market for some dry swampland?

Yet, sadly true, in a way...for we've become insensitive to our own ills and turn away from the problems that are not our own. That attribute has been lost through erosion of common sense..on a higher level...conscience.




We've all got the ability to recognize right from wrong (evil); good from bad.



This, I'm most curious to learn why you think that "I have no right" .....

but still I must agree abortions should be kept before the third trimester, it is basically murder after that point.

Titan if you believe the above statement then surely you would agree that obama furthers a culture of death since Mr. "Obama voted against a bill that would protect a baby's life if that child is born during a "late term partial birth abortion" procedure."

Your own statements are contradictory... Which is it.

Contradicting? No, I agree that abortions should be kept before the third trimester (the vast majority of which are anyway), that however does not justify slandering Obama as a death lord because his opinion differs from mine. His reasoning differs on the matter I'm sure (I can't justify aborting a baby with developed sensory skills) but that certainly does not make him the next Hitler sending babies to the slaughterhouse... there is nothing culturally relevant to his support of the issue. I'd be much more worried about the death penalty "furthering a culture of death" than abortions.

Probably not the best wording with "you have no right" @ lula but I dont see how hysterically slandering someone is ever proper methodology in expressing one's point of view.

I disagree on your black and white interpretation of morality, there is hardly ever a clear "good and evil" in the real world unless you're a puritan nutcase.

Good luck Polijunkie. On this one, TitansFan690 either wittingly or unwittingly doesn't see the forest for the trees.

It boils down to turning a blind eye to the evil of abortion and being unwilling to judge the actions of those politicians who further its practice by voting to keep it "legal".



Well, isn't Obama playing God with innocent lives just as the majority of US Supreme Court Justices did 35 years ago when they invented laws that condemned innocent unborn babies to painful death for the crime of being "inconvenient" or as Obama has stated, "a mistake"?



Interesting choice of words, "Hitler" and "slaughterhouse".

All the US judges and all the politicians, Obama included, are responsible for the abortion holocaust which elipses Hitler's--somewhere around 45 million victims of abortuaries and counting...to the tune of 4,000 daily in the US alone.



Every time an abortion is performed, an innocent baby is murdered. Those who see abortion as grey are the real holocasut deniers. Nine times out of ten, they are the ones who are largely driven by the need "to feel good about themselves".

Obama's 100% pro-abortion voting record proves he's a coward, besides being an insincere, selfish hypocrite.

what i've got to say about joseph a. ratzinger is neither he nor obama selected his own middle name altho i guess it'd be equally fair to imply ratzinger's middle initial might as well stand for 'adolph' seeing as how he--and not barak--was a member of the hitler youth organization.

attempting to deliberately mislead others is exactly what's proscribed by that commandment not to bear false witness is it not?

This issue is inflammatory; more importantly though it is resolved by law and the majority of Americans' support on the issue. The main argument against ALL abortions seems to be one merely of disputes of morality rather of science or reason. There are always exceptions to the rule (eg. would you consider a woman bearing a child with tay sachs or down syndrome 'evil' if they sought an abortion?)

The issue of morality is in itself flawed, especially if there are still puritanical individuals unwilling to compromise their bibles with their textbooks.

I suggest the reading of Albert Camus for some perspective on the subject matter; "The Stranger" dips very vividly into the greyness of life's choices.

As for abortions (without furthering the currently unresolvable debate) I personally hope there shall never be a day when women are held in the tyrannical clutches of pregnancy against their will and are forced to bear a child they have no care for.

lula posts:

Both Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Barack Hussein Obama were given their names by their respective parents.

What's the sensitivity over Obama's middle name all about? Is Obama ashamed of his Muslim heritage? Obama's parents gave him his name in honor of his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama. Hussein is not an African, but an Arabaic name, as is "Baraka". It comes from the Qur'an meaning "blessed."

And for the record, Joseph Ratzinger at 14 was forced to join Hitler's Youth group and when it was possible for him to escape, he did so. The Jerusalem Post defending him saying, it was rubbish to suggest that he had Nazi sympathies. His brother was a priest and his family was strongly anti Nazi.

Ironically, it was Joseph Ratzinger's fellow Germans like Nietzsche and Heidegger who gave us the diabolical idea that moral absolutes are nonsense.

The day before he was elected the new pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger warned of a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as it's highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." What reigns supreme is the false idea that each individual possesses his or her own morality.

Pope Benedict often speaks and has written much about conscience and truth. He identifies one of the problems today is the idea that one need not feel guilty about sin and doing wrong. "He who no longer notices that killing is a sin has fallen farther than the one who still recognizes the shamefulness of his actions, becasue the former is further removed from the truth and conversion." This is the state of a "truthless world". He pointed out that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailling opinion, at the expense of truth."

For anyone who has ears to hear, he was warning us that a society that refuses to acknowledge that morality is a social attribute is bound to culturally implode.

Yes, I agree abortion certainly is an inflammatory, contentious issue.

I disagree though that a majority support abortion. As far as abortion being resolved by law, let's not forget it was foisted upon us by the US Supreme Court in 1973. There is no Constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion destroys itself. The evil inner workings are being exposed. It's a blood and gore business. If you don't believe me, get some photos of the victims of saline scalding, surgical dismemberment, and vacuum suctioning into a thousands pieces. For these reasons, it will never become acceptable or respectable no matter how hard one argues for it.



What's scientific about killing a baby in the womb?

There is a mountain of medical, psychological and sociological evidence that abortion harms women, men and families. Check out www.AfterAbortion.org .

I normally don't get into these debates-- they're generally worthless as they will not sway anyone on either side of the issue -- but I saw a statistic i couldn't help but wonder about.

Lulapilgrim wrote:

I did some research, and Dr. Nathanson renounced abortion in 1977, after helping to make it legal in New York in 1970.  Soooooo, 10,000 abortions in 7 years?

If he worked every day and never rested, that's still 3.9 abortions per day.  If he worked a normal 5 day workweek, it's 4.5 abortions per day. Also, according to the CDC, approximately 100,000 abortions are performed every year in New York City.  So, if he performed 10,000 of those, that's approximately 7% of all abortions between 1970 and 1977 that he, himself performed in a city of over 10 million people.  Really?

So, that fact is just laughably false.  If you're playing fast and loose with that one, who knows what else is suspect in what you're saying?

That being said, I think abortion is wrong and a terrible, ugly thing.  I'd like to see there be zero abortions every year.  but what are we going to do, make it illegal?  We tried to stop another societal vice, drinking, during prohibtion, and it only increased drinking in the US.  Are we going to send doctors to jail for murder of a fetus?  And the mother?  Conspiracy to commit murder?  Ok, so we prevented you from having an abortion, now you're going to be forced to have the child and then you go to jail and your child is raised by the government in a foster system, right? (because unless the baby is white, s/he has little chance of being adopted)  Should the doctors and mothers get the death penalty?  If a fetus is life, isn't that the only logical thing to do?  If that's the road you want to go down, fine.  But I'd rather prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, something the pro-life crowd has not seemed to embrace very whole-heartedly.