Obama Clinches "Pro-Infanticide" Demographic

[roo_ster]

Yet another example of "You can't make this sh!t up."

I mean, if some pro-life fanatic were to write a caricature of a pro-choice fanatic, BHO's position would be thought too outlandish & over the top.


Fathering More Lies
Obamas latest spin on Born-Alive.

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Bereft of an argument, the Obama campaign is pounding the table.

    The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama  the proud father of two little girls  and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.

Note, first, that Obamas comment about lies over the weekend referred to the National Right to Life Committee. Yet the campaign has not made a single specific allegation that any of the NRLCs statements are inaccurate, let alone dishonest. The campaign claims only that the NRLC has left out some context that exonerates Obama.

The main supposed omission: What Senator Obamas attackers dont tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. The reason the NRLC didnt include that information is that it is incorrect. Illinois law has rules  loophole-ridden rules, but rules  requiring treatment of babies who have sustainable survivability. If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital abortions were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. Thats why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

Obama did not want the gap filled. He did not want pre-viable fetuses/infants to have any legal protection. In the Illinois legislature, he argued that providing them with legal protection would both be unconstitutional in itself  a violation of the Supreme Courts abortion jurisprudence  and undermine the right to abortion.

Obama was wrong about these points. The Supreme Courts abortion jurisprudence treats the location of the young human organism, not its stage of development, as the key factor in whether it can be legally protected. But thats the ground on which he stood, at the time. In recent years, however, he has had very little to say about the importance of denying legal protection to this class of human beings. He knows thats a losing argument politically. So he has instead been emitting a thick cloud of smoke.

Only yesterday has the Obama campaign finally, in desperation, gotten close to telling the truth about Obamas position. In its latest apologia, the campaign isolates the language it found so objectionable in the Illinois bill. A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. The campaign calls this Language Clearly Threatening Roe.

So far, only the conservative blogosphere has been calling Obama on his misrepresentations of his record on the Born-Alive Bill, and on his reckless accusations against his critics. Reporters should stop carrying his water. As for his defenders in the liberal blogosphere, if they want to take up for him again I would advise them to wait a while. The campaign doesnt yet have its story straight, and it has no room for the truth.

*Incidentally, as a logical matter it makes no sense to say that because Obama is a proud father of former infants he therefore could not have supported a legal right to commit infanticide. Those daughters are also, after all, former fetuses.


The following has a cheesy soundtrack, unfortunately, but cuts to the meat of the issue in the text:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc


For those in the dark, the topic is the Born Alive Infants Act, which was passed by the US Congress (with support from NARAL and such pro-choice types as Fienstien & Boxer) to ensure that all infants born alive were not to be allowed to die without assistance.  BHO voted against legislation that was nearly word-for-word identical when he was in the IL state senate.

In a similar fashion to the way that John Edwards channels fetuses, BHO is channeling Peter Singer and taking Singer as his moral exemplar.

[MicroBalrog]

Wait. Someone actually voted for killing babies?

[Perd Hapley]

Shocking, isn't it?  Oh, wait...

[longeyes]

Obama's a woman-pleaser.  What they want they get.

[yesitsloaded]

That was only a little sexist

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wait. Someone actually voted for killing babies?

Apparently.  Pretty dumb, innit?  Not to mention reprehensible.  But I guess that's what you can expect from a rookie Democrat - no experience AND no morals, all wrapped up in none convenient little package.

[longeyes]

That was only a little sexist

Michelle and Grandma are #1 and #2 for counsel.  His words, not mine.   

[Perd Hapley]

I guess that's what you can expect from a rookie Democrat - no experience AND no morals, all rapped up in none convenient little package.

Well, that was only a little racist.   

[roo_ster]

Wait. Someone actually voted for killing babies?

Pretty much.  Not fetuses, inside their mother, but born-alive, separate from their mother human critters, commonly known as "babies."

The bill was the means to protect fetuses that were slated for abortion but managed to get born alive, nonetheless.

It was also aimed at the abortion practice of inducing birth in the mother (who delivers the baby alive) and then neglecting the baby until it dies. 

Think something like the Spartan practice of leaving unwanted babies to die of exposure outside, but occurring inside a clinic laundry room or broom closet.

[41magsnub]

No matter where somebody stands on abortion, this is reprehensible.  The baby was born, it is no longer an abortion, it's murder.

[MrRezister]

Wether or not a born-alive baby is entitled to human rights is above the President's paygrade, so apparently it's safe to let it die.  Just ask your President-to-be.

[longeyes]

When Citizens become Consumers, you can expect Convenience to rule.  Abortion is just annoyance-removal.

[Firethorn]

No matter where somebody stands on abortion, this is reprehensible.  The baby was born, it is no longer an abortion, it's murder.

Note:  I'm pro-choice, born of a pro-choice mother.  I laugh a bit whenever I see the 'Choose life, your mother did!' bumper sticker, and say 'Yes, my mother CHOOSE to have me'.

I'm also of the opinion that abortions should be performed as rarely as possible; specially for 'convenience' reasons such as sex selection, or being too dumb to use birth control and still sleep around.  Still, that's precisely the sort of woman I don't want to be a mother.  If one is to be performed, it should be performed as early as possible.

In the case of later term abortions, generally the only reason I'd 'approve' or 'understand' the difficult choice they make is if the fetus/baby isn't going to survive anyways - such as certain disorders that will result in the baby dying hours/days/weeks after being born DESPITE extensive life support, or disorders such as massive retardation is almost certain(not all families can handle this, in some cases it's better just to abort and try again).  Yes, it's a bit of eugenics.  I can also see people with genetic disorders which still want to have children deliberately testing fetuses to ensure that they don't get the disorder.  Though perhaps artificial insemination and testing while they're still blastocyst.  I'm thinking of serious disorders here - type 1 diabetes being about the bottom of the ladder.  Blindness, deafness, down's syndrome(not all are high functioning).

Basically, a woman go gets an abortion because she forgot to make the guys she slept with wear condoms, or to take her birth control, I think that they should tie her tubes while they're doing it.  For the family who chooses to abort when it's discovered that their baby to be has Down's, I sympathize.

You pro-life types, I suggest adopting, and supporting organizations to adopt such babies.  Yes, I know the system is frequently screwed up.  Work to fix it.

Anyways, after getting that out of the way I want to make a point:

The 'morning after' emergency birth control method may result in a live embryo being flushed through the system, 'born' long before viability or even visibility.  As for viability - if the fetus hasn't reached viability yet, then it's not going to survive no matter WHAT medical care is provided, us not having developed uturine replicators yet.

Given that it's an abortion, the fetus isn't going to survive anyways, so what were we going to fix with the legislation?  I probably would have opposed the legislation because of that. 

[Perd Hapley]

You pro-life types, I suggest adopting, and supporting organizations to adopt such babies.  Yes, I know the system is frequently screwed up.  Work to fix it.

Well, that took a lot of nerve.  You who would allow the murder of innocent humans, I suggest you stop it.  That's another "system" we're working to fix. 

You can tell me to adopt, when you start taking in abused women and children, and start prowling the streets to stop crime, like Batman.  And then you can just go ahead and take it on yourself to prevent all sorts of other crimes.  Let me know if you need a hand.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I guess that's what you can expect from a rookie Democrat - no experience AND no morals, all rapped up in none convenient little package.

Well, that was only a little racist.   

Spell-check failed me that time.  Sorry.

 

[K Frame]

I think I'll do a pre-emptive on this, before it gets out of hand.