Barack Obama: Supporter of Infanticide

20 10 2008

Consider this post a fairly comprehensive tally of Barack Obama’s pro-murder record.

1.) In last Wednesday’s final debate with John McCain, Barack Obama answered a question regarding his opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. His ace is that Illinois law already protected babies born alive during abortions. This is simply not true. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explains:

“He ignores a letter dated July 17, 2000 in which Illinois Attorney General Ryan reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health found there was ‘no basis for legal action’ to protect babies that survive abortion.

“On March 30, 2001, Obama spoke from the floor of the Illinois legislature, saying that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act placed an undue burden on doctors to keep a child alive. The fact remains that those who opposed the bill were unwilling to prevent infanticide.

“Senator Obama took the opportunity last night to continue to blur his radical abortion views. He has a long record of opposing any legislation that protects innocent life – opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The senator, in 2003, even voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality.

“Additionally, in a speech last year to Planned Parenthood, he promised to sign as his ‘first act’ as President a law that would overturn nationwide bans on partial-birth abortion as well as require the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The speech is much more revealing about how far he will go to push his extreme views.”

2.) This video, with Jill Stanek, describes the horrific act of infanticide, known as induced labor abortions and is supported by Barack Obama. If you aren’t moved at the end, there is something wrong with you. Hint: There IS something wrong with Barack Obama.

3.) Jill Stanek’s website is loaded with all kinds of documentation and information proving Obama not only supports abortion and infanticide, but lied about it in this election’s debates. Here is a sampling:

Article by Jill Stanek: Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”

OK, Sen. Obama, let’s reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones.”

Links to Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors

Video of Obama promising FOCA to Planned Parenthood

I doubt Christian supporters of Obama will actually take the time the investigate his actual record on abortion as if holding their hands over their ears and claiming ignorance will count when God holds them accountable one day. There are two primary lies being promoted by liberals to justify a vote for Barack Obama.

  1. “No results.” As the argument goes, no Republican president has succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and I refuse to be a one-issue voter. So, since I agree with Obama the other 99% of the time, I can vote for Obama.
  2. “Decrease abortions.” Obama has more plans to decrease abortions.

The first is a peculiar argument to be making for voting FOR a pro-murder candidate. As if two wrongs make a right. Biblical fallacy? Absolutely. This is deceiving because it takes cooperation from the courts, namely SCOTUS, to overturn an unconstitutional ruling like Roe, not simply a pro-life president. Several Christians I know admit that, despite the life issue, being a big one, they can justify it because of agreement on other issues. That still doesn’t explain this issue and why they think it’s ok to vote for someone with a record and promises like Obama. If Obama himself, refuses to take God’s view of life stating it’s “above his pay grade,” then Christians who vote for Obama are endorsing this view. And every Christian knows when life begins. Support for Obama is thus either hypercritical or ignorance. Either way, it’s wrong. And Obama’s lack of ability to judge on this issue should reveal more about his character to his Christian supporters so that they’re not merely “single-issue” voters, but “values voters.”

The second is equally puzzling because it throws reason to the wind and embraces a liberal spin that is so easy to detect, it makes Lucifer in the Garden of Eden look like Bozo the Clown. Here is the basis from which this reason comes:

  • Protecting a Women’s Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
  • Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.
All women should have a right to choose; They can choose to have sex or not. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it’s no longer just her. She has a living person growing in her womb. Now, in cases of rape or incest, obviously there are few situations where this argument applies so, initially, I would trade abortion in these cases for abortion-on-demand. But the fact that there no pro-choice candidates who support this view, means liberals care more about killing unwanted babies than actually preventing abortions.
Obama’s support for comprehensive sex education ignores the most effective method of preventing pregnancies and thus abortions: abstinence. Instead, he takes the party’s position. I can’t help but wonder if he thinks encouraging abstinence is above his pay grade too.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

27 responses

20 10 2008
Barack Obama: Supporter of Infanticide : Stop The ACLU

[…] Posted on October 20, 2008 Crossposted at Truth and Reason […]

21 10 2008
Barack Obama: Great at Selling Lies « Truth and Reason

[…] The only thing he forgot was Obama’s lies about abortion, which I covered yesterday. […]

27 10 2008
Vaughn

Okay people he voted No because there was no provision in the bill to save the Mother’s life in the event the pregnancy was going to kill her. The LDS church endorses not only saving the life of the Mother, but in the cases of incest and rape. Don’t trust me go to http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=29a518e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 and read it for yourself. Below is a Catholic Archbishop and his pro Obama views. People you have a little more at risk here than the right wing trying to paint Obama as anything more than a man and a Politician. For goodness sake people start thinking about things for a change. Obama is the Devil quite possible the most ignorant rumor currently on the internet.

( http://ncrcafe.org/node/2180 )
From the Interview with Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria
October 11, 2008
Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, is a past president of the African bishops’ conference and is widely considered a leading spokesperson for Catholicism in Africa. During the current Synod of Bishops on the Bible, Onaiyekan was tapped to deliver the continental report on behalf of the African bishops.
“Q. If you had a vote, would you vote for Obama?
Archbishop:Obviously, if I had a vote.
Q. Even though he’s pro-choice?
Archbishop: Let me put it this way: The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life. You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions, through war, through poverty, and so on. That’s my own way of looking at it. Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life. I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent. If my choice is between the person who makes room for abortion but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death.
The choice is not just between a pro-abortion and an anti-abortion person. It’s bigger than that. It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything. You always have to pick and choose. As they say in Rome, if you don’t take the pasta because of the sauce, then you take the sauce because of the pasta!”

Can you please stop lying to people, you are what is wrong with this Election and our Country. LIE LIE LIE LIE!

27 10 2008
Truth and Reason

Vaughn, that argument might fly except that we’re talking about babies who were already born and the mother lived too. These babies are issued birth and death certificates. No one’s lying except Obama who knows very well the facts here and still chooses to make murder legal. If facts don’t make a difference, all you’re believing is the emotional platform Obama purports as truth.

27 10 2008
Vaughn

You do know that Partial Birth Abortion is not even a medical term? It is something that Rove or someone like him made up.

What you are stating is something that is an interpretation of what you believe Barack Obama’s opinion is.

I will take him for what was written in the bill he signed, and his words that if the Mothers life is in danger, then the Mother should live. I agree with that.

In my family it would be far more devastating for my two children to lose their Mother and me my wife, over a baby that I have bonded with in the womb.

Personally I am Pro-life, but I am male and therefore I do not believe that I should even have a voice in what a woman chooses to do with her body. If men could get pregnant we may be having a different conversation.

31 10 2008
Mr. Incredible

== Partial Birth Abortion is not even a medical term…==

Irrelevant.

The term accurately describes a medical procedure. It refers to the medical procedure, whatever the medical name is.

==It is something that Rove or someone like him made up.==

Again, irrelevant.

“A rose by any other name… ”

==What you are stating is something that is an interpretation of what you believe Barack Obama’s opinion is. ==

Obamarama’s position can be triangulated by the way he dances around the issue.

==I will take him for what was written in the bill he signed, and his words that if the Mothers life is in danger, then the Mother should live. I agree with that. ==

Do you mean “physical life,” or “mental life,” or “social life”?

==Personally I am Pro-life, but I am male and therefore I do not believe that I should even have a voice in what a woman chooses to do with her body.==

What about her choice over the baby’s body?

What happens if we decide that the unborn child is a person? Cuz, after all, the Constitution protects ALL persons.

Half the stuff that goes into making the baby is the man’s. That makes it a bailment, and, if the woman destroys the property, it’s conversion.

== If men could get pregnant we may be having a different conversation.==

Irrelevant. All of society has an interest in life, per the Constitution.

31 10 2008
Mr. Incredible

I find it funny that evolutionists/humanists insist that life began with one cell but deny that life also begins with one cell in the womb.

31 10 2008
Vaughn

So explain to me then, please I’ve wanted an answer to this for years. Why is the party that is so pro-life in the womb, is the same party that once the child is born wants nothing to do with it. Force the unwed, mother to have to baby with no insurance to provide for the delivery; and if complications or sickness arise after birth, well that’s on Mom.

Please explain to me the thought process behind this.

1 11 2008
Vaughn

Nothing huh? Yeah that’s kind of what I figured. Long live Christian values.

1 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==explain to me then, please I’ve wanted an answer to this for years.==

You people have precluded yourselves from the answer.

== Why is the party that is so pro-life in the womb, is the same party that once the child is born wants nothing to do with it.==

The “party” wants nothing to do with it??? What “party”?

== Force the unwed, mother to have to baby with no insurance to provide for the delivery; and if complications or sickness arise after birth, well that’s on Mom. ==

Yes, she oughta take responsibility for her own irresponsibility.

Y’see, people like me no better than to get ourselves in such a jam. So, we shouldn’t be saddled with her irresponsibility.

However, according to the Constitution — and that’s not all — this country protects life. The unborn child qualifies.

1 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

By the way, when does a woman become pregnant? Conception? When she think so? When the doctor says so? And, with WHAT is she pregnant?

1 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

When she think so?>>>> When she thinks so?

1 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

people like me no better >>>> people like me know better

1 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

“Nothing huh? Yeah that’s kind of what I figured.”

1 11 2008
Vaughn

You said nothing, like a true Republican talking in circles and giving no answer. That doesn’t wash with me, answer the question or go away.

1 11 2008
Truth and Reason

Vaughn, first, I was referring to infanticide – botched abortions. Big difference. Obama supports killing babies in any case, regardless of the state of the life of the mother. By the way, do you know what percentage of abortions actually endanger the life of the mother? Less than 2%. Why won’t your beloved Obama give up abortion-on-demand to keep reduce abortion by 98%? Because he doesn’t truly care about reducing the number of abortions. He wants to make sure any pregnant woman anywhere, anytime, can kill her baby.

Secondly, do you have any proof that the Republican party does nothing to support poor mothers? Of course not. Who says government support is even the best answer for supporting poor mothers? Liberals do. And why is that? So they can enslave them in the poverty. Gov’t will keep providing the free handouts if you keep voting for us. The church is supposed to be the entity to help poor mothers and orphans. And there are countless organizations around the country that do just that. There is a lot of ground to cover, thanks to these failing gov’t programs, but progress is being made every day.

The next time you decide to make a baseless accusation, make sure you understand the facts, not just the emotional boo-hooing that liberals promote.

5 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==You said nothing…==

Of course you think I didn’t say anything. You’ve precluded yourself from accepting anything with which you’ve set yourself up to disagree. We understand that.

==…like a true Republican talking in circles and giving no answer.==

To YOU, it looks like circles, and that’s cuz what’s going on in your head is going in circles; and, so, to YOU, my answers appear to be no answers. No surprise there, either.

== That doesn’t wash with me…==

Translation: “If you knew what you’re talking about, you’d agree with me.”

==… answer the question…==

I did. You don’t like the answer. I can’t help that.

==… or go away.==

No.

Now what?

5 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

Answer this:

When does a woman become pregnant? Conception? When she think so? When the doctor says so? And, with WHAT is she pregnant?

5 11 2008
Vaughn

The subject is irrelevant, it is going to be a talking point for the rest of our lives and that is really all that there is to it. To suggest that Barack Obama supports Infanticide is to admit your own ignorance.

As far as the Republican newly named GOP Party does not support poor mothers can be supported by their entire platform belief that Government should be involved in nothing, “Small enough to drown in a bathtub” i believe is the quote. They do not support welfare programs, health care programs or any other humanitarian program for that matter.

Well guess what, the now GOP can get in line and start performing their duties as outlined in yesterdays election; or in 2 years they will be again changing their call letters from the GOP to the RIP. One by one the Republican leadership (or lack there of), was tossed out with the bath water that America is slowly but surely drowning them in.

6 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==The subject is irrelevant…==

Especially to those who can’t and won’t answer the questions. Like YOU.

== To suggest that Barack Obama supports Infanticide is to admit your own ignorance.==

The effect of what he thinks and says is infanticide. It’s THAT simple.

I can’t understand the rest of your babblings and blubberings.

6 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

Anyway…

Please tell us: When does a woman become pregnant? Conception? When she think so? When the doctor says so? And, with WHAT is she pregnant?

6 11 2008
Vaughn

You want me to tell you when life begins? I do not know, the answer to that, and neither does anyone else. No one can specifically say that life begins at this point. They can have opinions, but again there will always be debate.

A better question would be, who put you in charge of other people’s bodies?

And why do you think you have the right to condemn, or bless what someone chooses to do with it?

8 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==You want me to tell you when life begins? ==

If you can read, and you read my post, you would know that that isn’t what I asked.

I asked: When does a woman become pregnant? Conception? When she think so? When the doctor says so? And, with WHAT is she pregnant?

==No one can specifically say that life begins at this point.==

Your point being to eliminate any concern about life at all cuz you think that, if you are ignorant of it, you can’t be held accountable. Of course, that’s not the way it works.

==who put you in charge of other people’s bodies?==

Which body? The unborn child’s?

==And why do you think you have the right to condemn, or bless what someone chooses to do with it?==

First Amendment, first of all.

Second of all, God tells me to speak up with His Word. That sticks in your craw, doesn’t it.

8 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

==You want me to tell you when life begins? ==

Jefferson had no problem telling us that creation is the beginning of the Right to life. So, you disagree. We get it.

So, if all life on Earth began with one cell — if we are to believe the evolutionists who weren’t there — how is it that you can’t say that life begins with one cell in the womb?

8 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

So, if jefferson said that the Right to life begins at creation, does it not behoove us to know when that is so that we can apply it to those who should get the benefits of the Right to life?

We understand that agenda is more important to Libs, that these kinds of questions must really choke you people up; but don’t you people want others to have the Right to life and the benefits of it?

10 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

Jefferson said that the Right to life begins when we are “created.” To those of the time, “created” means “when the woman is pregnant.”

So that everybody gets what Rights is coming to them, when is that?

Since that question backs Libs into a corner, we can expect anything but THE answer. They know the impact of THE answer, and they wanna avoid it at all cost, even credibility.

11 11 2008
Mr. Incredible

You’ll notice that Libs want us to answer their questions, but they conveniently ignore our questions. Plus, they expect people like me not to call attention to it.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: