Obama on Abortion: the Next Great American Liar- At least he’s Eloquent!
|October 16, 2008||Posted by Anthony under abortion, Blog, General|
Because I believe that the unborn are really persons abortion is a huge issue for me. I am generally sympathetic to some pro-choicers… some of them lack the imagination required to treat as a human person something that doesn’t quite look like a human. I still vehemently reject the position but I’m sympathetic. But what Obama is advocating removes any hope for sympathy. Obama is in support of partial birth abortion and voted against legislation that would have required giving medical treatment to a child that survives the abortion.
If you’d like to see what happens in partial birth abortion click here. Jill Stanek was a key person in bringing to light the fact that in Illinois, children that survive the abortion are put into a ‘utility’ room until finally they die. Now she has documented Obama’s resistance to the ‘born alive’ while he was involved in Illinois politics, here. Though Obama decried this all as a ‘lie’ he has offered shifting reasons for why he did what he did (so I guess it wasn’t a lie, after all!) and Stanek documents those, here.
In last night’s debate, Obama said:
Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.
With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.
It is true. Obama expects that no one will notice the sleight of hand here. It is true, he did vote against that legislation, but today the reason is because the legislation was redundant. It is true. I guess it all depends on what the definition of is, is. Only Obama makes it sound better.
Barack, if you think you’ve got good reasons for what you did then be man enough to admit you did them when you turn around and give the reasons for why you did them.
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a woman’s life is in such jeapordy where it is safer to deliver the child all the way up to the head where you jam a knife into the skull and suck out the brains then to deliver the child altogether, at the very least by c-section.
And naturally, if the child is already out of the womb then the ‘life of the mother’ is no longer in danger, right? Therefore the question of the health of the mother ought to be moot. According to some versions of Obama’s opposition to the ‘born alive’ legislation (see link to list above), Obama didn’t want to ascribe personhood status to these children because it could jeapordize Roe vs. Wade.
I’m sorry, but I don’t want a man for president who is willing to write off for dead people who are clearly people- clearly to everyone- in furtherance of an agenda, and then lies about it. I can’t imagine how such a person sleeps at night. I definitely don’t want him sleeping in the White House.
PS, it is entirely debateable that Obama really would support bans of any kind. He seems to prefer removing them altogether for any reason whatsoever. This article outlines Obama’s views, including some statements to Planned Parenthood, which you just know are going to be rich.