posted August 25, 2008 10:12 AM            

Barack Obama is a radical leftist extremist but within his chosen extremist group, Socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists and other extremist Collectivists, Barack Obama is an extremist's extremist.

August 23, 2008
Obamacide
By J. Matt Barber

How does one properly describe another who would -- for purely selfish political reasons and with deliberation -- intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry child food?

More specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?

A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn't one of them.

Based on National Journal's vote ratings -- an objectively tallied assessment of congressional voting records -- Barack Obama has properly earned the dubious distinction as the single most liberal Senator in Congress during his brief, albeit overstayed, tenure. But a cursory review of his words, deeds and associations reveals that this ivory-towered Harvard boy is no run-of-the-mill lefty. He's an extremist among extremists.

Put aside for a moment some of the highly suspect (even criminal) characters within Obama's circle of friends, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Resko. Forget the many anti-American sentiments to which prospective first lady Michelle Obama has given voice. And ignore, for now, the socialist, peacenik, MoveOn.org positions Obama holds on a host of fiscal, social and national security-related issues. Instead, for the sake of brevity, take a look at Obama's demonstrably radical stance on just one issue: abortion.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming feminists.

Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy, nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its ruling, he whined, "For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors."

So what, exactly, did the ban ban? What "hard-won right" -- as he later called partial-birth abortion -- was Obama so steadfast to preserve?

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully "viable" child - often kicking and thrashing -- feet first from her mother's womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are then sucked out -- collapsing her skull -- and her now limp and lifeless body is tossed aside like so much garbage.

Again, medical science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Obama -- the man who would be President -- doesn't see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban, "a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women."

Although Obama's love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.

BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion - when she is "born alive" - further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.

Makes sense, right?

Not to Barack Obama. While serving in the Illinois state senate, he led the fight against a state version of Born Alive that was substantively identical to the federal BAIPA. In 2002, BAIPA passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support; yet, Obama vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. This places him on the furthest fringe of pro-abortion extremes. The man's devotion to the pro-abortion industry is so fixed that he would rather allow the murder of newborn babies than give an inch to the sanctity of human life.

When called on the carpet in 2004 for his complicity in facilitating infanticide, Obama began an extensive cover-up, accusing those who exposed the scandal of lying. But in recent days, based on documentary evidence unearthed by the National Right to Life Committee, the Obama campaign has been forced to admit that it was Obama, in fact, who had been lying all along. He not only led the charge to allow the continued practice of infanticide in Illinois, he carried the flag.

During his recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights." His answer was shocking: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said Obama.

What?! Above my pay grade? And this man wants to be the leader of the free world? Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it's born, right? But Obama couldn't say that. His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it. And if he had said it, he'd have been called on it.

Well, I'm calling him on it anyway.

So, we now add a new word with a dual definition to our modern political lexicon: Obamacide. It means, 1) Killing the newborn survivor of a botched abortion through a deliberate act of omission; and, 2) That which a nation commits upon itself by electing one who would allow such a thing.

posted August 25, 2008 10:55 AM            

By Andrew C. McCarthy

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?).

What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.

When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

Don’t take my word for it. There’s a transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). I quote it extensively below (italics mine). After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. 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. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.

Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

posted August 25, 2008 11:19 AM            

Good morning, this is John McCain, speaking to you at the end of an eventful week in the presidential campaign....
The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church....

In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent's view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, "above my pay grade."

Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It's above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, "moral and ethical element to this issue." Americans expect more of their leaders....

Often, too, Senator Obama's carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the IL Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting "present" on the Senate floor.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions - living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, "pre-viable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. IL had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.

At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, "lying" about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.

For a man who talks so often about "hope," Senator Obama doesn't offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent's own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.

posted August 25, 2008 05:30 PM              

I'm not in favor of late term elective abortions either, but all this high strung emotional "soiled utility room" business doesn't really help the case. Talking someone through the details of a "barbaric" abortion is unfair. Surgery is barbaric. Have you ever watched a heart bypass procedure? Brain surgery? I watched the video of a circumcision and damn near threw up. Please find me a conservative, right wing nutso willing to admit that circumcision is cruel, barbaric and medically unnecessary.

quote:

---

Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances ...

---

It's been a while since I've closely followed the story, but last I heard the AMA hadn't claimed they were never necessary and didn't even consider "partial birth abortions" a medical term. (the term was coined, if memory serves, by an anti-choice lobbyist and the congressman in his pocket) When did they change their mind? It's nothing but a political term with shamefully obvious pyschological implications.

I notice your article drags that old standby, Jill Stanek, out of the closet. Sadly, I've already used "nutso" once in this post, so I'll try to keep myself in check. Please do a little research into this woman, Jwhop. Maybe a little snooping into the Illinois AG's investigation of Christ Hospital too. I think the answer to this bogus Born Alive Bill can be found there.

posted August 26, 2008 12:48 AM            

Dear TINK, I don't have a fanatical side..cute or otherwise, I'm an ENTJ personality type.

I don't actually have emotional hot buttons. I know what I believe and why I believe what I believe.

We've had at least one version of this same conversation before TINK. I remember telling you then that when they come for you, to terminate your life because you've become inconvenient to your children because of the care necessary to maintain you or to the government because of the costs of maintaining your existence, don't complain, don't whine because you've endorsed the concept of killing the innocent who are merely inconvenient. It seems you didn't heed what I had to say then.

Now, I find that not only are babies aborted by the most gruesome means available but babies born alive are denied medical support and services as though they weren't born alive at all. How uncooperative of them to survive the attempt to kill them. Induced labor to abort a baby at a stage when it's believed the baby isn't viable is a procedure of which I was unaware...thankfully unaware. But now, I am aware and also aware that the attempted abortion fails in about 20% of cases and those babies are born alive and denied the right to life and medical intervention guaranteed by US law.

How could you equate an operation to save a life...open heart surgery or any other and the bloody operating room and attendent visual images of that with the deliberate bloody action to kill an innocent life?

These comments were intended to show the extremism of Barack Hussein O'Bomber and his is an extremism not shared by a single member of the United States Senate who voted unaninously for the bill protecting the right to life of babies born alive.

There is no possibility I would ever give the power of my vote to anyone who holds human life so cheap that even when a baby is born alive they can't bring themselves to provide legal protection for that life.

So TINK, because you question my motives...fanatical..and question the motives of Jill Stanek...a person whom I was totally unaware existed..let me ask you this question.

At what age does an innocent person...any innocent person..acquire the right to life and medical intervention to save that life?

An alternate question might be; at what age and under what circumstances does an innocent person, any innocent person forfeit their right to life and medical intervention to save that life?

Let me be clear TINK. Those who set themselves up as intellectual, moral and/or spiritual arbiters of life for those who don't meet their standards of "quality of life" and would kill those who don't meet their criteria most certainly don't meet my standards. I would happily strap them to the same gurneys they prescribe for others and deny them food, water and medical intevention until they expire....because, they don't meet my standards for "quality of life".

posted August 26, 2008 01:33 AM              

quote:

---

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully "viable" child - often kicking and thrashing -- feet first from her mother's womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are then sucked out -- collapsing her skull -- and her now limp and lifeless body is tossed aside like so much garbage.

---

it makes the fourth month female infanticide abortions we are fighting look like candy.

just pray they dont hear this back here...

quote:

---

I remember telling you then that when they come for you, to terminate your life because you've become inconvenient to your children because of the care necessary to maintain you or to the government because of the costs of maintaining your existence, don't complain, don't whine because you've endorsed the concept of killing the innocent who are merely inconvenient. It seems you didn't heed what I had to say then.

---

posted August 26, 2008 02:08 AM            

The major problems with the anti-abortion, pro-life position is that if you make abortion illegal, it will still happen, and then you're potentially killing both the mother and the child.

I am all for ridding the world of abortion, but I believe it's best done through education, promoting adoption, and generally promoting the idea in a potential-mother's mind that if she has the child, it will be taken care of by somebody even if she doesn't have the means herself.

posted August 26, 2008 03:19 PM              

Everyone has a hot button.

quote:

---

We've had at least one version of this same conversation before TINK. I remember telling you then that when they come for you, to terminate your life because you've become inconvenient to your children because of the care necessary to maintain you or to the government because of the costs of maintaining your existence, don't complain, don't whine because you've endorsed the concept of killing the innocent who are merely inconvenient. It seems you didn't heed what I had to say then.

---

Yes, we've discussed abortion before, and I think I might even recall that particular point. I remember telling you how very difficult it was for me to take someone off life support, very graciously giving you the opportunity to call me a heartless, hard-assed, ungrateful child desperate to be rid of one of my parents. Refresh my memory - did you take me up on the offer?
At any rate, I also seem to remember asking you why, if independent life begins at conception, the astrologers tell me I'm a Scorpio not a Pisces, which very clearly I am not. You're still mulling that one over, yes?

quote:

---

Now, I find that not only are babies aborted by the most gruesome means available but babies born alive are denied medical support and services as though they weren't born alive at all. How uncooperative of them to survive the attempt to kill them. Induced labor to abort a baby at a stage when it's believed the baby isn't viable is a procedure of which I was unaware...thankfully unaware. But now, I am aware and also aware that the attempted abortion fails in about 20% of cases and those babies are born alive and denied the right to life and medical intervention guaranteed by US law.

---

I see you didn't look into Stanek or the Christ Hospital investigations. How about the AMA?

quote:

---

How could you equate an operation to save a life...open heart surgery or any other and the bloody operating room and attendent visual images of that with the deliberate bloody action to kill an innocent life?

---

Intent is my point. Delivering these hyperbolic, emotionally fraught "visual images" of so-called "partial-birth" abortions is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to hit the collective emotional hot button of a generally uninformed, non-thinking populace. It's no different than focusing on the gory details of brain surgery without acknowledging the surgeon's life saving intent. Basically you're arguing against abortion simply because it's grusome. Let's do better than that.

quote:

---

At what age does an innocent person...any innocent person..acquire the right to life and medical intervention to save that life?

---

When they are born. Before my son was born, his life was wholly in my hands. And who gave me that right? God, biology, luck of the draw blah blah whatever term you feel most comfortable with. How do I know this? Because I have a womb and you don't. Nah nah. I'm the guardian at my gate, jwhop. And, yes, with that power comes responsibility. In my humble opinion, a good many woman will find themselves answering to an authority even higher than the all-knowing NRLC. In the meantime, if you usurp my God given authority, I believe you'll be answering to the same.

btw Despite the intense and prolonged protest of 2 pro-lifers I know ("don't worry about it babies don't feel the pain"), I didn't circumsize my son. After all, I'm not a bloodthirsty barbarian.

posted August 26, 2008 04:42 PM              

quote:

---

The major problems with the anti-abortion, pro-life position is that if you make abortion illegal, it will still happen, and then you're potentially killing both the mother and the child.

---

Absolutely. I think this is what gives the majority of Americans pause. The old "back to coat hangers" argument. I've had one pro-lifer tell me that any woman willing to abort their child deserved to die with it. hmmm. I'm not often at a loss for words, but I admit to being stumped by that one. I disagree with it of course, but it is the logical stance from the fanatically anti-choice perspective. For instance, if you broke into my house with the intent to kill me and I shot you, most would say you got what you deserved, right? Maybe most pro-lifers would disagree, but I suspect more than a few would see the poetic justice. They're an increasingly politically savvy bunch though. I don't suspect many would be willing to admit to it.

quote:

---

I am all for ridding the world of abortion, but I believe it's best done through education, promoting adoption, and generally promoting the idea in a potential-mother's mind that if she has the child, it will be taken care of by somebody even if she doesn't have the means herself.

---

posted August 26, 2008 11:09 PM            

While I'm not actually against all abortions, I am against "partial birth" abortions and against killing a baby once it's "born alive". That is, imo, far more barbaric than circumcising a child (also a practice with which I disagree). A ban on these late abortions and against killing born children ... yup, even I'd support that. And I'm no tip-toe through the tulips kind of gal.

I also think that education is most important and fear that if we implemented an immediate ban on all abortions ... the problem would not disappear on its own. The problem is not only that abortion is seen as a "solution". The main problem is people making babies they don't want and can't care for ... and expecting everyone else to do something about it (because otherwise we're the heartless ******** , you know). It's like smokers, today, being shocked about developing lung cancer. It's so unfair! How could you know? And who's going to pay for your medical care? Certainly, you can't be expected to deal with the condition that has befallen you by complete "accident" by yourself.

Give us all a break. Risk factors. You have complete control over certain risk factors in your life. Having sex, sadly for many it seems, puts you at risk to make a baby. Condomns, birth control pills ... even getting your tubes tied or having a bit of the snip snip ... doesn't guarantee 100% that you won't get pregnant. The end. You can't logically argue against the biological functions of your body. You don't have to like it but you do have to deal with it.

So you feel entitled to have sex with your body. Fine with me. But I hope you don't feel entitled to everyone else's money, time, concern and legal protection against a child who is entitled to a better life than you gave a thought to. Imo, as soon as that child is abreathin', any rights against a little body end and rights for that separate person begin.

And let's not get started on how many children are even now in orphanages. Who will never have families. Yes, most mothers (and fathers) may have real tear jerking stories about why they chose adoption. But those stories still won't provide a loving home, medical care, education or anything else for those unfortunate children.

Education (on all fronts), time, patience, and a new respect for the abilities of our bodies is what's needed, imo, to combat the ridiculously vogue notion that sex has no real or important consequences aside from popping a pill now and then. Morality is such an ugly and offensive word nowadays. And I don't care so much as long as people take care of their own damn problems. I'm not asking people to pay for my child's needs. I'm not guilt tripping other people for not providing enough for my family. Oh, right. I must be divinely blessed. It involved no hard work or strategic decisions or sacrifices. Nope. The heavens smiled upon me and decided to drop everything off at my front door in a tidy little package and I certainly don't deserve what I've got. How fortunate I am to have followed all my whims and not once had to deal with "real problems" and their consequences.

posted August 28, 2008 01:59 AM            

Now, to business.

I did not ding you for making a difficult decision. Nor, did I call you any names.

As for the astrological concept you wish to push...your conception would make you a Pisces but you're a Scorpio...let me remind you that before you were born, you were totally within the electromagnetic field of your mother and totally immersed in the tidal flow of whatever sign your mother happened to be, being hooked to your mother and dependent on her for your blood supply, nutrient supply and the tides of hormones flowing within her...not your own.

It was only at the instant you were born that you threw all that off.

I think your don't understand my position. It's not the barbaric manner in which babies are dispatched/killed by abortion..so called doctors. It's the fact that they are killed at all...by any means.

What some seem to not know is that abortion has been considered murder/infanticide going back to at least 4BC. Those ancients divined the true case without the benefit of modern technology.

Today, we have technology which permits us to look at babies in the womb. What we find is that they are waving, kicking their legs, grimacing and smiling...in exactly the same manner as new born babies.

This is from Cardinal Egan. Notice, he quotes no biblical verse but states simply, the truth.

"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb". http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/cardinal_egan_and_the_abortion.html

How is it TINK that I, a self identified barbarian who would kill my enemies..those who threaten me, the enemies of my nation or anyone who threatens my family..provided they have the means and mindset to do so...would not see so much as a hair deliberately harmed on those who are innocent of any transgression?

Let me remind you of your own thoughts regarding pedophiles..which you have posted here.

"Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

How much more so for those who deliberately, intentionally and willfully
kill their own babies?

posted August 28, 2008 02:43 AM            

I am for abortion if its done until a certain week. Even thought the hands and legs of the baby are moving the baby is not breathing yet. He is still unconscious. Breathing in his non-being Hahah a Taoist term. Does your bed scream when you sleep on it - LOL? No. It is totally unconscious. Therefore I think killing a baby as a foetus would mean his soul would go in search of next womb. Life is a flux

I don't like Obama because he is a jealous marxist. He will ensure the state becomes more and more powerful. And then they can steal a rich mans money and give it to the poor. Why steal? What will a rich man do with all his money? He will also spend or invest somewhere. And the poors can partake it that way. But these politicians wants to project their self importance and make a name in history for them. Its another ego trip. Very subtle but nevertheless an ego trip. And even his religion is a sham. Communists don't have god. They have ego trips that they can make life equally happy for everyone. Most politicians don't believe in God. They believe in self power trips.

Communism in a large country like USA will be utter disaster. I mentioned before that before taking American citizenship oaths everyone is scrutinized for communist ties. Look at what communism did to Russia. Majority of people have become so dull and boring. In the past, competition with USA kept them going. But now? In a small rich country like Denmark etc... communism can work there. Perhaps Obama and other American marxists like him were born in a wrong country to try their ego desires out

And what i don't understand so well is how could a strong republican ideas bring USA to a state it is now. Heavy borrowing and spendings. The future generations will be paying china if this continues. Sure there were a mix of democrat presidents in the past. But they were more capitalists than the modern politicians who believes in "feel good" policies without delivering results.

posted August 28, 2008 02:58 AM            

It makes you less sensual (religious values) and prevents diseases.
In desert countries where water is scanty their saints allowed this practice perhaps to safeguard women.

But it must be done before eight days. A baby is not totally aware of his surroundings as a baby. Yeah it can become a ego trip for him when he grows up and feels cheated and argues with his parents

And there are guys who wish they were circumcised and complaint to their parents why they didn't take that decision for him?

posted August 28, 2008 03:19 AM              

quote:

---

While I'm not actually against all abortions, I am against "partial birth" abortions and against killing a baby once it's "born alive". That is, imo, far more barbaric than circumcising a child (also a practice with which I disagree). A ban on these late abortions and against killing born children ... yup, even I'd support that. And I'm no tip-toe through the tulips kind of gal.

---

Eleanore, I'm inclined to mostly agree with you. (but for God's sake, stop using that "personal responsibilty" phrase before you get yourself banned) My intention was to point out, in a somewhat cheeky fashion, the basic hypocrisy to be found in the pro-life movement. We could also discuss the irony of the anti-choice protestor spending his morning at the abortion clinic hurling insults and/or bombs and his afternoon at the prison gates cheering on yet another execution. Wanna?

Case in point - the above reproach Ms Stanek, Light of the anti-abortion movement, is currently accepting donations for the upkeep of this atrocity http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/faithful_condom.html

My objections here are to the politicising, manipulating, exaggerating and down right lying to be found in Jwhop's posted articles.

But seeing as we're spiritually inclined folks , I thought maybe I'd venture out on a limb and explore the esoteric angle ...

It's a no win situation and the bad guys profit no matter the outcome. If any and all abortions remain legal, too many woman will abuse the freedom due to, as Elenore pointed out, our culture's general lack of moral strength and certainty. This scenario will please certain people in much the same way as do state sponsered executions and government approved torture of POWs. It's a short term profit, but a very tasty one.
If abortions are altogether outlawed, it will damage the cosmic evolution of the female spirit. I believe it necessary that we woman must confront and sort through the abortion question, rather than allow the legal system to sweep it under the rug. This second scenario offers a greater, far-reaching, albeit more long term profit.
Some have more patience than others.
Speaking in generalities, of course.

posted August 28, 2008 03:47 AM              

And where the hell is my AMA statement?

quote:

---

I did not ding you for making a difficult decision. Nor, did I call you any names.

---

Well, why not? If the accusation is valid in the theoretical, why not in my particular situation? Pulling the plug is ok sometimes, but not always? Please explain.

quote:

---

As for the astrological concept you wish to push...your conception would make you a Pisces but you're a Scorpio...let me remind you that before you were born, you were totally within the electromagnetic field of your mother and totally immersed in the tidal flow of whatever sign your mother happened to be, being hooked to your mother and dependent on her for your blood supply, nutrient supply and the tides of hormones flowing within her...not your own.
It was only at the instant you were born that you threw all that off.

---

Gosh, I'm so inclined to say you're proving my point here.

quote:

---

I think your don't understand my position. It's not the barbaric manner in which babies are dispatched/killed by abortion..so called doctors. It's the fact that they are killed at all...by any means.

---

I know you feel that way. But the argument of the "partial-birth" ban advocates focuses increasingly on the gory details alone. It's an unfair, patronizing argument. It's a red herring.

quote:

---

What some seem to not know is that abortion has been considered murder/infanticide going back to at least 4BC. Those ancients divined the true case without the benefit of modern technology.

---

I'll insist you back that one up. And be prepared for a fight.

Cardinal Egan!!?? Are you serious? You're graciously opening yourself up in return, right? First the fanatical side now the Opus Dei side. Oy! What next?

Look, the good Cardinal makes the same mistake most modern day Christians do. Namely he sees the material body only and disregards the spiritual. A "man of God" asking me to lay my faith on an ultrasound. How very sad.

posted August 28, 2008 04:03 AM              

Very perceptive points. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uHTJNr3CI&feature=related

posted August 28, 2008 06:31 AM            

And, as a p*ss poor example, I would never dare to say that my computer is alive with its own intelligence/life spark. After all, if it isn't plugged in, it simply doesn't function. The umblical cord is essentially the life plug for a being that cannot sustain its own life. Now, if any anti-abortionist can prove to me that a fetus can reasonably and safely sustain its own life within the womb once the umbilical cord has been severed ... that's the day I'll become 100% against abortions.

As for third trimester practices ... it gets convulted. Suffice it to say that, at that point, most fetuses can survive birth. If they do survive it, regardless of the manner in which it came to be, there's no argument on my end. I do also believe that a soul follows the development of its body and is attuned to it over the course of gestation ... that over time, it becomes more and more attached, as it were, to the physicality it will embody. It's magical, really, the division of the creation of life. 3 by 3 for the red dragon 9 of life. In other words, I think there exists sufficient connection at that point for an abortion to be denied. Practically, I find it hard to imagine a situation where the majority of women would need to wait so long to have one aside from "medically necessary to save the mother's life" issues which in themselves are another whole pie to dig into.

And, yes, that plug o' life also becomes a big controversial issue when a life is in danger of being lost. Which is why I support aids to sustain life so long as they aren't the only things fully responsible for the maintaining of that life (unless the person in question has the necessary legalese to back up their personal desires).

But I digress. I should worry, huh, Tink? The stars only know how many I've offended with that kind of talk. Yup. "Peace loving" bombers and "pro-life" murderers. Maybe now it would be appropriate for the Earth to start rotating backwards. Either way, I don't like the tactics both sides use to get their points across. No, I'm not prone to call XYZ women who've had abortions murderers just because ... and neither am I going to say that all anti-abortionists are women hating oppressors with a hidden agenda. Both sides play dirty and I think, there comes a point, when both sides are wrong. Prepare to read no evil, Tink, as the ugliest word known to politics is on its way to your screen ... Compromise.

posted August 28, 2008 10:09 AM              

quote:

---

I'm really not interested in getting entirely into the anti-abortion versus pro-abortion thing on every level.

---

Chicken!

Otherwise, Eleanore, that was a positively perfect post. I concur 100%.

posted August 28, 2008 12:49 PM            

Yeah all our morality is based on what ego sees. And ego sees falsehood. Hence all our morality is false.

quote:

---

The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu

---

posted August 28, 2008 02:24 PM            

HEALTH AND ETHICS POLICIES OF THE AMA

0.500 Health and Ethics Policies of the AMA House of Delegates

5.000 Abortion (See also: Contraception; Pregnancy)
5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of
serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, THEY ARE, IN FACT, GENERALLY NOT NECESSARY FOR THOSE PURPOSES. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate
delivery. (BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Modified and Reaffirmed: CSAPH Rep. 3, A-07)

quote:

---

My objections here are to the politicising, manipulating, exaggerating and down right lying to be found in Jwhop's posted articles...TINK

---

Would you care to be specific here..or are you politicising and exaggerating?

Are you sure you wish to fight with me over how abortion was viewed in ancient times?

"ABORTION and the voice of HISTORY

Historically speaking, there are no references to abortion before the year 1400 B.C. As early as 2000 B.C., in Egypt and Mesopotamia, there are records of drugs that caused miscarriages, but the Egyptians had a high view of life, even mummifying fetuses. The Assyrian Codex in 1100 B.C. stated that abortion was punishable by impalement. Persian law in 600 B.C. called abortion willful murder. Though abortion was not practiced in the land of Canaan after 1400 B.C. it is clear that the infant sacrifices were used as a means of population control. Historically speaking, one can clearly see that those cultures that we now refer to as undeveloped and uncivilized, etc., realized and recognized what abortion truly was .... i.e. murder. During the New Testament times abortion was practiced by the Greek and Roman cultures. The medical community for the most part did not approve of abortion since the Hippocratic oath given in 400 B.C. stated, "I will not give to a woman an instrument to procure abortion." This very same oath is still given to all medical personnel in this day and age."
http://home.comcast.net/~davidriggs01/abortion.htm

So, what conclusions am I encouraged to draw from your posting of Jill Stanek's website? Surely, there must be a crime in there somewhere...but I can't find it from what you've posted here.

posted August 28, 2008 04:35 PM            

Times are not crazy, we are crazy perhaps. Not one with nature. Unnatural.

The active principle behind breadth of life , some people call God (monotheistic religion) or law (buddhist) or principle (Tao).
I agree more with Taoists here even though they will hate me for agreeing to this LOL. Tao is nameless. No need for a old man with beard and sitting in a space/time/matter proof capsule and sending instructions to the universes

It is an active priciple. Bacterias don't breathe, they divide and make copies of themselves. Perhaps we must never ask why and be satisfied with how LOL
In human , the process is we breathe when in an atmosphere. Lungs is required for a human child to function. So theoretically if the baby's head is still in the womans vagina she is not breathing. I love doctors in this regard Very scientific.

The priciple adjusts to circumstances and sustains life...its very intelligent indeed and eternal.

"God is dead..." perhaps Nietzsche a brillaint mystic knew that one day humanity will question his existence and therefore wrote the book "The will to power". And left us some trails. Hitler misused this book I think. I am glad American politicians are dumb. Give them thse moral issues and keep them busy, just as they give God to masses and keeps masses attracted....hehehe

times ain't crazy sorry, the subjects are crazier.

quote:

---

From chaos stars are born

---