Obama said "No" to aborted babys' rights
John McCain and Sarah Palin are pro-life, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are pro-choice. This is a contentious issue for many Americans and one that often drives a person’s party affiliation and their vote. However there are different levels of being pro-choice or pro-life and Barack Obama is the most extreme senator based on his voting record on this issue.
Barack Obama supports late term partial birth abortion and also supports the killing of a baby who was born alive despite an earlier attempt to abort it. While I support a woman’s right to choose (early on in the pregnancy) and obviously differ from John McCain and Sarah Palin on this issue it is much harder to understand Obama’s positions.
Many people do not understand what a partial birth abortion entails. A Partial birth abortion is when labor is induced, the child (often nearly fully developed) is pulled from the womb and a metal rod or scissor is used to stab the child through the back of the neck or head. It is one thing to support an abortion but quite another to support this barbaric act. Some proponents of this procedure say that to ban this procedure would start down the road towards overturning Roe vs Wade. There are some Democrats like Barack Obama who support this practice, however there is one procedure where Senator Obama stands completely alone. Obama voted against a bill to ban infanticide.
While in the Illinois state senate Obama first voted “present” and then against a bill that would have banned the killing of a child who was born alive despite a previous attempt at aborting it. When asked about this vote Senator Obama initially said that he voted against it because he felt the bill would be used to over turn Roe vs. Wade. So a new bill was crafted which explicitly said that the bill could not be used to overturn Roe vs. Wade and that it would be only to enacted to protect a fully developed child who was born alive. It gave the child the same rights as any other child born in America. Senator Obama again voted against this bill.
An Identical bill was drafted in the U.S Senate and it passed 98-0 garnering support from all Democrats and Republicans. When questioned about his votes Barack Obama continuously said Republican’s were lying about him and his votes and that the bill he voted on was different than the U.S. Senate bill. Finally weeks later he conceded that the bill in the state senate was in fact identical to the bill passed in the U. S. Senate. He then said had he been in the U.S Senate at the time he would have voted for the bill. Obviously Barack Obama does not want to kill a bunch of innocent children. However, it is indisputable from his record that he also does not believe all babies should be protected. This stance is in contrast to every other senator in the U.S Senate and one even pro-choice voters have trouble understanding.
Why does he now say that he would have voted for the bill? The only explanation is that he now understands how much he differs from America on this issue and that it would benefit him politically to say this. So my question to you is this. Should we judge someone on the decisions they make when they think no one is looking or the ones they make during the heat of a political campaign? I will let you make the decision on that.
Background info:
Obama misrepresenting his vote and getting caught lying
Hannity and Colmes debating this issue
Video of him lying before his campaign admitted his vote was the same as the senate bill
September 23, 2008 at 3:04 am |
You are absolutely right. While I do not support a woman’s so-called “right to choose” (and I have to believe that the presumption that a fetus is just a group of cells will soon be a past fallacy modern ultrasound technology will someday convince many pro-choicers that a fetus, even at just a few weeks is much more than a clump of cells), Barak Obama took any such “pro-choice” argument much too far by his failure to support the Infants Born Alive Protection Act and his subsequent denial of his vote.
Any infant who is born after a botched abortion attempt should be treated as any infant who is born prematurely. If doctors can save a preemie at just after 20 or so weeks, why is a child who was unintentially born as a preemie (as a result of a botched abortion) entitled to anything less than the heroic efforts given to children who are naturally born premature? Why is it “okay” in Obama’s mind to permit a doctor to kill (whether by direct action or, more likely, inaction) a newborn baby? We lament unwanted children left in trash cans or abandoned in the street — why should a doctor or hospital be permitted to abandon children who unintentionally were born alive during an abortion procedure?
The economy may be at the forefront of most peoples’ minds this week, but who knows how much any President can do to correct this credit/market debacle. We can, however, elect a President who respects life, in all of its unintended forms.
September 23, 2008 at 5:28 am |
ESR, there is no such thing a ‘few week old’ foetus. A foetus must be older than nine weeks (post fertilisation), by definition. It’s an embryo before that time.
Sorry for the nitpick.