Well, it appears that Obama isn't the only celebrity big on infanticide - here for your viewing enjoyment is Martha Stewart's show on cannibalism.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama, Infanticide and the Illinois Born Alive Act
Children who are born alive after an unsuccessful attempt to end their life are human beings.
Barrack Hussein Obama disagrees with this seemingly self-evident sentiment. Or so one would be lead to believe from his opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive bill.
When Obama was an Illinois state senator, he voted four times against a bill that would have enacted that simple sentiment as the policy of the state of Illinois. Since he has come into the national limelight he has made multiple attempts to explain his vote, but all fail even the most rudimentary review.
The text of the bill stated, in relevant part:
I would like to believe that few people, if they were aware that Obama would take such a stance against innocent infants, would vote for him. However, if the unscientific polling of my own family is any indication, his supporters simply get flustered, say it's a media hit job and say that they're going to vote for him anyways. It's not like this is complicated or hard to demonstrate - his votes on the matter are public record and so are the versions of the bill he voted against. How can there be any doubt or controversy?
If any reader doubts whether Obama would permit infanticide of those children who miraculously survive an abortion, please do a simple Google of the terms infanticide and Obama or of the Illinois Born Alive Act. In fact, for those who are really lazy, I've already done it for you: Infanticide and Obama and Illinois Born Alive Act and Obama.
This post is getting rather winded, so I'll save my remarks on Obama's justifications for later - for now I will simply point out the obvious - once a child has left its mother's womb, Roe v. Wade is no longer implicated and any suggestion to the contrary is naked sophistry and, in this case, sophistry employed in the cause of a particularly reprehensible position.
Barrack Hussein Obama disagrees with this seemingly self-evident sentiment. Or so one would be lead to believe from his opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive bill.
When Obama was an Illinois state senator, he voted four times against a bill that would have enacted that simple sentiment as the policy of the state of Illinois. Since he has come into the national limelight he has made multiple attempts to explain his vote, but all fail even the most rudimentary review.
The text of the bill stated, in relevant part:
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) 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. (emphasis added)
See: the original text of the bill and it's amendments.
That's it - the bill simply stated that if an infant is fully out of his/her mother is alive (defined as breathing, having a pulse or control of voluntary muscles) then it shall be considered a full human person under the law and accorded all the protections that you and I have. What a radical idea - a human being is a human being and we should accord them the dignity of being so recognized! It's sad indeed that we as a society should have to worry about whether such a self-evident proposition has become controversial.
I would like to believe that few people, if they were aware that Obama would take such a stance against innocent infants, would vote for him. However, if the unscientific polling of my own family is any indication, his supporters simply get flustered, say it's a media hit job and say that they're going to vote for him anyways. It's not like this is complicated or hard to demonstrate - his votes on the matter are public record and so are the versions of the bill he voted against. How can there be any doubt or controversy?
If any reader doubts whether Obama would permit infanticide of those children who miraculously survive an abortion, please do a simple Google of the terms infanticide and Obama or of the Illinois Born Alive Act. In fact, for those who are really lazy, I've already done it for you: Infanticide and Obama and Illinois Born Alive Act and Obama.
This post is getting rather winded, so I'll save my remarks on Obama's justifications for later - for now I will simply point out the obvious - once a child has left its mother's womb, Roe v. Wade is no longer implicated and any suggestion to the contrary is naked sophistry and, in this case, sophistry employed in the cause of a particularly reprehensible position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
