Skip to comments.Jill Stanek: Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide
Posted on 07/02/2008 4:35:45 PM PDT by wagglebee
On June 25, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked conservative commentator Bill Bennett what question he would ask Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama if he could.
Bennett said he would ask Obama:
Why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there? ... I got to question the guy's moral judgment who doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born. What is the answer to that question?
Bennett was speaking about Obama's opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act as state senator. This legislation declared all live babies legal persons, which would guarantee them the right to appropriate medical care, even if abortion survivors.
(To which Obama defender Donna Brazile responded, "Bill, you want to have a conversation about narrow issues but the American people want to talk about gas prices. ")
Over the years, Obama or his surrogates have mischaracterized Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act and his reasons for opposing it at least 10 different ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
“Its despicable that so manytoo many- Catholics and Protestants professing to believe in Christ Jesus vote for these ghoulish democrat bastards like Boxer, clinton, Dodd, Kennedy, Harkin, Murray, etc.”
I can only confirm what I’ve witnessed growing up as a catholic.
My home diocese is liberal - very liberal bishop who sometimes borders on outright rebellion.
I never heard about abortion at church growing up, and that is still the case.
It is different in the neighboring dioceses. Their bishops are more orthodox, and it shows with their priests.
They often will preach about abortion, and will pray for the unborn. (We have switched to a neighboring diocese)
There is also a weird cultural thing with many catholics.
They developed an affinity for the democrat party decades ago - especially the irish catholic immigrants who were helped by the democrats in finding work.
JFK solidified this notion with many of them that the democrat party was the catholic party.
It is common to visit the home of an older catholic, and you will see a picture of JFK on the wall alongside a picture of the pope.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why these people are so nonchalant about abortion.
They excuse themselves by claiming they don’t want to be “narrow” or “one issue” voters. They care for the poor - they hate war (blah blah blah)
Sadly - it seems to be VERY EASY for many people to simply not care about the pain and suffering innocent babies are forced to endure.
I have close family members - faithful practicing christians - who voted for Spitzer because they believed the lie that he would reform corruption in NY.
They didn’t want to be “one issue” voters and consider his stance on abortion.
Surprise surprise - one of the most ardent, extreme pro-choice politician turned out to be more corrupt than the people he prosecuted.
It will happen time after time.
Politicans who do not care about babies, are going to disappoint everyone on other moral issues as well.
No that’s NOT what happens.
n my training at Cook Co HOspital, we had several infants born, in the early second trimester of extremely low body wt. who were, at the time, way to small to transfer to the neonatal unit. They were left on a warm bed, no O2. And yes they would die. Occasionally, after several minute, some would still be alive and we’d then transfer them to the neonatal ward where they would receive intensive care, essentially living in an incubator for the next 20 weeks.
In an almost fully termed infant who is aborted, they will survive with minimal support assuming thaT THEY’re not placed in a cold place and left there for hours.
I’m asking Obama Camp to explain to me, how is a baby born almost to term, who was an attempted but failed abortion, killed? At what point do the MDS and nurses standing around say, “hey! this one is still alive...What do we do?
“n my training at Cook Co HOspital, we had several infants born, in the early second trimester of extremely low body wt. who were, at the time, way to small to transfer to the neonatal unit.”
I am making the assumption that most of the survivors are genuine preemies.
I think it was in the past month I read that most of these “survivors” are undergoing induced labor on premature infants. I’m not sure if the abortionists are trying to stop their hearts in the womb, or kill them using some other method, but they survive and then are left to die.
Will try to remember where I read that (sleep deprived - brain not working)
I am also assuming that for full term infants - that is when they are resorting to dilation and extraction.
Essentially - making damn sure the baby is dead before he/she emerges.
“Im asking Obama Camp to explain to me, how is a baby born almost to term, who was an attempted but failed abortion, killed? At what point do the MDS and nurses standing around say, hey! this one is still alive...What do we do?”
Well, sometimes, this is what they do...
Yes, that's what usually happens. A baby farther along than expected is aborted using one of the techniques you mentioned and lives.
I am not an ultra fanatic with regarding my Pro Life beliefs, i.e. I would not kill or bomb an abortion clinic, or defend the person who does this. I don't shout down my colleagues who perform abortions, but they are not my friends.
But something bothers me about telling a young would be mother to adopt out her baby without her getting something in return. I don't know if this is against the law, I'm sure it's not, but I am for young mothers who opt to adopt getting paid, and paid well if they put the child up for adoption.
Why shouldn't a 16 year old girl, who chooses to have the baby, but who is clearly unable to care for it, not have the option of adopting the child out to another loving couple who is WILLING TO PAY THE WOMAN FOR ENDURING HER 9 MONTH PREGNANCY. I MEAN CARRYING A CHILD WOULD BE SIMILAR TO HER BEING EMPLOYED.
After birth the mother gives up the child, receives $100,000, and everyone is happy. The young girl learns from the experience and has the option of doing something positive with her life.
Why would anyone wish to give up their baby otherwise, unless child rearing appalls her?
It bothers me that Obama has more concern for animal rights, than human rights. If this guy is elected, Heaven help us. If late term abortion on demand is NOT wrong...THEN NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS WRONG.
most girls who choose adoption do get their medical bills paid for. Sometimes they are provided housing and other necessities during their pregnancy (for ex...orgs like birthright offer housing)
Private agreements between birth mothers and adoptive families may cover a variety of expenses.
Perhaps some adoptive families do offer donations to the mother - I don’t know much about that.
The danger I see with your proposal is the obvious temptation to use childbirth as a moneymaking proposition.
You don’t think some girls would consider purposefully getting pregnant for 100 grand?
In the end it isn’t about money - it’s about recognizing who is a person, and who is “not”.
It comes down to issues of morals and human rights.
We’ve convinced young people these babies are not people to make it easier for them to take this “easy out”.
Only it ain’t easy.
Abortion is a terrible thing to suffer through - I saw it with many of my friends and some family members.
The clinic workers tickle their ears with phrases that appeal to their feelings of panic “clump of cells”, “not a baby yet,” “no one has to know”, “get your life back.”
And then afterward, when the girl takes time to learn the truth - that her baby was more than a clump of cells - well, she cannot undo what’s been done.
The truth is that there is no easy way out of a pregnancy.
Live birth, miscarriage, abortion - none of it is “easy”.
But we can do our best to promote the protection of innocent life and raise awareness about the scientific fact that life begins at conception.
The truth is that there is no easy way out of a pregnancy.
Live birth, miscarriage, abortion - none of it is easy.
Money, unfortunately as bad as it’s sounds, is ten times better than having the abortion...
agreed, but I’m envisioning young teens who are already tempted to drop out of high school -looking at that 100k payoff and saying “I could make a career out of this.”
Heck - they don’t have to be teens - any female would be tempted by that price tag.
100K for 9 months and some stretch marks?
Especially in this economy?
It reminds me of a story I recently read about military wives resorting to becoming surrogates more often now.
I guess that’s a whole ‘nother discussion...wombs for rent, or wombs as a career choice.
supply and demand, but i guarantee you the number of abortions would go down!!! In time, the price would go down, but I think you’re asking much for a young mother to give up her child. At least she can say to her daughter if they ever meet, I did this because I was poor and the last thing I wanted to do was an abortion.
I’m sorry, this country is FULL of unwed, uneducated young mother’s whose only success in life is having a baby, which her mother or grand mother raise.
You know that stats. Her child will be on drugs, crime, uneducated, no father figure etc etc.
I know the Clintons love the idea of a disintegrating family...but at least an adopted child would be raised in a loving home.....
“but I think youre asking much for a young mother to give up her child. “
I’m not asking her to give up her child.
I’m asking her not to kill the child.
” At least she can say to her daughter if they ever meet, I did this because I was poor and the last thing I wanted to do was an abortion.”
Well...she can still say that with adoption.
On the other hand, what you are suggesting is that she could later meet the child and say “I’m sorry - I saw an economic opportunity, and chose to get pregnant for the money. I had you so I could get a 100K”
“Im sorry, this country is FULL of unwed, uneducated young mothers whose only success in life is having a baby, which her mother or grand mother raise.”
yes - I know that.
I’m just not comfortable with the idea that it would be good to economically exploit them for the use of their wombs.
Some might put this in the “human trafficking” category.
No, I’m not saying that all. I’m saying realistically, how can a 16 yr old 20 year old single parent work and raise a child. Abortion is the easy way, that planned parenthood prescribes. Adopting the child to a loving family who is willing to reimburse the mother for carrying the child, and agreeing to give it up. For giving the GIFT of life...WHY SHOULD ANYONE FEEL EMBARRASSED ABOUT THAT?
I have friends who have adopted Phillipino and Russian babies. They’ve paid tens of thousands to agencies....The mothers in those instances get zero..
You would see a precipitous drop in abortions and young single mothers if there was a adoption service that realistically reimbursed the mother for her gift.
“Some might put this in the human trafficking category.”
I’m saying that the whole adoption thing needs to me relooked at, because for many young mothers, the child is raised by her mother and grandmother....because there is no other option. I’m sorry, but how is this different from surrogate parenting?
If you can’t see the obvious differences then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Really...family members helping out a child or grandchild is much different than hiring out a womb.
“Adopting the child to a loving family who is willing to reimburse the mother for carrying the child, and agreeing to give it up. For giving the GIFT of life...WHY SHOULD ANYONE FEEL EMBARRASSED ABOUT THAT?”
are you missing the fact that birth mothers are already being reimbursed by adoptive families?
What am I missing here?
.....being reimbursed by adoptive families...
How is that? There are millions of families out there who are dying to have children....How are they giving a gift to the young birthing mother?
I’m a sixteen year old girl...I can, without parental knowledge, get an abortion...(thanks to your liberal politicians and judges...)...Yet, I don’t believe in abortion...and I know having a baby without a husband is going to change my life...So what do I do?
I’m sorry, but if I can place my baby in a loving home, that I choose, and I am “reimbursed” ( for lack of a better word) for carrying the baby...and giving it up...What is wrong with that?
I can tell you, that the abortions in this country would plummet, if young girls had another option, that was legal and proper...
I don’t see where reimbursing a young mother for her pregnancy is wrong...
What’s more...we better get acclimated... because the name of the game in the next 50 years... is designer babies...where people will pay big money to have a baby... aperfect baby...just as described in BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley. I’m sure you’ve read it.
She is getting reimbursed - her medical bills are getting paid. Some adoptive families may be paying other expenses as well.
Often there are private arrangements made- especially in open adoptions - where housing is paid for - even education expenses.
In another post you described a poor single young woman unable to support a child - adoption is already available to her as an alternative, again expenses paid for.
This is different from ENCOURAGING girls with a large sum of money.
It would no longer be a case of “now I’m pregnant, what do I do?”
It would be case of “now I am going to purposefully get pregnant for the money.”
You may think that’s a great thing - I think it’s awful.
Perhaps you need to explain to ask them some questions, and let them think about the answers. "If it's wrong to do something, will it become more or less wrong if more people do it?" See if you can get them to recognize that popularity does not make a wrongful action right. "If someone has done something wrong, is it better for that person to encourage or discourage others from doing likewise?" The obvious answer should be "discourage", and I would expect even liberals would see it. But next is the tricky question: "But shouldn't the person try to get others to engage in similar action, so as to make the action less wrong?"
Most Americans have either had an abortion, or have a friend or loved one who has. Many of those people think that the only way they or their friend can be "okay" is if abortion is somehow "okay". The fact is that people are human, which means that by design we sometimes do bad things. Having done bad things does not prevent one from being a good person. To be a good person, however, one must acknowledge one's past misdeeds and seek to atone for them by, among other things, discouraging other people from following one's lead.
Liberals thrive by manipulating and harnessing people's guilt. If people could learn to recognize liberals' trickery, and also learn that the way to escape guilt is to acknowledge mistakes and help others to escape liberals' manipulations, there could be a massive sea change. I'm not sure how best to start the process, though.
The issue isn't just that voters want to keep the slaughter available for their own use. The issue is that they believe that the only way they can justify themselves, or their friends and loved ones, is to somehow have abortion be "okay". Efforts to tell those people directly that abortion is murder will merely make them more desperate to support those who would (seemingly) make it not be.
IMHO, if there is to ever be a pro-life amendment, it must make absolutely clear that abortions performed prior to its effective date, and which were legal under the state and federal laws then in effect, shall never be regarded as murder. Whether or not there would be any "logical" reason for regarding earlier abortions differently from later ones, I would suggest that such a legal fiction would be necessary to make any sort of pro-life amendment workable.
Pregnancies would skyrocket if there was a perception that a fetus would become a meal ticket. Many 'mothers' would be people with whom many prospective parents would be loath to do business. What do you think the net result would be?
I don’t think most 16 year olds would want to go out and have babies... For one thing there should be laws regarding the “sale” of a pregnancy under the age of 18....
I’m talking out of my head here, because I don’t really know what the status of adoption law is. This sort of thing is probably already worked out among the parties.
I don’t know the status of different adoption laws either. However, I volunteer in a crisis pregnancy center so I am in contact with abortion-minded women/girls.
It is so heartwrenching how many times I hear that adoption won’t be considered. The reason I hear the most is fear of attachment to the unborn baby. Medical expense isn’t the issue that comes up in our discussions. They tell me that they would get attached to the baby and could never give the baby to anyone after carrying for 9 months. They also have a fear of the baby not going to a good home. So in their minds, abortion is better than getting attached or giving it to a family who would abuse the child!! Yeah, it’s mind-boggling but I don’t let that subject go.
An abortion clinic will ease their minds and tell them it’s a “clump of cells” or “tissue” so they never have to get attached to begin with. I think they know better but they have to justify the abortion somehow.
Of course, we share with them the developmental stages of the baby, share information about the procedures and possible risks of abortion, dangers of STD’s, and give them information/counseling about adoption along with a free ultrasound. We also help with material services.
This is just what I experience in dealing with the young girls/women.
Any young girl who carries a baby to term...and puts it up for adoption, should at least be compensated by the adopting parents a salary equal to at least two years pay...