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 ...
“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...