Yes, we can … elect a guy who votes for infanticide

posted at 1:57 pm on August 13, 2008 by Allahpundit

There’s not much new here if you read Ed’s post two days ago, but since Freddoso wrote the book on this — literally — it’s worth hearing him tell the story in his own words. Of all the ways in which The One has pandered to try to capture the center, his abortion makeover is the most cynical. The DNC announced today that Bob Casey will speak on Tuesday night at the convention to give him extra cover on the subject and they’ve tweaked the platform to let pro-lifers knows that their concerns are valid and appreciated, although not quite valid enough to stop the party from nominating a guy who thinks live-born mis-aborted fetuses should be left for dead. This goes back to one of my early posts about Doug Kmiec’s starry-eyed spin of Obama’s abortion position: You’re supposed to give him a pass, at least vis-a-vis McCain, because he’s willing to respectfully hear abortion opponents out even while he votes to the left of Hillary Clinton on the issue. Here’s Freddoso, addressing Obama’s floor statement (which is quoted in the piece) during the debate in the Illinois senate:

The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.

But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.

In other words, even if a pre-viable baby is born alive during a botched abortion and is considered a “person,” the state still shouldn’t require doctors to treat it lest some wingnut judge seize on the idea to try to extend “personhood” to unborn fetuses still in the womb. Note that the Illinois bill explicitly addressed this concern by limiting itself to “born” fetuses so that it couldn’t be used in this way as anti-Roe precedent. Not good enough for Obama. But say this for him: His liberal logic is consistent. If the mother’s intent is to abort and the baby somehow survives the procedure, why should its stroke of luck (or the doctor’s negligence) thwart her “choice”? She came there to kill it, she has a constitutional right to kill it, so she gets to kill it. Anything less would be insufficiently “progressive.” Exit question: Never mind how Obama voted — how’d they get 40+ Democratic senators to oppose this?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Big S on August 13, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Sure. Simply treat them like wanted premature babies. That’s all I think anyone can ask.

Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM

“The “best care possible” if often not given, even for wanted premature babies, due to cost and availability. That should not be the standard we are talking about here.”

We’ve spent billions in teaching hospitals in successful attempts to advance medical knowledge.

For example, people can know live for decades with cancers, that just a decade ago meant a six-month (tops) death sentence.

Why? Because physicians tried to help “hopeless” cases survive. Because money was spent.

But when it comes to premature babies, we should just throw in the towel? Too expensive, for a child that has the potential to live for 70+ years?

NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Here is the story, from my local hospital, that started the “Infants Born Alive” legislation. THIS is how gruesome it really is: “Once, I held the aborted baby in a warm blanket for the 45 minutes it took for him to die…The only situation that could be worse was…[s]ince we have no place designated to keep these babies, one had to be left to die alone in the soiled utility room.” —Christ Hosptial (Oak Lawn, IL) Nurse Jill Stanek

dm60462 on August 13, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Sure. Simply treat them like wanted premature babies. That’s all I think anyone can ask.

Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM

I have no problem with that. However, many of the proposed laws mandate care that no doctor would give if he/she were acting independently.

Big S on August 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Plenty of senior citizens depend on others’ care to ensure their viability. Does that make them non-persons as well? Do those charged with their care, as a mother does to her child/fetus/thing, have a constitutional right to kill them?

What about the retarded? The handicapped? Anyone who lacks the mental or physical capacity to survive unassisted?

If the deciding factor is viability, millions of people alive today fall into the category of non-person. The implications of that logic are concerning, to say the least.

fourstringfuror on August 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

These scenarios have ALREADY played out here in the US. How about the assisted suicide/euthenasia law in Oregon?

Have we already forgotten Terry Sciavo? In all these cases the Democrats have shown they ENTHUSIASTICALLY support the death of the innocent, whether it is an unborn/born child, phsically disabled, or elderly and a burden. At the same time they oppose death for the most heinous murderers/rapists on death row.

There is no more telling issue of moral differentaion between Democrats and Republicans than life and death.
Democcrats = death for the innocent, life for the guilty
Republicans = life for innocent, death for the guilty

jerseyman on August 13, 2008 at 4:19 PM

However, many of the proposed laws mandate care that no doctor would give if he/she were acting independently.

Big S on August 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM

I didn’t think this was one of those laws, but I have no stake in arguing that it is.

Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM

“Democrats = death for the innocent, life for the guilty
Republicans = life for innocent, death for the guilty”

Could you imagine a Democrat using the kind of language to describe a child molestor or a common street murderer, as they use to describe President Bush?

Of course not. Democrats have nothing but excuses and kind words for murders and criminals. And once they’ve served (what a laugh, after living as a parasite on the taxpayer), they’ve “paid their debt to society and deserve to vote in our elections”.

For Democrats, naturally.

Want to make abortion enable?

Legislate that each fetus in the womb, counts as one vote for a Democrat in each election.

Democrat politicians like the amoral Barack Obama will become as pro-life as the Pope.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Earlier when I read the headline story (about the baby being left alone in a soiled linen utility closet before the nurse got it out to hold it), I felt like crying.

Now, I am just starting to get really f-ing pissed.

What the hell is so hard to understand?

1. Baby survives botched abortion attempt
2. Baby is born alive and has no chance of survival
3. Make the baby as physically comfortable as possible and
then for God’s sake spend its few moments of what precious life it has being loved and comforted by another human being.

We don’t wheel away terminal patients to die alone in some damn closet. We give them aid and comfort in their last moments. Shouldn’t an innocent, helpless baby get at least that much consideration?

And yes, Obama is a disgusting puke for supporting this. He ought to come to a hospital and witness first hand what his support of this law does.

mrsmwp on August 13, 2008 at 4:40 PM

What greater perversion of love and morality, than for a mother to kill her unborn child, a husband to let his wife starve out of convenience (for his new family and pocketbook), and for a child to approve suicide for a parent because they have become a burden?

This issue should be pressed by every single Repulican politician/pundit on every single speech, every single TV spot, and every time they open their mouth. They would never lose (unless a democrat ran on the same platform and opposed the official Democrat party line).

jerseyman on August 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM

This is a slippery issue, to say the least. I have been in the same position as Anna’s friend: child with fatal defects, etc. Knowing you’ll have, at best, an hour with your child is a circle of hell on Earth I wish on no one. In our case, we weren’t so fortunate: death came during delivery itself.

It is totally and completely frustrating to find a reasoning man who is the descendant of those who were thought of as ‘property’, and as such were denied the rights their fellow man enjoyed, purely because of their state of being (color of skin) so easily making such an arguement in the same as their ancestor’s oppressors against another, ‘lesser’ class of ‘property’ (in this case, the viable newborn delivered by accident through abortion).

thirtypundit on August 13, 2008 at 5:02 PM

And right on cue the MSM comes in to help poor Obambi

“Democrats soften edges on abortion”

Here’s a great quote from the article

In addition, Democrats have adopted a platform that builds on the party’s traditional language about preserving Roe v. Wade with pledges to support women who decide against having abortions.

Oh my, how f**king magnanimous of them

omnipotent on August 13, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Aren’t there laws on the books (at least in certain states) which stipulate that if a pregnant woman is assaulted and suffers a miscarriage, the perpetrator can be tried for murder (the unborn)? If these laws do exist and this hasn’t led to Roe v. Wade being overturned, wouldn’t the same hold true for the bill Obama voted against?

DubiousD on August 13, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Sometimes I think we are bogged down in various aspects of the discussion.

The FUNDAMENTAL point is that Democrats PASSIONATELY encourage death (and someone else’s right to kill someone). This is clear in black/white (whether abortion, mercy killing, euthenasia). I do not mean to attack those who are actually faced with the tough decision in these situations, but the Democrats who passionately defend someone else’s choice to kill the innocent. They have made a moral decision unclouded by the emotions of the moment, and enthusiatically support the choice to kill an innocent person who is not longer useful.

jerseyman on August 13, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Yes, we can … elect a guy who votes for infanticide

Infanticide = Murder

byteshredder on August 13, 2008 at 8:44 PM

OH MY GOD. Moments ago O’Reilly’s guest–the skinny black professor who ALWAYS eagerly defends Obama–just said that “Jesus Christ would be a staunch defender partial-birth abortions today”.

This is no longer a philosophical disagreement. I am now convinced that these people are certifiably insane.

Hopefully Ed or Allah got a capture and can post it.

Jungliszt on August 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I guess the Hippocratic Oath does not apply to those doctors in Illinois? Or ANY of them that would do such a thing such as “live birth abortions”

Should those Doctors be thrown in jail or removed from the medical field? I think both.

Chakra Hammer on August 14, 2008 at 2:05 AM

OH MY GOD. Moments ago O’Reilly’s guest–the skinny black professor who ALWAYS eagerly defends Obama–just said that “Jesus Christ would be a staunch defender partial-birth abortions today”.

This is no longer a philosophical disagreement. I am now convinced that these people are certifiably insane.

Hopefully Ed or Allah got a capture and can post it.

Jungliszt on August 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM

.
Fortunately for him, he was indoors when he said it, as lightning has a hard time hitting covered targets.

Think_b4_speaking on August 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM