The Democrats are hoping to dupe pro-life voters by finagling the empty language of their party platform to divert attention from some of Barack Obama’s radical positions on abortion. In particular, his actions supporting late-term infanticide like t….

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.

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

updated 08/12/08 Interview with Jill Stanek on born alive abortion, Warning words are disturbing, no graphics….

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.

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

Infanticide = Murder

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.

“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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.