Ad: Obama and abortion

posted at 2:10 pm on October 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The Family Research Council takes aim at the Matthew 25 PAC that has tried to sell Barack Obama to evangelicals. In their new advertisement, the FRC notes that Obama himself has described his enactment of the Freedom of Choice Act as his “top priority” as President:

The FOCA would undo many of the restrictions on abortion at the federal and state level. That’s not an analysis from anti-abortion advocates, but from pro-abortion activists like NOW and Planned Parenthood. It’s a radical departure from the current, more moderate status quo and a large leap to the left on abortion:

“[The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)] would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies” – National Organization of Women web site.[1]

“The legislation (FOCA) would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected. It also would provide an individual aggrieved by a violation of the act a private right of civil action in order to obtain appropriate relief.” – Planned Parenthood web site.[2]

” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, joined pro-choice members of Congress and activists at a Capitol Hill press conference to introduce legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states. ” – NARAL

Pro-Choice America (formerly called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) press release, April 19, 2007 .[3]

It’s quite telling that Obama declared this his top priority — not terrorism, not national security, not the financial crisis, although I believe this quote came before most people knew we were heading into one. Obama is, simply put, the most radical major-party nominee for President in decades, and perhaps ever, on this issue. Evangelicals who get lulled into thinking of Obama as a moderate because of his mellifluous speaking voice will find themselves in for a rude awakening after January if he wins.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s quite telling that Obama declared this his top priority — not terrorism, not national security, not the financial crisis

I predict he will have no less than three other top priorities.

Five is a more likely number but this is a conservative (-rimshot-) guess.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Obama sure has a lot of “highest priorities.”

innominatus on October 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I thought destroying capitalism was his top priority.

lorien1973 on October 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Oslime-a is a disgusting whitey hating militant terrorist sympathizer.

csdeven on October 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Your worst nightmare…in a $1,200 suit.

whitetop on October 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Evangelicals who get lulled into thinking of Obama as a moderate because of his mellifluous speaking voice will find themselves in for a rude awakening after January if he wins.

Get prepared for a lot of rude awakenings then. Especially among the “Evangelical” conservative comentariat.

Lehosh on October 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Most rank and file evangelicals are not fooled by this clown.

flyfisher on October 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Question:

Why does every single act with the word “Choice” in it proposed by Democrats actually limit the choices wither individuals or states may make?

Card check removes the choice to select your representation by secret ballot.

This monstrosity removes the choice of states to decide if they’ll make their own laws regarding a hideous evil.

Democrats: The anti-choice party.

BKennedy on October 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Question:

Why does every single act with the word “Choice” in it proposed by Democrats actually limit the choices wither individuals or states may make?

Card check removes the choice to select your representation by secret ballot.

This monstrosity removes the choice of states to decide if they’ll make their own laws regarding a hideous evil.

Democrats: The anti-choice party.

BKennedy on October 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

The choice they really support is the decision to kill. They are morally bankrupt!

flyfisher on October 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

BKennedy on October 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM

500 people in Washington know what’s best for 300 million americans.

Just face it. You’re a slack jawed moron. You can’t live your life without them.

lorien1973 on October 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

His only “highest priority” is to get elected, then “bring about change”. It’s too bad that the change he’s talking about isn’t the change that he’s thinking about.

hillbillyjim on October 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Video of Obama telling a tax-burdened plumber his tax plan is to “spread the wealth around”. That should make a good commercial.:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=195153

BJ on October 13, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Evangelicals who get lulled into thinking of Obama as a moderate because of his mellifluous speaking voice will find themselves in for a rude awakening after January if he wins.

Bamboozled.

hillbillyjim on October 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Obamas priorities:
1. Stop that racist for hoodwinking you.
2. Keep the old man from calling me names.
3. Defend non-repentant terrorists
4. Lie to everybocy about campaign financing and taxes
5. Have tea with terrorist regimes
6. Government funded abortions
7. Mandated health care

I’m am tired of typing.

infidel on October 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM

I can’t decide if his ego is bigger, or his radical agenda is bigger.

Would he lay back in his first term? Do nothing controversial in order to get reelected?

faraway on October 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Aah, Ed, his actual quote (according to FRC website) was “The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

That assumes that Congress passes the bill in its current form before he’s elected President.

jim m on October 13, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Why does every single act with the word “Choice” in it proposed by Democrats actually limit the choices wither individuals or states may make?

They are masters at Orwellian Doublespeak.

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Obama himself has described his enactment of the Freedom of Choice Act as his “top priority” as President

Why stop there, Barry? No Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right to abortion on demand?

After all, we wouldn’t want to “punish” anyone with an innocent new human life, now would we?

hillbillyjim on October 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

obama’s “top priority” is to “CHANGE” everything about America that he and his more bitter half hate!

christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Rest assured, if B.O. is elected, he will stack the Courts as well as the Supreme Court with the kinds of judges and justices that will all but insure the War on Abortion over and done with. And I don’t mean with the Pro-Life side proclaiming victory.

pilamaye on October 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Can’t tell if you’re sarcastic or not.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Click on her site. She’s a troll.

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I encourage all to read an article by a Father Thomas Berg that ran on NRO last week.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGQzMmI1MjlmYzVlNmY1OTJkZTUwYzdhMWYyMTQ2Y2Q=

His concluding paragrph reads as follow:

“We can all agree that we must attend to the urgent task of getting our economya second-order reality — out of chaos. But we don’t have to swallow our convictions about the intrinsic dignity of unborn human life and the value of the human soula first-order reality — in order to do so.”

(emphasis added)

BuckeyeSam on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
____________________________________________________________

The rest of us will fight for the rights of the unborn child! A woman can take care of herself!

christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

John 20:21, New Obama Standard Version (NOSV):

“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you to the tax collectors to offer more to Caesar, so that easy abortions may be provided to the poor without cost.”

RBMN on October 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

She backed Edwards first. Obama is her default.

Enough said.

BuckeyeSam on October 13, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Obama is double-plus ungood.

m064404 on October 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

That settles it. FRC is raaaaaaaaaaaaacist.

/sarc

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Click on her site. She’s a troll.

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Wish you hadn’t made me do that. *shudder*

The rest of us will fight for the rights of the unborn child! A woman can take care of herself!

christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Damn straight.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Well, the GOP platform endorses “a human life amendment to the Constitution”, and “legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

Looks to me that the GOP is also more than willing to invalidate state and local laws on this issue.

(The quote was from July 17, 2007, according to the FRC website, Ed.)

jim m on October 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

The legislation (FOCA) would invalidate existing and future laws

FUTURE LAWS? WTF? Can you really pass a law that will deny future laws from being enacted? Any law can be overturned. What are they trying to pull?

redshirt on October 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Freedom of Choice Act

In Obamaspeak, the legislation is officially known as FFMA (Freedom From Mistakes Act).

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

The rest of us will fight for the rights of the unborn child! A woman can take care of herself!

christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I disagree with that position, but at least I hope both sides will be able to get together by mandating health care for all children.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Evangelicals who get lulled into thinking of Obama as a moderate because of his mellifluous speaking voice will find themselves in for a rude awakening after January if he wins.

And wouldn’t you think that evangelicals of all people with all their bible study would see Obama for the false prophet he is?

“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are savage wolves.” Matt 7:15

Queen0fCups on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

I disagree with that position, but at least I hope both sides will be able to get together by mandating health care for all children.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Define “mandating”…

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Okay. Let’s start with mandating health care for babies who survive botched abortions instead of leaving them to die amidst the soiled linen.

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM

I can’t decide if his ego is bigger, or his radical agenda is bigger.

Would he lay back in his first term? Do nothing controversial in order to get reelected?

faraway on October 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM

I get the idea from that Obama is the kind of guy that has a very fragile ego.
He also avoids short term risks, even if it means larger risks in the long term.

Count to 10 on October 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.
mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Can’t tell if you’re sarcastic or not.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

It’s not being sarcastic. See here and here and here.

Y-not on October 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Okay. Let’s start with mandating health care for babies who survive botched abortions instead of leaving them to die amidst the soiled linen.

Disturb the Universe on October 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM

I have no problem with that, as long as it’s not a backdoor way of making abortions illegal. The mandate should cover all babies, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I get the idea from that Obama is the kind of guy that has a very fragile ego.

This one’s been proven. It’s one reason why the media and the Dems are going so far to shield him.

He also avoids short term risks, even if it means larger risks in the long term.

Count to 10 on October 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM

This one wouldn’t surprise me either. It certainly fits his track record.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

I wonder how Ogoof would view my ‘freedom of choice’ to own a gun? You know, a right that is actually clearly stated in the Constitutional amendment.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Well, in all fairness to the One, maybe he doesn’t like things caused by natural sex because Frank plied him with whiskey and had him “touch it”….

From the (newly) most credible source in news….

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_sex_perv_scandal/celebrity/65575

CC

CapedConservative on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

FUTURE LAWS? WTF? Can you really pass a law that will deny future laws from being enacted?

Why not? The Obamareichsfuhrer can do anything! He can stop the seas from rising, and walk on them at will. After January 20, 2009, he will not lead the state, he will BE the state.

See historical precedents in Hitler, A. and Louis XIV. No need to worry about antiquated documents from 1787.

Steve Z on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I disagree with that position, but at least I hope both sides will be able to get together by mandating health care for all children.
mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Heh, define “children.”

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I wonder how Ogoof would view my ‘freedom of choice’ to own a gun? You know, a right that is actually clearly stated in the Constitutional amendment.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM

What constitutional amendment? That one will be repealed in his second year, comrade.

/iSarc… I HOPE

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Heh, define “children.”

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Is that really the issue that is preventing you for signing onboard mandated health insurance for children? The definition of the word children?

(BTW, I am not a she, I am a he)

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM

The mandate should cover all babies, infants, toddlers, children, teenagers.

Hear that, babies? I just hope you can draw a breath before they dissolve you or chop your body into chunks because until that first breath, you are just a lump of tissue.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Heh, define “children.”

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Prediction: “Infants after the incident of birth/whatever arbitrary cutoff date someone decided to set up”.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Is that really the issue that is preventing you for signing onboard mandated health insurance for children?

I wanna knwo what the heck you mean by “onboard mandated health insurance” before I give commentary on one side or the other. Not voting until I know what I’m getting into.

I’ll take a reply from pretty much anyone, here… I want to hear both sides of it.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM

From the (newly) most credible source in news….

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_sex_perv_scandal/celebrity/65575

CC

CapedConservative on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM

With the National Enquirer’s credibility rating, one wonders how many more people will believe the latest “sex scandal” about Obama and “Frank” than will believe the “Sarah Palin Sex Scandal” they ran two weeks ago.

Probably a non-issue. Hit him with Ayers and Acorn and Rezko, they’re more serious issues.

Steve Z on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Yes, because the last plan forwarded for such a thing had “children” including people in their twenties and every single non-citizen child who made it across the border.

Also, when you say “health care”, I get visions of all sorts of thing being mandated that have nothing to do with the colloquial use of that term.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I disagree with that position, but at least I hope both sides will be able to get together by mandating health care for all children.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
____________________________________________________________
On what part do we disagree? : o )..I am woman hear me roar! I am more then able to take care of myself. It is the life of the unborn that we must secure a future! As for All Children having health care, they do it’s a program called Medicaid- 19 and under.
“mandating” health care? How can someone who is pro-choice want Government controlled health care?!?

christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

That one will be repealed in his second year, comrade.

Second year of his term, huh? I wonder if Oboffy is planning that just for the numerical symbolism?

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:55 PM

(BTW, I am not a she, I am a he)

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Okay, everyone, remember what your high school English teacher taught you: ‘he’ is the appropriate pronoun whenever the gender of the subject in in doubt, and ‘he’ may refer to a man or a woman. Only ‘she’ is gender specific.

Count to 10 on October 13, 2008 at 2:55 PM

How can someone who is pro-choice want Government controlled health care?!?
christene on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

That is the question of the day.

“Government out of my life until I need something, then you better have it available.”

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I disagree with outlawing abortions. I think it should be legal in the first trimester, done if important in the second and not allowed unless it’s necessary in the third.

But once the baby is born, I want to make sure the baby has access to health services, an education, etc. Because as Palin said, who are the most defenseless? The children. Children shouldn’t have to just hope they have smart parents. Children should be able to count on us as well.

As for the mandate, I think any child that is not enrolled in a health insurance plan should be enrolled by the government in a plan. We can argue if that plan should be private, medicaid, etc., that I have no problem with. But the point is that no child should be without health insurance.

Including the ones from botched abortions.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM

With the National Enquirer’s credibility rating, one wonders how many more people will believe the latest “sex scandal” about Obama and “Frank” than will believe the “Sarah Palin Sex Scandal” they ran two weeks ago.

Probably a non-issue. Hit him with Ayers and Acorn and Rezko, they’re more serious issues.

Steve Z on October 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Well, this one has a little more legs… a book written by “Frank” under another name (that he admitted is his book) reveals his fondness for “kiddies”.

CC

CapedConservative on October 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I’m sorry, but I’m against all forms of government-controlled health aid. I have enough of their puppetstrings on me as it is, I do NOT need them meddling around in my or my family’s medical issues and being the final deciding force in what sort of aid they recieve.

Thanks, but HELL NO Thanks.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I disagree with outlawing abortions. I think it should be legal in the first trimester, done if important in the second and not allowed unless it’s necessary in the third.

I’m probably going to regret this, but… WHY?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM

*eats*

Grue in the Attic

What does that mean ?

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM

What does that mean ?

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Click my name :)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM

*eats*

whats that, not your name

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I think it should be legal in the first trimester, done if important in the second and not allowed unless it’s necessary in the third.

A few questions:

At what point does human life become a human being?

On what scientific or medical data do you base your answer?

Do human persons have personhood because they are human beings or is personhood something granted by the state?

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I disagree with outlawing abortions. I think it should be legal in the first trimester, done if important in the second and not allowed unless it’s necessary in the third.

It should be legal if it’s “important” in the 2nd trimester. Define “important”. To who?

It should be legal if it’s “necessary” in the 3rd. Again, definne “necessary. By whose standards?

The implication of course is that it should be legal in the 1st trimester whether or not it’s necessary or important. Just for fun maybe?

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM

The choice they really support is the decision to kill. They are morally bankrupt!
flyfisher on October 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

The choice they really support is the decision to kill the innocent and defenseless.

There – fixed it for ya.

Personally I would like to know which article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to rule on abortions in either direction. If anything its a states issue.

CrazyFool on October 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM

whats that, not your name

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Click my name. It explains it in the link.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:12 PM

What does that mean ?

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Click my name :)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM

what does *eats* mean????? i’m sorry, i’m nosey

Mercy4Me on October 13, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Personally I would like to know which article of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to rule on abortions in either direction. If anything its a states issue.

CrazyFool on October 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM

EXACTAMUNDO!!!!

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM

I disagree with outlawing abortions. I think it should be legal in the first trimester, done if important in the second and not allowed unless it’s necessary in the third.

I’m probably going to regret this, but… WHY?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM
________________________________________________________
Ditto—Why?
In the 3rd trimester we have c-section, as for the first trimester- abortion stops a beating heart.

christene on October 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM

another implication is that 1st trimester babies aren’t people, but 2nd trmester babies are, and 3rd trimester babies even more so. Apparentlyly in your world a baby is not a person but becomes one at some point…and you’re still fine with killing them even after you acknowledge some dgree of personhood.

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM
________________________________________________________

May I ask what you are eating?…: o )

christene on October 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM

another implication is that 1st trimester babies aren’t people

Which defies Gregor Mendel’s observation of “Like Produces Like”…

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM

May I ask what you are eating?…: o )

christene on October 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Moonbat. Today with teriyaki sauce 8)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Moonbat. Today with teriyaki sauce 8)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM
__________________________________________________________
LOLOLOL!!

christene on October 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Barack Abortion

jeff_from_mpls on October 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM

It is true, as jim m observes above, that Congress would have to pass the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) before Obama could sign it. But Obama’s election would render this an active possibility. Although most members of the Democratic congressional leadership support the FOCA, they had no chance to enact it in recent years, since it would have faced a veto by President Bush.

As to the scope of the FOCA, here is some additional information:

The chief Senate sponsor of the FOCA, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), issued a press release in which she said: “That [the operative language of FOCA] means women would have the absolute right to choose whether to continue or terminate their pregnancies before fetal viability, and that right would be protected by this legislation. The Freedom of Choice Act also supercedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”

Boxer went on to spell out some of the tangible effects of the FOCA:

“That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion. That means that abortions cannot be prohibited at public hospitals, giving women more choices than private clinics. That means that we respect a woman’s ability to make her own decision, and don’t force women to attend anti-choice propaganda lectures, which submit women to misleading information, the purpose of which is to discourage abortion. That means that women serving our country in the military overseas would be able to afford safe abortions that can be performed in a military hospital. And, under our law, women who are denied their right to choose, or discriminated against will be able to go to court to enforce the law.”

A Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) factsheet explained, “FOCA will supercede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations.”

The PPFA factsheet also noted: “Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA.”

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life
http://www.nrlc.org
legfederal//at//aol-dot-com

Douglas Johnson on October 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Douglas Johnson on October 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM

More rights ripped from the hands of the states and thrown to or overrided by the Fed. UGH.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Remember that the Nazi execution rate at Auschwitz/Buchenwald increased as the Soviets advanced closer to the camps.

And where are the Nazis and their government now?

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Nearly half of the aborted children are male; over half are female [at least we tend here not to abort for sex determination reasons, like they do in India and China...] I would say that doesn’t bode well for women’s rights.

And God has very little to do with this stuff, which is a lot closer to human skin nightshades than the Left is willing to admit…

unclesmrgol on October 13, 2008 at 3:42 PM

I wonder how Ogoof would view my ‘freedom of choice’ to own a gun? You know, a right that is actually clearly stated in the Constitutional amendment.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM

You wonder? No need to wonder. Obama has supported gun bans and said that he believes (in his expert opinion as a constitutional law scholar, no less) that the D.C. gun ban (the one that was recently invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court) was constitutional.

Of course, once he began running for president, Obama had to waffle on his previously stated views — so that the ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-thumping masses wouldn’t be scared off. But you can be sure that if he gets into the White House, his real view of guns — that they can and should be banned — will come back full force.

AZCoyote on October 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Obama’s Brave New World has 0 population growth, 0 future. Finally, someone truly represents the death cultists of the left.

Christine on October 13, 2008 at 3:57 PM

How ironic that Obama is promising to make all abortions legal and probably eventually mandatory, before Planned Parenthood, an organization that was formed to eliminate people of his race. Margret Sanger must be spinning in her grave right now.

flytier on October 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM

another implication is that 1st trimester babies aren’t people, but 2nd trmester babies are, and 3rd trimester babies even more so. Apparentlyly in your world a baby is not a person but becomes one at some point…and you’re still fine with killing them even after you acknowledge some dgree of personhood.

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Between saving an actual child and an embryo in a fire, which one do you pick?

I’ll pick the child because there are degrees of personhood and an embryo hasn’t achieved a level high enough for me to pick it over the child. How about you? Would you even think about it?

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Between saving an actual child and an embryo in a fire, which one do you pick?

This is a ridiculous question, besides the impossibility of it ever occurring. It serves no purpose other than to stir up the opposition.

I’ll pick the child because there are degrees of personhood and an embryo hasn’t achieved a level high enough for me to pick it over the child.

]
WTF??? “Degrees of personhood”??? SAYS WHO?? And who made that person arbiter of personhood?

“You are a person. You go this way. You are not a person. You stay here and we cut you open.”

Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
TO HELL AND BACK???

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Between saving an actual child and an embryo in a fire, which one do you pick?

The question is absurd for so many reasons! Firstly, by your own admission, a fetus becomes a person at some point, although we obviously disagree on when.

Secondly, you can’t have a fetus on its own in a fire, it has to be living and growing inside the mother. So are you saying you’d leave the mother to die also?

Finally, a fetus IS an actual child, if it wasn’t you wouldn’t care at all about when abortions should be allowed only if “important” or “necessary” as opposed to the 1st term abortions to which you attach no criteria whatsoever, and you’d advocate abortion right up to the moment of birth, which is your true position in reality.

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM

It’s not a ridiculous question. It shows that not all life is equal. It shows that to say that two elements are ‘persons’ is a simplification of reality.

Who made that person arbiter of personhood?
Society, through norms, science, morals, religion. etc.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM

It shows that not all life is equal

That used to be the law in this country, except it was overturned by the 15th Amendment in 1870.

And I am not an “element”, I am a person!

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Let me ask you this, just to show the ridiculousness of your question and your position. Given the choice from rescuing a 1 month old baby and a 3 year old baby from said fire, would it be safe to assume you’d leave the 1 month old to die since it wouldn’t have “achieved a level high enough” for you to pick it over the 4 year old?

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 4:29 PM

The video is no longer available?

becki51758 on October 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM

oops…working now.

becki51758 on October 13, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Let me ask you this, just to show the ridiculousness of your question and your position. Given the choice from rescuing a 1 month old baby and a 3 year old baby from said fire, would it be safe to assume you’d leave the 1 month old to die since it wouldn’t have “achieved a level high enough” for you to pick it over the 4 year old?

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 4:29 PM

No, in that case I wouldn’t know what to do. I might just grab the closest one…

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Euthanasia…partial birth abortions…

Democrats…DON’T THEY JUST KILL YA?!

Black Adam on October 13, 2008 at 4:40 PM

Thank god that Obama is willing to be solid on this issue. Finally a President that will really stand strong for women’s rights.

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM

… by ensuring that no woman is “punished with a child” that would otherwise have grown up, gotten a job and paid for your social security.

You can never accuse the left of seeing the big picture. They have a one note idealogy – me me me me me.

Wingo on October 13, 2008 at 4:42 PM

No, in that case I wouldn’t know what to do. I might just grab the closest one

The question implied that you have a choice in the matter which you overlooked in order not to answer it. Since you have stated that there are “degrees of personhood” I think you proved my assumption of your truthful answer.

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 4:44 PM

mycowardice on October 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM

You didn’t answer my questions. Perhaps you couldn’t. Let’s try again:

At what point does human life become a human being?

On what scientific or medical data do you base your answer?

Do human persons have personhood because they are human beings or is personhood something granted by the state?

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM

It’s not a ridiculous question. It shows that not all life is equal. It shows that to say that two elements are ‘persons’ is a simplification of reality.

Baloney they’re not.

Who made that person arbiter of personhood?
Society, through norms, science, morals, religion. etc.

Show me where morals – outside of the skewed, perverted morality of the “what I want, whenever I want it” kind – and religion differentiates on the value of one life versus another. I call BS.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 5:00 PM

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Mycowardice did answer part of your question by stating that “society” determines personhood, which I think means the state. It’s been tried before throughout history and has failed every time.

Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Mycowardice did answer part of your question by stating that “society” determines personhood, which I think means the state. It’s been tried before throughout history and has failed every time. – Trafalgar on October 13, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Didn’t catch that. Thanks. Yes, it has been tried. Perhaps ‘mycowardice’ is a Nazi. Or an antebellum slaveholder.

She certainly has no grounds on which to argue against either.

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2