1
   

The opposite extreme position on abortion...

 
 
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 03:40 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html

Quote:
......The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal.
From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.” It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Under the guise of upholding abortion rights, Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact—he did.
In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago of obfuscation and distortions.
The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal status of infants still in the womb.
About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation. But he couldn’t even bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility taking what might be only a few fragile breaths on this Earth. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.
President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.
He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.......


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html#ixzz24PLyudSF
 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 10:47 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.”


This statement is ridiculous.

gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 08:10 am
More:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/23/President-Infanticide-Dem-Plank-Partial-Birth

Quote:
Worse still, as a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and in his defense said something that should put a chill up every mother's spine:

There wasn't any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren't cooperating. They wouldn't die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was "movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead."

No, Senator. They wouldn't go along with the program. They wouldn't just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among "the least of my brothers." But of course, an abortion extremist can't very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters - millions of them - is somehow not among America's greatest moral failings.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn't lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it's the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she'd spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die....



Again, I have zero use for the idea of there being such a thing as a "Right2Life(TM)".

But this **** is basically infantacide, and at times Bork Obunga has been the only vote in favor of it. Bork Obunga is basically a defective person as his treatment or lack thereof of his family back in his native Kenya indicates, and as this item indicates.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 08:30 am
@gungasnake,
There's a big difference between a fetus born so prematurely that it has no chance of survival, and a "live baby."

Can you provide documentation for the claim that "live babies" have been left to die?

Requiring extreme life support measures in such cases is necessary... why?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 11:09 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
From a strictly down-the-middle, neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite and countervailing side is equally “extreme.”


This statement is ridiculous.



It's also asinine and shows a complete lack of intelligent thought.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The opposite extreme position on abortion...
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 11:50:18