Today, the National Right to Life Committee released some distressing information about the abortion voting record of Senator Obama. Its summary:
Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.
August 11, 2008 at 11:07 am
Does this shock anyone? Not me.
August 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Yeah but he’ll increase food stamp allocations, and that will reduce the number of abortions.
August 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Distressing indeed.
August 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm
But he wants to get out of Iraq. That makes this ok using enlightened Catholic thinking, right?
August 11, 2008 at 1:39 pm
But he wants to get out of Iraq. That makes this ok using enlightened Catholic thinking, right?
It’s sad that you, like so many Catholics, can’t seem to escape the binary straightjacket that american secular politics has placed you in, Tony. Of course Obama’s position is not “ok.”
August 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It is not so simple as some make it out to be.
First, as everyone knows, it is a tactic of the “pro-life” movement to do as much as possible to chip away at abortion rights piece by piece, and it is the tactic of the “pro-choice” side basically not to take measures proposed by “pro-lifers” at face value, but to oppose them as part of the overall war. So while many would like to paint this as a matter of Obama being opposed to caring for helpless little babies, it is a case of Obama perhaps being overcautious in protecting abortion rights. That’s something most Vox Nova readers don’t like but it is different from being in favor of denying treatment to babies.
Second, the Illinois law, just like the federal law, doesn’t directly mandate care for all babies born alive. It changes the meaning of the words “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual,” for all laws in which those words appear (a huge impact on existing laws) and it gives a definition of “alive” that could theoretically apply to a three-week-old fetus. Consequently, it could affect far more than babies born from botched abortions.
Third, as I understand it, the various state versions and the federal version don’t save any lives. They have just resulted in abortionists making sure the fetus is dead (by lethal injection) before an abortion is performed that might result in a live birth.
I wonder why a law was not formulated to require specific kinds of care for all infants born alive, and it seems to me the reason is that wasn’t the real goal of the people who dreamed up the act. It was to redefine terms in a way favorable to further encroachments on abortion rights.
August 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm
it is a tactic of the “pro-life” movement to do as much as possible to chip away at abortion rights piece by piece
Yes, it certainly is – and this is improper why exactly? Those who care about extending legal protections to the unborn as very near the top of all issues – myself included – frequently advance laws that will chip away at this “right” (in addition to influencing the courts, where political power unfortunately has tended to concentrate in the age of the judicial fiat).
For example: it is both a political strategy, and the right and moral thing to do, to advocate for a law that adds charges to the person who intentionally injures a pregnant woman, because two persons were injured.
August 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Michael, I’m pretty sure Tony was being sarcastic. Calm down.
August 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the abortion procedures targeted by the bill in question are late-term.
On the one hand, they’re exceedingly gruesome. No question.
At the same time, I’d venture that any woman choosing to terminate at that point was having a planned and wanted pregnancy. Something terrible must arise to make a woman make that decision at that time in the pregnancy.
And existing law in Illinios already protected children purported to be covered by this bill. The bill was just a political stunt at the expense of women in horrific circumstances.
August 11, 2008 at 2:01 pm
The National Right to Life Committee? Give me a break. Since when did they have an ounce of credibility? I remember once seeing pro-nuclear bombing Phyllis Schlafly at one of their events. These are the people who oppose universal health insurance, on the grounds that it promotes euthanasia (huh?). These are the people who invite Karl Rove– the man who opened the doors to those who supported forced abortion and sex slavery–in Washington. So please, if you want to oppose Obama for his stance on abortion, do not shoot yourself in the foot by appealing this this bunch of horrendous hypocrites.
August 11, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“But he wants to get out of Iraq.”
I guess the million lives lost in Iraq are worth less than the million unborn dead. No wonder people like you will never make any progress in persuading people of the rightness of the pro-life cause. And ny adopting that position, with firm foresight as regards its implications, you bear some responsibility for the continuing scourge of abortion.
August 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Uh, MM, Obama’s voting record is accessible to everyone. The born alive abortion thing isn’t exactly news either, they just found some new files it seems. Isn’t it Pavlovian to immediately reject something when it comes from a source one dislikes ?
August 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm
MM — that’s purely an ad hominem argument. (NRLC = bad people in MM’s mind; therefore NRLC wrong about Obama’s voting record even though it has links to actual documents.)
Do you have any valid arguments?
August 11, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Michael, I’m pretty sure Tony was being sarcastic. Calm down.
I beg to differ.
And please, do not tell me to calm down.
August 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Yes, it certainly is – and this is improper why exactly?
My point was not that it is improper for “pro-life” advocates to attempt to chip away at abortion rights. My point was that some are accusing Obama to being indifferent to the lives of infants being born alive in the course of an abortion. If there had been a bill mandating certain types of care for any born-alive human, and Obama had blocked it, then it would be appropriate to accuse him of indifference to the suffering of such infants. However, this law was intentionally designed to further the anti-abortion cause by in essence amending all existing laws with the word “person” in them. That is quite a different matter than providing for appropriate medical care for all those born alive. Yes, he was defending abortion rights. No, he was not trying to make sure people had the right to let babies suffer.
For example: it is both a political strategy, and the right and moral thing to do, to advocate for a law that adds charges to the person who intentionally injures a pregnant woman, because two persons were injured.
But of course proponents of this law in the senate rejected one that does exactly the same thing without redefining the fetus as a person. The objectives of such laws are to redefine the status of the unborn, and are only secondarily (at best) about fetuses injured in the commission of a crime.
August 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. – Psalm 146:3
Its scares me to think that Catholics are going to go to the polls and put their hope in Obama. Maybe I could do the same if he were not so intent on killing children.
August 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Maybe I could do the same if he were not so intent on killing children.
We pro-lifers have to be better at being honest about our opponents’ views. Obama is not “intent on killing children.” To say that is dishonest and sloppy thinking.
August 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Micheal.
No it isn’t. It is sloppy thinking to excersize in mental gymnastics in order to justify his unwillingness to freakin vote for children who survive abortions. That is base. That is evil. Period.
“Oh, but McCain is worse because he supports the war in Iraq!”, You say. Fine. Don’t vote for McCain either.
But all this Obama love is nauseating.
August 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“Oh, but McCain is worse because he supports the war in Iraq!”, You say.
Where have I said that? I do indeed think McCain is “worse” but not for any one particular issue. All things considered, I believe McCain is “worse.”
But all this Obama love is nauseating.
All what “Obama love”? Did I or anyone else say we “love” Obama? That he is above criticism? I have criticized Obama elsewhere, and I do so again here in this thread. His views on abortion must be denounced.
August 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“I guess the million lives lost in Iraq are worth less than the million unborn dead.”
Why will leaving Iraq now reduce the number of civilian deaths, MM? Aren’t they just or more likely to increase if a civil war breaks out, and won’t we be culpable for that?
I can understand opposition to the war before it began, but advocating a withdrawal before the country is sufficiently stable (the opposite is no different than our current position) is also morally tenuous.
August 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I can understand opposition to the war before it began, but advocating a withdrawal before the country is sufficiently stable (the opposite is no different than our current position) is also morally tenuous.
I continue to be puzzled by people who think the military is a “stabilizing” presence. Helping a country become “stable” is not the job of the military.
August 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
McCain doesn’t support the murder of unborn children. Now, you may want to rationalize and say that McCain supports the murder of Iraqi children who may die from the conflict in Iraq but this is hardly an equal position.
If you don’t think that Obama will ever use the military you are fooling yourself.
August 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm
The ‘don’t give an inch’ approach results in strange arguments on both sides.
The difference between McCain and Obama is one of degree – McCain doesn’t share the trueblue Catholic approach to abortion either, thankfully. There’ll always be rape, incest & life of the mother exceptions. “Good Catholics’ only give the mother a chance at survival if they can concoct some dual effect situation, which tends to be needlessly complicated and dangerous. Eg, the weird policy on ectopic pregnancies – it’s ok to take out the tube or part of it where the embryo latched on (and thereby killing it) but not ok to do the much easier abortion, which has the same effect and goal – end the pregnancy. I don’t for a minute believe anyone who says otherwise. Not to mention that it endangers the woman’s fertility – who is, after all, expected to produce as many children as possible, barring grave exceptions. If they can’t come up with a dual effect scenario, the woman’s out of luck. The one who chooses the life of the child gets made a saint, the one who chooses her own life – and to remain a mother and wife to already existing people, not so much. It does sound a lot like celibate men made the rules. Oh.
Then, of course, a good Catholic would also disagree with the legal availability of the morning after pill (and the pill in general), to prevent a rape or incest induced pregnancy. (exception: bishops of CT),
So, while abortion as birth control certainly isn’t desirable, neither is the unnecessarily cruel Catholic way. Of course, this is theoretical to begin with – Roe v Wade won’t be overturned, and if it did, there’d still be life, rape, incest exceptions even in the most conservative states (which, curiously, tend to have the highest teen pregnancy rates. And 10-15 times the abortions of Western European countries, heck, liberal Holland).
Limiting the legality of abortions by scenario is desirable, but how to do that is beyond me.
August 11, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Now, you may want to rationalize and say that McCain supports the murder of Iraqi children who may die from the conflict in Iraq but this is hardly an equal position.
The only way you could say that killing Iraqi children is “not equal” to killing American babies is if you A) think it’s more evil to kill a fetus than any other child or B) you think American children are worth more than Iraqi children.
So which is it? A or B? Perhaps both?
If you don’t think that Obama will ever use the military you are fooling yourself.
Actually, that’s another one of my main critiques of Obama: that he is not anti-militaristic enough. But I would not expect you to know that. You would rather draw conclusions about what I believe, basing none of it in fact.
August 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Since I don’t share the absolutist worldview with its intrinsically evil actions etc., I very much think one can support an anti-war candidate versus an anti-abortion candidate, since in this country the president’s de facto impact on abortion is rather small, even if Roe v Wade were overturned. That would only result in the issue being returned to the states, which would never legislate the fully Catholic position anyway, and most states would keep abortion legal. I think that the primary interest should be in the people who are already here. Of course that is far harder than opposing something when said opposition doesn’t ‘cost’ anything.
Bombing the crap out of countries is, however, the president’s domain. By not declaring war, he needs no assent from Congress, just money. And who doesn’t vote to give money to the troops ? To start a war is pretty much a guarantee to have control over the opposition to some degree – nobody wants to look unpatriotic, after all. That it may be patriotic to keep one’s troops from getting blown up in some godforsaken place is not a widespread opinion. Not that I am a pacifist.
Michael, Nate et all should enjoy this: http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10672
August 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I should add that this “my abortion beats your unjust war” argumentation is uniquely American.
August 11, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Michael Iafrate.
You offer me a false dilemna.
Ending war in the world isn’t quite as easy as ending abortion. There will always be wars and rumors of wars according to Jesus.
August 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It is sloppy thinking to excersize in mental gymnastics in order to justify his unwillingness to freakin vote for children who survive abortions.
However, he did not exhibit an “unwillingness to freakin vote for children who survive abortions.” He was unwilling to let a certain bill become law that changed the definition of “person” in thousands of other laws on the books.
Explain to me why there wasn’t a law that simply mandated care for all infants who were born alive.
Estimate how many infants this will help. Is it even one?
It astonishes me that intelligent people fall for these political tricks. Can’t you see when you are being manipulated? Certainly anyone is free to oppose Obama because of his position on abortion. But to get all caught up in this emotional claptrap about how he wants to kill babies and how he is in favor of infanticide is just silly.
August 11, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Sean – You are distracting from the fact that you said one kind of child-killing is “not as bad” as another kind. I asked you a question about how you could say such a vile thing. You are avoiding the question. What reason(s) do you have for making that assertion. Simply claiming that “war is harder to eliminate than abortion” won’t do.
A or B, or both. Which is it?
August 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Well, I’d say Obama ‘favors’ the right to an abortion over the very rare case of abortion survival. While he’s not keen on finishing off an abortion survivor, he’s willing to accept that for the ‘greater good’ of abortion rights. He opposed that out of ‘principle’, which goes to show the problem of principles, absolutes and so forth.
August 11, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Explain to me why there wasn’t a law that simply mandated care for all infants who were born alive.
Because that is already the law, and any doctor who was delivering a wanted baby would do everything he could to protect the life of that baby. This law was originally proposed because of witness testimony that babies who were born alive as part of a botched abortion were being left to die. This law also represents a ‘core belief’ that everyone actually believes in, but many are afraid to vote for because the implication of that belief being encoded into law. If viable fetuses are legally babies, than you can’t kill them.
August 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Political tricks? Like Obama took the moral high ground by NOT voting to protect children that survive abortions? Please. “Oh, poor Obama. Nobody understands him. He really just scrutinized this bill so closely that he realized that it wasn’t specific enough…”
Please. If Obama was so smart about this bill why did he fail to show up for over 40% of the pills that came of the floor as a US Senator? If he felt so strongly why did he vote ‘present’ which is essentially a no vote? Legislators use the “present” vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting “no.”
Somehow, this “political trick” must have escaped every other legislator who voted for the bill. And, Obama didn’t try to articulate the “political trick” at the time.
And it isn’t just this one bill. The man has in every instance possible voted against life.
HE VOTED NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions!!!!
He is the most extreme anti-life candidate ever and a bunch of smart Catholics are going to vote for him and think that he is going to fix the world. Unbelievable.
He also opposed the partial birth abortion ban. And then Obama criticized the Supreme Court for banning partial birth abortion.
August 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Michael.
You cannot argue that supporting the war is the same thing as supporting partial birth abortion. Sorry. It won’t do.
Killing children is not the aim of war. Killing children is the aim of abortion.
August 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sean –
Again, you are distracting. I do recognize that war and abortion are distinct moral actions. There are differences and similarities.
Killing children is not the aim of war. Killing children is the aim of abortion.
I hope you have the ability to think beyond such simplistic statements.
1) No, killing children is not the “aim” of war, but it is an unavoidable result of war.
2) For most women, killing children is not the “aim” of abortion. Getting out of a difficult situation is the the aim. From my understanding, most women would love to get out of that difficult situation and avoid the pain of killing a human being.
Aside from these inaccuracies in your thinking, you did say fairly directly that one type of child-killing (the killing of Iraqi children in war) is not as bad another (the killing of American children through abortion).
How do you justify that view? Are babies more valuable than 3 and 4 year olds? Or are American children more valuable than Iraqi ones? A or B, or both?
August 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Among horrid things, in a Sophie’s Choice type situation, It is far worse to shoot someone who knows what’s happening than to abort a fetus. Killing someone’s mother is worse than killing a potential child. Why ? Because of the emotional attachment, intellectual awareness, fear etc.
While killing children may not be the aim of all wars, it is the result of all modern wars.
August 11, 2008 at 3:47 pm
For most women, killing children is not the “aim” of abortion
Every omelet breaks a few eggs eh?
August 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Because that is already the law, and any doctor who was delivering a wanted baby would do everything he could to protect the life of that baby. This law was originally proposed because of witness testimony that babies who were born alive as part of a botched abortion were being left to die.
Jeremy,
It sounds like what you are saying is that the situation was already covered by existing laws, which were not being enforced, so they passed another law. Why not enforce existing laws?
Also, you are not explaining why the law didn’t say something like all babies born alive, whether through natural birth or abortion, must receive appropriate medical care. Why redefine “person” in every existing statute? Why in effect amend thousands upon thousands of statutes and regulations to achieve the simple purpose of mandating care for a certain category of infants? The intent, of course, was not to protect infants born from botched abortions. It was to get a new definition of “person” and do so by making anyone who opposed the bill look bad.
August 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm
My point was that some are accusing Obama to being indifferent to the lives of infants being born alive in the course of an abortion.
David, we may need a clarification of the point of the post – he may or may not be indifferent – I have no idea. My implicit point is that he is wholly in the pocket of the abortion lobby, has never had a deviation from their orthodoxy, and is easily the most radical politician on the question of abortion to ever win a major party nomination. Second, this all should be very troubling for Catholics – and whatever the alternative (heck, don’t vote), Obama should be completely unacceptable given these stances.
August 11, 2008 at 4:07 pm
It was to get a new definition of “person”
What part of the definition of ‘person’ in that bill do you disagree with?
August 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Political tricks?
Sean,
Yes, political tricks. How many babies did the federal law help? How many babies have all the similar state laws helped? The answer is they helped as many babies as the partial birth abortion bill prevented abortions. None.
August 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm
jonathanjones02,
I don’t necessarily agree totally with your message of 4:02 pm, but its not something I would attempt to dispute. Obama’s record as an advocate of abortion is clear. For those who disapprove of abortion, I understand the difficulty in voting for him. However, he is not a monster or a murderer.
August 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm
What part of the definition of ‘person’ in that bill do you disagree with?
Jeremy,
I have not seen anyone go into all the possible ramifications of this (for one reason, because it is such an immense task it would be impossible!), but there is a scenario at the following site regarding how the new definition of “person” might affect wills.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm
As I think I said above, the new definition might make an embryo a person at about the four or five week stage, when it is less than a sixteenth of an inch long. Would birth and death certificates be required for a miscarriage at that stage (if the mother even know she had one)? Would burial be required? As I believe I already quoted, “Congressional Research Service reported that the bill would amend about 15,000 provisions of the U.S. Code and 57,000 provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Do you want to bet there are no possible ramifications from redefining “person” in all those bills?
I don’t want to get into the philosophical definition of a person, which is a very difficult issue. I am just pointing out that the legal meaning of “person” was changed in tens of thousands of laws and regulations. Does it really seem like the most direct or appropriate way to assure necessary care for babies born in botched abortions?
August 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm
However, he is not a monster or a murderer.
How many infants, born alive after an abortion, in the state of Illinois, were murdered as a direct result of his personal act?
Yes he is a murderer. He is.
August 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm
And BTW I actually agree with the basic premise of MM’s post.
August 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm
… post on Cheney and Kevorkian.
August 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Given that it is already illegal to murder someone after they are born, I would speculate none were killed as a result of not passing this bill. This was one of those moral victory bills.
August 11, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“And BTW I actually agree with the basic premise of MM’s post.”
That if you can’t debunk the facts, you should attempt to discredit the messenger?
August 11, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Monster seems to fit. May God have mercy on him, as well as on John McCain for his current position on embryonic stem cell research.
It seems we live in a land with nothing but monsters…
Pax Christi,
August 11, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Given that it is already illegal to murder someone after they are born, I would speculate none were killed as a result of not passing this bill.
Does Elizabeth Ehlert’s daughter count as a person in your book? Do you think there have been none like her since Obama’s personal act to insure that murders like that one remain legal in Illinois?
I think your ’speculation’ is just wishful thinking on your part.
August 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm
How many infants, born alive after an abortion, in the state of Illinois, were murdered as a direct result of his personal act?
Zippy,
What is the answer to your question? How many? Are you sure there were any at all? Don”t you think you need to know the answer to that question before you draw a conclusion? Obviously it would be difficult to come up with an exact answer, but don’t you think that to make the accusation you are making, you are obligated to have at least some idea?
August 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Don”t you think you need to know the answer to that question before you draw a conclusion?
No. If someone deliberately fires a gun into a group of children with an intent to kill, I don’t need to know whether he succeeded in killing any of them to know what kind of person he is.
People who support Obama, by doing so, make themselves into the kind of people who support a deliberate murderer, a moral monster. That’s just the way it is. That you guys don’t want to face that fact is a bug in your approach to politics, not a feature,
August 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm
People who support Obama, by doing so, make themselves into the kind of people who support a deliberate murderer, a moral monster. That’s just the way it is.
Ridiculous.
Even with my extreme dislike for the murderous policies of the Bush administration would never say that all those who voted for Bush “made themselves into the kind of people who support a deliberate murderer, a moral monster.” I have respect for people who voted for Bush but who have courageously opposed his monstrous policies (some of them are VN bloggers, some are relatives of mine).
“That’s just the way it is”? Hardly.
August 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Even with my extreme dislike for the murderous policies of the Bush administration would never say that all those who voted for Bush “made themselves into the kind of people who support a deliberate murderer, a moral monster.”
I would say that anyone who supports Bush now, knowing all we know now, makes himself into the kind of person who supports a war criminal who starts unjust wars and employs torture.
Why so squeamish on the point, Michael?
August 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm
No. If someone deliberately fires a gun into a group of children with an intent to kill, I don’t need to know whether he succeeded in killing any of them to know what kind of person he is.
Zippy,
That is a terrible analogy. Obama blocked passage of a law against something that, as far as I know, was illegal already. It is just preposterous to claim that legislators who don’t pass laws against any given immoral act are as guilty of it as those who actually commit those acts.
If I am remembering correctly, it was the EPA that just marked down the price of a human life. It is calculated routinely so cost-benefit analyses can be done on various regulations. So regulations are pass knowing that if they are stricter, they would save more lives. Of course, any good Catholic would say you can’t put a price on human life. Are regulators therefore murderers if they don’t insist on ignoring the costs and promulgating regulations that result in the loss of no lives? You can’t even give me a number for what you accuse Obama of, but in the case of EPA regulations, they can give you a pretty accurate guess, statistically speaking, of the number of people who will die because a given regulation is not more strict.
August 11, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I would say that anyone who supports Bush now, knowing all we know now, makes himself into the kind of person who supports a war criminal who starts unjust wars and employs torture.
Only if you consider “support” to be an all-or-nothing thing. Granted, it’s increasingly difficult for anyone with any conscience to “support” Bush in any way whatsoever, considering his presidency has been a near universal failure.
Why so squeamish on the point, Michael?
I’m not “squeamish”; I simply would like you to be a little more thoughtful and truthful.
August 11, 2008 at 5:58 pm
McCain doesn’t support the murder of unborn children.
Well, he does support the murder of children who won’t technically be born, but will be “conceived” in a laboratory. And if we want to play the numbers game, then the amount of children who will be killed as a means for embryonic stem cell research will dwarf the abortion numbers.: 40+ million babies aborted since 1973…40+ million babies killed in the lab since last year.
Also, McCain’s position on abortion is very hazy, and while his rhetoric borders on pro-life, it is not altogether clear that his policy and judiciary action will be starkly different than that of Obama. With George W. Bush, thankfully, we knew what to expect in this regard going into the 2000 and 2004 election.
Why can’t I accept that the Republican party as the “party of life”? Because it let McCain get the nomination over and above other pro-life candidates.
By the way, Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, is looking more and more like McCain’s VP.
August 11, 2008 at 6:22 pm
How many different different forms and instances can this same intellectual battle take at V-N?
I surmise that we will see it repeated at least more 25 times here before the 1st Tuesday of November.
August 11, 2008 at 6:24 pm
David:
Obama blocked passage of a law against something that, as far as I know, was illegal already.
If you read the article I linked in response to MZ Forrest, you will discover that that oft-repeated statement is false. There is in fact infanticide taking place in Illinois that that law would have forbidden.
Obama is a murderer. a moral monster. Those who support him are like other sheeple who have supported moral monsters in the past, and will again in the future. It is up to each person to decide what kind of person he wants to be: the kind of person who supports a murderer and a moral monster, or not that kind of person.
Michael:
My thoughtfulness I leave to others to judge for themselves. But where, precisely, have I said anything dishonest?
August 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Zippy,
Elizabeth Ehlert’s daughter was born (whether alive or dead seems uncertain) in 1990! It is rather strange to use it against Obama. The article you link to misrepresents the judge’s 2002 decision. Here is the final paragraph:
Nowhere does the judge say that a baby still attached by an umbilical cord has not completed the delivery process. There is no evidence that the woman killed her baby, and certainly it is not the judge’s contention that she killed the baby while it was being born, but that is okay because that makes it a stillborn baby. The boyfriend was not certain he heard a cry, and even if he did, “In several cases courts applying the common law have found a single cry insufficient to prove live birth beyond a reasonable doubt, because the baby may breathe during the birth process, before completed delivery.”
The article you link to is totally distorted, and I think that would be the conclusion of anyone who read the judge’s decision.
http://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2002/1stDistrict/November/Wp/1000273.doc
And I don’t think it is even relevant to the discussion, having absolutely nothing to do with Obama or any born-alive legislation.
August 11, 2008 at 6:48 pm
The reason it counts against Obama is that that is the legal status quo he defended. (And which you are defending now).
August 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm
There would be massive discontent within the GOP and among the conservative voters (not necessarily an overlap there) if Ridge were selected. Second, I’ve never understood what is so great about the guy (it certainly wasn’t his stint in the cabinet).
August 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm
The reason it counts against Obama is that that is the legal status quo he defended.
Zippy,
I am happy to defend the legal status quo if it means a woman is acquitted when there is a reasonable doubt that she killed her baby because there are no witnesses, no signs of damage to the baby that were consistent with intentional harm done but not consistent with injury during childbirth, no indication that the baby was born alive other than a boyfriend who “thought” he heard a two-second cry but wasn’t sure, and precedents that indicate a brief cry, even if it occurred, did not prove live birth beyond a reasonable doubt, since babies can die during the birth process. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that the judge ruled that deliberately killing a baby during the birth process, or after it was born but still attached by the umbilical cord, would not have been a crime. I can’t find the common law definition of live birth, but the WHO definition, dating to 1950, specifically states that one sign of live birth is blood pulsing through the umbilical cord.
I understand (to some degree, anyway) those who feel abortion is the most serious issue facing the United States. But I don’t understand people who accuse people of even the most extreme “pro-choice” positions of being murderers. Peter Singer actually argues that infanticide is morally permissible, but to be a murderer he, or Obama, actually has to kill someone.
August 11, 2008 at 7:17 pm
…but to be a murderer he, or Obama, actually has to kill someone.
Right. In Obama’s case, by taking concrete action to block that law.
You seem to be ignoring several significant points in the article, as if the fact that you don’t find those facts in the particular decision (following a murder conviction held up on appeal) renders those things false.
I’m disgusted enough by this discussion that you will be relieved to know that I am going to take leave from reading this blog for a while. I’m sure you don’t see what in your first paragraph is abhorrent. That is part of the problem.
August 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm
But where, precisely, have I said anything dishonest?
I’ve already pointed that out to you. No need to revisit it.
There would be massive discontent within the GOP and among the conservative voters (not necessarily an overlap there) if Ridge were selected.
Yet, if McCain did pick him, there is nothing the GOP could do about it except complain about it. Which is what many GOPers did about the nomination of McCain himself, and they support him anyway. I suspect the same will happen if Ridge is selected.
August 11, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Michael Iafrate,
I never said that an Iraqi child being killed as a result of the war wasn’t as bad as abortion. I didn’t even say anything close to that.
I am sorry but it is ‘as simple’ as the aim of abortion being the killing of a child.
Lets evoke the Magesterium shall we? Abortion is intrinsically evil. Period. It does not matter about the ‘intent’ of the mother.
War isn’t always intrisically evil. There is a just war doctrine. Now, whether or not the war in Iraq is a just war is debatable. Sorry. It is.
The American troops were not sent to Iraq to kill Iraqi children. Abortion doctors enter the womb to kill children.
How many children were saved by the American intervention? How many children and parents of children did Sodom kill? Oh, I remember, he killed 10s of thousands of Kurds at once with poisen gas. What if the military intervention in Iraq prevented that from happening again?
Better yet, how many women’s lives are saved by partial birth abortion? None. A scenario where birthing a baby half way and then chomping its head off to ’save the life of the mother’ does not exist. Yet, Obama opposed the banning of partial birth abortion.
But hey, that is ok because he is going to help poor people. Oh, but he won’t help poor people. He’ll just increase the size of government and create a class of citizens that are entirely dependent on the governement which isn’t helping them at all…
August 11, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Now, you may want to rationalize and say that McCain supports the murder of Iraqi children who may die from the conflict in Iraq but this is hardly an equal position.
Here’s what you said, Sean. Sure sounds like you think the support of the murder of Iraqi children is not equal in gravity to the murder of American children in the womb (which is what you were comparing).
If you didn’t mean it, feel free to correct it, but it is indeed what you said.
Now, whether or not the war in Iraq is a just war is debatable. Sorry. It is.
We can say “it’s debatable” as long till we’re blue in the face, but at some point, you Catholics who DO explicitly continue to support the war, both initially and currently (your last comment made CLEAR that you explicitly support it, and did so from the beginning) are going to have to own up to the human destruction you are justifying. We Catholics who are sticking with the clear, obvious implications of just war teaching and who affirm the judgment of the Popes and bishops conferences that this war is unjust are not in the wrong. Keep saying “it’s debatable” and we’ll keep saying, “we stuck by our bishops.” Keep saying “it’s debatable” and we will keep saying “killing human persons is not debatable.” Keep saying “it’s debatable” and we will keep pointing out that you DON’T think “it’s debatable”; you think the war was a good move and you in fact hide behind the words “it’s debatable.” Keep saying “it’s debatable” and we will keep affirming that Iraqi children are just as valuable as American children.
Either the war is just or it is unjust. It can’t be both. If it was unjust, the killing involved is just as gravely evil as the killing of fetuses. It’s a shame you cannot feel the weight of that reality.
But hey, that is ok because he is going to help poor people. Oh, but he won’t help poor people. He’ll just increase the size of government and create a class of citizens that are entirely dependent on the governement which isn’t helping them at all…
The extent to which you are blinded by partisan ideology is revealed in this block of text.
August 11, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I said that supporting the war and supporting abortion is not an equal position in terms of children dying. I’ve explained that several times but in case you missed it….
American Troops are Not In Iraq with the explicit purpose of killing Iraqi kids. I have many friends in the military and they are targeting military targets. They are also building schools and providing much relief to the Iraqi people who didn’t have it so great under Sadaam.
Abortion doctors enter the womb with the explicit purpose of killing children.
Get it?
And…please. I never said that I support the war or supported it from the beginning. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Obama will be a horrible, horrible president.
(Note how I have not said anything in support of McCain…just pre-empting me because I expect you to put more words in my mouth about supporting McCain.)
August 11, 2008 at 8:22 pm
American Troops are Not In Iraq with the explicit purpose of killing Iraqi kids.
The death of Iraqi children is the inevitable result of this war, both in terms of active killing by the military and the deaths that will occur down the road, years from now.
I have many friends in the military and they are targeting military targets.
I have friends in the military too. In addition to “military” targets, they are told to target civilians. This is undeniable.
They are also building schools and providing much relief to the Iraqi people who didn’t have it so great under Sadaam.
Schools. How sweet. I’m pretty sure it didn’t take a bunch of soldiers to build the schools that I went to. Bring the troops home and send over some contractors.
And…please. I never said that I support the war or supported it from the beginning. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You go to great lengths to justify the war, and you want to deny that you support it?
Obama will be a horrible, horrible president.
I guess it comes down to this for you, eh? Bottom line = Obama bad.
August 11, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“First, quoting John Paul II, it reminds us that, “man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.” In other words, unless our personal faith shapes our public choices and actions, it’s just a pious delusion. Private faith, if it’s genuine, always becomes public witness — including political witness.”
“The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.”
Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
August 11, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Michael,
You are trying really hard. Driving automobiles inevitably results in the death of people.
Do you view the liberation of France in World War 2 the same way because I am sure some children died in that conflict and might of lived had the Allies not invaded France.
“I have friends in the military too. In addition to ‘military’ targets, they are told to target civilians. This in undeniable.”
OK. You just lost whatever credibility you actually had as far as I am concerned. You see…people like you want to believe that the American military is that evil. It gives you something to complain about. If that was actually happening than thousands of American serviceman would be talking about it to the media and it would be all over the place. Instead, several whack jobs tell Michael Moore about it and it ends up being completely and utterly disproven over and over again….
Conspiracy theories…please.
August 11, 2008 at 8:38 pm
“the murder of Iraqi children is not equal in gravity to the murder of American children in the womb.”
Collateral damage is the indirect loss of civilians in war as a result of a military operation . It is my understanding that military operations are planned to minimize collateral damage. An abortion is a surgical operation where the direct purpose is to kill the fetus/child. IMO these scenarios are not comparable.
August 11, 2008 at 8:54 pm
American lives actually directly saved by GOP anti-abotion, judicial centered
politics in the past 30 years. 0- a minimum
Lives killed by an the result of unjust invasion of Iraq ,plus those of Iran, if Cheney had gotten his way: millions.
The irony in the sanctimony of these one-trick pony pro-lifers/GOP minions: priceless.
August 11, 2008 at 9:00 pm
War is certainly not always intrinsically evil. In other words, its moral status depends on circumstances. If the right condistions are not in place uncer the just war doctrine, then it is extrinsically evil– and evil is evil. And there is simply no doubt here that the conditions did not apply– just take the “last resort” criterion alone. Thus, the Iraq war was indeed an evil war.
August 11, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mark DeFrancisis. Give it time. Its only been 30 years.
You think the answer is to lend support to candidates that are expressely for the propogation of more abortions?
August 11, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Also, McCain’s position on abortion is very hazy, and while his rhetoric borders on pro-life, it is not altogether clear that his policy and judiciary action will be starkly different than that of Obama. . . . Why can’t I accept that the Republican party as the “party of life”? Because it let McCain get the nomination over and above other pro-life candidates.
Oddly, though, McCain’s enemies don’t suffer from any expectations that he is anything other than a stout anti-abortion statesman. http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b&p=1
August 11, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Mark: Most Democrats voted to support the war in Iraq too; this was not just a GOP issue.
There are some of us, who did not support the war in Iraq, but who now understand that given the current situation that an immediate withdrawal is not possible without further destabilization of Iraq and a potential ripple affect in the Middle East. There are those of us who think that the corrupt Iraqi government should have stepped up to the plate long ago. There are those of us who think that the U.S. military should have been given the resources and descretion to run the military operation as they saw was indicated WITHOUT the meddling of Rumsfeld and Cheney.
There is nuance and not the broad brush that you paint for those of us who represent a more conservative viewpoint…
August 11, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues.
Absolutely! And the right to life precedes and undergirds the Catholic position on abortion AND war. “The right to life comes first” and “abortion comes first” are not equivalent statements. Abortion is wrong BECAUSE the right to life comes first. And unjust wars are wrong BECAUSE the right to life comes first. Get it?
The “every other social issue or group of issues” that are referred to in your quote are social issues that are NOT life issues. War is indeed a life issue.
August 11, 2008 at 9:51 pm
OK. You just lost whatever credibility you actually had as far as I am concerned. You see…people like you want to believe that the American military is that evil.
Are you denying the testimony of countless U.S. soldiers coming back from Iraq (including at least two friends of mine) who affirm that our soldiers have been told to target civilians? Way to “honor” them. Sorry if their testimony interferes with your politics. I’d rather know the truth than live in denial.
It gives you something to complain about.
Believe me, I wish I didn’t have to “complain” about it!
If that was actually happening than thousands of American serviceman would be talking about it to the media and it would be all over the place.
You simply are not paying attention, because countless soldiers ARE talking to the media about it.
Instead, several whack jobs tell Michael Moore about it and it ends up being completely and utterly disproven over and over again….
This has nothing to do with Michael Moore. And where exactly has this been “disproven”?
I can’t help you if you are more interested in protecting your conscience than you are in knowing the truth about the world you live in.
August 12, 2008 at 7:33 am
Are you denying the testimony of countless U.S. soldiers coming back from Iraq (including at least two friends of mine) who affirm that our soldiers have been told to target civilians?
Yes. I am.
You simply are not paying attention, because countless soldiers ARE talking to the media about it.
Keep dreaming. The Department of the Defense takes those claims seriously and the whole world watches. Remember the Haditha incident? Every Solider involved was aquitted.
You are just nuts to equate the war in Iraq with abortion. Your position only holds water if the American troops are there trying to kill Iraqi children therefore you choose to believe that the American troops are ordered to kill civilians. Which is absolutely absurd.
August 12, 2008 at 8:09 am
Are you denying the testimony of countless U.S. soldiers coming back from Iraq (including at least two friends of mine) who affirm that our soldiers have been told to target civilians?
My initial reaction would be to deny this too, especially the sloppy term “countless” (unless you mean that you can’t count whether it’s 2 or 3 ex-soldiers making such an accusation). You’re going to have to cite a reputable source, not unnamed “friends.”
August 12, 2008 at 7:09 pm
[...] abortions. Alas, we shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. Consider this response by Mr. Minon when one of his own co-bloggers presents him with evidence that his dearly beloved [...]
August 16, 2008 at 9:23 pm
From your mission statement I read you are “United in [your] Catholic, pro-person worldview.” Am I to understand from the posts supporting Obama that many contributors here do not believe an child is not a person even after it survives a late term abortion? Why bother with the facade of being faithful to the teachings of the Church? You pick those things you like in what the Church teaches, and deny the rest. A person doesn’t even have to be Catholic to do that.
And as a technical note, the late term abortions being done at Christ Hospital, a hospital that is run by Obama’s church (which raises a serious conflict of interest issue with him handling the issue in the first place), assume that they will simply let any child born alive die without care. Some of these children take an hour or more to die a horrible agonizing death and could be saved with immediate medical intervention. The argument that they would die anyway (not supported by any facts, I might add) is not worthy of Catholic thought.
August 17, 2008 at 3:06 am
Judith M
If someone votes for Obama is not DOT follow they agree with him on abortion. Your understanding is wrong. The people who have said they would vote for Obama (which is only a few, not all) have also said they are against abortion. But they believe there are proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. This, of course, is how Catholics act in voting.
September 15, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Michael J. Iafrate
I certainly hope you are not claiming to be a CATHOLIC. You are not, and you do the faithful a great disservice. The Catholic Catechism states: 1930-2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. “The moment a positive law deprives a catgory of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place it’s power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and inparticular of the more vunerable, the very foundation of a state based on law is undermined…As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” 1930-2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed as far as possible. Like any other human being.
I also suggest when you care to compare anything to the Iraq War and blame it on President Bush you first familarize yourself with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Hr 4655 a United States Congressional Statement of policy calling for regeme change in Iraq: it was signed into law by impeached President Bill Clinton. The Catholic catechism is also very clear about war if it is necessary.
t
October 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm
[...] cannot vote for Sen. Obama. He is not simply “pro-choice,” but a strong advocate – in deed and in promise, against the unborn and for a whole host of unacceptable policies that will directly [...]