Friday, August 22, 2008

"Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide"

Andrew C. McCarthy says it's because it was "[m]ore important to protect abortion doctors than “'that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.'"

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.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

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.
Go read the whole article which includes substantial transcripts from hearings in which Obama repeatedly voices his concern that "Born Alive" legislation will lead to second-guessing abortionists and preventing the "mother's" - you've got to air-quote that word when she clearly doesn't want to be one - expressed wishes of killing her baby to be carried out. I've written about "Obama's Infanticide Problem" recently and with the coronation of this extreme radical fascist scheduled for next week, the race is on to get the crown on his head before word spreads about his militant anti-life views.

The Treason Media will be spinning and attempting to cover up these inconvenient truths not only in order to protect their Anointed One and their advocacy of the Culture of Death, but because they know this is an issue that could drop the scales from the eyes of the Christians who have blindly followed this false Messiah for reasons that make no sense. Jesus said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, not to take from the rich and give to the poor. (That was Robin Hood. Or Karl Marx.) How can even the most liberal nominally-Christian denominations square their support for a woman's right to kill her baby with refusing to render aid to a baby born alive.

This isn't that hard a moral dilemma to suss out...provided you have a f*cking soul, that is. Try this: A man shoots another man on the front steps of a hospital in full view of doctors and nurses. Should the doctors rush to the aid of the wounded man or stand back and let him die because the shooter's intention was to terminate the life of the victim and thus shouldn't be interfered with or second-guessed? If the shooter's desires are irrelevant in this example, why does the "mother's" intent get elevated to the detriment of her victim?

Laws are passed to express society's will to encourage proper behavior and sanction those who stray beyond decency's bounds. Murder and rape laws don't stop either, but serve to lay out how society intends to deal with those unable to control their impulses. Common human decency should compel people to assist those in need, but as the situation in Illinois revealed, some doctors were so bankrupt in the empathy category that they required rules to encourage them to help the helpless, even if the original intent was to kill them outright.

As I wrote before, the Born Alive Act was supported by die-hard militant abortion advocates including NARAL (whose sole reason for existence is to promote as many abortions as possible), Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. As much as these groups and people wish for as much abortion as possible, even they know that this was too much to sell to the public because you can't spin infanticide without looking like a monster.

Barack Obama is counting on the Treason Media to protect his monstrous contempt for human life secret. He views babies as a punishment - at least as far has his own daughters go - and has been willing to stand alone to ensure the death of helpless babies. Note that I'm not using the word "baby" in the manner of the shrill pro-lifers who cry "baby killer" even if its a 6-week-old fetus; I'm talking about living, breathing, viable BABIES existing outside of the mother's womb. If the abortionist went, "Oh, crap. It's still breathing.", and then picked up a brick and smashed it down on the baby until it was dead - the desired outcome dontchaknow? - would the Obamessiah have a problem with that? If an unwanted baby isn't worth anything to Obama at its birth, what's to prevent his commanding that viable ADULTS be eliminated because they're just useless eaters? Hmmmm?

No comments: