Thread: In 2002 Obama supported infanticide

Originally Posted by Felicity

No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.

He's making an accurate point. The last three Republican administrations of cutting taxes and borrowing money to make up for the shortfall caused, a principal reason the debt of the country increased from $1 trillion when Reagan took office in 1981 to $9.5 trillion today.

If the Govt spends more money to take care of unwanted babies, either taxes are raised to pay for it or the Govt borrows more money.

Originally Posted by Felicity

This is ridiculous.

1st--as people like to note, there are not that many that survive the abortion attempted upon them--most end up dead.

2nd--to address the issue of babies that are abandoned as a result of stricter abortion regulation, there ARE ways to figure out funding. Simply raising taxes isn't appropriate--the tax system is screwed up and inefficient as it is. I suggest thinking outside the box and reallocating tax monies.

We all want to reallocate money to programs we support. Good luck convincing the warmongers to cut military spending.

You are promoting a major new cost program -- forcing people to bear unwanted babies, yet offer no support to pay for it other than "thinking outside the box."

Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Obama on the Born-Alive Act [Yuval Levin]

The clip mentioned below is pretty striking. If they’re going to argue this, the Obama folks will need to offer some facts and documents, because as it stands now the only way I can read the evidence uncovered by the National Right to Life Committee compared to the assertion made by Obama in that interview is that Obama is not telling the truth. He had a chance to vote on a bill that dealt with the larger Roe v. Wade issue in exactly—verbatim—the same way as the federal bill (which Obama now claims he would have supported), and he voted against it in committee and killed it. The NRLC’s evidence seems pretty clear. If Obama wants to argue it’s “a lie,” he’ll need to prove it.

The Corner on National Review Online

And while we're on the subject of Obama's views on Baby's Rights vs Abortion
let's look at his statement's at Saddleback Church the other evening.

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

WARREN: Have you –

The decision to allow abortion is apparently not above his pay grade. The question and answer is somewhat the same as asking when will any particular human being die of man made or natural causes. And Obama's response would be 100% spot on in that context. It is above his pay grade. Only God can know when a person will die. However, what we assume in the case of babies is quite different than what we assume in the case of adults.

Where adults are concerned, because we can't know their moment of death ahead of time...the moment their rights as human beings stop...we legally safeguard their life.

But when it comes to babies, because we can't know the moment their rights as humans begin we declare them fair game.

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

When I was reading this text the first time I initially thought he was stalling or trying to make points with the evangelical crowd in attendance. But then I thought about it some more and I realized that there may be some people who really do not recognize the moral and ethical aspects of abortion. I am regularly astounded not only by the numbers of people who don't get this, but by the fact that they exist at all.

OBAMA: But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.

This is a key statement. Just as a criminal might not casually consider their legal defense and may consult lawyers and spouses and family members, the emphasis is here should not how seriously they consider their choices AFTER the pivotal event but how little thought and responsibility and good judgment was part of the decisions they made BEFORE the crime or before the act of conception.

Women are not acting responsibly at the time of sexual intercourse and that failure to exercise good judgment helps contribute, mightily, to the need to make these weighty decisions after they have made their mistake.

Luckily, women can kill their mistakes in judgment. A man does not have that right.

OBAMA:And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

Good.

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

The religious aren't the only ones who believe life starts at conception.

OBAMA: What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.

WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. [/SIZE]

Full Transcript: Saddleback Presidential Forum, Sen. Barack Obama, John McCain; Moderated by Rick Warren : Clips & Comment

"Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" This attitude is that the government knows what's best for us and is the Big Daddy. The nanny state. Haven't we learned the hazards of creating and expanding entitlement programs?

Originally Posted by bhkad

"Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" This attitude is that the government knows what's best for us and is the Big Daddy. The nanny state. Haven't we learned the hazards of creating and expanding entitlement programs?

No, the point is if you are to force women to have unwanted babies, then are you willing to support programs to pay for it?

Many women do not have resources to pay for bringing up a child. Obama is absolutely right that if you want to reduce abortions, then provide the means for supporting the child you want brought into existance.

You and other conservatives are all in favor of forcing women to have a baby she doesn't want and can't care for, but then rant about the "nanny state" when it comes to providing food, shelter, health care and education for it.

Again, I have little sympathy for the conservative position that cares so much about life until the child is born and then abandons it; making women have babies they don't want and then refusing to fund support to help care for it.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.

Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...

Originally Posted by Felicity

No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.

Well, if you don't want to raise taxes, but costs go up, the money has to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

We all want to reallocate money to programs we support. Good luck convincing the warmongers to cut military spending.

Convince the Islamists & terrorists to stop threatening the peace and freedoms of free and peaceful peoples around the world and we might be able to convince those darned warmongers to cut military spending.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

You are promoting a major new cost program -- forcing people to bear unwanted babies, yet offer no support to pay for it other than "thinking outside the box."

"You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows."

Larry Kudlow on Barack Obama and Tax Policy on NRO Financial

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.

That's waaaay too far outside the box.

You seem to be attracted to some messed up methods of providing benevolence for those who want to kill Americans. In the theater of abortion rooms or in the theater of armed combat on actual battlefields.

We must be humane with those enemies of the USA trying to kill our troops and we must fund and support those who would kill babies.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

No, the point is if you are to force women to have unwanted babies, then are you willing to support programs to pay for it?

Many women do not have resources to pay for bringing up a child. Obama is absolutely right that if you want to reduce abortions, then provide the means for supporting the child you want brought into existance.

Don't have sex unless you want to "provide the means for supporting the child" that may result from your behavior choice.

...same sort of reasoning, only in my suggestion, there is this magical thing that is both a blessing and a burden...it's called "personal responsibility!"

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Well, if you don't want to raise taxes, but costs go up, the money has to come from somewhere.

You're not even reading my posts on the matter.

Originally Posted by Felicity

Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...

How many late term abortions are being used as contraception?