-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The SBA List has a moving video online featuring a beautiful woman who, as an infant, was the intended victim of an abortion, but survived.
It mentions Barack Obama’s sick, inhuman fight in Illinois against a version of the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, which would mandate assistance for such infants rather than a second attempt to kill them.
As a reminder, here is the disgusting audio of Obama explaining his position.
Here are the words, with Obama describing what the horrible burden it would supposedly be on the original abortionist/doctor, “if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming up limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?”
How much more bloodless could Obama be?
Ramesh Ponnuru does a good job explaining this all, here.
This man, this president, is a walking,one-man death panel.
View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/09/25/the-sleeper-issue
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 8:05AM
So you guys still want to force your religious views on the rest of us just like the Islamic countries. If you really want liberty, you need to let people make their own decisions and set their own moral standards. The idea that a human life begins at conception is wholly a religious, not scientific, concept. Of course, most of you twist "science" into your religious beliefs like "intelligent design". I want government out of our lives as much as possible -- and that includes social issues.
irish19| 9.26.12 @ 9:00AM
Did you even bother to read the article? Your post says no.
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 9:39AM
I absolutely read the article. Your post says that you really don't understand personal liberty.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 10:29AM
Did you watch the video? If so, what do you say to that young woman? If not, why not? Closed minded? Don't want to know the truth of what, i should say who, it is that has been aborted?
Unwed, I gave my baby up for adoption. Then, some thirty years later got to meet, hug, kiss, get loved by and thanked by my beautiful Wally. From Florida to Minnesota I traveled, where his mom and his wife gave me the same good stuff. All three of my children and all 7 of my grandchildren played in my home this past Christmas.
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 10:46AM
We all make choices and need to live with the consequences for those choices. I just don't want YOU to make the choice for me. My liberties are restricted enough.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 11:25AM
How bout I make the choice for that silent little baby inside of you, who, by the way, feels and suffers pain, but can't cry out where you can hear. You say you can live with the consequences? Fine for you, but when it means, as a consequence for the baby, that that baby dies, not by his/her choice, I
will yell and scream for him or her.
Some great morning I will get to hear the thanks from that little baby. You, only God knows what you will hear, due to your so-called choice, a choice you (the abortion chooser, I mean) made for both you
and your now silent baby.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 11:26AM
Btw, did you watch the video, or listen to the audio? You didn't say.
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 12:13PM
Listen, Tina, we are never going to agree on this issue. Just don't try and force your belief on me through government action.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 12:32PM
It is you, Fecal, who is FORCING your beliefs on the fetus (Latin for unborn baby) by falsely claiming that it is okay to kill him. He has as much of a right to life as you, or me.
This is why you liberal pro-aborts have to twist both science and logic, so that you can justify abortion to yourselves.
Or, if your a man, you want the option to browbeat your girlfriend or mistress into getting rid of your "problem," i.e., killing your baby.
Quin Hillyer| 9.26.12 @ 2:30PM
This is not about abortion. This is about babies who actually survived attempted abortions. They are there, breathing the air -- but Obama would STILL provide no protection for them. This is not a "choice" of a mother; this is, by ANY standard, an actual, living, breathing, human life.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 10:18AM
Sorry, Fecal, but it is Pro-Lifers who are on the side of science.
It is you pro-aborts who cling to your religion, the Culture of Death, I'm afraid. You guys reject science with your promotion of the bogus right to choose.
Human life begins at conception, according to the science of biology. A unique human person is created at the moment of conception. This person begins to grow. He begins consuming nutrients. He has 46 chromosomes, 23 of which he received from his mother, and 23 from his father.
This person is a separate entity from his mother, a foreign body trapped inside her for nine months. This is why he must be shielded from his mother inside her womb, because the mother's immune system seeks to destroy ALL foreign bodies inside her.
Please, Fecal, let's hear your "scientific" arguments against the Pro-Life position, if you have any?
In case you are having trouble comprehending these concepts, maybe it will help if you can visualize them.
(***WARNING*** Contains brief images of live birth and human anatomy.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#!
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 10:53AM
See my comment below. By the way, have you ever personally seen innocent people killed in war? I don't hear you railing against that... My personal view is that as the fetus grows and becomes viable, it grows into a full human life. I personally draw the line at when those clump of cells becomes sensient at about 22-24 weeks. And having fought in wars and actually taken human lives, (probably unlike you), I have a real problem with how bellicose we find most of you. War is a last resort measure, even if we're talking about Iran. And when you go to war, you understand that you are taking innocent human life -- even if they are Muslims.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 12:21PM
Aren't you embarrassed, Fecal, that you started this comment thread by complaining that the concept of human life beginning at the moment of fertilization is not scientific, and decrying the religious minded for twisting science; and, yet, you haven't offered one piece of scientific evidence to back up your mere assertions? Not ONE?
All you have is your "personal view," which is completely arbitrary. What magically happens between the 22nd week and the 24th that causes sentience to be bestowed on the unborn baby (fetus in Latin)? Why is it okay to kill a non-sentient person, i.e. someone in a coma? Do you understand the definition of the word life?
I served in the Army for 4 years and in Operation Desert Shield/Storm for 6 months, by the way. I didn't kill anyone, nor, did I see any dead bodies, Praise the Lord. It was a rather short war, after all.
But, your straw man crumbles rather quickly, I'm afraid. Abortion is the DELIBERATE killing of an unborn baby (fetus in Latin); while the killing of innocents in a war, because of collateral damage, IS NOT deliberate.
Intent is always the key to determine if something is criminal, or immoral. If innocent people are killed in a war deliberately, that is a war crime. And, a sin.
Get it?
I'm still waiting for your "scientific" arguments, Fecal.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 10:32AM
I love you Nick, in Christ of course, since we've never met.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 11:54AM
Thanks, TinaB. You ROCK!
I think you'll like the link on the Seven Deadly Fallacies, that I gave to Fecal, below. Please, check it out.
God Bless!
Yours in Christ, Nick
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 10:44AM
I knew I'd be dealing with the uneducated here. Science does not determine when life begins, that is a philosophical issue that depends on how you define the word "life". The fact that you don't understand science is obvious. If I accept your "definition" of life, then your Almighty kills far more than abortion doctors through natural processes. And you would be just as rigorous about outlawing IVF which kills millions of fertilized embryos in the process. I don't see that outrage here. The fact that you don't see this tells all of us you don't have the vaguest understanding of "science".
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 11:37AM
Educated? Where? Public schools? Public universities? Don't make me laugh. That's not a real education, or hasn't been for the last 50 plus years. And I taught for the last 25 or so, so I was on the inside.
I taught Algebra, and to some of the brightest minds in central Florida, headed for the IB program and the Ivy League schools. They learned math from me
but I wasn't allowed to open my mouth about
Truth, justice or the American way.
Pictures of Che Guevara on the walls, showing Algore's propaganda film on AGW, Outcomes Based Ed, Best Teaching Practices, all based on a subversive curriculum to change the minds and thinking of our children for a future as serfs to a Statist culture and sustainability.
You think you're educated, good for you. I think you don't know a real Education from "schooling." You and your elitist thinking about the "educated" vs the "uneducated" are part of the problem in our Obamanomic culture today.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 11:44AM
"I knew I'd be dealing with the uneducated here. Science does not determine when life begins, blah, blah, blah...."
I believe I asked for scientific arguments, Fecal. You obviously have none.
This is the typical obfuscation, deflection, and ad hominem that I have received from liberals, on this site, for almost 4 years, now, when they have NO FACTS to back up their mere assertions.
Your bogus claim that science does not define when life begins is laughable, and reveals to all who is the uneducated one. You also don't seem to understand that God creates all life, so He can take it, or preserve it, whenever He wants. Everybody dies, after all. But, that is theology, not biology,and does not explain the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.
And, yes, the Catholic Church has always spoken out against IVF, precisely because of all the unborn babies (fetuses in Latin) that are killed. If you don't see the outrage, it is because you are ignorant.
So, I'm still waiting for your "scientific" arguments, Fecal.
You seem to be bad at this debating thing, with all the blunders you keep making; so, here is a link that will hopefully keep you from using more logical fallacies in your faulty arguments:
http://www.integratedcatholicl.....arguments/
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 12:26PM
You call me "Fecal" and you complain about "ad hominem" attacks? Really? Wow...
Your claim that "science" defines when human life begins shows your ignorance about science. You probably also believe in "unintelligent design". If you want to "believe" in a philosophical concept, that's fine. But factually you are clearly wrong about your science argument. You certainly don't understand the difference between science and philosophy.
Again, there are NO scientific arguments about when life begins because it is a philosophical argument. Therefore, it is impossible to argue against a faulty belief on your part.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 12:50PM
All you are doing is repeating the same false assertion about philosophy. This is not an argument.
When, precisely, human BIOLOGICAL life begins is....SCIENCE, Einstein. It is observable and testable. That is called science by the educated.
I'm sorry that you don't believe in biology, but, it is a scientific discipline.
By the way, "Fecal" is really just name-calling, since all I did was change a couple of letters in your handle. It is not ad hominem. Look it up.
I treat people with the same respect that I receive. Although, I don't remember what, specifically, you did to cause me to come up with my new nickname for you.
So, I'm willing to give you a second chance, Fiscal. Okay?
Now, where are your "scientific" arguments against the Pro-Life position?
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 1:26PM
Actually, you are specifically defining "human life" in terms of fertilization. The sperm is "human life" as well as the egg. Do you really disagree that a sperm is both human and living? Isn't that "observable and testable"? Do you then want to differentiate between a specific human life and human life in general? In order for you to have science, you need both a theory/hypothesis AND a testable proof. What you are doing is defining "human life" in your own image and thus have what we call in logic, a circular argument which is never really provable. It depends on YOUR definition of life. Here is a biological definition of "life":
http://medical-dictionary.thef.....gical+life
You'll see that nothing in the definition has anything to do with the point of fertilization. Therefore, again, it is a philosophical, not scientific issue that depends on how you define the word "life". That is NOT science. Ask a real scientist who is NOT a social conservative.
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 2:14PM
Whatever institution "taught" you about science, Fiscal, you should sue for services not rendered.
I already knew the definition of life. And, since you didn't just copy & paste it, I will:
"[L]ife (līf) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc."
You'll notice that the first two in bold are the criteria that I listed in my initial reply to you.
Now, to your bogus argument about ovum & sperm. Do sperm eat, grow, or reproduce? Does the egg? They ARE NOT human life. They are produced by the human body and are considered "human life" as much as white blood cells & insulin are. A sperm is NOT human, nor is it living. It only carries 23 chromosomes, from the body that produced it. The same goes for the ovum.
So, your latest mere assertion, that I am the one defining "human life," is simply not true. As I have proven. Didn't you have biology in high-school? Sex education in health class?
Got anything else, Fiscal?
That resembles actual science, that is?
Nick| 9.26.12 @ 2:25PM
p.s. The Scientific Method actually consists of:
Observable Phenomenon.
Hypothesis.
Experiment.
Observation & Data Measurement.
Confirmation (Law), or,
Inconclusive Results (Theory), or,
Failure, Revise Hypothesis, New Experiment, etc.
Quin Hillyer| 9.26.12 @ 2:32PM
What the bleep don't you get about this? This is not only about a baby in the womb after your 24-week cut-off; this is about babies who are lying there, outside the womb, breathing the air. This is about protecting those babies -- who can grow up to be like the woman in the ad.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 6:36PM
I still haven't read that any of the abortion supporters watched the video, or listened to the audio. Especially blabbermouth Fiscal.
MRD| 9.26.12 @ 11:37AM
Ok fiscal, I am a physician, I know what science says about" life". I quote Moore and Persaud's text "The Developing Human, 8th edition 2008, page 15.. "Human Development begins at fertilization, (with the formation of the Zygote) this totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual" This settles that. What confuses you is some argue that some live humans ( like those growing in wombs ) are not "people" with rights. Recently in The British Journal of Medical Ethics this logic was applied to handicapped infants advocating their killing & used acceptance of abortion as the rationale. This is the vile path this logic takes. The idea that some humans are not people has been applied at one time or another to Africans and Jews , This is fascist. Beyond this Shouldn't communities be allowed to decide what moral acts are so repugnant they can limit them? If Roe was reversed, What would be so awful ? If people favor unlimited destruction of unborn children than no state would ever pass laws to limit it, as such laws would require broad support .You only need to fear reversal of Roe if the people wish to limit abortion. So why are you so afraid of your fellow citizens ? Getting rid of Roe will allow our fellow citizens to decide how much to limit abortion if at all. It would make the issue something argued on the state level where laws are closest to the people. I trust my fellow Americans that reason will prevail. Why do you fear them?
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 12:21PM
I see you don't understand the difference between "human development" and "human life". The first is a biological and scientific fact and the second is philosophy. That's why Moore and Persaud were so careful with their words (and YOU are not).
And the concept of legal rights has nothing to do with this issue. That is a secular concept with written laws. If you are a physician, you should have studied your sciences more effectively.
As for Roe, I'm of the PHILOSOPHICAL belief that neither federal or state laws should reduce our personal liberties. What you really want is to convert me to Christianity -- I understand that -- and you can certainly try. But forcing me to follow your beliefs through government action is fascism.
MRD| 9.26.12 @ 1:24PM
Fiscal: I do not think you read my post. The title of the Book is "Human Development" Moore makes the point that the Zygote marks our beginning as "individuals" If you bother to read the text there is no question unborn children are "alive". You are making the case they are not "people", to which I responded, Ok this a philosophical question, and the philosophy that some living human beings are not "people" leads to ugly conclusions historically. All laws reduce our liberties, laws against infanticide reduce your ability to kill human infants, laws against abortion reduce you ability to kill human unborn children. If most people regard such laws as good I do not see this as fascist. In 1959 the United States had such laws and few would have called the country fascist. That kind of talk makes you sound unhinged. In most of the European Union abortion after 12 weeks of gestation is illegal. Is France fascist? Ireland? Socialist Spain? Now granted this is not as restrictive as I would like but is better that slaughter of the unborn we currently have in the US. I do not discuss Christianity or your relationship to it. In fact you have no idea if I am a Christian or not. I could very well be a Druid. You conversion is not at issue. Most humane people in most of the world favor some limits on abortion. If you do not you are a fanatic, just like Obama.
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 1:37PM
Since we both agree that it is a philosophical, not scientific, argument, we can then come to a rational compromise on when to prohibit abortion and reduce the personal liberty of the mother. Since the growth of a fetus is gradual, I'm of the PHILOSOPHICAL opinion that we don't allow abortions after the fetus achieves the ability to think (not just react as does an earthworm). Our best science tells us that is about 22-24 weeks. In order to be safe, I'm willing to allow abortion in the first trimester, but I have a real problem with abortion in the second and third trimesters even for rape and incest (although I would allow it for the life of the mother). What makes this issue difficult is that human development is linear and not quantum (unless you are a religious conservative). You assume that I would allow abortions in almost any circumstance, and that is a real bias of yours. Most people supporting individual liberties and choice are reasonable people and not religious fanatics.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 1:27PM
Fiscal, and is that what you want us to call you, really? Fiscal? OK, so, Fiscal,
Yes, by our nature and our calling, deep down, both Nick and I would like to see you wake up, meet Christ, develop a personal relationship with Him, like we have, and you could have also, and why not? It's a great gift in our lives and we'd like to see all our friends, and some of our enemies, receive this gift.
Regardless, a baby has a life of his/her own and deserves that endowed by the Creator, inalienable as it is, right of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit (not the attainment) of happiness. It may be a "philosophical" matter to you, but it is definitely more than that, life or death actually, for the human life inside the human mother about to abort. Get it? Just because you don't blieve that, doesn't make it a falsehood.
Have you watched the video yet? Chicken?
Fiscal| 9.26.12 @ 1:44PM
Of course I've seen the video, and several more like them. I have several children of my own. And by my nature I would like to see both you and Nick wake up and not believe in mythological entities. But I can't stop people from believing in parochial dogma because belief is not rational thought. Your "falsehood" is my "truth". I just think that we ought to keep our personal dogma out of politics and government. Having studied comparative religion and spent time in a number of non-Christian countries, I just see personal dogmas as one more thing that destroys human life.
TinaB| 9.26.12 @ 6:37PM
in addition to abortion, you mean?
MRD| 9.26.12 @ 3:13PM
My last comment on this., I think it makes no sense to use the ability to "think" as the criteria for when you can kill a human being since such an ability is not present in a newborn. ( You can not hurl out a statement like" What our best science shows" and no nothing about the science ,the ability to "think is a lot later than 22 weeks" Thats why its a poor criteria, You see Newborn brains are largely unmyelinated so they are largely relying on earthworm like reflexes to function. Your argument would justify killing babies I am afraid. This will not be convincing as a reasonable criteria since we intuitively consider baby killing a bad thing. I suspect you do as well, but have not thought through your position very well. Still I think we have reached a point of agreement, We both think abortion should be more limited than its relative to the current state of affairs. Good! Most reasonable people feel this way. Although we are very far apart on just how limited, this need not concern anyone at the moment, since a reasonable unified conservative goal would be the elimination of Roe. This would civilize our politics to a great degree.