Of course the question no one’s asking is why is everyone horrified that we would allow these babies to die after not suceeding in killing them, but not horrified about trying to kill them in the first place? It’s like not caring if a murderer shoots and kills people, but being horrified, if when his victim doesn’t die with his first try that he doesn’t call the ambulance.
Although that second video was not honest, and that nurse was not giving us the entire story, I agree it should be posted and used in ad’s…….why?
Obama is equally as dishonest as Bill Clinton and someone must call him out on it. Obama is 100% pro-choice, but is trying to appeal to pro-life voters, by lying and changing his positions.
#2, I actually would say MN, WI, IA, PA and MI are more pro-life than CO; and I think those are the states where a tough ad would make all the difference.
I think it’s an implicit acknowledgment that pro-choicers, in asserting the autonomy of the woman, aren’t totally off-track. In other words, even you think (as I do) that the fetus’s right to exist should trump the woman’s right to control her body, you can at least understand that there’s another interest involved. In this situation, there’s no other meaningful interest involved. The woman has aborted the child. She will not be inconvenienced with it; the issue of autonomy has been nullified. What justification then, is there, for denying it medical care, if only to ease it’s pain?
I am sickened by these and other videos on Obama’s abortion stance.
I heard of justification of this type abortion because of the baby having special needs (In this case Downs).
My daughter has cerebral palsy - They are saying she shouldn’t have been born. Screw them. She is the most wonderful little girl and I wouldn’t change here if I could. Even knowing now what we didnt know then, I would adopt her all over again. She is the light of my life and the reason I try to make this world a better place.
This is Kirsten, my daughter: http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v288/184/6/725347387/n725347387_951583_9227.jpg
Yeah, the two blogs I participate in, “think of everything”.
#13 Joel, I do not want to get in to it. Let us just focus on the fact that Obama is a serial liar, and talks out of both sides of his mouth, as slick Willie did.
I still don’t see why there aren’t more commercials running that point out this stuff against Obama. There is plenty of ammo that could be used. This guy has to be stopped.
I think it’s also worth paying attention to the language Obama used in justifying his opposition to the bill. This would be about the 15th explanation we’ve received for his vote, and probably among the most likely, given that it’s his own explanation before he was running for president, and the issue wasn’t a liability. Obama claims that bringing in an additional doctor, and creating an emergency would be a new burden calculated to interfere with the original choice to have the abortion. It’s hard to know exactly what he means by this (since we don’t have the rest of the audio), but here’s my best guess.
He’s likely arguing that if a hospital treats the aborted, still breathing, fetus as though it were a person, by administering medical care, bringing in an additional doctor, etc, they will make the mother feel uncomfortable and cause her to regret her decision to have the abortion. This idea is quite consistent with what he said, and has the added advantage of jiving certain pro-choice arguments.
For instance, pro-choicers often argue against mandatory sonograms, because you’re exerting pressure on the woman that unduly influences her choice. But, this situation is orders of magnitude more chilling; the mother has already made her decision; she doesn’t have to continue with the pregnancy; her autonomy is restored. But, now she must be protected from the possibility of regretting that choice, or god forbid, changing her mind, and choosing to keep the baby (assuming it survives)- the child must die, not for autonomy (which has already been achieved), but for the comfort of the mother. The mother not only has the choice to control her body, but the choice to control her state of mind- the abortion decision is perpetual; it extends beyond pregnancy. This is vile beyond conception.
It also happens to utterly negate every one of Obama’s previous explanations for his BAIPA vote. If Obama’s concern is that treating aborted, but still living, fetuses as persons, unfairly pressures the mother and humanizes the fetus in a way that burdens, ex post facto, the woman’s choice, then it can’t possibly matter if another neutrality clause is inserted into the legislation stating that it won’t effect state abortion laws. It was never about the state of other abortion laws.
Since the abortion debate seems to have gotten increasingly heated in the last few weeks, especially since the Warren forum, I’m wondering:
Is it possible that McCain is considering a pro-choice VP because Obama is considering a pro-life one? Tim Kaine, as I understand, is somewhat firmly pro-life, and he seems to be one of the leading contenders for the Dem veep. If Obama picks Kaine, and McCain picks someone staunchly pro-life, a number of voters are going to paint the Republican ticket as “extremist” on abortion and the Democratic ticket as more “nuanced”, even though McCain’s position is far less extreme than Obama’s, and it’s the *President* (not the ticket) that makes judicial appointments, etc. But what moderately pro-choice voters will see is: “McCain and Pawlenty, together, are very far to the right of me on abortion rights. Obama and Kaine, though to the left of me, seem to have a more subtle approach to abortion rights.” A pro-choice veep, then, would actually be better *even for the pro-life conservative base* because it would be a way of ensuring that the more pro-life of the candidates who will actually be able to influence judicial appointments would appeal to at least as many voters as the more pro-choice one.
In other words, in the voters’ minds, Obama/Kaine is roughly *as* nuanced regarding abortion as McCain/Lieberman, making both tickets broadly appealing to people across the political spectrum, even though McCain/Lieberman is the *actually* pro-life ticket in terms of the effect the ticket would have on legislation and judicial interpretation. So a pro-choice VP would be more of a winning situation for pro-lifers than a pro-life VP, because otherwise the Republican ticket would be portrayed as rigidly pro-life, compared with a “moderately” pro-choice ticket.
This all only holds true if Obama picks Kaine, though. If Obama picks a pro-choice VP, then McCain would do well to create more contrast with the Dem ticket by picking a solidly pro-life running mate.
Kaine is personally pro-life, in favor of “reducing abortion”, against partial birth abortion, but not in favor of “criminalizing women and their doctors”, in his words. In other words, he’s moderately pro-choice. Doesn’t favor big bans, but will support late-term restrictions. He’s as pro-life as Ridge. Or Rudy. That is to say, not at all.
Just watching these clips and listening to Obama is making me want to wretch. It makes the Veep speculation really insignificant IMO. The ONLY thing that matters to me is beating Obama.
But Kaine doesn’t have a NARAL rating, is comfortable discussing his personal pro-life convictions, and hasn’t made many decisions relating to abortion politics. At the very least, the Obama campaign would be able to paint Kaine as something of a pro-life standard-bearer - in fact, a number of extremely pro-choice groups dislike Kaine for even speaking in pro-life terms. The point is that Obama/Kaine would be able to say, “Look at us, we represent the middleground on abortion, and McCain/Whoever represents the far-right fringe that would return us to the dark ages of back alley abortions and anti-woman legislation, blahblahblah.” They wouldn’t be able to do that if McCain’s VP were pro-choice, and it would be ridiculous for pro-life voters to prefer a Barack Obama presidency to a John McCain presidency over something silly like a pro-choice veep pick.
Obama claims that bringing in an additional doctor, and creating an emergency would be a new burden calculated to interfere with the original choice to have the abortion. It’s hard to know exactly what he means by this (since we don’t have the rest of the audio), but here’s my best guess.
Your guess is partly correct. The other issues are legal (who is responsible for the baby, can the mother choose to “pull the plug” if it is on life support, can the mother be prosecuted, etc?) and financial (who pays the cost for the medical care administered?) Most laws that attempt to mandate certain kinds of medical care after “botched” abortions do not answer these questions.
What is wrong you f’ing nutsos? I’m not saying Kaine *is* pro-life, I’m saying he’s perceived to be. And I’m saying that if he’s the veep pick then abortion actually becomes a losing issue for McCain among everyone *except* the most staunchly pro-life if McCain picks someone too far to the right on this issue. You all sit here and assume that Obama’s Infants Born Alive vote is going to sink his campaign, but it won’t if Obama can position himself as more nuanced on abortion than McCain. Most of this country is moderately pro-choice, or pro-life but not single-issue voters, and if it comes between picking a ticket that they agree with mostly and see as mildly pro-choice and a ticket they see as a continuation of failed Bush policies including extreme rigidness on abortion, they’ll pick the former in a heartbeat. Pro-lifers are, ironically, going to kill their best hope for life-friendly judicial appointments by forcing McCain to appease his base when this election is supposed to be about reaching across the aisle.
And out of full disclosure, I’m a pro-life Catholic, so it’s not like I *want* a pro-choice vp, but I’m a realist. The prospect of justice retirements in the next four years makes abortion an especially hot-button issue this year, and activist pro-lifers are going to force McCain to look extremist in the eyes of moderate voters to satisfy their own selfish ideological puritanism. And it’s more hurtful than helpful to the prolife cause.
First off, The words “Tim Kaine” and “nuanced” should never appear together in the same sentence.
Secondly, Tim Kaine is not perceived to be anything but Pro-Choice. Not in VA anyways, where 99.5% of everyone on Earth that has ever heard of him resides. Jerry Kilgore saw to that in 2005.
Did you guys look at the comments on the Redstate site under this video. One of the comments has a PDF of Obama’s complete statement in context. Please go and look and tell me what you think. It is kind of in ObamaSpeak so it’s hard to decipher — but I think it might make Obama a look a little more moderate on the issue than the short excerpt does. Tbough I’m not sure…
And if Kristofer’s link in 34 is meant to show that Kaine is *NOT* pro-life than I’m going to be flipping furious. The fact that he’s anti-death-penalty makes him *MORE* prolife than a lot of these abortion-fixated “prolifers” who’d take the life of anything and anyone that wasn’t a fetus. I’m *consistently* pro-life - life has value from conception to natural death - so “pro-life” and “pro-capital-punishment” are oxymoronic in my eyes.
You all sit here and assume that Obama’s Infants Born Alive vote is going to sink his campaign, but it won’t if Obama can position himself as more nuanced on abortion than McCain. Most of this country is moderately pro-choice, or pro-life but not single-issue voters, and if it comes between picking a ticket that they agree with mostly and see as mildly pro-choice and a ticket they see as a continuation of failed Bush policies including extreme rigidness on abortion, they’ll pick the former in a heartbeat. Pro-lifers are, ironically, going to kill their best hope for life-friendly judicial appointments by forcing McCain to appease his base when this election is supposed to be about reaching across the aisle.
I can find all sorts of links where people either blast Kaine for being “pro-life” or compliment him for his “nuance”, and just because he may not be those things in the eyes of people in this forum doesn’t mean that isn’t how he would be portrayed to voters who are vastly ignorant of who Kaine is. And everyone keeps saying “Kaine isn’t pro-life” without addressing the fact that the problem wouldn’t be Kaine’s pro-life-ness or lack thereof, but the perception of McCain/Whoever being *too* pro-life for most voters by comparison.
Not helpful but it’s not going to cost him the election. If you were pro-life and planning to vote for barry anyway I don’t see why you’d change your vote over this.
Why do they call the woman the “mother”? To be a mother, don’t you need to have a child born? Abortions are just removing unwanted ’tissue’, right? So it seems that they are trying to play it both ways… Make sure that the “mother” has all the rights, while at the same time misinforming all participants about the horror of the procedures.
http://www.abort73.com should be a required study for any “mother” out there considering an abortion. Just sayin…
I don’t think so at all. In the full excerpt, Obama seems to be saying that, prior to the abortion, the physician has decided that the child can’t live outside the womb, and if he changes his assessment at some point, Obama trusts him to administer medical care.
The problem is, A.) This seems to have not occurred universally, or at least a number of discarded infants seem to have survived for a significant amount of time. B.) Even if it’s true that the baby isn’t likely to survive, in no other category of human life do we allow doctors to ignore an emergency victim, without attempting at least basic life-saving measures. If someone walks into a hospital, riddled with 10 bullets to the chest, a doctor can’t simply say “well, that man’s a goner, toss him in the utility closet- I’m going to lunch”. C.) His suggestion that this is ultimately about abortion is as puzzling as it is incoherent. In what way does bringing another doctor in to administer medical care, AFTER the abortion has occurred, impact the mother’s choice? Unless all you mean by “impact”, is that it might make her feel uncomfortable? Obama jumps from “well, doctors will do this anyway” to “this is about abortion and burdening the mother’s choice” without explanation. Two are not connected; even if we assume that the first part is mostly true, without justifying the second part (which he hasn’t), it’s still a good, humane, and cautious law by any definition.
Matthew E. Miller #43 — Thanks for your analysis. I think you are right — he only sees the “burden” of the law — no good reason not to vote for it. I hope this helps sink him.
Kavon, I’m not in support of those views, but I’m saying that the “Kaine is pro-life” meme is already out there, and it’s only going to grow, in my opinion.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Of course the question no one’s asking is why is everyone horrified that we would allow these babies to die after not suceeding in killing them, but not horrified about trying to kill them in the first place? It’s like not caring if a murderer shoots and kills people, but being horrified, if when his victim doesn’t die with his first try that he doesn’t call the ambulance.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
wow. that nurse, in a shorter, more direct and simplified ad could be a thousand times more effective then willie horton or swift boat vets ever were.
and obama’s own words. words matter, eh barry!
say goodbye to colorado, virginia, nc, and ohio barry!
August 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Although that second video was not honest, and that nurse was not giving us the entire story, I agree it should be posted and used in ad’s…….why?
Obama is equally as dishonest as Bill Clinton and someone must call him out on it. Obama is 100% pro-choice, but is trying to appeal to pro-life voters, by lying and changing his positions.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
#2, I actually would say MN, WI, IA, PA and MI are more pro-life than CO; and I think those are the states where a tough ad would make all the difference.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
This video makes me sick.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Kavon, this is a great anti-Obama site (from the video)! http://www.nohussein.com/
August 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE
August 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Krisofer #6,
Isn’t it .org, not .com?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Kavon #8, All of the above.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
John Mark,
I think it’s an implicit acknowledgment that pro-choicers, in asserting the autonomy of the woman, aren’t totally off-track. In other words, even you think (as I do) that the fetus’s right to exist should trump the woman’s right to control her body, you can at least understand that there’s another interest involved. In this situation, there’s no other meaningful interest involved. The woman has aborted the child. She will not be inconvenienced with it; the issue of autonomy has been nullified. What justification then, is there, for denying it medical care, if only to ease it’s pain?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I am sickened by these and other videos on Obama’s abortion stance.
I heard of justification of this type abortion because of the baby having special needs (In this case Downs).
My daughter has cerebral palsy - They are saying she shouldn’t have been born. Screw them. She is the most wonderful little girl and I wouldn’t change here if I could. Even knowing now what we didnt know then, I would adopt her all over again. She is the light of my life and the reason I try to make this world a better place.
This is Kirsten, my daughter:
http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v288/184/6/725347387/n725347387_951583_9227.jpg
These types of abortions must stop.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Krisofer,
Cool… They thought of everything didn’t they
?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
just curious Kris, what wasn’t honest about the second video?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Yeah, the two blogs I participate in, “think of everything”.
#13 Joel, I do not want to get in to it. Let us just focus on the fact that Obama is a serial liar, and talks out of both sides of his mouth, as slick Willie did.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
#11 Brett, your daughter is aborable. My wife and I are taking our son to Orlando on the weekend to visit that same place.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Thank you Kristofer - I hope you guys have the most wonderful time. If you can, stay at one of the resorts. the busses/ monorail is such a time saver.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
For the country music fans. http://mccainblogette.com/postings/081708_1633.shtml
August 20th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I still don’t see why there aren’t more commercials running that point out this stuff against Obama. There is plenty of ammo that could be used. This guy has to be stopped.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:02 am
Jared, just wait, you don’t want to waist all your ammo until the right time!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:05 am
I think it’s also worth paying attention to the language Obama used in justifying his opposition to the bill. This would be about the 15th explanation we’ve received for his vote, and probably among the most likely, given that it’s his own explanation before he was running for president, and the issue wasn’t a liability. Obama claims that bringing in an additional doctor, and creating an emergency would be a new burden calculated to interfere with the original choice to have the abortion. It’s hard to know exactly what he means by this (since we don’t have the rest of the audio), but here’s my best guess.
He’s likely arguing that if a hospital treats the aborted, still breathing, fetus as though it were a person, by administering medical care, bringing in an additional doctor, etc, they will make the mother feel uncomfortable and cause her to regret her decision to have the abortion. This idea is quite consistent with what he said, and has the added advantage of jiving certain pro-choice arguments.
For instance, pro-choicers often argue against mandatory sonograms, because you’re exerting pressure on the woman that unduly influences her choice. But, this situation is orders of magnitude more chilling; the mother has already made her decision; she doesn’t have to continue with the pregnancy; her autonomy is restored. But, now she must be protected from the possibility of regretting that choice, or god forbid, changing her mind, and choosing to keep the baby (assuming it survives)- the child must die, not for autonomy (which has already been achieved), but for the comfort of the mother. The mother not only has the choice to control her body, but the choice to control her state of mind- the abortion decision is perpetual; it extends beyond pregnancy. This is vile beyond conception.
It also happens to utterly negate every one of Obama’s previous explanations for his BAIPA vote. If Obama’s concern is that treating aborted, but still living, fetuses as persons, unfairly pressures the mother and humanizes the fetus in a way that burdens, ex post facto, the woman’s choice, then it can’t possibly matter if another neutrality clause is inserted into the legislation stating that it won’t effect state abortion laws. It was never about the state of other abortion laws.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 am
Since the abortion debate seems to have gotten increasingly heated in the last few weeks, especially since the Warren forum, I’m wondering:
Is it possible that McCain is considering a pro-choice VP because Obama is considering a pro-life one? Tim Kaine, as I understand, is somewhat firmly pro-life, and he seems to be one of the leading contenders for the Dem veep. If Obama picks Kaine, and McCain picks someone staunchly pro-life, a number of voters are going to paint the Republican ticket as “extremist” on abortion and the Democratic ticket as more “nuanced”, even though McCain’s position is far less extreme than Obama’s, and it’s the *President* (not the ticket) that makes judicial appointments, etc. But what moderately pro-choice voters will see is: “McCain and Pawlenty, together, are very far to the right of me on abortion rights. Obama and Kaine, though to the left of me, seem to have a more subtle approach to abortion rights.” A pro-choice veep, then, would actually be better *even for the pro-life conservative base* because it would be a way of ensuring that the more pro-life of the candidates who will actually be able to influence judicial appointments would appeal to at least as many voters as the more pro-choice one.
In other words, in the voters’ minds, Obama/Kaine is roughly *as* nuanced regarding abortion as McCain/Lieberman, making both tickets broadly appealing to people across the political spectrum, even though McCain/Lieberman is the *actually* pro-life ticket in terms of the effect the ticket would have on legislation and judicial interpretation. So a pro-choice VP would be more of a winning situation for pro-lifers than a pro-life VP, because otherwise the Republican ticket would be portrayed as rigidly pro-life, compared with a “moderately” pro-choice ticket.
This all only holds true if Obama picks Kaine, though. If Obama picks a pro-choice VP, then McCain would do well to create more contrast with the Dem ticket by picking a solidly pro-life running mate.
My 2 cents.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Tim Kaine is not pro-life. You can’t be pro-abortion rights and also pro-life.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:12 am
“MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan says he’s been told other outside groups are planning their own ad campaigns on Mr. Obama’s abortion votes.”
August 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
Seth,
Kaine is personally pro-life, in favor of “reducing abortion”, against partial birth abortion, but not in favor of “criminalizing women and their doctors”, in his words. In other words, he’s moderately pro-choice. Doesn’t favor big bans, but will support late-term restrictions. He’s as pro-life as Ridge. Or Rudy. That is to say, not at all.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:15 am
Brett: Beautiful girl.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:22 am
Just watching these clips and listening to Obama is making me want to wretch. It makes the Veep speculation really insignificant IMO. The ONLY thing that matters to me is beating Obama.
Brett . . what a lovely daughter!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:24 am
But Kaine doesn’t have a NARAL rating, is comfortable discussing his personal pro-life convictions, and hasn’t made many decisions relating to abortion politics. At the very least, the Obama campaign would be able to paint Kaine as something of a pro-life standard-bearer - in fact, a number of extremely pro-choice groups dislike Kaine for even speaking in pro-life terms. The point is that Obama/Kaine would be able to say, “Look at us, we represent the middleground on abortion, and McCain/Whoever represents the far-right fringe that would return us to the dark ages of back alley abortions and anti-woman legislation, blahblahblah.” They wouldn’t be able to do that if McCain’s VP were pro-choice, and it would be ridiculous for pro-life voters to prefer a Barack Obama presidency to a John McCain presidency over something silly like a pro-choice veep pick.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am
Go ahead, pro-lifers, stay home if McCain picks Rudy, Lieberman, or Ridge. Sure. Let this guy appoint SCOTUS justices.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:27 am
#28 Al, I am starting to think the pro-choice VP talk is about Rudy, not Lieberman or Ridge. What do you thin?
August 21st, 2008 at 12:31 am
Your guess is partly correct. The other issues are legal (who is responsible for the baby, can the mother choose to “pull the plug” if it is on life support, can the mother be prosecuted, etc?) and financial (who pays the cost for the medical care administered?) Most laws that attempt to mandate certain kinds of medical care after “botched” abortions do not answer these questions.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:34 am
TIM KAINE IS NOT PRO-LIFE!!!!!!!! FOR GOSH SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE HAS THE EXACT SAME POSITIONS AS JOHN KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:41 am
Kaine is pro-choice;
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/kaine-keep-roe.html
August 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
What is wrong you f’ing nutsos? I’m not saying Kaine *is* pro-life, I’m saying he’s perceived to be. And I’m saying that if he’s the veep pick then abortion actually becomes a losing issue for McCain among everyone *except* the most staunchly pro-life if McCain picks someone too far to the right on this issue. You all sit here and assume that Obama’s Infants Born Alive vote is going to sink his campaign, but it won’t if Obama can position himself as more nuanced on abortion than McCain. Most of this country is moderately pro-choice, or pro-life but not single-issue voters, and if it comes between picking a ticket that they agree with mostly and see as mildly pro-choice and a ticket they see as a continuation of failed Bush policies including extreme rigidness on abortion, they’ll pick the former in a heartbeat. Pro-lifers are, ironically, going to kill their best hope for life-friendly judicial appointments by forcing McCain to appease his base when this election is supposed to be about reaching across the aisle.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:43 am
Kaine commutes death sentences for convicted triple murderers.
http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/southside/article/gov_kaine_commutes_percy_waltons_death_sentence/12269/
August 21st, 2008 at 12:46 am
And out of full disclosure, I’m a pro-life Catholic, so it’s not like I *want* a pro-choice vp, but I’m a realist. The prospect of justice retirements in the next four years makes abortion an especially hot-button issue this year, and activist pro-lifers are going to force McCain to look extremist in the eyes of moderate voters to satisfy their own selfish ideological puritanism. And it’s more hurtful than helpful to the prolife cause.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:48 am
First off, The words “Tim Kaine” and “nuanced” should never appear together in the same sentence.
Secondly, Tim Kaine is not perceived to be anything but Pro-Choice. Not in VA anyways, where 99.5% of everyone on Earth that has ever heard of him resides. Jerry Kilgore saw to that in 2005.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:49 am
Did you guys look at the comments on the Redstate site under this video. One of the comments has a PDF of Obama’s complete statement in context. Please go and look and tell me what you think. It is kind of in ObamaSpeak so it’s hard to decipher — but I think it might make Obama a look a little more moderate on the issue than the short excerpt does. Tbough I’m not sure…
August 21st, 2008 at 12:50 am
And if Kristofer’s link in 34 is meant to show that Kaine is *NOT* pro-life than I’m going to be flipping furious. The fact that he’s anti-death-penalty makes him *MORE* prolife than a lot of these abortion-fixated “prolifers” who’d take the life of anything and anyone that wasn’t a fetus. I’m *consistently* pro-life - life has value from conception to natural death - so “pro-life” and “pro-capital-punishment” are oxymoronic in my eyes.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:56 am
I believe we have a winner…
August 21st, 2008 at 1:00 am
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/29/213552/450
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/93346/tim_kaine_obama’s_veep_dems_can_do_so_much_better/?comments=view&cID=968881&pID=966289
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Abortion.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/24/opinion/main682882.shtml
I can find all sorts of links where people either blast Kaine for being “pro-life” or compliment him for his “nuance”, and just because he may not be those things in the eyes of people in this forum doesn’t mean that isn’t how he would be portrayed to voters who are vastly ignorant of who Kaine is. And everyone keeps saying “Kaine isn’t pro-life” without addressing the fact that the problem wouldn’t be Kaine’s pro-life-ness or lack thereof, but the perception of McCain/Whoever being *too* pro-life for most voters by comparison.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:11 am
Not helpful but it’s not going to cost him the election. If you were pro-life and planning to vote for barry anyway I don’t see why you’d change your vote over this.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:01 am
I just don’t get it.
Why do they call the woman the “mother”? To be a mother, don’t you need to have a child born? Abortions are just removing unwanted ’tissue’, right? So it seems that they are trying to play it both ways… Make sure that the “mother” has all the rights, while at the same time misinforming all participants about the horror of the procedures.
http://www.abort73.com should be a required study for any “mother” out there considering an abortion. Just sayin…
August 21st, 2008 at 6:17 am
Alix,
I don’t think so at all. In the full excerpt, Obama seems to be saying that, prior to the abortion, the physician has decided that the child can’t live outside the womb, and if he changes his assessment at some point, Obama trusts him to administer medical care.
The problem is, A.) This seems to have not occurred universally, or at least a number of discarded infants seem to have survived for a significant amount of time. B.) Even if it’s true that the baby isn’t likely to survive, in no other category of human life do we allow doctors to ignore an emergency victim, without attempting at least basic life-saving measures. If someone walks into a hospital, riddled with 10 bullets to the chest, a doctor can’t simply say “well, that man’s a goner, toss him in the utility closet- I’m going to lunch”. C.) His suggestion that this is ultimately about abortion is as puzzling as it is incoherent. In what way does bringing another doctor in to administer medical care, AFTER the abortion has occurred, impact the mother’s choice? Unless all you mean by “impact”, is that it might make her feel uncomfortable? Obama jumps from “well, doctors will do this anyway” to “this is about abortion and burdening the mother’s choice” without explanation. Two are not connected; even if we assume that the first part is mostly true, without justifying the second part (which he hasn’t), it’s still a good, humane, and cautious law by any definition.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:17 am
bret #11 - That is the sweetest thing. Thanks for sharing your joy.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:06 am
Seth #40,
Love those sources, MYDD, AlterNet, and CBS News….
Now I see where you’re coming from.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Matthew E. Miller #43 — Thanks for your analysis. I think you are right — he only sees the “burden” of the law — no good reason not to vote for it. I hope this helps sink him.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Kavon, I’m not in support of those views, but I’m saying that the “Kaine is pro-life” meme is already out there, and it’s only going to grow, in my opinion.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2008/08/21/the-vote-that-will-cost-obama-the-presidency-update/#comments [...]