Posted by
Andrews on Friday, March 07, 2008 12:30:52 PM
Whatever your position on the abortion issue, I think we can all agree that an entity which can survive, on its own, outside of the womb, with no care other than food and warmth no longer qualifies as a "fetus" or "just a bunch of tissue". I would like to think I can rely on those on both sides of this issue to stop short of endorsing infanticide.
Unfortunately, I also have to say that, back when Senator Obama took stands on issues other than "hope" and "change", he came out in favor of a right to kill infants. Not that he termed it so. He said he was "in favor of the right to choose" and wanted to protect "the rights" of "mothers and doctors". But what he was endorsing was infanticide.
No, I am not engaging in hyperbole and discussing late term abortions, or partial birth abortion. I am speaking quite literally of infanticide.
The law Obama opposed was the Illinois version of Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which stated that a child born alive, whether intentionally or as the result of a failed abortion, was entitled to the same protections as any living human. The national BAIPA, on which this law was based, arose because, in some cases, babies were accidentally delivered alive during abortion attempts and then left to die from exposure.
I think even the most ardent supporter of "a right to choose" can agree that leaving out a living healthy baby to die of exposure goes far beyond anything covered by "a mother's right to choose" or "reproductive freedom". There is no way to say the child is "a clump of cells" or "a baby who would not survive on its own". These were real live babies anyone would recognize as a living, breathing human being. But, just because the mother had wanted an abortion, and because these babies were too small to survive without warmth, these infants were left alone and allowed to die.
This was not "a medical procedure" or any sort of "choice". In these cases, actual infanticide was taking place, which is why the BAIPA was passed federally and in several states. It was why even ardent supporters of abortion in the congress voted for the act. There are few who are willing to say a mother can end the life of her offspring once those offspring are outside the womb and breathing. Most abortion supporters do not endorse a right to infanticide.
Most, but not all. Among those states which had a BAIPA effort, but in which the law did not pass, was the state of Illinois, and the reason the law did not pass was the ardent opposition of then state senator Obama.
Now, of course, Obama seems to have developed amnesia about this issue. He does not promote his 100% NARAL rating, nor does he say much about his position on "reproductive choice." Sticking to his content free campaign script, he doesn't champion the right to commit infanticide.
But he once did.
So, when someone tells you, as so many Republicans do lately, that you can sit out the election, as Obama and Hillary are "too weak" to do much harm during four years, or because we "need to suffer through another Democrat" or because "McCain is just like the Democrats", realize that one possible outcome is to place in the White House this proponent of actual, literal infanticide. And then tell me again how he can't do any harm, or how McCain is no better than Obama.
I know I said I would stop making this argument, but I just can't. With so many otherwise sensible people ready to hand this nation to people like Obama, I just cannot keep quiet.
UPDATED 03/30/2008
When I wrote this I forgot to include any citations. I have a bad habit of cleaning up old files, so I no longer have any good records, but I did stumble across a
World Net Daily column on the same topic. It isn't a factual, unbiased report, being a commentary, but it does cite several sources, so it will have to do for the moment. It also provides some first hand testimony form someone present during the debates, so it is quite interesting in that regard as well.