Obama’s abortion extremism
April 2nd, 2008Michael Gerson writes in the Washington Post about Barack Obama’s extremism on abortion.
Hat tip: Denny.
42 Responses to “Obama’s abortion extremism”
Tim Ellsworth
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Thanks Craig. I hadn't heard that - I...
- Craig on It's Open Blog Friday: To this same point, here's a story...
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Neuwman, Nobody in this country will...
- Di on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Good points, Luke!
- Luke on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Agreed Tony. He will be a waste of...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Roger I do not disagree with that...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Who was it who did the big study on...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
“And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.”
That’s why people wear condoms and take pills. They don’t want to punish themselves with a baby due to a lack of judgment or planning. If a baby is always a “blessing” then why does birth control exist?
“Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance.”
Getting an endorsement from a pro-life senator is a big deal for Barack Obama. It shows that democrats are willing to reach across the aisle to pro-life advocates and talk about the issue. Republicans, on the other hand, are much more partisan. For example, I can’t name any republicans of Senator Casey’s stature who are pro-choice. I can’t name any republicans who are pro-choice at all, for that matter.
If a baby is always a “blessing” then why does birth control exist?
A wife or husband is a blessing, but it’s still prudent for people to do some planning as to when and how they obtain said blessing. Same with children.
Republicans, on the other hand, are much more partisan. For example, I can’t name any republicans of Senator Casey’s stature who are pro-choice. I can’t name any republicans who are pro-choice at all, for that matter.
You should pick up a newspaper once in a while…
Arlen Specter (PA Senator)
Olympia Snowe (ME Senator)
Susan Collins (ME Senator)
Lincoln Chaffee (RI Senator before the voters bounced him)
George Pataki (former NY governor)
Jane Swift (former MA governor)
Jodi Rell (CT governor)
Arne Carlson (former MN governor)
Rudy Giuliani (heard of him?)
Statement #1: “Getting an endorsement from a pro-life senator is a big deal for Barack Obama”.
Translation: A democrat will say anything and do anything to get elected.
Statement #2: “Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle to pro-life advocates and talk about the issue”.
Translation: Democrats are masterful at pandering (see translation to statement #1).
Statement #3: “Republicans…are more partisan. I can’t name any republicans who are pro-choice at all.”
Translation: Any Republican worth a hoot has ethics and morals that they refuse to compromise…even for the purpose of getting elected. It’s one of the many things that makes conservatives superior to liberals.
“A wife or husband is a blessing, but it’s still prudent for people to do some planning as to when and how they obtain said blessing. Same with children.”
I think that’s what Barack was essentially saying.
“You should pick up a newspaper once in a while…”
I stand soundly corrected. [tips hat]
Would any conservatives vote for any of the politicians named?
I don’t know if I would vote for any of them, but I sure am considering changing my name to “Lincoln Chaffee”. That is just mint.
I think Obama should have to kill one of the failed abortion babies. Then let’s see where he stands.
Not this conservative, and you could add Mitt Romney’s name to that list. He switched to a pro-life position for purely political, as opposed to ideological, reasons.
Count the number of pro-life speakers at the Dem convention this year. Meanwhile, there will be the usual platform debate at the GOP convention.
Not this conservative, and you could add Mitt Romney’s name to that list. He switched to a pro-life position for purely political, as opposed to ideological, reasons.
Does the same apply to Senator McCain? James Dobson, who from what I hear is the most powerful evangelical, said he won’t vote for McCain. Senator McCain has also taken Senator Joe Lieberman along on his Iraq tour as an adviser of sorts. Can conservatives vote for Senator McCain wholeheartedly? I don’t think they can. Unlike Dobson, I think this election year, they will be forced to compromise some of their conservative values by voting McCain. Basically, I think conservatives won’t be voting for a republican so much as against a democrat.
I actually like McCain. For me, no matter who wins, I’ll be satisfied because none of the 3 can be any worse than Bush. Huckabee would’ve been far worse though. In my opinion, Senator McCain is by far the best of the republican candidates so I’m glad he got the nomination. I’m hoping he will be able to run a clean campaign as well. I admire that he took responsibility for Cunningham’s rhetoric and apologized for it. Very honorable.
As far as I know Senator McCain has voted for life 100% of the time. That is a major issue with me, even more so that economic policy or immigration positions.
James Dobson’s endorsement/lack of endorsement has never mattered to me.
“That is a major issue with me, even more so that economic policy or immigration positions.”
Travis, I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, I think the majority of conservatives feel exactly as you do. Using a Tolkien metaphor, if the rings of power were issues, then surely for conservatives The One Ring would be the pro-life issue. It’s the one issue that will bring them all and bind them to Senator McCain.
Let me pose this question to you guys. Who would you like to see Senator McCain choose as his running mate? If Senator Obama wins the nomination, I’d like to see Michael Bloomberg as his Vice Presidential candidate.
I think that’s what Barack was essentially saying.
No, he said babies are a “punishment.” Not the same thing.
Tim Pawlenty would be a great choice for McCain. He’s been a McCain supporter since early in the campaign and didn’t bail out when McCain looked dead in the water last summer. He has a solid record on taxes and spending despite being the governor of a very liberal state. He would put Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (all purple-blue states) in play for the Republicans. He won re-election in 2006 despite the Democrat tidal wave. He’s young. He’s a big-time hockey fan. What else could McCain possibly want?
Why Bloomberg, Cineaset? Obama needs to shore up the working-class vote if he’s going to win. I don’t see how a billionaire liberal from a big city helps him.
“No, he said babies are a “punishment.” Not the same thing.”
It’s the same. Barack Obama is a family man. He has a wife and two daughters. I think he loves his daughters and considers them both a blessing. In some cases though, it’s best to use birth control to avoid being “blessed” with a pregnancy because people don’t want to “punish” themselves with a baby due to a lack of judgment or planning. This is especially true for adolescents.
“What else could McCain possibly want?”
Good choice. He’d balance McCain’s immigration stance with conservatives.
“Why Bloomberg, Cineaset? Obama needs to shore up the working-class vote if he’s going to win. I don’t see how a billionaire liberal from a big city helps him.”
Bloomberg helps Obama with independents and Obamicans. He’s also Jewish. He adds serious economic credentials to any campaign in an election where the economy will be the biggest issue. An issue McCain is seriously deficient in by McCain’s own admission. He’s older and experienced. He’s also of the same mind as Obama regarding bipartisanship and social issues. As far as white working class voters, maybe John Edwards would help Obama more on that front, and maybe not.
If I were Obama, I’d go with Janet Napolitano. Picking a woman might mollify the feminists who are bound to be upset by Hillary losing. Napolitano has been relatively sane on the immigration issue, which could help with independants. Lots of Hispanics in Arizona, so she might help Obama there, and putting McCain’s home state in play is a good strategic move.
Good suggestion. I think though that Bloomberg brings more to the table for Obama. A lot of people think Senator Obama is Muslim. A Jewish Vice President would nix that.
Do you think Mitt Romney would be a good running mate for Senator McCain? He might be able to pull in the conservative base and he also has economic credentials that McCain needs. He can also help with fund raising. An area in which, for the first time I can recall, republicans will be at a disadvantage. He’s also a big name.
“A lot of people think Senator Obama is Muslim. A Jewish Vice President would nix that.”
If there are people that believe he is a muslim, they probably won’t care or even understand the significance of a Jewish VP. And after this pastor blow up, how could anyone believe he is muslim?
Romney would do an excellent job on economic and tax policy and would get the National Review wing of the party firmly in McCain’s corner. He won’t help McCain with social conservatives one bit, but if I was McCain, I wouldn’t worry about that too much.
The more we learn about Barack Obama, the clearer it becomes that his views on abortion are far more extreme than Hillary’s. His positions on partial-birth abortion and infants who survive abortions - which Gerson cites - are prime examples. This, combined with the growing perception that he harbors some serious anti-American attitudes will provide plenty of motivation for social conservatives to vote against him, to McCain’s benefit.
“This, combined with the growing perception that he harbors some serious anti-American attitudes will provide plenty of motivation for social conservatives to vote against him, to McCain’s benefit.”
That’s as false a perception as the Muslim thing but when has the truth and fairness in a Presidential election ever mattered to conservatives? Conservatives here try to paint Senator Obama as some kind of inhuman monster by telling themselves that he actually believes in infanticide. Give me a break. It’s just a way for conservatives to work themselves up to a suitable level of moral outrage so they can vote against Senator Obama since they lack enough reasons to vote for Senator McCain wholeheartedly.
Obama’s speech about race relations in America was one of the most patriotic speeches I have ever heard. I’ve been watching the HBO series “John Adams” and there is a scene where George Washington is sworn in as the President of the United States after the Revolutionary War. That made me feel so proud of my American heritage. Senator Obama’s speech made me feel the same way. It made me proud to be an American after being subjected to 8 years of Bush speeches. If you play the “Head on, apply directly to the forehead” commercial in a continuous loop for an hour, that’s what Bush sounds like to a democrat. It was just so refreshing to hear a nuanced speech from a very intelligent, charismatic, and eloquent man that challenged me as an adult and as an American. Though I like Senator McCain, he could only dream about making a speech as inspiring.
Since feelings are so important to Cineaste (or at least that came across that way to me), maybe he should try to meet Obama in person. Who knows what might happen if he could only touch the magnificent human. Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, but I think this is some of the problem with what we are experiencing in our world today, too much emphasis on man power and not enough reliance upon the true source of power - the Lord God Almighty. We may wind up with a president Obama and find out that God has allowed us to have what we “want”, only to regret it.
Cine–I’m only on episode 3 of John Adams, so thanks for ruining it for me with the Washington becoming president spoiler =o)
Fantastic miniseries…highly recommended.
Ya Z, I’m diggin the “John Adams” series as well. Sorry for spoiling the George Washington plot twist.
Even though all those guys had deep and fundamental disagreements, somehow, someway, they were all able to pull it together and unify in independence. They were all patriots despite their arguing.
That’s as false a perception as the Muslim thing but when has the truth and fairness in a Presidential election ever mattered to conservatives?
Obama insulted people who wear flag pins on their lapels, refuses to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem, has sat under the teaching of an anti-American pastor for 20 years, and his wife says she hasn’t been proud of our country until now. You might disagree that these facts add up to Obama being anti-American, but it gives a lot of people - notably blue-collar Democrats - some pause.
You don’t have to wear your patriotism on your sleeve, or lapel in this case, in order to be a patriot. Flag waving is all well and good, but sometimes people just keep their patriotism to themselves instead of putting up flags. The patriotism card was played by conservatives in 2004 with Kerry and in 2000 with Gore. Now, they play it again in 2008. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I’m more concerned with the economy, the war, the environment, and the Cubs than I am about flag pins and what some stupid pastor says. Until Americans can get over the petty tactics of conservatives and move on to more pressing issues, we will always be saddled with sub par but “patriotic” presidents like W.
Or un-American programs like NAFTA. The ultimate slap in the face for America.
…maybe he should try to meet Obama in person. Who knows what might happen if he could only touch the magnificent human.
My Dad had lunch with Barack Obama a few years ago if the information is important to you, Marilyn. Honestly, I don’t know what your point is though.
I think Marilyn is alluding to the passage in scripture where the crowds pressed on Jesus from all sides trying to touch Him so that He might cure them.
The point, if I could be so bold as to put words in her mouth, is that it seems the multitudes are fawning over Obama as though he can cure what ails them. With the exception of Fox News, which almost no one takes seriously, Obama is never really tested by the media. Sure they’ll play a clip of him throwing a gutter ball but there doesn’t seem to be any dialogue on where he stands on relevant issues.
What I would love to see is two candidates of irreproachable character and no skeletons in the closet that the other party can bring up, and just have a national race that is about the issues.
The point, if I could be so bold as to put words in her mouth, is that it seems the multitudes are fawning over Obama as though he can cure what ails them.
Bush and the right wing are what ails them and he can certainly cure that if he becomes president. I guess Barack Obama is to his supporters what Ronald Reagan was to his when he ran against Carter. Geez, I’m giving away my age.
“What I would love to see is two candidates of irreproachable character and no skeletons in the closet that the other party can bring up, and just have a national race that is about the issues.”
As an Obama supporter, I’d be eager to go head to head with McCain supporters on any real issues without bringing up skeletons. Lets talk about the economy, the war, the environment, immigration, abortion, etc. I agree with you 100% Abe.
Abe, those words were right and are my feelings. I don’t expect Cineaste to agree with me, but I also think that if we as a Nation get farther and farther from God, NO political is going to be able to make much difference in our survival economically, militarily or in any way. I expect I have some years on Cineaste too and was a Democrat for many years.
NO political is going to be able to make much difference in our survival economically, militarily or in any way.
I know where the candidates stand on the economy and the war, but I don’t know what God’s political position is on those issues. So, I can only discuss the candidates views, minus skeletons.
I’m not sure if anyone caught McCain on Letterman last week but he had some excellent insights into how to turn our economy around in the long term.
I may be inferring too much from a couple quick sentances before he was cut off, but basically his position is that we need to retrain our workforce. As opposed to the deomcratic position that if we just undo some trade agreements all of our lost manufacturing jobs will suddenly return, McCain is a realist. If we undid NAFTA and pulled out of the WTO, rather than help the middle class it would destroy it because no one could afford anything. Imagine if you had to pay $50.00 for a white T-shirt because thats how much they cost rather than trying to make a fashion statement.
Simply put we are falling behind economically because we are not training our students for the jobs that a post industrial economy requires. We import tens of thousands of engineers, physicists, mathematicians, chemist, biologist, and doctors every year. While our kids are told that what you really need to get ahead is to study a foreign language, or maybe a BA in theater, or poli sci, or how about sociology. yeah, those degrees will really allow you to thrive in our technology based economy, gimme a break. McCain is right in that we need to retrain our displaced workers to build, program, service, and improve the robots that took their jobs. The steel and textile mills are closed and they are not coming back, thats progress not a problem.
I think that our economic problem has a simple cause. We buy more than we sell. We import most of our goods from China but they don’t buy our stuff in return. We buy all our oil from Saudi Arabia but we don’t sell them anything. That creates a huge trade deficit and then we pay interest on that. Chinese workers can make things cheaper than American workers so manufacturing and technical jobs are outsourced and most of what’s left for Americans is in the service sector.
I’d like to see the Department of Homeland Security abolished as well. It’s just a way to make our government bigger than it needs to be and they’re completely inept anyway. We already have the FBI, CIA, and NSA.
Also, the war is hurting us economically because we are borrowing the money used to finance it.
As far as the housing bubble goes, Barack Obama predicted it a year ago. He foresaw the housing crisis and had the good judgment to try to do something…
For the most part I agree Cineaste however as simple as the problem is there isn’t a simple answer. We need pragmatic solutions to our energy and economic solutions not idealistic rhetoric like stop importing oil.
The pragmatic solution to the trillioin some dollars we spend on foreign oil is to spend 1, 10 even 100 billion dollars developing the processing and extraction of oil shale. We have more oil resreves than Saudi Arabia and the Canadian oil sands but it is in a difficult form to extract, shale rock. We could spend a fraction of a percent of what we send to middle east on develping shale oil and be completely energy independant in less than a decade.
the idealistic government solution is to say we need to go to a hydrogen economy but the average Joe has no idea what that would required. Hydrogen has to come from somewhere and it takes vast amounts of energy to produce it, the only way it could be accomplished is to go nuclear. Another option often touted is to place arbitrary regulations on emissions or fuel economy, you can’t make a quantum leap of progress with that kind of mentality.
Every problem (except moral issues like abortion, divorce, crime etc..) we are currently facing from the economy to the environment can be solved through science and engineering, thats my point. When the cotton gin, tractor, and electric motor were invented lots of jobs were lost, but antiquated systems were replaced with ones more efficient and it resulted in thousands more jobs created which were better paying to boot. We are facing more technological barriers now but this time America will be left behind because our university are churning out millions of graduates who’s only credentials qualify them to flip pizzas for a couple years and then learn a trade, a trade which in many cases is quickly becoming obsolete.
Wish I would have started my post a couple minutes later, that way I could respond to your second one, which appeared as soon as I hit “submit comment”
I think the “housing crisis” is way overstated, it was a bubble, inflated by prospecting opportunits. Some people were legitametly taken advantage of and I think investigations into that and how to prevent it from happening again are justified. Like McCain’s position, however, I disagree with a large scale government buyout program like Obama and Cliton propose. When the .com bubble popped 8 years ago everyone yelled the sky it falling and predicted a catastrophic market collapse on the scale of the great depression. Obviously it didn’t happen and after the correction of an isolated and over bought sector, the market went on to its strongest period in decades. Like the “.com” bubble, this one will pass, we’ll learn from it and move on.
The longer term problem is the movement toward a service economy, as you pointed out. At the end of the day the only thing on this planet of value is resources and the ability to convert resources into a value added product. We need a scientific rebirth in our country or we will be left behind. China and India are churning out millions of scientists every year, many of whom are learning from American universities and taking our technology back. thats not the problem, the problem is that there will be a shift of intellectual superpowerdom (if you’ll allow me to make up a word) from us to them. That is when we will be in real trouble, when innovation and technological advances are being filed with the Chinese patent office rather than in Washington D.C.
Coal is not an environmentally sound solution. I think that we must head in the direction of eventually weening ourselves from fossil fuels altogether. I think Senator Obama would do a better job of this than Senator McCain. I’d go with solar, wind, hydro (dams), nuclear, and ethanol energy over fossil fuels. I agree with you that it’s unrealistic to do this in one step, but I think that’s the direction we should take. It would also create new tech and science jobs here in the States. Oh, and as far as science education, Bush and the right wing have been waging a war on science. What kid wants to be a scientist when political leaders and conservatives won’t respect them for it?
“I disagree with a large scale government buyout program like Obama and Cliton propose.”
You have to admit that Senator Obam’s plan is far more pragmatic than Senator Clinton’s. I don’t like Senator McCain’s plan because his solution seems to be, do nothing. Not only that, he didn’t even see it coming like Senator Obama did. That tells me he is not as in touch with the economy as Senator Obama is. Republicans are spending money like there is no tomorrow. Their spending must be checked and the damage they’ve done repaired. We went from “read my lips” and a recession under Bush I to a budget Surplus under Clinton. Bush II came in and trashed the economy again so we need a democrat who is fiscally responsible to clean up after the republicans again.
I agree with you that a national priority should be science education. I think democrats are much stronger when it comes to education issues than republicans are though. No child left behind is a disaster.
I didn’t say anything about coal, and besides its only environmentally unfreindly if it is burnt in its virgin state without any aftertreatment. I was talking about oil shale, which is the same as the bitumen oil sands in Canada, only in a slate rock. Besides coal gassification and CO sequestering technology could make coal much cleaner than any gas or oil fired power plant today. Again it comes back to how much time and money we choose to invest in it.
I can’t say with a straight face that McCain is stong on the economy, but I’ll go back to a great statement made by Ron Paul in one of the dabates, since when is the president the economist in chief? He can find advisors or a running mate to help him shore up his offerring. I’m not sure who would be best on education but I do know there needs to be a paradigm shift in our national mentality.
Gone are the days of the giant mills of the industrial revolution, they aren’t coming back no matter how much Obama and Clinton campaing in PN and MI. If your still doing the same job your grandpa was 50 years ago and in the same way you’ll be left out in the cold. We need to retrain our workforce not promise a return to outdated workforce structure where you get paid an upper-middle income salary for turning a wrench, its just not going to cut it.
“What kid wants to be a scientist when political leaders and conservatives won’t respect them for it? ”
I’m not sure how many teenagers you’ve met recently but I don’t think the respect of the political leaders has much to do with their career choice.
I’d go with solar, wind, hydro (dams), nuclear, and ethanol energy over fossil fuels.
Are either of the Democrat candidates in favor of building more hydroelectric and nuclear power plants?
Ethanol is a corporate welfare scam that is driving up food prices and causing massive deforestation. It’s bad for the environment and bad energy policy.
“I didn’t say anything about coal, and besides its only environmentally unfreindly if it is burnt in its virgin state without any aftertreatment.”
Coke (a kind of coal) is awful for the environment. Even treated, coal is still bad for the environment as it releases CO2 (green house gas). We can only do so much scrubbing with coal gasification. And, treating coal is costly. Countries like China and India will burn untreated coal which is an environmental disaster. Already they are dealing with environmental issues. Tim might get sick in China if he drinks the water. Even mining coal and shale harms the environment. I just think that the smart direction we should take is away from fossil fuels, as much as possible. That includes oil shale as well despite vast reserves of it. I’m worried about the consequences to humanity if we keep burning fossil fuels and the average global temperature continues to rise bit by bit. I really worry about a tipping point. Though McCain has promised to be more environmentally friendly, I think Senator Obama would do more. Again, I’m not suggesting going cold turkey. I’m just saying that for our own good, we should move away from dirty fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable resources.
“I’m not sure who would be best on education but I do know there needs to be a paradigm shift in our national mentality.”
I’m with you here abe. 100%. We are so far behind the rest of the world already and since technology is what drives our economy, it’s just another ingredient for potential collapse. Like the environment, this is not a conservative or democratic issue. We’re all in this one together. We need to get kids excited about science somehow and I think somehow science must be made culturally relevant again like it was when the space race was going on under JFK.
Hi, Peter. Regarding ethanol, it’s not corn or sugar ethanol Senator Obama is talking about, it’s Cellulosic Ethanol. The main resource for Cellulosic Ethanol is switch grass. You don’t cut down forests for it because it grows on the great plains and almost everywhere else. It’s also 3 times more efficient and will help develop our biotech industry.
“Are either of the Democrat candidates in favor of building more hydroelectric and nuclear power plants?”
From what I understand, Senator Obama considers nuclear plants a viable alternative to coal fire plants.
Hey guys. what impact will Hillary’s strategist quitting have on the election at this point? I haven;t read any predictions either way yet, which surprises me.
I’m glad you’re up to snuff on your ethanol Cineaste. The wells to wheels ecnomics of corn or sugar based ethanol makes it quite wasteful, you actually put more energy into the dirt than you get out of it. Switchgrass is an excellent alternative as it requires almost no effort to grow, also it can be grown in less productive soils than the midwest plains, AKA the breadbasket of the world. The ethanol craze has really hurt everyone more than helps, its just more political idealism, totally disconnected from reality.
Nick,
I think she’s down for the count, not that her strategist has anything to do with it. Just that Obama has “The Big Mo”