Saturday, September 20, 2008

Obama's Culture of Death

I have avoided writing about the election, mainly because I have not found either side to present an appealing candidate. Really I find both presidential candidates to be despicable . . . and Liberal. Sarah Palin as VP just doesn't quite pull me to the Republican side. Yet I just find almost everything about the Dems to be wretch-inducing. With that little appetizing rant out of the way, on to the main course.

In a recent article, Jill Stanek gives Barack Obama's ten reasons for voting down the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Now I will warn you this is an opinion peace, and while it is "true," it is not written by a reporter or from a neutral viewpoint (although the work of a reporter is infrequently impartial anyway).

10) Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. He said, that the act would "probably not . . . survive constitutional scrutiny."

9) A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers. "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."

8) Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative. Obama claimed that "Born Alive" "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7) But doctors would not do that. He said that "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions." Let me also mention that the logical outcome of 8 + 7 = asking doctors to quit using the life-saving measures that are in place. A second mention is in order, many doctors have, in fact, ignored rules requiring life-saving techniques and have even been caught flushing living "fetuses" down the toilet!

6) Obama was not privy to any medical information concerning doctors ignoring proper procedures. "[T]here was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee." There wouldn't be, would there? Who would risk incriminating themselves?

5) Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. Obama stated, concerning this issue, "[W]e live in a pluralistic society, and . . . I can't impose my religious views on another." Yet, through his actions he is imposing his beliefs on others. Further, Obama is for a secular society and the separation of the state from religion, thus religions are prevented from speaking to the situation. So what's the point?

4) Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. "I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." Is death of one human by the will and cause of another (a basic definition of murder) not against universal principles?

3) Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver. Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons." Whether or not a bill was introduced for noble purposes does not equate to the usefulness or need for the bill. Obama commits a logical fallacy.

2) Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver. "Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, 'We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on partial birth and born alive. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats.'" Interesting that political maneuvering from the opposing side is treated with contempt, while political maneuvering on their own side is viewed as strategy. Again, the illogic is stymieing.

1) Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Born Alive bill would not have encroached on Roe v. Wade in that it had nothing to do with ending abortion. Instead, it would extend rights to infants that did not die through the abortion process.

The only possible way this bill could be viewed as an affront on Roe v. Wade is to add strength to the idea that killing born infants is murder, therefore killing unborn infants must be murder as well. So opposing the bill is really about extending a philosophy rather than protecting the rights of a woman.

Obama shows his willingness to play politics to advance personal philosophies that are opposed to the morality of almost all former cultures. Infanticide is a terrible practice that has been condemned in many cultures and times. Only those cultures that disregard life have practiced it. Obama's postChristian ideology looks decidedly preChristian and, humanly speaking, immoral.

No comments: