This might be the most common sense truth of all: Most Americans don't believe we can kill another human being simply because their quality of life does not meet our standards of "quality". If we could, run and hide, because someone out there knows you to be flawed and not living to your fullest potential. If you were allowed to kill people who you personally don't believe to have "potential", pretty soon we'd be wiping out whole segments of the population. Nazi Holocaust, anyone?
So I find it surprising that when the majority of the country feels so strongly on this issue, there is one presidential candidate who doesn't seem to have a problem with the whole "murder" thing. In 2003, Barack Obama voted "no" on a bill called the "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act". Among other things, "the bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Senator Obama, the only Senator to argue this bill on the Senate floor, did a poor job of doing so by throwing in "constitutionality" where there clearly was no question of it. His most telling argument was this: "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a, a child, a nine-month-old, child that was delivered to term."
Senator O'Malley answered, "This is essentially very simply. The Constitution does NOT say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinios and, frankly, in the other 49 states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional."
Obama voted "no" on this bill, a bill that was identical to the one passed in the U.S. Senate, a bill that was even supported by liberal senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. If that is not troubling enough, Obama knows that this could very well cause voters concern over his judgment and has issued an ad calling these facts a "lie." Senator Obama is the liar. Only problem for Obama is, Americans don't need the dishonest media or his own dishonest "Fact Check" site. We can do our own research, and what we find is frightening. We have a presidential nominee with a record of supporting infanticide. Watch out, America! I hope you're viable enough for Obama.
http://www.bornalivetruth.com/
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf Pgs. 33 and following
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf Pgs. 83 and following
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Now that makes sense to me. It's the same argument liberals make for euthanasia. They say the elderly or decrepid have "no potential" or "no quality of life". But who is the authority on someone's quality of life? What if I say: homeless people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs are hopeless, and have no potential for a quality life. Furthermore, they reduce the quality of life for the rest of us. I should have a "right to choose" to kill them, based on my authority of what "quality life" should be.
It doesn't follow! I'm not the authority, and neither is Obama. He said himself that it is "above his paygrade." Common Sense people...
Post a Comment