Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Obama Has Innocent Blood On His Hands

12 comments | 12:45 am | top |
What happens to babies that survive a failed abortion attempt? President of the United States, Barack Obama believes that they should be left to die. Some background on this from BornAliveTruth.org...

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection...

...Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted present on the floor. In 2002, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted no on the floor. Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Senate floor.

Gianna Jessen - herself an abortion survivor spoke out against Obama's viciously anti-life ideology in her TV advert. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek who worked as a nurse, and witnessed this horrific practice commented that the hospital where she worked "was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room." Jill personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath.

In 2002, Born Alive passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and by overwhelming voice vote in the House. On August 5, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.
Despite that, numerous accounts from various parts of the country document abortion survivors are still being medically neglected until the die or outright killed – infanticide. - BornAliveTruth.org

Labels: , ,

12 Comments:

Anonymous SoMG said...

Because of "Born-Alive Protection", docs now make sure to kill the fetus in utero before starting to take it out.

Congratulations on all you have accomplished for the unborn! (nothing).

1:43 am, May 04, 2009 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

I see what you're saying SoMG, but you're missing the point. The born alive act was an essential response to reports of abortion survivors being left to die by themselves.
The act was necessary, however I agree with you that abortionists will likely try even harder to destroy the child before it is unnaturally expelled (through induced labour) from the mother's body.

2:17 am, May 04, 2009 
Anonymous SoMG said...

Here's what I think should be done when a fetus is born alive by mistake during an abortion:

First, do everything possible to keep the baby alive, regardless of cost.

Then, send a bill for these life-sustaining services, with a generous markup, to a right-to-life organization (the Vatican, NRLC, whatever) along with a warning that if the bill is not paid in full by the time of the NEXT born-alive error, we will feed that next born-alive baby to a snake. Or put it into a microwave.

Then, if the bill is not paid, carry out the threat.

3:00 am, May 04, 2009 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

care to explain why?

3:03 am, May 04, 2009 
Anonymous SoMG said...

Because right-to-lifers, not abortion docs nor abortion patients, should pay for the expenses caused by right-to-life policies.

3:13 am, May 04, 2009 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd be fine with paying for those babies born alive (the CDC reports it is only about 500 a year). As long as I don't have to pay for abortions anymore. For some reason pro-choicers think everyone should pay for their abortions and many abortions over seas.

6:29 am, May 04, 2009 
Anonymous SoMG said...

When you pay for abortions, this enables you to avoid paying for the patients' labors and deliveries. (A woman who cannot afford her own abortion also cannot afford obstetric care, so the cost of her labor-and-delivery care gets mixed into higher prices for those who CAN pay, and higher prices for the government. Either way, YOU pay in the end.) Thus, paying for abortions SAVES you money, LOWERS taxes and/or public debt.

9:24 am, May 04, 2009 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

Whether or not abortions save a country money is irrelative. The heart of the matter is that abortion kills a tiny & defenceless human-being.

If a country has a public health system, then it is not pro-life or anti-life policies that should be put in place, but rather just policies. Who campaigned for the policies does not dictate who should pay for the policies, as they will only be passed by making their way through the democratic process.

1:19 pm, May 04, 2009 
Blogger Kaylene said...

Hearty amen to the above comment.

Also, thanks for raising awareness. It never ceases to disgust me to hear how President Obama glosses this over in his speeches and when confronted. How can he speak of such a devastating issue so glibly?

5:35 pm, May 04, 2009 
Anonymous SoMG said...

OK, Andy, let's get to the meat of the question. You wrote: "The heart of the matter is that abortion kills a tiny & defenceless human-being."

The heart of the matter is, that tiny and defenceless human being is inside the body of another human being, who wants it out. (What matters is not WHAT the fetus is, but WHERE it is.)

Call me an extremist, but I claim absolute control over what and who lives inside my body, and when, and how long. If all the people in the world--innocent and guilty, unborn and already-born, great and small, rich and poor, smart and stupid--were assembled somewhere inside my body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em at will. For any reason or for no reason. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".

Abortion is indeed homicide. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

7:18 am, May 05, 2009 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

The baby can't help being inside your body. Why should its life be taken from it? 99% of the time it was the mother who allowed for the possibility of the baby to begin growing inside her.

Abortion on demand is absolutely not justifiable homicide.

3:08 pm, May 05, 2009 
Anonymous SoMG said...

You wrote: "The baby can't help being inside your body."

Irrelevant.

You wrote: "Why should its life be taken from it?"

Because it's inside my body and I want it gone. Because I choose to switch off my body's life support functions, without which it cannot live. Because I prefer to avoid childbirth.

You wrote: "99% of the time it was the mother who allowed for the possibility of the baby to begin growing inside her."

True, and the aborted unborn should be grateful to her. It wasn't a free happy person walking around before she conceived it; it had nothing and was nothing. Now it gets a short life in utero from conception until abortion. That's just so much gained for it. Sorry but giving you a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to also give you a longer one, just as giving blood does not obligate me to also give the next transfusion the patient might need.

Maybe it had some kind of fetal religious experience during that short life in utero. Maybe it clasped its little fetal hands together and prayed to Baby Jesus. Ooops--can't do it--arms too short.

You wrote: "Abortion on demand is absolutely not justifiable homicide."

Sorry but yes it absolutely is.

4:21 pm, May 05, 2009 

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

blog design by equipbiz | this blog is best viewed with Firefox. Remember: Friends don't let friends use Internet Exporer. :)