August 20, 2008

Obama Lashes Out Over Infanticide Charges, Hides Behind His Daughters

The Barack Obama Campaign is fighting back hard against charges that the candidate supporters what amounts to infanticide with a series of votes in the Illinois State Senate.

CBN News Senior National Correspondent David Brody has been in the thick of the controversy and provides a very balanced account of the "he said, she said" going on between the Obama camp and National Right to Life committee.

Having read both arguments, I tend to side with NRLC as being the more truthful.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but if Stanek is correct, and they have to issue both a birth and a death certificate for the child, Mr. Obama, it isn't an abortion. It's infanticide.

The campaign, in attempting to defend its candidate, has used his daughters as elementary-aged human shields:

The suggestion that Obama the proud father of two little girls and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.

Brody even seems to buy into that argument.

Obama is a father of two young girls. You can bet that attacks like that will get him or any father riled up. That language seems to be way over the top. His critics can paint him as a pro-choice liberal. That's fair but to go any further is really beyond the pale. Is Obama really sinister, a monster? That narrative may fly in some conservative circles and in chat rooms but most Americans won't buy it.

Perhaps Mr. Brody needs to be reminded of the words he quoted coming out of Mr. Obama's mouth in March.

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"I don't want them punished with a baby."

Barack Obama is a very wealthy man by any measure, quite capable of raising any grandchild that would result from a daughter's accidental pregnancy. That he would so casually call his own grandchild a "punishment" worth eradicating is certainly the sign of a monster in my eyes.

Your opinion may differ, but it seems to me that a man who could so casually announce that he would support—no, advocate—the killing of his own grandchild to get rid of an inconvenience, a "punishment," is certainly the kind of monster who can hear a heart-wrenching first-hand account of a nurse holding an uncared-for abortion survivor until the baby died, and still be opposed to stopping such inhumanity not just once, but on multiple occasions.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 20, 2008 09:24 AM

Another leftist squeals like a stuck pig when when the light of truth is shined upon his own actions.

I wonder what Michelle did to earn her two punishments, and if that serial punishment is why she was just getting around to being proud of her country for the first time this past year?

Posted by: GL at August 20, 2008 11:31 AM

Hiding behind the skirts of his daughters, how brave. Still haven't heard the Obamanation apologize to the NRLC and to the country for his lies on this issue. The argument seems to be that since SS concentration camp guards had daughters and sons, therefore they couldn't have been for murder against Jews and other internees at those camps. While the guards might have been 'personally' against murder of their own family members, they facilitated these actions imposed on strangers. So does that make the guards morally neutral or positive because they were protective of their family or had families?
It is a non-sequitur.

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at August 20, 2008 01:12 PM

I'm the father of a young girl the age of Obama's daughter. When I envision her teen years, I very much don't want her to adapt values and morals that would lead her to early, casual sexual relations. I don't want her to view intimacy in that light; I don't want her to contract a STD, I don't want her to become a pregnant teen, outside of marriage to a loving, mature, responsible husband and father.

So I have a great deal of empathy with Obama, on this issue.

CY, I appreciate you giving the context of the "punished with a baby" quip. I wouldn't use those words (and didn't, in the paragraph above), but I see what he's getting at. Knowing sex as merely a physical act/catching gonnorhea, herpes, etc./getting pregnant too early in life/facing the prospects of unwed single motherhood... these would be, I'll say, tribulations for my daughter that would pain me greatly.

In thinking about his actual daughter, he used the word "punished," and applied to her, I think his remarks are those of a concerned parent. And yes, his grammar does imply that the hypothetical baby is the punishment. But I don't at all think that that was what he was getting at, or thinking.

Poorly-chosen sentence structure doesn't make a person into a monster.

Posted by: AMac at August 20, 2008 02:57 PM

Eh, I can't tell if my 2:57pm comment is in (shows when I click on "Comments") or spam-filtered out (missing if I click on "Show Comments").

Posted by: AMac at August 20, 2008 03:04 PM

Yes, BUT, this guy is considered to be "brilliant" - the smartest guy in the room. So in that context, "misspeaking" or poor choice of words have more weight than if you or I mispoke.

He also claims for himself some ability to 'bridge' the divide in our politics - and yet his ACTIONS are not one of a man who will unite a divided America, but of a man who has chosen one ideological extreme as his own. So what's the "hoped for change" he's offering America, exactly?

He promised Planned Parenthood that his FIRST act as President would be to sign FOCA. Now for those who don't know, that act would wipe out every state law restricting abortion... it would roll back the gains of the pro-life movement of the last 30 years. If you think that will produce a Kumbaya, 'we're all One" euphoric experience of national unity you are delusional.

He is thus promising to overturn the will of the majority of the American people as expressed through their state legislatures over the course of 30 years.... and that is the "what" behind his rhetoric of "hope" and "change".

Posted by: Joe at August 20, 2008 03:04 PM

Nevermind the nonchalont attitude in Ubumma's comments regarding the (lack of) personal accountablity. Maybe the girl should have considered the consequences of her actions before jumping into bed. That too, would have stopped an unwanted pregnancy, without the need to involve others, and without "punishing" anyone. Silly me, thinking that teaching my daughters to think about the possible results and consequences of their actions is a parents' job.

Posted by: Mikey J at August 21, 2008 03:25 PM