Obama Stands Tall…

for torture and dismemberment of infants, vows to veto bill that would forbid abortion for unborn babies capable of feeling pain.

Banish from your mind forever the notion that this man is a Lightbringer.  In addition to going above and beyond for the death of children, he has arrogated to himself the power to murder you, jail you, and spy on you by his secret and unaccountable will.  Now he is arming Al-Quaeda in his misbegotten quest to export “freedom” to Syria.  How much of a sucker do you have to be to keep trusting this Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

  • Joseph

    Oh, they are either suckers or they have so much in common with the man that they’ll stick by him no matter what storm may come. Here in Ireland, it sickens me how the media continues to portray him as, in your words, the Lightbringer. The manner in which the Irish grovel after him, even making the insane case that he’s Irish (and defending it tooth and nail). It’s truly unbelievable.

    • chezami

      All politics is local. They fawn over him because he is useful for attacking the Church and sundry other agendas of the Irish media. For the same reason, the Germans are leery of him, because he reminds them of certain… events… in their not too distant past.

      • Joseph

        This is true. The media here spend most of their time trying to find ways to slander the Church and convince the few Catholics who remain that they are ignorant thicks.

  • Jess

    If I thought at the beginning of his presidency that he was the Anti-Christ, now I believe that Obama IS the Anti-Christ. My response? I pray for him. Our Lord asks us to pray for our enemy, and there is no greater enemy than Obama. May our Lord shower upon Obama His infinite Divine Mercy.

    • chezami

      Relax. If Obama is Antichrist, then bad cable reception is the Apocalypse. Americans have no conception of what *real* persecution of the Church looks like.

      • Dave

        I’m not worried about Obama being the Antichrist, but I must confess that I am a little worried about him being one of many “reverse John the Baptists” who make straight the road for the Antichrist (or an Antichrist)

  • John Schaefer

    I hate the names of these bills like the Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, or Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. So, if you are not for it, you’re against it. You’re against Patriotism? What are you a socialist? You don’t want affordable health care? What are you rich? Or, in the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”, you are for torturing and dismembering babies if you are against it.

    I understand that this is a black and white issue to many here, including Mark, but I believe it exposes a fundamental flaw in the argument to most people who don’t want to criminalize abortion, and why their frustration with the Church continues to grow. A BIG part of it is this argument. It is a straw man.

    The vast majority of folks for legalized abortion are truly horrified by late term abortions. Thank God they are a very, very small percentage of total abortions. But, I know of no one that believes in the legality of abortion, who wants to see babies dismembered. It’s those inflammatory words, and twisting of their own belief that drive many of us crazy.

    • chezami

      The point of the bill, which will never become law, is twofolld: It’s a cheap way to pretend to care about the unborn without actually paying a poltical cost. (As one reader put it, the GOP boldly supports gestures about abortion it knows will never become law. But when in power, it uses the political support of prolifers to launch wars in the mideast where lots of real babies die.)

      Second, such legislation really does demonstrate that Obama (and the Dems) really are the sort of people who have no compunction about inflicting agonizing tortures on unborn babies capable of feeling real pain. Normal people support such legislation. Obama and the Congressoids who opposed such an elementary moral step, do not. Make what excuses you like for that and whine about it being “inflammatory” to say it, but Obama and his ilk adamantly support the torture of babies capable of feeling the pain abortionists inflict on them. That you dislike facing that is a comment on your cowardice, nothing more.

      • John Schaefer

        I accept my cowardice for what it is. I don’t like abortion. I don’t support abortion. I’m just HIGHLY uncomfortable with the over the top tactic. That is all.

      • John Schaefer

        Just one more thought Mark…is it the fact that the Dem’s don’t have compunction to support that legislation, or that there are too many people in the country who would vote them out of office if they did vote for it?

        As for the inflammatory tone, and it is quite inflammatory, it’s why the “pro-life” movement seems to be stuck in neutral, not gathering any new supporters. So, if I vote for a Dem, you say I am implicitly supporting dismemberment. Or, in Obama’s case, he’s a baby killer for not signing a flawed, politically motivated bill.

        An interesting side note…the Washington Examiner, a quite conservative newspaper, ran more stories complaining about the lack of MSM coverage of the Gosnell case, then they did about the case itself. So, it seems that nobody wants to deal with the dismemberment of babies issue, yet alone be labeled a baby killer.

        Personally, I think the greater good would be served by something more positive, and fulfilling, would be greater support for adoption services, and personal support in communities for these women. THAT is the kind of grass roots solution that will change things. Of course, that is a lot more difficult, and a longer term strategy, then labeling someone a coward or a baby killer.

        • B.E. Ward

          Dispensing of euphemism isn’t an ‘inflammatory tone’.

          • John Schaefer

            I like that! “Dispensing of euphemism”. I will add to my repertoire!

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      But dismemberment IS what happens during some abortions, especially late term abortions. Supporting abortion is supporting babies being dismembered, no matter how you paint the issue. I know that many people who support abortion believe they are helping women; they believe this is the only way or the best way, but in the end, they are still supporting killing babies. We pray for them to realize it and come to the truth.

    • Dave

      John, are you even reading your own words? To most of us here, words like “But, I know of no one that believes in the legality of abortion, who wants to see babies dismembered.” sound like the following probably sounds to you:

      ‘I know of no one that believes in the legality of rape, who wants to see women raped.”

      • John Schaefer

        I think you’re making a false equivalence of what I am saying. You conflate rape, something that IS illegal, to abortion, which is legal in this country. I’m applying no value judgement to that statement, either.

        • Dave

          But what’s the difference between the two statements logically? If one were to support rape being legal, then one must at least favor it as an viable option in certain cases, which means at the very least one doesn’t mind seeing women getting raped in certain situations. The same goes for abortion.

          • John Schaefer

            In this country rape is illegal. Abortion is not.

            • Dave

              Okay. Good dodge. I will assume you are unable to answer the question.

              • John Schaefer

                No dodge. But, I’m not going to take the bait on your argument that IF rape were legal. It’s not. And, that is not the logical correlation I would make.

                The real issue is over the legality of abortion in this country, and the details of such law. The SCOTUS has refused to uphold much stricter abortion regulations on the states in the past 40 years. That would include the ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Further, it has been defined, whether we like it or not, as a privacy issue for women.

                Why would Obama sign such a piece of legislation?

                1. It will piss off a good deal of Democrats who believe in the individual privacy rights of a woman, as laid out in Roe.

                2. It would open up the entire party to attacks based on Obama approved it.

                3. It will be overturned by SCOTUS anyway.

                It doesn’t make him a coward. It makes him an American politician, and a very good politician at that. Whether we like it or not.It was a showboating piece of legislation that had no chance of success. It’s legislation that the movement has jumped on, including Mark, to say Obama is evil. See, here’s the proof.

                This battle is not going to be won by alienating half of the population, with high octane rhetoric.

                • Dave

                  “Why would Obama sign such a piece of legislation?”

                  To show that he is not a monster. But you are right that a large number of people expect him to be a certain way, and since he has no moral compass, he’ll just do the easy thing.

                  And sure, it is politically motivated. So what? If I could get an opposing party President to cast a veto that exposes them as a monster, I’d do it too. (Not that most of the GOP actually cares about abortion)

                  • John Schaefer

                    What is a monster?

                    What would he have to do prove he’s not a monster?

                    Would that be all he’d have to do?

                    Once he did that, what more would you expect from him to further prove that he is NOT a monster? Because, that would be the next step.

                    See, it’s the labeling that is the problem. He’s evil, or a monster, or a baby killer, or the Anti-Christ, for not banning abortion, or signing a flawed piece of legislation. I said in another post, the fight is in the courts and the grass roots.

                    On a side note, I have NEVER heard a Pope, ANY Pope, call Obama, or any POTUS, a monster or a baby killer for upholding the law of this country….EVER.

                    • Dave

                      Well, many things can make one worthy of being called a monster. Casting a vote that allows innocent human beings to be killed would certainly be one of them.

                      Popes don’t use that terminology, but certainly they have condemned abortion and voting for any legislation allowing abortion in the strongest possible terms.

                    • chezami

                      I think fighting to inflict the torture of dismemberment on a baby that can feel every excruciating moment of it pretty well qualifies him as a monster. This is not complicated.

                    • John Schaefer

                      Let’s take the personalities, and name labeling, out of this for a minute, Mark. Because, I think the labeling of any character in this tragic drama, takes away from the real debate.

                      Here are my questions.

                      1. Would 20 week ban be enough?

                      2. Would the 12 week ban, used in the majority of Europe, be enough?

                      3. Would making abortion totally illegal make the occurrences more rare? Will it really stop the practice? Will this require another wing of government to enforce abortion laws?

                      4. How do you deal with new abortion innovations?

                      These are all valid questions raised. Finally, at the heart of this though, is a fact that people don’t want to acknowledge. The redefined role, and greater equality, of women in this society has changed greatly in the last 40 years. Many, many women want to control their own lives, and not give birth when they are teens, like many of our parents did. They want to be able to have a profitable career, and CHOOSE when it’s time for them to start a family.

                      Personally, I feel that a 12 week ban with certain, limited, exceptions is the only way to smartly deal with it at this point. It doesn’t make abortion right, but it addresses our reality as a society. If only the leaders on the right wouldn’t keep tossing out these untenable bills, just to give the member of the movement a bone.

                      Calling Obama a “monster”, or me a “coward”, doesn’t change any of this reality.

    • Joseph

      Umm… can I try? I hate the way the name of the bill characterises brutally chopping up living babies in the womb as something bad! Gosh darnit! I’m sick of the Church making the slaughter of objectively innocent children out to be something evil and repulsive.

      Anyway, this is mainly symbolic and political. However, it does highlight just how much The One relishes the thought of murdering children since he’s so hell bent on protecting the practice even when it’s unreasonable.

      • John Schaefer

        Unreasonable, but legal.

        • singermomma

          John, you’ve emphasized several times that you believe the practice is unreasonable and horrific, but legal. Is there a difference for you between “moral” and “legal?” I’m asking in all sincerity. Can something be legal but not moral, or vice versa? If so, why?

    • AnsonEddy

      I don’t think I entirely understand your post. What’s the fundamental flaw in the prolife argument? Are you saying it suffers from a logical fallacy? That it mischaracterizes what abortion is? Or that it mischaracterized the intent of those that embrace it?

      • John Schaefer

        I think my point is AnsonEddy, is that it conflates the legality of abortion with dismemberment of babies. I believe that is a straw man argument. So folks who believe that abortion should be legal, are baby dismemberers by extension.

        • AnsonEddy

          I appreciate the engagement. I’m still a little lost. You say, “it conflates the legality of abortion with dismemberment of babies.” This doesn’t seem to quite fit. The legal status of abortion which is a quality possessed by an activity can’t really be conflated with the activity itself. They are categorically different. I can see how the activity of abortion can be compared to the activity of dismembering a baby, but not how the legal status of abortion can be compared to the activity of infant dismemberment. Do you mean to say, “It conflates abortion with the dismemberment of babies”?

          • John Schaefer

            I reckon my fingers are typing faster than my brain again!

        • AnsonEddy

          The way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like you think Mark is saying, “People who support legalized abortion are dismembering babies.” Rather than “People who support legalized abortion are supporting the legal dismemberment of babies.”

  • Patrick J Loveless

    Give man Nobel Peace Prize to man who has done nothing
    Man becomes oppressive dictator.

    What is this? I don’t even

  • B.E. Ward

    Along these lines, I was told to “Help save Planned Parenthood!” by a petition guy standing in front of the Starbucks today. I thought about asking what the organization needed to be saved from, and why they need my help when they have the President’s.

  • lavallette

    “Banish from your mind forever the notion that this man is a Lightbringer” . But he is acting in the way of the Latin version of “Lightbringer” .


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X