Infanticide. The word should make your skin crawl just to hear it said and know what it means. The killing of a child born into the world. Our society has become accustomed to the term abortion, which is nothing more than killing the child in the mother’s womb, and it is no better than infanticide. However, with the GOP moving for a “Pro-Life” platform, it seems the Democrats are going with a “pro-death” platform and that doesn’t exclude infanticide.
Earlier this year I wrote about two Melbourne University “ethicists” who were promoting infanticide and how it is gaining a huge following in Europe. But the following and endorsement of infanticide is not specific to Australia or Europe. In fact, for some, it may come as a shock to know that Barack Obama fully supports infanticide.
A newly uncovered video from when Obama was a senator in Illinois has emerged in which he supports abortion at all stages, including late term abortion. In case that wasn’t enough, an audio segment that is about eight minutes long, has then Senator Obama very calmly discussing the murder of a child born while an abortionist is trying to kill it. Though the child is alive and moving, bureaucrats such as Obama want to make sure that a second attendant would come in and verify the child was viable. They don’t want to use the term ‘alive.’
While former President Bill Clinton believed in abortion, he stated it should be “rare, safe, and legal.” Obama completely disagrees with even Clinton’s assessment. He also stands against Clinton’s work requirement for welfare.
John Nolte points out that the 2008 Democrat Party’s platform on abortion read as follows:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review, made this observation of Obama’s statements as an Illinois Senator:
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.
No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”
Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.
Well I think I can speak to the issue even more than Mr. McCarthy. As a father of ten I can affirm I have referred to the child growing inside my wife as just that, a child. I have never once heard a woman reference that she is pregnant with a fetus. The baby is not born yet and yet I declare myself to be that child’s father. I am to protect both the mother and the baby. Why is it that if she were attacked and the baby killed the person could be charged with murder? Our society has such a screwed up moral compass that the only answer they can give it that “it wasn’t the mother’s choice.” The issue is not choice. The issue is what is taking place and it is nothing more than cold blooded murder.
There’s probably something else you have not heard in regards to Barack Obama’s abortion extremism and that is what the Weekly Standard points out in a recent article by John McCormack:
Obama’s 2008 endorsement of late-term abortion bans also appeared to be in conflict with his support for the Freedom of Choice Act. In 2007, Obama cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would strike down restrictions on abortion at the state and federal level. The bill stated that all abortions must be legal before “viability” for any reason and that abortions must be legal until birth if a woman’s health is at risk. FOCA does not contain a definition of “health,” therefore “anything an abortionist says is related to ‘health’ is sufficient,” according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. “A state would not be able to adopt any limiting definition (for example, defining ‘health’ to exclude emotional distress), because that would be to narrow and infringe on the federally guaranteed right which FOCA would establish. The entire purpose of FOCA is to prohibit any narrowing of the federally guaranteed right — for example, by requiring parental notification, or by refusing to fund abortions.”
Now that we understand clearly the path that Barack Obama is on, do we really think his party is going to abandon that? More than likely they will be embracing more of the culture of death in September when they meet in Charlotte, North Carolina for their convention.
It is my conviction that since the Republicans have elected to have a ‘pro-life’ plank in their platform that they stop pussyfooting around with just rhetoric and turn back the tide against abortion and against funding organizations with federal dollars that promote or perform abortions.
May God have mercy on us.
