How do you logically conclude from Obama's votes and actions regarding legislation to his having zeal for sticking scissors in a baby's brain?
That's true. All it shows is zeal for letting babies sit to die if they happen to escape the womb before the abortionist kills them. That makes me feel a whole lot better.
Kyle - one would think that if Obama opposed sticking scissors into babies' brians, he'd oppose such legislation. Since he repeatedly has not, one must only conclude that he is 100% for it.
*brains, not brians. Sorry, I'm NAKing (nursing at keyboard)
Jill Stanek, a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions, summarized Obama’s response saying:
“Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to ‘explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.’”
“I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash,” she told WorldNetDaily.
Yet, Stanek pointed out that religion was never part of the abortion ban debate. “I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.”
http://www.catholic.org/politics...ry.php?
id=26868
JoAnna,
There are other possibilities. Obama may be apathetic towards the practice, for instance. It is illogical to conclude that Obama possesses zeal for partial-birth abortion from his repeated opposition to legislation banning the practice. Opposing a legal ban on something does not by itself prove that one approves or disproves of that thing.
So, Kyle:
Are you saying it's bad to let babies die after botched abortions, but perfectly okay for the abhorent practice of partial-birth abortion to be carried out?
Let's just settle this argument here and now:
As Senator, Obama has a 100% rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL - organizations that support abortion at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.
While not a math major I know that 100% is a "perfect" score, therefore it's logical to conclude that *all* forms of abortion are included in Obama's beliefs and policies.
On a happier note:
JoAnna, I like your word: NAKing. I'm getting used to one-handed typing, myself.
Amy P -
You asked: "Are you saying it's bad to let babies die after botched abortions, but perfectly okay for the abhorent practice of partial-birth abortion to be carried out?"
I haven't said either, but now that you ask, I think all abortions are abhorrent and should be outlawed. And in case you're wondering, I'm not a supporter of an Obama presidency. I'm making the technical points that 1) one cannot conclude whether or not Obama has zeal for sticking scissors in babies' brains based solely from his opposition to laws banning the practice and 2) the legal issue and the moral issue are two distinct issues. I can name quite a few actions that I think are immoral (even potentially mortal sins) but legal bans of which I would oppose. Abortion, as I said, isn't one of them.
If you think I'm wrong, please show me a sound step-by-step argument from the premise of Obama's opposition to pro-life legislation to the conclusion that he has zeal for the practice of abortion.
For God's sake, what the hell is wrong with this society anyway? I think we're all implicated, directly or in some way indirectly. Cruelty, indifference and brutality aren't' one single act or one single class of people. They're part of a social complex of acts and the history is intricately interconnected. Anyone who would do that to an infant is capable, given the circumstances, of shoving weeping toddlers onto a freight train to send them to Belsen. (French cops did that). And vice versa.
Christ still hangs on the cross, and the cross is us.
Kyle-- I've never taken a class in formal logic, so I don't know that I can spell it out for you in the way you'd like, but-- when you read and hear a broad overview of Obama's views, speeches and votes on matters related to abortion, don't you at least get the sense that the man has never encountered an abortion technique he finds objectionable?
When someone repeats their words and actions in regards to a particular issue enough times, I can no longer conclude that he is merely apathetic on the issue. It strongly suggests that he is, in fact, quite supportive of the issue. Dare I say, zealously so??
O.K. Kyle, we grant you that Mark's description of zeal to stick scissors in a baby's brain might be hyperbolic. So... I'll spell it out for you. Pinning Mark down to be literal and exacting in his comments so that symbolism, reading betweent the lines, and other forms of critical reading and understanding be rigorously pinned down... is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is, a willingness to vote for death of the unborn is an unacceptable view of human life and dignity for those who don't believe those with power should be harming those without...whether that be at Auschwitz, Rwanda, or the local abortion clinic.
Quibbling with Mark over the semantics doesn't change the fundamental reality that Obama has missed the moral boat even if he is a nice guy who looks good on camera.
kc beat me to it. This game of, "There's no one in here but us unzealous chickens." reminds me of the exchange in Patton:
Gen. Bradley: "You wouldn't be taking advantage of this situation, would you George?"
Gen. Patton: "What are you talking about?"
Gen. Bradley: "I can read a map."
If someone wants to pretend The New World Messiah is not a rigorous and FORMAL supporter of abortion, so be it. Just don't pretend the rest of us are incapable of reading a map.
KC,
The defense of life deserves accurate language, not the least of which we use to present the positions of those who, sooner or later, we'll need to persuade that the unborn deserve legal protection. So I don't think it is beside the point.
Kyle -- read the article. It shows that Obama is nowhere NEAR "apathetic" in his support of partial-birth abortion; in fact, he's quite enthusiastic about it.
Heather - congrats 
I think Kyle's head is firmly planted in his ass. Or is that hyperbole hard for you to understand, Kyle? Or are you being obtuse?
JoAnna – Thanks for the link; I’ll check it out.
Jarnor23 – The placement of my head is irrelevant. I understand hyperbolic rhetoric; I understand that in a matter as delicate as the abortion debate, such rhetoric tends to alienate rather than persuade. I believe that if the pro-life movement is to have any lasting success in establishing and maintaining legal protections for the unborn, it will have to persuade the vast majority in the pro-choice movement to embrace a pro-life philosophy. I find persuasion is greatly helped when we state the opponent’s views in ways he would acknowledge are accurate. Is a pro-lifer likely to give the time of day to a pro-choicer who says the pro-life platform is nothing more than a passion for oppressing women? I doubt it. The way we use language to further the cause of life can be productive or counter-productive, so the way we use language is not something I take lightly.
Kyle,
You are correct about your passion for the use of language. However, this is the internet. It is not a formal debate, research project, or mission to be ambassador to a foreign country. It simply is not the field to fret over how perfect the language is.
When you are the Church Militant, different styles, and different times, call for reaction, not carefully nuanced, studious debate. I'll leave that for when I submit an article for publication.
In the meantime, I am weary of tiptoing lightly through the tulips when lives are at stake.
Frankly, it reminds me of Patty Murray's response when I requested she vote for helicopters to be sent to Darfur, and she gave me some long song-and-dance about diplomacy, never addressing the issue.
Diplomacy delights me, but I am a big fan of first doing what it takes to stop the killing, and if diplomacy, gentle language, soft responses, and letters perfectly worded because it may win over an enemy or two, aren't cutting in emergency situations... send in the men strong enough and manly enough to do the job of fighting for the innocent.
Mark, imperfect though he may be, fiesty and imprecise though he may be at times, is at least fighting a noble fight. Where people are dying, horrifically, I just am not so worried that pinning down precise language is the first order of the day.
I understand what Mark is getting at, and I agree with him.
You're fighting the good fight, Mark. May God be your protection.
Luv, kc
Thank you for the thoughtful response, kc.
I'm not advocating tiptoing lightly through the tulips, though, just the use of language aimed at persuasion--as opposed to, say, a knee-jerk reaction.
Kyle I recommend this article as well.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
