RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Launches Ad to Respond to 'Born Alive' Ad
September 21, 2008 11:09 PM
With this.
A note to some of the anti-abortion activists who took issue with my post on the original ad: "Claim" does not mean "falsely claim." It means "assert as fact."
--jpt
September 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (115)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
bornalivetruth.org needs to put out another ad exposing Obama for the liar that he is and use the audio of his own words saying that giving medical care to babies of botched abortions would be burdensome. He is sick. Go to bornalivetruth.org and DONATE.
Posted by: tlz | Sep 22, 2008 10:02:59 PM
Obama's rebuttal is a flat out lie. First of all, McCain didn't put out the ad. Secondly, Obama said that the reason why he didn't vote for the bill is because giving the babies medical care would go against the original wish of the mother and be burdensome to the doctors to try to save the babies lives. Look it up. There are audio's online of Obama saying this.
Posted by: tlz | Sep 22, 2008 9:58:04 PM
if you are against abortion, do not have one.
if you are really pro-life, then volunteer at your local foster home and help children who have already been born.
Posted by: mary jane | Sep 22, 2008 7:08:21 PM
bombem
I know many people who have completely opposite views on just about every issue than I do.. and I have enjoyed 'sparring' and conversing with them to try to understand their point of view..
there is no anger in our discussions, sometimes many and very profound disagreements, but, we know the neither of us intends the other any harm, and all things being equal there is a fair amount of respect for each others position whether there is agreement or not. No one's mind is changed but at least some understanding is achieved.
peace
Posted by: Rex | Sep 22, 2008 4:47:41 PM
"the gift of life" you make it sound so romantic...most people can't fathom or put their minds around the idea nothing in life is random, its all meant to be, crazy as it sounds- everything has a purpose: deaths, murders, abortions-the cycle of life-birth, death-like this debate, it has no end..everything has a purpose, and lessons to learn-even abortion.
Posted by: jc | Sep 22, 2008 4:02:05 PM
Rex: I appreciate your candor. It would be difficult for you and I to have a meaningful diolouge assuming we are steadfast on our beliefs. I would rather be me though and be wrong than be you and be wrong! Anyway thanks again for the courtesy. Be well.
Posted by: bombem | Sep 22, 2008 3:53:54 PM
You know what? Obama isn't holding the hands of these women, making them decide to have abortions. He's NOT the one..Hmmm...
Posted by: ? | Sep 22, 2008 3:47:13 PM
The use of birth control to curb abortions? Interesting concept... according to some: "If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society." isn't it ironic...
Posted by: ? | Sep 22, 2008 3:43:24 PM
You can cover his butt all you want but "Obama refused to support a bill to protect the lives of living aborted babies."
But the FACT is that he came down on the side of allowing live babies to die.
Now I'm pro choice up to 3 months but if a baby is alive when aborted then full medical care should be given to that baby.
I also think Roe vs Wade should be overturned and left up to the individual states to make their laws by the majority of the voters. I certainly don't want to see back alley abortions come back, and can't understand why the necessity for abortions anyway in this age of plenty of birth control and free birth control...Now you liberals keep this sick crap up and your ship is more than sunk.........I refuse to tell the source of this filth."One reporter asks: “What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”
Guest host saying, “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”
“While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”
If this was meant as a joke, I don't think many people but the sickos are laughing.
McCain/Palin 08
Posted by: Dixie | Sep 22, 2008 3:31:21 PM
"A note to some of the anti-abortion activists who took issue with my post on the original ad: 'Claim' does not mean 'falsely claim.' It means 'assert as fact.'"
On the contrary, anyone who objected to the use of the word claim was right on the money. Here's definition #3 for "claim" from dictionary (the other definitions aren't relevant, such as "to demand"): "To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain." Courses in journalism and any sort of writing where credibility is important will also teach you that using the word "claim" casts doubt on the one making the claim. For example, here is what editpros says in a list explaining how certain words are perceived: "claimed (asserted, often with an accusatory connotation or suggestive of skepticism)."
Posted by: Erika | Sep 22, 2008 2:38:09 PM
bombom
re: 'Are you an athiest, just curious?'
you are correct Sir.
Posted by: Rex | Sep 22, 2008 2:27:14 PM
Rex: Are you an athiest, just curious?
Posted by: bombem | Sep 22, 2008 1:50:31 PM
It's all over for you Dem's, "AGAIN"
Posted by: bombem | Sep 22, 2008 1:33:18 PM
Walker: Sir, may I congratulate you on your understanding of the issues of which you write on, you are indeed eloquent sir. I would suggest to those persons who may disagree with you to read your writtings over and over again in the hope that maybe they'll see some light shine thru the darkness of their selfish minds. I cannot imagine any thing being more selfish than to deny anyone the gift of life. Would they if the possibillity existed of having a choice was in the womb, would they have decided on the side of death to be aborted for the cause of some one else's inconvenience? We all know the answer that question. The only one denied choice in this grizzly procedure is the fetus. I only wish Sir that I could express myself in the compasionate and feeling way that you have. Please continue to respond to the issues. Tks.
Posted by: bombem | Sep 22, 2008 1:30:21 PM
Wade, here's the quote from Fact Check:
"Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade."
Obama refused to support a bill to protect the lives of living aborted babies. He can say his support for the most extreme position possible is for any number of reasons. As you know, he always has an unlimited number of explanations for everything he does.
But the FACT is that he came down on the side of allowing live babies to die.
And by the way, notice that I don't claim he supports infanticide. But he IS willing to let babies born alive to die to pander to his abortion supporting base. That's an extreme position by any standard.
But it's not unusual for him. On this one, he has to lie. Usually, he just has to reference one of his 150 "present" votes, or the multiple positions he has taken on every issue, depending on the audience he is pandering to.
Posted by: notafool | Sep 22, 2008 1:08:48 PM
Carol:
There are those who are in the evangelical world who want their religious views on abortion and contraception to be federal law. These religious fundamentalists care little about women in the real world, and they are pretty much against any real sex education save for 'abstinence' programs.
If you don't believe in god, why would you want anyone's religious beliefs determining one's personal choice.
There is the other side that believes women should make their own decisions on their medical care and reproductive rights.
I don't believe anyone is 'pro-abortion'. The question is who gets to decide, religious folk, doctors, women, politicians, men? Do doctors and pharmacists have a right to refuse treatment because of their religious views even though their decision might have adverse effects? Very difficult issues.
Posted by: Rex | Sep 22, 2008 12:44:55 PM
Please. Not a lie..look at fact check
Posted by: Wade | Sep 22, 2008 12:38:49 PM
Obama voted for a bill in the state if Illinois that prevents medical personnel from saving the lives of babies who survive abortions.
It's a fact.
Posted by: notafool | Sep 22, 2008 12:35:56 PM
Carol...agreed..makes about as much sense as people who bought mortgages and couldn't understand that the rate could go up.
Posted by: hippie | Sep 22, 2008 12:20:23 PM
Why are all of the people posting ranting and raving pro and con about abortion when EVERY CONCEIVABLE METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL IS AVAILABLE IN THIS COUNTRY (in many instances free of charge) & VASECTOMIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR MEN? Is it conceivable that ABORTION HAS BECOME A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL, & IF SO, WHY? I doubt I'll receive any answers to this question, but one can hope, can't one?
Posted by: Carol | Sep 22, 2008 12:06:21 PM
Post a comment


