In a similar article called Who is More Extreme: Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? posted on my blog Teresamerica I wrote about their positions on abortion. This post is a supplement to my original posting.
Steve at America’s Watchtower has a post called Video: Newt Gingrich hammers the mainstream media for biased coverage while on “Meet The Press” where Newt nails the media for their bias and hypocrisy. The liberal lamestream media (a.k.a mainstream media) may as well be an arm of the Democratic Party. I am reposting the video below:
Who is More Extreme: Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?
In a post called Mitt Romney Holds Extreme Views? LD of Political Realities talked about how Obama has accused Mitt Romney of holding extreme views. But which person truly holds extreme views – Romney or Obama? Let’s take a look at a controversial subject – at their respective positions on abortion. Mitt Romney is against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. Obama is for abortion on demand with no exceptions, even for minors. Mitt Romney is a defender of unborn babies lives while Obama deems unborn babies lives as disposable. Obama believes that if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy and murder her offspring before the baby is born that is okay. Are Obama’s beliefs on abortion rights only applicable before the birth of the baby? In the video below you will hear how Obama believes that if an unborn baby survives an attempted abortion, which means that the baby is alive outside of the mother’s womb, that taking certain basic steps in order to save the life of the baby after the botched abortion has occurred would be undermining the woman’s decision to abort that baby. So get this folks Obama not only believes in abortion prior to birth but he also believes it morally licit to leave a baby to die after a botched abortion when that baby is alive outside its mother’s womb. That is morally repugnant. This means that Barack Obama believes that infanticide is morally justifiable.
From LifeSiteNews:
The bill was introduced after pro-life nurse Jill Stanek witnessed babies being born alive after failed abortions, then being brought to a room in the hospital where she worked and left to die. The legislation, mandated that doctors must provide care to babies born alive after failed abortions.
However, one of the most ardent opponents of the bill, whorepeatedly voted against it, was now-President Barack Obama. In audio dug up this week by John McCormack of The Weekly Standard, then-Senator Obama is heard attempting to explain his opposition to the bill.
While his explanations are extremely convoluted and difficult to quote, the thrust of Obama’s argument is that he trusts that abortionists who make “an error” that results in a baby being born alive will take care of the baby.
Obama says that if you argue that an abortionist wouldn’t try “to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child” of his own accord, then “maybe this bill makes sense” (notice the “maybe”!). But he adds, “I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”
Of course, the obvious response to Obama’s paper-thin objection is to point to the clear evidence that, in fact, abortionists were not providing such care. Babies were being killed – not quickly or mercifully, but by being left exposed, without food or water, to die. And, after all, what motivation would an abortionist, who was moments ago seeking to kill the baby, have to save the life of the same baby, especially when doing so would only expose the fact that he screwed up?
But in one turn of phrase that is extremely revealing Obama attempts to describe the purpose of the bill, and says that the “fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the womb.”
One of the great doctrines of the pro-abortion movement, of course, is that as long as the baby is in the mother’s womb, it is a “ fetus,” but then at the moment of birth, it magically transforms into a “baby.” Except, perhaps (as Obama’s indifference to terminology illustrates) if that baby was supposed to be dead, and was only born by “mistake” – in which case, it’s much more convenient to continue labeling it with the dehumanizing term “fetus.”
Here is Melissa Ohden, an abortion survivor, in a scathing new ad lambasting President Obama’s decision to vote not only once but four times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Here is a very powerful video.
In deciding which candidate to vote for one should not vote for a candidate they support for economic reasons in spite of abortion. They should vote for the candidate based on their abortion record in spite of or in addition to their economic record. Abortion is murder. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Economic issues are matters of prudential judgement. Another words abortion trumps economic issues. Fortunately we have a candidate who is much better than Obama on both these issues. Mitt Romney is much better than Obama on the abortion issue and on economic issues Mitt Romney is better by leaps and bounds in comparison to President Obama.
I could only make it through part of this, as this makes me so sick as to the mentality of some people in this nation. All I can say Teresa is, “God help us?” I do not why I can never make it through whole post or videos concerning abortion but for some reason I can’t! It just goes all through me. Thanks for sharing it all though. I am so sick of our innocent being killed and do not know what to do to stop it! I guess that is part of my problem. How can one make the “insane” “sane” when they do not have a brain nor heart to think with? God Bless, SR