Why do liberals protest "fur products" and condone infanticide?

Question

Do you agree with this infanticide procedure: you put two fingers at the back of the fetus’s neck at the base of the skull where you can feel the base of the skull, and then you puncture the skull with scissors (Dr. Stephen Chasen, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology).

As Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it about babies born alive, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” The babies weren’t cooperating. Obama voted to permit infanticide.

Answer 1

they feel animals are worth saving but not babies.sad huh?

Answer 2

Obama has no morals

Answer 3

Their jerks

Answer 4

Why do conservatives legislate morality and promote "Christian" morals for everyone but themselves...see Palin teenage pregnant daughter.

Answer 5

'Obama voted to permit infanticide.'

Could you spell out a little bit how you arrived at that conclusion?  You don't give any reasoning or evidence to back it, and it sounds pretty phony.  The reasoning I've seen is, 'The bill had X, Y, and Z in it.  Obama must've voted "present" b/c of X, not Y or Z.'  Brilliant.  That doesn't even rise to the standard of circumstantial evidence.

Considering that such protection is granted by federal law, including during the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, which Obama pointed out as part of his explanation of his voting record, your conclusion seems even more tenuous.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation itself seems phony.  (see more below)  Are you sure this whole thing isn't a right-wing gullibility test for the rest of us?

As Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here:http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript... ) his being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion.  Obama wants to reduce the abortion rate, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.  He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother, as the GOP platform and Sarah Palin are willing to do.

He's also taken steps to try to reduce the abortion rate.  http://mediamatters.org/items/2008040200...

This doesn't really seem to jive with your claim at all, making your claim increasingly extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you're providing is less than extraordinary.

As for the actual need of such legislation (setting aside that the baby-protection part was already redundant), the perception of a need was triggered by a nurse called Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would.  But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that it couldn't be true, in fact was not true.  The investigation concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.'  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.  Nevertheless, not too credible, huh?

Jill Staneck also says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say 'Faithful Condom Users' in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that 'aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies' in China, to which she added, 'I think this stuff is happening.'

So why was the legislation put forth in the first place, given that the baby-protection part was redundant?  The act was designed as 'wedge' legislation.  It was designed for just for the sort of attack that you're parroting.  When a bill-authoring group does this, they put in one horrible provision (the 'infanticide' part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman's right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the 'infanticide.'

Articles that spin such legislation as infanticide are little more than gullibility tests, and I'm afraid you flunked it.  Didn't this story seem a little implausible to you from the start?

Furthermore, this story has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so  you really don't have an excuse for reposting it here.

If you want to attack Obama for not making abortions illegal, then OK, fine.  If you want to scold him for not doing enough to combat the impulsiveness and short-sightedness that leads to so many abortions and an STD rate among teens of 25%, then OK, fine (though I give a link below contradicting this).  But passing on stuff that's just made up is a bit much.  Trying to keep others from breaking Commandment 6 doesn't give you permission to break Commandment 9.

Furthermore, McCain is hardly one-sided on this matter.  McCain's saying to great applause at Saddleback that life begins at conception (actually it begins before conception; sperm and egg cells are respiring cells) of course doesn't reconcile with his support of embryonic stem cell research.  When he reminded the church audience of his position, he was met with -- crickets.

But back to the exceptions: note also that prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape, incest, of even the endangerment of the life of the mother has been in the GOP platform since at least 2000.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that last prohibition dictates that, when both lives are in danger, the fetus's has primacy over the mother's?  I find this hard to believe.  Even parity seems a bit much.

McCain scolded Bush in a 2000 debate for not knowing that the GOP platform did not make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Yszait8...

In '07, McCain exhibited the same hostility to the platform.  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...  But in the past few days McCain has backed off his intent to change the platform language, just as the abortion attacks on Obama heated up.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...

Mere coincidence?  Just really, really good timing?

Answer 6

Killing animals is wrong.  Infanticide saves on child support.  And that is a good thing.