Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Man of Faith Obama says; I want YOU to pay for abortions!
worldnetdaily.com — Kaitlin Clare of the CDC said of Obama, "He's reaching out to young evangelicals, and wants change. He claims to be for social justice. You can't do all those things and be for killing innocent children. His health care plan would include abortion for patients, and that would force Christians with moral objections to abortion to pay for the act."
rjwusa- 54 diggs
- digg it
- isparadiselost, on 07/09/2008, -5/+29Still haven't found the authorization for that funding in my copy of the Constitution. Could somebody post theirs indicating such?
- StaticThunder, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and ***general Welfare*** of the United States"
- Salesti, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3Yeah, that really ensures the welfare of those babies! Really, kiddo, words MEAN things. Providing for the general welfare of the USA is not, not, NOT the same thing as providing taxpayer funding for the termination of innocent life.
- B1663r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3"providing taxpayer funding for the termination of innocent life."
So why do you keep voting republican again? - StaticThunder, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I just gave you the authorization. You don't have to agree with it, but you do keep voting for the people that don't change the law.
- StaticThunder, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and ***general Welfare*** of the United States"
- ginger007, on 07/09/2008, -11/+26I don't think it will be found. I can't even imagine what kind of person would approve partial birth abortion, abortion, or letting a baby aborted alive lay somewhere and die. It makes me sick to think a person allowing that kind of action would even say the word Christian.
- DuggDowner, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6The women who get so-called partial birth abortions are women who are going to die in child birth.
- StaticThunder, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6It doesn't matter, new life is sacred, women's lives are not.
- VBDon, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2Not True!!! Partial birth abortions are not limited to women whose life is threatened. It's available to anyone who asks for it.
- kayala, on 07/10/2008, -0/+8VBDon, you don't understand. Late-term abortions are generally conducted out of medical necessity - if, say, a fetus dies in utero. Intact dilation and extraction (D&X) can help the doctors figure out why the fetus died. Often the women who undergo this type of abortion ("partial-birth" is a nonsense term made up by those who would have women stripped of their bodily integrity) are actually removing from their bodies a fetus that has already died, or that has a severe disorder that will kill the baby within hours of its being born. Such problems cannot always be predicted earlier in the pregnancy, and therefore cannot be addressed any earlier in the pregnancy. I suggest you do some research on the subject.
- flip2trip, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1You guys(kayala, ST, DD) keep telling yourself those lies----
"In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony)" - flip2trip, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Keep telling yourself lies guys---
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10I can't even imagine what kind of person would approve letting an egg die! I can't even imagine what kind of person would approve letting a single-celled fertilized zygote die! I can't even imagine what kind of person would approve letting a blastocyst, a tiny cluster of stem cells, die! I can't even imagine what kind of person would approve letting a fetus die!
Where do those statements stop being retarded? How far back do you go? Oh, never mind, you have no powers of analysis whatsoever and are going to continue to spout unbelievably idiotic ***** like "Letting a baby aborted alive lay somewhere and die" proving your complete ignorance about anything relating to the subject. ***** off.
- DuggDowner, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6The women who get so-called partial birth abortions are women who are going to die in child birth.
- ginger007, on 07/09/2008, -7/+26I don't believe it's in the Constitution and it is a sad day when we have someone running for our president to believe that type of action is ok. I don't understand how some with those beliefs could possibility call himself a Christian.
- KJeffV, on 07/09/2008, -8/+13I'm certain then that you'll both be pleased to know—just in case you don't know it already—that Planned Parenthood's ann budget is over a billion dollars, ONE THIRD of which is provided thru taxation by you & me, w/o my approval and, I'm guessing, yours. So it's already "Too Late the Phalarope," as it were: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a reality.
- Cate320, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5Planned Parenthood does more than just abortions. They also provide contraceptives, treatment for, information and prevention of STDs, AND prenatal care. They are basically just a clinic that deals with all reproduction and sexual issues, for people that can't afford a private doctor. I love how people conveniently forget all of the good that Planned Parenthood does just because they also provide abortion services.
That is like saying veterinarians are evil just because they sometimes have to euthanize pets.
So just pretend the 1/3 that is paid for from taxes is going towards prenatal care if it makes you feel better. - KJeffV, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2I promise I'll do that gladly if you'll eat a chocolate cake made up of ⅓ dog poop.
- Cate320, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5Planned Parenthood does more than just abortions. They also provide contraceptives, treatment for, information and prevention of STDs, AND prenatal care. They are basically just a clinic that deals with all reproduction and sexual issues, for people that can't afford a private doctor. I love how people conveniently forget all of the good that Planned Parenthood does just because they also provide abortion services.
- DuggDowner, on 07/09/2008, -4/+10I don't believe it's in the Constitution that one religion's dubious moral code gets to dictate the law of the United States.
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5I don't understand how anyone could possibly call himself a Christian.
- Salesti, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3Believe what Christ said, and do what He said to do. This is how someone can call himself a Christian. Pretty easy to understand how that works.
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5No, I mean I don't understand how anyone can believe that an invisible robed man in sandals created the Earth 6000 years ago in his image so that he would have people to worship him even though he knew most of them wouldn't because he gave them free will but he still is all powerful even though he can't control what you do but he actually can and he sends Ghandi to hell because he doesn't spout some ***** about accepting a fake person as his savior and put evidence of evolution and geological time on earth to trick people into believing things that are actually true but aren't because he said they're not even though they are but it doesn't matter because the bible is god's word even though its contradictory and was written by humans it's still all true even the part about how a male and female of every one of the tens of millions of species was put on a boat even though some species are asexual and don't come in male and female varieties they were still on the boat and everything else drowned and now every species in the world is inbred and the fact that there's a completely obvious genetic and morphological linkage between chimpanzees and humans is a trick by the devil but a woman on her period should not walk in front of a church and sloth is one of the deadly sins but rape isn't. I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe such stupid *****.
- flip2trip, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1@feoren--you sure are mad at something that "doesn't exist".
- KJeffV, on 07/09/2008, -8/+13I'm certain then that you'll both be pleased to know—just in case you don't know it already—that Planned Parenthood's ann budget is over a billion dollars, ONE THIRD of which is provided thru taxation by you & me, w/o my approval and, I'm guessing, yours. So it's already "Too Late the Phalarope," as it were: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a reality.
- cloudglider, on 07/09/2008, -7/+30Ancient false god worshipers, along with certain other pagan cultures, would systematically offer up live children to their "gods" by burning them in furnesses or killing them on an altar and by other means. How unfortunate, today, that an element in human society still offers up these unborn/near-born babes to the Gods of Irresponsibility. To normal people in ancient times, these sacrifices were condemned to the extent that most of these ancient cultures no longer exist. Isn't this historical result upon such cultures a warning to modern day abortionists and their adherents of a similar result soon to come upon them? For it is a certainty, by now, that the stench of such human conduct has reached to the Holy heavens above and that, ultimately, there will be consequences for all involved.
- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -5/+16Well said! ( 1+ )
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Live children. Abortion does not involve killing live children. How idiotic of those ancient confused paganistic people to appeal to their "gods" to determine how babies should be treated. Who the ***** keeps digging up these guys?
- Salesti, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2The fruitcakes (of which I am one) who understand that we do not KNOW at what point after egg meets sperm that the cells become a living soul. We don't give ourselves so much credit that we dare to play God -- instead, we give the living being that is not yet born the benefit of the doubt, and call that being a human. Since we value human life (even yours!), we wish to extend our support of human life in general to that tiny, unborn being.
If we didn't believe that valuing human life was important, and that a person's a person PRE-birth, a lot of us would just take out the human life that annoyed us, born or NOT. - twitchr, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4you value human life as long as its white, republican, straight, and a god fearing christian.
- twitchr, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3...and male
- Salesti, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2The fruitcakes (of which I am one) who understand that we do not KNOW at what point after egg meets sperm that the cells become a living soul. We don't give ourselves so much credit that we dare to play God -- instead, we give the living being that is not yet born the benefit of the doubt, and call that being a human. Since we value human life (even yours!), we wish to extend our support of human life in general to that tiny, unborn being.
- lydecker, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7"Isn't this historical result upon such cultures a warning to modern day abortionists and their adherents of a similar result soon to come upon them?"
No, they offered live humans by killing them, for the benefit of God, that didn't happen. Therefore, they were killing matured, self-sustaining lifeforms for no reason. And nothing supernatural came of it, nothing beneficial or detrimental.
Women who abort their pregnancies do it for the benefit of themselves and their future children, so they can raise children when they are ready, or for their health. Nobody is expecting that an abortion is an offer to God, and that God will make their harvest bountiful because of it. The benefit and detriments of abortion are physical.
What good do you think warning people against sacrifices that yielded no supernatural intervention would have on abortion?
- meeksam, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15Is there any way to change both presidental candidates since neither one of them really qualifies?
- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10There are still the third Party candidates to be considered.
November is still a little ways off.- Salesti, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Still set on Alan Keyes.......
- SOLGAARD, on 07/09/2008, -7/+2Still advocate the only guy whos name is valid in 50 states by mail-in ballot.
- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10There are still the third Party candidates to be considered.
- proveritas, on 07/09/2008, -3/+20our tax dollars already support abortion, birth control, etc. I guess what will change under Obama is more of our tax dollars will be funneled to pay for all of the above and for programs that fund abortion, birth control, etc overseas.
- lookingforHim, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16Not by my vote!
- SLancaster, on 07/09/2008, -5/+13This is Obamanation!
The Obamanation that causes desolation...- SOLGAARD, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Ask the people of Kern County, (Piute fire).
- Nannybell, on 07/09/2008, -9/+14The comparison of wholesale abortion to the pagan practice of child sacrifice is very apt in the context of our times, since we are also reverting to the pagan practice of sexual debauchery and failure to worship the One True God. Interesting.
KJeffV is right... we are already funding abortion via taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. - nippinawassee, on 07/09/2008, -6/+6Have noticed that anything that bo doesn't want to discuss he spouts off: I will not be questioned by people who have caused the conditions that we are dealing with today... very macho - very much the 'boss' bulls--t. That's his out for anything and everything - blame everything on the president of today (Bush) without regard to the democratic liberals that are in charge. He doesn't like any form of confrontation about his words, his speeches, his comments - all he wants is the complete adoration of the masses.... no one will ever get an honest response from him as it hasn't been prepared beforehand...
- Christianptriot, on 07/09/2008, -7/+9No true Christian believer would advocate abortion of any kind the way Obama is. How can this man say he is a disciple of Christ and advocate wholesale killing of unborn humans???
- inboxnews, on 07/09/2008, -8/+4He's a democrat. They lie.
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3I secretly hope Obama dosen't really believe that an invisible robed man in sandals created the Earth 6000 years ago in his image so that he would have people to worship him even though he knew most of them wouldn't because he gave them free will but he still is all powerful even though he can't control what you do but he actually can and he sends Ghandi to hell because he doesn't spout some ***** about accepting a fake person as his savior and put evidence of evolution and geological time on earth to trick people into believing things that are actually true but aren't because he said they're not even though they are but it doesn't matter because the bible is god's word even though its contradictory and was written by humans it's still all true even the part about how a male and female of every one of the tens of millions of species was put on a boat even though some species are asexual and don't come in male and female varieties they were still on the boat and everything else drowned and now every species in the world is inbred and the fact that there's a completely obvious genetic and morphological linkage between chimpanzees and humans is a trick by the devil but a woman on her period should not walk in front of a church and sloth is one of the deadly sins but rape isn't.
- B1663r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Well, Islamic people are even less likely to support abortion than Christian people, and when it suits your political agenda he is Islamic instead of Christian...
So WTF were you saying again???
- sexydarin, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2Someone please abort all leftists.
- kayala, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Someone please explain to "sexydarin" the sheer idiocy of his post. I'm laughing too hard to do it myself.
- feoren, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3It wouldn't help.
- kemojr, on 07/09/2008, -8/+6How long will the trail of millions of murdered babies pass by the Throne of God demanding justice before judgement comes?
- inboxnews, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4When all the Christians, Jews, and Conservatives have been permanently wiped out by Democrats, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood.
- kayala, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I really wish you could defend your side of the debate without resorting to dirty tactics. Using emotionally manipulative language is an underhanded and dishonest tactic and speaks volumes on your integrity.
- DuggDowner, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5Christian fascists want abortion to be a privilege for the wealthy elite. I am glad for politicians who stand up to Christianity's dubious moral code.
- LastVisibleDog, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5And how do you know this?
You don't.
You just made up some ***** to support your person hatred of people of faith.
What, did God not bring you the pony you wanted?
It is one thing to not believe in God - it is quit another thing to blindly hate all Christians and to support this hate with pure *****.
Spewing ***** like this is absolutely pointless.
If you don't have a intellectual point that you can support - you are better off not saying (typing) anything.
You're a good tool
- twitchr, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4"Spewing ***** like this is absolutely pointless.
If you don't have a intellectual point that you can support - you are better off not saying (typing) anything."
the hypocrisy in this sentence is astounding!
NOTHING spouted off by christians in this debate has a bit of intelligence behind it! Just faith, faith, and more faith. - LastVisibleDog, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5twitchrt, what are you rambling about? Or better yet, to quote Travis Bickle, taxi driver "are you talking to me?"
I was replying to a statement somebody made by pointing out it was obviously based on ***** because it could not be supported (it was a bigoted statement). If you are going to try and claim there was no intelligence behind what I just said you better explain your point (we sure as hell are not going to take your word on it) - and if you want to look for hypocrisy you might want to look in a mirror. Do you have an intellectual point or are you just spewing your personal blind hatred for people of faith? HINT: my point was not based in any way on faith. - twitchr, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2aw *****, i misread your comment...
made a bad assumption that you were just another faith pounding nut job. my bad. forgive? pretty please? ;)
if i could digg myself down, i would! - LastVisibleDog, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3twitchrt - no sweat. Been there, done that.
- twitchr, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4"Spewing ***** like this is absolutely pointless.
- LastVisibleDog, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5And how do you know this?
- kayala, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Oh, what a load of garbage. Buried as WND nonsense. Come back when you've formed a half rational argument.
- InRussetShadows, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Jesus and severed child parts don't mix. Young evangelicals know this. Obama is a fool.
- USNavyBlue, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2The argument of pro-murderers - oops I meant Abortionist states its a "women's choice." Oh really? What about the man that helped put a bun in the oven? He don't count? He has no say? Of course, not and ITS WRONG! Men have rights too. Did you ever think for one minute that the man would want the child?
My now brother-n-law (thank god for him) was in this very same situation before he married my sister a few years ago. He was dating (not my sister) a women for a few years and well she got pregnant. She wanted an abortion. He wanted to get married and have the baby.
Well the fight was on. Needless to say he hired a lawyer! He has rights too! He drug her into a court of law. He was determined to make her have that baby, even if that meant he had to hog tie her to the bed for nine months.
After she realized he was serious, she decided to have the baby. He paid for everything, which he was doing anyway when they were dating. She had the child – little boy. He stuck around for about a year hoping she would want to be a mother, but she didn’t. So, he packed up his stuff and left with his SON and has never looked back.
My sister just recently adopted him. His son is 11 years old today. And a wonderful addition to OUR FAMILY. And he and my sister have children together and he is a wonderful big brother. It was the best decision he ever made and has no regrets. He wanted HIS CHILD and he fought for his child. To this day he would die for his child. I would have to say that there are other men out there that would do the same thing. Stand up for your rights.
It takes two to get pregnant! So it is NOT just the right of a women to decide whether or not to disregard their child.
Now my brother-in-law is a REAL MAN!
The Second argument pro-murders states "you're not pregnant if its a fetus." What kind of DUMB logic is that? That is like saying oh I'm just a little bit pregnant." You are or your not. When the sperm and the egg meet, it is a baby not a fetus! Good lord.
And vote the Constitution Party!- kayala, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2You think that the father should have a say in whether the pregnancy be carried to term or not. I take issue with this because the father doesn't have ten pounds of child floating around in his abdominal cavity for nine months, causing the carrier of said child to endure serious back problems and hormonal changes. Men, well-intentioned though they may be, simply cannot understand what it is like to carry around a watermelon-sized mass in their abdominal cavity, and for that reason should not have any say in what happens during the pregnancy. It is exclusively the woman's burden; he may be able to help emotionally, or financially, but it is physically her burden and he cannot touch that.
- ozydingo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Now I have to admit I am far removed from the situation, I am not a woman, I am not a father, and I am not planning to be a father anytime soon. But the father, like the mother, does share an emotional stake in the fate of the child, and I'd like to think that's worth something. Comparable to the equal emotional stake of the mother and the physical burden to be endured? No, certainly not--so in that sense I'm tempted to conclude that the mother should have the *final* say (though I hesitate to apply anything that approaches a convoluted set of steady rules to such a situation)--I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that the father is entitled to at least an opinion in the matter, but I would agree not "veto power," and that that opinion should be at least worth something, if just a simple consideration. I don't think you'd disagree to that (would you?), but you came off rather strongly in your post so I wanted to make that point. (And perhaps to just exercise the rare opportunity to write a counterpoint to someone who is actually capable of making a rational rebuttal)
- eir574, on 07/12/2008, -0/+4There's a difference between a woman choosing to do the right thing by taking the father's desires into consideration and the government giving the father the right to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term. Every pregnancy carries risk, and we often don't know which ones are going to turn out to be high risk pregnancies until very far along. While I have no problem with placing limits on how long a woman has to decide whether she wants to abort, it's not right for any person, even the father, to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. I can't imagine the pain a father to be would feel if the woman has an abortion against his wishes, but the final decision can't be his.
- kayala, on 07/12/2008, -1/+5ozydingo, I don't disagree with you. I do think that abortions should be a carefully considered decision between a woman and her partner and her doctor. The father's opinion should certainly be given consideration, because it's not the woman's baby exclusively - but under no circumstances should the father be given decisive power in that situation. Eir summed up my sentiments perfectly.
- kayala, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2You think that the father should have a say in whether the pregnancy be carried to term or not. I take issue with this because the father doesn't have ten pounds of child floating around in his abdominal cavity for nine months, causing the carrier of said child to endure serious back problems and hormonal changes. Men, well-intentioned though they may be, simply cannot understand what it is like to carry around a watermelon-sized mass in their abdominal cavity, and for that reason should not have any say in what happens during the pregnancy. It is exclusively the woman's burden; he may be able to help emotionally, or financially, but it is physically her burden and he cannot touch that.
- Christianptriot, on 07/11/2008, -3/+2he claims to be a Christian, and it is not for me to say he is or is not. That is for Obama to work out with God. Under islmaic religious law, if you are born to a muslim, YOU are a muslim until you public renounce islam. has Obama ever publicly renounced islam. Just saying I am a Christian is not renouncing islam.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by