What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Barack Obama: Animals, Especially Dogs and Horses, Have Rights, But Not Unborn Humans

This just over the wire:

HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too.

"What about animal rights?" a woman shouted out during the candidate's town hall meeting outside Las Vegas Wednesday after he discussed issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care and the economy.

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, "not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog." He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," he said. "And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."

Contrast those words with Obama's comments about the Supreme Court's 2007 opinion upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban:

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked.....

If only pregnant women were carrying canines (or horsies) in their wombs rather than human beings perhaps Obama would include them as members of the community deserving of our affection and respect.

Here's Justice Anthony Kennedy's description of the partial-birth abortion procedure from his dissenting opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000):

The D&X can be used, as a general matter, after 19 weeks gestation because the fetus has become so developed that it may survive intact partial delivery from the uterus into the vagina.... In the D&X, the abortionist initiates the woman’s natural delivery process by causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated, sometimes over a sequence of days. .... The fetus’ arms and legs are delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman’s body.... At this point, the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As stated by one group of physicians, “[a]s the physician manually performs breech extraction of the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she continues in the apparent role of an obstetrician delivering a child.”... With only the head of the fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, a leading proponent of the procedure, the appropriate instrument to be used at this stage of the abortion is a pair of scissors..... Witnesses report observing the portion of the fetus outside the woman react to the skull penetration.... The abortionist then inserts a suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain and other matter found within the skull. The process of making the size of the fetus’ head smaller is given the clinically neutral term “reduction procedure.”... Brain death does not occur until after the skull invasion, and, according to Dr. Carhart, the heart of the fetus may continue to beat for minutes after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out....The abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact except for the damage to the head and the missing contents of the skull. [citations omitted]

Apparently, for Obama, if this procedure were performed on a dog or a horse, it would be beyond the pale.

Comments (21)

The fact that no one has commented on this does not mean that it fails to move. It's hard to know what to say about such barbarity. I have read descriptions of this procedure before, and it doesn't get easier with repetition. One almost feels compelled to compliment Obama's sanguinary consistency, for his comfort with partial-birth abortion is mere companion to his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I have referred to this at another website as "the demonic vision at the heart of the modern Democratic Party," for while the clarion call for "change" and "healing" and "hope for tomorrow" invokes a supposedly superior, though shapeless, future state of things, we know there is one thing that will not change, some wounds that will never heal, and some beings (the most innocent among us) whose "hope" will see no glory but in the life to come. This is what the Democratic Party embraces, and those who vote to elevate its avatars likewise embrace this extension of hell's reign on earth.

Go, Bill. Go, Frank.

I've paused here several times with an intention to say something, and each time I'm speechless. Not because this is a new shocking revelation or anything; we know what the attitude of the Satanic Party is and has been for a good long time now. But this kind of thing never gets old in its capacity to render me speechless.

I've considered posting other thoughts to this thread, but found that those thoughts most frequently occasioned by the description of a certain, powers-of-the-underworld-glorifying procedure were such as to necessitate recourse to the sacrament of confession.

I suppose one moral of the story is that the sheer politics and drama of the primary race shouldn't make us lose sight of the fact that both of those candidates on the Democrat side are Very Bad Guys. I know one is tempted to try to say, "Hey, it would be worse with so-and-so" (either direction), but let's face it: That lady and that man have been competing as to who is more loyal to the Party of Death Party Line.

Well, that would constitute an argument against voting for any one of the Democrats (and Guiliani) - material cooperation with grave evils, and so forth; it is a negative argument, in other words, which does not necessarily become convertible into a positive argument in favour of one of the Republicans.

Oh, believe me, I didn't mean it to be (an arg. for voting for one of the Republicans). I simply meant to counter the sort of odd partisanship (or pseudo-partisanship?) that I sense among some conservatives for this or that Democrat. For example, Auster has been talking recently about how creeped out he is getting by all the extreme race politics on the Obama side and the treatment of Obama as a kind of Messiah (which is, undoubtedly, creepy) and then about how Hillary looks sort of better by comparison, or something to that effect. Whereas, just from reading Auster, I think perhaps some other pundits (perhaps Michelle Malkin?) are going the other direction and talking about how horribly evil Hillary is with, perhaps?, the implication that Obama is the lesser evil. Now, I'm not saying that *any* of these people are counseling voting for any Democrat. Don't misunderstand me. But they seem to be trying to comfort themselves psychologically in some way so that if, as unfortunately seems rather likely, a Democrat is our next president, and if it is the one of the two they think is "not as bad as the other," they won't feel so bad, or something. Have something to heave a little sigh of relief over.

I'm just playing Eeyore as usual and pointing out that, if either of these guys wins, there won't be anything to heave a sigh of relief over for pro-lifers, so we shouldn't kid ourselves.

Understood. Nevertheless, for my part, I'd rather that Obama garner the Democratic nomination, notwithstanding the grandiosity of the hopes with which his candidacy has been invested, for a number of reasons: Clinton manifests as a hectoring harridan the moment her prerogatives are challenged (although, in New Hampshire, she wept), and this is infinitely tedious and cloying; Clinton embodies the past-its-expiration-date Democratic Leadership Council neoliberalism (which is why she is not, in reality, the closeted communist of fifteen long years' worth of hysterical rightwing propaganda), itself merely the counterpart of the also-well-past-its-expiration-date neoconservatism of the establishment right, and if I cannot have them paired in the eternal communion of death, I'll settle for driving a stake through the heart of one of them (the infinitesimal differences between them, ironically, account for the histrionic partisanship of the past fifteen years of American political history); the nomination of a Democratic candidate other than Clinton might precipitate some movement, on the right, away from the wholly negative politics of fear and loathing that have predominated since 1992; and finally, Hillary is just plain boring, a living, respirating remedy for insomnia.

From the perspective of the politically-engaged pro-lifer, there is no rational basis for discrimination between them; however, the absence of a Clinton on a Democratic presidential ticket might contribute to stirring the right from its dogmatic slumbers, resulting in policy arguments more substantive than "Vote for us, because we're not them!"

It's reasonable to wonder if a fetus is capable of suffering on any level. But even if you beleive they do, and I wouldn't disparage you for your moral intuition, it's not reasonable to wonder whether animals such as cows, pig, or dogs suffer as a result of our policies toward them which we justified by little more than our amusement or enjoyment. See this video http://meat.org

It's reasonable to wonder if a fetus is capable of suffering on any level. But even if you beleive they do, and I wouldn't disparage you for your moral intuition, it's not reasonable to wonder whether animals such as cows, pig, or dogs suffer as a result of our policies toward them which we justified by little more than our amusement or enjoyment. See this video http://meat.org

It's reasonable to wonder if a fetus is capable of suffering on any level.

It is not reasonable, however, to see the avoidance of suffering as the sin qua non of morality. A murder is no less a murder just because the victim is killed in her sleep.

Obama is a despicable moral monster. He supports sticking scissors into the brain of an infant as that infant is being partially delivered. Hell has many rooms prepared for those who support these things.

Wow! Obama, you certainly have my vote! I am 100% on your side, I truly am thrilled that you care about animals and their well being! A president who cares about all God's beautiful creatures is what we need in this country! I knew I had a great feeling about you and I know that you are only going to change this world for the better! I am all for animal rights and I am 100% against all animal cruelty! Thanks so much for caring.

Roxy

Alas, I was hoping that the liberal use of exclamation points was an indicator of sarcasm.

Pleeeeeease! Obama will have to do lots more than "talk nice" about animals. The extent of exploitation of animals (Industrial and Institutionalized Animal Abuse) funded and supported by laws via our government is so huge, we need someone who will put his/her pretty speeches into action. At this moment, billions of animals are suffering, existing in unspeakable misery and facing brutal, cruel deaths. Citizens are increasingly getting fed up with government sponsored cruelty. We must end this LEGAL animal abuse. "White Coats", Slaughterhouses, and disgusting factory farming systems --- Make them hear the animal's cries for mercy. Thanks.

You conservatives and anti-choicers certainly have the right to be
opposed to Obama and what he stands for.But I wish you would get your facts
right about him for once.He does NOT advocate infanticide.He is merely
opposed to certain laws which would infringe upon a woman's right to choose an abortion.And if he is elected,the abortion rate might DECREASE
significantly.Why? Because he sensibly advocates doing more to help the
poor,unlike all of the hypocritical conservatives who scream for unwanted
children to be born regardless of the devastating consequences of this,
or whether they will ever get decent food,shelter,clothing,education and
medical care.Let's face it;a woman who has the means to take good care
of a child is far less likely to seek and obtain an abortion.
Just look at the prosperous countries of Europe;here you find the world's
LOWEST abortion rates,unlike the third world where it is rampant.

The only reason Obama is pro-choice is because if abortins were illegal then woman with unwated fetus' would use an unsafe way to get rid of the fetus (clothes hangers, drugs, alcohol) like they have in the past. It' not like he is all for killing unborn babies.

You guys are just crazy, ignorant, idiots. Much worse than this already is happening to animals and people are trying to stop it. When scientists start cutting up kindergarteners to test make-up on them or scalping people to make a "fashionable" jacket, it will make more sense to take our focus off of animal rights. We are not the most important on this planet.. we are the most destructive.

I see dumb people.

I fail to see how supporting extremely basic animal welfare legislation
while also supporting individual reproductive freedom (in this case for women who would die gruesome deaths attempting to deliver brain-dead fetuses with huge swollen heads)
is at all contradictory.
For the few of us left who oppose suffering, it follows that any measures taken to codify a commitment to its prevention, reduction, and elimination is GOOD.

Leave it to conservatives to attribute "sacred" rights to a non-sentient fetus and none to the women they'd see die rather than sacrifice their dogmatic and theocratically-inspired adherence to backwoods bigotry. Damn the medical community and millions of women attempting to make difficult decisions for themselves and their families.

Clinging to a superiority complex when it comes to our relationship with our fellow animals and this earth is just as obscenely shameful as considering blacks unhuman or women incapable of reason. Denouncing those who are in fact our equals (and therefore equally deserving of our compassion and respect) as somehow "lesser" has always been the means by which we justify to ourselves our barbaric treatment of our fellow earthlings. This is true when applied to our torture of billions of sentient creatures every year and also aptly describes a nation in which the most basic right of all, our ownership of our own PERSON, is subliminated to the state's non-existent authority to reduce it to property and dictate its uses.

The Founders would be sickened.

Well, the article is really the best on this notable topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your forthcoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the fantasti c clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Genuine work and much success in your business efforts! I also have blog on insomnia drug

Given Up On Finding A Great Looking Woman Who Likes You? Follow My Guaranteed Step-By-Step System for Success with Women and I’ll GUARANTEE Your Success!

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.