Obama and partial birth abortion, new oil drilling, and McCain.

Published on June 20, 2008 By jesseledesma In Politics

*********************************************

You can get 15% of at Nascar Superstor when you rent a Enterprise Rent-A-Car.

10% off Patio & Garden + $1 Site-Wide Shipping from Overstock.Com

***********************************************************************

I am sitting here in my taxi listening to Bill Bennett's Morning in America through the KRLA 870 radio web site. The point that got me was Mr. Bennett reporting that Mr. Obama voted against a bill that would protect a baby's life if that child is born during a "late term partial birth abortion" procedure. This means that if when a doctor is doing a partial birth abortion procedure and the child is completely born the doctor can let that child die. What can you say about a person, Mr. Obama, who thinks this is correct?

Another issue with Mr. Obama is that he has chosen to opt out of the public funding program. I always wondered what that "do you want to give a dollar to the presidential campaign" on my tax form meant. Now I know.

The issues here of course are lying and wanting the advantage of having lots of money. Mr. Obama said he would use public funds. By doing so he and Mr McCain would be limited to 80 million available to each candidate. However, Mr. Obama saw that it would be more beneficial to have more than 80 billion and turned his back on the idea that money corrupts political campaigns.

In addition, I have been listening to the new interest in drilling in areas protected by government. My opinion is simple. Burning fossil fuels harms people and allows unscrupulous greedy people to financially abuse people. The challenge of oil high prices has fueled new technology that can separate us from a product that poisons the environment and allows greedy people to steal our hard earned money.

Oil exploration in America will be a little to late and a continuous practice of contamination. It will take time to find and develop this oil. It is not a final solution because even that oil will run out. Therefore, instead of investing in hydrogen fuel cell cars, which can separate us completely from oil companies, we are going to invest in developing an oil source that is limited, will continue poisoning the planet, and allow oil companies to have us over a financial barrel.

My last thought for today is that even though we have no respect for McCain we have to help him win because Obama is just to dangerous for the country.

Special Offers

Overstsock.Com, Time Life.com, Petsmart.com, Camping World, Vision Direct,

Technorati Tags: Obama,McCain,oil,hydrogen,fuel,cell,cars,contamination,pollution,bills,partial,birth,abortion

Comments (Page 2)

TiTaNsFaN690

on Jun 23, 2008

This issue is inflammatory; more importantly though it is resolved by law and the majority of Americans' support on the issue. The main argument against ALL abortions seems to be one merely of disputes of morality rather of science or reason. There are always exceptions to the rule (eg. would you consider a woman bearing a child with tay sachs or down syndrome 'evil' if they sought an abortion?)

The issue of morality is in itself flawed, especially if there are still puritanical individuals unwilling to compromise their bibles with their textbooks.

I suggest the reading of Albert Camus for some perspective on the subject matter; "The Stranger" dips very vividly into the greyness of life's choices.

As for abortions (without furthering the currently unresolvable debate) I personally hope there shall never be a day when women are held in the tyrannical clutches of pregnancy against their will and are forced to bear a child they have no care for.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 23, 2008

lula posts:

What I've got to say about Barack Hussein Obama

KINGBEE POSTS:

what i've got to say about joseph a. ratzinger is neither he nor obama selected his own middle name altho i guess it'd be equally fair to imply ratzinger's middle initial might as well stand for 'adolph' seeing as how he--and not barak--was a member of the hitler youth organization.

Both Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Barack Hussein Obama were given their names by their respective parents.

What's the sensitivity over Obama's middle name all about? Is Obama ashamed of his Muslim heritage? Obama's parents gave him his name in honor of his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama. Hussein is not an African, but an Arabaic name, as is "Baraka". It comes from the Qur'an meaning "blessed."

And for the record, Joseph Ratzinger at 14 was forced to join Hitler's Youth group and when it was possible for him to escape, he did so. The Jerusalem Post defending him saying, it was rubbish to suggest that he had Nazi sympathies. His brother was a priest and his family was strongly anti Nazi.

Ironically, it was Joseph Ratzinger's fellow Germans like Nietzsche and Heidegger who gave us the diabolical idea that moral absolutes are nonsense.

The day before he was elected the new pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger warned of a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as it's highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." What reigns supreme is the false idea that each individual possesses his or her own morality.

Pope Benedict often speaks and has written much about conscience and truth. He identifies one of the problems today is the idea that one need not feel guilty about sin and doing wrong. "He who no longer notices that killing is a sin has fallen farther than the one who still recognizes the shamefulness of his actions, becasue the former is further removed from the truth and conversion." This is the state of a "truthless world". He pointed out that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailling opinion, at the expense of truth."

For anyone who has ears to hear, he was warning us that a society that refuses to acknowledge that morality is a social attribute is bound to culturally implode.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 23, 2008

This issue is inflammatory; more importantly though it is resolved by law and the majority of Americans' support on the issue.

Yes, I agree abortion certainly is an inflammatory, contentious issue.

I disagree though that a majority support abortion. As far as abortion being resolved by law, let's not forget it was foisted upon us by the US Supreme Court in 1973. There is no Constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion destroys itself. The evil inner workings are being exposed. It's a blood and gore business. If you don't believe me, get some photos of the victims of saline scalding, surgical dismemberment, and vacuum suctioning into a thousands pieces. For these reasons, it will never become acceptable or respectable no matter how hard one argues for it.

The main argument against ALL abortions seems to be one merely of disputes of morality rather of science or reason.

What's scientific about killing a baby in the womb?

There is a mountain of medical, psychological and sociological evidence that abortion harms women, men and families. Check out www.AfterAbortion.org .

whillice

on Jun 25, 2008

I normally don't get into these debates-- they're generally worthless as they will not sway anyone on either side of the issue -- but I saw a statistic i couldn't help but wonder about.

Lulapilgrim wrote:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former champion of abortion, admitted he performed some 10,000 abortions ought to know. He's now converted and tells how he and the pro-abortion camp worked hard to confuse us on the status of the preborn baby.

I did some research, and Dr. Nathanson renounced abortion in 1977, after helping to make it legal in New York in 1970. Soooooo, 10,000 abortions in 7 years?

If he worked every day and never rested, that's still 3.9 abortions per day. If he worked a normal 5 day workweek, it's 4.5 abortions per day. Also, according to the CDC, approximately 100,000 abortions are performed every year in New York City. So, if he performed 10,000 of those, that's approximately 7% of all abortions between 1970 and 1977 that he, himself performed in a city of over 10 million people. Really?

So, that fact is just laughably false. If you're playing fast and loose with that one, who knows what else is suspect in what you're saying?

That being said, I think abortion is wrong and a terrible, ugly thing. I'd like to see there be zero abortions every year. but what are we going to do, make it illegal? We tried to stop another societal vice, drinking, during prohibtion, and it only increased drinking in the US. Are we going to send doctors to jail for murder of a fetus? And the mother? Conspiracy to commit murder? Ok, so we prevented you from having an abortion, now you're going to be forced to have the child and then you go to jail and your child is raised by the government in a foster system, right? (because unless the baby is white, s/he has little chance of being adopted) Should the doctors and mothers get the death penalty? If a fetus is life, isn't that the only logical thing to do? If that's the road you want to go down, fine. But I'd rather prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, something the pro-life crowd has not seemed to embrace very whole-heartedly.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!