Right Wingnut Urges Christians to Pray Obama Fails

January 24, 2009 at 6:19 am | Posted in god, government, Obama, Religion, stupidity | 38 Comments
Tags: ,

Many a coward has been bolstered in his conviction against challenging tyranny by not reading too deeply into the Scriptures. Yet, nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed. When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand.

That’s why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.

It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign. I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God’s. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God’s straightforward Commandments.

This is according to Joseph Farah of World Net Daily who believes that Obama is evil.

I heard this moron gentleman being interviewed on the radio yesterday and I’m pretty sure his bag of marbles has a huge leak because it was pretty obvious that a lot of them have gone missing.  And I’m sure you can guess who he thinks did do a great job as president.  Hint: smirking guy, thumbs his nose at the constitution, poor command of the English language, best known for his inability to pronounce the word nuclear.

Though his website quotes all sorts of bible passages to back up his assertions, according to what I heard him say on the radio it boils down to one issue, abortion.  Obama did not speak out against it, therefore he is evil.

Like many of his ilk, he  continually contradicted himself and used circular reasoning to such a degree that I actually had to put my head between my knees until the dizziness passed.  Frankly, he sounded as if he would benefit from some time in a nice quiet, perhaps padded room.

We don’t have W to poke fun at anymore, but I’ll bet these nut jobs are, even as I’m typing, crawling out from under their rocks.

Let the craziness begin.

Advertisements

38 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Ummmmm. Abortion bad. Genocide against Palastinians good??? I am working on finding the logic here, but I’ll have to get back to you . . .

  2. I’m not real big on ad hominem attacks, except when it comes to the likes of Joseph Farah. I get so gobsmacked over his inanities that I can’t think of anything else to say.

  3. It isn’t really and ad hominem attack. I notice certain words and phrases go in and out of vogue and this is one of them.

    from

    the ad hominem fallacy fallacy

    One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

    In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

    Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

    Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

    But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again. I will begin with some invented examples, before dealing with some real-life misuses of the term at the end.

  4. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  5. Archie I was a little groggy and barely awake, and when I first saw your comment, and didn’t notice who left it I thought oh Askimet has let one of the spammers slip through the castle gates.

    For non Latin speakers, Archie just said, “Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound”

  6. Obama is completely and throughly wicked. We can pray for him, but will it really do any good? God said in his word concerning some of the wicked people, do not pray for those people, because God already knew their wicked intents and hearts and since God knows everything, he also knew that any amount of prayers would do them no good! Obama reminds me of the false prophet in the bible that is going to come in these last days to help usher in the kingdom of the anti-christ. Also, alot of christians that voted for Obama are also very ignorant in many facts of him. Facts that the liberal press has tried to deny and cover up. Alot of people for instance did not know that shortly after he said he was a christian, he was on the television stating that he was a muslim. He also stated that no matter what a person believes that everyone is going to heaven. This is heresy! I’d rather believe what God says about this. He has alot of new age thinking and talking and he is very dangerous person. Wake up america and smell the coffee before it will be too late! Sincerely, Miracle Destiny

  7. Answering just one of the ignorant things that someone wrote that was even too chicken to leave their name on. The thing they wrote about abortion being the only thing to attack Obama on. That is so ignorant. There are very many things to attack Obama on other then that;ignorant one. But just let me tell you of one thing concerning what Obama is going to do about abortion. He has stated that he is going to use your tax dollars and mine to fund for abortions, not in the U.S.A., but for people in other countries. How do you like that one, amid so many other evil agendas that Obama has. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! When he was a U.S. senator he formed the bill himself that if a baby happened to be born alive during a abortion that it was against the law for anyone to try and help that baby or even to touch that baby. They would have to put it on a shelf and just let it strave to death. Many a nurse and doctor quit their jobs as a result, because they could not bear that time after time! Don’t be so ignorant and just listen to the partial and liberal press. Investigate for yourself unless you are just too plain lazy to do so or could give a real crap for your country. If you just don’t care about your country, please do us a big favor that really do care, leave this country and see just how good it is somewhere else! Sincerely, Miracle Destiny

  8. Miracle Destiny,

    Answering just one of the ignorant things that someone wrote that was even too chicken to leave their name on.

    I notice you didn’t leave any more identifying information that the commenter to which you refer. I guess that would make you also “too chicken”.

    When he was a U.S. senator he formed the bill himself that if a baby happened to be born alive during a abortion that it was against the law for anyone to try and help that baby or even to touch that baby. They would have to put it on a shelf and just let it strave to death. Many a nurse and doctor quit their jobs as a result

    If you are going to make allegations such as these please cite a reliable source, tell us where you came by this inside information that seemingly only you are privy to. And while your at it would you mind listing for us all those “other evil agendas” that Obama has?

    And as far as ignorance goes, yours is kinda hanging out all over the place, you might want to do something about that.

  9. You liberals, athesits and far left are nutty as a fruitcake bunch. I am going to change the world, want to vote for me also?! You don’t have to get any real information, just my color and telling you I am going to change the U.S. and the world. Thats all you will have to know and the fact that I will have the liberal media on my side to protect any negativity and real fact finding from coming out! You are the sick ones and very much need help. Miracle Destiny

  10. answering too chicken. try looking it up on the website-obamau.s.senator. He also wants to make gay marriages legal in every state, he wants to make our u.s. troops so weak that we will not be able to defend ourselves against enemy threats, of which are many, first he claimed he was a christian, then he claimed,(of which I saw on t.v. myself), that he is a muslim. Which is he, a christian or a muslim? He said on t.v. that it did not matter what you believe, that everyone will go to heaven. Wants to have a hate crime bill of which will include not agreeing with certain groups and their evil agendas and if you disagree you will go to jail. He wants big government and no longer of the people and for the people, (wants government to have complete control over all, ( just like hitler days), should I go on chicken? You said I did not leave any info. either, but at least I left my name. You did not. Miracle Destiny

  11. Ugh! I can’t even tolerate once sentence of “Miracle Destiny’s” inanity. Though, even that first sentence demonstrated her lack of ignorance of correct spelling 🙂 (a example of an insult used as ad hominem and for the amusement of bystanders).

    By the way, is Miracle Destiny is a great name – it should be adopted by a some rising porn starlet.

  12. Oops – typo : not lack of ignorance – I meant ignorance (substituted lack of ability to spell for ignorance without completely deleting)

  13. Most of my information is from Obama himself and the things he said on his campaign. He also wants to make legal all the illegals and keep the borders freely open at all times. Give me a break, we are already overcrowded and seriously lacking alot of jobs and losing them to illegals and taking our jobs overseas. Well, we might as well give everything over! Miracle Destiny

  14. Miracle Destiny,
    Yes I’m quite sure that’s your real name, at least in the delusional world you occupy, where you were born of Mr. and Mrs. Destiny. Why not post your email address here if you are so brave as to be identified? In other words if you’re going to call others chicken, then put your money where your mouth is.

    Just so you know, much press was given to the fact that Obama does NOT support gay marriage, much to the disappointment of many of his supporters. Perhaps in your world obamau.s.senator is a website address, but in the real world the syntax is all wrong, and if you type it into a web browser one might be taken to…I don’t know, your wacky world.

    By the way, congratulations are in order, you have just won my newly (just this moment) created award for the most ignorant comment ever posted on this blog.

    Now just relax, I’m sure the nurse will be around with your medication soon. Make sure she checks your restraints. I’m a bit worried, if you were able to type, they obviously aren’t tight enough and judging from your comments you might be a danger to yourself or others.

  15. Oh, be careful what you say about my name,(might as well be a porn stars name), you might be going against someones rights as a porn star. They might as well have rights, isn’t that part of the liberals agenda? Of course, that in no way implys the true meaning of my name. I am much more better than that. You should not go against someones rights, just in case you are one of those liberal fanatics. Please let me know just what I did misspell, maybe it’s because you never really learned how to spell and you just think I misspelled something. Miracle Destiny

  16. I wouldn’t dare to put my personal information out in public, it might attract some fruitcakes like you. I do not have to prove to you or anyone else if that is my real name or not. Miracle Destiny

  17. I’ve been reading this thread and laughing my ass off. Liberal Destiny, yeah right. You want to know what you mispelled, it might be quicker to tell you what you spelled properly. And it isn’t just your spelling, it’s your usage and grammar that show you for the uneducated, ignorant, person you truly are. I could almost pity you, but I don’t. It’s ignorant morons like you who have completely ruined this country. Honjii makes a good point insinuating you might be writing this from a mental hospital. This country is in the shape it is because this is what happens when the lunatics are running the asylum. Ms. Destiny, if you are not already, as Honjii suggests, in a mental instituion, please do yourself and the world a favor and GET HELP!

  18. Here is a list of just a few of your spelling errors:

    alot is not a word, try using a lot instead;
    someones rights is not the way to indicate the possessive, try using someone’s rights instead;
    ditto for liberals (liberal’s);
    implies not implys

    shall I continue? Here’s an agenda for you: your parents should have been subjected to a certain Eugenic principle (as Holmes so infamously said, “three generations of imbeciles is enough”) . . .

  19. Haa ha, messing with stupid people is so fun, especially when they are so stupid they actually believe themselves to be intelligent, informed or otherwise useful

  20. This is supposed to be a christian website, what are you doing on it? Why don’t you go to a liberal, pro obama one? You will have so much more fun. This is also supposed to be a conservative website. Maybe you can make your own inane website. Miracle

  21. Who let Ms. Destiny into the gene pool anyway?

  22. Miracle,
    Where in the world did you ever get the idea this is a Christian, or conservative website? Can you read? The more you comment, the more ignorance you show. We’re your parents by any chance brother and sister? Or are you just plain nuts?

  23. Where did you go to school? Harvard? Don’t think so. I don’t even think you made it past grade school! Miracle

  24. I think the bigger question here, Miracle, is DID you GO to school?

  25. Sorry, at least I admit when I am wrong. I thought it was a conservative, christian website by the article I read in the beginning. Maybe I will leave this one and get on the right one. Miracle

  26. the right one: e.g. where no one has an i.q. over 75

    Is she so enamored w/Harvard b/c Bushie went there, oops I mean got in as a legacy admit?

  27. I think you meant to say that in the world of obama and his newly elected idiots, no more than an i.q. of 5?

  28. The article in the beginning, Miracle…you mean the one where Honjii points out the original inaugural oath doesn’t include the words so help me god, and talks about separation of church and state…yeah I can see how you’d make that mistake.

  29. Sorry, at least I admit when I am wrong. I thought it was a conservative, christian website by the article I read in the beginning. Maybe I will leave this one and get on the right one. Miracle

    But you came back and posted again, you just couldn’t stay away, but if you really mean it then all I have to say is, ding dong, another nitwit gone!

  30. You make it hard for me to leave with all your intelligent comments! I was referring to the article by Joseph Farah.

  31. Oh good, please stay, we’re having way too much fun with you.

  32. You are a very disrespetful person with no manners at all. One thing I wanted to share. You said I did not have any backup concerning the things on obama. Here is one concerning the abortion bill he passed while an Illinois senator. If you type in obamaillinoissenatebills and then go into obama and infanticide part 2 you will find one of the facts. I have noticed what kind of person you are, wanting to make yourself look good and running everyone else down. You do not bother me as I know who I am. I have a great job, have my own place, have my own car and many great friends. What do you have that you can brag about? Miracle

  33. Miracle, when I type in the search terms you suggest your assertions are confirmed only on unofficial sites where people such as yourself are writing their opinions and half truths. Anyone can write anything they want on the web, true or not. You have to be discerning and sift through a lot of information and find the sources to get to the truth, which is what I have done. Just because someone writes something that you want to believe does not make it true. I’m sorry for people like you who have such a narrow view of the world that you cannot think for yourself or entertain ideas that do not come from the bible or your pastor or the 700 Club.

    Below is the official record of the bill in question. It does not back up your allegations, in fact quite the opposite. I suspect, however, after reading what you have written and observing your grasp of the English language, comprehensive, and cognitive abilities that the language will be beyond your understanding, but give it a shot.

    2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING
    NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS
    Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying
    They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth
    Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other
    abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to
    preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and
    attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or
    neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted
    against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every
    infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
    Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an
    infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
    beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,
    regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether of whether the
    expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or
    induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they
    to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is
    protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they
    are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered
    to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions
    to take place.” [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92
    nd
    GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R
    P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]

    21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican),
    Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted
    present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford,
    Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill
    1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]

    22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican),
    Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted
    present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm
    (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith
    voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]

    Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator
    Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine
    Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline
    Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick
    Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661,
    SB 1662]
    Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the
    Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment
    of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be
    undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or
    inducing the abortion who shall address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child
    and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for
    the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing
    the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. Also
    provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human
    person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to
    Page 2
    preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on
    Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo
    sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create
    the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect
    the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion, provides that a parent of
    the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced
    labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility
    or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. [92
    nd
    GA, SB
    1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92
    nd
    GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92
    nd
    GA, SB 1095,
    3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

    17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson,
    Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito
    voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen,
    Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P;
    34-6-12]

    18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson,
    Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid,
    Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators
    Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094.
    [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]

    18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle,
    Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid,
    Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker
    (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1095,
    3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]

    Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican
    Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093.
    Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094
    and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted
    against Senate Bill 1095. [92
    nd
    GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92
    nd
    GA, SB 1094,
    3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92
    nd
    GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
    OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’s FEDERAL BAIPA
    Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago
    Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have
    voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of
    the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures
    required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers
    argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its
    mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the
    state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine
    Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

    NARAL Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For Its Clear Legal Difference Between A
    Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary
    Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There’s a clear legal difference
    now between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they
    deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” [CNN, 8/5/02]
    Page 3

    NARAL Statement: “In the statement, NARAL says, “Consistent with our position
    last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last
    year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is
    not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.” [NARAL release, 6/13/01]
    2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE
    SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
    Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal
    Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.”
    Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-
    called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The
    federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or
    change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the
    states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package
    of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to
    the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion
    law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]
    Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois
    State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to
    Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]
    2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY
    DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003,
    WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS
    2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical
    Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The
    Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on
    both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation
    that says any live birth – even one that occurs during an abortion – is a person with legal rights.
    The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the
    House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care
    doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also
    specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased.
    ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage
    of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the
    law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life.
    Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict
    abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the
    legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is
    appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]
    The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from
    the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall
    Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally
    Accepted Medical Standards.” In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule,
    regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words
    ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species
    homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term
    ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete
    expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who
    after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord,
    Page 4
    or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut
    and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced
    labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
    affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the
    species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d)
    Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding
    abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical
    standards. [94
    th
    GA, HB 984, PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]
    BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
    Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A
    Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As
    A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois
    law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus
    outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a
    physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases,
    the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of
    the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician
    performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care
    for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

  34. @Miracle Destiny,
    I have been following this thread and I feel very sorry for you. On the other hand they say ignorance is bliss so perhaps I should envy you as you have no real clue as to the state of the world and how it got that way, therefore are not bothered by it.

    As far as the Obama idiots with an IQ of 5. A person with an IQ of 5 the person would probably be in a vegatative state and there would be no real means of measuring their IQ, so EVEN you who have shown yourself to be on the extreme low end of the IQ scale have and IQ that far exceeds 5, by at least 60 maybe even 70 points.

    It’s too bad that you have so much unwarrented hatred for Obama based on what you read and hear from the radical Christian right. Or do you just hate him because he is black?

    He is the first president in a very very long time who has not come from an extremely wealthy family and who is in touch with the average person. He was born of average circumstances and worked very hard to get where he is. Yes, he is a politician, and we are always skeptical of politicians, but he genuinely DOES seem to care about people and helping those less fortunate to have a better life, even you.

    So instead of spreading hate and lies, why not open your mind and listen to what he has to say and give the man a chance. If he fails we all fail. This country is in such bad shape thanks to the Bush administration’s failed policies and outright crimes that the best thing we can all do now is to get behind Obama and try to pull this country back up by the bootstraps.

  35. Thanks for the information and by the way I do not even look at 700 club. Ha, Ha! I read my own bible for myself. There are many false things going on in many of the churchs, of which I admit to, but don’t judge all by what you have seen and heard. If I did, I would no longer be a christian as a result and I never blamed God for it. I am sorry I did not come up to your and others expectations on knowing how to write and the mispellings, but I do have a good brain that God gave me. I am sorry for the rudeness and running off of the mouth like I did. Have a great day. Miracle

  36. Responding to Amber. Thanks for the comments. I agree that I went to extremes concerning obama and his staff. We will see how it just does work out and I will give him a chance. You were right though concerning the slickness of politicians. Thanks again for your input. Miracle

  37. Dear Amberblue, It has nothing to do with obamas color. I just want him to do right by our country and I do not believe either that a person should vote for someone just because of their color, saying they are going to change,(anyone can say that), or their magnificent, drawing personality. I think we should vote based on facts alone. Thank you. Miracle

  38. ahh the entertainment continues. Thanks Miss Destiny, for providing a much needed laugh break from work!


Throw in your two cents

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: