Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Dems would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy

    Dems would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy

    AbortionFest 2012 to be held in Charlotte on Sept 3-7

    I don’t often mention the dispute over abortion.

    There is something sickening over the Democratic National Convention turning into an abortion-fest, a celebration of the right to kill one’s own unborn child.  It may be a right, but it’s a curious right on which to orchestrate a national convention.

    The DNC is turning into an abortion-fest because of Todd Akin’s comments about women who do or do not get pregnant as a result of rape.  John Hinderaker (via Instapundit) notes:

    The Democrats apparently think they have hit the jackpot with Todd Akin’s moment of stupidity, but I’m not so sure. How, exactly, are they going to take advantage of Akin’s blunder? By talking ceaselessly about abortion.

    In order to capitalize politically on Akin, the Democrats are happy to expose the extreme extremism of their party and their leader, who of necessity would allow the killing of even fully viable fetuses late in a pregnancy in order to be consistent with their view of autonomy of decision:

    That these rights result in the killing of more female fetuses than male is one of the cruel ironies of a party determined to fight a made-up war on women.

    As Rich Lowry points out, Obama was even more extreme in his pre-presidential record, resolutely opposing even the protection of infants born alive after a “failed” abortion:

    In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection  Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as  persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to  the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago  of obfuscation and distortions.

    The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants  who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill  was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die  without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except  it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal  status of infants still in the womb.

    I addressed this issue last February, What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive?

    It all exposes, as Prof. Glenn Reynolds points out, the most raw aspect of the culture war:

    What about pregnancy that results from rape?  Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory.  Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.

    I think both sides should own it.  Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.

    I think Democrats are fine with that.

    Democrats would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy and Obama’s abysmal record of failure.

    Update:  John McCormack, Audio: Obama Says “That Fetus or Child” Was “Just Not Coming Out Limp and Dead”


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    David R. Graham | August 24, 2012 at 1:30 am

    Hinderaker in the same post quoted by our host:

    “If the Democrats want to define themselves to voters as the party of abortion and gay marriage, please, God, let them do so!”

    IMO that is the “money line” of John’s post. Reynolds, also, did not highlight it. I suspect John considers it the money line there. (One reason for its drama is its invocation of Divinity, hardly expected of a lawyer.)

    As John points out, Ds contemplate celebrating not only death but also the unnatural (probably not his characterization, but I only guess he supports “gays” because he is a lawyer, do not know for sure whether he does or does not). Again, hardly expected of a lawyer to make light of most lawyers’ forceful and persistent advocacy for abortion and “gays.”

    In any case, in the spirit of Hinderaker’s enthusiastic insouciance, my bride contemplates obtaining every classic leftist/chaotic bumper sticker she can find and plastering her car with them, especially, of course, the rear end.

    Well, I for one am looking forward to McCaskill articulating her stance on partial birth abortion. She needs to tell us why an exception to perform a partial birth abortion needs to exist when in fact there is no medical circumstance that would threaten the life of the mother during the final phase of delivery.

    Barack Obama needs to explain to his daughters why a child who is a survivor of a botched saline abortion needs to die. If liberals are so hep to teach sexual orientation and sex methods to elementary schoolers, then they also should be telling them some kids gotta die because some lives are less important than others. I’m sure some really clever lib has found a way to candy coat that turd.

    Trent Telenko | August 24, 2012 at 10:53 am

    From Byron York’s latest article:

    “But not all of this is a rational calculation. If you stand on the floor of a Democratic convention when a speaker is discussing abortion, you can feel the depth of the emotion that many Democrats feel on the issue. Conservatives like to say abortion is a liberal sacrament. Maybe that’s going too far, but it is very, very important. And when something means so much to a group of people, they can easily convince themselves that it means that much to others, too.

    Meanwhile, the voters continue to say, overwhelmingly, that they want their president to focus on the economy and job creation. By choosing to spotlight abortion and gay marriage at their national convention, Democrats could give voters the impression that they’ve got their priorities all mixed up. Sandra Fluke may draw headlines, but does she really represent what voters think is most important?”

    Abortion as the major issue at thier national convention is all about Democrats expressing thier collective identity, not election results.

    Full test at link:

    […] Wasserman Schultz and every Democrat is seizing this topic once again as an agenda item for at the Democratic National Convention in a matter of weeks to gain votes in the coming […]

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend