Photo of the day: Standing with a President vs. standing with the unborn

Posted by: ST on May 17, 2009 at 7:19 pm

It’s a photo that speaks volumes:

Notre Dame Graduates

A University of Notre Dame graduate displays on her mortar board her membership in the ND Response Pro-Life group, bottom right, and another graduate with a Barack Obama campaign emblem on their mortar board, top left, participate in commencement ceremonies in South Bend, Ind., Sunday, May 17, 2009.(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

In his speech to the Notre Dame graduates, President Obama called for “common ground” on the issue of abortion. But we all know Obama’s extremist position on the issue, as evidenced by his testy responses on the subject of late term abortions last year. So, exactly what “common ground” can be found with someone who doesn’t believe that a “non-viable” infant born alive after an attempted late term abortion should receive medical care – a position he said he took because he believed the law was a “back door” attempt by those who oppose abortion to chip away at Roe v. Wade “protections” – a reason that FactCheck essentially found to be bogus when they examined Obama’s voting record and statements on the issue closely?

If he is truly desiring of having the American people – a slim majority of who now identify themselves as “pro-life” – to find “common ground” on this issue, then he should lead by example and move away from the far left on this issue. Until then, his calls for “common ground” will continue to look like nothing more than “just words.”

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

10 Responses to “Photo of the day: Standing with a President vs. standing with the unborn”

Comments

  1. Carlos says:

    “Common ground” to a leftist (whether that is Obama, Kennedy, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid or any other fascist goon in decent street garb means, “Do it my way and we’ll be ok; if I have to compromise on anything it’ll be because you’re a bully.”

    In other words, the only common ground for Obama (et al) is “their way or the highway.”

  2. Marshall Art says:

    What Carlos said.

    In addition, how does one compromise on human life? Either it’s ripe for the picking or it’s sacred and endowed with the unalienable right to life. As I believe it’s the latter, I’m not about to compromise about how many or which ones or under what circumstances (beyond the mother’s life) one can do away with the child. It’s no different than killing anyone who gets in my way, so exactly where can one possibly compromise on this issue?

    And when it comes to ESCR, we know it isn’t necessary anymore since two recent studies found another means of procuring cells that are just as good without killing a person to get them. Plus the science has shown ESCR to be a dead end anyway, so federal funding for such is completely wasteful in this economic climate.

    Obumble’s just blowing smoke.

  3. Carlos says:

    Funding for ESCR seems to be following the path staked out by MMGW “scientists”: the results don’t have any bearing on value of the research, as long as one can keep a load of buffoons in Congress and the WH to keep funding at ever higher levels.

  4. Neo says:

    The whole thing of “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words.” merely enforces the Democratic view of bipartisanship .. if you don’t or can’t agree with me, shut up

  5. Tom TB says:

    Obama once said if his own daughter was “punished with a baby”, he would support her choice to abort. Life does begin at conception, and consensual acts do result in the creation of human life, not “punishment”. Or am I “beyond my pay grade”?

  6. MKS says:

    In 1859, the issue was slavery. There were fiercely held opinions on both sides of the issue, and Lincoln strove to promote a civil dialogue on both sides. But slavery was an egregious violation of human rights, and abortion on demand is at least as bad as slavery. I hope one day, without bloodshed, we can look back on these times and wonder how we ever could have held the “pro-choice” position.

  7. palm says:

    “So, exactly what “common ground” can be found with someone who….”

    Lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies, for example.

  8. Great White Rat says:

    Lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies, for example.

    And exactly how do you intend to do that, palm?

    More sex education? Won’t work. We live in a sex-obsessed culture. Remember those dimwit high school girls in Massachusetts last year who made a pact to all get pregnant? They all knew exactly what do to do prevent pregnancy, and did just the opposite. And it’s a reasonable assumption that anyone over the age of 18 knows how babies are made.

    A campaign to promote abstinence? A good idea, but be prepared to be mocked incessantly by the pop culture icons and vilified by the entire left-wing political establishment, which equates abstinence with Judeo-Christian morality – and there’s nothing they hate more than that (except maybe George Bush). Ask Carrie Prejean what that’s like.

    A federally funded program to put no-fee condom dispensers on every street corner of the country? Won’t work. When two people are in heat, they’re not going to stop while one of them puts his pants back on to go to the nearest Federal Department of Non-Procreation (DONP) prophylactic center.

    Federally-mandated chastity belts that can only be removed by a DONP inspector upon completion of the necessary forms (in triplicate), and then only for a specified time period? OK, that would work. Probably too well…

    Ultimately, reducing unwanted pregnancies is a matter of personal responsibility. Good luck finding anyone on the Obama team who subscribes to that concept. They’re statists who believe everything – what you drive, what you eat, how much you earn, where your kids go to school – should be dictated by the government. The idea of two people taking responsibility for their acts is so – conservative. :-ss

    Which is why ST calls his “common ground” remark “just words” (I’d express it in a bit more colorful language). This is a man who thinks babies who somehow survive an abortion should be pitched across the room onto a pile of soiled laundry until they do him the favor of dying. This is a man who wants to remove the conscience protection clause for doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. This is a narcissist who knows one thing: “I won”.

    He’s not interested in finding common ground. He says things like that because he’s interested in making Chris Matthews’ leg tingle again.