Obama: There Is No God Who Condones The Taking Of Innocent Life

  •  February 6, 2009

Really? Here’s Obama addressing a National Prayer Breakfast today:

“We know there is no God who condones the killing of an innocent human being.”

So, what about aborted babies? What about partial birth abortion? Is there any more egregious taking of an innocent life than pulling a child halfway out of his/her mother’s womb and then killing the poor thing?
And even if you choose to deny the fact of life beginning at conception, what of Obama’s opposition to a law that would have stopped the barbaric practice of letting babies who survive an abortion sit in a cold, dark room until they’re dead?
Are babies not innocent?
As usual, Obama’s words are just words.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Abortion aborts a bunch of living cells. Sure it’s alive but it isn’t human. It’s human when it comes out of the womb.
    Before that it’s a zygote…

    We’ll just add human development to the list of things you know absolutely nothing about (the list is growing quite large). The zygote is a fertilized egg, or when the sperm and the egg join to form a brand new human cell (by definition neither sperm nor egg is a human cell due to chromosome count). So unless you’re going to argue that a baby is just a giant cell, then right before birth transforms into an infant, your claim that it’s a zygote until birth is idiotic.

  • Kate

    “In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. Accordingly, while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin. Moreover, it poses clear threats to the life of the host twin on whom its own life depends.[3]“

  • Bat One

    Zsa Zsa,

    Obama’s inane attempt to rationalize his politics in the face of his (stated) contradictory religious beliefs, is no different than those of liberal Catholics such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi. One need only remember that Senators Kerry and Kennedy opposed the nomination of Judge Bill Pryor specifically because Pryor is Catholic, and that all three have been repeatedly censured by their church for their political stand to conclude that the purported religious beliefs of liberals are little more than ephemera with which to gull the masses.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Is this the same man who claims to be a “Christian”? Obama is a power mad Socialist who was pushed into office to further the Socialist, Commie agendas. He is working as fast as possible to get his agendas passed because quite possibly we the people are going to wake up and realize what a foolish mistake we made by electing Obama.

  • Bat One

    by definition neither sperm nor egg is a human cell due to chromosome count

    Kenny,

    How dare you, Sir! Using science to support your argument against a liberal heresy.

    Excellent!

  • carrick

    Before that it’s a zygote…

    Actually that applies only to the moment of conception.

    It’s human when it comes out of the womb.

    And it was human right before. I think you need to rehaul your reasoning a bit here.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Bat, How does that work? I mean how can politicians such as Ted K, Nancy P, etc… consider themselves Pro Death, Pro Abortion etc and still call themselves Catholic, Christian, etc… Is it just for looks to get elected or what? Obama is obviously not a Christian or he could never support and encourage his abortion infanticide agendas. It appears to me that many of these politicians are just that. Politicians! Power is a crazy drug.

  • SigFan

    I think we missed the point, as with everything he says you have to parse the words properly.

    “We know there is no God who condones the killing of an innocent human being.”

    Translated – We know there is no God. Who condones the killing of an innocent human being? – I do!

  • http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

    Proper order.

    As soon as the two cells combine and split they become a zygote.

    Then they become a blastosphere,

    then invagination takes place. Your center line is created.

    After that the DNA of who you are as a being begins to send messages to the dividing cells (RNA) and differentiation takes place. Some cells become ears and others toes.

    As time goes on a human begins to take shape.

    This all happens in less than 6 weeks.

    So, yes, that first division of the sperm fertilized egg was a human.

    Not YET sentient, but soon to become…..

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Actually, 6 weeks is when you can hear the heart beat. Technology is making great strides. In 1973 we didn’t have anything technologically as compared to today. That is why Roe V Wade should be overturned! It is an outdated lie. AND what is interesting is that many people actually know and choose to ignore the facts. Doctors certainly know. IF they don’t? They really should not be practicing medicine.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    I love how you republicans are so “pro-life” and also “pro war” “pro guns” “pro hunting” “pro death penalty” grrosss. I’m not pro choice, though I don’t believe the fetus is a baby until he or she has a beating heart, but I am also against everything I previously mentioned.

    So you’re against life? I’ll also assume, by the poorly written and argued “point” that you’re against intelligence as well. Liberals…ugh.

    Kenny,
    How dare you, Sir! Using science to support your argument against a liberal heresy.
    Excellent!

    Oh, right. My bad. Um, babies are good because of stuff, and things, and cause the bible told me so! And cause science is bad.

    I forgot we’re all against science. Thanks for reminding me. ;)

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Where did you get any of the things in that comment. “You are against life?” ..haha the only thing that you are capable of doing in order to argue with the question that I was legitimately asking is attempt to insult it. How would you come to the conclusion that I am “against life” ?? I said that I was not pro-choice, but am ALSO not pro-hunting (the KILLING of animals for some sick sport) nor pro-death penalty (if i need to explain my reasoning here, let me know)
    and yeah that was a really good one, I am “against intelligence”

    You mocked rightwingers by claiming we are:

    so “pro-life” and also “pro war” “pro guns” “pro hunting” “pro death penalty”

    Then continued:

    but I am also against everything I previously mentioned.

    So, you are against: war, guns, hunting, death penalty, and LIFE.

    Both of your posts were written so poorly that a grade school teacher would cringe at them. And when it was pointed out to you just how illiterate you came off…you ranted even more illiterately.

    The fact that you think you MADE a point underlines how unintelligent you are. “I’m anti-death penalty.” Good for you. That’s not a point. That’s an expression. It holds no more meaning than “I am happy” or “I teach my children not to poop in their pants”. It’s not an expression of merit. You didn’t “ask a question” either. You just made a stupid statement of blind faith, and got mad when you got mocked on it.

    You’re probably one of those imbeciles that has a “War is not the answer!” bumper stickers on your car.

  • docdave

    ..my best friend had an abortion because it was life or death. she and ALSO the child would have both died had she not aborted it,

    No one is who is against abortion questions the possible medical need for such an event. Before Roe v Wade, state laws promitted abortion in medical cases. This make your argument for I guess abortion specious if you’re trying to justify 50 million abortions since Roe. How many of those do you suppose were medical necessities?

  • jane

    I love how you republicans are so “pro-life” and also “pro war” “pro guns” “pro hunting” “pro death penalty” grrosss. I’m not pro choice, though I don’t believe the fetus is a baby until he or she has a beating heart, but I am also against everything I previously mentioned.

  • micaela

    well, i do believe there is a wall of separation between religion and state….some people don’t believe in a Catholic god, and don’t believe that he knew the child before it was formed in the womb. This subject matter is very personal and VERY private and should not be up for the opinion of people who don’t know what its like to have to choose. Also, you proved the point in the fact that you said you were “bringing god back into the matter” god/religion shouldnt be involved in a matter that is state law.

  • robert108

    Wrong again! At the moment of conception, a unique DNA profile is formed, which describes a unique human being, and will define that unique human being until it finally degrades some time after death. You support killing human beings, period.
    Using fancy words doesn’t change what science clearly defines.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    This subject matter is very personal and VERY private and should not be up for the opinion of people who don’t know what its like to have to choose.

    That’s stupid on it’s face. A lot of decisions are private (ones that don’t affect anyone else) that we regulate. Pot smoking, cigarette smoking, seatbelt use, etc.

    Everyone knows what it’s like to have to choose. I just choose to respond to you (ok, kidding aside). Every guy gets mad at his girlfriend (and vice versa), and they don’t kill them. People get stressed because of bills, and don’t kill those around them (sometimes who caused the bills).

    The debate isn’t about choice, because such a debate would be stupid. It’s about the life of an unborn child. The “choice” in question is whether or not someone has the right to kill it. Put in this context, the “choice” is much like choosing to own another person as a slave, or beat their spouse/significant other, or kill a parent to get life insurance, or to rape, or to steal, or to have sex with a small child, or even to drive drunk.

    All of these things involve a choice. Yet if someone argued that his choice to beat his wife was a “personal affair, that no one who hasn’t had to make such a choice should stay out of”, people would be disgusted. Moreover, simply sidestepping any issue that involves “choice” would topple our system of law, as every single action we make requires dozens of choices.

    Your argument holds as much water as a sieve.

  • doonuts

    Jane, you like many of your liberal buddies, continue to try and compare apples to oranges, and in your minds think you actually make sense while doing it. First, how can you equate the killing of a human being with the killing of an animal? This comparison between animals and humans is ridiculous. I know many liberals beleive that animals should be afforded the same rights as humans but are sorely mistaken. Second, nobody is pro-war. I have never heard anybody or any party come out and say “we are pro-war.” That is an absurd claim by itself. Now, if you want to compare the pacifist Democrat party with the Republican party in this respect, then yes you would be correct that Republicans will go to war to defend this country from enemies while the Dems will sit at home attemting to diplomatically sway terrorists from killing other people with no results. Unfortunately, people will always want to kill others in the name of religion or power, and someone will always have to stand up against them. I know which side I stand on and you have shown yours. Take your Bush Derangement Syndrome and head back to the dailykos, you will make sense there.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    micaela – This subject matter is very personal and VERY private and should not be up for the opinion of people who don’t know what its like to have to choose.

    Killing another human being is always a very personal matter.

    It’s not private though! There are two or more individuals involved in abortion. Only one person has the “choice”. How is that “very private”?

  • Mickey

    Obama is playing God. They don’t call him the “Messiah” for nothing.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    I don’t believe the fetus is a baby until he or she has a beating heart,

    One can pick up the fetal heart beat as early as 10 weeks with a doppler soniket and can visualize it on sonography as early as 7 weeks.

    So aborting a baby at 23 weeks is a bad thing, right?

  • Rezistik

    Abortion aborts a bunch of living cells. Sure it’s alive but it isn’t human. It’s human when it comes out of the womb.

    Before that it’s a zygote…

  • pro-choice

    those are good points micaila. people dont understand..my best friend had an abortion because it was life or death. she and ALSO the child would have both died had she not aborted it, and they told her this in the first trimester. i dont understand what there is to debate.

  • Olivia

    Donuts,
    Your response to Jane makes sense, I can understand how you can rationalize coldly hunting down and killing animals, though they too are “life” …living and breathing as well..a little hypocritical..but i get it…chasing animals, killing them painfully for the fun of it…and it does sound fun! …..However, what I do not get is how do you rationalize killing criminals through the death penalty? They are gods HUMAN creatures…but yet, the republican party condones this? As well as the murder of thousands in a war that our country should not be fighting in the first place, but that I suppose is beside the point. Why is it okay to kill some but not others? Or is that too..as you put it… comparing apples to oranges?

  • Neiman

    To bring God back into the matter, He said ‘before you were formed in the womb, I knew you!’ God, the Fountain of all Life is the only One that gets to define when life begins and He says it begins even before the egg and sperm join to form a human being. You don’t like it, argue with Him!

  • jane

    actually pal, i was asking a question, and will re-word it so you may understand a little better..WHY are you “pro-life” and also pro war and hunting? i am ASKING…it is a question not a statement or a point. and i did not say i was against life, i dont think you can properly read. oh and speaking of against intelligence, your idol who you have as your default picture is such a genius. thank him sincerely for single handedly running this country into the ground.

  • http://www.fileitunder.com/ Rob B.

    Rezistik, I disagree for a few reasons. Zoological determination of species can be made solely on DNA evidence and it is an accepted practice in cellular biological studies. For that reason, your assertation that it is not “human” is wrong. You could argue that it is not viable but the genus and species is unchanged.

    Secondly, a zygote is two haploid cells that merge to form a zygocyte. From there the proper term is embryo. It’s a matter of definition but terms matter.

    That being said, let me give youan additional question or two to consider:
    1. If a pregnant mother loses her baby to miscarriage, did she lose her child?
    2. Several states have prosecuted people that have killed pregnant women as double homocides. Is that possible if an embryo is not a person?
    3. The arguement that undeveloped embryos are not human and that the evidence of diseases , such as down syndrome, are justifications for abortion. If that is the case, does this mean people who suffer from down syndrome, and the like, are not people and could be killed due to that justification today?

    I’ll be interested to see your thoughts.

  • jane

    ha..Kenny,

    So you’re against life? I’ll also assume, by the poorly written and argued “point” that you’re against intelligence as well. Liberals…ugh.

    Where did you get any of the things in that comment. “You are against life?” ..haha the only thing that you are capable of doing in order to argue with the question that I was legitimately asking is attempt to insult it. How would you come to the conclusion that I am “against life” ?? I said that I was not pro-choice, but am ALSO not pro-hunting (the KILLING of animals for some sick sport) nor pro-death penalty (if i need to explain my reasoning here, let me know)
    and yeah that was a really good one, I am “against intelligence”

  • docdave

    Abortion aborts a bunch of living cells. Sure it’s alive but it isn’t human. It’s human when it comes out of the womb.

    I’m sure that Obama agrees with your moronic view. Too bad your mother didn’t have the same opinion.

  • cynthia

    I started crying when I first saw my baby and heard his/her heartbeart at only 10 weeks of being pregant. What made me and the father of my baby cry even harder was that some people believe when they go and get abortions that what they are doing is ok. how is the baby at 10 weeks or at any time while pregnant not a living being. I heard and saw through the ultra sound its heart! The baby at that time already has hands and feet, i seen them kicking. Im not trying to put anyone down, but if you are not ready to have kids use protection. Think b4 u act. y kill a innoccent baby for your wrong doings. Just please think about that baby. Who already has a heart and need for his mother.

  • Love Life

    SigFan, By looking at the whole prayer by Obama in context, your argument holds no water. What Obama was actually saying is that it doesn’t matter what your beliefs about God are or even what god you believe in, because there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. Here is a website that shows more of the prayer.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88107

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development