Obama, Abortion, Joseph Mengele, Nazi Final Solution, David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, Obama pro abortion, Non persons, Illinois Senate Bill, Playing God, Pro abortion candidate

“Barack Obama is the most pro abortion candidate ever.”
Terence P. Jeffrey

“But, he argues, we cannot legally recognize them as “persons.”
Because if we do, then somewhere down the road it might threaten someone’s right to an abortion.”

David Freddoso on Obama

History can and does repeat itself. The evil capacity of humans
passes from generation to generation. Left unchecked, this evil
can grow to levels experienced before in history.

This blog has produced multiple articles about the similarities
between the Obama Campaign and Nazi Germany. There is another common
thread that is  more alarming than the other similarities.
It is the disregard for human life and attempting to play the role
of God, which we are so incapable of. Obama has a consistent position
on abortion that panders to his base, the far left. Despite Obama
playing to the middle of the country and pretending to have Christian
values, his position is a matter of record. No amount of lying and
revisionist history can erase it.

The Nazi final solution focused on the Jews but also embraced the
concept of cleansing undesirable elements of society. No practitioner
of this philosophy is a better example than Joseph Mengele. Here is
a small sample of his evil, twisted regard for human life:

“In charge of the “selections” process, he’d show up at the prisoner transports looking quite elegant, and would decide at a glance each person’s destiny.  If anyone started trouble over being separated from a relative, he might wordlessly beat or shoot them both.  He appeared to have no conscience, and sent anyone with an imperfection (including imperfect height) right to the gas chamber.  However, he kept the twins, as many sets of doubles as he could find.  They were destined for his labs.

Mengele enjoyed his powerful position and was completely at home with his tasks.  To uphold the Nazi ideal of racial purification was his driving motivation.  Yet no one quite knew what to expect.  Even as he separated families and killed with impunity, he might step into the role of concerned physician and whimsically allow some people to live.  The power of life and death resided in him.

In his desire to improve the efficiency of the camp as a killing machine, he taught other doctors how to give phenol injections to a long line of prisoners, quickly ending their lives.  He also shot people, and by some reports he tossed live babies into the crematoria.  Throughout all of this, he kept a detached, efficient demeanor and viewed himself as strictly a scientist.”

Read more here:

Now, many years later, consider the following exerpts from David
Freddoso’s book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”

“She had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet.”
“In leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was
doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no
ethical obligation to treat them. Under the law, they were non persons.”
“There was no legal conflict between O’Malley’s bill and the right to
legal abortion, but Barack Obama nonetheless had problems with it.
He was a liberal, a proponent of legalized abortion.

Here are Obama’s words in the Illinois Senate in 2001 speaking
against Illinois’s born alive protection bill:

“There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something
that might meet constitional muster with respect to caring for
fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately,
this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest,
not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how
we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional
scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person
that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements
in the Constitution , what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they
are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a nine month old–child that was delivered to term
. That determination then, essentially, if it is accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

While we are not suggesting that Obama is of the calibre of Joseph
Mengele, the following similarities are glaring:

The cold, calculating manner of describing human life.

Deciding who lives and who dies.

A policy of evaluating human worth based on a political agenda.

Ultimately, playing God and doing a poor job of it.

If you are as concerned about Barack Obama as we are, voice your
concern here:



14 responses to “Obama, Abortion, Joseph Mengele, Nazi Final Solution, David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, Obama pro abortion, Non persons, Illinois Senate Bill, Playing God, Pro abortion candidate

  1. AnotherFineMess

    In addition to forcing abortion onto “undesirable races”, the Nazis banned their “chosen people”, a.k.a. the Aryans (white, European-looking people) from having abortions. The penalty for doctor and mother was death.

    For the Nazis, Abortion was a tool of social-control to be forced upon some and denied to others in order to further the regime’s demented eugenics goals. In Nazi Germany, that was the law of the land.

    My personal belief: What goes on inside a mother’s womb should concern her and her doctor’s. It should not the business of government. Additionally, doctors and pharmacists whose faith prevents them from prescribing abortion products should not have to violate their consciences to keep their jobs.

    Government should pass laws that favor families (i.e. make it easy to be a working mom, make sure that child-care and education for kids are of a sufficiently high quality). Federal government should not pass laws that make criminals of moms and doctors as the Nazis did.

  2. Go to Larry’s blog and view the video “Obama on Abortion”. What is said is true…and the truth gets worse.

  3. This story makes me sick every time I read or hear about it. I am Pro-Choice. I would never have an abortion but I don’t think I have the right to make that decision for anyone else. Having said that this is not even remotely reasonable.

    The idea that someone would willingly make the choice to wait that long is deplorable at the least. If it’s an emergency to save the mother’s l;ife that is different but how can they deny treatment to any child who is born alive? It is beyond cruel and heartless. This man is evil incarnate!


  4. “are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a nine month old–child that was delivered to term”

    This statement by Obama implies that he accepts a state of viability of the fetus/baby at some point of maturation. He either hasn’t done his medical reading or he is being willlfully ignorant for expedient political solutions. Among medical practitioners, viability outside the womb, is generally accepted at the 28th week mark. We all have seen babies survive much earlier, with technological intervention , at earlier dates.

    So what Obama is really saying? Essentially he is stating that the viability of the fetus is determined by the desire of the mother to have her child survive or not. Beware of that argument Mr. Obama or soon the state will be implementing legislation to protect postnatal infanticide even with a term child.

    After all he previously referred to an unwanted pregnancy as a “punishment” to the mother. As such it gives the mother full right to be done away with it. At any point in the child’s life Mr. Obama?

    The point here Mr. Obama, is that no one can accurately establish viability outside the womb, because every fetus is different, just like every human being has its own natural death point. Every physician knows that, and so every life that shows viability is granted the chance to live whether we wish it to or not. It is the only humane thing a human being can do, unless of course you are not humane. But then Mr. Obama it wouldn’t have to be you, after ensuring this convenient legislation to witness the struggle of life, you can always leave that tormenting moment for others to witness.

  5. Neil Raynsford

    I think it’s clear and unambiguous that Obama is pro-choice. What’s less clear is the age-limit below which that choice should be available. I think Obama owes the American people some clarity.

    On the other hand, McCain’s position is “Choice be damned” – under his Presidency any kind of Abortion will be a criminally punishable act. McCain has stated that human-rights should begin at conception, a view which is also quite nutty and completely at odds with scientific evidence.

    So in summary – Obama would allow mothers to obtain late-term abortions, wheras McCain would consider the termination of an un-implanted blastocyst to be an act of murder. It’s like I’m standing between two mad-men!


  6. citizenwells

    Life clearly begins at conception.
    I have never heard McCain use your phrasing.
    McCain has integrity. Obama has none.
    Abortion should not be used for birth control. Beyond that, the choice should be the lesser of evils. We are lousy at playing God.

  7. Neil,

    An”un-implanted blastocyst” does not require an abortion to be terminated. It is naturally shed during menstruation. Perhaps you need to review basic science, never mind scientific evidence.

  8. AnotherFineMess

    I don’t want this to become the classic abortion debate in which the two sides can never possibly agree. Regardless of whether Neil Raynsford is entirely correct in his understanding of reproductive science I think the point he is trying to make is that both the hard-anti and pro abortion positions are extremist views.

    The question is not whether life begins at conception but at what stage in life does one deserve human rights and the full protection of the law.

    From what I can tell, the hard-line pro and anti abortion camps are both extremist views which are out of touch with what Americans want. Abortion should be a deeply-considered moral choice made by mothers, doctors and families.

    At most it should be a matter for states to decide. If only McCain and Obama had the courage to admit that it’s no business of the Presidency to legislate the personal reproductive morality of American citizens.

  9. AnotherFineMess,

    I entirely agree with your premise, because defining the moment at which life deserves human rights is exactly the point I tried to make in my post above.

    However, one needs to be careful, because one cannot fully separate science from ethical considerations, and understanding well enough the former, invariably informs the latter. A case in point is stem cell research. It was not my intention to disparage Neil. I apologize if I have.

  10. Neil Raynsford

    Venice, no problems at all. I agree with AnotherFineMess – abortion is a deeply personal issue. I’ve often discussed with my wife whether we would have an abortion if we had an ‘accident’ (we already have a big family of loved children).

    I know that abortion is a serious thing that nobody wants to do – but it’s complex. It goes beyond the simple black and white ethics that the extremists wish to impose upon us. The two extremist views that I most strongly object to are:

    * I do not believe that Pro-abortion employers forcing doctors / nurses / pharmacists to perform abortion or issue contraception if it’s against their personal morals or ethics (just so long as they were honest at the time they were recruited for their jobs).

    * I do not believe that anti-abortion government should attempt to over-rule the decisions of families and their appointed doctors… ever.

    The thing about the Nazis that people seem to forget is that they were not particularly pro or anti abortion. They were against trusting citizens to know what’s good for themselves. They were not conservative or liberal… they were authoritarian.

    It’s a real warning sign about McCain that he’s entirely willing to pander to a small but vocal minority of Christians who want to impose their view of morality on the rest of America. That’s authoritarian!

  11. Neil,

    Thankyou for graciously accepting my apology.

    I agree fundamentally with your argument. Authority needs to be given to those who will live with the immediate consequences of their decisions, after having been provided with the best information available. So yes, the state cannot have full authority over abortion. We don’t need to look far to see the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. The outcome is usually devastating for everyone involved.

    This argument would seem to contradict my earlier statement of Mr. Obama’s stance. So here is the qualifier: we only get to the have the privilege of decision making when the well-being of all others involved has been fully considered.

    Terminating a pregnancy is a decision that involves considering the outcome for many. Leaving a baby gasping for its last breath , unattended is something that most people wouldn’t even do their animals. When an infant leaves its mother’s body, still breathing, it has the capacity to feel pain. Where is the humanity in that, and therefore where is Obama’s humanity?

Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s