Stop Hating: Here's Why Obama Is a Progressive.

Do you even begin to understand what we've accomplished (and what we averted)?

Here are some progressive things that Barack Obama has promised to do. Ever hear of the Freedom of Choice Act?


The bill is described by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan as a bill to "codify Roe v. Wade" which would "repeal the Bush-backed Federal Abortion Ban," referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, "and other federal restrictions," [1]. Similarly, opponents of the bill assert that[2] it would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
What has Obama said about this bill?



Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the Democratic President-Elect, became a co-sponsor of the 2007 Senate version of the bill (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, he declared "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."[4]
Can the bill get past a Senate filibuster? You'll have to talk to Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter, because Ben Nelson and Bob Casey Jr. will never go for it. (Lieberman is a co-sponsor, BTW). It looks like we might just be able to squeeze this bill through to Obama's desk, but there isn't much wiggle room.

How about the Employee Free Choice Act?


President-elect Barack Obama supports the Bill. An original cosponsor of the EFCA, Senator Obama urged his colleagues to pass the bill during a 2007 motion to proceed:


“I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates.

The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept--but are not bound by law to accept--the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone.[12]

You know, that sounds progressive to me. I wonder who he'll pick to be Secretary of Labor? And, what about federal funding for stem-cell research? Here's what he said back in April of 2007.


"I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President’s desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has generated and saddened that we are preventing the advancement of important science that could potentially impact millions of suffering Americans. The study of stem cells holds enormous promise for the treatment of debilitating and life-threatening diseases. However, in order to reach this level of medical achievement, much more research is necessary to understand, and eventually harness, the amazing potential of stem cells. Instead of creating roadblocks, we must all work together to expand federal funding of stem cell research and continue moving forward in our fight against disease by advancing our knowledge through science and medicine.

Hmmm. I'm beginning to see a trend here. Pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-science. How about anti-torture?


Some officials in the formative administration of US President-elect Barack Obama [transition website] have said they support the creation of a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate potentially abusive US counter-terrorism policies, according to a Newsweek report [text] Saturday. The officials have suggested that such an investigation should be similar to the 9/11 Commission [official website], with a focus on making public the details surrounding the development and authorization of harsh interrogation techniques and other counter-terrorism policies, rather than incriminating those involved. Both Obama and his aides have said previously said that his administration is not likely to prosecute [JURIST report] those who approved or carried out the torture or other harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and will instead focus on the creation of new anti-torture laws.
Link
Original Post
So it's okay (according to Obama) to suck out the brains of infants in the process of being born, but using strenuous interrogation techniques to gain intelligence information that could save American lives is somehow offensive?

Of course, this really doesn't surprise me. What really confounds me is the left sees absolutely no moral problem with any of this.
I have zero respect for anyone who thinks it is ok to murder the unborn. How can this be ok? How did we as a society get to the point where this doesn't horrify us?? The leader of any country who supports this obviously has no morals and is to be feared. His/her judgment is terribly skewed and I refuse to respect, follow or honor anyone who does this.
I think they are taking about embryo stem cell that can save a lot of people, even you.


''The word embryo (Greek: swelling within) refers to the growing organism from the second to the eighth week of its life. During this time, it develops from a tiny cell cluster into a little growth of about 1 inch in length. As this development proceeds, the placenta, a special organ of interchange, begins to grow between the embryo and the uterus. The embryo is connected to the placenta by the umbilical cord. (Soon after the birth of the baby, its umbilical cord is still connected to the placenta which is then expelled from the uterus. For this reason, the placenta is also called the afterbirth.) The placenta acts as a filter and as a barrier. It allows the embryo (and later the fetus) to absorb food and oxygen from the woman's blood and to eliminate carbon dioxide and other waste from its own blood in return. At the same time, however, the two blood systems remain completely separate.''
Link



What are stem cells?
Stem cells are incredibly valuable to science and this is because they have the capacity to develop into any type of cell in the body. And therefore, they have the potential to be used for almost anything, organ transplants, a cure for Parkinson’s and much more.

When a woman’s egg is fertilized, the egg (or zygote) is totipotent — it has the capacity to turn into any type of cell in the human body, including the placenta.

Fetal stem cells, once harvested, cannot become embryos.About four days after fertilization the cells begin to specialize and form a blastocyst, which is a hollow sphere of cells with an inner cell mass in the center.

The outer layer of cells becomes the placenta and other tissues necessary for the survival of the fetus.

The inner cell mass goes on to form the fetus and eventually the baby. It is these inner cells that are so incredible because they go on to form all the tissues in the human body.

If this inner cell mass was placed in a woman’s uterus, it would not develop into a fetus1 and because of this some people claim that this cannot be considered an embryo.

The controversy comes when the cells are harvested. Harvesting can be done by:

obtaining cells from the embryos of terminated pregnancies
getting them from embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics
Link
Does his excellency, The Dolli-bama, realize that stem cells can be harvested from placentas? The byproduct which is typically discarded after delivery. Why target fetal tissue in an effort to legitimze abortion?
The Employee Freedom Act is just a Union tool in order to persecute those who do not want to participate. How will it affect those who work in a Right to Work state such as Alabama remains to be seen.
In my opinion this is not progression, it is a formula to inflict the will of the vocal minority on those who have sat idly by and let it happen. Hopefully there will be enough people in Congress with backbone to stop this from happening.
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Progressive? Is that a new codeword for socialist? Or is it just another was of saying Marxist?



No sassy, that is the new language for killing babies.... for a price, always for a price.


Isn't this amazing 30 years ago it was the long haired liberals who called our troops from Vietnam baby killers, and now?
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Progressive? Is that a new codeword for socialist? Or is it just another was of saying Marxist?



No sassy, that is the new language for killing babies.... for a price, always for a price.


Isn't this amazing 30 years ago it was the long haired liberals who called our troops from Vietnam baby killers, and now?


I believe Karl Marx could have condoned that, too. After all, the good of the many is greater than the good of the one, no matter how innocent the one.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
I think they are taking about embryo stem cell that can save a lot of people, even you.


You don't get embryonic stem cells from partial birth abortions. That's simply a device for conveniently terminating a pregnancy after the mother has been too lazy to get it done in the first trimester. "Lazy" is likely why she got pregnant in the first place.

And don't give me the drivel about rape or incest...the percentage of abortions for rape or incest is almost vanishingly small.

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×