Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Barack Obama and live birth abortion

Live birth abortion?

Senator Obama voted three times against a Bill which would have outlawed the evil of ‘live birth abortion’.

It is a termination process which involves the birth of a live baby, the issuing of a birth certificate, the purposeful abandoning of the baby to a slow and tortuous death, and the callous issuing of a death certificate.

Is this not infanticide?

By law, if an aborted baby is born alive, both birth and death certificates must be issued. Ironically, the cause of death often listed for live aborted babies is ‘extreme prematurity’, which amount to a confession by doctors that they have caused this death. It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One baby is reported to have lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Many of these babies are born completely healthy, for they are terminated at 40 weeks for the ‘health’ of the mother, and also in cases of rape or incest. Ever since Doe v Bolton (the companion case to Roe v Wade) the United States Supreme Court has adopted the definition of the World Health Organisation for ‘health’, defined as ‘any condition that might impact her physical, emotional, psychological or financial well being’.

So live birth abortion is permitted in many US states up to nine months for emotional (can’t cope), psychological (don’t want to cope) or financial (can’t afford it) reasons, effectively extending abortion to on demand.

When the aborted baby is born alive, he or she (for the baby can no longer be an ‘it’) receives what is known as ‘comfort care’, during which the baby is kept warm in a blanket until he/she dies. Parents (for that is what they are) may hold the baby if they wish. If they do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby (if they have time) until he/she dies. If staff do not have time, the baby is simply abandoned to die a slow, lingering death.

Perversely, the evil of child-killing is given spiritual trappings, with the option of baptism for the child who is killed. Hospitals provide baptismal certificates and gowns, and even a first-photo machine to record the birth.

All of which is cynically designed to make the parents (and medical staff?) feel better about the murder.

Cranmer would genuinely like to know how any Jew, Christian or Muslim could vote for a man who not only privately supports this practice, but actively legislates for it. Pace Biden and Pelosi, how do all these ‘Catholics for Obama’ reconcile this manifest abomination with their Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life? According to the LA Times, no candidate in recent memory has entered the White House without securing a majority of the votes cast by Catholics, who now constitute 25 per cent of the population. Is the Catholic vote any longer Catholic?


OpenID britologywatch said...

I would be interested to see Your Grace's evidence for Mr Obama's support for live-birth abortion. If this is true - and I have no reason to doubt it - then this places Catholics and other religious voters in a real dilemma. Should they vote for McCain / Palin, which is also a pretty unpalatable ticket? Would Your Grace advocate voting Republican on a 'lesser of two evils' basis? Or is abstention an option?

29 October 2008 at 09:36  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Britologywatch,

His Grace has previously linked to this essay, which is quite persuasive.

It would be a fair bet, considering His Grace's previous writings on the matter, that he is no fan of Senator Obama. His Grace would never presume to direct his readers and communicants in the way they vote, but neither does he leave them in any doubt about where himself stands.

Abstention disturbs him. It is surely the role of a Christian in a democracy to limit the spread of evil, and therefore it is incumbent upon them to vote for the lesser evil. When the spiritually discerning do nothing, evil flourishes.

29 October 2008 at 09:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a smear.

A woman has a right to choose.

There's nothing wrong with abortion at any age.

29 October 2008 at 09:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous.
If by any age you mean from conception to? then none would be safe from termination, including you. I am so sick of hearing
"a womans right to choose" to choose what precisely? the right to murder another human, a defenceless one at that, a child has the right to live & hopefully be a better person than some of the crass selfish people who would deny them that right.
Please think before you write about
the issues involved & change the record!

29 October 2008 at 10:16  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Both"candidates" are hired front men to delude the public into the erroneous belief that they have a credible choice,both are members of the tri-lateral commission which means that both recieve thier orders from rothschild,who now also owns all of the major banks in america as well as all five major oil companies in the world,the voters are meer spectators in this theatre,and thier lives and thier babies are insignificant,the same is true in this country,as several politicians are also members of rothschilds exclusive club which extends to europe and the heart of the eussr,do you still think that you are free?

29 October 2008 at 10:38  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Regular readers know my view on abortion - up to the point of self-sustainability for the baby, I don't disapprove.

But this? This really is murder. Appalling.

It might be interesting to see a psychological profile of the medical - medical? - staff who can stand by and watch a healthy baby die.

29 October 2008 at 10:40  
Anonymous Mr Graham said...

Watching that video filled my eyes with tears. That's the thing with abortion, no supporter of this barbaric practice wants to get to the actual details of the process. Every word and action is "detoxified" to make it sound less personal and more scientific in order to give the impression that this is an acceptable practice, when in fact this is an act of murder.

An innocent life is taken from the womb and for no other reason than that it was conceived, murdered. It is not a case of a foetus being aborted, it is a case of a young completely blameless life being brutally slaughtered for the so-called wellbeing of the mother.

Does Your Grace belive that in time, future generations will look upon us and this barbarism as we do now with slavery?

29 October 2008 at 10:44  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Graham,

His Grace has already written upon that matter, and, although he is not unsympathetic to the comparison, has noted the distinct differences.

What His Grace will say is that if his ashes were ever reconstituted in such a way as to permit his presence in Parliament, he would dedicate his life to the total eradication of such appalling barbarism - whatever the personal cost.

29 October 2008 at 11:00  
Anonymous ukipwebmaster said...

Abortion is the ultimate in child-abuse and nobody has the 'right to choose' murder.

29 October 2008 at 11:54  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace
If you have your vomit bag to hand, you might care to read the cant spouted by the Chief Executive of BPAS talking to Labour Home about the need for a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring the abortion laws up to date. (Google Labour Home Furedi) She says that 'This Government should wear a commitment to abortion law reform as a badge of honour' Apparently 200,000 abortions a year is not enough for this latter day follower of Moloch.

Your Grace asks whether the Catholic vote in the US is any longer Catholic. The Bishops have been quite vociferous about this issue. Even so, some polls report the Catholic vote split almost 50-50. We can only hope and pray that conscience prevails.

29 October 2008 at 12:23  
Blogger Griff said...

Powerful, emotive stuff and poignantly put. Can there really be any way of seeing abortion as anything short of murder? Well, no; not when it's put across like this!

You're also absolutely correct to say that the 'right to choose' in this case is absolutely no different from the right to choose to murder another human being. It's only because our liberal, leftist government and media spout this evil nonsense about the 'right to choose' that the average, immoral, brainless liberals and women of easy and selfish virtue pounce on 'the right to choose' as their excuse to do whatever they want.

We see the same blase attitude towards life in the Swiss 'Dignitas' clinic, we saw it in the holocaust and we continue to see it everyday in the world of liberalism and its 'Culture of Death' where murder is justified by giving it the sheen of freedom and the 'right to choose'.

29 October 2008 at 12:30  
Blogger Tomrat said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again; abortion is based on the barbaric practice of child sacrifice - it is a spiritual contract between the evil one and the individual: it does not matter whether the individual is aware of the contract or not; you pray to these gods and you live with the consequences.

Leviticus 18:21

My interest in this is not in the death or life of the child - I cannot imagaine my Lord and Saviour allowing "harm" to come to something as eternal as the soul of these children - it is in the act itself that I am concerned and the individuals involved salvation.

29 October 2008 at 13:05  
Anonymous terry said...

Does Cranmer or anyone else have any reliable info on how much an abortion provider receives for each abortion?

29 October 2008 at 13:20  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Sir Henry Morgan does not object to abortion "up to the point of self-sustainability for the baby". What point is that? An unborn child is as "sustainable" in the womb as a born child is out of it, i.e. it is dependent on the protection of others,; and so are many of us much of the time. One day SHM may not self-sustainable, through the ailments of old age; will he be content to be bumped off then?

29 October 2008 at 13:34  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

I'm a bit bemused by Your Grace's position on this. I can see why those that are pro-abortion might distinguish between live birth abortion and other forms, but as someone that is anti-abortion, why would it be any worse to allow a baby to die from lack of premature birth intensive care than to poison him/her with salt or chop her/him into pieces? I can't see why I should think that live birth abortion is any worse than other sorts? What is Your Grace trying to say here?

Let's spell it out: Do you, Your Grace, believe that live birth abortion is any worse form of abortion than other types of abortion? If not (and surely your answer *must* be "No!"), then why do you hold it any more against Barack Obama that he favours this form of abortion than you hold it against other pro-abortionists that they favour chopping up infants or poisoning them with salt?

29 October 2008 at 14:43  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other

Department of Health Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2007 show
198,500 abortions were carried out in the UK last year. 57% took place in the independent sector under NHS contract or 113,145. For all intents and purposes the independent sector is the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) who received £12 million of Government funding or approx £106(average) per abortion for BPAS. Then you have to factor in the abortion carried out in the NHS, so about £20 million just for UK abortions in 2007.

The government is surprisingly reluctant to publish figures for the cost to the tax payer of abortion in the UK but this is just part of the story. The government also spends the tax payers’ pounds on funding abortions all over the world by Marie Stopes International; International Planned Parenthood Federation; Pregnancy Advisory Service; United Nations Population Fund; and Family Planning Association (United Kingdom)

29 October 2008 at 14:50  
Blogger lancelot said...

Please pray that this man is not elected. I have searched my heart to find an issue with which I agree with this man. There is none -- economically or morally. This is not just about abortion. He wants to "redistribute the wealth" (his own words);raise taxes and provide more entitlements. His plan is also to eliminate world poverty through the proposed "Global Poverty Bill" -- another tax increase of $850 billion, to be administered by the fiscally corrup United Nations. He also wants to fund world-wide abortions.

His devotion to abortion is so strong, that he was the only politician to vote against the partial birth ban. Even the pro-abortion groups chose to be quiet when this bill came for a vote. Now his followers (the 17 to 35 age group) have sunk even lower. A group of "decorators" in California decided to decorate their house for Halloween. One of the exterior decorations was a mannequin of Sara Palin with a noose around her neck hanging from the porch. If Obama and his supporters have no compunction to murder a live baby, why not a "mock" lynching of Sara Palin? As usual, no outrage from the network media. Thank God for the cable and radio shows who are keeping this issue alive. The network media is so "in bed" with Obama, that it is to the point of being erotic. One t.v. commentator, said of one of Obama's speeches: "He gave me a thrill up my leg when he spoke."

If only the Bishops had spoken out sooner and more often. The mainstream Protestant churches are in the pro-choice camp with the usual hackneyed paraphrase: I personally oppose abortion, but will respect other's decision on this. Unfortunately, that is what kept slavery alive and well in the United States for a few hundred years.

Hopefully, this Sunday two days before the election, the priests and bishops will remind Catholics of the evils of abortion and turn those statistics on their head.

No matter what your religion, please pray.

29 October 2008 at 15:38  
Blogger John Foxe said...

Dear Lilico,

the political answer is somewhere. As with Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery you have to start somewhere and, fighting politically each step of the way, gradually restrict abortion until the whole evil is eradicated.


John Foxe.

29 October 2008 at 15:46  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Dr Lilico,

There is no inconsistency; simply a heightened indignation at a termination process which issues birth certificates, baptises the infant, lets it die, and then issues a death certificate.

While all induced abortion is murder, His Grace is appalled by the cynical use of the trappings of religious faith in order to assuage the troubled consciences of the parents or medical staff who have either never read the Hippocratic Oath or consider this fully-born living baby as something sub-human.

The difference is that the child who is chopped up or poisoned with salt cannot be baptised in utero and its personhood is never acknowledged by the state with any certification. As far as the state is concerned, it cannot 'die' because it has never existed. The victims of 'live birth' abortion are manifestly born alive, and so are not in the same sense 'aborted'. Their ephemeral existence is manifestly acknowledged by the state.

Perhaps the clarification comes in His Grace's understanding that this method of 'abortion' is infanticide rather than foeticide. Both, however, are repugnant to His Grace and an abomination to God.

29 October 2008 at 16:18  
Blogger Sam Norton said...

Have the US Roman Catholic bishops not said anything about this? I thought they were becoming more assertive in recent years. Perhaps they feel too chastened by all the child abuse scandals to raise their heads above the parapet, but if they stay silent then they've lost all right to ever speak on a political matter again.

29 October 2008 at 16:42  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Why do you think Obama is going to win, you fools?


29 October 2008 at 16:45  
Blogger Chaconia said...

While I agree 100 percent with the view that abortion is a moral evil, and could not myself support Obama for this reason alone – I do take issue with the way the website illustrated in your video, seeks to undermine him. I think it is cheap and almost “racist” (for want of a better word), to take advantage of the hysteria surrounding our current fear of Muslims to call the website “” --- referring to the senator’s Muslim middle name. Obama’s name has nothing to do with who he is – and by all accounts he is not a Muslim, he is a Christian … of sorts. His Muslim ancestry should not be held against him. (I also take issue with the way people (including Your Grace) pounced on him for a very understandable slip of the tongue when he spoke of “his Muslim religion” some time ago.) … I also disliked the way the baby in the film was used – it was obviously not an aborted baby but a healthy full term child who was filmed to represent a dying aborted child … there is no need to pull on the heart strings to make the point, and doing so weakens the message.

29 October 2008 at 18:09  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Sam Norton,

The US Bishops have said plenty on abortion you just have to Google it.

"...if they (my daughters) make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Barack Hussein Obama II - March 28 ’08 Johnston Campaign trail

29 October 2008 at 18:14  
Anonymous len said...

This is truly sickening!.
What is wrong with people that murder helpless innocents?.
This must be the height of depravity.
A baby comes into this world expectin love ,care and attention, and receives one of the most heartless , cruel, deaths imaginable.
Its bad enough for a child to die in a famine situation, but to die surrounded by food just because you are unwanted is one of the saddest things imaginable.
It strikes me that there is something terribly wrong with humanity that that encourages and condones this sort of heartless act.Right to choose?, what of the rights of the dead babies?.

29 October 2008 at 20:11  
Anonymous miserable sinner said...

I'm not sure that I fully understand what is being done here. If the fetus is delivered at or near 40 weeks, then assuming it hasn't been poisoned in any way, it would be a full-term healthy birth, and unless the medical staff is deliberately failing to tie off the umbilical cord, etc., WHY would the baby die within 2 to 8 hours, even if not fed?

If I were a fetus, I would rather be poisoned and then delivered dead rather than chopped up in utero. I've read all the reports that say that fetuses don't have enough nerve cells to feel pain as they are dismembered, but I don't believe that. People who could participate in the chopping process are very sick and twisted, IMO, and somebody should be doing a psychiatric evaluation of them.

29 October 2008 at 22:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is truly sickening!.

Here Here to that.

So when conspiracy theorists state as fact that the world has long since been run by murderous psychopaths that drink the blood of unborn/ABORTED children. People say the "chap must be crazy."

But they never seem to put together the establishments unquenchable thirst for ever later state funded and sanctioned child murder. With the high establishments, well documented, Lucifer inspired, Rituals and Dogmas.

Spotting the work of the Devil is getting easier every day. Simply work out what the BBC is currently promoting one way or another, and the mark of the beast is clear for all that have eyes to see.

It has long since been high masonic understanding that the soul does not arrive at the individual until one or two days after birth. So to a high establishment humanist or socialist for example, human life before this point has no essential spiritual value. Of course a real Christian does not take the chance of being completely wrong so lightly. The rest of sensible humanity would much prefer the sanctity of human life to be........ strongly sanctified.

This for no other reason than his own personal physical salvation, and that of his family.

We all know by our common instinct, do we not? That when any human life is devalued, ALL human life is also devalued, including our own.

If we do not, ask yourselves why we do not?

The answer can be short, but should include the letters, BBC.

29 October 2008 at 22:10  
Anonymous road marker said...

Those aren't babies, they're masses of cells! Come to think of it, infants are just very large clumps of tissue. And adults also are just really large conglomerates of moving tissue.

29 October 2008 at 22:55  
Blogger GrannyGrump said...

First of all, just about any kind of abortion can result in a live birth if the doctor screws up in guessing gestational age. One woman went to a clinic in Alabama and they told her she was 6 weeks pregnant and gave her RU-486. Turned out she was near term. The baby died and she nearly did.

For more information, see:

Born alive babies and criminal charges

Funeral scheduled for Baby Shanice


Obama and the Born-Alive Babies

29 October 2008 at 23:58  
Blogger GrannyGrump said...

britologywatch, voting for less than perfection isn't voting for a lesser evil. You're never going to get a perfect ticket, because all human beings have flaws and are going to be wrong about something.

The question here is, do we allow Obama, who appeared virtually out of nowhere a la Harold Saxon, who was nurtured politically by members of the Weather Underground, and who has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would repeal prolife efforts that have cut abortions by 20%?

No, McCain/Palin aren't perfect. But they're people of good will who value the lives of the vulnerable. Unlike Obama, who believes that it's okay to stick a baby in a closet and wait for him to die. Isn't the Christian response to rescue those whose mothers have forsaken them?

30 October 2008 at 00:02  
Blogger Holy Smoke said...

Unfortunately the Catholic Church or for that matter any church in the US can not endorse one candidate or another for fear of losing their tax exempt status.( Apparently this rule doesn't apply to the Nation of Islam.) The US pulpits have been silenced because of the tax code. The USCCB have made the first Sunday in October as Respect Life Sunday

30 October 2008 at 02:18  
Anonymous len said...

road marker,
you are a mass of cells,
this attitude is the same as was probably held by Dr Mengeler!

30 October 2008 at 13:32  
Blogger GAry Greenwood said...

Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama. I hope that after reading this article that the baby Jesus shuts your mouth and opens your eyes!

5 November 2008 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

where is your proof that this is how he really feels have you spoken with him yourself i think not so get the FACTS and not your opinion!

7 November 2008 at 00:02  
Anonymous Michael said...

What a ridiculous article. This is what happens when someone decides to take part of a truth and twist it to fit their beliefs. I won't even argue this point because you people will never understand the difference between voting for a good bill and voting down a bill that's flawed. He voted against this bill in Illinois because the verbage was incorrect, period. I guess if I write up a bill banning all abortion in this country and there's an ear-mark in the bill that states that all children with Down-Syndrome must be taken from their families and put into medical facilities for the rest of their lives, then if someone were to oopose that bill, that would mean they were pro-abortion?
No, it would not, but you people would say it was.
You can't win a war against ignorance. No one ever has and they never will.

7 November 2008 at 21:37  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Michael,

As you say, you 'won't even argue this point' because you cannot. So call His Grace names, insult the blog, hurl insults to your heart's content.

Such is the refuge of the ignorant.

For your inmformation, His Grace happens to believe that a Down's Syndrome baby is far more worthy of 'medical facilities for the rest of his life' than termination. You, presumably, would abort. You ought to thank God that your mother wanted you, even if others may consider you surplus to humanity.

7 November 2008 at 22:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how the woman who testified can sleep at night for the actions she took as a nurse during these abortions. She is as guilty as the doctors.

19 November 2008 at 21:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is appalling. Abortion in itself is evil,'s murder. No matter how old the "fetus" is, when a woman sticks a pill in her mouth to stop that baby from being born..that is murder. Mother's do not have the right to choose whether or not they can kill their babies. In God's eyes He never wants you to give, mothers, when faced with challenges, such as having a baby, don't kill, but honor God and trust in Him through Christ, that He will take car of you.

5 May 2009 at 22:57  
Blogger Kerry said...

Ok, all I can say is Obama is EVIL...and anyone who belives in live birth abortion is EVIL, no matter what the reason....I was raped at 20 yrs old and got pregnant from it, of course I wasn't ready for a child but it was a part of me so I kept him. Sure rape is traumatic but think about a helpless baby suffering to death, that is worse to me. If you are raped and you are not healthy enough to have a baby then do something about it early on otherwise you could have the baby and give it up for adoption. Don't be heartless and allow one to suffer and die. They may be to young to know what is going on but they have the same hurt and feelings as anyone else would.

30 July 2009 at 20:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you that support abortion with the arguement that a woman has the right to choose, are correct. However, she made her choice when she chose to have sex with the possiblity of getting pregnant. That was her choice. Perhaps she should consider all things include before having sex. Perhaps this is one of the many escapes we as americans provide for our people to undo their many mistakes, that should be totally abandoned. In the case of rape, I believe the day after pill should be standard in all rape kits a hospital offers.

31 July 2009 at 11:40  
Blogger Edgar said...

"Cranmer would genuinely like to know how any Jew, Christian or Muslim could vote for a man who not only privately supports this practice, but actively legislates for it."

Simple. Religious people are notoroius hypocrites. As an athesit, it is perfectly clear to me how evil this practice is, and how vile are the so-called Christians who support it. (Undoubtedly, they are the same ones who lecture the likes of me about how, bereft of religion, we must have no morals.)

9 September 2009 at 22:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older