by Joshua Zambrano

Created on: June 09, 2008   Last Updated: June 17, 2008

One of my most preached upon political subjects involves Barack Obama's support for the killing of newborn children. In 2001 he was the only senator to oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when the time came for it to be voted upon (it was approved 98-0 but held up in the courts until 2007). It was designed to protect children who survive late-term abortions from being left to die in back rooms.

When the Illinois version of the bill came up, (which an amendment required be word for word similar to the federal bill) Obama killed it in the Health and Human Services Committee which he headed. When queried by 2004 senate opponent Alan Keyes why he would do that, Obama asserted it was because it lacked the wording of the federal bill, which specifically stated the bill would not jeopardize the ruling of Roe v. Wade.

Obama failed to mention that the 2 bills were identical, word for word, as a result of the amendment that Senator Richard Winkel sponsored. He also failed to mention his verbal opposition to that federal bill and that he did not support it at the time, but instead defiantly voted 'Present'.

There are those who defend Obama's support for the killing of these newborn children who, outside their mothers' wombs, are for all intents and purposes prematurely born children who when given the chance to escape their fates have gone on to live fulfilling lives, by suggesting the government should not be able to legislate what a woman does with her body or her children.

In such a case, 99% of people can agree that those babies outside the womb who, when given the chance to survive, can, are in fact human beings like themselves. However, there are some like the commenter who do not believe they should be protected by the government since it should be a woman's right to kill her own children.

Obviously this is flawed logic. The government has a right to legislate what a person can or cannot do, i.e. their 'rights', when those 'rights' infringe upon the rights of others. 'Your right to throw a punch stops where another person's nose begins.'

In other words, I am all for a woman's rights, but I do not believe anyone's 'rights' should include the right to kill other human beings. And even if the babies were unborn (which in this case, is not the case) if we can recognize they are human beings, mothers should still not have the right to kill them.

You see, the Constitution gives us 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The right to life of

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>