• Scott Ott Headed for GodBlogCon
• Obama Tries to Unite Hillary with Palin at U.N.
• Fed Bails Out Local Man Who’s 'Too Big To Fail'
• Obama Adopts New Yoda-Like Slogan: Change We Need
• McCain Commission Releases Economic Crisis Report
• Obama: Abortion-Survivor's Attack Ad Could Backfire
• Wall Street Seeks Disaster Declaration, FEMA Help
• Obama Unleashes Second '1982' Attack Ad
• Obama Inspires Local Man to Volunteer for McCain
• Mexican Makes NY Times Investment No American Will Do

• Obama Courts Pro-Choice Group: 'I'm a Survivor'
• Racial ‘Survivor’ to Air Instead of Religious Battle
• Congress Considers Abortionist Reparations Bill
• Kerry: Same-Sex Couples Solve Abortion Problem
• NARAL: Roberts’ Adoptions Jeopardize Abortion Rights

36 responses so far ↓

• 1 camojack // Sep 15, 2008 at 11:15 pm

  Obama is the most extreme Senator on this issue…

• 2 seneuba // Sep 15, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  THAT is one scary politician.

• 3 NeaL // Sep 15, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  If we treat this as a worthy and important topic, no one in the Main Scream Media will care.

  Maybe if we coin the phrase ABILF (Aborted Baby I’d Like to… ) the media will pay attention?

• 4 Monday Links : Stop The ACLU // Sep 16, 2008 at 12:07 am

  [...] Report: Blogger Thwarts al Qaeda 9/11 Anniversary Sobek Pundit: The Gloves Come Off! Scrappleface: Obama: Abortion-Survivor’s Attack Ad Could Backfire Gateway Pundit: McCain Pulls Ahead and Even in 5 Swing [...]

• 5 CalGirl // Sep 16, 2008 at 12:13 am

  Another one for the facebook page.

• 6 Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen speaks out against Obama « The Sadim Touch // Sep 16, 2008 at 12:51 am

  [...] Obama: Abortion-Survivor’s Attack Ad Could Backfire ahhh this one would be satire.. [...]

• 7 skallal // Sep 16, 2008 at 1:10 am

  Does this topic fall under satire? Are those real quotes from Obama?

  Satire or not, Obama certainly is one very frightening politician. His persistent opposition to partial birth abortion is chilling.

  Anyone not moved by Gianna Jessen is very callused.

• 8 R.A.M. // Sep 16, 2008 at 2:17 am

  Ya know, maybe O’Bama is like Sybil. “Barack” is the “evil” one who wants ALL fetus’s hunted down and murdered, and “Barry”, (or is it “Berry”?), is the “good” one who only wants MOST fetus’s murdered! They chastise Sarah Palin for killing animals, but at least she is using them for food.

  I still do not understand Hussein, if he likes killing babies so much, why did Michelle carry two fetus’s to term?

  Maybe they just hate OTHER FOLKS babies, (as in the “typical white ones”)?

• 9 gafisher // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:46 am

  Gianna Jessen is one of the people Obama would tax most heavily to pay for his daughters to have free abortions. Most ironically, given his Mother’s proclivities and political leanings, Obama himself would almost certainly not be with us had his views been law fifty years ago.

• 10 gafisher // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:53 am

  Skallal Re#7, Perhaps you meant “(Obama’s) persistent opposition to partial abortion birth.” Partial birth abortion doesn’t bother him. Nor does complete birth abortion.

• 11 Darthmeister // Sep 16, 2008 at 7:18 am

  Scott, if the Abortion-Survivor ad doesn’t work for the Dems, they always have an ace in the hole … voter fraud.

• 12 bswen // Sep 16, 2008 at 7:48 am

  Yes, this is satire. Obama did not say these things. Nor is he insecticidal, as the republicans would have you believe. This Born Alive stuff is just another outrageous calculated deception from the far right, McCain-Bush election hit squad, and this satire writer is making fun of that fact.

• 13 bswen // Sep 16, 2008 at 7:49 am

  yeah, um, spell check issues… insecticidal = infanticidal

• 14 JamesonLewis3rd // Sep 16, 2008 at 7:49 am

  The vicious, bone-chilling, cold-hearted villainy projected by BO in an impromptu, off-hand way is eerie, to say the least, with its diabolical substrate of unfettered evil.

• 15 Hawkeye // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:08 am

  Three times in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Three times, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings to die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

  When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate (before Barack came), spoke out on its behalf: “Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that.” But Obama opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. For Obama, Roe v. Wade is more sacred than the life of a newborn.

  From 36 Reasons Against An Obama Presidency.

• 16 gafisher // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:20 am

  Re#13: “insecticidal = infanticidal”

  Yep, that about sums up the “Obama Doctrine.”

• 17 Ms RightWing, Ink // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:20 am

  Ah yes, Hurricane Ike strikes again. We had electricity, cable and Internet. Then we didn’t. Now we do.

  FYI, NE Ohio was hard hit by a Hurricane??? To make matters worse we sent all of our linemen to Texas. When the storm raced through Ohio with hurricane force winds we had no help and had to call in linemen from Pennsylvania and Michigan. Many of my friends and neighbors will not get power until Friday or Saturday.

  Our local grocery store had to toss out thousands of dollars of worth of frozen foods and meat because they lost power. Now who would have thunk that storm would wallop an area thousands of miles away.

  I know Texas was smashed to smithereens but Ohio was not far behind. Trees down all over the place. A storm we will not soon forget

  Now back to our regularly scheduled blog

• 18 gafisher // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

  I see [here] that Obama’s started taking his TelePrompTers along on the campaign trail. Given that his image depends so much more on those devices than on his laughably poor imPrompTu skills, perhaps he can multiply his effectiveness by just staying in Washington and sending the machines to spread the message. That would also make it possible for him to vote Present on more legislation, adding further experience to his rather thin portfolio.

  Here’s another idea for the Obama Campaign — supply TelePrompTers for interviewers and rally audiences so they know which questions to ask.

• 19 Maggie // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:48 am

  Scrapplers,
  Is Ms Jessen still under the sentence of death? Could she still be hunted down and eliminated?
  ……and when did america develop this “Third Reich’ mentality?

  OT….. A great big welcome to all of the newcomers to SF. Take your shoes off and sit a spell.

• 20 Hawkeye // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

  Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in his own words, from the transcript you can find HERE.

  As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved…

  Essentially, I think, as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physiscian (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physiscian, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

  Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed to simply burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform the abortion. Now, if that’s the case… that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.

  Short version:

  If a doctor botches an abortion, and the fetus, “or child” (whatever) survives, then I trust that abortion doctor to make the right decision. I mean, why “burden the original decision of the woman and the (abortion) physician” to get a second opinion from another doctor about the viability of the fetus, “or child” (whatever). After all, “this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births”. So let’s trust the abortion doctor to make sure that the fetus, “or child” (whatever) is “looked after”.

  wv = libelous nominee — I’m not making this up.

• 21 RedRum151 // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

  Insecticidal, bswen(12)?

  Insecticidal?

  Freudian slip?!

• 22 mig // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:58 am

  BSwen, it’s okay to support Obama, after all we still live in America where we can vote. But it is better to stand behind your pick with your head held high supporting the candidate then to point a finger at the truth and demand an omission of outrage.

  Obama supports abortions and infanticide. If you do not a have any moral affliction on these issues, then you can go to the voting booth with a free conscience. But if you can’t reconcile these issues, don’t come here and whine that we shouldn’t talk about it.
  Most of the regulars here are regulars because we agree with Scott Ott. We do believe that it is wrong to not support the rights of a child born alive during an abortion. If we didn’t, we might even support clubbing baby seals to death. Not that you would support that. I’m just saying.

• 23 mig // Sep 16, 2008 at 10:11 am

  Pro-choice lobbyist have dumped over a million dollars into the Democrat party and just over $100,000 into the Repbulicans hands.

  Pro-Life lobbyists have dumped just over $300,000 into Republicans hands and $657 into the Democrats.

  This is for the 2008 cycle.

  And just as a footnote: commercial banks are pretty 50/50 with $12,215,037 to the Dems and $13,385,283 to the Repubs.
  http://www.opensecrets.org/

• 24 Hawkeye // Sep 16, 2008 at 10:17 am

  Ms RW,
  Glad to hear you made it safely through the storm.

• 25 R.A.M. // Sep 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  I have posted this FACT on other blogs, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has had this thought.

  The LIB’s own arguement on “pro-abortion” falls flat on this FACT. The baby that survives the “murder attempt”, does NOT fall under their rhetoric of “my body, my choice”, because the BABY is at that point, no LONGER a part of her body!

  “Your Honor, I rest my case!”

• 26 everthink // Sep 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  You here in your arrogant, self-righteousness call yourselves “pro-life”, but in truth, you just want to make abortion a crime. You call those who oppose this criminalization “pro-abortionist”, regardless of their abhorrence of it.

  You call abortion “infanticide”. However, an infant is a child who no longer depends on its mother for the air it breathes. Therefore, is not a fetus, in fact, a member of its mother’s body?

  How many actual INFANTICIDES have you directly authorized through your conquest and occupation of Iraq?

  Are these not innocent children? Do they not have a soul? Did your God tell you it was permissible for you to kill them?

  What of the innocent children, you have left fatherless, how many fatherless American children will soon judge your actions?
  What man among you would not rise up against foreign invaders? I guess the invader would call you “insurgents”. Of course, you “Chickenhawks” are excused from answering, because your brainless rhetoric is indispensable to the “troops”.

  ET

• 27 Hawkeye // Sep 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  et,
  Nice try at moral equivalence, but I’ve got a better one… the abortion doctor who murders living children outside the womb and throws them out with the medical waste is the same as a murderous dictator who kills his own citizens and throws into mass graves.

  Or this one… the abortion doctor who murders living children outside the womb and throws them out with the medical waste is the same as a lunatic terrorist who orders people to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people.

  Makes no difference. Murder is murder.

• 28 NeaL // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  A note to ET:

  Ronald Reagan was a governor.
  Charles Manson was a community organizer.

• 29 NeaL // Sep 16, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  Here, everthink. Ask your questions to this guy:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

• 30 mindknumbed kid // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:27 pm

  re#27-1, Doesn’t get any more convoluted than that one! So since God told the nation of Israel to go into a city and kill everyone there a few times it means that he is OK with abortion? A pilot on his mission during war that drops a bomb on a city is no different than an abortion “doctor” that facilitates the death of an unborn child?
  According to Noah Webster an infant is “a child in the first period of life, beginning at birth; a young babe.” So what O-be-evil voted for is infanticide, and if that child after birth was likely to remain alive with proper care then anyone that causes the life to not continue is guilty of theft of that life. We always refer to that sort of thing as murder, and it is against the law. So such thinking is completely indefensible from a legal point of view, and the reason murder is against the law is because society has been in universal agreement that murder is morally wrong. Killing someone in self defense (this is generally accepted to apply to a soldier carrying out his duties in a time of war) is not murder, by definition, or by law.
  You are so anxious to defend your god and condemn your enemies that you twist your mind to justify your desires. Convincing yourself is one thing…convincing your Creator is an entirely different task.
  Sad to see someone close enough to truth to see it running around in the dark making sure their eyes are closed too, in case someone comes along with a candle.

• 31 mindknumbed kid // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  re#22 - Of course, the BEST way to support Obama is by running down a busy interstate on a foggy night against traffic. Don’t forget your sign!

• 32 egospeak // Sep 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm

  Everthink, re: 26

  Your foolish consistancy in straining out gnats and swallowing camels remains unparalleled.

  Regards,

  p.s. - Just in case you were wondering… yes that’s an insult.

• 33 Scott Ott // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  Someone has posted this story to the social bookmarking site, Digg. The more people see the story there, and “Digg” it, the more people will be exposed to it. If you would like to see this story get wider circulation, feel free to visit this link, and Digg it.
  BTW, under ScrappleFace story you’ll find a “Share This” gizmo that allows you to submit it to Digg and many other such sites, or even to email it to friends. (Yes, that’s what that thing is for.)

• 34 egospeak // Sep 16, 2008 at 9:14 pm

  Neal, re: 29

  That was an amazing video. How blessed are we as a country to have young people like that?

  I seriously doubt that ET or Y’Obama have the nerve or the moral authority to question that young man about anything.

  Regards,

• 35 skallal // Sep 16, 2008 at 10:45 pm

  Oops, I did have it backwards. I meant Obama’s persistent support of partial birth abortion.

  Count it as a gaffe on my part!

• 36 Obama Hits Back at “Infanticide” Ad « Red Tory v.3.0 // Sep 17, 2008 at 6:36 am

  [...] Note: This is satire, shamelessly cribbed from Scrappleface. [...]

You must log in to post a comment.