I know what Slublog is talking about:

Obama, who is the father of two girls, likely watched the 20-week sonogram that is now a regular part of the pregnancy experience for most couples. I simply cannot comprehend how a father who saw his children in the womb during that sonogram can be so pro-abortion. The minute I saw pictures of my daughters on that computer screen, I was smitten and struck by the humanity of the fetus.

If Obama saw that, and remains a pro-abortion tool, then he’s an idiot or worse. However, that doesn't explain his position on this particular issue. There is much debate over when life begins, but some sort of consensus exists that it happens once the baby has left the birth canal. Based on his votes, that's not enough for Obama. His position and his votes are based entirely on the intent of the mother - if the mom intended to kill the baby, it should die even if it left the birth canal and survived the abortion procedure.

Sheesh, Obama is disgusting.

Ed Morrissey hits the nail on the head regarding Obama and infanticide:

If child abuse is an evil that must be confronted, then infanticide is even more evil. What did Obama do when he saw this evil? Did he confront it, as one of God’s soldiers? Or did he facilitate it?

The answer now from the Obama campaign is clear. Obama facilitated evil in order to protect abortion on demand, which was never threatened by S.1082 in the first place. That much apparently wasn’t above his pay grade.

What other conclusion can you come to after you read this article:

That family had wanted a baby, but when they learned that theirs would be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. For that, they went to Christ Hospital in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago, which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ.

In “induced labor” or “prostaglandin” abortion — a common procedure at the hospital. The doctor administers drugs that dilate the mother’s cervix and induce contractions, forcing a small baby out of the mother’s uterus. Most of the time, the baby dies in utero, killed by the force of the violent contractions. But it does not always work. Such abortions sometimes result in a premature baby being born alive. Sometimes the survivors live for just a few minutes, but sometimes for several hours. No one tried to save or treat them — it is hard to save someone you just mauled and tried to kill. But something had to be done with them for the minutes and hours during which they struggled for air.

Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says.

Stanek was horrified by this experience. This was not an abortion — it was something worse. Could it be legal to take a living and breathing person of any size, already born and outside his mother’s womb, and just leave him to die, without any thought of treatment?

First thought - that hospital needs to change its name, and the United Church of Christ needs to take a long, hard look at itself for allowing this sort of thing to occur at a hospital affiliated with it. Disgusting.

But back to Obama - when legislation was proposed to stop this sort of barbarism, he actually spoke against it in the Illinois Senate. Let that sink in for a moment.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development"...

Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor that day in opposition to the bill:

There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional 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 … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or 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 was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.

But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.

Most people, whatever their view on abortion, agree that the Constitution at least guarantees the rights of born and living human beings. Barack Obama does not agree. For him, the Constitution exists primarily in order to guarantee the right to abortion, and other rights of human persons — born and alive — are secondary. Beginning with abortion rights as his premise, he draws as his conclusion the unfortunate but necessary legality of infanticide.

Christians who are thinking of voting for this guy really really need to take a long look at this episode. It's legitimate to disagree on the morality of war or domestic economic and welfare policy; but infanticide?

More food for thought.

Awful, just awful:

Steven Curtis Chapman’s youngest child died Wednesday afternoon after being struck by a car driven by her teenage brother in the driveway of the family’s Williamson County home.

Maria, one of the Christian singer’s six children, was taken by LifeFlight to Vanderbilt Hospital, which confirmed the death, according to Laura McPherson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

The 5-year-old was hit by an SUV driven by her teenage brother, she said. Police did not give the driver’s name.

The teen was driving a Toyota Land Cruiser down the driveway of the rural home at about 5:30 p.m. and several children were playing in the area, McPherson said. He did not see Maria in the driveway before the vehicle struck her, she said.

“It appears to be a terrible accident,’’ McPherson said.

No charges are expected, she said. The accident was witnessed by two other children; the entire family was home at the time, McPherson said.

I met SCC once; I recall that he was very short. But also very nice. My heart breaks for him, his wife, and especially his son. They're in my prayers tonight.