I've mentioned before that Sen. Barack Obama's vote to kill (excuse the pun) a bill that would affirm that babies born alive deserve medical treatment -- even if they happen to have survived a botched abortion. I've also tried to make the case that this incident really shouldn't be classified as an "abortion" vote.

The reasons are numerous:

• We're talking about born babies.
• The legislation itself specifically noted that it didn't apply to any "rights" granted by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
• Even NARAL and Sen. Barbara Boxer were not opposed to the legislation.

What this specific case dealt with was reaffirming what had turned into an ethical grey area for some -- the belief by some doctors that if the baby survived an abortion, the fact that the original intent was abortion and not birth meant that the child had no human rights.

This is the position Barack Obama supported. It is infanticide -- and we should call it that.

A related post over at Newsbusters, prompted me to make this very same point over there.

While my post received some support from a couple of other commenters. The post's original author was determined to conflate abortion and infanticide -- even if that means winning no one to his side. He is willing to occupy the moral high ground alone and anyone who wants to try to win nominal pro-choicers to the pro-life side can pound sand.

This is foolhardy, counterproductive, and it's good that many pro-lifers have moved beyond what amounts to little more than "I'm right and if you disagree you can go to h-e-double hockeysticks."

Here is the exchange:

This was not an abortion vote
August 18, 2008 - 19:49 ET by hoystory

This issue isn't about abortion. This is about infanticide.

Obama's been saying that this was about abortion in order to muddy the waters.

All this was about was babies born alive, which the language Obama voted to put in the bill (before voting it down) made perfectly clear. On this subject, we need to stop using the term abortion. It's infanticide -- and Obama doesn't have much of a problem with it.

That's what Obama deserves condemnation for.

Ummm
August 18, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Warner Todd Huston

ALL abortion is infanticide.

C'mon
August 18, 2008 - 22:26 ET by hoystory

Think about this for a second Huston.

Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus inside the mother's womb (or birth canal in the case of partial-birth abortion).

Infanticide is the murder of an infant -- a born baby.

Which is the best way to phrase this situation politically to win the nominal pro-choicers to our side?

Your way? Conflating infanticide with abortion? (Which these people support to one degree or another.)

My way? Setting aside the term abortion altogether (because they support it to some degree) and focusing on the fact that it is indeed infanticide -- a born baby that we are talking about.

It was the fact that partial-birth abortion was so dangerously close to infanticide that famously won Daniel Patrick Moynihan to our side on that issue.

By labeling this abortion, you give Obama cover.

The murder of a baby before it is born, after it is born, when it's a teenager or when in becomes elderly and a "burden" on society is wrong.

By labeling this infanticide and not abortion, we put Obama to the left of Barbara Boxer on this issue for crying out loud.

I don't
August 18, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Warner Todd Huston

I don't think it advisable or desirable to massage murder for political points. Abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

And this isn't abortion
August 19, 2008 - 02:06 ET by hoystory

I'm sorry, but it isn't. Allowing a born baby to die through purposeful inaction -- which is what Obama supported -- is not an abortion. By conflating it with abortion, it loses some of its moral force. Not with you or me, but with that key middle of the American public.

It's not about political points. It's about winning people to your point of view.

You seem perfectly willing to alienate the voters we need to put limits on abortion and eventually return the culture to one where abortion is no longer an accepted option. You sit there on your high horse, proud that you're not making distinctions between the murder of infants and the murder of fetuses.

Our views, at the very most, are shared by a plurality of the American people. We need to walk the culture back to the pre-Roe days in order to get Roe repealed and the vast majority of abortions halted (there will always be some).

To do that, we need to start with the most morally outrageous cases. That is why the Congress managed to get the partial birth abortion ban in place. But, of course, from your viewpoint, that was just "massag[ing] murder for political points." Right? After all, it's still perfectly legal to murder in other ways.

The pro-life movement finally got their foot in the door of restricting abortion by highlighting the barbarity of one form of the procedure.

Now, Obama's position is far more extreme than the case of partial-birth abortion. Far more.

Yet, instead of isolating on the murder of an infant, you go and conflate it with abortion, which has a totally different meaning to the people we need to win to our side.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don't see it...
August 19, 2008 - 02:14 ET by Warner Todd Huston

You say...

It's not about political points. It's about winning people to your point of view.

That was a directly contradictory sentence. Winning people to your side IS making political points!

You are triangulating and triangulating means that your principles aren't as important as making political points. Make all the excuses you want, but it is plain.

I also didn't say that the anti-BAIP position is "abortion." I said that abortion is infanticide. There clearly is a difference, but to excuse abortion like you are doing merely because it is a difficult political position is unprincipled. You may want to pretend there is a large enough difference between allowing a new born to lie unattended to die and straight out, in the womb abortion. But there is little difference to me.

Certainly I understand you political point, granted. but to get all huffy at me as if I've ruined your triangulating? Well, you are attacking the wrong hill, Teddy. I ain't the one you need to fight.

By the way, props to you for saying "to spite your face." Most people wrongly say "despite your face."

Excusing abortion?
August 19, 2008 - 02:30 ET by hoystory

I, in no way, shape or form ever excused abortion. Ever. Not once.

If winning people to the pro-life side = making political points, then OK. It isn't but if you can believe it all you want.

I'm triangulating? By saying that abortion is killing a human fetus while infanticide is killing a born infant? That's not triangulation. It's dictionary definitions. I deplore both. Just for good measure. I also oppose patricide, matricide and regicide. Am I still triangulating?

I also didn't say that the anti-BAIP position is "abortion."

Headline:

Campaign Admits Obama Lied About Abortion Vote, Media Asleep

I want abortions to stop more than you do. How can I tell? Because I'm willing to do what I can to stop some today, by pointing out how extreme Barack Obama is on the issue. Your position seems to be that of the nutjobs who park those buses with the photos of aborted children on the sides of them outside of elementary schools.

You don't win anyone to your side that way, you don't decrease the number of abortions, but no one will accuse you of being "unprincipled" on a blog.

Now...
August 19, 2008 - 02:55 ET by Warner Todd Huston

I want abortions to stop more than you do.

Now you are just being an idiot.

I don't care how great you think you are or how smart you think your triangulating method is. I am telling you that there is no difference morally between infanticide and abortion.

None.

Zip.

Nada.

That's it.

Massage things all you want.

By the way, I am not saying YOU are unprincipled. I am saying triangulating is unprincipled. I didn't assume that you have no principles re abortion.

Really?
August 19, 2008 - 03:48 ET by hoystory

Now you are just being an idiot.

No, you're being thick-headed. I have not once equivocated or said abortion was less evil than infanticide or regicide or patricide, etc. What I have said is that they are different.

Bearing false witness and coveting thy neighbor's wife are both sins, but they are different sins.

You call my position "massaging" and "triangulation." So, if I could get a law passed tomorrow that banned all third-trimester abortions you'd reject it because that would be "triangulating" and creating a "moral difference" between an 18-week-old fetus and a 19-week-old fetus?

With that "triangulation," I would theoretically save thousands of babies every year for how ever many years it takes to get the law and society back to whatever your (and my) position on abortion is (if what that is is even possible).

You would sacrifice a small victory sooner -- and all the children that would come into the world as a result of it -- for what you would hope would be a major win 10, 20 or 30 years down the line.

You'd be able to puff out your chest and say you're principled -- while tens or hundreds of thousands of more babies are aborted.

Now...
August 19, 2008 - 04:40 ET by Warner Todd Huston

Now you are boring me.

I've stated my position and seen yours. We won't be moving past this stage, I can see. We have little else to discuss. Have a great day.

I obviously didn't convince Huston, and that's unfortunate -- he's not going to help the cause of reducing abortions, he's not even going to be neutral. He's instead a negative. Thankfully some other people recognize that.