The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.

Have you ever read the text of the bill?

There were actually several (with various amendments proposed) because it took several sessions to get it passed. Let me know which one you would like to discuss.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
real life wrote:
The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.

Have you ever read the text of the bill?

real and his companions have no idea what they are talking about; all they know is that a fetus has a soul and therefore a human. Beyond that, whether it's about laws and their misconception about biology, they have no clue. Their primary goal to stop all abortions is not only not realistic, but beyond their "control;" something that extremists are won't to do. After all, that's why they are extremists with no common sense or reality.

Once a baby is born alive, it's not a fetus.

hello?

0 Replies

I do agree with you that the issue of a failed abortion is a separate issue from abortion. A for offering services, I wonder what services you think should be offered?

I think the reality is that a "failed" abortion is to say that the fetus was not destroyed while still inside the woman. The act that ultimately destroys the born is still done while still in the womb.

This is all an aside for me. I think that the law can go either way on this topic. This doesn't affect a woman's right to choose.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real wrote: Once a baby is born alive, it's not a fetus.

I have never argued this point. "hello!"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
real life wrote:
The bill was written concerning babies that are born alive after a failed abortion.

Have you ever read the text of the bill?

There were actually several (with various amendments proposed) because it took several sessions to get it passed. Let me know which one you would like to discuss.

I'd be happy to discuss them all. Just provide links to all of the versions of the bill and amendments and I'll read them for myself.

0 Replies

from the 2001-02 session

Quote:

92_SB1095eng

SB1095 Engrossed LRB9206290REdv

1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:

6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.

from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html

Would you have voted in favor of this , Joe?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Would you have voted in favor of this , Joe?

No, I don't think I would. As I see it, Obama's point is a fair one: subsection (c) of the proposed act impinges too much on the constitutional right protected by Roe v. Wade. I prefer the version that was ultimately enacted:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36) Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant. (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

0 Replies

So exactly HOW does providing medical care and legal protection for a child OUTSIDE the womb impinge on abortion?

0 Replies

Your pushing "legal protection" before it's considered biologically independent. Good try, but no cupie doll.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So exactly HOW does providing medical care and legal protection for a child OUTSIDE the womb impinge on abortion?

The bill, as initially proposed, would have extended legal protection to all human beings "born alive" immediately. Being "born alive," however, is defined to include breathing or having a heartbeat, and the bill didn't provide any exceptions for legal abortions. I think the chilling effect such a statute would have had on abortion is clear -- as its sponsors undoubtedly were aware. Since it is nearly impossible to prove that a fetus didn't have a heartbeat or draw a breathe outside the uterus, every second-trimester abortion would be a potential murder scene. No doctor would perform such a procedure for fear of being charged under the statute. As it stands now, the law provides an exception for legal abortion, so this objection is satisfied. I wouldn't say it's a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation, but it's probably the best that we could expect to come out of the Illinois legislature.

0 Replies

A baby outside the womb is not a fetus. You speak of 'the fetus' breathing or having a heartbeat outside the womb.

But it is not a fetus if it has been born, right?

If the baby is living outside the mother's womb, she is by definition no longer 'burdened by it' and it is no longer 'impinging on her freedom'.

Why is it essential that the baby die?

Killing a baby that is outside the womb is NOT an abortion, it is infanticide.

0 Replies

Nobody needs to kill an organism that has no ability to breath on its own.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

A baby outside the womb is not a fetus. You speak of 'the fetus' breathing or having a heartbeat outside the womb.

But it is not a fetus if it has been born, right?

Depends on what you mean by "born."

real life wrote:

Killing a baby that is outside the womb is NOT an abortion, it is infanticide.

Who said anything about "killing?"

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
A baby outside the womb is not a fetus. You speak of 'the fetus' breathing or having a heartbeat outside the womb.

But it is not a fetus if it has been born, right?

Depends on what you mean by "born."

The statute defined what it meant to be 'born alive'.

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Killing a baby that is outside the womb is NOT an abortion, it is infanticide.

Who said anything about "killing?"

What happens when a baby is born and you refuse it medical care?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nobody needs to kill an organism that has no ability to breath on its own.

So, should we throw all venilators in the trash bin?

Are only people who can breathe on their own worthy of life? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
real life wrote:
A baby outside the womb is not a fetus. You speak of 'the fetus' breathing or having a heartbeat outside the womb.

But it is not a fetus if it has been born, right?

Depends on what you mean by "born."

The statute defined what it meant to be 'born alive'.

Yes, indeed it does. But the statute doesn't say anything about "fetuses." So when you start talking about fetuses being born, you're obviously not talking in the same terms as the statute.

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
real life wrote:
Killing a baby that is outside the womb is NOT an abortion, it is infanticide.

Who said anything about "killing?"

What happens when a baby is born and you refuse it medical care?

You tell me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Nobody needs to kill an organism that has no ability to breath on its own.

So, should we throw all venilators in the trash bin?

Are only people who can breathe on their own worthy of life?

"Venilators?" ROTF

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What happens when a baby is born and you refuse it medical care?

What happens when any other American is denied medical care?

Horse before the cart RL.

You like the word "murder" because of it's emotional undertones, but it's a ultimately failed use of the word/idea.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real still doesn't realize that the 47 million Americans without health care includes "children and infants." He's still worried more about the unborn.

0 Replies

Sounds to me like all of you could pass the bar in any state for crooked lawyer.

0 Replies

The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know