The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

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.

Definition of Fetus

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

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

Once the child has been born, it's not a fetus. It's that simple.

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.

real life wrote:

Once the child has been born, it's not a fetus. It's that simple.

Quote:

Definition of Fetus

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

Call it whatever you like. It is a matter of little importance to me.

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You forgot this one.

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.

You can pretend it's of little importance, but it IS the issue.

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You forgot this one.

Haven't forgot it at all. I remember very well that you were unable to do anything but punt.

real life wrote:

You can pretend it's of little importance, but it IS the issue.

How do you figure? For you, killing a fetus is the same as killing an infant. Whether it's pre-born or post-born is of little consequence.

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You forgot this one.

Haven't forgot it at all. I remember very well that you were unable to do anything but punt.

You ask a rhetorical question and you don't know the answer? Wow, that's a special kind of stupid.

real life wrote:

You can pretend it's of little importance, but it IS the issue.

How do you figure? For you, killing a fetus is the same as killing an infant. Whether it's pre-born or post-born is of little consequence.

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You forgot this one.

Haven't forgot it at all. I remember very well that you were unable to do anything but punt.

You ask a rhetorical question and you don't know the answer? Wow, that's a special kind of stupid.

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:

You can pretend it's of little importance, but it IS the issue.

How do you figure? For you, killing a fetus is the same as killing an infant. Whether it's pre-born or post-born is of little consequence.

A 'post-born fetus' is called a baby, Joe.

When a baby is born, does it have the right to protection under the law, even if it was an abortion which triggered the birth event and the baby wasn't intended to survive?

Once it is born, is it ok just to leave the baby to die? (Remember, it's not a fetus. It's been born.)

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You forgot this one.

Haven't forgot it at all. I remember very well that you were unable to do anything but punt.

You ask a rhetorical question and you don't know the answer? Wow, that's a special kind of stupid.

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

I'd like a real answer from you, but you punted because you can't deal with the issue.

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

What a childish response.

You are completely unable to defend Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Act in Illinois.

Both you and he use the same lame tactic of continuing to refer to a baby that has been born as a 'fetus', so that you can imply that it has and should have no legal rights.

Obama's only option on this is to admit that he was completely in error. But I suspect his ego is too big to allow it, and probably the same is true of you.

A baby that has been born should have every legal right that any other person enjoys, whether or not their birth event was triggered by an abortion.

No question about it, and you've been utterly incapable of presenting ANY substantive argument otherwise.

real life wrote:

What a childish response.

You are completely unable to defend Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Act in Illinois.

Both you and he use the same lame tactic of continuing to refer to a baby that has been born as a 'fetus', so that you can imply that it has and should have no legal rights.

Obama's only option on this is to admit that he was completely in error. But I suspect his ego is too big to allow it, and probably the same is true of you.

A baby that has been born should have every legal right that any other person enjoys, whether or not their birth event was triggered by an abortion.

No question about it, and you've been utterly incapable of presenting ANY substantive argument otherwise.

Take your ball and go home, real life. You lose.

real has the bad habit of making statements without any evidence or support for them, than cries foul that he's being attacked when he has no answer - usually by ignoring questions posed to him.

evasion

That's rich coming from you, after several days of watching you avoid admitting that after a birth takes place you have a baby, not a fetus.