The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

real wrote,
"When basic definitions are malleable when used by persons such as..."

... real can be both frustrating and meaningless.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Obama's (and joe's) repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has ALREADY been born is a plain indication that he has no intention of an honest discussion of the issue.

Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has already been born." In fact, show me where I did it once.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Obama (and joe's) repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has ALREADY been born is a plain indication that he has no intention of an honest discussion of the issue.

Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has already been born." In fact, show me where I did it once.

I'd like to see this too! Somebody is either lying, misinterpreting what's stated, or can't read.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Obama's (and joe's) repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has ALREADY been born is a plain indication that he has no intention of an honest discussion of the issue.

Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has already been born." In fact, show me where I did it once.

joefromchicago wrote:

Since it is nearly impossible to prove that a fetus didn't have a heartbeat or draw a breathe outside the uterus

0 Replies

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Obama's (and joe's) repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has ALREADY been born is a plain indication that he has no intention of an honest discussion of the issue.

Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has already been born." In fact, show me where I did it once.

joefromchicago wrote:
Since it is nearly impossible to prove that a fetus didn't have a heartbeat or draw a breathe outside the uterus

real has again grabbed at straws to mis-represent what joe said. The question posed by joe for real is "Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that was already been born."

If the fetus didn't have a heartbeat or draw a breathe outside the uterus, "it ain't a baby that has already been born." It's a dead fetus.

0 Replies

If there was no heartbeat etc then the abortionist has nothing to fear from the Born Alive Act since it specifically states it applies to those that are born alive.

So what is your objection to the law providing protection to those that are born alive?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

roger wrote:
If it's outside the mother's body, and it is still alive, it sounds like a baby to me. I've been pro choice all my life, but this seems like the place to draw the line. How old does a kid have to be to be considered a person?

ditto

I have to agree myself... and add that taking steps to kill the child at or shortly before birth is heinous and most certainly should be illegal.

I'd further like to point out that Roe should never have been considered to include the abortion of viable babies because that was NOT part of the initial decision. I understand the "tug at the ends to win the middle" strategy; but in this case the middle has been pulled disgustingly too far. Partial birth abortion, for instance, really should be considered murder. I couldn't vote to take away a woman's right to do what she will with her own body until viability becomes a possibility. The not so simple truth is: Roe shouldn't be interpreted to include late abortions anyway... and killing a viable human is killing a human. What I got from Roe was that it granted the right to choose... but NOT to take too long making the decision. I don't accept the argument that the right to kill viable children needs to be protected to prevent the encroachment on Roe. If you really think about it; this is disgusting.

0 Replies

roger, I'm not sure anybody disagrees with the fact that when there's a live birth, it's a baby.

If there's a still-birth, it's a dead baby.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
Obama's (and joe's) repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has ALREADY been born is a plain indication that he has no intention of an honest discussion of the issue.

Show me where I made "repeated use of 'fetus' to describe a baby that has already been born." In fact, show me where I did it once.

joefromchicago wrote:
Since it is nearly impossible to prove that a fetus didn't have a heartbeat or draw a breathe outside the uterus

As CI correctly notes, a dead fetus isn't a baby, it's a dead fetus. So you're 0 for 1. Want to try again?

0 Replies

By the way Joe. As a cardinal fan I hate you more and more every day!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If there was no heartbeat etc then the abortionist has nothing to fear from the Born Alive Act since it specifically states it applies to those that are born alive.

So what is your objection to the law providing protection to those that are born alive?

I don't think there is an abjection to that RL, what there is an objection to is how the legislation is written to muddy the waters.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

roger, I'm not sure anybody disagrees with the fact that when there's a live birth, it's a baby.

If there's a still-birth, it's a dead baby.

Not taking sides here (I'm not familiar enough with the law), but from what I have read, that seems to be RL's point.

It seems that he is asking that if a woman has an abortion, and the baby somehow survives and is still alive OUTSIDE the womb, does that infant deserve medical help and legal protection?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

By the way Joe. As a cardinal fan I hate you more and more every day!

Goooood! Your hatred only makes us stronger!

http://media.gamespy.com/columns/image/article/550/550110/the-top-10-unannounced-star-wars-games-and-guides--20040921033110332.jpg

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
If there was no heartbeat etc then the abortionist has nothing to fear from the Born Alive Act since it specifically states it applies to those that are born alive.

So what is your objection to the law providing protection to those that are born alive?

I don't think there is an abjection to that RL, what there is an objection to is how the legislation is written to muddy the waters.

T
K
O

The law was written to address the practice of leaving newborns to die if they were born as a result of abortion but had somehow managed to survive the attempt on their life.

Nurse Jill Stanek and others testified that this is what was occurring where they worked.

Obama was the sole spokesman against the law in the Illinois Senate.

The Dems have picked the most radical standard bearer that they could possibly find and he deserves to wear his radical views front and center where everybody can see them.

If 'Present' Obama wouldn't address the practice of infanticide, is he fit for the office?

0 Replies

Excuse me but most of the politicians take the side of any issue that gets them the most votes. The conseratives decry the system of abortion but don't really do anything but cry about what an injustice it is. As it so happens I agree with this outlook. But I agree that it is up to the individual. This is a decision that will stay with most woman the rest of their lives. I think that people who claim that giving woman who are contemplating abortion more information is putting undue pressure on them are wrong. The more information one has the more rational a decision will be.

0 Replies

If support for infanticide is what will get you the most votes, we are in serious trouble.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
If there was no heartbeat etc then the abortionist has nothing to fear from the Born Alive Act since it specifically states it applies to those that are born alive.

So what is your objection to the law providing protection to those that are born alive?

I don't think there is an abjection to that RL, what there is an objection to is how the legislation is written to muddy the waters.

T
K
O

The law was written to address the practice of leaving newborns to die if they were born as a result of abortion but had somehow managed to survive the attempt on their life.

Yes, I understand this. What you are trying to ignore is the WAY it is written. But I'm sure you are perfectly fine with any legislation which creates a back door into making abortion illegal in the future.

When are you going to address Joe's statement about the liability it creates for a doctor when it can't be 100% determined that a fetus/infant is not in fact alive?

When are you going to address the legal issues I brought up about what specific services would be provided and who would pay?

I don't think that providing care for a failed abortion is a bed thing, but I don't think that this legislation really has much to do with that. A piece of legislation to do this would be very detailed as to the services and responsibilities, and less about the definitions.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Hold on a minute... A failed abortion? This shouldn't be legally possible.

I've always thought of myself as pro-choice (to the extent I've considered myself entitled to an opinion at all, which isn't much since I'm never going to be in a position to have to make such a decision); but I'm starting to go the other way here.

A failed abortion? How can this be interpreted other than as a failure to kill a human being? How does a doctor reconcile responsibility for such an act with the Hippocratic oath? How can the killing of viable babies be excused to protect a right to choose before viability? Isn't the right to choose, before viability, enough to satisfy the rights of women, while offering some protection for viable offspring? Isn't that what Roe actually decided in the first place?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
If there was no heartbeat etc then the abortionist has nothing to fear from the Born Alive Act since it specifically states it applies to those that are born alive.

So what is your objection to the law providing protection to those that are born alive?

I don't think there is an abjection to that RL, what there is an objection to is how the legislation is written to muddy the waters.

T
K
O

The law was written to address the practice of leaving newborns to die if they were born as a result of abortion but had somehow managed to survive the attempt on their life.

Yes, I understand this. What you are trying to ignore is the WAY it is written. But I'm sure you are perfectly fine with any legislation which creates a back door into making abortion illegal in the future.

When are you going to address Joe's statement about the liability it creates for a doctor when it can't be 100% determined that a fetus/infant is not in fact alive?

When are you going to address the legal issues I brought up about what specific services would be provided and who would pay?

I don't think that providing care for a failed abortion is a bed thing, but I don't think that this legislation really has much to do with that. A piece of legislation to do this would be very detailed as to the services and responsibilities, and less about the definitions.

T
K
O

What would YOU do if you were unsure if someone were alive or not?

Would you treat them AS IF they were already dead?

Or would you treat them AS IF they MAY be alive?

Do you think a doctor should be required to show at least as much prudence as your common sense would compel you to do?

0 Replies

OB - I'm not sure where is issue actually plays out. After the passing of the partial-birth abortion ban act, this would be assumed for late term abortions.

If the procedure takes place in the womb, but the fetus/infant is expelled alive, the care given afterwards would be assumed to save the recently born.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea, I just think that the bill should reflect the specifics of the spirit of the bill. I don't think that a bill providing care for what the mother elected to abort, is bad.

My philosophical arguments on abortion surround the woman having choice, and I don't see the this being something that threatens that choice unless it's worded in such a way to create a back door for future legislation. This should be a stand alone bill. RL like o parade it as if it were, but the wording is murky.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know