The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

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

Second thread:

I hate getting in this,... but elective "partial birth" is too frequently killing a viable human for comfort. 20 weeks after the fact seems like an inordinate amount of time to make a decision, really, and I've read that some are performed as late as 7 months… which is well beyond the point where a babies head being pulled out (instead of scissors going in it) results in a viable baby. I don't believe that was ever supposed to be covered by Roe Vs Wade. Baby Amelia was born at 21 weeks and I have difficult time imagining how a man who dedicated his life to Medicine Kills kids more viable for a living. It just doesn't make sense to me.

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?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Second thread:

I hate getting in this,... but elective "partial birth" is too frequently killing a viable human for comfort. 20 weeks after the fact seems like an inordinate amount of time to make a decision, really, and I've read that some are performed as late as 7 months… which is well beyond the point where a babies head being pulled out (instead of scissors going in it) results in a viable baby. I don't believe that was ever supposed to be covered by Roe Vs Wade. Baby Amelia was born at 21 weeks and I have difficult time imagining how a man who dedicated his life to Medicine Kills kids more viable for a living. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The Amelia video is still up and it is not at all gross (I would never do that). It allows you to witness the miracle of a healthy 10 ounce baby girl's size when born; and then she leaves the hospital a healthy baby girl. NOT a disgusting anti-abortion link, so please view it... and see if you can still defend the idea that someone should have the right to kill baby Amelia. Barbarism.

real life wrote:

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?

You're showing your card RL. The point here is that it has been outlined by JFC, that this legislation would create a new liability for doctors performing late 2nd and 3rd term abortions.

Answer the questions I've directed you to. Those are legitimate concerns. A bill of this nature should be stand alone. Dont' you understand that?

T
K
O

Diest: I see the woman as the custodian of the unborn's life rights as well and mostly just mind my own business on this issue... but that is before viability. I do not think it is asking too much to make a legally binding decision in the first Trimester. Once a fetus, like Amelia, becomes viable; her rights as a human being should be recognized. Read Roe. It was never intended to legalize the murder of viable children.

This is what I got from reading Roe:
1. A woman has the right to choose up until the baby becomes viable,
2. Thereafter the baby has a right to not be killed because it is viable

I can't imagine why anyone on the Pro-Choice side would consider this inadequate.

Beyond viability, any way you slice it, abortion really is murder.

Philosophically I can understand why Pro-Lifers would argue that life begins at conception... and agree with their arguments, almost to the end. The problems I see in that position is that I think the already viable life's (mom's) rights supercede the rights of the not yet viable fetus. Should she choose to carry that fetus to viability; the potentially viable child should have rights, just the same as if she were already born by today's definitions. Baby Amelia's (who is just an example) parents should have no more right to kill her, based on what day she exits the womb.

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

I guess the next question is who decides that a baby (born after a botched abortion is viable)?

According to Obama, it's the abortionist....Below is a quote from Obama where he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because it requires that the doctor performing the abortion get an independent opinion from another doctor on the viability of an infant/fetus that is still moving outside the womb after an attempted abortion.

Obama wrote:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

I find it very offensive that Obama is questioning the necessity or reasonableness of calling in another doctor to determine if a wriggling infant/fetus is viable or not. This would not seem to be too much to ask when a life is at stake.

Let's just step back for a second and view the original bill for what it was: a thinly veiled attempt to outlaw second and third trimester abortions. Once the bill was amended to include an exception for legal abortions, the controversy ceased and the amended bill became law. The result: nothing changed -- nothing changed. Doctors in Illinois could still perform abortions, and they were still obligated to make reasonable attempts to save the life of any infant who was born alive as a result of an abortion.

The lack of any significant opposition to the amended bill is, I think, sufficient proof that the original bill was designed to make legal abortions difficult or impossible to obtain. Once the bill was amended its proponents lost interest, since their focus wasn't really on protecting the rights of children, it was just on limiting the rights of women. But then that has been the case for years in Illinois, where abortion opponents have tried everything to curtail or eliminate the right guaranteed by Roe but where they have no real concern for pregnant women. Indeed, that has been the case for years all across the United States.

Why shouldn't the doctor (the person you referred to as the "abortionist") be the person to make that call? Does your argument assume that the doctor would default to a specific answer? If so, that's a bit presumptuous. What does a second doctor offer?

Diest wrote:

Why shouldn't the doctor (the person you referred to as the "abortionist") be the person to make that call? Does your argument assume that the doctor would default to a specific answer? If so, that's a bit presumptuous. What does a second doctor offer?

Yes, I do assume that the doctor would default to a specific answer. After all, he's just botched what he was paid to do. With everybody in the US out to make themselves rich by litigation, I'm sure a malpractice suit would be on his mind. It would be so easy to avoid any danger to his career by simply jabbing those scissors once again into the brain of that wriggling fetus.

Remember this is a partial-birth abortion procedure we're talking about...I can't even conceive of being capable of doing such a procedure....but some doctors obviously have less qualms. What makes you think that such a doctor (who has no compunction for killing the fetus with all but the head outside the woman's body) would suddenly have a change of heart simply because the head slipped out before the job was finished?

You're talking about something all together different than what this bill was about. Any action taken by the doctor after birth is not covered in said legislation.