Washington Times - JEFFREY: Debate in Obama's past

Why am I surprised? the slippery slope of abortion....

__________________
Melissa

thank you ever so much for letting me know what the article was about. I believe I will skip reading it, and will skip any argument on the subject on this board. Whatcha' think Melissa? Want to join me for some hot chocolate and cookies while we watch the sniping ensue?? LOL

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Actually it is about late-term abortions... were the child is born alive because of a botched abortion.

This is a very chilling video..about Obama and how he voted in the Illinois senate and how he tries to explain his vote.
YouTube - Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

There were investigations launched into the woman's testimony. She was found to not be credible. There was no evidence and absolutely no one saw anything like what she described. The fact that she's lying doesn't seem to be of much concern to the pro life movement.

In conclusion, it's not a chilling video. It's ho hum.

Whether what this woman said was true or not, does not change Obama's comments or stand on the issue.

__________________
Melissa

Singe issue voters are an embarrassment to the democratic process.

I agree. It shows the way he thinks on this issue.
The statements that Obama made is a fact that is in the transcript records of the Illinois senate.

That's all well and good, but why would Obama have a problem with the legislation then? The legislation says that if the aborted fetus is still alive than the medical team has an obligation to save it. How can you argue with that? Apparently Obama was the only legislator that had a problem with it. If in fact, it isn't really happening in a clinical situation then why the problem? Why can't we agree that if, God forbid, an attempted abortion results in a live fetus, then that is a human being, that has rights under our constitution and under the Hypocratic oath? If it's really a situation that doesn't happen. . .then why not support the legislation??

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

People have the right under our Constitution to vote any way they feel, that includes basing there decision on a single issue. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you have a problem with our Constitution. Your vote doesn't count anymore than anybody elses, no matter how you base your vote. It's part of living in a democracy. . .deal with it!

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Not that you care, but the legislation defined a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal-protection clause. This, basically, would have been an antiabortion statute. As I understand it, all states, including Illinois, place a responsibility upon medical professionals to provide medical services to a viable fetus. A child born at any gestational age may show signs of life, but would be unable to survive due to any number of problems. The issue is viability. As I understand it, the Illinois State Medical Society agreed with Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama understands the implications of words and the law.

Oh, I do deal with it. And, unfortunatetly we have all had to "deal with it" for 8 years. Single issue voters have been the tool of the Republican party for some time now.

I am definately pro life, but that doesn't negate the fact that I disagree with Obama's policies. So even the I vote prolife, doesn't mean that's the ONLY issue. so judgemental. ick

__________________
Melissa

What other policies do you disagree with?

That's not how I read it. It said that ANY fetus regardless of gestation that was "alive" should be protected and fall under the same rights as any "born" person. Many "wanted" children show signs of life, but are unable to survive. . .it doesn't diminish their rights as a living human being. So who gets to determine "viability" under your beliefs?

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Proof? Or just non-sense rhetoric because people don't have the same views as you?

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

If we are discussing abortion - Abortion Issue Guides One in Five Voters

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. If you want to know how to determine viability, ask a doctor.

You know, that's one of the reason's why "your" party doesn't want the gov't to be involved in the medical care we receive (even though it already does in 60%) - because of a perceived ability to remove the autonomy of MDs making medically appropriate decisions ....

I don't think "my" doctor gets to determine viability. She's just a practitioner. . .she's not some all knowing force that can determine who lives and dies. She is free to give her opinion. . .but she is no authority on "life force."

You don't know my "party." I'm a registered independent.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

I find it laughable that it's Republicans being accused of being single-issue voters.

I put the "your" in quotes for that very reason, but I can guess you aren't a fan of universal health. If you are, I apologize.

The issue is labeling a nonvialbe fetus a person with all the rights of a person under equal protection. We aren't talking about "your" doctor.

Did you look at the gallup poll? 11% v. 30%.

And, I didn't say single issue pro-choice voters had any higher moral ground ....

Yes. . .it applies to both sides of the aisle. And like I said before. . .people have the Consitutional right to vote anyway they see fit, whether you like it or not. What's your point? Some people base their votes on the abortion issue? That's completely their perogative.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Do you believe making abortion illegal will stop abortions?

Yes. . .to some people it's a VERY important issue. No big surprise there. People get to decide how they vote based on their own personal views. . .again. . .what's your point?

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Cocaine being illegal hasn't stopped people from using it, but that doesn't mean it should be made legal.

Just think.... if Obama wins by just 5%, we can thank those single issue voters who only vote pro-abortion.

don't change the subject .... do you believe making abortion illegal will stop abortions?

I do happen to be a fan of universal health. . .too bad I have never seen a viable plan.

Again though. . .who gets to determine what a "nonviable" fetus is? If it's alive then I think there is an obligation to try and save it. . .no questions asked. My friends daughters boyfriend was shot in the chest this weekend. . .no questions asked whether or not he was "viable". . .only trying to save him. It doesn't look like he will make it. . .but I don't see anybody walking away from him and refusing him care because of that.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

I am sorry to hear of your loss.

But, if his brainstem was blown, the professionals would not be held liable for not continuing to save him.

Of course not! And I don't even support making them illegal. . .our Supreme Court has determined that a woman has that choice in this country. I completely support that. In an ideal world, I would hope that there would be no need for one or that nobody would feel the need to choose to have one. But I live in reality. . .where my morality does not apply to everyone. In the same breath, I think it is wrong for a doctor to walk away from a living child just because it came to be through a botched abortion.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

That wasn't the issue in Illinois, the issue was re-defining a nonviable fetus as a person with equal protection rights.

All abortions? No.

Some abortions? Yes.

I wasn't changing the subject. It appeared your point was that because changing the legal status of the procedure wouldn't change the fact that it would still occur that doing anything but keeping it legal was pointless. That premise is, IMHO, faulty. Our laws highlight what we as a nation *value*... and I do not value abortion. I do value life.

And certainly, the presence of a certain percentage of voters who only vote one issue is about as on topic as possible.

Liable or not. . .nobody is denying him care. It is my understanding that he is just on life support . . .no brain function. It's my understanding that it is up to the family to "pull the plug" if they see fit. Again. . .the hospital and medical team are not denying him care.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Again though. . .who defines "viable fetus".

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Yikes .... we agree

The last time I worked in an emergency dept was 2001. I would think technology has come along a bit, but then, if a woman was 22 weeks or less and was at a point of labor that we could not stop the birth, we did not send her to the OB unit. We allowed the birth to occur and we allowed the fetus (baby) to die. I sat a few times cradling a dying baby that was not "viable."

Now, in all states, a viable baby must be assisted. The Illinios law removed the "viable" part and changed the status of a fetus to a "person." As a constitutional issue, that is huge and Sen. Obama recognized this.

The doctor using accepted medical standards. Not the legislature.

The bill wasn't anit-abortion or protecting babies (fetuses) in the womb, though. It was about the rights of a baby who was born alive during an attempted abortion. The term 'pre-viable fetus' was a term that Obama used:
However, once outside the womb, the baby is no longer a 'fetus' but a baby or child. Also, when you are talking about a pre-viable fetus, you are talking about a baby who would not be able to survive outside of the womb...if the baby is born alive (despite attempts to kill the baby prior to birth), then obviously the baby is viable since the baby has then proven that they are capable of living (even if only for a short period of time).

See. . . this is where I have the problem. A "born" baby becomes a citizen and has the same rights as anybody else. I'm sorry that you had to comfort a dying baby. My dad died in an emergency room. I can gaurantee you that nobody just held him waithing for him to die because they knew he was no longer vialbe. They did everything humanly possible to save him. . .even though they knew that it was a futile attempt. I think that a baby has that same right.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

LOL! See, I'm not so unreasonable.

I just think that at a certain point it is up to the family. . .and not for the medical staff to make assumptions. If the family says "no recessitation" no attempts to prolong the life of the baby. . .then fine. But in the moment. . .if the baby is alive when it is born. . .it is the reponsibility of the medical staff to save it. Just like they do when somebody comes into an emergency room when looks like there is no hope that they will survive.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

I sat and held the hands of many dying people once it was apparent we could not help them. Why torture someone with a gunshot through the brainstem. Or, why continue life support for a 98 year old whose heart has failed, but continues to beat a few times a minute.

In the example of a nonviable infant, there is nothing humanly possible to do that is humane.

And, ETA, again - there are/were already laws to require life support for any viable life.

This Bill had nothing to do with the wishes of the family. It is all about redefining a "person," equal protection and liability.

I still think that ANYTHING born alive is a "person". . .viable or not. I will read through the bill again though.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

The legislation would have granted personhood to a fetus. Moreover, there are already laws on the books which protect children.

Politics aside, it turns my stomach to think that someone could just allow another to die without some type of comfort, even just being swaddled and held.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

It ought to turn ALL our stomachs that someone would "suck life" from it's intended purpose.

It is a human life that is formed at conception. The zygote contains 46 chromosomes, half contributed by each parent, in a unique configuration that has never existed before and never will again. It is not plant life or animal life, nor is it mere tissue like a tumor. From the moment of conception, the new life is genetically different from his or her mother, and is not a part of her body like her tonsils or appendix. This new human being is a separate individual living inside the mother.


It's ugly but people need to know what really happens in the procedure.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure

A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

(Remember this is a live baby)

B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.

E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.


And he APPROVES this ????

Know what you are VOTING "FOR"
PEOPLE!!!

and you can't be "halfway" or fence sitting on this one.. it's All or Nothing. Life is Life.

Scary!
X

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Those of us who are pro choice understand the procedure. If you believe that having an abortion is wrong, please don't have one.

Here's a better written article: How Valid is Palin's Abortion Attack on Obama? - TIME