[quote]Gael wrote:
If a person supports a woman’s right to choose, why does it matter if the fetus is killed before or after it leaves the womb?
[/quote]
That is the most amazing thing I’ve ever heard. I’m holding onto that FOREVER.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He grandstanded with the lives of our fellow Americans, for political gain.
Kind of like Bush did by starting the war in the first place?
[/quote]
Presidents don’t start wars, congress does. I don’t know why this isn’t sinking in? Did he go into Iraq without congress’ approval?
[quote]Gael wrote:
If a person supports a woman’s right to choose, why does it matter if the fetus is killed before or after it leaves the womb?
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.[/quote]
In the womb, her body her choice. Outside the womb it is an individual with all the rights and privileges of an individual. Killing it is murder!
[quote]Gael wrote:
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.[/quote]
The two choices are not nearly morally equivalent. That is why you have many pro-choice advocates who are against partial birth abortion.
[quote]pat wrote:
Now I am not a republican, but this pretty much sums it up in my book.[/quote]
That’s good stuff there.
[quote]Gael wrote:
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.[/quote]
Would you kill a pre-mature baby because it wasn’t full term?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bush had the backing of congress. Please go check the congressional record if you doubt me.
Or, are you going to tell me that he went in all on his own with out the backing of congress? Please tell me you are smarter than this.
[/quote]
So when Obama becomes president, you’ll support all of his decisions as long as he has the backing of congress? Glad to hear it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Bush had the backing of congress. Please go check the congressional record if you doubt me.
Or, are you going to tell me that he went in all on his own with out the backing of congress? Please tell me you are smarter than this.
So when Obama becomes president, you’ll support all of his decisions as long as he has the backing of congress? Glad to hear it.[/quote]
If - and that’s a huge if - Obama becomes President and he feels the need to our troops in harm’s way to defend and protect our country, I will support him and the vote of the congress 100%.
All of his decisions? Since you are such an anal retentive bitch about the logical fallacies - what do you call that sorry piece of shit move you just tried to pull?
You are probably the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.
[quote]Gael wrote:
If a person supports a woman’s right to choose, why does it matter if the fetus is killed before or after it leaves the womb?
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.[/quote]
I’m pro-choice.
That said, this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
[quote]Gael wrote:
If a person supports a woman’s right to choose, why does it matter if the fetus is killed before or after it leaves the womb?
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.[/quote]
I thin this is a good summary. I actually do think this. But trying to do it all at once is complicated and has a high chance of failure.
I am of the belief that human fetuses are people and killing one is killing a person. There are a lot of people who disagree. The facts tend to agree with a prolife stance. But in order to getting folks to realize this is a matter of steps. Protect babies born alive, get rid of partial birth abortion. Do away with 3rd trimester abortions and so on.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Gael wrote:
If a person supports a woman’s right to choose, why does it matter if the fetus is killed before or after it leaves the womb?
The two choices are morally equivalent, so to say Obama’s stance is “unforgivable” is to say all pro choice politicians are unforgivable.
I’m pro-choice.
That said, this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.[/quote]
You didn’t read it right. If you believe that the baby that happens to survive an abortion deserves treatment to help it live, then what is the difference between that baby and the baby who remains in utero? Answer: the only difference is that the baby in utero is luckier.
When, do you think, does life begin?
Obama, simply put, is a piece of shit.
It’s funny that people assumed I am pro choice.
In most cases, doctors use an injection prior to extraction to insure that the baby is not born alive.
To say that this is OK but that killing it 2 minutes later is evil is just priceless.
There is obviously no moral difference.
Sigh.
Respect to pat for being the only level headed person in this thread. Beowolf, you are as substantive as ever.
I find it silly that politicians would have to beat their chests and even come up with a piece of legislation like this Child Born Alive thing.
The law is quite clear here in Australia and I would assume it is VERY similar in the USA regarding this issue.
‘A fetus becomes a person with all the rights the law affords them as soon as it takes it first breath and has independent circulation from its mother.’
The umblical cord still attached doesnt affect much as the child after it leaves the womb does indeed have its own heart beat (indpendent circulation) and can survive with this being cut.
So if it leaves the womb alive then you can’t kill it without commiting murder (or manslaughter depending).
The bill is redundant.
Maybe Obama just like wasting time with stupid bills?
[quote]Spry wrote:
I find it silly that politicians would have to beat their chests and even come up with a piece of legislation like this Child Born Alive thing.
The law is quite clear here in Australia and I would assume it is VERY similar in the USA regarding this issue.[/quote]
Why assume? What you say does not work out that way in practice in every state in the US.
In this instance, there was a specific case brought to Obama’s attention where a child with Down’s Syndrome was born alive in a botched abortion where they hoped that inducing premature labor would result in him being born dead.
However that was not so, he was born alive and there is no evidence that I’ve ever seen claimed that he could not have continued surviving just fine with medical care.
Since the mother did not want the child, and the medical personnel were of this sort of mindset, they put the child in a utility closet till he died (he survived 45 minutes.)
Why legal in practice without specific new legislation (that Australia may already have) definitely establishing the child’s rights? Because if the abortionist doesn’t feel llke admitting that the child is “viable” – despite remaining alive for 45 minutes which with today’s medical technology, pretty much proves that it certainly could not have been correctly stated beforehand that the child had no chance – and wants to continue ahead with the plan of having no live child rather than a live one, and the mother still doesn’t want a live child, all they have to do is say “I didn’t think the child was viable” and then they can leave the child to die.
Which will happen, any infant will die if left unattended long enough, and fairly quickly if delivered prematurely and given no care.
In the above case, the abortionist who willfully left the live child to die was not prosecuted and could not have been, without the new law that Obama opposed.
Still think it was “chest beating” to pass a law ending such practices? Still think it was a “stupid bill?”
I just don’t understand why people from other countries that don’t even know the beginnings of the facts of a US case feel so certain about their commentary on how we do things and so compelled to chime in a “knowing” way. It’s weird. We don’t do that for Australia. We would have more respect for you than that.
Just a short question from an ignorant European: Is there a time limit for abortions in the USA?
In Germany you can only abort the fetus within the first 3 months after conception. So when it is born alive, it couldn’t survive on it own anyway, so no killing here.
In the US, in some states an abortionist can kill a child being naturally delivered a matter of seconds before the entire body would exit the birth canal, some of the body having already naturally been born. In other words, if there’s a foot still in, he can legally kill the perfectly healthy but unwanted child.
It’s called a “partial birth” abortion.
Obama supports it remaining legal where it is legal. (As one would figure from his supporting a born child such as in the above case being left to die.)
Also in some states a “regular” abortion can be done even in the 9th month.
Some favoring relatively lax abortion laws do have the opinion that abortions should not be allowed so late, but many activists insist absolutely that it’s a right to do so even at the last second.