[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Spry wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Still think it was “chest beating” to pass a law ending such practices? Still think it was a “stupid bill?”
Yes. Simply enact the very simple and noncontroversal law I mentioned which would solve the problem of deciding when a child becomes a legal person and is afforded legal rights.
Do you even know – without going and looking it up now – what the law we are talking about, that just about everyone of both parties voted for but Obama opposed – actually says?
Sounds like you don’t know, yet are commenting on that very law.
I am curious as to how the law is in your part of the world. When DOES someone become a person with legal rights?
Prior to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act – which you without adequate knowledge of it call “stupid” and “chest beating” – when a child is born and a doctor declares the child “viable.”
The catch was, an abortionist who was trying to kill the born child and failed, but achieves success if the born child now dies, could keep other doctors away and at no risk of anything announce his own success and have his desire of no living child rather than have to admit failure.
Simply by putting the living child in a utility room or whatever with no medical care and waiting for him or her to die, which surely will happen sooner or later especially with a premature baby.
It was up to the abortionist! All he had to do was say No this baby can’t live whether true or not. With absolutely no legal consequence. This wasn’t theory, this was recurring fact.
Not so after the law that Obama opposed, which reads:
"The term �??born alive,�?? with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord,
or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
This was by the way adopted by the vaunted United Nations in 1955, it’s nothing new, only new to the US. Still call it “stupid” and “chest beating” now that you actually know what it is?
As for the determination of many from foreign countries to comment on internal US issues which they know nothing about, your response that it is “juicy” does kind of explain your posts.
To me that choice of word suggest that to you it is gossip and the facts aren’t important, only hurling insults about how stupid this American law – that you didn’t even know the content – is and so forth?[/quote]
This really is a good illustration of the pivotal issue with Obama and the real reason he will lose the election. The man is simply not a leader and trying to guess what he actually stands for is pure speculation.
The child that was killed by the medical staff was in a hosptial and should have recieved medical care. It was a barbaric act. If Obama had character and was a leader and felt different he should have stated his opinion for or against the bill. He was wishy washy at best and tried frame his answers to offend the least amount of people.
I look at shit like this and say how can a man, who can’t stand up for an innocent human being, because he feels it will hurt is political career or standing with his party, possibly think he has the backbone to be the president and commander and chief.
Obama is more of a salesman at this point trying to sell the nation what he thinks they want to hear. He has become the product himself. Obama hasn’t convinced enough people what he stands for or what he will do and that will be his downfall. The pivotal states aren’t left wing moonbat zones like NY and Cali and that is why he will lose.