[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said the war was unilaterally Bush’s fault, dumb ass. Your response to me was:
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.
I didn’t say Bush did it all on his own without the backing of congress. Learn to fucking read and quit putting words in my mouth.
(Maybe if I pepper my paragraphs with lots of Fucks you will actually read what I’m saying? Worth a try since polite conversation obviously doesn’t work with you.)[/quote]
Evidently you are the one with the reading problem.
[quote]pat wrote:
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder.
[/quote]
If a person were to purposefully kick a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill the unborn child, it is considered a murder NOW. Yet that same woman can get an abortion and it is perfectly legal.
My question is which one is it legally…murder or not?
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.
This is accurate of course. But even the federal statute was passed 98-0. The most liberal pro-choicers voted for protection, Obama was against keeping these kids alive…He is lower than dried up dog shit in my book. Hell, he may be even lower than lixy.[/quote]
The federal bill did not include the section I quoted about abortion, so the two bills were not equivalent and you cannot judge Obama in the same light as the voters of the senate. And if you try to claim that the two were equivalent, then tell me what was the purpose of passing the Illinois bill given that the federal bill had already passed?
I’m sorry but your post makes no sense and is also factually incorrect.
The Federal law also includes and was principally intended to cover children born live from abortions but, without the law, being left to die. What, the fact that the text covers all cases is what makes it something just about everyone but Obama votged for, but saying the scary word “abortion” makes the law just something that shouldn’t be voted for, the children should be left to die?
It’s hard to think that that is actually your intented argument: it seems more like your statement was confused in suggesting that that was a reasonable reason for difference. Not that Obama had a difference in view, he couldn’t find either version in his heart, any more than in some years he couldn’t find more than 0.5% or so of his income as charity for those in need.
You are also confused apparently about the timeline. The Federal law wasn’t signed until 2001. Obama opposed the Illinois proposed law prior to that. So your suggested excuse for Obama doesn’t hold water on that count either. No, he just didn’t want such children, or if you like, babies, protected. Probably doesn’t like them being called “children” or “babies,” either, as a guess. It would be interesting to read the transcripts and see if he ever uses such words, but I don’t have enough interest to do it.
Why would you doubt that a supporter of ninth-month, partial-birth abortion was opposed to this bill only on a technicality rather than preferring that such born children as that Down’s Syndrome boy should wind up dead if the mother and abortionist want? Is there something illogical about concluding that that is the reason, not some technicality as the real reason?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You are also confused apparently about the timeline. The Federal law wasn’t signed until 2001.[/quote]
It is you who is confused. “Apparently.” The law was signed in august 2002.
You responded to my post without addressing it. Why were folks in Illinois trying to pass their version of the Bill after the federal bill had already passed?
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
When, do you think, does life begin?
To me, this is the pivotal question in the whole abortion debate. Once you establish when life begins, you know when the fetus becomes a human being with the same protections belonging to any other human being.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to objectively establish when life begins. It is a subjective judgment call.
I do think it is ridiculous to claim a child magically becomes “human” simply by virtue of traveling a foot along a woman’s uterine canal. If it is human one second after birth, it was human one second before birth.
It is not subjective. It is absolute. A fetus becomes a human being some point between the sperm banging in to the egg and the kid flopping out of the pussy. The only decernable points in the life cycle is conception and death. The actuality may be different and when somebody can present me some rock solid evidence that point ‘X’ is when the fetus becomes a person, I have to give the zygote the benifit of the doubt. The price of being wrong is to high.
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder. Is it worth the risk? It’s Russian roulette.
Hell even Jane Roe is against abortion now. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is one of the biggest pro-life advocates in the world. She is trying to get roe v. wade tossed based on the fact that she was not provided all the facts. She worked at abortion clinic for over 20 years and seen more abortions than most abortion doctors. She was the hero of the pro-abortion movement. She lives a life full of regret. I had the pleasure of meeting her. I smoked a cigarette with her actually and talked with her at some length. She is doing everything in her power to undo what she did. I have never met a more fierce opponent to abortion than Jane Roe herself. If Jane Roe can 180 than anybody can.[/quote]
Good post Pat - that’s an amazing story about ms. mcCorvey.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
pat wrote:
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder.
If a person were to purposefully kick a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill the unborn child, it is considered a murder NOW. Yet that same woman can get an abortion and it is perfectly legal.
My question is which one is it legally…murder or not?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
That ignores an earlier bill which Obama supported. The earlier bill provided funding for the troops in Iraq and called for a timeline for withdrawal.
Given his stance on both bills, it’s clear that he supports the troops but doesn’t want to fund a perpetual war.
He grandstanded with the lives of our fellow Americans, for political gain.
[/quote]
And the Bush Administration lied us into a war where American troops have perished and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi’s have been killed, maimed and have their families torn apart. But that doesn’t seem to bother you!
[quote]Gael wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You are also confused apparently about the timeline. The Federal law wasn’t signed until 2001.
It is you who is confused. “Apparently.” The law was signed in august 2002.
You responded to my post without addressing it. Why were folks in Illinois trying to pass their version of the Bill after the federal bill had already passed?[/quote]
Nope, not “confused” but a typo. I meant 2002 but simultaneously was comparing 2001 when Obama was opposing the Illinois bill.
So you grant that the Federal bill hadn’t been passed when Obama started opposing the Illinois bill. It was no typo on your part claiming that the reason for opposing it was the Federal law was already there.
If you knew that Obama’s opposition preceded the Federal bill, then it isn’t that you were confused about the timeline but that you’re making no sense at all. I thought it possible you were making a point that would make sense if the facts on the timeline were different than they are.
I didn’t address the issue of why the Illinois bill continued to be brought up after the Federal bill was passed because it’s irrelevant. Obama’s opposition preceded that and so that was not Obama’s reason. Bringing it up as his reason makes zero sense.
I’m not really interested in the question of why a state bill would be brought up after a Federal bill covering the same existed, but this is extremely common. For example “despite” the Federal laws regarding controlled substanceds, many states have individually afterwards passed their own often-identically-worded laws. It’s a common practice. One reason is that this way something that is deemed unlawful can be prosecuted by the state without having to refer part or all of a case to the Feds and having to send part or all the case to Federal court. It doesn’t make sense to you that a crime, not involving any other states, should be prosecutable by the state where it is committed?
Again, not a reason to be opposed to the bill. But also not even relevant, as the opposition preceded the Federal law.
Sorry about the typo, but it’s the substance that matters. I stated that Obama’s opposition to the Illinois preceded the Federal law and that was correct, and disproves your excuse or explanation for Obama’s position. I’m surprised that you don’t see that it does.
I did not know Obama’s opposition preceded the federal bill. As far as I was aware, he voted against it in 2003.
I also did not know it is common practice to introduce state bills that cover the same material as recently passed federal bills.
If these are both true, and I will take your word for it, then I concede this point.
I still do not understand why the proposed Illinois bill could not use the same wording as the Federal Bill.
I am also uncertain, and have not been able to find out through any internet searches, whether this bill has been used in any real situations so far. Do you know how common the scenarios that this bill is designed to protect against were prior to its introduction?
[quote]forlife wrote:
hedo wrote:
Obama is more of a salesman at this point trying to sell the nation what he thinks they want to hear.
I agree, but if you think McCain isn’t also a salesman you’re fooling yourself. Unfortunately, nearly all politicians are guilty of pandering to what the people want to hear rather than what they may need to hear.[/quote]
McCain has been consistent on this issue. All politicians stand for something but Obama constantly hides his positions less the public learn to much about him. Eventually he has to stand up for something despite criticism.
[quote]Gael wrote:
I did not know Obama’s opposition preceded the federal bill. As far as I was aware, he voted against it in 2003.[/quote]
He was fighting it in Illinois in 2001. (Having two dates in my head at the same time while typing resulted in the typo of typing the other one parenthetically being thought of. I do that kind of thing far too often, sadly.)
[quote]I also did not know it is common practice to introduce state bills that cover the same material as recently passed federal bills.
If these are both true, and I will take your word for it, then I concede this point.
I still do not understand why the proposed Illinois bill could not use the same wording as the Federal Bill.[/quote]
I suppose because originally the Federal bill hadn’t been passed.
Much of the wording of both bills derives from the UN wording.
I don’t know if Illinois ever took out that small difference or not, as the issue continued to remain on the table in Illinois after the Federal bill. Actually the wording difference makes the Federal bill broader – e.g. it provides the exact same protections to a prematurely naturally-born baby, where conceivably before the bill, I suppose if a mother and doctor wanted they could do the same as that abortionist did and just leave the baby to die on an excuse that “Well I didn’t think the baby was viable” even though the standard defined in the law was met or even, as in the Down’s Syndrome case, the baby was able to maintain life on his own for 45 minutes with no help at all, which certainly suggests that with today’s technology for preemies, it couldn’t be said he had no chance.
I don’t know. It probably would be very hard to determine, as what doctor or abortionist is likely to file a public report that well, he would have let the child die, but this law caused him to do the right thing instead? I would guess that in most cases the baby would receive the medical care and there would be no public record showing the doctor “would” have done otherwise.
It also would be hard to determine how frequent the problem was in the past, because, for example in the case of the Down’s Syndrome boy, the medical records might well read “born dead” or “stillborn” (don’t know if the first phrase is used) regardless of that in fact not being the case. How often an abortionist would provide public records plainly showing the child could have still lived but died from abandonment, I don’t know. In this case, it became public knowledge only because an attending nurse was shocked and horrified and decided to bring it to public awareness.
As to the frequency of such births, I also don’t know. I would guess it cannot be bizarrely rare, but also it’s not extremely common with abortions, as the method of inducing premature labor to expel the fetus without killing it first, just relying on nothing still living being born, is only done by abortionists “up to the cusp of viability.” So the situation such as with this Down’s Syndrome child exists only if the “cusp” was misguessed and in fact has been passed, which probably is not a routine error.
However, the fact that people were leaving these babies to die was awful and needed to be corrected legally whether common or infrequent. That is why just about everyone, Democrat and Republican, voted for it. It wasn’t a partisan issue, only an issue of being an absolute extremist or being anywhere within where say 99% of people are on such issues (or 98%, using the Senate vote as an example figure.)
Arguably it says a lot about a person that they would be so opposed to it.
By the way, on the subject of states themselves afterwards passing legislation identical or nearly so to Federal legislation, you can find examples by Googling:
clostebol ester salt isomer
and not only the Federal Controlled Substances Act but those of many states that passed their own, pretty much exactly copying the Federal statute, will come up for you. Not that you would necessarily have any interest in the CSA, but it ullustrates states following suit and passing equivalent legislation of their own.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
pat wrote:
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder.
If a person were to purposefully kick a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill the unborn child, it is considered a murder NOW. Yet that same woman can get an abortion and it is perfectly legal.
My question is which one is it legally…murder or not?
Why is the law inconsistent? [/quote]
Scott Petterson was convicted of double murder for killing his pregnant wife…Just goes to show that the law does reconize the fetus as a human in some but not all cases…It is very weird. If he had taken her to have an abortion and then killed her, it would be just a single murder.
[quote]Gael wrote:
I did not know Obama’s opposition preceded the federal bill. As far as I was aware, he voted against it in 2003.
I also did not know it is common practice to introduce state bills that cover the same material as recently passed federal bills.
If these are both true, and I will take your word for it, then I concede this point.
I still do not understand why the proposed Illinois bill could not use the same wording as the Federal Bill.
[/quote]
The last iteration of the bill was worded almost identically to the federal one. Obama voted for the revision and then voted against the completed bill. He voted against this act 4 times, it was no accident or misunderstanding. He knew exactly what he was voting for.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
When, do you think, does life begin?
To me, this is the pivotal question in the whole abortion debate. Once you establish when life begins, you know when the fetus becomes a human being with the same protections belonging to any other human being.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to objectively establish when life begins. It is a subjective judgment call.
I do think it is ridiculous to claim a child magically becomes “human” simply by virtue of traveling a foot along a woman’s uterine canal. If it is human one second after birth, it was human one second before birth.
It is not subjective. It is absolute. A fetus becomes a human being some point between the sperm banging in to the egg and the kid flopping out of the pussy. The only decernable points in the life cycle is conception and death. The actuality may be different and when somebody can present me some rock solid evidence that point ‘X’ is when the fetus becomes a person, I have to give the zygote the benifit of the doubt. The price of being wrong is to high.
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder. Is it worth the risk? It’s Russian roulette.
Hell even Jane Roe is against abortion now. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is one of the biggest pro-life advocates in the world. She is trying to get roe v. wade tossed based on the fact that she was not provided all the facts. She worked at abortion clinic for over 20 years and seen more abortions than most abortion doctors. She was the hero of the pro-abortion movement. She lives a life full of regret. I had the pleasure of meeting her. I smoked a cigarette with her actually and talked with her at some length. She is doing everything in her power to undo what she did. I have never met a more fierce opponent to abortion than Jane Roe herself. If Jane Roe can 180 than anybody can.
Good post Pat - that’s an amazing story about ms. mcCorvey.
[/quote]
If she ever does another talk series I’ll attend again, she has a lot of interesting stories. Apparently, the people who exercise the “choice” the most and some pretty whacked out people. I suppose you’d have to be. I’ll even smoke with her agian even though I quit a few years ago. It would be worth it.
The last iteration of the bill was worded almost identically to the federal one. Obama voted for the revision and then voted against the completed bill. He voted against this act 4 times, it was no accident or misunderstanding. He knew exactly what he was voting for.[/quote]
That is disconcerting. I had thought for a time that perhaps there was some sort of rider on that bill that Obama hated. Small justification for voting against it, but perhaps it would have explained part of it. If this is true pat, then that’s beyond reprehensible.
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
When, do you think, does life begin?
To me, this is the pivotal question in the whole abortion debate. Once you establish when life begins, you know when the fetus becomes a human being with the same protections belonging to any other human being.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to objectively establish when life begins. It is a subjective judgment call.
I do think it is ridiculous to claim a child magically becomes “human” simply by virtue of traveling a foot along a woman’s uterine canal. If it is human one second after birth, it was human one second before birth.
It is not subjective. It is absolute. A fetus becomes a human being some point between the sperm banging in to the egg and the kid flopping out of the pussy. The only decernable points in the life cycle is conception and death. The actuality may be different and when somebody can present me some rock solid evidence that point ‘X’ is when the fetus becomes a person, I have to give the zygote the benifit of the doubt. The price of being wrong is to high.
What if you had an abortion at 12 weeks, and somebody comes with solid science that the fetus is a human 6 days after conception? That abortion has just become a murder. Is it worth the risk? It’s Russian roulette.
Hell even Jane Roe is against abortion now. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is one of the biggest pro-life advocates in the world. She is trying to get roe v. wade tossed based on the fact that she was not provided all the facts. She worked at abortion clinic for over 20 years and seen more abortions than most abortion doctors. She was the hero of the pro-abortion movement. She lives a life full of regret. I had the pleasure of meeting her. I smoked a cigarette with her actually and talked with her at some length. She is doing everything in her power to undo what she did. I have never met a more fierce opponent to abortion than Jane Roe herself. If Jane Roe can 180 than anybody can.[/quote]
Interesting post pat. I think it’s quite easy to scientifically say it becomes a human at the moment the sperm and egg fuse together and a unique genetic code is generated which is neither the father or mother’s.
That’s pretty straightforward to my mind, and I don’t think you’ll find many scientifically literate people disagree with that. The question for the abortion debate is: when does it become a “person”? and/or what additional requirements are there to deserve legal protection (ie–is being a “person” enough or are there additional requirements?).
I tend to agree with you–regarding the personhood issue it is far better to err on the side of caution with respect to the fetus.
IF there is any definitive scientific proof publicized at some point in the future (rather than the philosophical and ethical debates there are now) that personhood begins at “X” moment in time before birth, the price of finding out you just accidentally killed 30+ million people is waaaay too high for me personally.
However, this is a thorny issue because the personhood debate goes on as we speak with no end in sight. However, as you said, the Jane Roe story is absolutely remarkable. Definitely worthy of reading. It’s very cool to hear that you got to meet her in person.
[quote]pat wrote:
Scott Petterson was convicted of double murder for killing his pregnant wife…Just goes to show that the law does reconize the fetus as a human in some but not all cases…It is very weird. If he had taken her to have an abortion and then killed her, it would be just a single murder.
[/quote]
Interesting that in the law, life is determined on who does the killing…