Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, should anyone be legally allowed the killing a baby that is actually born healthy and alive, even after an abortion is performed???
Not a hard question. Look, regardless of whether you want abortion to be legal or illegal, I pose this MORAL, LOGICAL, AND IMPORTANT question:
Should anyone be legally allowed to kill a healthy and living baby, after a failed abortion or should one be legally allowed to kill a child within minutes of its birth?
Look, I understand the extreme pro-abortion people want to kill fetuses and fully formed children up minutes before labor - this is a "partial-birth" abortion - see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PARTBIRT.TXT ) But in that case, the child has not yet come out of the mother's womb.
But the After-Birth Abortions (I had to come out with a new name, as Obama simply calls this a "simple abortion") are a completely different matter! This is not a "simple abortion" - that is killing an independently living being!
If you kill a kitten that was just born, seconds after its birth, in my home state of Florida, you are looking at a 3rd Degree felony, which carries 5 years in prison. So how can Obama think it should be legal to kill a child after its birth?!?!
Should killing a child after birth be legal? I will state my humble opinion: NO! I think limited abortions in limited circumstances (example: rape, child to be born dead, or pregnancy danger the life of mother) should be legal and well regulated, but NO ABORTION should EVER be funded by the government (you hear me, Ron Paul supporters ) or be used as "birth control" by irresponsible people.
But what about you? Do YOU personally want "the right" to break a child's neck, starve the child to death, or dump the child in a janitorial closet, as it was done in Illinois and triggered the laws introduced in the Federal level and not introduced in Illinois thanks to Obama? Or do you even want to have the right to kill a child minutes after it's birth (alive and healthy) because you "did not know you were pregnant until the child began to come out" or whatever other excuse we keep hearing from irresponsible people? Is that acceptable? Is this being responsible??Should you kill an independently living being that is no longer inside the mother?
Obama seems to want that "right" for irresponsible and destructive people. He wants people to be able to kill a child AFTER its birth to become a Federal law, so every state must allow such thing to happen. Obama wants the right to kill, a license to kill a child, even after being born alive!!
I know, this seems like a horrific claim to make about “a living god” like Obama, so we need to look @ the evidence at hand:
1. Barack Obama is racing to the right to attract moderate voters, painting himself as a pro-choice moderate. However, newly obtained documents prove that in 2003 Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion. The bill was called “The Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act”.
2. Obama is outside this mainstream by focusing on his opposition, as an Illinois state senator, to a state version of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 2002 by a unanimous vote. The law prevents the killing of infants, usually by denying them medical care, when they are mistakenly left alive, outside the mother's womb, after an abortion.
3. On July 6th, 2008, Obama's statement yesterday that he doesn't believe a pregnant woman's "mental distress" should be considered a sufficient exception to bans against late-term abortions.
4. In listening to Obama's speech in Berlin which the MSM ("mainstream media") called great, the following sentence by Obama caught my attention: "Look at Berlin where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity."
"Our common humanity?" This is what Obama considers being humane: An entire baby is delivered except for the head, which they make sure stays in the birth canal (otherwise it would be murder), then the back of the baby's head is stabbed with scissors or a drill, the hole is enlarged, a tube is inserted and the baby's brains are sucked out with a powerful machine. All the while the baby suffers excruciating pain. It's enough to make you cry. How in the world can a society condone such barbarism?
The 'Federal' Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Pro-abortion Senators Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) expressed neutrality.
When it comes to the killing of unborn children, Senator Obama is to the left of everyone.
5. Finally, I leave you with a quote and a video to back up the quote:
“I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby”.
-Barack Hussein Obama
Back to the discussion after the discourse:
Should anyone be legally allowed to kill a healthy and living baby, after a failed abortion or should one be legally allowed to kill a child within minutes of its birt
Its soooo easy to say that because he voted against this bill that he is for killing unsuccessfully aborted babies. He voted against it because of all the extra crap written into the bill that he did not agree with. Plain and simple. John McCain has denied funding for the troops dozens and dozens of times including the GI bill. But people don't say McCain is against the troops. It is because he didn't like all the extra crap throw into the bill as well. This is a total smear attack but educated voters see past these lies.
Its soooo easy to say that because he voted against this bill that he is for killing unsuccessfully aborted babies. He voted against it because of all the extra crap written into the bill that he did not agree with. Plain and simple. John McCain has denied funding for the troops dozens and dozens of times including the GI bill. But people don't say McCain is against the troops. It is because he didn't like all the extra crap throw into the bill as well. This is a total smear attack but educated voters see past these lies.
So WHY wouldn't the Great Barack, "the man who transcend party lines" work with Rep legislators who introduced the bill, and get it to an acceptable level so that babies wouldn't be executed by the irresponsible mothers or unscrupulous doctors AFTER the baby's birth?? I am putting AFTER in caps because this is key to this issue.
Barack opposes any bill to stop the killing of a child after the child is born !! So why can't "The Great Barack" "bring unity and end partisanship" in the Illinois Legislature and get this bill passed somehow?
Its soooo easy to say that because he voted against this bill that he is for killing unsuccessfully aborted babies. He voted against it because of all the extra crap written into the bill that he did not agree with. Plain and simple. John McCain has denied funding for the troops dozens and dozens of times including the GI bill. But people don't say McCain is against the troops. It is because he didn't like all the extra crap throw into the bill as well. This is a total smear attack but educated voters see past these lies.
I don't care about "crap". I care that he didn't care about the lives of innocent babies. No excuse for that.
Even though the propaganda is more fun, please get a grip and look at the boring facts.
MediaMatters reminds us of the source of your hysteria:
In a February 1 editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fartic le%2F20080201%2FEDITORIAL%2F928291313 - broken link), The Washington Times falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "argu[ed] cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered 'persons' because this would be tantamount to admitting 'that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term.' " In fact, Obama was not discussing "late-term abortions" in the remarks the editorial highlighted; as is clear from his March 30, 2001, remarks on the state Senate floor (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Fsenate%2Ftranscr ipts%2Fstrans92%2FST033001.pdf%23page%3D85 - broken link), he was asserting that the bill (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Flegislation%2Fle gisnet92%2Fstatus%2F920SB1093.html - broken link) in question, which was not limited to late-term abortions, would in effect "essentially bar abortions." [note- which would make the bill unconstitutional because it would redefine viability.]
[The Washington Times editorial:]
Mr. Obama is also one of the most pro-choice presidential contenders in history. His 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council as a state senator was just the beginning. Mr. Obama is known in pro-life circles for arguing cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered "persons" because this would be tantamount to admitting "that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term." This should horrify the two-fifths of Americans who consider themselves pro-life. It surely won't "unify."
Yet in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Flegislation%2Fle gisnet92%2Fstatus%2F920SB1093.html - broken link), sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution" and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions [note- which would make the bill unconstitutional].
From the Illinois Senate transcript from March 30, 2001:
SENATOR OBAMA: ....This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here.I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
And McCain doesn't care about American troops. He doesn't want to give them an education. He has voted against the troops so many times its disgusting. No excuse for that. He is anti-american. I don't care what he did 40 years ago. He is a changed and heartless man now. No excuse for that. What a real maverick he is. denying funding for our troops. shameless, irresponsibly, idiotic, and insane. He is an old fool.
this has nothing to do with the question
but sense you brought it up
how does this compare with killing babies??
what a stupid comparison
MediaMatters reminds us of the source of your hysteria:
In a February 1 editorial (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fartic le%2F20080201%2FEDITORIAL%2F928291313 - broken link), The Washington Times falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "argu[ed] cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered 'persons' because this would be tantamount to admitting 'that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term.' " In fact, Obama was not discussing "late-term abortions" in the remarks the editorial highlighted; as is clear from his March 30, 2001, remarks on the state Senate floor (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Fsenate%2Ftranscr ipts%2Fstrans92%2FST033001.pdf%23page%3D85 - broken link), he was asserting that the bill (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Flegislation%2Fle gisnet92%2Fstatus%2F920SB1093.html - broken link) in question, which was not limited to late-term abortions, would in effect "essentially bar abortions." [note- which would make the bill unconstitutional because it would redefine viability.]
[The Washington Times editorial:]
Mr. Obama is also one of the most pro-choice presidential contenders in history. His 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council as a state senator was just the beginning. Mr. Obama is known in pro-life circles for arguing cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered "persons" because this would be tantamount to admitting "that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term." This should horrify the two-fifths of Americans who consider themselves pro-life. It surely won't "unify."
Yet in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Flegislation%2Fle gisnet92%2Fstatus%2F920SB1093.html - broken link), sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution" and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions [note- which would make the bill unconstitutional].
From the Illinois Senate transcript from March 30, 2001:
SENATOR OBAMA: ....This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here.I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
(my emphasis throughout these quotes.)
Double talk. What can you expect from a lawyer? Do we really need another lawyer in the White House questioning the meaning of the word "is?" You'll notice in the discussion Obama fixates on the term "previable." It is said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Well, science is the fig leaf behind which the immoral hide. The Nazis were practiced at defending their barbarous human experiments as "science." Similarly Obama and the radical abortion movement for which he shills use scientific terms like "previable" to justify the unjustifiable. We have one candidate who purports to give us "Straight Talk" and another who prefers double talk. I'll take the straight talk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not a "simple abortion" - that is killing an independently living being! 
I think limited abortions in limited circumstances (example: rape, child to be born dead, or pregnancy danger the life of mother) should be legal and well regulated, but NO ABORTION should EVER be funded by the government (you hear me, Ron Paul supporters 
) or be used as "birth control" by irresponsible people. 
It makes no difference
Even though the propaganda is more fun, please get a grip and look at the boring facts.
