U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2008, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Arizona
824 posts, read 2,160,673 times
Reputation: 605

Advertisements

"Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."

". . . When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?"

A Catholic Case Against Barack - HUMAN EVENTS
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2008, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,575 posts, read 6,802,378 times
Reputation: 835
I have said over and over again, it's his views on abortion that will be his downfall, and if mccain is smart, he will be relentless during the debates. this is going to kill obama.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,313 posts, read 41,437,550 times
Reputation: 7108
Yes, I agree. His opposition for the born alive legislation shows just how extreme he is. Even Naral had no problem with the bill.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,962,789 times
Reputation: 1046
How do you know that Obama himself is not a survivor of a "partial birth abortion"?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 05:59 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 36,193,342 times
Reputation: 6171
Quote:
Originally Posted by azjack View Post
"Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."

". . . When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?"

A Catholic Case Against Barack - HUMAN EVENTS
  • Obama didnt defeat the 2003 bill in his committee alone, the vote was 6-4. So it's misguided and misguiding to claim that OBAMA single-handedly voted to kill the babies.
  • The bill went back the next day to the Rules committee, who let it lie around for two more years until it died in 2005, made redundant by the 2005 federal law.
  • The 3/12/03 voting record shows that the committee split exactly on party lines, which virtually proves that it was nothing but political games-playing by that time. These questions also indicate they were playing a game.
  • If they all knew it was exactly the same language as HR 2175, why not just approve it?
  • Why didnt the Rs on the committee set up a hue and cry at this outrageous result?
And - the last paragraph you quote has nothing to do with the law.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore
1,827 posts, read 2,411,060 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
Aren't there enough "critters" on the planet? Really, what is this preoccupation by hordes of Repub bot strangers with what a woman does with her womb? Are you housing and clothing these unwanted kids once they are forced onto the planet through legislative restrictions?
Why not spay and neuter the least productive and reward the most productive since you want to eliminate?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:04 PM
 
6,759 posts, read 10,841,122 times
Reputation: 3016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
Aren't there enough "critters" on the planet? Really, what is this preoccupation by hordes of Repub bot strangers with what a woman does with her womb? Are you housing and clothing these unwanted kids once they are forced onto the planet through legislative restrictions?
Apparently you didn't read. This bill was specifically designed to stop the murdering of babies who are being killed OUTSIDE THE WOMB!!!!!! Once outside the womb, NO WOMAN ON THIS PLANET DESERVES THE RIGHT TO DECIDE LIVE OR DIE, IT IS FLAT OUT MURDER.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Destined to be banned
375 posts, read 734,821 times
Reputation: 198
Have at it, in any case somethings gotta give. Have you watched the wars springing up over food and water in other countries? The natural resources on this planet are going to run out at some point, and then what is your righteous indignation over what women does with her own body 5 states over gonna do for you?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Destined to be banned
375 posts, read 734,821 times
Reputation: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXboomerang View Post
Apparently you didn't read. This bill was specifically designed to stop the murdering of babies who are being killed OUTSIDE THE WOMB!!!!!! Once outside the womb, NO WOMAN ON THIS PLANET DESERVES THE RIGHT TO DECIDE LIVE OR DIE, IT IS FLAT OUT MURDER.
Here's a thought, if abortion in the first trimester was easily available....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:08 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 36,193,342 times
Reputation: 6171
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsOfGold View Post
Why not spay and neuter the least productive and reward the most productive since you want to eliminate?
Facilitated by independent groups such as C.R.A.C.K., Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity (see CBSnews.com* (broken link)), female sterilization is being utilized in an attempt to limit the number of children by irresponsible, deadbeat women. C.R.A.C.K. goes into high poverty neighborhoods and offers women $200 to get permanent birth control or become sterilized. The women sought out for sterilization usually have several children they cannot support because they are addicts of drugs or alcohol (or both).
“The program has paid out $200 to 237 crack addicts who had total of 1500 pregnancies before they began the program. Of the 966 children born, 537 are in foster care.” (see CBSnews.com (broken link)*) [* CBS links go to a 404]

Democrat Taylor Marsh Broadcasts Live Talk Radio and Blogs Politics (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=322 - broken link)

Excited? Visit Project Prevention - Children Requiring a Caring Community !!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top