U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 02-26-2012, 10:39 AM
 
4,428 posts, read 4,420,253 times
Reputation: 1356

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I see no factual information, e.g. links in here to support the OP's post.
Barack Obama on Abortion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,026,301 times
Reputation: 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
First of all, Politifact is not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. It is funded by the Annenberg group, which is a liberal think tank that gets most of its support from George Soros and related entities.

Second, your own link says "Obama voiced his opposition to the new legislation as a state senator because it would have given legal status to fetuses and would thus have been struck down by the courts, and because Illinois already had laws to ensure infants who survived abortions would be given medical attention."

So, he voted against a bill that would have required doctors to treat babies who survived abortions. I don't care what this idiot's rationale for the vote is, bottom line is he voted for infanticide.
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Factcheck.org had the same findings.

For those that don't know factcheck.org, they are founded by one of Reagans biggest political backers, and they run almost straight down the middle.

Of course, those who like to play political games will ignore reality. Those who actually consider the truth and don't start threads with inflamed titles like this one won't care about reality, I certainly hope the readers do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:44 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,767,631 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Factcheck.org had the same findings.

For those that don't know factcheck.org, they are founded by one of Reagans biggest political backers, and they run almost straight down the middle.

Of course, those who like to play political games will ignore reality. Those who actually consider the truth and don't start threads with inflamed titles like this one won't care about reality, I certainly hope the readers do.
Try reading your own links before you post. Both links say he voted against the bill that would have required doctors to treat infants who survived abortions.

Your spin is basically a lie to protect the immoral fool in the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:47 AM
 
22,694 posts, read 14,033,701 times
Reputation: 12230
If a fetus is a child why can I not deduct that child as a dependent on my income tax? From the day the doctor declares it.

I did not plan on voting for Obama. The Republicans are in some state of mass craziness. Putting these guys in charge of the government is a frightening thought.

There is always an allowance for humans looking and saying things from their own point of view. Misleading and lying are one and the same. How do the Bishops stand on lying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,026,301 times
Reputation: 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Try reading your own links before you post. Both links say he voted against the bill that would have required doctors to treat infants who survived abortions.

Your spin is basically a lie to protect the immoral fool in the White House.
I KNOW THAT.

But the bill also said, as I said earlier, that fetuses from the point of conception were considered alive, which outlawed ALL abortion.

Its the same thing that Mississippi denied, its the same law that failed to make it in Virginia.

It would have outlawed all abortions, which is why the future President voted against it in committee. But if the law had outlawed just late term abortions, then he would have supported it.

Get real, again, people, read the thread, don't believe moronic statements by posters telling you about 1% of the entire story. If you don't believe me, read my links. I posted a part of my link, and it explained the position quite well.

Its kind of like a Democrat saying "We should ban all pollutants, including CO2"

Then a Republican voting against it, and Democrats accusing them of supporting mercury dumping into public water supplies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,232 posts, read 17,581,216 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Try reading your own links before you post. Both links say he voted against the bill that would have required doctors to treat infants who survived abortions.

Your spin is basically a lie to protect the immoral fool in the White House.
They were and still are already required to treat a fetus that survived a botched abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:50 AM
 
4,428 posts, read 4,420,253 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
According to Politifact, an independent fact-checking organization that looked into similar claims made by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum on the campaign trail, Obama voiced his opposition to the new legislation as a state senator because it would have given legal status to fetuses and would thus have been struck down by the courts, and because Illinois already had laws to ensure infants who survived abortions would be given medical attention.

FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

Read it and weep, the same stupid law that failed in Virginia and Mississippi. Fetuses are not humans, period. And that is what the law was saying.
Newt Gingrich Reminds America That the Media Covered for Barack Obama’s Baby Killing Past

Illinois’ preexisting protections were “loophole-ridden” and only applied to babies who were considered to have “sustainable survivability,” leaving pre-“viable” newborns unprotected. When Stanek “made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.” Further, the Chicago Tribune reported that, “prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.”
FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation. However, by opposing the bill, Obama was not voting to legalize infanticide (as Gingrich said) or to prevent doctors from giving infants medical attention.
Whether the bill literally said, word-for-word, “infanticide is hereby legalized” isn’t the issue. A de facto legalization of infanticide under certain conditions was already in place in Illinois, and Obama’s votes blocked measures to end it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:56 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,767,631 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Newt Gingrich Reminds America That the Media Covered for Barack Obama’s Baby Killing Past

Illinois’ preexisting protections were “loophole-ridden” and only applied to babies who were considered to have “sustainable survivability,” leaving pre-“viable” newborns unprotected. When Stanek “made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.” Further, the Chicago Tribune reported that, “prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.”
FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation. However, by opposing the bill, Obama was not voting to legalize infanticide (as Gingrich said) or to prevent doctors from giving infants medical attention.
Whether the bill literally said, word-for-word, “infanticide is hereby legalized” isn’t the issue. A de facto legalization of infanticide under certain conditions was already in place in Illinois, and Obama’s votes blocked measures to end it.
Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 10:59 AM
 
11,183 posts, read 6,359,888 times
Reputation: 4605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Illinois’ preexisting protections were “loophole-ridden” and only applied to babies who were considered to have “sustainable survivability,” leaving pre-“viable” newborns unprotected.

The Chicago Tribune reported that “prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of the law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.

A de facto legalization of infanticide under certain conditions was already in place in Illinois, and Obama’s votes blocked measures to end it.
Obama's support of infanticide is one reason why he has no chance of beating McCain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,026,301 times
Reputation: 8671
BN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, 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