Originally posted by sithsaber408
What? No way.I was arguing against that.
But just a few posts ago it seemed you were against opposing the idea of leaving newborns to die. Unless I misread something as sarcasm.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
*edit* That's wierd, your post changed?It said "At least it isn't murdering a child.", but then it changed.
I edited on reconsideration of how stupid the first response was.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But just a few posts ago it seemed you were against opposing the idea of leaving newborns to die. Unless I misread something as sarcasm.I edited on reconsideration of how stupid the first response was.
Yeah, it was sacrasm. I don't think that was a high point of Obama's state senate career.
No worries, I edit my posts for dumb things all the time. 😛
Originally posted by sithsaber408
While in the Illinois state senate he also voted against the "born alive" bill, so that babies surviving an abortion could be left to die in a soiled boiler room.An outstanding accomplishment for his state senate record!
Especially when you consider that both Biden AND Clinton supported the "born alive" bill on the national level.
And Obama supports federal funding of abortion and partial birth abortions. Conservatives will eat him alive on this issue.
Combine it with Ayers and Rev. Wright, and Barrack "The One" Obama starts to look pretty sleazy.
I've already addressed and debunked the idea that Obama is in favor of infanticide, but I'll repeat:
There were things in the bill that were problematic, other portions and attachments that made the bill unfair to abortion doctors. An attachment to the bill could have given legal problems to abortion doctors doing normal abortions. There were also other aspects to the bill that were badly done and would have produced confusion and legal problems for the state based on how Illinois creates abortion laws. The bill was not as simple as you and others have insinuated.
Again, the idea that Obama is in favor of partial birth abortions and infanticide because he voted against a bill that dealt partially with those issues is a spectacularly pathetic example of cherry picking data and information.
You are wholly ignoring much of the actual bill and attempting to demonize a man by saying that he's in favor of children dying, quite a deplorable accusation made by you and others, one that is quite shameful. Using this exact same method of logic one could say that McCain hates the troops because he voted against a bill that would give them more upon ending their first tour of duty. It would be ignoring all but one aspect of the bill to fit a smear.
Bills are rarely as cut and dry as you're making them out to be. There are often many aspects to the bill that must be considered outside of the main idea contained - everything from the wording, which if not perfect could lead to disastrous legal and ethical problems that were completely unintentional, to other attachment and sister bills. So one bill might be good while the other attachment is bad, and thus one votes against them both because it needs to be redone and rethought, despite the main premise being fine.
Besides, it's not uncommon that bills dealing with infanticide are voted down. There have been several bills dealing with the issue that were shot down for similar reasons.
Uh-huh.
And you address his stated support for partial-birth abortion and federal funding for abortion how?
And if another "born alive" bill came about, one that wouldn't that wouldn't punish doctors performing "normal" abortions (what a crock!), do you think Obama would support it?
Honestly?
He's the most liberal senator on record in regards to the abortion isssue.
It was a stupid move on the "born alive" bill. He could've supported it, then asked for an amendment to be passed later if he didn't like certain parts. He could've made the choice to stand up for those infants, but didn't want to. Heck, politically it would've been better for him to support it, as it wouldn't be something that could be brought up now.
He said in an interview that he would have voted for the federal ban because it could not be used to overturn Roe V Wade, which was one of the reasons he voted against the provision that he did.
And it wasn't just certain parts, it was a sister bill that came with it, it was most of the bill aside from the 'let's not kill babies' part.
As far as partial birth abortions - his vote against that was for similar reasons. The one he voted against could have been used to overturn Roe v Wade, and while it said that partial birth abortions would be acceptable to save the life of the mother, it didn't specify that they would be acceptable to protect the health of the mother.
Once more, you've show an inability to actually look at the bill as a whole, and instead focus only on the aspect that fits your lies and smears.
It's also worth mentioning that at the time the bill came across there was already a law in place in Illinois protecting from infanticide. The new bill was simply redundant not to mention loaded, as it was attempting to overturn Roe v Wade.
Guess McCain hates those troops after all.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Obama is for infanticide." is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.That being said, he hasn't handled the issue that well thus far.
Would be a waste of time for him to bother with it at this point. Most recognize it as bunk already, and the only people that take it seriously are those who also think he's Muslim and a terrorist and won't vote for him anyways. You know the type - they simply listen to the most powerful soundbite. And "Obama wants to kill children" is more powerful than the factual information debunking such stupidity.
"the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present"😉 after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time."
FactCheck.org
Seriously it's an incredibly stupid and/or intellectually dishonest non-argument. I doubt anyone who is "for infanticide" is outside of a mental institution let alone running for office.
However, move that baby inside the womb and make her/him 3 months younger and all bets are off!
It's all such crap. Obama and every other politician should go ahead and vote for those bills because the truth is that those bills mean little in the end: Roe v Wade will get overturned.
It was a bunk decision in the first place. How some retarded judges were able to decide that the "right to privacy" part of the constitution somehow takes precedence over the "right of ALL people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is ludicrous.
It's not even constitutional to say that people should be able to end the lives of other people for no good reason other than inconvenience. Especially when there are plenty of people that would adopt them.
(Rape/incest happens less than 1% of the time so throw that nonsense argument right out the front door)
Abortion to save the life of the mother I can understand and support.
Having abortions federally funded by my tax dollars (another position Obama supports) is something I cannot.
I'm sorry all I got from that was "My idiotic non-argument was quashed, segway into generic anti-choice rant."
How about we simply take embryos from women who choose to have abortions and instead ectopically implant them into you? Everybody wins. The delivery may involve massive hemorrhage, but I stand by "Everybody wins." Alternatively I'm sure you're happily adopting a bunch of children as I type this. You should probably start with the 100,000+ already waiting.
My argument remains the same, Obama voted for partial birth abortion and against the born alive bill. For certain reasons yes, but those aren't important enough to qualify not voting for the bills. (IMO, I know some would agree with him)
And he supports federal funding of abortion.
How about we take embryos from women who get pregnant and let them be brought to term and nobody dies? Wouldn't that make more sense than that whiny little comment about putting 10,000 embryos in me?
But I'm the one who's making "idiotic non-arguments", right. 🙄
Do me a favor, don't call me anti-abortion or anti-choice. (ironic, in that the party that denies babies a choice in life is called pro-choice)
I'm pro-LIFE, thank you very much.
Would you prefer me to call you pro-death or anti-life?
You could call me whatever you like. Semantically you'd be wrong, but I'm not particularly fussed. You could even be ludicrous and try and insinuate I run around strangling babies like Obama apparently does.
Someone for allowing women to choose to abort doesn't deny any choice. A zygote cannot choose anything. A morula cannot choose anything. A blastula cannot choose anything. And a fetus cannot choose anything.
How many babies or children are you currently adopting?
Zygote. Morula. Blastocyst. Fetus.
"Baby" is essentially a lay term. Used in such context to try (and fail) to evoke emotive connotations.
Having 46 chromosomes doesn't make something "a human being."
So you're not currently adopting one of the hundreds of thousands of actual people currently waiting to be adopted?
And if I were to take a roomful of people who say "Abortion is evil. God says so." And they respond similarly.
And if I take several million of them? Oh look at that I get the Evangelical Right.
Rant aside, I thought you should look here:
ba·by noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun 1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
It's this modern redefiniton of words, like "baby", "choice", and "fetus" that takes what people have always known to be true (childrens and babies lives are precious and should be protected) and turns it into some semantic argument that allows killing.
If you did NOTHING, nothing at all and left things naturally you'd have a human baby. That grows into a human child, and then human adult. A person with thoughts, hopes, and dreams. That's a fact. You can't deny it. An abortion stops that natural process.
I'm curious, as you seem to think a fetus isn't a viable life worth protecting, when do you classify a life as a fetus, and then when as a baby?
Originally posted by sithsaber408If you did NOTHING, nothing at all and left things naturally you'd have a human baby. That grows into a human child, and then human adult. A person with thoughts, hopes, and dreams. That's a fact. You can't deny it. An abortion stops that natural process.
No, if you did nothing the mother and the child would die together. Don't be stupid.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm curious, as you seem to think a fetus isn't a viable life worth protecting, when do you classify a life as a fetus, and then when as a baby?
I think when the fetus can survive independently of the mother it should not be aborted, though the mother shouldn't be forced to carry it either. Except for that, I'm not a doctor (and even those seem to have major problems defining when it is a life).
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, if you did nothing the mother and the child would die together. Don't be stupid.I think when the fetus can survive independently of the mother it should not be aborted, though the mother shouldn't be forced to carry it either. Except for that, I'm not a doctor (and even those seem to have major problems defining when it is a life).
1.) What? What are you talking about? Why would the mother and child die together? That was a strange response. That's not the reason most abortions are had.
2.) So that begs the question then: If you'd support protecting a fetus at a gestational age that it can survive outside the mother (say 24 weeks), then what's the difference between that fetus then and 2 weeks earlier? It needs the mothers support, but is it somehow more or less of a human being because it needs that support?