Originally posted by Robtard
Here's your quote:"[b]And the idea that Obama wants to kill babies is plausible
, his own comments are that if his daughters were pregnant, he wouldn't want to "Punnish them" with a child!" -Sithsaber408BF did what now? [/B]
I said that in RESPONSE to his post where he said to me, "the idea that Obama wants to kill babies is deplorable."
Read again. And I said that it was sacrcastic.
Face it. Obama "THE ONE" renegged.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is the point:The Illinois state version of the born alive act was voted against by Obama twice. Once in 2001 and again in 2002.
Both times he said it was because the law would confer human rights to all fetuses by saying that those born alive through abortion having them would constitute all of them having them.
When the wording was changed so that only those already born alive would be saved and no title/rights bestowed to unborn fetuses (EXACTLY the verbiage he wanted) in the 2003 version of the bill, he voted against it as Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee.
But the wording was changed and he STILL didn't support it. No reasons were given at the time. CERTAINLY not this claim from his campaign that it would change state abortion laws that we are hearing now.
Originally posted by sithsaber408The bill came up three times. 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The first two he said he wouldn't sign because of certain wording. THAT'S his statement at the time. FACT.
When the third version came about with the EXACT same wording as the 2002 BAIP (which he said he would support), he voted against it before the bill could get to the senate.
Then LATER, this summer in fact, came up with the excuse about the state laws changing abortions.
I'm look at both of these and trying to understand what your beef is. If he is being consistent, what's the issue?
Edit: Apparently, you are forgetting that if he is president that he will have powers he did not have as a senator. I thought it was implied and didn't need to be metioned...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is the point:The Illinois state version of the born alive act was voted against by Obama twice. Once in 2001 and again in 2002.
Both times he said it was because the law would confer human rights to all fetuses by saying that those born alive through abortion having them would constitute all of them having them.
When the wording was changed so that only those already born alive would be saved and no title/rights bestowed to unborn fetuses (EXACTLY the verbiage he wanted) in the 2003 version of the bill, he voted against it as Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee.
He only now, THIS SUMMER, when the pressure has been on claims it was because it would change the state laws regarding abortion.
That's the issue.
"Obama is for infanticide, he didn't sign the bill!"
"No he isn't sith, he had problems with the wording. He said he would sign it if the wording was changed."
But the wording was changed and he STILL didn't support it. No reasons were given at the time. CERTAINLY not this claim from his campaign that it would change state abortion laws that we are hearing now.
It's a bunch of crap.
Yes, it is a bunch of crap.
You're the only one lying and saying that the wording was the ONLY reason he voted against it simply because that was the one he's listed. That simply means it was the primary one. As said, it doesn't mean he's obligated to vote for it if that one aspect is changed if it's problematic/redundant in other ways.
And you didn't say Obama is for infanticide? Do you know what infanticide means?
n·fan·ti·cide /ɪnˈfæntəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fan-tuh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of killing an infant.
2. the practice of killing newborn infants.
3. a person who kills an infant.
"Obama is for infanticide" = "Obama wants to kill babies."
I guess we should add a fourth definition for the word - "Someone who votes in a way Sithsaber doesn't agree with on Abortion".
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Both times he said it was because the law would confer human rights to all fetuses by saying that those born alive through abortion having them would constitute all of them having them.
Considering it's illegal to get an abortion after 26 weeks, how many fetuses survive an abortion procedure?
Personally, if the fetus survives outside the womb after being aborted, I say it should be given the same rights as a newborn baby. Certainly deserves them for being such a resilient little ****er.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, it is a bunch of crap.You're the only one lying and saying that the wording was the ONLY reason he voted against it simply because that was the one he's listed. That simply means it was the primary one. As said, it doesn't mean he's obligated to vote for it if that one aspect is changed if it's problematic/redundant in other ways.
And you didn't say Obama is for infanticide? Do you know what infanticide means?
n·fan·ti·cide /ɪnˈfæntəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fan-tuh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of killing an infant.
2. the practice of killing newborn infants.
3. a person who kills an infant."Obama is for infanticide" = "Obama wants to kill babies."
I guess we should add a fourth definition for the word - "Someone who votes in a way Sithsaber doesn't agree with on Abortion".
Okay, so infanticide=killing babies. I'm not gonna say Obama's for it, because he doesn't think of these as babies. It's a mindset.
You can't show anywhere where he stated ANY other reason for not supporting the bill, but apparently that doesn't matter.
Okay, so lemme get this straight:
Obama doesn't pass the 2001 and 2002 versions of the bill, due to certain verbiage.
(THAT'S his statement, and he makes no others about this bill except to say in 2002 that if the bill had the same lingo as the national BAIP...then he'd support it.)
In 2003 the bill is reintroduced WITH the verbiage he wants, but he still votes against it as Chair of the Health and Human Services Comittee, effectively killing it before it gets to the state Senate.
Fast forward 5 years later, and he NOW says (and is not on record before saying this) that he didn't want it because it could change state laws about abortion.
The reason: "A bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human" could directly affect the practice of abortion on the state level.
That's crap.
It SHOULD affect it. If the baby is born and alive and can be supported, then it's a human.
Originally posted by RobtardAnd here's the rub and I expose myself and my true feelings and where they come from:
Considering it's illegal to get an abortion after 26 weeks, how many fetuses survive an abortion procedure?Personally, if the fetus survives outside the womb after being aborted, I say it should be given the same rights as a newborn baby. Certainly deserves them for being such a resilient little ****er.
As the father of of a 22 week old son who made it just fine, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
When he was born, he was a human being worth protecting (and you know I believe that he was even before that) even though he needed blood transfusions, medicines, a ventilator, heart surgery, and more.
The idea that other kids his age/size could be born alive through a botched abortion and not supported makes me pretty f-ing livid.
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's illegal to get an abortion after 26 weeks, how many fetuses survive an abortion procedure?Personally, if the fetus survives outside the womb after being aborted, I say it should be given the same rights as a newborn baby. Certainly deserves them for being such a resilient little ****er.
I'd keep the kid if it survived an abortion
EDIT: I would also invest in kryptonite
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Okay, so infanticide=killing babies. I'm not gonna say Obama's for it, because he doesn't think of these as babies. It's a mindset.
You already said it. Several times. Even saying Obama is "sorta a baby-killer". You expect anyone to take such stupidity seriously?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You can't show anywhere where he stated ANY other reason for not supporting the bill, but apparently that doesn't matter.
No it doesn't matter, the reasons he's saying now check out and are perfectly reasonable.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Okay, so lemme get this straight:Obama doesn't pass the 2001 and 2002 versions of the bill, due to certain verbiage.
(THAT'S his statement, and he makes no others about this bill except to say in 2002 that if the bill had the same lingo as the national BAIP...then he'd support it.)
In 2003 the bill is reintroduced WITH the verbiage he wants, but he still votes against it as Chair of the Health and Human Services Comittee, effectively killing it before it gets to the state Senate.
Fast forward 5 years later, and he NOW says (and is not on record before saying this) that he didn't want it because it could change state laws about abortion.
Simply because he didn't list them doesn't mean they weren't among the reasons for voting against them. As said, you're obviously free to disagree with him on the issue and not believe that these were also possible reasons, but don't pretend it's factual that the wording was the ONLY reason.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The reason: "A bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human" could directly affect the practice of abortion on the state level.That's crap.
It SHOULD affect it. If the baby is born and alive and can be supported, then it's a human.
What if it can't be supported? That's where it becomes problematic. There are already laws in the state protecting from such things. Adding another saying that doctors MUST make an effort to save a botched abortion fetus still alive even if it has no chance of surviving is both a waste of time and energy and money. If it has a chance of surviving they will try and save it as the law currently works.
Originally posted by BackFire
You already said it. Several times. Even saying Obama is "sorta a baby-killer". You expect anyone to take such stupidity seriously?No it doesn't matter, the reasons he's saying now check out and are perfectly reasonable.
Simply because he didn't list them doesn't mean they weren't among the reasons for voting against them. As said, you're obviously free to disagree with him on the issue and not believe that these were also possible reasons, but don't pretend it's factual that the wording was the ONLY reason.
What if it can't be supported? That's where it becomes problematic. There are already laws in the state protecting from such things. Adding another saying that doctors MUST make an effort to save a botched abortion fetus still alive even if it has no chance of surviving is both a waste of time and energy and money. If it has a chance of surviving they will try and save it as the law currently works.
So you want me to assume that Obama has some other good, non-stated reasons to counter his stated reasons for not supporting the bill?
Rather than take all of his statements at face value, I should assume Obama's judgement and good nature are sound and ignore the fact that what IS stated on record by him is something he didn't stand by.
Don't suppose you extend that same courtesy to George Bush, John McCain or anybody else, do you?
You'll have a hard time convincing me that babies born early or babies born alive from an abortion aren't human and don't deserve the fighting chance. If they pass away, then they pass away.
But they shouldn't be left to do so in a soiled boiler room while the docs do nothing and that's what this bill was designed for and can you explain to me why in the heck Obama had any good reason not to sign it?
Because it would give infants ALREADY BORN through failed abortion the rights of a human? Sorry, but they already have them. Be it vaginally, through C-section, or through failed abortion, once a fetus is out in the world its an infant, and should be protected and supported as long as possible.
And again, as the father of a 22 week old infant, I know that alot is possible now days.
Originally posted by Robtard
Sithsaber408,How often does this happen, considering injections to stop the fetus' heart are used prior to removal, among other "killing" procedures?
I don't know. I did a search on it and found a few individual cases but hard data isn't really available because it's not often reported. If the baby survives the abortion (and is allowed to be supported and makes it), the people either give it up for adoption or keep the child and tell them nothing.
I know that's not an answer....
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So you want me to assume that Obama has some other good, non-stated reasons to counter his stated reasons for not supporting the bill?
They are stated. He's stating them now. It's not assumption. Just because he didn't mention them prior doesn't mean that they weren't reasons.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Rather than take all of his statements at face value, I should assume Obama's judgement and good nature are sound and ignore the fact that what IS stated on record by him is something he didn't stand by.
And what's that? When did he say that if the wording was changed and ONLY the wording then he would vote for a stateside bill? He said he'd vote for a federal bill. This wasn't a federal bill.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Don't suppose you extend that same courtesy to George Bush, John McCain or anybody else, do you?
I do actually. I don't demonize McCain or Bush or Palin, do I? I may disagree with them on many issues, but do you see me trying to make them out to be monstrous? Have I said anything comparable to "Obama is sorta a baby-killer" about any of these people?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You'll have a hard time convincing me that babies born early or babies born alive from an abortion aren't human and don't deserve the fighting chance. If they pass away, then they pass away.
That's how things currently work, though. If they're born alive and if they have a fighting chance the doctors are already obliged to do what they can.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But they shouldn't be left to do so in a soiled boiler room while the docs do nothing and that's what this bill was designed for and can you explain to me why in the heck Obama had any good reason not to sign it?
They aren't. If the docs can't do anything what do you want them to do? Go around and pretend that they can save them?
And I have a very good reason - because they already have laws in Illinois doing this stuff. How many times are you going to ignore this? It's very important. You don't need to sign a bill into law when there is already a law doing the same thing.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because it would give infants ALREADY BORN through failed abortion the rights of a human? Sorry, but they already have them. Be it vaginally, through C-section, or through failed abortion, once a fetus is out in the world its an infant, and should be protected and supported as long as possible.
Again, they are supported. If it's at all possible to save them doctors will attempt to do so.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And again, as the father of a 22 week old infant, I know that alot is possible now days.
Don't mean to be harsh, but frankly that means jack-shit in regards to this debate. It means nothing. Doctors are still going to have more knowledge and judgment on the issue, you having a baby of your own doesn't give you any credibility. If anything this suggests that you are mostly arguing from emotion and not logic. Which would explain a lot.
Originally posted by BackFire
They are stated. He's stating them now. It's not assumption. Just because he didn't mention them prior doesn't mean that they weren't reasons.And what's that? When did he say that if the wording was changed and ONLY the wording then he would vote for a stateside bill? He said he'd vote for a federal bill. This wasn't a federal bill.
I do actually. I don't demonize McCain or Bush or Palin, do I? I may disagree with them on many issues, but do you see me trying to make them out to be monstrous? Have I said anything comparable to "Obama is sorta a baby-killer" about any of these people?
That's how things currently work, though. If they're born alive and if they have a fighting chance the doctors are already obliged to do what they can.
They aren't. If the docs can't do anything what do you want them to do? Go around and pretend that they can save them?
And I have a very good reason - because they already have laws in Illinois doing this stuff. How many times are you going to ignore this? It's very important. You don't need to sign a bill into law when there is already a law doing the same thing.
Again, they are supported. If it's at all possible to save them doctors will attempt to do so.
Don't mean to be harsh, but frankly that means jack-shit in regards to this debate. It means nothing. Doctors are still going to have more knowledge and judgment on the issue, you having a baby of your own doesn't give you any credibility. If anything this suggests that you are mostly arguing from emotion and not logic. Which would explain a lot.
So if the bill wasn't needed, why was it brought up 3 times?
And yes, as the father of a 22 week old, it means alot. I've seen babies in the last four months born at 23 weeks, 24 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.... make it and do just fine, though as Rob stated, they'd techincally be allowed to be aborted.
It means that the stupid agrument of "Well, if they can't survive outside the mother then they aren't viable humans worth protecting" is a slippery-slope that will change every time our technology changes.
As it is, 22 weekers can make it and be just fine. So you have to at least start outlawing abortion at and after that point.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't know. I did a search on it and found a few individual cases but hard data isn't really available because it's not often reported. If the baby survives the abortion (and is allowed to be supported and makes it), the people either give it up for adoption or keep the child and tell them nothing.I know that's not an answer....
Considering BF just said that the law (as is) requires doctors to treat the living aborted fetus, not sure what your problem with Obama, the bill and his stance is.
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering BF just said that the law (as is) requires doctors to treat the living aborted fetus, not sure what your problem with Obama, the bill and his stance is.
More of it being a flip-flop than anything else is my problem.
I'd also like a link to the law he's mentioning.
If it's so, then where are the stories from the nurses about leaving aborted fetuses in soiled boiler rooms to die coming from? (you know, those reports that prompted the Born Alive bills on the federal and state levels?)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
More of it being a flip-flop than anything else is my problem.I'd also like a link to the law he's mentioning.
If it's so, then where are the stories from the nurses about leaving aborted fetuses in soiled boiler rooms to die coming from? (you know, those reports that prompted the Born Alive bills on the federal and state levels?)
Fair enough.
Those stories sound like fear-tactics from the anti-choice crowd, imo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26625154
New WSJ/NBC poll shows Obama up by 1 point. (I was claiming that their liberal bias would produce a 2 point lead for O, so I was a little off)
Still, when compared with the others at RCP, you can see that they asked a lower number of voters (860 registered) than all but 1 of the other polls who asked 1,000, 2,700, and 3,000 voters each.
Still, RCP has it a 2.4 advantage for McCain when the polls are averaged.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So if the bill wasn't needed, why was it brought up 3 times?
I don't know. Ask those who tried to get the bill signed. There is already a law in place protecting children born in such a way, though - fact.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
And yes, as the father of a 22 week old, it means alot. I've seen babies in the last four months born at 23 weeks, 24 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.... make it and do just fine, though as Rob stated, they'd techincally be allowed to be aborted.
It means a lot to you, it doesn't mean you're an expert or that you're an authority on the issue of abortion and this bill.
And yes, babies can survive like that. Which is why doctors attempt to save them if there is any hope at all.
Again, you always simply go back to arguing against abortion. This isn't about abortion, this is about Obama 'favoring' infanticide.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It means that the stupid agrument of "Well, if they can't survive outside the mother then they aren't viable humans worth protecting" is a slippery-slope that will change every time our technology changes.
What does that have to do with anything said in this thread? Once more, an argument against abortion, one that I've not made, and one that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
As it is, 22 weekers can make it and be just fine. So you have to at least start outlawing abortion at and after that point.
Once more, blah blah blah abortion. Not talking about abortion. You're basically sitting there having an argument by yourself.