Doesn't get much more innocent than a third tri-mester baby:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is telling the National Prayer Breakfast that even though faith too often has been used "as a tool to divide us from one another," there is no religion in the world that is based on hatred.
Obama, in prepared remarks, said, "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."
Obama is also telling the gathering that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that he is announcing Thursday won't favor any religious group, or favor religious groups over secular groups.
He says it will help organizations that want to "work on behalf of our communities," without "blurring the line" between church and state.
(Yes, I know probably taking it way out of context, but the irony is pretty juicy don't you think?)
I read that this morning. This guy is so full of sh#t. Remember when he said he would want his daughters punished with a baby. Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo
yawn... spoken like a true member of the right wing chattering class... per usual, right wing activists care more about the unborn than the health of a mother and the choices she and her doctor can make about that womans own body...
[|)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
yawn... spoken like a true member of the right wing chattering class... per usual, right wing activists care more about the unborn than the health of a mother and the choices she and her doctor can make about that womans own body...
Hey member of the left wing idiot class, Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Act. You know, the law that required medical care to babies that survived abortion? The baby was no longer in the woman's body. Obama is a liar and hypocrite.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
yawn... spoken like a true member of the right wing chattering class... per usual, right wing activists care more about the unborn than the health of a mother and the choices she and her doctor can make about that womans own body...
Hey member of the left wing idiot class, Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Act. You know, the law that required medical care to babies that survived abortion? The baby was no longer in the woman's body. Obama is a liar and hypocrite.
nope. Your side has played politics and legal games with a womans RIGHT TO CHOOSE for decades... that Illinois bill was a trojan horse that would have opened the state up to all sorts of shenanegans brought to us by Peter LaBarbera and the activists... hmmm? hypocrit? yeah, that would be someone who doesnt support government spending until its leveraged by george kaiser... you and your ilk should be ashamed.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
yawn... spoken like a true member of the right wing chattering class... per usual, right wing activists care more about the unborn than the health of a mother and the choices she and her doctor can make about that womans own body...
Hey member of the left wing idiot class, Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Act. You know, the law that required medical care to babies that survived abortion? The baby was no longer in the woman's body. Obama is a liar and hypocrite.
nope. Your side has played politics and legal games with a womans RIGHT TO CHOOSE for decades... that Illinois bill was a trojan horse that would have opened the state up to all sorts of shenanegans brought to us by Peter LaBarbera and the activists... hmmm? hypocrit? yeah, that would be someone who doesnt support government spending until its leveraged by george kaiser... you and your ilk should be ashamed.
Not supporting government spending is being hypocritical? First, what does that have to do with this thread. More importantly, I am not opposed to government spending on projects that help all of us equally and not merely a few. I am firmly against progressive taxation (you know, wealth envy based taxation) and an advocate of the fair tax.
As far as that Trojan horse comment, did you know that the federal government passed a very similar statute to the version shot down by Obama? Probably not.
Anyway, here is a take on Obama's story-telling on the issue:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
The difference between the two bills was "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." I personally do not believe that if a child is born that is not viable that it is cruel to keep the baby alive on machines. President Bush agreed when he was Governor of Texas, except for different reasons. In Texas the hospitals can pull the plug on an infant they do not deem viable against the parents wishes.
As soon as people stop letting the abortion issue control their voting the quicker change will happen. It is quite hilarious to see all these people push for Republicans who have made no real changes in abortion policy. Despite having House, Senate, Supreme Court. They have too much to lose by actually doing something. They would lose votes. If people would stop being stupid and realize that both sides are perfectly content with the status quo because it gets them votes from both sides.
This is an example of what Obama protected by not supporting the Born Alive Act. Some Trojan horse:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Effing monsters.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This is an example of what Obama protected by not supporting the Born Alive Act. Some Trojan horse:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Effing monsters.
Um, so you want to make murder more illegal? And here all this time I thought it was already against the law.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
This is an example of what Obama protected by not supporting the Born Alive Act. Some Trojan horse:
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Effing monsters.
"Should prosecutors file murder charges, they'd have to prove the baby was born alive"
Now if only you didn't have to prove things in court. I could see how that Act would apply.
Curious. Why is it prosecuted as murder when a pregnant woman is assaulted and loses her baby as a result of the assault, but it's not murder if she chooses to abort her pregnancy?
It would seem to me that the definition of life is simply dictated by the mother rather than the act of birth.
That is without a doubt the ultimate definition of the "power of choice."
Why play games with the definition? Why not say that mothers are the deciding figure behind life and death. That's a realistic pro-choice stance. Stop beating around the bush. If you want the child, it's a child. If you don't it's not a child.
It's her body, let her decide.
Amazing the webs we weave...
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Curious. Why is it prosecuted as murder when a pregnant woman is assaulted and loses her baby as a result of the assault, but it's not murder if she chooses to abort her pregnancy?
Because anti-abortion activists got those laws passed as a wedge to promote exactly the argument you're making.
Personally, I'm not at all for fetus-killing, but I am for a woman to have the right to do what she wishes with her body.
I still think fetus-murder laws are stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Curious. Why is it prosecuted as murder when a pregnant woman is assaulted and loses her baby as a result of the assault, but it's not murder if she chooses to abort her pregnancy?
Because anti-abortion activists got those laws passed as a wedge to promote exactly the argument you're making.
Personally, I'm not at all for fetus-killing, but I am for a woman to have the right to do what she wishes with her body.
I still think fetus-murder laws are stupid.
I like that. We're on the same page. You are honest.
+1
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Curious. Why is it prosecuted as murder when a pregnant woman is assaulted and loses her baby as a result of the assault, but it's not murder if she chooses to abort her pregnancy?
Because anti-abortion activists got those laws passed as a wedge to promote exactly the argument you're making.
Personally, I'm not at all for fetus-killing, but I am for a woman to have the right to do what she wishes with her body.
I still think fetus-murder laws are stupid.
I like that. We're on the same page. You are honest.
+1
I think you are reading the book upside down if that just said you were on the same page. You might not even be reading the right book if you seriously think that there are a ton of people that sit around all day thinking how great it is that people kill all these fetuses through abortion. "Life of the Mother" isn't a joke like McCain said. There are seriously problems that can arise. The late term abortions would be illegal nationally if politicians would concede that life of the Mother makes it legal. Instead, they keep pushing and it gets voted out. Because they don't want anything to happen. This is all we are talking about here is laws. It makes no difference on people's acts. They will just have to find an illegal way to do what they want to do.
I think the recent commenters are onto something here.
The Republican party has had numerous chances in the past few decades to actually get some sort of constitutional amendment or federal law passed to outlaw many or all abortions. After all, from 2000 to 2006, the GOP ruled the House, Senate and presidency. But, for some reason, they declined to take up the effort.
Maybe it's because, deep down, they know there'd be consequences to such laws that the American people wouldn't tolerate, such as thousands of women or doctors in jail. Or rape and incest victims carrying babies to term. Or an explosion of back-alley abortions. Or orphanages becoming quickly overcrowded and straining states' budgets.
I think the Schiavo case probably killed for good (no pun intended) the chance of pro-lifers getting abortion outlawed. The pro-lifers wrongly thought they had a slam-dunk case to appeal to the American public. Instead, the American public was nearly 80 percent against the government interfering in the case, and it torpedoed one potential presidential candidate's chances. That case was a cautionary tale about assuming too much that the public would be on your side.
Ultimately, if you're really concerned about this issue and don't want abortions to occur, appeal to someone's morality instead of using a sledgehammer law.
I still have yet to figure out why such a niche issue draws so much conversation.
While I don't support abortion, I would rather someone get one that have an unwanted child that, most likely, my tax dollars will raise and support.
I think the mother is the only one to make the decision as to her body and her life.
Since this is a religious issue for most people on one side, the debate interests me. The polling numbers on it are equally interesting:
(http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/abortion_legal.gif)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx (details on method/findings)
Just by listening to rhetoric and conversations in the media one would think the nation was split 50/50. In reality, the "total ban" group is a small minority. About the same percentage of Americans are satisfied with the current state of the Nation, or want to support Palestine over Israel, or approved of G.W.'s job in the office.
From a public opinion stand point only (as a religious issue, debate is next to impossible... I've been over this), it is a vocal minority. Most are content with the status quo.
Here's how I see it.
We kill people all the time. We always have good reasons to terminate a life. Usually self preservation, or the preservation of an ideology. Sometimes we simply kill for convenience, or because we judge the quality of one life as less important as the quality of another (a totally subjective judgement). We also kill to protect the quality of our own lives.
It seems that the only person who has a right to choose weather a baby is a life or simply a fetus is the mother. Mothers make this judgement all the time. What a powerful position to be in. When my wife was pregnant she referred to our unborn children as, well, children. We talked to them, played them music, called them by name, and felt them kick and roll. I guess my wife is pro-choice, because she chose to allow our kids to live. We were stable with a nice house and good jobs so we chose not to kill our children. I'm glad, I love them.
Some women opt to kill their fetuses and that IS their choice (no matter what anyone thinks). The birth of that child would simply not fit into their plan, or it would threaten their quality of life. Perhaps they feel that they wouldn't be able to offer the child the quality of life that they feel that child deserves. Or perhaps the pregnancy is just embarrassing. So death is a far better choice than life.
Why should we limit a woman's right to make that choice? I don't think we can.
As I mentioned before, there are other instances where we kill for the same reasons and we find it totally acceptable. In war we kill other people. We kill people for self preservation, or because they threaten our way of life, our ideology, or they are an inconvenience. The really strange part is how a person can be Pro-Abortion, but Anti-War? . . .Or how a person could be Pro-Life but support a war, even fight in it.
You can play with definitions all day long but you change nothing. Choice still exists, and it's a personal choice to kill. Wether you are at war with soldiers or babies. The justification is the same.
All the "definition of life" does is help you to feel better about your choice, and allow you to obtain the legal services of an abortionist. It does not limit your choice.