Kill the thing even if it's alive when it comes out

[Alan®]

In light of Paul's thread thought this deserved it's own thread. PLEASE NOTE I MYSELF AM PRO CHOICE BUT FIND THIS TO BE :screwy:


Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647


Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

[joecoolfreak]

I already addressed this in the other thread, but since you have created a new one, here we go. I seriously don't understand how you see this as a big deal. Obama doesn't think we should kill babies, this is simply voting on a "definition law" bill which regulates how we define the careful line around where life begins.

Also taken from the same factcheck article:


Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

There is absolutely no relevance to the title of this thread and any of Obama's positions, or voting history.

Now, since we are picking and choosing the text we like from the article, this might be of interest as well:


Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php) for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. I just don't see how this one is such a issue with you in the first place.

[Alan®]

I already addressed this in the other thread, but since you have created a new one, here we go. I seriously don't understand how you see this as a big deal. Obama doesn't think we should kill babies, this is simply voting on a "definition law" bill which regulates how we define the careful line around where life begins.

Also taken from the same factcheck article:



There is absolutely no relevance to the title of this thread and any of Obama's positions, or voting history.

Now, since we are picking and choosing the text we like from the article, this might be of interest as well:



[/size]Seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. I just don't see how this one is such a issue with you in the first place.


But again this goes back to the issue of which story is it? And why did it take him almost 5 years to come up with a reason as to why he opposed it. As far as I have been able to tell the bill would have had no interference with the ability to get an abortion. The bill was simply addressing what to do in the even that an abortion was "botched". It seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. I have yet to actually be able to find the contents of the bill and that will be my final deciding factor but I mean it seems pretty ridiculous that the Federal bill(which he said he would have supported) was almost identical to the bill in '03. Hell the Federal bill was only opposed by 15 members.

[Alan®]

And if people honestly don't see this as an issue then things like Bristol's pregnancy should be left alone. At least this has some effect on the actual presidency then just typical media bull ****

[joecoolfreak]

But again this goes back to the issue of which story is it? And why did it take him almost 5 years to come up with a reason as to why he opposed it. As far as I have been able to tell the bill would have had no interference with the ability to get an abortion. The bill was simply addressing what to do in the even that an abortion was "botched". It seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. I have yet to actually be able to find the contents of the bill and that will be my final deciding factor but I mean it seems pretty ridiculous that the Federal bill(which he said he would have supported) was almost identical to the bill in '03. Hell the Federal bill was only opposed by 15 members.

It didn't take 5 years to come up with a reason. This was all an issue when he was running in Illinois years ago.

As far as you can tell, you can't read legal documents and understand their ramifications so you might want to leave that up to the experts. If I am not mistaken, Obama majored in constitutional law so I am going to defer to him over yourself. I did find the 2002 bill and I can see exactly the clause that it was missing and the effect that it could have had. The 2002 specifically had wording that would have overturned Roe V Wade and stated that if a fetus was removed from a woman, even in the case of an abortion and had a heartbeat, any muscle movement, or anything else that was independant of the woman, that that baby became a person. The clause that was added to the national bill stated that it specifically did NOT overrule or change anything from Roe V Wade. It was later stated that this clause was added to the 2003 bill, but that information has never been published, because there is no public record. It died in committee before a public vote could be taken. In my opinion, there shouldn't even be a need for a 2003 Illinois bill because the federal bill already existed, so I think it's moot. That being said, the reason Obama gives is that the same bill on a state level has a different implication as to whether or not abortions can be done at the state level and since I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am going to defer to him.

Now, what I am really not sure is what is the bottom line of your point. What exactly are you critisizing Obama of here? At the very worst, all you can say is that he was a little too overprotective of the Roe V Wade decision that you yourself claim to support.

[Alan®]

As far as you can tell, you can't read legal documents and understand their ramifications so you might want to leave that up to the experts. I'm quite capable of reading understand legal documents. I simply couldn't find this bill.


The 2002 specifically had wording that would have overturned Roe V Wade and stated that if a fetus was removed from a woman, even in the case of an abortion and had a heartbeat, any muscle movement, or anything else that was independant of the woman, that that baby became a person.DING DING DING DING DING! And you disagree with this? That's the whole reason why the bill was being written in the first place :doh:. Honestly what the hell else would you call it?

[joecoolfreak]

I'm quite capable of reading understand legal documents. I simply couldn't find this bill.

It was linked in the actual factcheck website you have been quoting, but for your reference:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=

What the 2002 bill was missing that is VERY important was this clause:


Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to
any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to
being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.


DING DING DING DING DING! And you disagree with this? That's the whole reason why the bill was being written in the first place :doh:. Honestly what the hell else would you call it?

Absolutely


As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=), sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920SB1095.html) and 2002 (http://ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1662.html), had met with opposition (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/PP%20Born%20Alive%20History.pdf) from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

This is exactly why I feel that way. Any infant that has a chance to live outside the womb is already protected. If it doesn't have a chance to live outside the womb, then it could still be protected by this new legislation and therefor, you wouldn't be able to perform an abortion on any fetus. This at least is what would be the pro-life stance and the entire reason the law came up in the first place

[4dmin]

its their body they can choose what is right for them - gov should not have any hold on someones personal HEALTH choices

[Alan®]

its their body they can choose what is right for them - gov should not have any hold on someones personal HEALTH choices
So you're telling me that it should still be treated as a fetus? Come on man.

[4dmin]

So you're telling me that it should still be treated as a fetus? Come on man.

dude if you want to hang yourself in your room, if you want to abort your baby, if you want to do anything to harm yourself or anything that would fall under your well being - I DON'T GIVE A SH!T NOR DO I THINK THE GOV CAN TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN/CAN'T DO TO THEMSELVES(THIS INCLUDES ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR UTERUS)

[joecoolfreak]

So you're telling me that it should still be treated as a fetus? Come on man.

Yes, I think that if the fetus can't survive outside the woman on it's own, then it is still not a human and rather part of her body. That is what this particular bill was originally trying to change.

[Kyle]

I say we kill all the babies we can, whatever means it may require.

[man]

dude if you want to hang yourself in your room, if you want to abort your baby, if you want to do anything to harm yourself or anything that would fall under your well being - I DON'T GIVE A SH!T NOR DO I THINK THE GOV CAN TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN/CAN'T DO TO THEMSELVES(THIS INCLUDES ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR UTERUS)

So your mom can kill you and you're ok with that?

[4dmin]

So your mom can kill you and you're ok with that?

if she wanted to that would of obviously been fine... can you remember anything when you were in the womb? ya didn't think so.

[Alan®]

if she wanted to that would of obviously been fine... can you remember anything when you were in the womb? ya didn't think so.
Yes but we are talking about children born as a result of a "botched abortion". You guys that support Obama have no problem with the fact that he voted against a bill that would protect those kids. Again I'm pro-choice but what you guys are saying is "Fucc 'em throw 'em to the wayside sooner or later they'll die".

[joecoolfreak]

You are reading way too much into this. We aren't talking about children that could survive the "botched abortion". That was never the intention of the original bill. ANYONE that has even the slightest chance of survival is already protected by law. What this bill was intended to do was to undermine the current stance of pro-choice held up by the standards that are used today. If there is any possible chance of survival, that child born of a botched abortion already has the rights of a human. What the essential effect of the law without the proper clauses would have done was give rights to a unborn child that twitched after being removed from the mother. It still can't survive and wasn't ever really alive in my opinion, but since the mother was the one that chose to have the abortion and the aborted fetus didn't survive, she is now guilty of murder, essentially removing her right to have the abortion in the first place. Obama doesn't support killing a child once it's born, just because the intent was to have an abortion. He is simply trying to protect a woman's choice to have the abortion in the first place.

[Alan®]

LOL speak of the devil it's being discussed on H&C