No, I am not talking about abortion, though that is what Obama wants you to think. I am talking about a vote that came up in the Illinois State Legislature that forbade the practice of letting born children die.
FactCheck.org has some of the facts, as does National Review Online.
At issue is a practice of children being born alive, with vital signs separate from the mother, and being left to die. Literally. They would not be provided any care, but just left alone until they were dead. Human babies born alive, and intentionally ignored so that they would die.
Infanticide.
Nurse Jill Stanek tells of how she cradled one Down syndrome child -- who was being taken to be left all alone in a soiled utility room -- for 45 minutes until the child simply stopped living.
Obama said he opposed the legislation banning this practice because it didn't, in his opinion, protect abortion rights: he thought it could be used as a back-door to banning abortions. When a provision -- the "neutrality clause" -- was added to the federal legislation banning the practice, which explicitly protected all abortion rights, it passed the U.S. Senate unanimously, and was not even opposed by NARAL.
Obama said he would support the federal statute because it contained the neutrality clause. And when it came time to add the clause to their state bill, he voted for it. But then he voted to kill the bill anyway. (Incidentally, Obama argued for years that he only opposed it because it lacked the neutrality clause, and only last month admitted that was false.)
There's really no way around it: Obama voted for legal infanticide. Not that he voted for infanticide, but he did vote to keep it legal. When his sole objection -- protecting abortion rights -- was eliminated, he still voted against the bill banning the practice. Why?
NRO's Andrew C. McCarthy has our answer. Digging into the debate on the subject, he finds Obama arguing that live children are not being left to die (he says he trusts an abortion doctor to not let a born child, who was intended to be aborted, die!), and asserting that the bill is designed not to protect those lives, but to burden women who are trying to have an abortion with legal threats to their doctors.
As McCarthy said: When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.
Don't let Obama and his supporters get away with saying this is something other than it is. It's living human children being left to die in soiled rooms simply because they are unwanted. They are not fetuses, they are not pre-humans, they are live, born, human infants. And Obama voted to allow them to be killed.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 15, 2008 11:55 PM | Email ThisThis election is ALL about JUDGMENT!
Pity OhDrama doesn't have any.
Posted by: Hinton on September 16, 2008 12:06 AMShe was delivered alive after her mothers saline abortion and survived only because the abortion doctor had abandoned her mother post-abortion and the nurse called an ambulance.
Had bHo been around he would have let her die.
She asks "If abortion were only about womens rights, what were mine?"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 01:22 AMAs an Illinois state senator, from 2001-2003, Obama led the opposition to the Illinois BAIPA. The bill, only three sentences long, simply recognized any infant who was completely expelled from the mother, and alive, as a legal person. Obama was the chairman who presided over a March 13, 2003 committee meeting at which he killed an amended version of the bill that was virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that had been enacted the previous year without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (The complete text appears at the bottom of this posting.) From 2004 until a few weeks ago, Obama insisted falsely that the state and federal bills were very different, a claim swallowed unskeptically by some protective Chicago newspapers (which the Obama operation then cited for years as "proof" of the claim).
On August 11, 2008, we released recently uncovered documents that proved that Obama had misrepresented the state bill. When Obama was asked about our assertion in a televised interview on August 16, 2008, he said (three times) that we were "lying." After an investigation, Annenberg's independent FactCheck.org concluded: "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act]."
So why did Obama oppose the BAIPA, and why he so persistently misrepresent the content of the bill?
Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed this bill because he believed it was unconstitutional to define a "previable fetus" to be a legal person ? even though the bill only applied if the baby had achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother," and was alive.
I am a critic of Roe v. Wade -? but even among persons who defend Roe v. Wade, most consider that ruling to confer a right to terminate the lives of unborn humans inside the womb, and do not believe that it diminishes the legal status of a baby who is fully born. (Indeed, a bill virtually identical to the one that Obama opposed passed the U.S. Senate 98-0.) Yet, there really are some people who believe that Roe v. Wade goes further, and requires that a "previable fetus" (Obama?s term) who is the subject of an abortion must remain classified as a non-person no matter where that "previable fetus" is located. In this vision, the so-called "previable fetus" who happens to be outside the mother is still in the process of being aborted, and that entire process (which Obama regards as constitutionally protected) will end only with the death of the newborn. By his actions and his explanations of those actions, Barack Obama showed himself to be among those who hold this expansive vision of the "right to abortion." In Obama?s view, to declare the fully born and living but "previable" human to be a legal person does indeed interfere with "abortion" and does indeed conflict with the full and proper application of "Roe v. Wade."
Thus, in Obama's view, even a live birth is not enough to confer "human rights," in the abortion context at least. If not then, when? At the August 16, 2008, Saddleback Forum, when Pastor Rick Warren asked Sen. Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?", Obama responded that "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." In a Sept. 7 interview, Obama further explained that it was a "theological question."
I think it is not just a theological question, and it is not a merely theoretical question. In testimony on the legislation, one nurse testified regarding "induced-labor abortions" performed at the hospital which employed her: "It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Last year alone, of the 13 babies that I am aware of who were aborted at Christ Hospital, at least four lived between 1-1/2 to 3 hours, two boys and two girls." The nurse testified that another aborted baby "was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor." Another nurse testified that she "happened to walk into a ?soiled utility room? and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs."
Where these human persons, worthy of protection by law? Or were they merely the products of not-yet-completed abortions?
Obama's commitment to defend the practice of abortion without qualification was so absolute that it led him to reflexively view the issue of babies born alive during abortions through the prism of his concept of Roe v. Wade, and worse, to conclude that a breathing, squirming, fully born pre-viable human baby is still covered by Roe v. Wade. But when he ran for higher office (U.S. Senate) in 2004, he realized how difficult that position would be to defend in the world outside the halls of the Illinois Senate. That is when he began to misrepresent the contents of the bill that he had opposed.
Here's the entire text of the bill that Obama voted against, and killed in the committee he chaired, on March 13, 2003.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.nrlc.org
Legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] 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.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.
Obama did not oppose the bill because he thought it was unnecessary; he said he opposed it because he thought it would be constitutional to define these babies as legal persons. That was a position that put him on the extreme fringe of the pro-abortion advocates, which explains why he has so aggressively misrepresented the content of the legislation. To see a memo that gives each major piece of Obama disinformation on this issue, and then provides the documentation in rebuttal, go to:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
So far, the Chicago political machine empty suit has had a free ride on some of these issues due to his being coddled by much of the lame stream media, but that should change down the stretch of this campaign. He's already weakened himself measurably as a candidate by revealing his thin skin during his responses to Sarah Palin's jabs on (don't laugh now) Obama's "community organizing" that he somehow has elevated to being executive experience.
Others can wring their hands and say "it's not infanticide", but the proof is in the pudding. Most sane American's would judge what Obama voted for is indeed endorsing and promoting infanticide, which makes him even less than a man than he is an alleged Christian in my book.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 16, 2008 05:53 AMWere no so advanced are we.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 16, 2008 06:21 AMThat's Barack Obama. That's one bill he didn't vote "present" on.
Sorry, but you are just wrong. Yes, this is the line that the left is trying to sell to defend Obama, but it's false. Babies were being left to die, and the law was letting it happen. You can say it's not true, but the facts prove otherwise.
And if what you said were true, why did Obama say he would vote for it if it had the neutrality clause? Then when it had it, he still didn't? Oh right, then he said he would have voted for it with additional language that was added later, but why should we believe him, when he already lied about voting for it if it had the neutrality clause?
And further, why would he have voted for the version of the bill that passed if, as you say, the reason he voted against it was because it was a merely redundant law that acted only as a political ploy?
Obama is getting crushed under the weight of his shifting apologies.
There's an old song by Steve Taylor from ... gosh, over 20 years ago now, called Baby Doe. It was a similar sort of case: a baby with Down syndrome was left to simply die, although back then, it wasn't simply because of a botched abortion, but simply because the baby was handicapped.
The final line of the final verse reads:
Behind your disguisePosted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 07:03 AM
Your rhetoric lies
You watched a baby starve
Douglas Johnson, thanks for adding to the dicussion.
He was so nuanced that he did indeed support infanticide irregardless of your and his 'nuance'. Maybe he misspoke and got the bill wrong? Perhaps, and I bet he is wishing he hadn't done what he did, since Barry was so 'nuanced' that he was the only Democrat to take his position.
Kind of like the pig in lipstick controversy. He thought he was being cute by comparing McCain's economic policy or foreign policy to a pig with lipstick, while at the same time, he was doing a takeoff of the Palin quote a short week earlier. So, come on, while he didn't want to say Palin is a pig (heavy on the nuance here), he definitely wanted to refer to her as a pig with lipstick.
I didn't do so well with "nuance" did I? I don't think Barry does so well either.
Posted by: swatter on September 16, 2008 07:25 AMOh, wait. Big Media has been so busy running its low-tech lynching of Sarah Palin that there's no room for real news.
Posted by: Rocktober Surprise on September 16, 2008 07:49 AMIf that isn't screwed up. I don't know what is!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 16, 2008 07:58 AMWhile there is a real race for control of this wonderful nation, this sort of fecal content is the best you can do?
Look, I have supported Se, McC for many years. I would LIKE to see real arguments for his positions and against BHO. But this?
What a a way to vote ...
we can fight over whether Palin really does want to put homosexuals out in the (Alaskan) cold and whether BHO really thinks Jesus was Black. The we can fight over whether McCain shold be checked to be sure he is not still programmed by his VietNamese masters or whether it is true that Joe Biden actually believes he eats human flesh on Sundays!
In the meantime the 21st century opens before us.l
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2008 08:25 AMIf we can't talk about the fundamentals of when human rights begin because it's above your pay grade, why talk about any other issue?
The most fundamental rights we have - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - should be open to debate, and done so in that order (for without life, there is no liberty, and without liberty, there cannot be a pursuit of happiness).
So what issue is more important than the right to life?
Is it the issue of a Governor using her own money to buy a tanning bed?
Is it the issue of a Senator being physically incapacitated from typing so he must be technologically illiterate?
Or is it the issue of a Senator supporting infanticide - murder of living, breathing, out of the womb babies.
Which issue is so important? Death of infants or tanning beds?
I know which one you Slavers and your little sock-puppets the Media wish to discuss. Because being labeled - rightly - baby murderers will destroy you with the general American populace.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
The curtain has fallen, and the true depths of evil that is the Slavery Party is now seen.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 16, 2008 08:35 AMPlease explain how Obama's vote to allow legal infanticide is not a real issue.
Please. I'd love to see it.
Actually, I am lying, I wouldn't love to see it, but I know you can't explain it.
I thought the Libs always defend the least among us.... well, I guess they figure these babies aren't old enough to vote so they don't matter.
I truly became ill reading some of the post above.
Posted by: Puyallup Taxpayer on September 16, 2008 09:07 AMYou nailed it. If babies could vote, there's no way abortion would be legal. Oh, as long as they voted Democrat, anyway.
Posted by: Dagny T. on September 16, 2008 09:57 AMHe is to be pitied or mocked, not understood. Even our token leftist demo kid thinks SeattleJew is a nutjob.
I wonder if the bHo-philes and proborts realize that this statement undermines their defense of the babykiller.
IF it was duplicate law, IF the children were already protected, THEN WHAT REASON WOULD bHo HAVE FOR NOT JUST CONFIRMING IT?
Oh I know... he supports killing babies via abortion, he supports "not punishing" his daughters, HE SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH MURDERING DISPOSABLE CHILDREN.
Would it be crass to wonder if he and Michelle had any other 'oops' than the 2 girls?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 12:30 PMThis begs another question. How is it that these people are even allowed to abort at such a late stage where the baby could be born and survive outside the womb? That's just as horrifying.
Posted by: Palouse on September 16, 2008 03:09 PMWhy are we bailing them out?
Who is behind this? Who will benefit?
What does McCain think?
I am not happy about largesse going to AIG.
There are plenty of other insurance companies...why show favoritism to one that did not protect itself in the Free Market?!!
"Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it." ~ Ivestor's business daily editorial
Posted by: Rick D. on September 16, 2008 08:03 PMWhen my wife and I found out we were expecting, we were overjoyed. A month later that all came crashing down as the ultrasound technician got really quiet and wouldn't answer our questions as to her sudden diminished enthusiasm. When she brought the doctor in and the doctor said "so we have some challenging news", we knew that our lives had changed.
They diagnosed our baby with Trisomy 18, which is essentially a situation where there are 3 copies of the 18th chromosome; They told us that it was 'incompatible with life' and that they had already scheduled a termination procedure in order to make it as easy on us as possible.
My wife and I have wanted children forever, and we are staunchly anti-abortion, believing that a baby is a human being from the moment of conception, and that it should have all the rights of self-ownership that we have.
They told us that the good news was that it was a girl. The bad news is that she had an abnormal heart - it appeared to be inside out, supposedly - and an abnormality on her left side, as well as what appeared to be an omphalecele (her insides were still in the umbilical cord). Supposedly she had cleft feet as well. The doctor was apologetic but insisted that we should terminate as carrying the baby to term would be a waste of time and unnecessary risk to my wife's health - no serious risk, mind you, but "there's just no point". They even told us that "We can take care of it all here, just like a car wash" - word for word, I'm not kidding.
Needless to say my wife and I were in tears, hopes for our young family completely dashed. After discussing it and reflecting on our beliefs, principles, and engaging in prayer, we decided over the period of the next couple weeks that we wouldn't take the doctor's advice and carry our little girl to term.
We decided to name her Olivia, because then her nickname would be Liv - Get it? - and prayed desperately that she would be a fighter and pull through.
A month later, they were able to do an amniocentesis. Turns out she didn't have any chromosomal abnormalities. They - and I'm sorry but even now it infuriates me and makes my blood boil to type this - lied to us about Trisomy 18, in an attempt to get us to just abort and try again.
That unfortunately didn't excuse her from the other abnormalities. Over time we learned that her heart was healthy - Thank God - but it eventually became clear that her liver was in the umbilical cord, having never been pulled inside by the growth process, and that she wouldn't have a left arm at all. Nonetheless if we could get past the omphalecele - many kids with them never do - then she'd live.
In the interest of your time I'll just skip ahead to her birth; She was born and I saw my daughter for the first time with her liver flopping around outside her stomach, and only one arm. She cried a healthy cry, but was whisked away into surgery shortly after her birth so that they could put her liver back inside (well, perhaps not back, but you get the idea) her stomach.
The surgery was successful but she spent the next couple of months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on a breathing tube as her lungs strengthened from their tiny compressed state until she could breathe on her own. That little girl will school most anyone on this blog, including myself, in what it takes to be a fighter, and a fighter with God on her side at that. I am so proud of her will to live.
Why have I posted this rather lengthy story here? Simple, really. This holocaust of children has gone on for longer than I've been alive and claimed more lives than really anything I can think of throughout history, aside from natural death. Perhaps some disease has taken more, but this is intentional murder of children.
It's not enough for the purveyors of this murder to just provide it to those who want it, they push it on those who don't want it either. We had to refuse their 'services' at least a dozen times, being told it was a SURE THING that our daughter would die. On the 27th, she's going to be one, and she's just about walking now, and communicates with us, and hugs her daddy and mommy with her one arm, and runs up to me while I'm typing on my laptop and yanks the cord out of it, thinking it's hilarious... which really annoys me but at the same time I feel so blessed to have a daughter that can do that.
I'm finding that I have a deep seated hatred for the people who wanted me to kill my baby, and for those who do it to other babies.
Now that I re-read what I wrote, I'm not sure how relevant it is to this specific thread but I felt I had to share anyway so I'm going to hit post.
Have a good night, folks.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 16, 2008 09:02 PMI have told the story before of a young friend and her husband who were also encouraged to abort because early tests showed their first child to be a Downs syndrome child. They refused further testing because she was their child and they loved her no matter what. She was born perfect. My young friends mother was in the waiting room for her labor and delivery and heard from 5 other couples that they had the same test and were told the exact same thing. They all delivered perfect babies. My young friend is now pregnant with her 2nd child and has refused all screening tests.
These false results are epidemic and 90% of them DO end up in abortion. That is unconscionable.
We ARE winning the war for life with unplanned pregnancies because reason, science and technology are on our side. I do not know how to win the battle against these erroneous tests and the emotion driven response to "suggestion" by doctors that results in the abortion of healthy children.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 09:34 PMYou have a lot of courage.
FWIW, I have every respect for those who beleive that life begins with zygosis (when the two genomes fuse). I do, however have a few reservations dealing with the consistency of such a belief:
1. For those who claim their belief is Christian, I am confused since I know of no text attibuted to your deity that makes this claim.
2. I once believed in life beginning at zygosis, but one concern I had then about my own morality was consistency. There are a number of issues that such a belief implies that worry me including: the implication that we should be working to prevent the spontaneous losses in the first trimestre. I wonder how many i the R2L community are morally consistent with other related issues such as the right of each individual to be cloned?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2008 11:05 PMIt comes from the idea that the basis of all liberty is property rights, which are, at their most base level, manifested in self ownership.
The idea that a human life begins when a sperm and egg fuse is common sense to me, not based in religion at all.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 16, 2008 11:12 PMYou are a completely unhinged, nasty, illogical, liar.
You are really a PITA!
For what is worth, and as I have told you, I do not lie.
Yes, I did support McCain and have contributed a lot of money to his campaign. That is a big part of the reason his choice of Palin has been so upsetting.
As for your comments on right to life, the central issue here is only a moral one for those who believe that life begins at zygosis. I once did believe that but as I thought about and talked with others, I decided I was wrong. Since I no longer believe that, as I assume Obama does not either there is no moral issue for us in first term abortion.
As to why this difference in beoif exists, I can understand the following:
1. At zygosis the unique individual genome comes into being. No "individual" can exost before that point so perhaps this is the begining of life.
2. The Pope makes decrees on truth for Roman Catholics. So if he says so, then for a Catholic life does begin aat Zygosis.
3. Orthodox Judaism and Islam both have judicial procedures that determine truth based on a logical analysis of scripture.
So folks in these three categories have beliefs I can understand. I have trouble seeing why anyone else would claim life begins at zygosis.
As for Palin and McCain and this issue, surely her beliefs about other issues should be important too ..no?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2008 11:20 PMMorality, on the other hand is absolutely valid.
Regarding "zygosis", What does the zygote become?
SCIENCE and medicine acknowledges unequivocally
that human life begins when human sperm meets the human egg.
Regarding early spontaneous "losses"... the mother usually is unaware of those losses by virtue of the fact she is unaware that she has conceived. The fact of the matter is that nature has her own rules and sometimes nature decides the life isn't viable ... oh, isn't that what you Darwinists claim?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 11:20 PMFor what is worth, and as I have told you, I do not lie.
Coming from a completely unhinged, nasty, illogical, liar, that is meaningless.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 11:26 PMAnd that in doing so, "She might as well have taken a gun, filled a clip with one blank and 19 loads, and pointed it at a child."
SeattleJew is a sick freak.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 11:29 PMAbortion is not the only issue at stake in this election. It is now more about whether we survive as a free nation and don't bankrupt our children's future. If you don't like abortions, well, don't have one. Just like if you don't want to see pornography don't buy it or don't surf the Internet. If you don't want your children to be corrupted then throw out the TV. BUT MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND DON'T TRY TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES. AND DON'T TRY TO PERSUADE PEOPLE WITH YOUR TWISTED VIEW OF The Truth.
Ok?
Posted by: The Truth on September 17, 2008 06:55 AMSo what you're telling us is to ignore the facts because Obama loves his family?
And that actual infanticide is "off track"? That trying to save the lives of newborn children being killed is -- sorry, but I am having trouble seeing this -- a matter of not "minding our own business"?!
Who do you think you're kidding?
Thanks for that story Andrew Brown, and blessings to you and your family for such a wonderful choice.
Posted by: Palouse on September 17, 2008 08:21 AMI suppose Pudge will find something in here to get angry at, so be it. I hope that others may actually want to have a real discussion. Let me say again that I totally respect people who have a consistent belief in the right to life.
Because the approach you take is very much like the one I took for many years, perhaps it will interest you if I explain my own take on the right to life
*************************************
Judaism teaches that the right to life is the absolute moral imperative. "Life" comes before the sabbath, hashrut, etc. I accept that. Like you, I believe that we need to err as much as possible on the side of protecting life because the slippery slope of the other side is so evident. FWIW I am almost totally opposed to capital punishment and have very strong beliefs that we, the world that is, put too little resources into being sure that children survive.
I also oppose abortions in the third trimester, except for the health of the mother or where it can be shown the fetus will not be viable after birth. I admit to being torn by cases like the trisomy 18 described above but would like to discuss that in a different thread.
I believe both sexes have the same rights to choose how a fetus is protected. This means I do not think that even in the first trimestre women have the right to terminate withut consent of the father.
Later in pregnancy, I once a life is fully viable, it seems to me that women can not have the right to terminate it. I find the idea that a woman has the right to end a six month pregnancy at will abhorrent ansd suspect we agree on that?
At the other end of life, I oppose I-1000. Even though I respect each individual's right to choose how to die, I oppose I-1000 because I do not believe health care providers should have the ability to choose between prolonging life and offering suicide. One would have to be blind not to see the likely consequences of giving a Aetna a choice between six months of expensive terminal care and offering their client suicide.
So, that is where I come from and would very mush welcome a real discussion.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2008 09:09 AM
At the other end of life, I oppose I-1000. Even though I respect each individual's right to choose how to die, I oppose I-1000 because I do not believe health care providers should have the ability to choose
____________________________________________
O-please. You dem's have wanted gov run healthcare for a LONG time. So killing another person is not a big deal to them. Can you say D&C.
Heck look what is going on in the EU with their health care. Loose weight or stop smoking or no health care.
The dem party is the party of death, well except when it comes to murders. Then you fools scream at the tops of your lungs on how wrong it is.
Talk about backwards!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 17, 2008 09:29 AMAs I said, your reasoning is exactly the same as mine was for many years. I agree that one can interpret the science as you do.
May I offer a different interpretation?
Each of us is defined by a unique genetic code that is first assembled at zygosis when the half copy of the male's genome and the half copy of the females genome are assembled, for the first time, in one cell. The magic of this event is that it is unique and without it none of use would exist.
So is that "life?" This can get into a soert of Clintonian discussion fo when is "is" "is not?" So let me just lay out the facts and tell you how I now make my decision.
After zygosis, there are many steps that must occur of we are to develop into a "person." These include, but are not limited to: implantation on the uterus and transition to an embryo with the different types of cells "germ layers" needed to create a human being. From there, many embryos do not survive to have the characteristic features of a human because in the random errors that occur when the two genomes combined.
Moreover, while the genetic code itself does not change in this period, it is heavily modified in ways that add to the individual's individuality. These modifications are themselves inherited by our cells as long as we live and are the reason that twins are never truly identical.
This is part of the debate over stem cells. Today we routinely cure many diseases by using stem cells. These cells have much of the dame properties of the zygote and it is VERY likely that such cells can be used to clone an etnire person.
Would that clone be you? No, no more than a twin is you because the clone would have undergone its own modifications.
Put another way, we all routinely discard stem cells that could be used to develop unique individuals in much the same ways as the zygote first develops.
So, for me, the zygote is not yet an individual and it can be treated ethically much as we treat an adult stem cell.
So one argument against life begins at zygosis, is that here is no viable being until the early tissues have appeared.
I think we would agree on much of this and given YOUR primises about zygosis I respect your decision.
This is where I differ with the right and left wing nutters. Raganar and Andrew, at least here, have consistent points of view that are no better or wore than my own. We differ only because we have made different decisions as to when an individual comes into being.
In a scientific sense, stripped of religious matters that can not be tested, but accepting the sanctity of life, the question comes down to a definition f what "life" means for each of us.
To me, life begins at the point were individuality is defined. Since all of our cells contain the same information as a zygote, I do not see the zygote as .. yet .. an individual any more thahn the stem cells I can isolate form an adult comprise clones of that individual.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2008 09:45 AMSo, you're saying you don't understand science, then. Shocking. OK, not really.
Stem cells are not individual living organisms of species homo sapiens. Zygotes are. To compare the two is utter tripe.
Your feelings are irrelevant. We deal with facts here.
If you care to refute the facts, feel free. But pretending that the facts don't matter is poor.
If you want to believe things we believe to be false -- that he is a good candidate for President, that he "deserves" to be President, that we are "afraid" of him -- feel free to have those crazy beliefs.
But this discussion is about the fact that he voted to keep infanticide legal. If you don't want to discuss that, then look for another discussion.
Please, please enlighten us on those policies.
And if you want to be taken seriously in this world outside of your 15 year old friends on Facebook, you should lose the shorthand (u, y, r). It makes you look ignorant.
To me, life begins at the point were individuality is defined.
So when, by your definition, does that magic distinction occur?
Posted by: Palouse on September 17, 2008 01:15 PMIt's either life or it isn't.
The scientific and medial caommunities are unequivocal.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 17, 2008 02:13 PMTo me, life begins at the point were individuality is defined.
OK, is that genetic individuality? Because if so, it's pretty much set upon fertilization of the egg.
Or are we talking distinct appearance of facial features, about 4-5 months into the pregnancy? Meaning that viability of the fetus - if born - is established so murder at this point - the murder condoned by Obama - is wrong.
Or are we talking distinct behavior? Because if it's this, then pretty much any newborn up to the age of 2-3 months would be fair game to murder.
Which is it? Start when there are genetic, scientific differences, or when physical appearance is unique, or individual personality develops?
How late can we murder a living, breathing child and not be wrong? I'd really like to hear an answer to this.
nyiefa,
So when did murder of children become accepted by the Left? When did the Slavery Party - the Democrats - add a plank condoning baby killing?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 17, 2008 05:57 PMI am not sure what you are trying to say.
Both the egg and the sperm are considered alive in the sense that a biologist means.
The only thing that happens in the zygote is that the50% of the final genome from each gamete (sperm or egg) are added together. This cre4ates the SAME genome most of your cells have even now and is therefore a singular event.
Beccaue it is so well definned an event, I certainly can see someone deciding that this is point where ech of us bgecomes defined as an individual.
oTOH, that same genome can naturally make twons and each twin will be a different person. The changes that determine that sort of individuality occu8r long after zygosis. So if you mean life began for Ragnar when his unique personality came into existence, then the event is long after zygosis.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2008 11:33 PMIf i may suggest, it is pretty hard to respond to you when you mix mudd (the party pf slavery) with real questions. I will focus on the latter and leave you to pleasure yourself asy ou may with the mud.
1. Genetic individuality ...
Youa re close but not fully correct. Genetic information is carried primarily by the genetic code ..AGTCCCCTTGGAAGGCATA
That unique dcode is established at zygosis. However, there are other forms of inheritance that do no pass through gene sequence ,,,these include eiigentic modifications taht are chemically distinct form the sequence itself.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2008 11:40 PMRoman Catholics, and SOME other Christian groups believe that life begins at conception.
Jews and Muslims believe that life begins strictly at birth, when the baby takes its first breath. From the period between 40-80 days, and birth it is considered only "potential life". Still protected, but abortion is permitted to save the life, or health (including mental health) of the mother. Before 40 days, it is considered "as water". Why the discrepency? The Bible itself is very ambiguous, and once you throw in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English, and add differing opinions in the Old and New Testament, it gets hairy.
The point being that because its a relgious question, the government should NOT get involved. This is what we pro-choice people believe...that its a question between a woman, her husband, her doctor, and their priest/rabbi/pastor/imam.
I consider myself pro-life..because I don't believe in abortion except in cases where the health or life of the mother is in danger. I am also pro-choice, because that is MY belief, based on MY religion, and I have NO RIGHT to impose my beliefs on others. This is all that Roe v Wade said
Well over half the population believes that abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE. Very few would advocate abortion as a form of birth control..why is this so difficult to understand for right wingers? Aren't you in favor of less government in our lives?
Nothing is black and white in this world, especially when discussing ethics and religion.
Posted by: Proteus on September 18, 2008 09:49 AMIs there ANY OTHER issue in whih we don't err on the side of caution?
Hmmm, now let me think...what is it the greenies are always screaming about? Oh yea, 'we don't KNOW the impact of humans so we MUST be cautious, we must assume they are responsible'.
Same thing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 18, 2008 02:14 PMThe problem is that the question of abortion, or more acurately "when life begins" is indeed above ALL our "pay grades". Its purely a religious and ethical question, and unfortunately it is NOT at all the same for all religions.
I wonder why you say this, when it is so obviously irrelevant. Religion is beside the point here.
The Bible itself is very ambiguous, and once you throw in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, to English
Nonsense. Our current translations are direct from the Hebrew or Greek to English.
The point being that because its a relgious question, the government should NOT get involved.
Incorrect. This is an extraordinary illogical position. I could make the exact same argument that many other things are religious questions, such as usury and slavery or even charity (that is, welfare). There is no logical basis for singling abortion out as particularly religious, any more than anything else.
Further, Proteus, what we are talking about is NOT abortion, but the killing of born, breathing, babies, who have left their mother's womb entirely. Every single religion you mentioned agrees that the procedure Obama voted to keep legal was murder, including both Islam and Judaism.
Roman Catholics, and SOME other Christian groups believe that life begins at conception.
Jews and Muslims believe that life begins strictly at birth, when the baby takes its first breath.
OK, great. So you have no problem calling Barack Obama a child murderer and supporting legalized baby murder since the babies are BORN and BREATHING outside the womb.
There is NO WAY you can argue this fact - the child is born, it is outside the womb, it is breathing on its own. It is not a matter of choice, unless you want to say that newborns can still be killed if they are inconvenient (obviously not an issue of health of the mother because THE CHILD IS ALREADY BORN).
Anyone trying to rationalize this extremist position of Obama simply has to accept they are now arguing over how old a child can be before killing it is "wrong". For it is alive, breathing, and out of the womb.
So tell me, how old do you believe a child can be before killing it is murder, and not just a choice? One hour? One day? A month? A year? When would it no longer be acceptable to kill a living, breathing baby?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2008 03:27 PMNo doctor worthy of the name would ever kill a living, breathing, healthy infant. Why would you need a law for that?
Posted by: Proteus on September 20, 2008 01:08 AMOf course not! No normal person would support killing a living, breathing infant.
Obama did.
However, you guys are seriously twisting the truth.
Not at all.
Read your own "fact chceck" website. It clearly shows exactly WHY Obama challenged the bill..it was written poorly (or deliberately) in a way that would have lead to further legal problems.
False. That is what Obama SAID. But his campaign has already admitted he lied, as the factcheck site said. He said he opposed the bill because it didn't contain the neutrality language in the federal bill, but when that language was added he opposed it ANYWAY.
And then he made up a NEW reason for opposing it: liability on behalf of the doctor, and protecting the choice to abort the newborn baby of the mother. And note that neither liability problem, nor the "choice" problem, was ever taken care of by the bill that eventually passed (that Obama's campaign said he would have supported).
He then turned around and passed the correctly written federal version
Wow, you are completely confused here. No, he in fact never voted for or "passed" any such bill.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Maybe because you haven't read enough? I don't know.
No doctor worthy of the name would ever kill a living, breathing, healthy infant. Why would you need a law for that?
BECAUSE DOCTORS IN FACT WERE ALLOWING LIVING, BREATHING, HEALTHY INFANTS TO DIE, simply because, as Obama said, they had already made a decision to kill it in the womb.
You're flailing against facts here.
You just have no idea what you're talking about. Drinking too much Kool-Aid, as usual.
Posted by: pudge on September 20, 2008 07:14 AMOf course not! No normal person would support killing a living, breathing infant.
Your candidate, Barack Obama, supports killing a living, breathing infant. And that's on record by his votes AND confirmed by his campaign.
No doctor worthy of the name would ever kill a living, breathing, healthy infant.
Maybe not. But apparently a Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama is all in favor of allowing the doctor to make that choice.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 20, 2008 10:57 PMSpeeding is bad and kills people.
Lets write a law that makes manufacturers lock cars to under 75mph. After all, we have to preserve life!
I don't really see a difference..both are BAD LAWS. The intent is good, but the law is bad.
I thought you wingnuts believed in small government?
Posted by: Proteus on September 21, 2008 12:13 AMLies all around. He said the only thing missing was the neutrality language of the federal bill, and that he would vote for if it had that. But when it was added, he voted to kill the bill in committee anyway. And then he continued saying he only voted against it because it was missing the neutrality language, which was a lie.
And he didn't vote in favor of "a better one." He never cast a vote in favor of any law to end this practice.
Don't see a problem here.
That is because you are ignoring the fact that he did everything he could to actually protect the legality of this practice. He said he would support if it something happened, then opposed it anyway. His reasons for opposing it kept changing. He never in any way supported any bill to end the practice, never tried to amend the bill to make it one he could vote for. He just tried to kill it, that's it.
Pretty much everything you've said about Obama's position, and his actions, on this issue is false.
I thought you wingnuts believed in small government?
You can't be so stupid as to think that by virtue of believing in small government, we therefore do not believe in laws making it a crime to kill someone else.
And even if you are that stupid, you can't be so stupid as to think that you will convince us with such a stupid claim.