I was watching "Law & Order" last week, an episode about an abortion doctor being murdered by a protestor. The twist was that the protestor was trying to prevent the abortion of a specific child, who was in his third-trimester, who had no terminal illness, who put the mother in no danger, and was therefore (according to New York law) going to be aborted illegally.
So in the course of this case, they find out the same doctor once killed a newborn baby after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. The doctor asked the mother if she wanted him to finish the "abortion" and she said yes, so he stuck scissors in the base of its skull. Everyone in the show was, of course, aghast that such a thing could happen, and the prosecution tried to keep this from the court because it would obviously bias the jury against the doctor.
What they didn't mention in the show, however, is that Obama fought hard to protect the ability of mothers and doctors to perform this procedure. I think it's worth remembering that our President literally believes it is OK to kill live, born, baby humans. (Perhaps he has changed his mind since, but all we know is that he later lied to cover up his positions, which means he regrets people knowing his positions, not that he has changed his mind.)
Oddly, this is a fact that can prejudice a jury against a doctor, but apparently not an electorate against a candidate for President.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 26, 2009 12:04 PM | Email Thiswhat's ironic, is that you focus on a procedural vote, versus say, actual anti-choice murderers killing doctors.
Posted by: mike on October 26, 2009 12:25 PMCitation? Or is just repeating it ad nauseum in your mind, proof enough?
Posted by: Rick D. on October 26, 2009 12:32 PMFirstly: so what? Does that make them OK? I was not (in this post) condemning abortion at all. I only mentioned the fact that this fictional doctor broke the law.
Secondly: the point is really the fact that Obama defended the killing of born babies.
what's ironic, is that you focus on a procedural vote, versus say, actual anti-choice murderers killing doctors.
Yes, I don't "focus" on the fictional story a murderous doctor being murdered by someone else on Law & Order, I focus on the fact that Obama defended the killing of born babies while in the Illinois Legislature.
You have a problem with me focusing on facts (he asks, knowing the answer)?
i never said they were OK. i just know the anti-choice people go crazy when you say late-term.
obama didn't defend the killing of born babies. he defended his VOTE on a bill that he felt wasn't legitimate.
no, mainly my issue is with wingnuts who don't know fact from fiction.
Posted by: mike on October 26, 2009 12:49 PMAbsolutely false.
he defended his VOTE on a bill that he felt wasn't legitimate.
He LIED about why he voted against the bill. He SAID the voted against the bill was because it didn't contain a neutrality clause, but that was proven to be a lie, because he voted against it even when it DID have the neutrality language.
The only reason he gave for voting against it that has not been refuted is that he wanted to protect doctors from liability, which is exactly as I said: he was defending the killing of born babies (by saying it was justified to protect doctors from liability).
And the bill that passed Congress that he said he would have supported did not have any liability protection, so he lied there too: either in saying that this was his reason for opposing the bill, or in that the bill in the U.S. Senate was acceptable where the Illinois bill was not.
no, mainly my issue is with wingnuts who don't know fact from fiction.
Except I am the one with the facts. You're not.
Duffman: Abortion is beyond above and beyond earthly law
No moreso than manslaughter is.
It's obvious that our POTUS was wrong...either when running for office or possibly in fact in his own conviction. We should know one way or the other so that we can properly weigh this next time around. :)
It was brought up throughout 2008, and we didn't get answers; well, not honest answers from Obama, anyway ... we got answers in that we proved he was lying, and we demonstrated what he actually voted for and against, but never got him to honestly tell us what his views are. I doubt we will get any answers in 2012, either.
And then as if to add insult to injury, he runs around ignorantly sermonizing about "the least of these"??
Posted by: Michele on October 26, 2009 01:46 PMI'm really waiting to hear how forcing a mother to carry an anencephalitic baby to term is "preserving life", and not simple sadistic glee to fulfill one's fanatical religious beliefs about "life".
Posted by: demo kid on October 26, 2009 01:54 PMThat's the point.
The fictional show reminded me of the facts about Obama's position.
mike has tried, and failed, to rebut the facts I've presented. Could you do better? I doubt it.
It's bizarre to me that you leftists are all either ignorantly, or intentionally, missing the point: OBAMA DEFENDS THE KILLING OF BORN BABIES. They have already been born. Alive. There is no "term" to think of at this point.
I could talk about "forcing" mothers to carry babies to term, but that is not the point here. It has nothing to do with the criticism of Obama in this post, which is about his defending the killing of living born babies, outside the womb, breathing, crying, and needing help to stay alive. Obama believes that DISALLOWING the killing of live, born, "fetus, or child -- however way you want to describe it" is "designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
Read that again. We can't disallow killing live born babies because, in Obama's world, it would burden the decision to have an abortion: because if the baby is born, well, you can't kill it. To him, the idea that we cannot kill a born baby is a deterrent from performing that type of abortion, and therefore we must allow killing a born baby, in order to protect the right to abort.
This is a practice that even Boxer and Feinstein voted to oppose, that Obama defended: to, literally, kill live born babies.
No amount of dissembling about abortion (which this isn't) or misrepresenting what Obama actually did can hide this proven fact.
It goes without saying that no sane person can believe that it is horrific to kill a born baby with scissors (as almost everyone believes) and still maintain it is acceptable to kill that baby moments earlier while it is still in the womb. But that is not the point here. The point is that, in point of undeniable fact, Obama defended the former.
So it's OK to kill 1,200 children a year. Got it. That's the infanticide number that you accept (0.1% of 1,200,000).
How many murders of, say, old people, or fat people, or short people, or immigrants is acceptable, since we're talking about acceptable levels of murder anyway?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 26, 2009 02:39 PMBecause again, there's no way, given morning after pills, that there will ever be zero abortions. And on the other hand, it's pretty sick that those on the pro-choice side can't see the obvious gruesome nature of one human actually having to kill another live human using a stabbing action or similar. I am sure they rationalize it that the child would not have had a good life, or similar. But once a human is out of the womb, isn't killing that human what we call murder?
Why is it different if a Planned Parenthood doctor stabs the child vs. the mom throwing the newborn child in to a dumpster, a frequent news story of late?
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 26, 2009 03:42 PMThe only definitive statistics on term are kept by DHSH and this link on their website shows the number of late term abortions by gestation in the state of Washington. Unfortunately it lumps everything together after 20 weeks. I am really not interested in what a division of Planned Parenthood has to say about their guess of how many late term abortions there are.
Demo kid
Forcing a mother to carry a baby with fatal birth defects to term, simply because of a narrow perspective on the issue?
Doctors are required by law to report if there were any tests that indicated a problem with the baby before an abortion. Last time I pressed the state statistician she told me there were less than 6 per year out of 25,000 to 30,000 indicating problems with the baby. So your argument about forcing deformed babies to term is hogwash.
Posted by: Fred on October 26, 2009 05:17 PMhttp://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/chs/chs-data/abortion/htmltables/tb4.htm
Posted by: fred on October 26, 2009 05:20 PMWhat is sensible to you, is not to many others. Keeping the killing of millions of babies legal is not sensible to me.
That's not to say I would not accept a first-term date, but I certainly won't seek it, nor will I seek trying for making abortions generally illegal.
there's no way ... that there will ever be zero abortions
So? That is not an argument. There will also never be zero murders, rapes, abductions, terrorist attacks ... that's no reason to not make laws against those things.
I think [some date set within the first term] gives those who favor abortion the out, since they will most likely find ways to abort anyway. And yet it also prevents the gruesome practice of killing live late term babies.
You can (and most states do, including New York) ban third-trimester abortions (except in the case of life of the mother, etc.) now.
What is ironic is that you call other people murderers when that is precisely what abortion is - MURDER, not a "choice".
Even more ironic is that you focus on the someone making a "choice" (in your own words) to terminate a murderer versus say the pro-murder nutjob who murdered an innocent man for expressing his opinion.
Posted by: pbj on October 26, 2009 06:35 PMDemo Kid wrote:
"Forcing a mother to carry a baby with fatal birth defects to term, simply because of a narrow perspective on the issue? "
You are absolutely right Demo Kid. Your mother shouldn't have been forced to carry you to term.
Posted by: ProChoice on October 26, 2009 06:39 PMSo basically, he's saying 1 million abortions are okay, but the 1,000 in the third trimester aren't... The moment the baby crosses from second to third trimester, does something magical happen that justifies conference of legal rights?
Pro-choicers peddle in soundbites. Get socratic on them and try and pin down what their real beliefs and standards are and it just becomes frustrating. Generally, as far as I can tell, they just believe that the mother should have full rights for disposition of the fetus. If they want to be intellectually honest, they should own up to that and accept responsibility for what that means, morally and ethically speaking. They insist on having it both ways and that's what we can't allow.
Posted by: AD on October 26, 2009 07:27 PMDidn't really intend it as an argument so much as a fact. With the morning after pill, abortion will always be possible and discrete. So I don't see how it's ever going to be zero. No doubt if it was made illegal there would be a black market for that pill coming in from other countries. I personally don't like the idea of abortion. I'm just saying that the reality is that I don't think it is ever going away.
Possibly a way for a sensible political resolution would be a first term date. Not saying you should seek it or that it would please all parties or that it is sensible to allow the killing of large numbers of babies. Just that I don't see any other political resolution. Thinking that we can pass laws to stop all abortions is indeed like thinking that we can pass laws to stop all murders. There will always be those who disregard the law. And since many would go completely undetected with a black market morning after pill, there's really no way of enforcing the law, unlike with murder of a human outside the womb.
Either way, I agree that the late term abortions are gruesome. To any extent that it is allowed or even looked at as reasonable is indeed disturbing.
I also think this issue is largely used by the left to stir the pot. I doubt most people really think killing babies is a good idea. Even those on the left. But if they can use it to paint a large swath of conservatives as intolerant religious nuts and delegitimize them politically, well then that's something they would pursue with vigor.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 26, 2009 07:50 PMWhether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant."
So, it looks like most American voters in the 2008 elections disagreed with Alan Keyes, just like most voters in Illinois did in 2004. (Shocking, I know.) Every last Obama voter must secretly agree with baby-killing!
But hey, an anti-choice protester who actually cares about an infant? That's pure fiction -- albeit of the absurdist kind -- for sure. (And, lo and behold, such fiction supports the anti-choice worldview!) PROTIP: when your worldview relies on fiction (Law & Order, "Atlas Shrugged") UR DOIN IT RONG.
The voting majority won't agree with Alan Keyes in 2012, either. Get used to it.
Posted by: tensor on October 26, 2009 08:42 PMNo. What I am saying, what you did, is that you said that BECAUSE you can't stop it THEREFORE you should keep it legal. As I demonstrated, that makes no sense.
I don't see how it's ever going to be zero.
Again: that obviously is not relevant to whether it should be legal.
Just that I don't see any other political resolution.
Many people never saw a resolution to slavery or segregation.
Thinking that we can pass laws to stop all abortions ...
... is something no one thinks.
There will always be those who disregard the law.
And as with murders, this is not a reason to not HAVE the law.
And since many would go completely undetected with a black market morning after pill, there's really no way of enforcing the law, unlike with murder of a human outside the womb.
Most crimes go unprosecuted. This is, again, irrelevant.
As I have said many times, there are many reasons to oppose legislation. It is true that opposing the bill is not the same as defending the practice, and I never said otherwise.
I based my statement not merely on his votes, but on his stated reasons for his votes. Obama explicitly stated he was defending the decision of the doctor and the woman to choose abortion, by defending their killing of the baby after the abortion failed. So there's no serious case to be made that he did not support the practice of infanticide at the time (and probably still does).
That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant."
Yep. However, almost everyone in the world -- including Alan Keyes -- believes that a live born child is an infant. How on earth could it NOT be an infant? That is what the word MEANS. I suppose you could say "well until it is a month old it's a newborn, not an infant," but last time I checked, we don't allow killing "newborns" either. Would you prefer we say that Obama defends "newbornicide"? To me that sounds worse, but hey, if you think it's more accurate ...
it looks like most American voters in the 2008 elections disagreed with Alan Keyes
False, of course. Who do you think you are fooling? Most people didn't know about this, and most of those who did also heard Obama repeatedly lie about it. To say that most American voters sided with Obama in saying that a born live child is a "fetus" is utter nonsense.
But hey, an anti-choice protester who actually cares about an infant? That's pure fiction
You're lying.
PROTIP: when your worldview relies on fiction (Law & Order, "Atlas Shrugged") UR DOIN IT RONG.
Please do not lie. Nothing I said "relies on" Law & Order. The interesting, fictional, case merely reminded me of the fact that Obama defended the very practice everyone condemned in the episode.
Do not continue to lie.
"Almost everyone in the world" was not eligible to vote in the Illinois elections of 2004, or in the American elections of 2008. "Almost everyone in the world" of year 1000 believed the world was either flat (the majority opinion, as far as we can tell) or round, and at the center of the universe (the educated opinion). Which belief was correct?
It is true that opposing the bill is not the same as defending the practice, and I never said otherwise.
You stated as fact the equation between opposing this bill and infanticide: Obama believes that DISALLOWING the killing of live, born, "fetus, or child -- however way you want to describe it" is "designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
As the source you cited noted, this is a matter of interpretation, not fact. You and Alan Keyes haven't won many elections of late, now have you?
...Obama defended the very practice everyone condemned in the episode.
No one is ever under any obligation to accept your interpretations as fact. Get used to it.
Posted by: tensor on October 26, 2009 10:05 PMThe overwhelming majority of people who WERE eligibile to vote, and who DID vote, would also agree that a live born child is an infant. No question about that, of course.
You stated as fact the equation between opposing this bill and infanticide
You're lying. I did no such thing. As I already told you, I referred to his STATED REASONS for opposing the bill ... statements in which he explicitly defended the practice itself, because to not do so would "burden" the woman having the "abortion" (which at this point it isn't, since the baby is born, and abortions must happen before birth or they are not abortions ... pesky facts again!).
Obama believes that DISALLOWING the killing of live, born, "fetus, or child -- however way you want to describe it" is "designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
Yes, I wrote that, and it is precisely what I said it is: I am talking about Obama's stated reasons for opposing the bill, and not -- as you lied about -- the mere fact that he opposed it.
And in this stated reason, he demonstrated clearly that he believes preserving a woman's decision to abort -- to the point of even killing a baby already born -- is more important than the preserving the life of that newborn child.
As the source you cited noted, this is a matter of interpretation, not fact.
So? I already noted that yes, if you are one of the (thankfully) very small number of nutjob extremists who ignores the undeniable fact that a live, born, human is not an "infant," then you can argue that it is not infanticide. But for people who live in reality and accept science and facts, a live just-born human is a newborn infant.
You ... haven't won many elections of late, now have you?
I haven't run for office. If you mean candidates I've backed ... actually, I have a winning record. Dan Kristiansen, Mike Hope, Kirk Pearson, Barbara Bailey, Val Stevens, Rob McKenna, Brian Sonntag ... I can only think of a couple I lost last time around: Obama, and Gregoire because of Obama (and because people ignorantly believed her lie that we didn't have a massive budget deficit looming).
No one is ever under any obligation to accept your interpretations as fact.
I never ask them to. I did, however, state many unassailable facts. You offered no facts in rebuttal, and you did not otherwise refute any facts I offered. You did, however, tell lies in two comments. Shall you go for a third? I advise against it.
FACT: Obama helped kill a bill to abolish killing newborn infants.
FACT: he said years later he killed it because it didn't contain a neutrality clause, but he voted against it even when it did, proving his claim wasn't true.
FACT: he said that we should continue to allow the practice of killing newborn infants because to not do so would "burden" the woman's decision to abort that infant before it was born.
I defy you to demonstrate any one of those facts isn't a fact.
Then you will have no problem citing sources.
...which at this point it isn't, since the baby is born, and abortions must happen before birth or they are not abortions ... pesky facts again!)
You continue to confuse interpretation with fact. Please read the source you cited again.
...a live just-born human is a newborn infant.
Again, read the source you cited. If doctors agree the "newborn" has no chance to survive, then it is actually stillborn. (Why am I the only one here quoting the source you cited?)
Dan Kristiansen, Mike Hope, Kirk Pearson, Barbara Bailey, Val Stevens, Rob McKenna, Brian Sonntag ... Obama, and Gregoire
Which set of politicians wields more power? (Really, this is desperation, even for you.)
I never ask them to. I did, however, state many unassailable facts.
Such as the "fact" that a group of fictional characters agreed with your interpretation. But what if I don't agree with Hollywood's version of morality?
FACT: Obama helped kill a bill to abolish killing newborn infants
Again, the source you cited states flatly this is a matter of interpretation, not fact.
I defy you to demonstrate any one of those facts isn't a fact.
Quo eras demonstratum. Have a nice time with Val Stevens and Alan Keyes; you all deserve each other.
Assuming that conservatives, by and large, are pro-life, liberals are, by and large, pro-abortion, and moderates are roughly split down the middle, we'd find - based upon the latest Gallup Poll about ideology - 58% would be pro life, 38% would be pro-abortion.
Unless you believe otherwise?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 27, 2009 12:02 AMAssuming that conservatives, by and large, are pro-life, liberals are, by and large, pro-abortion, and moderates are roughly split down the middle, we'd find - based upon the latest Gallup Poll about ideology - 58% would be pro life, 38% would be pro-abortion.
Unless you believe otherwise?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 27, 2009 12:05 AMI am not going to "cite sources" that almost everyone, everywhere, agrees on this. No one would waste time conducting a poll asking whether you can abort a pregnancy that has already ended in a live birth. You might as well conduct a poll asking whether you can do brain surgery on a gall bladder. You don't take polls on truisms.
You continue to confuse interpretation with fact.
It is "interpretation" that a live born human cannot be aborted? Abortions terminate pregnancies by destroying the life. But this abortion terminated with the baby being born. It is literally impossible to abort the pregnancy at that point, because it is already over.
What planet do you live on, that there's even argument about this?
If doctors agree the "newborn" has no chance to survive, then it is actually stillborn
Actually, no, it's not. It is only stillborn if it actually DID die in the uterus, or during labor, before exiting the woman's body. If the baby is alive when born, it is not stillborn: it is a live birth. Stillborn means "dead" not "going to die soon."
I can't believe you actually need this to be told to you.
Why am I the only one here quoting the source you cited?
You're a liar. Nothing in that document implied, in any way, that a live born human can be called "stillborn."
Even if it did, I never implied FactCheck was entirely true in everything it said. If it said live births can be stillborn births, or that a live birth baby can be aborted, it would be wrong ... obviously.
Which set of politicians wields more power?
Thank you for giving us a fine example of the dishonest "shifting the goalposts" logical fallacy. Bravo! Perhaps you forgot that you asked specifically about the NUMBER of elections?
... what if I don't agree with Hollywood's version of morality?
If you believe it is not immoral to stick scissors in the skull of a live newborn human, or to leave a healthy baby to die in a utility closet, then you have far worse problems than whether or not you agree with Hollywood.
Quo eras demonstratum
You mean Quod Erat Demonstratum? No, you see, for you to prove any of my facts wrong, you'd have to give evidence against them. I cited three facts, and you did not even ATTEMPT to refute a single one. Here they are again:
FACT: Obama helped kill a bill to abolish killing newborn infants.
Even Obama admits this is true, and you didn't deny it or try to refute it.
FACT: he said years later he killed it because it didn't contain a neutrality clause, but he voted against it even when it did, proving his claim wasn't true.
Obama's campaign last year admitted this was true, and you didn't deny it or try to refute it.
FACT: he said that we should continue to allow the practice of killing newborn infants because to not do so would "burden" the woman's decision to abort that infant before it was born.
That is merely a very slight paraphrase of Obama's own words, and you didn't deny it or try to refute it.
When you said you proved me wrong on any of these, you lied, as you didn't even try.
Have a nice time with Val Stevens
I sometimes do. She's a lovely person.
You seriously cannot be so dense as to not know what a birth is... How about the World Health Organization which considers a live birth to be:
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.
This completely meets the definition of life that most people would understand, and would include those babies left in closets to starve to death, as approved of by President Obama.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 27, 2009 01:26 AM... and one day woke up because THIS bill were something completely and vastly different.
It is consistent with how he is running the country. This argument that there was some strawman reason for voting no on the bill is more laughable every day this guy is in office.
He'll declare war on the chamber of commerce and fox news, but not the taliban.
We know where he stands.
Posted by: Andy on October 27, 2009 06:27 AMRep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that "under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president's own health care plan--which has never been written.
Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.
Posted by: Tim on October 27, 2009 08:18 AMAdults? Where? You mean like the "adult" that told me that my mother should have aborted me?
Sheesh. I love it when conservative hypocrisy shines so bright. :)
Posted by: demo kid on October 27, 2009 08:56 AMThis bill was meant as a way to incorporate a legislative loophole to exploit in court cases to bring down abortion, pure and simple. And what about doctors that botch the procedure on babies that are excessively premature? Are you suggesting that a NICU should be close by to an abortion clinic, in case that anencephalic baby exhibits any signs of life whatsoever?
If you don't believe in abortion rights, that's just fine. As I've said before, I personally believe that abortion should be unregulated in the first trimester and difficult or impossible to get afterwards. But equating political maneuvering with infanticide is ludicrous.
Posted by: demo kid on October 27, 2009 09:12 AM1. Do you believe as some conservatives that conception (fertilization of the egg by the sperm) equates to a human being? If so, do they have constitutional rights (i.e., citizenship rights), or merely human rights (taking UN definition for now, although I would assume you don't totally buy the UN definition)?
2. If you believe conception equates to human being, then what is your solution for all the fertilized embryo's?
3. If you believe conception equates to human being, do you believe there should be any exceptions, and if so what (e.g., life of mother)? If you don't believe in exceptions, would you define the procedure to extract a fertilized embryo that planted itself in the fallopian tube instead of uterus as abortion?
You can shoot holes in others arguments all you want, but I don't see you standing up and stating what you actually believe and having to defend it. As for my belief, after much study, thought and prayer, I am leaning to defining the "start" as when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus (life == blood, which provides nutrition which causes the fertilized egg to turn into a child). This then has no issue with the above questions, and is past the timeframe of identical twins branch of the discussion.
Posted by: tc on October 27, 2009 09:24 AM... but that is exactly, literally, what it was.
... when there are existing laws protecting babies "born alive" in this kind of situation.
There is NOW a federal law. Back then they said there were laws to prevent it, but they did not, in fact, prevent it. That's the point. Even with those laws, a live, born, health baby who had every chance to live for decades was left to die in a utility closet.
Please actually understand what you're talking about before you spout off.
This bill was meant as a way to incorporate a legislative loophole to exploit in court cases to bring down abortion, pure and simple.
Then why did Boxer and Feinstein so strongly support it?
And can you tell me how it could possibly "bring down abortion" when the law is only operative after the baby is born? No, you can't. Obama said so too, but he was lying. Just like he lied when he said he would vote for it if it had the neutrality clause: when it was added, he still opposed it. Obama tried to make this about abortion, but even when the law explicitly protected the right to abort, he still opposed it. He lied.
And what about doctors that botch the procedure on babies that are excessively premature? Are you suggesting that a NICU should be close by to an abortion clinic ...
No. And the law didn't require it. You're just making things up that have no relevance to the discussion.
But equating political maneuvering with infanticide is ludicrous.
Spouting off without knowing what you're talking about is ludicrous.
No.
You can shoot holes in others arguments all you want ...
What I am talking about here is not about abortion, but about killing a live newborn infant. Your questions were about abortion.
... but I don't see you standing up and stating what you actually believe and having to defend it.
In regard to the topic at hand, what I believe, and what I will defend, is that WE SHOULD NOT KILL NEWBORN INFANTS. I didn't think that was unclear, but there you have it.
In regards to abortion, I've discussed my views many times. But that's not the topic here.
Obama was THE ONLY candidate to get a 100% rating from NARAL.
That should speak volumes to his views on ALL abortion issues.
Posted by: Vindi on October 27, 2009 10:10 AMI do not want to go off-topic, especially on something I've already discussed in detail many times.
As to the purpose of your post, I do not view your "intent" to be one as taking a stance. My view is your "intent" is just choosing another topic to "slam" Obama.
I am "slamming" him for taking a stance in diametric opposition to mine, and most peoples'.
Actually, it is revisiting a topic that was discussed ad nauseum last election. So what actually is your purpose to bring it up now?
Because his position is evil and we shouldn't just let it slip into the memory hole, as long as he remains in office.
Why repeat the topic, unless your purpose was to bring up something to generate up hate and discontent towards Obama?
Because his position is evil and we shouldn't just let it slip into the memory hole, as long as he remains in office. Most people still don't know Obama defended infanticide. Of course I want people to be "discontented" with him for defending infanticide. I want any such person gone. Don't you?
Hey, we get it already. You don't like the guy one bit.
Please do not lie. Thank you. I actually think he's a decent guy, with lots of misguided philosophies, and, unfortunately, a few very evil ones.
How many posts need to repeat this same trend?
Shrug. As many issues as there are that I think people should be informed about. I've got a lot more. I did similarly against Bush too ... but less, because, guess what? I disagreed less with Bush!
As Duffman would say "nothing to see here, move along little doggies."
First, you're so transparently full of it: if a Republican elected official had directly defended (and lied about) something much less objectionable -- say, slavery -- you would not condemn people for continuing to bring it up occasionally, if for whatever reason many people still didn't know about it. Neither would I. We would recognize that it is important that people know about this serious moral and ethical policy failing of our elected official.
Second, as I often tell Duffman: if you don't like it, then don't read what I post.
You should stop lying.
Obama wasn’t ‘the ‘only candidate’ to receive a 100 rating from NARAL.
Because these guys had equivalent ratings as Obama.
Edwards
Dodd
Kucinich
Clinton
I don't for one minute, however, believe that Obama approves of infanticide, as you have stated. You can't quote one time where he has agreed to that stance. What you and others do is take a vote and equate it to a stance. What you and others do is take some words and extrapolate then an extreme position. You are not alone, the left does it also (e.g., who was that FL congressman again). Bush was rated high on the abortion question, yet he had eight years and didn't change the law. He did put in place a couple of justices that did move the court, but that doesn't guarantee anything. To me, both sides use it as a checkbox issue and then end up doing nothing about it. That is just my take.
Posted by: tc on October 27, 2009 10:58 AMI've stated the facts clearly, and you've not rebutted a single one. No one has.
You can't quote one time where he has agreed to that stance.
False. In fact, I did precisely that. He said that if a live, born, child "is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable" that the doctor should be allowed to kill it.
Further, the fact that he continued to lie about his position is evidence of his true position.
He said he would back it if it had a neutrality clause that protected abortion; he lied.
He said that he opposed it because it burdened the decision to abort, even though at the point it is outside the womb it is no longer an abortion, so it cannot in any way impact that decision; he lied.
He said that doctors don't actually DO this, so the law is not needed, even though the facts demonstrate otherwise; he lied.
So the fact that he explicitly said that doctors should be allowed to kill a live newborn baby, coupled with his lies about his opposition to the bill, is more than enough evidence.
What you and others do is take a vote and equate it to a stance.
You are lying, tc. I am taking his STATEMENTS ABOUT his vote.
What you and others do is take some words and extrapolate then an extreme position.
His words DEMONSTRATE an extreme position ... so extreme that not even NARAL would go there.
Bush was rated high on the abortion question, yet he had eight years and didn't change the law.
This is not about Bush. I've criticized him many times for paying lip service to the abortion issue, but he can't change laws, you know.
The problem with your argument, however, is you are taking Andy McCarthy's interpretation of the debate as a given. Bear with me, but if one doesn't take Andy McCarthy's word, one has to go back to the original debate transcript, which McCarthy does provide. In reviewing that text, Obama's statements are not in fact exactly in concert with McCarthy's interpretation. McCarthy extrapolates the statement two-fold. One he assumes that Obama's textual context is what Obama actually believes. However, in each instance to the reference text, Obama is attempting to summarrize his opinion of what medical officials have told him and not his own thoughts on the subject. There is a subtle difference and one that you have used against me in other arguments (e.g., arguing about what Cheney stated in the past). Second, forgetting for a minute whether the text is Obama's thoughts or his summarization of medical personel's input to Obama, McCarthy assumes that the actual context means that the doctor's (or Obama) is for killing babies. That isn't the actual quote, however. This is McCarthy's interpretation of the quote. The subject matter in the quote relates not to live non-viable babies, but to the medical professional concern that they need an additional doctor looking over their shoulder. The concern was not putting insurance over live births, it was the fact that the law already covered the situation and all the proposed law did was add an additional doctor looking over the main doctor's shoulder. The medical profession saw this a a waste of resources (money) and a sheer lack of trust. In the medical profession's mind, the doctor had already made the call that the baby born was still-born. You may read the text differently, but my guess is you make the first mistake that McCarthy made, which was attributing the thoughts as being Obama's instead of what is actually stated, which is Obama relaying information provided to him from medical personnel. In regards to the second mistake of McCarthy, then that argument is between McCarthy (or you) and the medical personnel. What Obama could have done is provided information on his source who fed the information to validate the story being provided. The question with regards to Obama is one of does he get the best information or filtered information (i.e., who is providing the information to him). One cannot interpret from the debate source however that Obama states that he is for the practice. There is not enough information provided. One can only make a leap of interpretation, and to do that one needs additional background on the story being relayed by Obama. McCarthy does not provide that information, so I take his article as opinion and not fact. If his article is an opinion, then your basing your post on that as the foundation can only be an opinion also. You can not state as fact something that has not been definitively proven.
Posted by: tc on October 27, 2009 12:43 PMWhich is clearly backed up by the evidence presented.
The problem with your argument, however, is you are taking Andy McCarthy's interpretation of the debate as a given.
False. I am reading Obama's own words, and quoting them, and presenting them for all to see.
one has to go back to the original debate transcript, which McCarthy does provide
Yes, he does. You didn't read his article very well. He quotes it extensively and links directly to it.
Obama's statements are not in fact exactly in concert with McCarthy's interpretation
False.
he assumes that Obama's textual context is what Obama actually believes
False.
There is a subtle difference and one that you have used against me in other arguments
False.
McCarthy assumes that the actual context means that the doctor's (or Obama) is for killing babies
For ALLOWING them to be killed, yes. Obviously, because that is what he said.
The subject matter in the quote relates not to live non-viable babies
False.
The concern was not putting insurance over live births
False. That was part of what Obama explicitly said: "I expressed some concern about ... what impact this would have with respect to ... what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation."
it was the fact that the law already covered the situation
People keep saying that, and yet the practice still continued.
The medical profession saw this a a waste of resources (money) and a sheer lack of trust.
A lack of trust which was, clearly, well-deserved, and I'll return to this in a moment.
In the medical profession's mind, the doctor had already made the call that the baby born was still-born.
False. If that were the case, there would be no issue here. The point of the abortion IS TO PRODUCE a stillborn baby (which is horrific itself, and defending that practice alone disqualifies Obama from serving in elected office, but that's beside the point).
But the legislation says nothing about babies being stillborn. It is about babies NOT stillborn, who are born ALIVE. It is when there are indications of LIFE that the legislation in question would be in effect.
You may read the text differently ...
Because I read it better. Obama said it himself: "this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child � however way you want to describe it � is now outside the mother�s womb and the doctor continues to think that it�s nonviable but there�s, let�s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they�re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved."
Again: it is not about stillborn babies, it is about live newborn infants who are "nonviable," who possibly cannot "be saved." And you're damned right that I don't trust a "phsyician" who intended to KILL that baby a few moments earlier to make the judgment that this living newborn infant cannot be saved. Because I am not a moron.
The question with regards to Obama is one of does he get the best information or filtered information ...
Oh please, give it a rest. Obama said the doctor should get to choose whether to kill the live newborn infant, judging it for himself to be "nonviable." I don't give a damn where he "got" his "information;" this is his stated position.
One cannot interpret from the debate source however that Obama states that he is for the practice.
Except that he SAYS HE IS. "[I]f these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they�re looked after." (Note he didn't mean "born alive," he meant "born viable," because that is the only way it could be consistent with the rest of his words which discuss babies being born alive but nonviable.) He is undeniably saying that he trusts the doctor to make the decision whether to kill the newborn infant.
Whichever it is...
The simple truth that you're hiding here is that there was a law ALREADY ON THE BOOKS in Illinois, and the supposed "soiled utility closet" incident reported by an anti-abortion activist was a lie and never happened.
Even with those laws, a live, born, health baby who had every chance to live for decades was left to die in a utility closet.
Hardly. ANY live birth (abortion or not) under the previous 1975 law was supposed to be treated with lifesaving measures. Do you disagree with that statement?
What is incredibly amusing to me is that folks can interpret this as "killing infants"
... but that is exactly, literally, what it was.
The issue with this is that under Illinois law, abortion on fetuses that are viable outside the womb is illegal: "When the fetus is viable no abortion shall be performed unless in the medical judgment of the attending or referring physician, based on the particular facts of the case before him, it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." 720 ILCS 510/5 (1)
Therefore, in these cases, you either have a situation where a baby in a later trimester has birth defects that are not survivable, or you have a fetus in an early stage of development that is still not viable outside the womb. In EITHER case, what you are proposing is that large-scale medical interventions should be used to keep both alive... correct?
If not, then what precisely are you proposing for "medical intervention"?
You're lying: I hid nothing. In fact, I already responded to this claim with the factual claim that with whatever laws on the books, it happened anyway. This bill was designed to prevent it from happening again. I don't know what law was on the books (and neither do you, apparently), but I do know that whatever was there did not -- at the very least -- require a second doctor, which is an important step toward preventing abuse of the procedure.
... and the supposed "soiled utility closet" incident reported by an anti-abortion activist was a lie and never happened.
False. You're a liar, demo kid. It's one thing to say you don't believe her credible and independently verified story (that nevertheless had no physical evidence to back it up); it's another to say there is ANY evidence she lied. There isn't. No serious evidence that she lied, or that it never happened, has ever been brought forth.
The issue with this is that under Illinois law, abortion on fetuses that are viable outside the womb is illegal: "When the fetus is viable no abortion shall be performed unless in the medical judgment of the attending or referring physician, based on the particular facts of the case before him, it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." 720 ILCS 510/5 (1)
That says nothing about live newborn infants. That is about ABORTIONS, which NECESSARILY MEANS it applies only to UNBORN babies. The legislation in question here is about newborn infants.
Come on, demo kid, it is not that hard. THINK. That quote of the law has nothing to do with this case.
BTW, I find it curious that few people in either the pro-life camp nor the pro-choice camp recognize that anything happens to an egg between the time that it is fertilized and the time that it is delivered. It seems to me that there are quite a few milestones in development that can be pretty clearly defined; one may not always be able to tell with every embryo/fetus whether or not a particular milestone has been met, but in most cases it would be clear that a milestone either has been met or that it has not.
For example, does the embryo/fetus have any differentiated neurons. It may not be possible to tell precisely when the first neuron is created, but clearly in a 4-cell zygote it has not yet happened, and clearly in a 39-week fetus it has. While I think that even the earliest-term abortions are generally harmful to society, I think there's a substantial moral difference between the destruction of a 2-week embryo and the destruction of a 39-week baby. I wonder why pro-life and pro-choice people don't recognize that?
Posted by: supercat on October 27, 2009 02:42 PMTo equate the belief that the world was flat
and found not to be so to if it is justified to kill a child that has been born is twisted logic.
I doubt murder will ever be the revelation that the true nature of the world was.
Important reminder boys and girls. We're not knocking heads on word play where on side calls it Chice or abortion and the other calls it murder or infanticide. We're talk straight up murder of a living human that has been born and no longer in the body of the mother. This is an instantainious event there are to time standards for being born and thus a human or not and being a fetus.
A apologize in advanced for all this reading. Especially to those who went to public school within the last 10 years.
Posted by: Sam Adams on October 27, 2009 03:46 PMTo equate the belief that the world was flat
and found not to be so to if it is justified to kill a child that has been born is twisted logic.
I doubt murder will ever be the revelation that the true nature of the world was.
Important reminder boys and girls. We're not knocking heads on word play where on side calls it Chice or abortion and the other calls it murder or infanticide. We're talk straight up murder of a living human that has been born and no longer in the body of the mother. This is an instantainious event there are to time standards for being born and thus a human or not and being a fetus.
A apologize in advanced for all this reading. Especially to those who went to public school within the last 10 years.
Posted by: Sam Adams on October 27, 2009 03:47 PMAnd people wonder why I call the President, mockingly, the Obamassiah...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 27, 2009 04:30 PMDoes it need to be any more basic than that?
Liberals kill little babies and seem to revel in it.
Shouldn't that tell everyone who they really are?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 27, 2009 05:43 PMLiberal heads may now commence to explode as we all know you will be loathe to dispute the premise you defend.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 27, 2009 08:06 PMI don't agree. He never brought that up. He talked about liability of the doctors, he brought up abortion rights, he brought up "trust," but he never brought up that.
Of course, the only reason that would seem be an issue is if one wants to avoid any impediment to the killing of viable fetuses.
Or, in this case, live newborn babies.
While I think that even the earliest-term abortions are generally harmful to society, I think there's a substantial moral difference between the destruction of a 2-week embryo and the destruction of a 39-week baby. I wonder why pro-life and pro-choice people don't recognize that?
Recognize what? That there is a physical difference between the two? Of course people recognize that. That there is a moral difference? Many people don't agree with you.
No pregnant woman expects a tax deduction for her fetus. No fetus counts as a passenger in the carpool lane. The census doesn't count fetuses. No person can vote 18 years after it became a fetus. Does it need to be any more basic than that?
Here's to a free market in contraception, contraception services, and advertising of said.
Best,
new left conservative
...I think there's a substantial moral difference between the destruction of a 2-week embryo and the destruction of a 39-week baby.
Unfortunately, God doesn't see it that way.
I don't make the rules, I just play by 'em.
Richard
Posted by: Richard on October 28, 2009 09:03 AMYou say demo kid is lying that the incident never happened. Well one of you is mistaken and both need to provide additional (link) evidence speaking to your basis. Right now, it is what I stated previously that you can't state what you did in your post as fact, only as an opinion because it is based on an opinion (McCarthy's article).
Posted by: tc on October 28, 2009 09:14 AMFalse, obviously. Any reading of the law clearly shows it is talking about abortion, and it covers only abortion. And this practice isn't abortion. How can this be any plainer? Even Obama agrees this practice (that he fought to keep legal) isn't abortion.
You say demo kid is lying that the incident never happened.
He obviously is. I've already said plenty about Stanek: if you don't believe her, fine, but to assert she is lying is utterly baseless. There are multiple corroborating witnesses, and no evidence of any kind against their claims.
Right now, it is what I stated previously that you can't state what you did in your post as fact, only as an opinion because it is based on an opinion (McCarthy's article).
Yes, you keep making that stupid argument up out of thin air. Just like I read the transcript (that McCarthy linked to, that you said he didn't link to), I also read the nurses' testimony. You're lying: nothing I said is based on McCarthy's opinion (or anyone else's).
Yes, but the constitutional rights do not apply to citizens (except where explicit or necessarily implicit), but to all people. So no. Due process, free speech, cruel and unusual punishment, these are all rights that are unrelated to citizenship, as are the rights that we recognize as "constitutional" by way of the Declaration of Independence: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And those rights, the Declaration tells us, are ours because we are created equal.
Of course, that doesn't mean the courts have to recognize these rights as applying to the unborn. But their lack of citizenship is unrelated to that question, because the right to life we recognize in this country is unrelated to citizenship. Colleen was right that EVERYONE has a right to life (though the Constitution does not explicitly say so). The only question is whether "EVERYONE" includes the unborn.
(The only parts of the Constitution that apply to citizens include voting for and holding office; serving on juries; having certain standing in the courts and in other states; and having federal rights recognized by the states (14th Amendment). There may be a few more I am missing, but that's most of 'em.)
Otherwise, the "anchor babies" argument would explode to encompass not only babies born here, but also babies conceived here.
Right, but that is only about citizenship, and what Colleen said isn't about citizenship.
Nope.
That said, I should be clear that when I say "everyone" I am talking about everyone within American jurisdiction. That's the question: t what point is someone in a theater of war under American jurisdiction, that they can claim rights under our system?
And it's a similar question for new humans.
Equal rights for homosexuals but not innocent children...Disgusting!
Posted by: Brian Travis on October 29, 2009 12:47 AM