READ your supposed "debunks". the claimed "debunking" doesn't relate at all to Obama's words...it's "debunking" narrow claims by specific journalists not related AT ALL to what Obama stated. And your Chicago Tribune propaganda is wrong because he didn't vote for it OR against it--he voted "present." And then it goes on to say what Obama supposedly MEANT to say... This nevertheless does not change what Obama ACTUALLY said. READ IT.
Ummmm...it's born....not in Mom anymore....it's heart is beating and it's breathing. Isn't that --alive and living and therefore...at least for the moment...viable? There is no such word as "previable," that's a euphemism to dehumanize the baby.
I did read it, and I asked: According to your transcript, Obama said the law requiring attempts to keep a "previable" child alive were wrong. What does "previable" mean to you? To me, it means "not yet able to live."
Alive, breathing (for the moment), but for how long, and should doctors be required to use artificial life support to keep it alive? That is a decision families make all the time. They have to evaluate whether extreme measures in a hopeless situation are worthwhile.
This is an abortion situation. Alive is not expected and it is an emergency situation. Doctors are legally bound to care for patients in emergency situations. In an abortion there is no "do not resuscitate" order-- and ABSOLUTELY comfort measures must be put into action. In an abortion situation where the child is born alive, they have placed children in utility rooms NEGLECTED until they died--they have been bagged and discarded STILL BREATHING. - - - Updated - - - If they are there for an abortion, the decision is made--they want a dead baby. How is it now okay to kill live born children?
Comfort measures, but not artificial life support for a baby with no chance of survival. Were legislators asking for NICU treatment until the baby died? It sounds like they were. I am skeptical about many of these unsubstantiated stories... http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jill_stanek_1 It isn't fair to say they want a "dead baby." They want a terminated pregnancy. And at that point, her pregnancy is terminated, and I don't think she would choose death over adoption. Botched abortions resulting in a live baby are extremely rare, but if it happened, I think there is a good chance the woman could change her mind, and regardless, not taking drastic measures in a hopeless case does not equal killing born children.
Obviously you DIDN'T read it.... No--they were talking about necessary care--comfort care. Sen. O'Malley specifically said "reasonable measures consistant with good medical practice" (p.84-5). That's not extreme. READ THE FREAKIN' TEXT. Or...I suppose you could remain ignorant of the heinous practices endorsed by favored public figures and abortion providers. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/ MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash. Good GOD! The trial of Kermit Gosnell in Philly should be enough to prove these things occur. Here's others... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly a day later. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed. A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged. Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours. The presence of WHAT makes a woman pregnant? This is ridiculous. No one is so stupid as to think that an abortion terminates a pregnancy WITHOUT KILLING the living thing in the woman's womb. Be intellectually honest will you?! Really? She's there, most likely due to traumatic life circumstances that she has been lied to by the media and society telling her having a "procedure" will make it all go away and it will be like it never happened...and then in the middle of it, she discovers that the thing she is trying to pretend doesn't exist actually comes out alive and an individual....yeah...she's in a position to be rational and choose "life" and "adoption" for her now "baby." You're crazy if you think medical staff and an aborting woman are calm, rational, and reasonable when in abortion situation rather than ending up with a dead baby, they "accidentally" get a live one...and ABSOLUTELY medical neglect is homicide. Who are you kidding?
(1) The (highly terndentious) term, "anti-choice brigade," is hardly neutral language; so it does nothing to enhance your argument (such as it is). (2) Your sweeping generalization--i.e. that all who are pro-life (which you refer to, dismissively, as "the anti-choice brigade") are opposed to "the morning-after pill"--is simply inaccurate. Some in the pro-life camp are so inclined; others are not.
](1) The term, "Pro-life," is hardly neutral language; so it does nothing to enhance your argument (such as it is). (2) Your sweeping generalization--i.e. that all who are Pro-Choice, Pro-Freedom are opposed to life, is simply inaccurate. Anti-Choicers have shown repeatedly that there is only ONE "life" they are interested in and that is the unborn's(and because of their agenda NOT because they actually care about life).. The born, and women, they hate with a passion especially if they're poor. They repeatedly prove they are ONLY interested in punishing women who enjoyed sex. Please do read a few threads in the Abortion forum...it will back up what I just posted.....or read in the political forum how much they do NOT support ANY government program that helps children ....
It ill behoves one who cavils at my descriptors to whine at someone pointing out his own indiscretions. It smacks of hypocrisy, a trait not unknown in those of an anti-choice persuasion.
"Necessary care," for what? To keep the baby alive? Both "necessary" and "reasonable" are subjective terms. Remember, "they" want a live baby. I didn't say they didn't occur. I said some stories are unsubstantiated and some are fabricated. I thought the whole point of this OP was that some abortions DON'T kill the fetus. Well? You're crazy if you think botched abortions resulting in a live baby are anything but extremely rare.
Your comment gives away that YOU want a dead baby. All that is being requested is minimal comfort care for a human being afforded all the rights and privileges afforded by the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps you should take a look at the 5th & 14 amendments. No person shall be ..... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... No matter that I think the "personhood" argument is stupid, at the very least people who are in support of "abortion rights" agree that once your born--outside the mother--you are a LEGAL PERSON. Where is that infant's due process? Who will defend that PERSON from his or her aggressors--the mother and doctor that attempted to kill him or her? Even the dude who lost his license? What? Do you need to be in the room when the live baby is suffocated in a biohazard bag? Got your head pretty deep in that sand, don't you?! .
The point has been made repeatedly, there were laws already in place in Illinois to protect babies born alive. Some who are born alive prematurely have little or no chance for survival. It is up to the family to determine if attempts will be made to keep the baby alive by artificial means in a hopeless situation. Advanced Life Support goes well beyond the provision of comfort. Do you believe all the stories are true?
The term, "pro-life," is the natural analogue to "pro-choice"; which I also use. Where did I assert that? This thread is about a particular position embraced by one person--and, presumably, by others also--that it is perfectly okay to commit infanticide, in the event of a botched abortion attempt. If you would care to argue the issue of abortion rights more broadly than that, I would suggest that you do so in a more appropriate thread... This is pure attitudinizing, in place of reasoned discussion... Some people believe, as a matter of principle, that such "government program" are socialist (and therefore, inherently undesirable); or that they encourage mothers to seek a handout from the government, rather than to learn to care for themselves and their children; or both. If you disagree, you might want to debate these points--preferably, in another (more suitable) thread--rather than merely disparaging those who believe differently than you do...
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. The entire pro-abortion argument has always been one of selfish nihilism. Their definition of personhood has always been arbitrary and one that they, themselves, could not even agree on a concrete consensus about. Thus it was only a matter of time before they began arguing for "abortion rights" outside of the womb. If the definition of life is subjective, then there is no logical argument for anti-homicide laws. Let's just repeal them all and be done with it. Anything less at this point is logically inconsistent and purely emotional in nature.
Can you link to the law you keep referring to? The provision in the proposal I'm referring to called for another doctor--one in addition to the abortionist who has a vested interest in covering his malpracticing ass--to be present and attend to the evidence of the doctor's incompetance as a hired killer. Lol...the "family" that just attempted to legally execute their lovely bundle of joy and life. spare me. you attempt aborting the life in your womb, you forfeit "parental rights." That baby belongs to the authorities who are required to look after the baby's best interest and protect his constitutional rights. If it's deemed medically reasonable, then of course that baby should get the aid that medicine can provide. Do you think she has fewer rights than you do? i believe a lot of bad (*)(*)(*)(*) goes on and it is not reported in the culture of death media. If ANY are true it is a crime against humanity.
Well we both seem to agree that once separated from the woman, whether dead or alive it is an individual, so I don't fully understand what you're point is.
It's not about intentionally killing live born children though, it's about determining whether or not they can even survive with life support and determining how much pain they will face and whether or not it's just best to let them pass on naturally if that's the case. This is something we leave up to families and physicians all the time already, why is it such an issue now?
Well put and true....the Anti-Choice/Anti-Freedom/Anti-Woman faction won't be able to understand and will just keep repeating their tripe as if it matters.
Then the medical professionals need to determine whether or not it would be in the best interests of the neonate to receive life support or not. I don't know what else to tell you and quite frankly I don't even know how many neonates are surviving abortions anyways, it must be an extremely small number as most abortions are performed well before a fetus can even be considered viable, let alone be placed on life support. By the way I am going to try and watch this video one more time to get all the details after I get home from picking up my hunny. =)
