[video=youtube;qEv1afKaLhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qEv1afKaLhA[/video] The "so-called right" to abortion trumps the Constitutional right to life? Go to 2:05 in the video; the gentleman gets to the heart of the issue, and the woman testifying on behalf of Planned Parenthood CLEARLY argues that in an "abortion setting" that Planned Parenthood (PP) OPPOSES providing "advanced life support" to a child born alive. That means that PP OPPOSES the right to life even to some born individuals. Planned Parenthood is APPALLINGLY disgusting.
I will be the first to state...that a new born....newly aborted breathing baby should not be killed. But, I'm pro-life. So it is expected I would have that attitude.
Did you know our President (when he was "Senator Obama") argued the very same thing? Obama used the term "pre-viable" to describe a born and currently living child at an early gestational age--but he was still clearly suggesting infanticide. STATE OF ILLINOIS 92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 20th Legislative Day: March 30, 2001 (pages 84-87) SENATOR O'MALLEY: Thank you. Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an -- of --of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be. SENATOR OBAMA:………Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest…that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then… would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. … this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
I was not aware of that; but I am hardly shocked. He has flip-flopped on so many different issues over the years (uh, pardon me; "evolved" is the proper term, I believe, for left-of-center thinkers) that this is quite unsurprising...
I believe "politically expedient" fits too. I AM shocked. --The whole idea that supposedly educated persons can rationalize the murder of live born children shocks and appalls me. I just can't get past it.
Darlin'...I linked you to the actual transcript. Read it. Particularly pages 84-87. It's his own words--verbatim. AND ANYWAY...if you read your own "debunk" it's not about debunking that Obama defended allowing the already born to die without care, it's about "debunking" a specific claim made by a specific ad. It does not deny that Obama argued in favor of refusing care to children born alive as a result of abortion. It's a good idea to actually read (and understand) links you claim support your view.
Sorry but post-birth abortion? If that's not an oxymoron I don't know what is. Pretty sure the pregnancy is over after birth. No such thing as a post-birth abortion. What a bunch of hyperbolic bullcrap. What you're discussing here is infanticide, which I agree is disgusting and wrong. If for any reason a fetus survives an abortion it should receive life support because at that point it is an individual person. I can't imagine how many premie/neonates this happens to when the woman is having an abortion though which often causes the death of the fetus while it is still inside the womb.
The "morning after" pill is castigated by the anti-choice brigade as an abortifacient. Should the resultant clump of expelled cells (assuming it can be found) be given life support? Insane.
Did you watch the video? Did you read the transcript with Obama's arguments? What do you think about what they are suggesting? - - - Updated - - - Is it alive? Heart beating and breathing? This is a different discussion.
So, if a baby survives the abortion, the baby suddenly becomes an individual? But if the baby dies from the abortion, that makes the baby not an individual? That doesn't make sense. What is the difference b/w the 2? It's the same individual, regardless of whether the baby dies of survives the abortion. Once again, this is a perfect example of the twisted pretzel logic of abortion advocates.
It's an ad about your claim. Obama didn't vote for the measure because there were already laws in Illinois to protect survivors of botched abortions, as the article details. Debunked again here: http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/08/22/myths-and-falsehoods-regarding-obamas-votes-on/144543 And: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html
I tried to watch the video actually but my laptops sound quality sucks, or the video is just too quiet. I couldn't hear what they were saying so I will have to watch it later on the desktop unfortunately. =(
But...If a fetus survives an abortion doesn't that mean the baby was viable before the abortion procedure? I mean, a Cesarian could have resulted in a live birth.
It is quiet. Please do watch it & comment later. Also, please do consider the transcript. I am disgusted by the position expressed in both.
I didn't say he voted on anything--I said he argued that babies born alive in "botched abortions" should be neglected until they DIE. That is EXACTLY what he argued. READ IT.
It would be an individual either way, but do you normally try and resuscitate the obviously deceased? What is "b/w the 2"? I'm sorry, I don't know what that stands for/means. Again, do you normally try and resuscitate the obviously deceased? I recognize the dead as individuals too but I don't make attempts to revive their corpses. It's not that hard to understand. It makes perfect sense to grant personhood at birth since the fetus is an individual separate from the woman and there is absolutely no conflict of rights at this point.
I read it, and I don't see that he said,"babies born alive in "botched abortions" should be neglected until they DIE"
I guess so but how many physicians do you know of willing to perform a C-section at viability 21-24 weeks? How many do you know that are willing to induce labor that early on? If the woman does not want to be pregnant it seems her only option is abortion and obviously, like I already said, if for some reason the fetus survives the abortion it should receive life-saving medical care.
The bill called for care for babies born alive, and Obama argued that they should not be attended to by a physician....and then he did what he often did...rather than go on record, he voted....PRESENT. - - - Updated - - - What do you think of PP's position?
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."
