Rylan and Obama supporters please defend this stance for me.

[darthtang aw]

The "Born-alive infants protection act", maybe you have heard of it. Before the U.S. congress made it federal law, the ilinois senate attempted to make it a state law and Obama voted against...
Here is a basic rundown
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act states that any baby that has been born alive is to be legally considered a person. As such, she or he would automatically be granted full protection under the U.S. Constitution. Other existing laws require that newborns must receive medical attention as needed. Killing a born-alive infant would be considered murder. This seems like such an obvious ethical mandate that one wonders who could possibly be against it. Some might wonder why such a bill is needed; after all, it is the traditional function of medical staff to give a baby any needed care after it has been born.
There have been cases where the partial birth abortion fails and the baby lives and these babies were then placed in a separate room, no medical care and left to suffer and die. Obama supported this.
Look it up. You can research it yourself.
How is his stance ethical and with such a viewpoint how can he oppose death sentence yet support baby killing?
This is not an abortion thread, this just the specific instance I am referring to. The babies were born, at this point it is no longer an abortion. And if you have no problem with that then you should have no problem with people taking new born puppies they didn't want and drowning them in a lake.

 

[jennythebugg]

thats terrible

 

[darthtang aw]

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...0-reasons.html

 

[el guapo]

WOW

 

[cranberry]

What are we calling a baby here? How many weeks gestation?

 

[alexmir]

a baby is a baby .0001 seconds into fertilization

 

[cranberry]

I'm not talking heart and soul... I'm talking anatomically. Before a certain week gestation there are certain things that are just not there because of their age. You can't get blood to their lungs to pick up the oxygen. It's "connection" is just not there. We can't recreate it in any current man made technology..... we can't give them new lungs. I'm not saying take them and throw them in the garbage, but give them the support that you would give any baby born too early for anything medically to be done.
I would not attend a 21 week delivery of any type, "forced" or not, with plans of attempting to resusitate that baby... support and comfort is all I'll be there for.
And I'm not talking from any political stand point. I'm a Canadian with a Green Card.... I'm not even allowed to vote so I have no idea whats going on. All I know is Chickie-boo was going for universal healthcare. There's a reason why THIS canadain is not in Canada anymore. I don't even know who Rylan is......

 

[socal57che]

Well, that's interestingly morbid. Surely as a Senator he has seen far more graphic evidence than I have...and he still stands up for and defends this? God help us if he becomes president.
Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/2723000
I'm not talking heart and soul.........
I don't mean this as an attack, just adding an angle to your post.
Out of curiosity, when do you feel the soul is given to the child?
At conception?
During gestation?
At birth?
Is it easier to let it die if we tell ourselves the child has no soul?
As a Christian it would seem that Senator Obama would be asking himself the same question.

 

[reefraff]

Why should anyone be surprised, this guy is a tool of the radical left.
Obama has voted against a law to disallow good time being applied to child molestors
Voted against making it a federal crime for a person to take a minor accross state lines for an abortion to avoid a state's parental involvement laws ialthough he did say that MAYBE in a case where the girl was very young, like 12 or 13 there should be some input from parents.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/2723000
I'm not talking heart and soul... I'm talking anatomically. Before a certain week gestation there are certain things that are just not there because of their age. You can't get blood to their lungs to pick up the oxygen. It's "connection" is just not there. We can't recreate it in any current man made technology..... we can't give them new lungs. I'm not saying take them and throw them in the garbage, but give them the support that you would give any baby born too early for anything medically to be done.
I would not attend a 21 week delivery of any type, "forced" or not, with plans of attempting to resusitate that baby... support and comfort is all I'll be there for.
And I'm not talking from any political stand point. I'm a Canadian with a Green Card.... I'm not even allowed to vote so I have no idea whats going on. All I know is Chickie-boo was going for universal healthcare. There's a reason why THIS canadain is not in Canada anymore. I don't even know who Rylan is......
These are babies that survive partial birth abortion attempts or pre mature birth.....so the have been BORN...not gestation, not conception.....BORN.

 

[rylan1]

I don't agree with Partial birth... If a woman is going to pursue this... it has to be limitations to the practice. I am not sure if its 12 weeks or what the date should be... but there should be a limit...
Second, there is a limit to what medical personnel can do...I believe no baby has survived less than 22 weeks are something like that... as technology advances that cricitcal point may change.... but an infant/embryo/fetus... or whatever term you want to use... medical science says that they are not able to survive, even w/ medical attention because of development issues...
I am not sure what the details of the bill said... these bills are usually complex and have many details beside just the main point... so even if some politicians may agree with the premise of the bill... all parts may not be to their liking..

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2723023
Why should anyone be surprised, this guy is a tool of the radical left.
Obama has voted against a law to disallow good time being applied to child molestors
Voted against making it a federal crime for a person to take a minor accross state lines for an abortion to avoid a state's parental involvement laws ialthough he did say that MAYBE in a case where the girl was very young, like 12 or 13 there should be some input from parents.

A law is to vague, what if the girl is 17 and her boyfriend is 18 takes her... that would be a crime... or what if her sister or aunt took her... grandparent...of friend....
This has nothing to do with molestation... we know that kids/teens want to hide mistakes from parents... and sometimes they are justified in doing so

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723106
I am not sure what the details of the bill said... these bills are usually complex and have many details beside just the main point... so even if some politicians may agree with the premise of the bill... all parts may not be to their liking..

Read the story, read the reason's (which changed in each interview) he gave for his no vote and not allowing it out of committee. Had nothing to do with extra details of the bill.
In good faith how can someone vote for a guy that does not embrace all life, and when I say life I mean from birth, I am probably one of the few pro-lifers that do understand the other side of the coin and understand how a pro-choice person can hold and sustain a view such as that, but this goes far beyond that.
Basically your excuse is the child usually never lives past a certain amount of time......doesn't matter, it is the doctors duty to do everything possible to see that child gets cared for medically, it is called the hypocratic oath. But let's take your excuse and see if it holds water. There is no cure for alzheimers at this point, so should doctors bother treating these patients since they will die anyway? I mean why bother, they always die and are never cured.

 

[darthtang aw]

and I have never seen a state bill trump a federally ruled on law or decision. So ROE V WADE in no way was in jeapordy. The minute Roe V Wade took abortion law out of the states hands it became a federal law....so any state law would not over turn it. A similar bill pass the U.S. congress and was signed by the president, has Roe V Wade been overturned because of it? Not last time I checked.
It is not his job to worry about constitutional law, he is a senator he votes and passes bills, constitutional law is presided over the supreme court and the court system...not the senate of any state or government.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2723135
and I have never seen a state bill trump a federally ruled on law or decision. So ROE V WADE in no way was in jeapordy. The minute Roe V Wade took abortion law out of the states hands it became a federal law....so any state law would not over turn it. A similar bill pass the U.S. congress and was signed by the president, has Roe V Wade been overturned because of it? Not last time I checked.
It is not his job to worry about constitutional law, he is a senator he votes and passes bills, constitutional law is presided over the supreme court and the court system...not the senate of any state or government.
if this bill was potentially unconstituional... then that is a fair reason to vote against..

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723143
if this bill was potentially unconstituional... then that is a fair reason to vote against..
Those were not the excuses he gave though on different occasions, and even if was potentially unconstitutional, he could work with the person to amend the uncoinstitional part (a small part of it) and get the rest passsed? Or had that part taken out?
And again it is the senates job to make and poass laws, not to make constitutional judgements....and every bill has the potential to be unconstitutional and state does not trump Federal law does it? especially when a constitutional ruling has been made..

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723143
if this bill was potentially unconstituional... then that is a fair reason to vote against..
A baby lies dying on the table. A Bill says the Dr. must work to save its life.
Please show me where the Constitution prohibits this???

 

[darthtang aw]

Basically I want you to explain how you can support a guy that gave the reasons he gave against such a bill....not the potentially constitutional aspect the but the other aspects.....like you medical point.....please respond to that..you are defending this position because thos e babies have never lived past a certain point....so we should be inhumane and callous? THAT is a child...it was BORN....not some glob of cellls or partial fetus, but a child with legs toes, eyes, a mouth, and hands.........and a voice.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2723150
A baby lies dying on the table. A Bill says the Dr. must work to save its life.
Please show me where the Constitution prohibits this???

His excuse had nothing to do with constitutional.
Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
The baby is still a fetus outside the womb I guess.....which means hell I can kill my child anytime I wish.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723107
A law is to vague, what if the girl is 17 and her boyfriend is 18 takes her... that would be a crime... or what if her sister or aunt took her... grandparent...of friend....
This has nothing to do with molestation... we know that kids/teens want to hide mistakes from parents... and sometimes they are justified in doing so
Law wasn't vague at all. If a state passes a law requiring parental involvement in the abortion process and a non costodial adult takes that minor across state lines for an abortion they just broke the law. If the 18 year old boyfriend got the 17 year old pregnent thats statutory r in most states so that really doesn't matter anyway.
Although this law can have something to do with molestation that was a whole other law where obama voted no on a bill that would not allow good time to be applied to molestors sentences.