Rylan and Obama supporters please defend this stance for me.

[stdreb27]

darth you are looking at this all wrong, it doesn't matter what Obama has done or not done, voted or not voted for. Because he makes them "feel" good. Has a smooth voice, and "doesn't look like all the other presidents on the dollar bill." He could have sold his soul to the devil and these people would still vote for him...
Besides this is literally a defining moment in his life, (like literally defining what he is going to say he believes based on whatever it will take to get him elected)

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723107
we know that kids/teens want to hide mistakes from parents... and sometimes they are justified in doing so
Again spoken like a true socialist. The nanny state knows what is best for us and our children.
I can't give my kids tylenol to take to school, but she could get an abortion behind my back?
I love my government. They know what's best.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723166
Besides this is literally a defining moment in his life, (like literally defining what he is going to say he believes based on whatever it will take to get him elected)
Well, all the other defining moments don't seem to matter, why should this one?

 

[oscardeuce]

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."

They already took away the Hippocratic oath, why not this?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2723159
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.
It shouldn't be... they could be classmates... and it is ridiculous to convict persons in this situation... which has occurred... These people are not child molestors and are in the same peer group....it is also very common for females to choose older partners... So say a senior dates a junior and they have relations... ohhh that maybe a crime that puts you in jail 10-12.. and make you register for life... this is not what the law is meant for.
2nd I believe Obama said that he was in favor of sentencencing real child abusers to life or death penalty. These are two fundalmentally different issues, as you mentioned above he voted against a measure that would benefit convicted molestors.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2723180
Again spoken like a true socialist. The nanny state knows what is best for us and our children.
I can't give my kids tylenol to take to school, but she could get an abortion behind my back?
I love my government. They know what's best.

No.. not at all... your point pushes for gov't in the personnal lives and families of americans... these issues shouldn't be the role of gov't to make moral and family decisions...
2nd, the school has its own tylenol that they are permitted to give... Schools don't want kids bringing drugs of any kind to a school unless prescribed by a physician... I am not opposed to that.

 

[hlcroghan]

I am sure that Obama is not for killing healthy fully developed babies. Let's not throw this out of context. However, if a child is born that cannot be saved or has some missing necessary part in their body and they will die very soon and there is no way to save them, what is the logic in putting them on life support? Or working on them to keep their bodies going? I fully agree that it would be best to keep them comfortable until they pass away. I would say the same for an elderly person who is set to die very soon. I am personally not for resuscitation unless that person has an actual chance of living. I would not want to live as a vegetable.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2723237
I am sure that Obama is not for killing healthy fully developed babies. Let's not throw this out of context. However, if a child is born that cannot be saved or has some missing necessary part in their body and they will die very soon and there is no way to save them, what is the logic in putting them on life support? Or working on them to keep their bodies going? I fully agree that it would be best to keep them comfortable until they pass away. I would say the same for an elderly person who is set to die very soon. I am personally not for resuscitation unless that person has an actual chance of living. I would not want to live as a vegetable.

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723166
darth you are looking at this all wrong, it doesn't matter what Obama has done or not done, voted or not voted for. Because he makes them "feel" good. Has a smooth voice, and "doesn't look like all the other presidents on the dollar bill." He could have sold his soul to the devil and these people would still vote for him...
My point has just been made, it doesn't matter that he has voted for not once but 3 times... He still doesn't believe what he voted for...

 

[hlcroghan]

I honestly am not completely familiar with this bill. I would have to sit down and read it in completion. However I still agree with what I said earlier.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2723237
I am sure that Obama is not for killing healthy fully developed babies. Let's not throw this out of context. However, if a child is born that cannot be saved or has some missing necessary part in their body and they will die very soon and there is no way to save them, what is the logic in putting them on life support? Or working on them to keep their bodies going? I fully agree that it would be best to keep them comfortable until they pass away. I would say the same for an elderly person who is set to die very soon. I am personally not for resuscitation unless that person has an actual chance of living. I would not want to live as a vegetable.

Here is an exmple from the woman that first strted pushing this bill.
"One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken."
Now tell me this, the baby is .5 lbs, and still lived for 45 minutes. It even had down's syndrome. If it was given medical treatment, might it have lived? Might it gone on to have a life that other down's syndrome people have? You take people off life support they die in meer minutes. This baby was given no life support and still lived 45 minutes. How can a person NOT vote to give this baby a chance?
Rylan, please do not get sidetracked. This is a very critical issue as it shows a lack of human compassion.
How can a professed christian as Obama claims to be, stand by and allow a born alive baby to be allowed to die and given no chance to continue living?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723251
My point has just been made, it doesn't matter that he has voted for not once but 3 times... He still doesn't believe what he voted for...
How did you make your point, and how does your quote validate your quote?
Is this what "Straight Talk" is all about

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723193
It shouldn't be... they could be classmates... and it is ridiculous to convict persons in this situation... which has occurred... These people are not child molestors and are in the same peer group....it is also very common for females to choose older partners... So say a senior dates a junior and they have relations... ohhh that maybe a crime that puts you in jail 10-12.. and make you register for life... this is not what the law is meant for.
2nd I believe Obama said that he was in favor of sentencencing real child abusers to life or death penalty. These are two fundalmentally different issues, as you mentioned above he voted against a measure that would benefit convicted molestors.
It's up to a prosecutor whether or not to charge an 18 year old or not. Everyone knows the law, if they choose to violate it tuff cookies BUT that has nothing to do with the bill Obama voted against,
What's not to like? A state passes a law saying minors have to inform a parent before having an abortion. If someone decides to take said minor to another state and they are an adult that isn't the child's parent or guardian they would be subject to prosecution for violating the law.
2nd Obama voted AGAINST the bill that would have prevented good time being awarded to child molestors. In other words Obama thinks child molestors should be awarded good time when prosecuted. Obama voted against a law that would have forced child molestors to serve their full sentences.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2723329
Here is an exmple from the woman that first strted pushing this bill.
"One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken."
Now tell me this, the baby is .5 lbs, and still lived for 45 minutes. It even had down's syndrome. If it was given medical treatment, might it have lived? Might it gone on to have a life that other down's syndrome people have? You take people off life support they die in meer minutes. This baby was given no life support and still lived 45 minutes. How can a person NOT vote to give this baby a chance?
Rylan, please do not get sidetracked. This is a very critical issue as it shows a lack of human compassion.
How can a professed christian as Obama claims to be, stand by and allow a born alive baby to be allowed to die and given no chance to continue living?
there are 2 problems with your story and relating it with the bill.... the baby was born and not aborted.... Also, the period of gestation is far to advanced to have been a legal abortion... So this is a birth.... parents had the opportunity to hold the baby.
2nd... a baby that young 21-22 weeks would be rushed off for medical attention... I believe the record for premature birth is somewhere b/w 20 -22 weeks. This case is outside the realm of abortion ...

 

[darthtang aw]

This is a matter of record and you are looking for loopholes
Here it is again
first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:
One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.
It was a botched abortion...which happens in late terms.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723202
No.. not at all... your point pushes for gov't in the personnal lives and families of americans... these issues shouldn't be the role of gov't to make moral and family decisions...
2nd, the school has its own tylenol that they are permitted to give... Schools don't want kids bringing drugs of any kind to a school unless prescribed by a physician... I am not opposed to that.
So let me see if I understand your position. You think a kid who can't get a tattoo or peircing without the parent's permission should be able to get an abortion without the parents even being told?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2723337
How did you make your point, and how does your quote validate your quote?
Is this what "Straight Talk" is all about

I am totally befuddled. I said, it doesn't matter what Obama has done or voted for, his supporters don't care about it, they vote for other reasons. Then one of his supporters even after 3 votes to the contrary says, I don't think obama supports such actions. The very fact that he voted against the ban means he condones such actions, unless of course you want to say for political reasons he decided to not vote 3 times to support the ban. Which would lead me to the conclusion that, to Obama, politics are more important than a human life...

 

[reefraff]

I am not generally in the pro life camp as far as trying to keep a adult from terminating a pregnency but this late term nonsense has to cease. With all the tests and diagnostics available there is no reason to allow a pregnancy to go beyond 4 or 5 months and still allow an abortion UNLESS it is to protect the physical health of the mother.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2723367
I am not generally in the pro life camp as far as trying to keep a adult from terminating a pregnency but this late term nonsense has to cease. With all the tests and diagnostics available there is no reason to allow a pregnancy to go beyond 4 or 5 months and still allow an abortion UNLESS it is to protect the physical health of the mother.
These bills basically banned killing a baby who survived an abortion. Actually ending the life of the baby outside of the womb.

 

[hlcroghan]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723358
I am totally befuddled. I said, it doesn't matter what Obama has done or voted for, his supporters don't care about it, they vote for other reasons. Then one of his supporters even after 3 votes to the contrary says, I don't think obama supports such actions. The very fact that he voted against the ban means he condones such actions, unless of course you want to say for political reasons he decided to not vote 3 times to support the ban. Which would lead me to the conclusion that, to Obama, politics are more important than a human life...
I didn't say that I agreed with every single thing he votes for. I stated that in the instance that the doctors did not believe that they could save the child that they make him as comfortable as possible.To me this included drugs to ease the child'd suffering. I probably wouldn't agree in that circumstance of the 21 week old baby. He lived on his own for 45 minutes. I also do not agree with aborting any fetuses. Once it is past embryo stage, I believe it is unethical. I know it might sound hypocritical, but I am prolife. I don't believe in aborting any children just because you don't feel like having them. However I do believe that there are times that people have to make tough choices for their own reasons.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2723377
I didn't say that I agreed with every single thing he votes for. I stated that in the instance that the doctors did not believe that they could save the child that they make him as comfortable as possible.To me this included drugs to ease the child'd suffering. I probably wouldn't agree in that circumstance of the 21 week old baby. He lived on his own for 45 minutes. I also do not agree with aborting any fetuses. Once it is past embryo stage, I believe it is unethical. I know it might sound hypocritical, but I am prolife. I don't believe in aborting any children just because you don't feel like having them. However I do believe that there are times that people have to make tough choices for their own reasons.

Then how do you vote for someone who 3 times voted against banning the killing of a baby outside the womb?