Touting Corsi book, Limbaugh falsely claimed that Obama voted to "allow doctors and patients to murder babies"
SUMMARY: Discussing Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this." Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and posed a threat to abortion rights.
During the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while touting Jerome Corsi's falsehood-laden book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this." But in making his claim, Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and, as Media Matters for America has noted, that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and that it posed a threat to abortion rights.
Media Matters has documented that on three Sean Hannity-hosted programs, Corsi falsely claimed that Obama supports abortion "[a]fter a child's born."
From the August 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Oh -- this book by Jerome Corsi. You know, this is fascinating, folks. Jerome Corsi was also a co-author of one of those books that the Swift Boat Vets put out against John Kerry. So the Obama campaign has now mounted this rapid-response website, and the drive-bys -- it's -- the incestuousness here. Media Matters will do an analysis of Corsi's book, and then the drive-bys like Jake Tapper at ABC will pick it up, and they start sourcing each other. And Media Matters will -- "Well, as ABC said," and ABC -- "Well, as Media Matters said" -- political hack news organizations.
What they're doing, they're investigating the background of Jerome Corsi. And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling -- there's a few lies about some of the assertions. I've read some of the book, and it's pretty damn good, and it's very interesting. And there are a lot of endnotes in here that document some of his assertions.
But what's fascinating to me is that the drive-bys are spending 10 times the amount of energy trying to get who -- the background on Corsi than they are on Obama. They have spent no time working on the background of Obama. It is other people having to come up with the fact that this guy, numerous times, three times in Illinois voted for legislation that would allow doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb. Radical stuff. Three times he voted for this.
And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling -- there's a few lies about some of the assertions. I've read some of the book, and it's pretty damn good, and it's very interesting. And there are a lot of endnotes in here that document some of his assertions.
There are lies about only some of Corsi's assertions? There are endnotes that document only some of Corsi's assertions? And Limbaugh can speak with authority on these matters although he's only read some of the book?
And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling -- there's a few lies about some of the assertions. I've read some of the book, and it's pretty damn good, and it's very interesting. And there are a lot of endnotes in here that document some of his assertions.
There are lies about only some of Corsi's assertions? There are endnotes that document only some of Corsi's assertions? And Limbaugh can speak with authority on these matters although he's only read some of the book?
What they're doing, they're investigating the background of Jerome Corsi. And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling
Only pathetically ignorant 'dittoheads' would believe this one.
Mr Corsi, by simply opening his mouth discredits himself with no help from MMfA, ABC, or any other of the wrongly named 'drive-by' media!
Maybe sometime The United Snakes of Ureamia will get a for real news media. Maybe for Christmas. Unless of course our ideology demands that we destroy Christmas first.
How bout if we only destroy Christmas for only 1/30th of each second. We can compromise, as long as its only temporary.
Limbaugh is 100% correct here.
You should really take a deep breath and reconsider anytime you start a post with those words. Abortions are very rare in most states beyond the second trimester, usually only for extreme cases involving the life of the mother. These are not babies who have "already been born".
Has Rush ever told you anything that you didn't believe?
Here's three cases:
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp
http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf
There's many, many more. The reason for the law is of course because babies that had survived abortions weren't being taken care of. Barack Obama was having his way and they were all allowed to die.
Why do you apparently like to lie so much.
Those are not evidence of babies surviving successful abortions. I already demolished this argument.
I have no desire to talk to those people, and no need.
They didn't survive a successful abortion. Get that thru your thick skull!
There is no evidence of there being any need for this law, and you know it.
No need to bother, rino. You are the only one making logical arguements with law to back them up. Also, you provide links to proof of your arguement, yet still blondie, snoopey and ironey all feel their opinion outweigh law and fact. You can argue with them till you're blue in the face and they won't change their minds.
Realize you are going against staunch liberals. These are people who don't think for themselves, they only repeat what they are told. There is no brain functioning around them, only cells telling them what to say/when to say it. You would have better luck convincing a rock that it floats on water than convincing a liberal to think for themselves.
Look in the mirror. It is your side that ignores the fact that the existing law prohibits allowing a baby to die already.
It's you who falsely described the existing law. It's you who argues with only emotion instead of using emotion and fact. At one point in time, my job involved caring for infants and young mothers and mothers-to-be, and I base my arguments on the law and on the facts and on emotion.
"At one point in time, my job involved caring for infants and young mothers and mothers-to-be, and I base my arguments on the law "
When did planned parenthood ever get into the CARE option of infants? You base your entire arguement on your interpretation of the law. Then whine when the law states something other than what you want it to. Claiming confusion as to why "some" states don't follow your interpretation of the law. We know why you're confused...you're a blonde.
When you come to a 'stop' sign, does that mean stop or slow down? Gee simple laws sure confuse the simpletons of the world, don't they?
I haven't demonstrated any confusion. I have demonstrated a superior knowledge of the law, as well as the facts concerning non-viable and viable fetuses.
It's not my fault, nor my burden, that you're too ignorant to understand these simple concepts.
There is no such thing as an unborn child. In order to criminalize fetal deaths by negligence or intent, they had to classify fetuses as unborn children, since fetuses don't qualify for protection since they aren't people. Legally giving them the classification of unborn children doesn't make them unborn children. It's a skewing of the definition only. That skewing of the definition, however, specifically excludes any fetus that is involved in an abortion or other medical procedure.
There's many, many more.
And you base this on...?
The reason for the law is of course because babies that had survived abortions weren't being taken care of.
Post a link to an example of this happening in Illinois or anywhere in the U.S.
It's alive and outside of the mother's womb, and our laws state that these babies must be protected and cared for. You and Barack Obama may want to leave these babies to die, but that's an extreme position that both Republicans and Democrats reject. Shoot, even NARAL rejected it! Your position on this issue is more extreme than NARAL's position!
I already destroyed this argument. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby.
There are already laws that protect babies. There's laws against killing babies. There's no need to protect them with additional laws since they're already protected by laws.
The law didn't protect babies. It criminalized behavior that would have impeded legal abortion of non-viable fetuses.
You're also the one who thinks a born baby is some other type of animal. Just what type of animal is a baby after it leaves the womb?
Is a baby with Downs syndrome viable? How about a baby born with no arms/legs and deaf/blind, is that one viable? Should all of those babies be automatically killed because you think it isn't a human?
Just what type of animal is a baby after it leaves the womb?
Whatever type of animal that baby was when it was somehow put into a womb. What a strange question.
Gosh, the arrogance of people who don't even possess rudimentary reading comprehension skills is stunning.
Non-viable means cannot survive outside a womb, even with medical attention, food, shelter, and love.
There are viable fetuses and non-viable fetuses. When a viable fetus leaves a womb, it is then a baby. When a non-viable fetus leaves the womb from an abortion or a miscarriage (called a spontaneous abortion), it's not a baby.
A baby without arms or legs can survive with enough medical attention, food, shelter, and love. Just like a person who is otherwise severely handicapped, or in a coma.
Really, you just make yourself look stupid and insincere and troll-like when you post this crapola.
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. So, you're saying that attempted aborted babies should NOT be given medical attention after they are delivered? Hmm, that's what O'bama says, too. And Christians (90% of America) don't like murdering human beings after they are outside the womb. Laws are even present to protect their lives. YOU change the wording of the law to suit YOUR opinion. Fortunately, the law does NOT agree with YOU.
You are saying that a living human being should not be offered minimal medical assistance after a quack can't do his job right? Are you saying every baby who leaves the womb should be left unattended until it is determined they need help to live?
I like how you get to pick and choose who is worthy of medical attention. At what level does someone NOT deserve medical attention IN YOUR OPINION?
Again, people with rudimentary reading comprehension skills shouldn't be trying to tell someone who has beaten them in every previous debate anything!
Non-viable fetuses aren't babies, even after they leave the womb. They're non-viable fetuses, and so they cannot survive, even with intensive medical treatment, and so it's a waste of finite medical resources to force doctors to provide medical treatment to them. It'd be like someone who had a traumatic brain injury as well as a broken leg. If they are brain dead, there's no reason to put a cast on their leg! But this law would require that we do that.
Non-viable fetuses aren't human beings. They aren't people. They aren't. They are not viable fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb.
The law already protects babies. I already proved that you were lying about the current law vs the proposed law. Lying! That's what you do. The current law already protects human life when it leaves the womb as a viable fetus and becomes a baby. The proposed law attempted to criminalize the non-treatment of non-viable fetuses, which are not human beings, not babies, not people. I diddn't change the wording of any law. You're the one that quoted one part of the existing law and ignored the other part of the existing law that destroyed your argument about the first part of that law! That was YOU!
I'm saying that a medical professional should not be made a criminal if he doesn't provide medical attention to a non-viable fetus. The law already prohibits the failure to provide medical attention to a human being. Living human beings, people, babies, are already protected. A non-viable fetus isn't a person, or a human being, or a baby.
Every baby that leaves the womb gets the medical attention it deserves currently. You're the one who's demanding that things change. You're the one who is demanding that non-viable fetuses get medical intervention, even though a non-viable fetus can't survive outside the womb. Viable fetuses who leave the womb already get that medical intervention! They don't need protection - the law already protects them!
Every person who wants medical attention and needs it should get it. A non-viable fetus is not a person.
If a grown adult capable of making their own medical decisions doesn't want medical intervention, they shouldn't be forced to get it. If a legal guardian of a person not capable of making their own medical decisions doesn't want medical intervention to continue life, they should be able to make that decision with medical acceptance of that decision.
We already protect the rights of babies fron those who might cause them to die or be injured. We don't need any additional laws to protect babies. That's the clearest reason that the proposed law was not intended to protect babies, but was intended to criminalize abortion.
If it's a non-viable fetus that's outside of the womb, it doesn't have any rights. It's still a fetus. It's not a person.
We've already demolished that argument two weeks ago. What is your problem that you can't acknowledge the failings of your argument just 13 days ago?
Meant OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB.
I'm the one who's been saying all along that the current law protects babies.
The change is one where non-viable fetuses would have to be provided medical attention. Non-viable fetuses, even after they leave the womb, aren't babies.
The proposed law would have changed the law. How can you not grasp that simple concept that a new law would change existing law, and it was not our side that submitted the proposed law?
Liar.
The laws already protect babies outside of the womb. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby.
-- Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby. -- bottleblonde
The Illinois criminal code is clear...they state that any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth is an unborn child.
Nope. They don't. You lie.
The proposed law said that.
The law already protects babies, and all other persons, from acts or failure to act that causes the injury or death of another person.
The new law wanted to claim that even non-viable fetuses were worthy of protection and needed medical intervention. They don't. They're non-viable. Even with all the medical intervention, food, love, and shelter, non0-viable fetuses won't survive. They should not get the same protections that a person gets. That's the difference that you guys can't comprehend or won't comprehend I should say.
You'll never beat that argument because there is no way to beat that argument. Non-viable fetuses are not people. They don't get rights like people do. Like babies do, like handicapped people do, like people in comas do, because they're not able to live, even with medical intervention, food, and love! This isn't that difficult, and all this stuff was said 2 weeks ago, so why are you recycling already debunked arguments?
The current criminal code is explicit.
Illinois Criminal Code 720:
-- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. --
You're a deceitful scoundrel. The new law was trying to force medical intervention on any fetus that left the womb.
This is what the law says
(e) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
Blondie, where did you get that version of the law? I looked and could not find that version. I did find this version: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:j37--hLiq2sJ:www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/PDF/920SB1093sam001.pdf+Illinois+Criminal+Code+720:+abortion+born+alive+bill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
Which, I'm afraid to say, does NOT agree with your version. In fact I found no version even resembling yours. Oh, BTW, your definition of viable does not agree with Ill. state law either. Also, live born (even during an abortion) babies must be attended by a physician in an attempt to save it's life.
Sorry to break this news to you, blondie, but your ideals are ONLY that...ideals. There is NO law to back up anything you say or promote.
What a jackass you are.
I got it from the link that Media Matters offered, you jerk!
The very law YOU copied from! What an imbecile.
From the Media Matters link, BOTH things are available.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720 ILCS 5/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10600000&SeqEnd=11500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
Copied directly from that link, with no spaces even between the two things, yet you couldn't find it? What a loon! You couldn't find it? That's crazy talk! How could you have not found it?
(b) For purposes of this Section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth, and (2) "person" shall not include the pregnant woman whose unborn child is killed.
(c) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
And it's "me" who's slinking off? What a laugh. It is you and your ilk who never come back after you've been proven wrong to admit you were proven wrong, and it's you and your ilk who came back here this week to argue the same debunked arguments from only two weeks ago!
And my definition of viable and non-viable? That's a medical definition. I already discussed elsewhere why some states have chosen to skew that definition in order to criminalize the negligent homicide of a non-viable fetus. A non-viable fetus isn't a person, and a person can't 'kill' a non-viable fetus, because killing is of a person. That's why they change it for the limited purposes of that law, and for the purposes of that law, they call a non-viable fetus an unborn child. It's not.
"I got it from the link that Media Matters offered, you jerk! The very law YOU copied from! What an imbecile. From the Media Matters link, BOTH things are available."
You got a definition of homicide from the mmfa link. They provided no law regarding abortion. My link was a direct link to the 'current' law. Which plainly defines viable and non-viable. When YOU decide not to follow the law, then you are breaking the law. Another typical liberal trait.
Philbin
In the post you just replied to, I copied and pasted the current criminal statute that describes the criminal killing of a fetus, and in that same copy and paste, it includes the exclusion of abortion and medical procedures....
So how can you possibly claim that I didn't include info about abortion? What a dunce!
" it includes the exclusion of abortion and medical procedures...."
As related to homocide. Not the viability of a fetus during an abortion. An abortion is a legal procedure, not homicide. It becomes a felony if the hack doctor uses a coat-hanger to attempt an abortion then fails to give the fetus proper medical attention in an attempt to save it's life.
Look in the mirror, Philbin.
My argument has always held up, and has never been debunked.
What we're talking about here is babies that have already been BORN.
No, we're talking about fetuses that have been ABORTED...
I already demolished this argument 2 weeks ago too. There is no evidence that there has EVER been a fetus that has survived an abortion.
Why are you willing to get your argument demolished 2 weeks ago and then repeat those lies today? What character flaws you must have to be willing to debase yourself to that level.
"There is no evidence that there has EVER been a fetus that has survived an abortion. "--Bottleblonde
Gotta disagree with you there--you're arguing with one.
I proved you wrong 13 days ago. There are NUMEROUS examples of people who have survived abortions:
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp
http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf
No, I proved you wrong again and again and again, and I have documented the fact that despite that effort by you, you're pushing the same debunked arguments less than 2 weeks later!
Most people have more shame than you have, apparently.
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp
You're not very smart, are you? Did you even read any of the links he provided? When a baby is outside the womb it is a HUMAN baby. I don't think your previous arguement that it isn't human yet holds up very well. I've never heard of a human giving birth to a horse or cow or dog or cat. But, like a true liberal, you are blind to facts and stick to what you are told to say and believe. I wouldn't expect anything less from a liberal. Especially one with your thought patterns.
How's that old saying go concerning blonds? It certainly is true for you.
A non-viable fetus outside of the womb is not a baby. It's not a person either. We've already debunked this arguments a short 2 weeks ago.
I've seen and read every link ever submitted to supposedly show someone who survived an abortion. None of them demonstrate that.
There is not a single time that a baby was born alive as a result of a successful abortion. This proposed law was supposed to stop people from committing infanticide of these babies being born alive after successful abortions. But it doesn't happen, so it's a non-existing event that doesn't need any additional laws to prevent - current laws criminalize the intentional murder of a person.
"There is not a single time that a baby was born alive as a result of a successful abortion. "
But there are some born alive after your hack doctors can't do the job correctly. I thought you abortion zealots wanted abortion legalized so that unqualified doctors wouldn't be performing them. So much for liberal logic. Heck we may as well go back to the old system for all the good it's done. You can't even get qualified doctors to perform the only medical procedure you really care about. It's obvious you don't care about saving lives of children after they are born. Why don't you just pick your favorite deformity and declare all of them non-viable and kill them after they are born, too?
1. There's no threat to those babies. There are no examples of any baby that has ever been threatened in that way. Not one.
2. If there were a threat, or if there becomes a threat, harming a baby is already illegal and sanctions against that behavior already exist. There's no reason to create a new law when existing laws cover that criminal behavior already!
"2. If there were a threat, or if there becomes a threat, harming a baby is already illegal and sanctions against that behavior already exist. "
That's right. There are laws present. You need to read the law, because it does NOT agree with YOUR stance. I provided a link (earlier) to the law and you are wrong on every count of your arguement. You are wrong with your definition of words, your are wrong with your statement of viability and you are wrong that it doesn't happen.
720 ILCS 510/6 Sec. 6. (2) (b); Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.
No, you didn't provide a link to the existing law.
Liar. Media Matters provided a link to the existing law. Wesley provided one part of the law, said that the part of the law he provided covered abortion, and I proved that he was wrong about the law because in that same criminal code was another provision, the one I provided, that says that abortions don't count! They had to find a way to circumvent the fact that a non-viable fetus is not a person, and therefore someone guilty of causing that fetus to not become a viable fetus and then a baby is not guilty of a crime UNLESS they change the definition to fit an unborn baby. But that change in the definition is specifically not intended for anything to do with an abortion! The law says it!
And my definition of viable and non-viable fetuses? It's THE definition. It's not 'my' definition. It's not my fault that facts have a liberal bias. I'd be glad to have righties support the facts just like I do! It's a big tent.
Fetus - the product of conception from the time of implantation (as evidenced by any of the presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, or a medically acceptable pregnancy test), until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable.Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant.Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.You provided a link to the proposed law, not the existing law.
Fetus - the product of conception from the time of implantation (as evidenced by any of the presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, or a medically acceptable pregnancy test), until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable. Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant. Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant.
Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.
"They had to find a way to circumvent the fact that a non-viable fetus is not a person, and therefore someone guilty of causing that fetus to not become a viable fetus and then a baby is not guilty of a crime UNLESS they change the definition to fit an unborn baby."
Are you crying? It looks like we brought you to tears! There's no crying into your keyboard allowed.
Blondie (again) the law specifically states what viable is and what viable is not. You can choose to agree with the definition as per the law, but that does not change the law. A viable fetus about to be aborted IS a viable fetus. When the hack liberal doctor botches his job and the attempted aborted living baby is now sitting outside the womb, the conservative doctor (present by law) must do what is necassary to save the babies life. If the baby dies, so be it. If the baby lives so be it.
No, the existing law does not describe viable and non-viable. It's the proposed law that does that.
You're wrong, and won't admit it. No my fault.
It's you who is whining! Everyone can see that.
-- the existing law does not describe viable and non-viable -- bottleblonde
Hey, hey...you're getting there. The law enforces the penalties for killing unborn children...other than those killed during an abortion.
Republican girls get knocked up and their fathers pay to have their fetuses aborted...
Lots of Republican girls get knocked up BY their fathers......
You really can't offer an apples to apples comparison, can you? This silly pedantic third grade argument you want is really a waste of time.
I demolished THIS argument 2 weeks ago also.
So I guess since physically handicapped people can't survive on their own they aren't people as well? What ever happened to liberals trying to protect the most vulnerable among us? Oh I forgot, that's just a myth.
There's a difference between a handicapped person that can survive outside the womb with food, shelter and medical intervention and a non-viable fetus that cannot survive regardless of the amount of medical intervention, love, food and attention it gets from outside sources.
How can it be that your argument was totally beaten less than 2 weeks ago but you can't acknowledge that fact today?
"There's a difference between a handicapped person that can survive outside the womb with food, shelter and medical intervention and a non-viable fetus that cannot survive regardless of the amount of medical intervention, love, food and attention it gets from outside sources."
Blondie, what's the difference between a viable handicapped fetus and a viable fetus about to be aborted? Right...NONE. When your hack liberal doctor is hungover (again) and can't do his job, that viable fetus is still viable...just nearly murdered. When he finishes the job outside the womb without attempting to save it, then it IS a felony...BY LAW.
Which is the part of this entire thread that NOBODY is discussing. Limbaugh is wrong, O'bama didn't vote against those bills, he voted present. Which for all intended purposes means he doesn't agree/oppose them but didn't have the balls to take a stance on the matter. Some Christian he turns out to be. He doesn't oppose live-born babies being killed.
Right. It's already a felony. There's no reason to add a new law that forces medical treatment, and provides criminal sanctions if that treatment isn't provided, for a viable fetus.
The new law was going to force medical professiionals to provide medical intervention regardless of the viability of the fetus. Medical treatment shouldn't be forced on a non-viable fetus. That law was aimed at criminalizing abortion, not with providing medical treatment for viable fetuses. As I said, they already get that treatment, and if they don't, there's already criminal sanctions.
Oh I forgot, that's just a myth.
The only myth aroung here is the claim that Rino Hunter's IQ is in positive numbers.
-- Again, can it survive without it's host? If the answer is no, it's not a baby yet. -- snoopy
C'mon snoop...I understand your point...but you're on a long reach with this survival bit as the defining principle of life.
That's why newborns are not just left on the delivery table with a cheery good morning and instructions on where to find the milk, clean clothes and directions to the bath room.
The bill in question:Here's the tiny print that didn't post.
The proposed bill:
-- Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recoginized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. --
The criminal code that mmfa cites:
-- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. --
Clearly the bill and the law recognizes that the unborn life is a child...not just a fetal lump of tissue.
Here's the tiny print that didn't post. The proposed bill: -- Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recoginized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. -- The criminal code that mmfa cites: -- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. -- Clearly the bill and the law recognizes that the unborn life is a child...not just a fetal lump of tissue. - wesley / Saturday August 16, 2008 9:49:57 AM EDT
A baby is a viable fetus that leaves the womb. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is viable. Some are non-viable, and no matter how much money is spent providing them with medical attention, they can't survive. Those are babies. Those aren't persons.
Babies are already protected by current law. This law that you're talking about would force medical intervention upon non-viable fetuses and the woman who bore that fetus.
Instead of allowing a natural demise of that non-viable fetus, those women would be forced to watch useless medical procedures be forced upon them.
Why do you want to remove the right of those women and men to allow the natural demise of that non-viable fetus? It's already the law that babies (viable fetuses that have left the womb, remember) are protected. Why do we have to force medical intervention when it's hopeless? And before viability, it's hopeless.
Why do you repeat debunked arguments?
-- to allow the natural demise of that non-viable fetus --
It's really pretty simple...I'm not allowing or disallowing anything. The Illinois criminal code does not define the life as a fetus...they define it as an "unborn child" of the human species...not a blob of tissue.
You deceitful scoundrel. From the criminal statutes, they exclude abortions. This new law wanted to force medical intervention onto non-viable fetuses, and push criminal penalties on those who did not! Like I said.
(e) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
Isn't it curious how they spout their nonsense and then run away to hide when that nonsense gets exposed as nonsense?
Fight lies with the truth, and it works every time. It's sad that they can't admit their errors. Like above - the existing law does criminalize the intentional death of a fetus not because killing a fetus is a crime, but because they skew the true definitions of words to call a fetus an unborn child. But that same law Philbin quoted from also said that abortions don't count, nor do any medical procedures for the health and welfare of the mother.
That debunked his argument. Why can't he hang around and say that he was wrong? Why is admitting an error for a rightie like garlic to a vampire?
-- because they skew the true definitions of words to call a fetus an unborn child -- bottleblonde
That's certainly an "opinion" that some have...but it is contrary to the existing statute.
That statute is easy to understand and comprehend by most people. The life in a mother's womb is an unborn "child"...from fertility to birth.
That's from a source that many here claim as unimpeachable...mmfa.
The law covers many scenarios, including murder and abortion. But nowhere in the statute can you find language referring to a fetus, viable or non-viable. What you choose to call a fetus...is referred to as an unborn child in every application.
The statute only refers to a non-viable fetus as an unborn child when it doesn't refer to abortion! When it applies to abortion, there's no such thing as an unborn child. Why is that? Because there is no such thing as an unborn child, and it's only an invention of the lawmakers because they have to claim that fetuses are unborn children to penalize people who might criminally cause their demise and pretending that fetuses are people is the only way to do that! That pretense doesn't change reality!
And my definition of non-viable is the medical definition. It's not 'my' definition. It is the definition. That definition doesn't change because the lawmakers skewed the definition of a child to criminalize behavior!
The statute is easy to understand, that's true. And in that statute, not all fetuses are described as unborn children. I don't understand how you can't understand that, because, as you said, the statute is easy to understand. That statute, as I said, excludes an aborted fetus from that skewed definition that calls some fetuses unborn children! I provided that link that shows that the fetuses we're talking about, fetuses involved in abortions, are not included in that statute as unborn children.
If it's such an easy statute to understand, and I provided links to the exclusions, how is it possible that you can not understand this?
-- It is the definition. That definition doesn't change because the lawmakers skewed the definition of a child -- bottleblonde
You're incorrect again...the statute says:
-- For purposes of this section (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertility until birth. --
In this criminal code you can find no usage of the word fetus...making "any" definition you want to trot out...moot.
Hey blondie, show me where the proposed law or current law specified "viable". You throw that word in to change something in YOUR mind. So, by YOUR standards if a baby is born premature or has a lung problem or has a heart problem then they should be left to die without helping them or giving them medical attention??
You're a good human being. Too bad you're not viable.
A lung or heart problem isn't what blondie is talking about. A "non-viable" fetus is unable to survive even with heroic measures. In other words, it cannot live even with a heart lung machine, surgeries, feeding tubes, etc. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
" A "non-viable" fetus is unable to survive even with heroic measures."
Finally, someone with some good Christian sense to talk to. Mary, viability of the fetus only applies when the fetus is unborn (there's a link to the law below). And, according to the law, as written, if the fetus could survive outside the womb before an abortion attempt then an abortion is illegal. Meaning the ONLY acceptable reason for an abortion (in Illinois) is when the life of the mother is in danger from an unviable fetus. Once (if) the baby is "born alive" whether through an abortion or not, that baby must recieve full medical assistance in an effort to save it's life. Read the law. (720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81-26) Sec. 6. (2) (a) and (b).
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B510%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975%2E
That's the proposed law, not the existing law.
Existing law, based upon the US Constitution and in particular the 4th amendment, allows a woman to abort a non-viable fetus.
Laws do discuss non-viable and viable fetuses.
The medical definition is the definition.
Fetus - the product of conception until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable.
Viable - able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and breathing; if the fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant (a baby, or a person, or a human being).
NonViable - a fetus outside of the uterus which, although living, is not viable.
This is from the Dept of Health and Human Services of the US Govt. It's the definition.
http://irb.mc.duke.edu/Fetus_preg_invitro.htm
NonViable - a fetus outside of the uterus which, although living, is not viable."
Blondie, it's obvious you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'll talk slowly and use small words as much as possible.
When a viable fetus is being aborted the doctor is trying to kill it. Right? If the viable fetus then is extracted (sorry for the big word) and is determined to be alive, what part of "given the benefit of available medical therapy" confuses you? If the "born alive" baby is then able to have a continued heartbeat and breathing, why would you call it non-viable?
I'll tell your slacker liberal brain why---because you intended to kill it, and when your inept liberal doctor can't do the job right you've got to get rid of the evidence of his inability to do his job. So you murder a live human baby that you tried to make non-viable but failed to. When the baby is extracted alive, the LAW says you must try to save it. Just because you dull liberal mind can't grasp that FACT, don't blame me.
The law already protects those viable fetuses that are premature babies after they leave the womb.
The new law was trying to force medical treatment onto non-viable fetuses.
It's not me who's demonstrated that they don't understand simple concepts, it's you. Talking slowly and repeating things over and over again don't work for you either, but that's not my shortcoming.
The new law said anything leaving the womb of a woman that ever breathed or had a heartbeat or any signs of life had to be given every medical treatment that is available, regardless of whether or not they were viable or non-viable.
A non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb, even with extensive medical intervention.
How many times do I have to say that before you'll get the message? Tell me, and I'll say them all right now. This is not a tough concept, yet you seem completely incapable of understanding the difference between a non-viable fetus and a handicapped baby! Why is that? A handicapped child or adult or a person in a coma or other physical impairments is not the same as a non-viable fetus, yet you continue to either showcase your stupidity or your stubbornness. Neither is attractive or wins arguments with those who read your posts.
"A non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb, even with extensive medical intervention. How many times do I have to say that before you'll get the message? Tell me, and I'll say them all right now."
Ok, explain how a viable fetus before an abortion attempt becomes non-viable after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Explain why this live born human is not deserving prompt medical attention. Explain why the law says viability only counts while still in the womb and not after being live born yet YOU say viability also counts after a botched abortion which results in a live birth.
"A non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb, even with extensive medical intervention. How many times do I have to say that before you'll get the message? Tell me, and I'll say them all right now."
Ok, explain how a viable fetus before an abortion attempt becomes non-viable after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Explain why this live born human is not deserving prompt medical attention. Explain why the law says viability only counts while still in the womb and not after being live born yet YOU say viability also counts after a botched abortion which results in a live birth.
Explain how something that doesn't make sense makes sense?
A viable fetus is viable. A non-viable fetus is not viable. The abortion doesn't have any affect on that! What an imbecile you are. A viable fetus doesn't become non-viable after it leaves the womb. Viable fetuses can survive outside the womb and can immediately or eventually support a heart beat and respiration, perhaps with medical intervention. Non-viable fetuses, although they may breathe or have a heartbeat when they leave the womb, cannot sustain that, even with every available medical intervention applied!
The current law doesn't say that viability counts. It says that fetuses are unborn children, except when it comes to abortions.
Just like a brain dead person shouldn't have plastic surgery or a broken leg repaired or a tracheotomy performed, because there's no reason to provide extensive medical care to a brain dead person, there's no reason to provide medical intervention to a non-viable fetus after it's left the womb.
Why shouldn't we provide medical intervention when it's a non-viable fetus? Duh! Because they're non-viable. Even if we throw all the medical intervention that's available at them, they still won't ever be able to sustain a heart beat or respiration. Why would it be advisable to throw medical attention and money on a lost cause? And it is a lost cause if it's a non-viable fetus! How come you can't seem to understand that it' not a good idea to force someone to provide medical attention to a non-viable fetus? That non-viable fetus is living, and that proposed law said that living fetuses had to get medical attention. 10 week old fetuses are living, but we shouldn't try to keep them alive after they live the womb.
The current law doesn't say that viability counts. It says that fetuses are unborn children, except when it comes to abortions.
Why shouldn't we provide medical intervention when it's a non-viable fetus? Duh! Because they're non-viable. Even if we throw all the medical intervention that's available at them, they still won't ever be able to sustain a heart beat or respiration. Why would it be advisable to throw medical attention and money on a lost cause? And it is a lost cause if it's a non-viable fetus"
Blondie, if medical attention is thrown at it (as required by law) and it dies, then it is non-viable. If it lives then it is viable. The reason YOU wouldn't attempt to save a "live born" baby is because YOU want it dead. According to the law, it is a felony if life sustaining medical treatment ISN'T attempted. If that treatment fails then you have your answer. If that treatment succeeds then you have another live human. But, the LAW says it must be attempted, and NOT by the hack doctor who couldn't do the job right the first time. Read the law.
Nope, Doctors and other medical professionals can tell before they administer life support whether some babies are non-viable.
Any baby for which there is any question, they already give them the benefit of the doubt.
The proposed law would remove their professional judgment. If a baby is judged to be non-viable, they would still have to provide medical attention. Useless, costly medical attention that will never help that child sustain life.
"Useless, costly medical attention that will never help that child sustain life."
Trying to slip some sympathy in there? At what point did you start calling the fetus a "child"? Are you insinuating the doctors are now killing children?
But, you are way wrong in your analysis of the law. Look up 'live born' in the law and tell me what it says about that aspect.
Rino: Obama believes that babies that have survived abortions should be left to die and not given medical attention.
OK, let me walk you through this. Abortions terminate pregnancies and are performed on mothers carrying fetuses -- not babies. So if the fetus survives the legal medical procedure of abortion, doesn't that indicate that the legal medical procedure was simply incomplete and should be finished? Let me be clear: whatever you think about the morality of abortion, if it is legal to begin the procedure, why do you think it should be illegal to finish the procedure?
I understand that this law seemed like an inventive way to claim that the object of an abortion is a subject entitled to full protections under the law, but it's logically backwards: it attempts to claim that it is illegal to successfully complete a legal medical procedure by declaring its unsuccessful result a 'baby' and its successful result a 'fetus'.
Snoopy,
Your use of the word "survives" is interesting in this context...for something to survive I would think it necessary to be alive in the first place. The dictionary definition says "Survive - to continue to live". If something is "alive" and you stop it from "living", are you not killing it? Was it not alive? If not, how can it survive?
Obama's vote is very telling. Like a lot of liberals, his attempt to appear compassionate about those you can't fend for themselves rings very hollow in this context.
The bill stated that any fetus that survives is considered a person and doctors cannot allow it to die even if it is non-viable. You want to see infant Terri Sciavos, I presume...
And BTW, please list all of those instances where VIABLE fetuses have survived an abortion.
So a baby that survives an abortion shouldn't be considered a person? How old do you have to be to be considered a person? 4? 12? 16? 21? Maybe we should just make a law that says that it's not murder to kill anybody who's under 21. After all, that's the direction we're heading in. And here's an example:
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
They weren't born naturally, but they are outside the womb now.
The whole stance by you people defending this is absurd. Answer me this: How would you know if a fetus who survived an abortion and was no longer in the womb was viable or not if you did nothing to try to help it? How would you possibly know for sure?
You people defending this need a serious, serious reality check. You are way on the wrong side of this.
Answer me this: How would you know if a fetus who survived an abortion and was no longer in the womb was viable or not if you did nothing to try to help it? How would you possibly know for sure?
Because doctors can tell these kinds of things.
The proposed law said that regardless of viability, that medical attention had to be provided to any 'living' thing that came from the womb.
There are lots of living human tissue that leaves the womb that's never going to be viable, and medical professionals make determinations like this all the time.
If there's any question about whether or not the fetus that leaves the womb is viable or not, they provide medical attention currently! If there's no doubt that the fetus is non-viable, they shouldn't have to provide that medical intervention. There are a lot of non-viable fetuses that leave the womb that are clearly not viable - ones that can't sustain life outside the womb, even with medical intervention.
No, it's only a baby if it was a viable fetus before it was born.
If it was a non-viable fetus before it was born, it's still a fetus when it leaves the womb.
I demolished this argument two weeks ago. It's really a personality defect to be so careless with facts, RINO. It says a great deal about your lack of character that you would try to peddle this nonsense after your argument had been so full of lies and distortions less than 2 weeks ago.
mmfa cites the Illinois criminal code that disagrees:
-- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization to birth. --
They could have called this life a fetus, viable or non-viable...but they didnt'...they called it a child.
There are liars and there are GD liars, and then there's Wesley.
From that same criminal code he quotes.
"c) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
-- acts which cause the death of an unborn child -- bottleblonde
Thanks for validating the Illinois criminal code...the unborn life is a child.
That's what the law says.
Solely for the purpose of criminalizing behavior that would lead to the death of a fetus, a fetus is described as an unborn child.
That doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as an unborn child.
It doesn't change the fact that you are a deceitful scoundrel who tried to push the false meme that Illinois criminal statutes were relevant to the issues of abortions and fetuses and unborn babies, and they aren't. The new law was going to force medical intervention on non-viable fetuses and proscribe criminal penalties for anyone who didn't provide that medical intervention.
It was unnecessary. There are already laws that force people to provide the care required to support a person's life without a DNR, and there are already laws that provide criminal penalties for not providing that care. A non-viable fetus is not a person. This proposed law attempted to hinder abortions through the claim that any non-viable fetus must receive medical intervention. Viable fetuses already receive that medical intervention. Viable fetuses become babies when they are born, and babies are already protected!
-- a fetus is described as an unborn child...That doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as an unborn child. -- bottleblonde
The circular firing squad has never been proven very effective.
The Illinois criminal code is very explicit. The human life growing in a mother's womb is an unborn child...no matter how you want it described.
From "fertility to birth" this life is an unborn child. That is the law. Don't like the law? Change it...but until then...
"Well King, this case is closed".
Wesley is a liar, Wesley is a liar, and it's fun proving it!
The Illinois criminal code is very explicit. The human life growing in a mother's womb is an unborn child...no matter how you want it described.
The Illinois criminal code is very explicit that although a fetus is not actually a person, or a child, or even really an unborn child, for purposes of this legislation, a fetus is described as an unborn child. If a fetus truly were a person, this crazy definition of an unborn child wouldn't be necessary! Because the fetus is not naturally entitled to the same protections that a person gets, they had to write a new law to protect that human life, and in that new law they specifically exempt fetuses involved in abortions or other medical procedures from being classified as unborn children!
Additionally, the human life growing inside the womb is only considered an unborn child when that life is criminally ended. That human life growing inside the womb is specifically denied the classification of 'unborn child' when abortion is concerned, and that is specifically mentioned in that very explicit criminal code!!!!!
The facts have a liberal bias. You are a liar. That's a fact! It has nothing to do with my desires. It is, however, your desires to have your moral stances enforced on every American woman that you're fighting for.
-- a fetus is described as an unborn child -- bottleblond
That's incorrect, again.
No where in the statute does the Illinois legislature use the word fetus to describe anything...viable, non-viable, or alien.
The life in question is called an unborn child...a member of the human species from fertility to birth.
Hertz Donut.
-- acts which cause the death of an unborn child -- bottleblonde
Thanks for validating the Illinois criminal code...the unborn life is a child.That's what the law says. - wesley
I guess if it was an unwritten law, it would work just as well for you.
I'm sending you an unbaked cake, Wesley. Meaning a Ziploc baggie full of batter, which is a cake to you.
Any baby that has been born that is still breathing and has a heart beat should be taken care of. I can't believe we're even having this discussion. This should be something that everybody should agree on, both Republicans and Democrats. We're talking about the murder of infants, not fetuses in the womb.
It's not a baby if it's a non-viable fetus when it leaves the womb. Those can sometimes have a heartbeat for a short period of time or breath even, but they cannot survive outside the womb. Different than a handicapped person who can survive with enough medical attention. There's not enough medical attention in the world to keep a non-viable fetus alive for any significant length of time. But you would have parents and doctors forced to administer useless efforts and untold amounts of money to 'save' a non-viable fetus.
RH, do you really believe this:
"Any baby that has been born that is still breathing and has a heart beat should be taken care of."
I take it now that you support legislation that gives everyone in this country free health care, correct?
Not the same, RINO. One developed to full maturity and has the right to decide for themselves about life support (that is, until republicans screwed up that too with shievo.)
Rino, adult midgets are fully mature. I can't believe you've dug yourself so far into the stoopid hole that you're calling midgets children.
If I was your friend, I'd advise you to stop posting .
An elderly person is not dependent upon a host womb to survive. A non-viable fetus cannot survive, even with intensive medical help.
I demolished this argument 2 weeks ago. Why are you still trying to make this argument when you know it was demolished 2 weeks ago?
SNOOPY:
A baby at FULL TERM can't really survive without its's host to feed him and care for him so your statement makes no sense.
Your comment makes no logical sense. And it's highly offensive of you to use the term host as if the baby is a parasite. Is that a Margaret Sanger term (founder of Planned parenthood).
If adults 'walk away' from a FULL TERM baby the baby will die.
That full term baby can survive with outside help.
A non-viable fetus can't survive, even with tons of outside help. A handicapped person can survive with outside help. So can a person in a coma. A non-viable fetus can't. If a non-viable fetus leaves the womb, it's not a baby. It can't survive, even if its heart beats for a short while or it takes a few breaths.
A baby at FULL TERM can't really survive without its's host to feed him and care for him so your statement makes no sense.
LOL, THAT makes no sense.
ANYONE can feed and care for a baby.
So a baby that survives an abortion shouldn't be considered a person? How old do you have to be to be considered a person? 4? 12? 16? 21? Maybe we should just make a law that says that it's not murder to kill anybody who's under 21. After all, that's the direction we're heading in. And here's an example:
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
I demolished THIS argument two weeks ago., Sarah didn't survive an abortion. She had a twin that was aborted. She was not aborted. She stayed in the womb until she was born naturally.
You are incredibly deceitful and dishonest. This argument about Sarah was already shot down 2 weeks ago. Why would you debase yourself to try to run it up the flagpole again? Are you that immoral and dishonest and shady? I guess so.
Let me begin by saying that I am a Catholic democrat - yes, RINO, that means that I am a Christian. I support a woman's right to choose her own course of action, but I do not believe that abortion is morally right unless there is a medical necessity. I do not have the right, however, to impose my moral stance on others or to expect that my beliefs be legally mandated for others. That being said, the link to "Sarah" that you keep posting does not support your argument. Sarah was NOT aborted -- her twin was. Sarah remained in her mother's womb until she was viable. Sarah was delivered at a viable gestational stage. Again, she was NOT aborted.
Then you should be excommunicated. This is in complete violation of Catholocism and you have no business in the church.
We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about infanticide.
Could you and the voices in your head go somewhere else and play? The topic here is abortion, and the non-zombies are trying to have a discussion.
The topic here is murder after the baby is born. That is what Obama supports...
You mean, like shooting them after giving them theior first bottle...? Or are we speaking of allowing a non-viable fetus to die if it somehow survives an abortion procedure?
Of course it matters if they're viable or not!
They aren't babies, and they aren't people, if they aren't viable! They're non-viable fetuses if they're not viable fetuses, and they aren't babies!
"It doesn't matter whether they're non viable or not. If they're out of the womb they are babies that are breathing and have a heart beat and should be protected by law."
That, along with the hilarious "midget" reference, should pretty much tell anyone you're done. Why on earth would you make any effort to maintain a non-viable fetus? It's not going to develop into a functional adult or even a functional child. It'll be like Terri Schiavo, as mentioned. What's the dream scenario here, that it will be on life support for forty years and then die, or what? Who is that good for? It's a financial and emotional drain, which is doubly damaging because women who get abortions typically aren't financially and/or emotionally ready to have children anyway. And the fetus is never going to have any recognition of its own existence, so there's no benefit there.
Yes, it's "life" in the most technical sense, and that's about it. When you lose a loved one, they're loved because there was something there. They had a personality, a style, things that make an individual unique. There are memories and an attachment with the person. That's what human connection is about, along with the need for interactive support systems. All of that is missing here. There's no attachment, no memories, no traits that you're going to miss because there was never anything there to begin with. It's just an arbitrary declaration that it's "life" and that it's sacred under any and all circumstances.
The lesson that everyone should have learned from Terri Schiavo is that when it's over, it's over. Sad, yes, but you have to deal with the reality of the situation, not cling to fantasies or hope for miracles. This is especially true when the person was never even a person to begin with. For Schiavo at least there people who were hopeful, people who loved her for who she was and wished that she would come back. Even that element is missing here, so there's no tangible reason to try to keep a non-viable fetus alive whatsoever.
and that is the topic of this thread...
No, that's your interpretation. The topic of the thread is Coursey lied about Obama.
Only an abortion fanatic would somehow justify this vote by saying: "well most abortions take place in the second trimester." That is completely irrelevant to the issue here. This is from Jake Tapper. I'm sure he has no credibility as a member of the corporate, right-wing theocratic media, but in any case he writes:
"On March 27, 2001, the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee passed out of committee legislation that would have banned any abortion procedure "that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken" unless another doctor were present to assess the viability of the fetus and provide he or she with medical care. If a live child was born, the law would have mandated that the doctor provide medical care for the baby, which would be legally "recognized as a human person." ... ?"
See that last phrase..."recognized as a human person" I keep reading from the detestable pro-abortion fanatics on this site how a "fetus" is not human and that's the real issue. That's what this vote by Obama is about since no left-wing Democrat could ever be viable for president with a vote that ever assigned the term 'human' to a baby that was trying to be aborted. Can't have that.
What are you talking about?
It's good of you to finally admit your ignorance.
Or is what you really want is to get your foot in the door by somehow having a fetus declared a "person" so that you can build on that law to abolish abortion altogether?
That's what I'm talking about, Rino...and you know that's exactly what the anti-abortion fanatics are trying to do, to have a fetus legally declared a "person".
Actually, you hit it right on the head. NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-loving liberals don't want that language in any law which is why Obama had to vote against it if he ever wanted to seek higher office.
A 'non-viable' person is a left-wing definition which devalues life. Is a seriously retarded person 'non-viable?' Let's just round them up and dispose of them.
In the real 'thinking' world we only have "persons." And they indeed are "persons" at conception.
It's not surprising to hear this from the left. Socialism is ironically all about materialism. We need to have all our needs met by government or the rest of society and if we can't have that we have no quality of life so that life simply isn't worth living. And logically, let's abort the babies that might potentially lead that kind of life and let's starve all the Terri Schiavos since they have no quality of life.
I've never "sat in" on an abortion ( probably hurting my status as an abortion fanatic), but I've seen pictures. I have seen heart surgery live and in person, and it's not very pretty either. I just don't think we should have the government restricting people's right based on what you think is icky.
Now I have to go check the spareribs I've got in the smoker. I won't describe their juicy goodness to you, as it might make you a little queasy, what with the grease and dead flesh and all.
Col.
You have perfect status as an abortion fanatic. Had you sat in -- or just thought about it for 10 seconds rather than couching it in a "rights" issue -- you might have a different perspective.
the heart surgery you mention is SAVING life or at least PRESERVING it. Abortion DESTROYS life.
I hate to encourage this idiocy, but just for laughs;
Why do you think that if I decided to watch an abortion being performed, I'd become more stupid?
I'd be happy to, but that's irrelevant and a classic STRAW MAN
Because he or she is unwanted doesn't mean a child's right to live should be denied on the whim of parents who simply don't want the responsibility of raising a child. That's really what the whole abortion debate is all about. In a word: CONVENIENCE
Why is it the majority of women/couples who choose abortion have the economic means to care for the child? Do you have an answer to that one?
Prove that one. Please. I'm really interested in how you morphed an argument of convenience into an argument about financially capable people screwing without rubbers and then using abortion as a "lifesaver".
"Women have the right to control their own bodies and not have them controlled by a non-viable fetus, and that's why it's their choice to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy."
And that is where YOU are confused. A viable fetus, who the mother wants to abort, isn't non-viable simply because it's mother intends on aborting it. A non-viable fetus could cause a medical necessity for it's removal (abortion). A viable unwanted fetus is a completely different case. A fetus can be viable as early as 22 weeks. Planning an abortion any time after that does NOT suddenly make that fetus non-viable except in the MIND of the mother... and you liberals.
"Women have the right to control their own bodies and not have them controlled by a non-viable fetus, and that's why it's their choice to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy."
And that is where YOU are confused. A viable fetus, who the mother wants to abort, isn't non-viable simply because it's mother intends on aborting it. A non-viable fetus could cause a medical necessity for it's removal (abortion). A viable unwanted fetus is a completely different case. A fetus can be viable as early as 22 weeks. Planning an abortion any time after that does NOT suddenly make that fetus non-viable except in the MIND of the mother... and you liberals.
Again with the unintelligible post?
There can be no legal restrictions to abortion when the fetus is non-viable. There is no way it is legitimate to force medical intervention on a non-viable fetus after it leaves the womb, or create criminal sanctions for failure to provide medical treatment for that non-viable fetus.
For a timeframe when the fetus may or may not be viable, the issues are up to states to decide if they want to allow or deny women the right to have abortions, but that has nothing to do with the proposed law. The proposed law required medical intervention for viable and non-viable fetuses. Fetuses that are older than 22 weeks can be non-viable for a variety of reasons, but can breathe or have a heartbeat when they leave the womb. If they're non-viable, remember, it means that they can not sustain life, even with medical intervention. Life support should not be forced upon those fetuses if there is no chance they can ever sustain life.
NOleft, I fully understand what an abortion is. I was asking why you thought if I watched one up close I would suddenly agree with you.
I'll take your insult-laden, non-question-answering post as an admission that you're just flapping your lips and don't even know what you're trying to say.
Brab, I thought that was pretty funny too.Not the first time I've seen that logic used by the wingnuts here. More projecting their ignorance on others, as obviously NoLeft had never thought about abortion for 10 seconds, nor had any idea what it was, if seeing one is what made up his mind.(although I really doubt he's actually seen an abortion performed)
Notice, through this thread, how many times the anti-choice posters use words like "facts" and "law" and try to argue legal and medical terms based on their "feelings". Like Dennis Miller and others who describe themselves as "9/11 conservatives", they've come to a position entirely on emotion, then spend all of their energy trying to dress it up as logic.
I've had quite a few zealous Christians over the years tell me , on finding out that I'm not religious, that they could prove to me the existemce of God.
I was usually helpful and considerate enough that I'd try to talk them out of wasting their time, explaining that people much smarter than they, over thousands of years, had dedicated their lives to proving that same thing, and nobody had succeeded.
Most of these were co-workers or neighbors, who had me captive , so I'd end up agreeing to hear their case.Then they'd show me a wristwatchwatch, which somehow explained God to them, because they were emotionally invested enough that it had to prove there is a God.
There's just no point in trying to have a discussion with people who have established their political leanings or positions on issues while in very emotionally excited states. They're done.
Do you REALLY think anyone in this great country, Obama, Democratic, Liberal, Progressive, or otherwise would legislate 'infanticide'? Any word ending with 'cide' is a strong word in my opinion. It rhymes with genocide, which conjures images of Darfur where Muslim fundamentalists (not very much unlike Christian fundamentalist here) have been imposing their will.
You want the fundamentalists here to win?
With this comment
The type of behavior you describe is already prohibited by Illinois law. There was no reason to have an additional law on the books that potentially could prohibit legitimate late term abortions in order to stop what you claim this bill would stop. The law already exists.
and this comment
Nope. You lie. There was already a perfectly good law on the books that didn't need any refinement that criminalized this behavior.
Obama had every reason to not vote up or down on it (and that's what actually happened - he didn't vote up or down on it because it never came to a vote in the Illinois Senate!) because it was an unnecessary law that was simply put up there to be a litmus test to unfairly indict Democrats, just like Corsi did. If there's one law that already criminalized that behavior, there's no need for another one! If an aborted fetus was viable, and a doctor or medical professional didn't try to keep it alive, then they would be guilty of murder. There's no evidence that a viable fetus has ever been left to die, and even if there was, there's no reason for a special law to criminalize negligent homicide of a newborn baby since it's already illegal under existing law!
I totally disagree with you that bills requiring parental notification in all cases are required, or that bills banning partial birth abortion are a good idea, so they aren't common sense bills. They're your bigoted idea of good bills to force your moral stances on everyone else, regardless of our US Constitution that denies you the right to force your moral stances on another person! That's why we have the Bill of Rights. That's why we became a nation, to disallow people to force others to follow one set of moral standards!
I demolished that argument just under two weeks ago, RINO. Why are you making it again?
"He supports infanticide for babies that have already been born"
Are you just trying to be a jackass or do you always say stupid crap like this and think that you won't be called on it?
Just one simple link that would support this assertion would be great! By your implying this, you are attempting to say that everyone that supports Obama, also supports infanticide and yet you purposefully ignore that Bush and his little band of thugs, Grampy McSame and his tiny cabal, and not to mention any corporation that hires private armies to kill off indigenous people are the ones that support infanticide!
I dont recall Obama supporting the invasion of a soveriegn nation, let alone having a smirk (like Bush does at the mention of thousands of civilians being killed) on his face....
May I also remind you that just a couple short months ago, Mike Reagan (Ronalds adopted psycho son) said not once or twice or even three times but at least four times mentioned that we should stick grenades up muslim babies butts and the mass murder of their moms, advacated the entire genocide of all people in the Middle East (which includes at least a few 10's of millions of babies) to ensure peace for the west.
So do your self a favor RinoHunter, consider your words before you spew out that kind of sickness! And be warned that while you have a Constitutional right to make an ass of yourself in here............
Limbaugh is 100% correct here.
Once again, Rino Hunter slithers in to add nothing of value to the discussion. Was posting traffic a bit light on Free Republic today??
Please let's not get confused. This is about Republican fear of Obama being elected the next president of the United States of America. Is a fetus a life if it's outside of the womb and non-viable? I don't know. I do know there were plenty of viable lives wasted because of a certain regime's love of war. I do know, we have an energy crisis that needs to be a major focus for our next prez. I do know that Rhino, and the other idiot who care so much for a non-viable fetuses life would do well to match their words with actions and not only adopt children, but actively seek an end to the death penalty, torture, police brutality and this God-forsaken war with Iraq. God save the babies, but the adults, well that's another story . . .
Snot-nosed, hypocrite-ass, entitled REPUBLICANS (and I'm not indicting all Republicans either). You hypocrites will never look in the mirror and see yourselves for what you are.
Kudos go out to all the "abortion fanatics" who successfully debunked this nonsense from Rush and the Great American Dittoheads.
I love how cons try to demonize anyone who supports -- not abortion, but a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE -- as someone who loves to see fetuses terminated.
Remember, cons, it IS possible that a person can be against abortion but FOR the woman to have choice. Why are some of you so dense?
Its this whole viability thats spinning arround most I bet.
Look at this:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9575.htm
First notice its says Fetus. and we are talking 24th week.
Also notice it says
*is forming alveoli in lungs
So prior to this stage the fetus wont be able to obtain oxygen. Even if you forced pure oxygen into the developing lungs of the fetus, it would still die. I.E. its non-viable. And that's just breathing.
Normal abortions are performed before the 20th week, so they all produce fetuses, children, babies....no matter what you call it...that might have a pulse, but no matter what you do, it will die. Even if you have Superman, Batman and the magical Mr. David Copperfield in the room + the 100 top doctors in the world, trying to save the fetus, it wont live. Hence its non-viable.
Its a coercive mind set. Taking power away from over one half of the population is very exciting to the cons. Somewhere in their brain stems is the thought that if I can force a woman to bring a fetus to term, what else can I force her to do against her will.
Consider the energy displayed here to push the, so called pro-life, agenda I think that if they could put just half this energy into working for a society that supported its children and population. Such that, in normal surcumstances, no woman would fear to bring a new life into it. Her post birth circumstances and resources would have little to do with that childs sucess in the world.
Abortion would not disappear, its been with us for a long long time.
Regardless of its utility as a means to jump up and down yelling about the evil libs. It costs the yeller very little, the enemy is often easily intimidated. How much of a physical threat is a pregnant woman?
"Somewhere in their brain stems is the thought that if I can force a woman to bring a fetus to term, what else can I force her to do against her will."
Next time one of these nuts goes on about making abortions illegal, ask him (and it's always a him) how many years does he advocate imprisoning women who have one?
I had a miscarriage at 6 weeks. Someone could have hooked it up to a machine, but it never would have been a baby. If you tried to keep a "non viable" fetus alive, it would still die. Get it?
Please explain to me why we even care what this philanderer does and says. He is truly creepy and his mind is always in the gutter. When he travels he always has a condom at the ready and Viagra to boot. Who cares what this totally warped , divient individual thinks or says. NOT ME!!!!!!
This is truly pathetic from the mouth of Barack Obama during that Rick Warren 'debate':
WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.
Let's just say EVERY answer at the presidential level is and will be above St. Barack's pay grade. As for 'Specificity' he better study up on his electoral base because the helpless and hopeless left-wing abortion lovers (many who post here) are pretty specific and certain that human rights don't apply until a baby is 'born' at full term and the mother actually intended to give birth, even if that 'baby' (er excuse me..mass of cells) is alive after an attempted abortion.
If a non-viable fetus leaves the womb and is alive after that, then no medical intervention should be expended, since that non-viable fetus can not sustain life, even with medical intervention.
It'd be like doing elective surgery on a brain-dead person. It'd be like giving a cancer patient whose cancer has spread throughout his body, and who has days to live, an organ transplant to give him a working organ in a dying body. It makes no sense.
Non-viable fetuses can't sustain life outside the womb. Viable fetuses can, and depending on when they leave the womb, they're called babies or premature infants. Non-viable fetuses remain non-viable fetuses. Premature infants should be given medical intervention (with the parents permission) to keep them alive. Guardians for minors as well as adults capable of making decisions should be able to decide that the quality of life offered by medical intervention is not sufficient to maintain life. That decision needs to be supervised by medical personnel, but that's a different issue than viability. Sometimes a viable person is removed from life support. No medical personnel should be required to provide medical intevention to a non-viable fetus, since they can't help that fetus sustain life, even with lots and lots of medical intervention!
The Republicans have a nack for projecting their own pathologies onto others but this has got to top the cake. Barark Obama supports infanticide? NO, GEORGE W. BUSH supports infanticide and he even made it the law in Texas; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/national/27death.html?_r=1&sq
You should all be ashamed of yourselves, every single last one of you.
I have read through 160 of the 188 responses so far and want to chime in with my observations.
I would want to see the historical ratio of births to abortions. If it is something like 2,000,000 births to 10,000 abortions, I would wish everyone would just STFU.
It seems ironic that it is mostly men yapping a lot about if a woman should abort or not. Sure men are as responsible for procreating as women are, but it's the woman bearing the brunt of the result. Man can have sex and run away. Woman is left with the result in her womb and having to decide what to do with it.
Both Democratic and Republican women have abortions unless someone has stats to prove otherwise.
Republicans keep screaming they are all about de-regulation and it seems hypocritic that a bunch of Old, White males make a career in politics on this abortion issue.
Whoever said it should be rare, but legal, had it right. It can be argued/legislated to death but in the end, prostitution, abortions, guns, smokers (I am one), sin, violence are not going to go away. Legal definition / interpretation of fetus, child, midget, man, woman, terrorist (whatever) is an exercise in futility.
Nature and human nature is what it is.
Thank you for reading.
rhino: "He supports infanticide for babies that have already been born."
Clues are cheap to buy, my friend. Infanticide for infants is illegal in every state in America. Killing infants is called murder. Removing a fetus from a womb is called an abortion.
It a non-sequitur to say infanticide for babies. Try using a dictionary before you write something that doesn't make sense, amigo.
English is not my first language and I'm not american. I don't really know who this clown is but sometimes I come here to listen to this stuff cuz it's funny seeing media go this far. And I don't understand who listens to this guy. He sounds like a hysterical fat woman. His voice and fast-to-slow tempo are very annoying and you can tell that his double chin is pressing on his larynx, which makes him sound like the hyperactive wild turkey that he is.
*gobblegobblegobble obamaaaaa* *gobblegobblegobble abortioooooooon* gobblegobblegobblegobble meeeeedia matteers*
Just amazing how these right-wingnut knuckledraggers can support George Bush and Dick Cheney murdering tens of thousands of innocent citizens (they were unborn fetuses once) on a lie and have no problem showing up here and calling MMFA liars (everything's recorded and transcribed...how can MMFA lie even if it wanted to?) and run this silly word game for days about abortion and how Obama is now a baby killer.
You people make me sick. Come November, when your empire and alk radio court jesters have sprewed their final twitch, you'll have to find a new reality to twist.