Coulter, Limbaugh smeared Obama with false claim that he "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion"
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh stated that Sen. Barack Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion" and Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." They based their claims on Obama's opposition to an Illinois bill that he and other opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary. Indeed, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that conduct alleged by proponents of the bill, if it had occurred, would have violated then-existing law.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter each echoed a false claim on August 18 when they asserted, respectively, that Sen. Barack Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion" and that he "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." The conservative commentators made their claims based on Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, which, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct being addressed by the bill.
Indeed, as Media Matters noted, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law. Obama himself has cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."
On Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said to Coulter: "The Born Alive Infant Protection Acts. They induce these abortions," adding, "Barack Obama was the only senator to speak out against a bill that would have protected babies in that situation. ... Is that infanticide?" Coulter responded: "[O]f course it's infanticide," later adding, "I mean, this is a child that is not bothering the woman anymore, is not going to make her depressed or affect her health. It's out of the woman's body. They tried to kill it, but somehow the baby made it out alive. Sometimes missing an arm, but alive. And Barack Obama wants the doctors, you know, chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed."
On his nationally syndicated radio program, Limbaugh asserted: "We know that Barack Obama believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion."
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Ann Coulter, I'll start with you. The Born Alive Infant Protection Acts. They induce these abortions. I --
COULTER: Right.
HANNITY: I interviewed Jill Stanek. She's a nurse. Illinois.
COULTER: Right.
HANNITY: Testified before Obama's committee. A baby with Down syndrome aborted, thrown in a soiled utility room. She cradles this baby that's breathing for 45 minutes, and Barack Obama was the only senator to speak out against a bill that would have protected babies in that situation. Is that the --
COULTER: Right.
HANNITY: Is that infanticide?
COULTER: It's shocking.
HANNITY: It is.
COULTER: It's -- of course it's infanticide. Yeah, he's for a woman's right to choose through the fourth trimester. And even Barbara Boxer, whom until now was the most staunchly pro-abortion senator, even she spoke in favor of this bill. I mean, this is a child that is not bothering the woman anymore, is not going to make her depressed or affect her health. It's out of the woman's body. They tried to kill it, but somehow the baby made it out alive.
HANNITY: Yeah.
COULTER: Sometimes missing an arm, but alive. And Barack Obama wants the doctors, you know, chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed. And moreover, you know, his remark about -- the glib remark about, "Oh, when life begins, it's above my pay grade." What kind of moral principle says, "I don't know when life begins, so kill it"? No, if you don't know when life begins, you err on the side of life, at least if you're a decent human being.
From the August 18 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: When he got this question, he basically -- the question was, when does human life begin? It's right -- the first thought in his mind is, "Well, I can't make the NOW people mad. I can't make the feminists mad. I can't betray the feminists. And I can't betray the left -- I can't -- so how do I -- oh God, how do I answer this? Well, uh, you know, uh, whenever you're looking at it from a theological, scientific -- answering that question with specific--"
It's the most easy question in the world to answer with specificity. Your specificity might be wrong and people might be disagree with it, but at some point, Senator, a human being has human rights. You just will not admit that a human being is a human being at some point. Because doing so is going to anger people on the left who demand a doctrinaire response from you on this.
Now, what do we know about Obama's actual practice? We know that Barack Obama believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion. So, newborn babies don't get any rights. His socialist friends will be mad, because this means Obama's not for cradle-to-grave government welfare. This could go back and harm him in any number of ways. Obama thinks cradle-to-grave is the sequence of events for children born when the parents don't take one look at the kid and decide to go a different direction with their lives.
You could say, and you wouldn't be far wrong, that Barack Obama is akin to an executioner. Don't ask him the why questions; he just knows who. He doesn't care about when or how. He just knows who. I'll tell you, he's going to need one hell of a convention bounce, because this position of his is inhuman, even if he did not have this history of supporting the killing of babies outside the womb, who have survived abortions.
Only we tend to do it through private organizations rather than the government.
Private organizations who's main goal is profit, children come in second.
Can't the same be said about the government?
For the republicans "yes"; for most of the Democrats "no". We need to get rid of the republicans and a few Democrats. Are you with me?
We've had LOTS of legislation passed in the last eight years.
The PATRIOT Act, telecom immunity, etc. Just nothing to help most people.
Baloney. How many church members from your side are adopting children or working as foster parents? My guess is not many since we have so many abused and neglected children in the system who are not being adopted. Put down your political signs stop yakking and actually Do something for children that are already born and suffering.
Please tell me that this isnt exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was/is for.
Precisely. Which is why I hope that reinstitutiong the Fairness Doctrine is one of President Obama's first acts.
Talk about goons...
I know it might hurt your brain, but try doing a little research:
This article was taken from the Oregonian, August 20th: " It doesn't end there. Last weekend, the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody asked about the issue. "I hate to say that people are lying," Obama said, "but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill ... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
He called the National Right to Life Committee liars, but they have produced the documents. One is the Illinois "Born Alive" bill Obama opposed, with this neutrality clause: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
Here's the federal clause: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
I'll let others say Obama is lying about his position on the legislation. I won't use Obama's verbiage. It's enough to say that in charging the National Right to Life with lying about his record, Obama was bearing false witness.
Right after the Brody interview aired, the Obama camp admitted to The New York Sun that he had voted against a "Born Alive" bill with the neutrality clause.
Watershed,
For fun, I browse MMFA every now and then to read the comments. It's been quite awhile since my last time here and I rarely post a comment, but I really think you should not mention the Fairness Doctrine here at the MMFA site. Why? You ask. Cause where would we find enough conservatives that are willing waste away their days and nights posting petty insults and childish name calling. If the Fairness Doctrine were to be enforced here at MMFA it would be really boring, because there would only be one comment posted per article.
Earth to wingnuts, earth to wingnuts: If this is needs to be a serious campaign issue, we might as well throw in the towel as a nation. It is a sad commentary on the right wing that they feel our country needs to be concerned with baby killing at this time. I can see the voters face a real big dilemma right now: The baby killers vs. the baby saviors. Its a no brainer in more ways than one. How could anyone vote to kill babies. We might as well call off the election. Whats the point?
Bush - who last time I checked was from the pro-life, pro-faith wing of the republican party - has literally bankrupted our country yet this means little when faced with the image of a baby killing Obama.
-- It is a sad commentary on the right wing that they feel our country needs to be concerned with baby killing -- EB
-- The Democratic Party's strong commitment to human rights leads naturally to a pro-life position. Just as we care about the welfare of children, the disabled, and the elderly, we care about unborn children and their mothers. Advocating the killing of a woman's child as a way to solve her problems is inconsistent with the traditional Democratic philosophy -- Democrats for Life for America
Coulter and Limbaugh are argument number 1 for the right to have an abortion.
Caulter and Limbaugh are Argument #1 for retroactive abortion......
Totally agree: why does nobody ask these goons how they feel about Ali Hussein ?
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/IRAQ_ali_hussein_77.JPG
Doesn't Coulter even realize that with the new FetusTriever™, doctors no longer need to chase the fetuses around the delivery room any more? Geez, what a moron.
Eh, the Fetustriever is a fad. As an Ob/Gyn myself (I know, I never mention it) as well as a Colonel, I prefer my "Old School" style.
Is that a self portrait? No.it's a photo from the internets.
I like the shirt. You should go get one.
did you buy it yourself or did mommy get it for you? Again,It's not really me, but in case you're concerned,your mommy only buys me booze , and I always make sure she has enough left for your lunch money.
"No.it's a photo from the internets."
There's more than one internet?
"Internets" is a Bushism-turned-catchphrase used humorously to portray the speaker as ignorant about the Internet or about technology in general, "
From wikipedia. LOL
So, let's call Obama a murderer, let's say he loves abortion so much that he kills babies.
Do you con stooges ever, ever, ever get tired of being promised the repeal of Roe v. Wade year after year only to have the rug pulled out from under you every single time?
Wake up.
Republicans love abortion. Nothing rallies the base like the children....unless of course it comes to helping the children that live. Then it's cradle to grave welfare mumbo-jumbo.
Stooges.
Yes, republicans love the children. Some of them a little too much...
Case in point - Former Congressman Mark Foley.
Anotehr case in point - noted Republican and right-wing idiot Ted Nugent.
I thought you were gonna mention pastor ted!
Paster Ted hooked up with an adult. So did Jeff Christie, when he was arrested with that male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s. But there's no telling how young the boys were he hooked up with when jeff Christie was caught with Viagra in his luggage after flying back from the Dominican Republic.....
Sexual preferences should be a personal thing EXCEPT when it is when one is extolling the virtues on man / woman marriage and homosexuality is a sin and the "you" go back to your motel room take a Viagra and pull a 12 year old boy from Cambodia out of your luggage. Isn't insHANNITY partying with those guys this weekend?
"So, let's call Obama a murderer, let's say he loves abortion so much that he kills babies."
Ok. We'll do as you say The funny thing is that you liberals haven't mentioned the law one time during this thread. Is it because you got so lambasted the last time you tried defending O'bama's position that he approves allowing the killing of live born babies? So, the tactic this time is to show how freindly you liberals are and play on the 'emotion' aspect of the issue? Typical liberals, too predictable.
This is political theatre, there's not a damn sincere bone in LimHanniCoulter's body. This is about turning out the base this year to defeat Obama. Pllain and simple.
Yes, and it's working. O'bama is dropping in every poll except 'young radical liberals'. And since all 50 of you are registered users of mmfa, it won't get him a ton of votes. Especially the way you constantly try to befriend every conservative out there with the kind words you have for the entire group.
I hope you don't expect too much from O'bama during this election. When he gets a little more experience and knowledge he should do better in '16.
Now...use your thumb and first finger, set them at a right angle of each other, put them on your forehead and look in your own mirror!!
You really don't want anything real to register, do you? You get played for a sucker by these neo-con crooks and liars. They don't WANT abortions made illegal becaue they use it to get voters like you to pull the lever for them. But you don't understand that the proposed law in Illinois didn't offer anything new for a viable fetus. But it did propose that legal action could be taken if a fetus didn't survive through spontaneous abortion (you know what that means I hope) A bonanza for lawyers, misery for doctors and their patients being second guessed right there in the hospital.
There was already protection for any baby born that is viable. It was killed in the state house, not the senate, by the way. Wake up and please stop listening to these paid shills. They lie to you.
"There was already protection for any baby born that is viable."
Mary, the law already has protection for "live born" babies. You may want to look THAT up. Big difference between 'live born' and 'viable'. Especially when the only thing that changes viability in a baby is the doctor trying to kill it. 3 seconds before he jabs the knife in it's brain it is a viable baby, afterward...? Well it depends on what quack you used this time.
COULTER: Yeah, he's for a woman's right to choose through the fourth trimester.
Classic Coulter stupidity.....
And Henny Youngman sustained a four decade career on one liners. Henny was funny though. See how that works? You have to be funny for humor to work.
Now regale me with one of your tales of when you enjoyed a fine Lobster Thermador with Henny and found him utterly banal and below your level.
Round, I think you don't understand Annie. She has worked hard all her life, taking after her mother, apple annie, who sold apples during the depression and became Mary Worth, who meddles in everyone's affairs and stays at other people's homes for indefinite periods.
Little missy Coulter was abandoned, and instead of selling apples, started peddling "misinformation" for a dollar a pop. Then Richard Mellon Scaife found her and brought her into his mansion; gave her a big credit card and packed all her steamin' heap o lies into books & articles for mass consumption by the constipated creeps who like idiocy. So it's not her fault. *
*all facts reported above subject to review.
what's stupid about it. it's funny.
The only thing that's funny is that some people in this country actually believe the drek that Ann "The Man" Coulter writes and says. Her comment about the "fourth trimester" ranks right up there with the pro-life politician in Colorado who said that teen pregnancy rates tend to decrease after age 25.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that she survived.
That might explain her lack of compassion, empathy and reason.
I never considered that. Could be her personal experience that gives her the unique insight that doctors chase fetuses around the delivery room.
Do I remember seeing a film of her birth? Seems like I recall her - for lack of a better word - "emerging" from the stomach of what I can only assume was her mother, letting out a high-pitched squeal, and then with strings of saliva dripping from her chin, run out of the delivery room into the dark recesses of the spacecraft. I did find a picture of the "birth", taken immediately before she sprinted from the delivery room:
She was cuter back then...
This issue has zero traction viability. Just the sound of it, Obama is pro-baby killing, is so fatuous and silly that by comparison it makes the Bigfoot hoax sound plausible.
Randy
"Those that reside on the extreme political wing of any ideology, and are only out to demonize those they disagree with, are a sad and prevalent bunch."
Now brush your hand over your head and watch how many 'get' that one! Ah ha ha ha, that is truely a classic, Tommy.
Oh, I got Tommy's point.
"I don't think Philib does a whole lot of "seeing". "
No, not for quite a few years.
Nah, they are running with this one. They've upped the abortion ante to "baby-killer" and seeing how it sticks. You can practically OBSERVE the talking point come down the pike, whoever thought it up, to Limbaugh, to Hannity, to the ever awful Coulter, etc.
I don't care what rhetoric they use, it will only appease the visceral pro-lifers.....the rest of us will see it for what it is, dumb.
I respect those that are pro-life and their positions, but I am frankly tired of their whining on this. Every election they make this some litmus test saying they will bolt the Republican party if they even dare nominate someone who is not strict pro-life. And nothing ever changes. Roe v Wade will not be overturned, abortion will never be illegal, and the issue stagnates into obscurity after each election. The johnny one noters on this issue bore me.
"The johnny one noters on this issue bore me. "
That may because you seem to have ignored (or forgotten) what this issue is about. This issue is about babies that don't die the first time they try to kill it, are born alive then the doctor wants to finish killing it outside the womb. The current law states that the other doctor present (at every abortion in Illinois) is supposed to perform life saving procedures in an attempt to save the baby's life. O'bama is against this requirement and feels it is OK to just kill this live born baby outside the womb. If that is an option according to his (and the liberals here) interpretation of the law, why even bother offering PBA's? Just deliver the baby then kill it, no fuss-no muss and no danger to the mother. So, answer for me, please, why don't they just kill the baby outside the womb?
Recheck the headlines of this thread. The 'generic' abortion issue is, I agree, worn out. This isn't about the generic abortion issue.
People have to approach complex issues with open minds.
I agree but this isn't a complex issue.
DaWuss,
When fertility clinics rid themselves of embryoes that they are not using, are they committing murder as well?
Murder assumes life begins at conception. I don't assume that. You do.
I don't assume fact.
So what's difficult to understand about the fact that abortion is murder?
Where did you get that silly notion?
Exact: it a very simple one. If abortion is forbidden and illegal, it WILL be done in clandestine butchery clinics with no safety whatsoever, without counseling that may present alternative solutions and with a very high level of mortality (as it was the case a century ago). But maybe this what you want as the proper punishment for "these sluts"... On a public policy point of view, legal abortion IS A MORAL OBLIGATION. And it allows you to do what you think is the right thing to do following your personal feelings or beliefs.
And it will as effectvely stop abortion to be performed as it stopped rape, common murder, drug trafficking, illegal immigration, Al Qaeda terrorists or bank robbery... I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
"On a public policy point of view, legal abortion IS A MORAL OBLIGATION."
Since WTF is abortion A MORAL OBLIGATION??? That's just as ridiculous as saying that the Oakland Raiders are going to win the Super Bowl.
... and you people think I make assinine comments...In every civilized countries, legal, safe, and affordable abortion is considered a MORAL OBLIGATION FOR THE STATE. It has nothing to do with your own personal feelings or beliefs. You can still think or believe that abortion is a barbaric disgusting horrible and gruesome sin on a personal level. But as a stateperson, as a politician, a) you cannot impose this view on your people, b) knowing the disgusting horrible and gruesome consequences it will bring on all these women having an abortion.
By the way, I live in Colombia were abortion is illegal (except for very specific medical or incest or rape cases since 2007), and hundred of thousands illegal abortion are performed, and hundreds of women die because of it each year. In France, since it has been legalized 40 years ago, the number of abortions stayed about the same as the population doubled (by the way here the teen pregancy rate is ten times lower than in the US).
Grow up is the only advice I have to you.
Punishig murder is PUBLIC ORDER matter and not a moral one for the legal system of a country. But it is in its MORAL OBLIGATION to protect PUBLIC ORDER. And havign legal, safe and affordable abortion clinics is a better PUBLIC ORDER policy than to have clandestine butchers shops.
Punishig murder is PUBLIC ORDER matter and not a moral one for the legal system of a country. But it is in its MORAL OBLIGATION to protect PUBLIC ORDER. And havign legal, safe and affordable abortion clinics is a better PUBLIC ORDER policy than to have clandestine butchers shops.
So it's still morally acceptable to murder someone, based upon the premise of that statement...
See, a baby, whether it's born or unborn, is a human being, and as such has human rights, which includes a right to life. Killing someone inside the womb is no different than killing someone outside of it.
Problem is: abortion IS NOT MURDER as defined by the legal system of your country. It is as defined by your own personal religious beliefs as teached by your priest/pastor/rabbi/imam. But your country (and mine by the way) is a secular one. End of debate on a PUBLIC POLICY point of view, because a secular country will never consider abortion a murder, balancing the PUBLIC ORDER pros and cons of this definition.
By the way, if you consider that abortion is a murder, i'd like to know your opinion about the death penalty and the death of Ali Hussein.
Death penalty? Unlike abortion, that is a complex subject - I don't wanna kill him, I don't wanna' take care of him, and I sure as heck don't wanna' release him. So what do I do?
DaWuss,
So, if abortion is murder, and it becomes illegal, are you calling for every fetus to be registered as born as soon as the pregnancy is realized? Also, will you want to investigate every miscarriage. After all, if a woman loses her baby, maybe she did it on purpose, right?
And what will you do with the women who actively seek out abortions? How much time should they do?
I do have some questions for you:
If the law is changed to reflect your beliefs (a la the Colorado ballot initiative), as a woman, do I always get to ride in the carpool lane? After all, I might be pregnant with an unverifiable fertilized egg in there somewhere. (In case you didn't know, pregnancies can only be detected once the egg attaches itself to the uterine lining and the female body starts the work of developing the pregnancy)- Do I have to send my used pads and tampons to the government, to verified that a "person"/fertilized egg didn't just wash out with my period (about 50% of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant)
- Does the government get to have a say over my eating and drinking habits? After all, I might be pregnant with a "person."
- Do I get to claim 6 dependents on my tax returns? After all, given the rate at which "people"/fertilized eggs fail to implant, I likely had six "children" during the course of the year and am thus entitled to the tax breaks.
I'd get into the actual arguments for abortion with you, but you seem to be peculiarly resistant to any sort of logical argument that doesn't focus on ZOMG!!! Teh Baaaaaybeeees!Froggyreader posted:
(by the way here the teen pregancy rate is ten times lower than in the US).
Why do you think this is Froggy?
If he's pro-choice/pro-abortion he's pro-baby killing. I mean 2+2=4 how much further can I break this down?
You can't breakdown a stupid statement.
Pro-choice means a woman's right to control her own body. "Pro- baby killing" is the lunatic fringe creating new code words to same the same stupid crap they've been saying, "we want to control women's bodies".
Do you want the public deciding if men should have those pills that make it possible for you to make a baby? Because if that's the case, we need to take those blue pills off the market, some folks should NEVER be allowed to re-produce.
-- some folks should NEVER be allowed to re-produce. -- pearlene
That's pretty straight forward...unless you're just knocking men.
Does your belief include denying a woman...that you feel unfit for motherhood...the right to control her own body by having a child?
Just curious.
That's pretty straight forward...unless you're just knocking men.
Wes, it's as straight forwards as it sounds. Do men want the public deciding whether they should have access to those little blue pills? The answer is no, because men can use those little blue pills for more than making babies and THAT is the point. Giving life to a baby is something only a woman can provide and it should be her decision, if she wants to proceed with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Does your belief include denying a woman...that you feel unfit for motherhood...the right to control her own body by having a child?
Just curious.
I may think some folks shouldn't reproduce, but I don't have the right to determine who does what with their bodies. I also THINK some folks should have never been given a license to drive. :-)
Your logic is ridiculous.
You say you are pro-choice? What choice is that? You want a woman to be free to choose what? To kill her baby?
Do I want for the government to able to tell the woman that she can not choose to kill her baby? You're darn right I do!
The pro-"choice" arguement is a canard. A woman makes her choice when she chooses to have sex. This is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of that decision. Choosing to have sex can result in consequences. The pro-"choice" crowd simply does not believe in accepting the consequences of one's decisions.
If I have my finger on the trigger of a gun, the finger is part of my body, is it not? Who are you to tell me what I can and can not do with my finger (it is part of my body)? I can do whatever I want with my finger (on the trigger) but there are consequences associated with the decision I make.
Personally opposed? Another canard. Here is your logic:
"I am personally opposed to sending people to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. I would never do it myself. I find the practice objectionable. But who am I to tell other people what to do? I am imposing my values on the Nazis by telling them they can't gas people. Even though I don't like it, it is not the position of government to tell people what they can and can't do. If they want to gas people, that is their choice.
If you're pro choice, please, visit a Catholic priest the next time you're considering an abortion.
(There, talk to someone who isn't a right winger but still respects the life of an unborn baby)
Yeah, talk to someone who sprinkles water on a baby's head so that it will be possible for it to be admitted to heaven when it dies. Talk to someone who consumes wine and crackers considered to be the blood and bones of (what we assume was) a man who supposedly rose from the dead. Talk to someone who eats Lobster bisque on Fridays in order to "fast" to honor the crucifixion of that same man. Talk to someone who does all these things because he has been instructed that one interpretation of several word-of-mouth stories in a 2000 year-old book tells him to.
If you want to know the reality of abortion, talk to someone like that.
If he's pro choice.....
Show me on your birth certificate that you have the right to decide what someone else believes. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness....,To thine own self be true, Live and let live, to each his own............You could work on a law to get condoms made illegal. I will send you the paper.
And while we're on abortion will they discuss John McCain's stand on fetalicide?
Depends on which day they ask him about it. Monday's answer will definitely be different from Tuesday's. "Stand" and McCain don't go together.
"Above my paygrade!"
No one gets the simple fact that Obama voted against the bill because it was unnecessary. They didn't need it to protect live babies because it's ALREADY illegal to kill live babies. Here's my analogy:
Congressman A: I'm sponsoring the Asian-American Protection Act: It makes it illegal to kill people of Asian descent.
Congressman B: That doesn't make sense- killing people is already illegal, so why do we need a new law?
Congressman A: OMG THIS GUY WANTS TO KILL ASIANS!
I remember reading an magazine article where it was argued that if abortion was ever made illegal, it would be the end of the republican party and the backlash against the religious right would marginalize their politics. Basically the abolition of reproductive rights would anger and motivate many swing voters and take the wind out of the sails of the pro life political operations. An overturn of roe v wade, for example, would bring the issue to the state level where many states would face a stirred up electorate.
But the fantasy for many is that after Roe is overturned, some sort of miraculous national restoration will take place. The reality is more disturbing. With abortion underground you will see the insecurity shift to into the area of neglected medical needs, which is actually a real issue already. Instead of hypothetical fetal victims you will see real victims and instead of the abstract notion of sadistic baby killing doctors you will see medical practitioners being denied the ability to treat patients or getting jailed for it.
I think the majority of us do not want to live under an American style taliban. If that possibility seems a realilty, the reaction could be interesting.
Dawuss, you've really got to snap it up here. Abortion is legal. Murder is illegal.If they were the same thing, the cops wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and there would be no murderers convicted, ever.
Our prisons are filled with convicted murderers.Abortion is not murder.QED.
That, I can't break down to any simpler terms.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced in order to protect "non-viable" born alive infants. The 1975 law to which Obama was referring did not apply to non-viable infants born alive. If one reads the Illinois statute you will see the following: "...No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion." The statute says nothing about non-viable fetuses born alive. http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaFactcheckOnBornAliveBill You will find the statute in question at the bottom of the webpage.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act negates viablity/non-viablity as a determinant for granting human rights to an infant born alive.
Sky"The Born Alive Infant Protection Act negates viablity/non-viablity as a determinant for granting human rights to an infant born alive."
Let see: if a non-viable foetus "survives" an abortion it's not an infant, because it's not viable and NO MATTER WHAT THE DOCTOR DOES it's going to die anyway. BECAUSE it's NON-VIABLE.
If a foetus is viable then it's not an abortion, no matter what technique is used to remove it from the womb. It IS an infant, and as such it's ALREADY PROTECTED by the laws against murder.
Conclusion: there's no need for such a law, because it embodies a contradiction - a non-viable foetus is not an infant, so would not come under the protection of a law intended to protect INFANTS. And if it's viable, it is an infant and it's already protected by existing laws.
See - it really IS simple.
I can see this is a personal issue for you. My recomendation would be to get pregnant and observe the clarity with which your brain responds to the condition and ,god willing, birth.
Let us know how it works out.
I would hope this is a personal issue for both of us Eweston. Is this issue of any less importance for me because I am a Father, not a Mother ?. If you honestly believe the latter then you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely,
Sky
If Obama believes that the answer to when does life begin is "above his pay grade". God help us if he becomes President if he can't answer that simple question how on earth can he claim he's ready for the Oval Office.
JSC##########, what should really scare you is the prospect of a president that is so senile that he thinks he's God, and can tell others when human life begins.
Fortunately, we may be getting a president with a little more humility than you've been accustomed to seeing over the past eight years.
Oh I see...if it's going to die it's not human. Let me see. Now how does this work ?. A child born with Trisome 15 or 18 is not an infant. What the hell, let us just say that any child born with a terminal illness or genetic defect doesn't classify as an infant. Am I following your logic correctly here. Help me out here Dog.
As for your viable doesn't equal abortion argument. Lets see if i get this straight. Woman goes to doctor for abortion. Fetus is viable prior to the induced labor. Fetus survives the procedure. Oh, I get it she really didn't go to the doctor to have an abortion. And, that abortion clinic is really the maternity ward at her local hospital.
Come on brudda lets not be so fast and loose with who gets to die around here.
Sky
I read the above posts and wonder,,, DaWuss, you are trying to convince people to believe in your faith based conclusion about abortion. While you may believe this, it is a personal belief. Good for you. But your personal/faith based belief should not have any part in the governing of this country. Concerning faith, Who says there is a GOD? Who can prove that there is a GOD? And which GOD is the best GOD? The Christian GOD...the Muslim GOD pick one any one and please rank them for me. But naturally, you never seem to answer direct questions.
"Fetus is viable prior to the induced labor"
A foetus that is still at the stage where it is totally, completely and inalterably dependent on the women is NOT VIABLE. Viablity means it has developed to the development stage where it can be expected to survive outside the womb. If it is delivered with medical issues that require intervention that does not negate the fact that it has reached a stage of development where it can be separated from the woman an be expected to survive.
A NON-VIABLE foetus is not going to survive, not matter what is done.
Get it straight - your arguments are dying fast because you don't know the difference between a developmentally viable foetus and a developmentally NON-VIABLE foetus.
Dawuss, I can understand your position on this. I have a hard time grasping this one, too. Not just because I am a man of Faith, but from a non-religious moral standpoint. Even though, I was raised hardcore Conservative. I know the answer isn't simple.
Maybe some of my fellow Liberal friends here can help me understand better. I really do have a hard time distinguishing the difference between a non-viable fetus, and a living human being. I understand the literal definitions, but I just tend to think that a fetus in the womb is a person, whether or not they can think, or sustain itself without the mother, and that life begins at conception. But...I don't consider fertilized embryos in a petri dish of the same status. Is that irrational?
Whether its religious or not, it certainly is a philosophical issue. And science cannot prove or disprove philosophy. But the "framing" doesn't help a true philosophical discussion, it only muddies it, in an attempt to "win" a conversation. As soon as that stops, we can all be rational about it.
Now, I will never vote on a candidate based on their position on this. There are more important issues to worry about. Plus, although I may disagree, the law of my country has spoken on the issue. I accept that. So, if I "personally" hate the idea of women getting abortions so much, I will logically look to the reasons they do, and try to prevent that from happening. This seems to be Obama's position, which I think is reasonable.
Gotta throw in the cynicism:
By the way, I thought Conservatives wanted Big Government to stay out of our personal lives? Except enforcing Christian morals, right?
They are for "State's Rights" (read: Chance to overturn current laws) on abortion, but want a Constituional Amendment for marriage? And if we were to allow an amendment allowing gay marriage, they would want state's rights to choose (ignore the constitution to get your way). They have no respect for anything except their interpretation of things.
Warning, Conservative logic ahead: McCain is criticizing America (its laws via the Justice system), as Obama has done. OMG, MCCAIN HATES AMERICA!!!
"The trouble with Conservatives is they treat their Religion like its Science, their philosophy like its a religion, and Science like its just a philosophy." -J.A.A
It's not illogical to view a 30-week-old fetus and a zygote as different things, because, frankly, they are. It's not a simple as pro-lifers want to make it--pregnancy is a process that, if allowed to continue, has the potential to develop a blob of rapidly-reproducing cells into a fetus that can then be born and survive outside the womb.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that can go wrong with this process--mothers get fatal illnesses; fetuses have organs that don't develop in a manner that will allow their survival; severe genetic mutations happen. And if a woman wants to induce labor to hold her Trisomy13 (sp?) baby before it dies, who are we to judge, and who is the State to interfere with fruitless and expensive medical interventions? And if a woman wants to abort a fetus that will likely die before birth, so she does not have to go through the psychological trauma of carrying a dead thing and the physical trauma of a dead thing rotting inside her, who are we to judge? A pregnancy is a potential, not a guarantee, and as such, we need to respect the people who are put into these hard situations by letting them make the decisions that are best for them.
And frankly, this issue is used primarily as an emotional wedge issue. Late-term abortions account for an incredibly tiny amount of abortions overall--5% or 1%, depending upon which week you're counting from. The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester, which most Americans have no problem with, or during the early second.
(Second trimester abortions occur partly because some women aren't aware of their pregnancy (they're always irregular with their periods, etc.), and partly because tests for genetic diseases and deformities cannot be done earlier, and some parents choose to abort when they find out the results of these tests.)
I'd further argue that because when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person--not just a blob of human cells, but a person--is a philosophical question, that the government needs to pretty much stay out of it.
If what Coulter and Limbaugh say about Obama is true, surely they would both would have been smothered after surviving their own respective abortions...
No sane mother would choose to carry those two to term.
Quotes from 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica supporting that:
An individual human life begins at conception:
"a new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum" ("Human Reproduction..."; vol. 26 page 664).
Embryos and fetuses are children:
"embryo... in humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus" ("Embryo"; vol. 4 page 471)
--Brendan FrostGood points, but I have a question.
Are Preventing life to continue and killing the same thing? I understand that a pregnancy is not a guarantee, but if there is a process that creates life (albeit not a guarantee), and that process is intentionally interrupted, is that the equivalent of killing by any other means? Suffocation - stopping the process of respiration, for example
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to understand. Thanks!
You folks just can't face the truth, can you?
The Oregonian covered this pretty well yesterday. If you did more readintg and a little less name-calling we could take you more seriously.
"Ever wonder how Barack Obama, the great healer, ended up with a more radical record on abortion than Sen. Hillary Clinton or even the zealots at NARAL-Pro-Choice America? It comes down to the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act." The bill was designed to provide legal protection for babies born alive during an abortion. Babies like the ones ex-nurse Jill Stanek saw discarded and left for dead at her hospital. The experience moved her to push for "Born Alive" legislation in Illinois, but Obama voted against the legislation -- three times."
Oops...maybe somebody neglected to tell you there were "three" opportunities for Barak to get it right. If you listened, this was what Coulter was attempting to clarify on Hannity's show, but was shouted down. Barak could have gotten by with his excuse if there had been only one bill...but there were three.
"It doesn't end there. Last weekend, the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody asked about the issue. "I hate to say that people are lying," Obama said, "but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill ... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
He called the National Right to Life Committee liars, but they have produced the documents. One is the Illinois "Born Alive" bill Obama opposed, with this neutrality clause: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
Here's the federal clause: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
I'll let others say Obama is lying about his position on the legislation. I won't use Obama's verbiage. It's enough to say that in charging the National Right to Life with lying about his record, Obama was bearing false witness.
Right after the Brody interview aired, the Obama camp admitted to The New York Sun that he had voted against a "Born Alive" bill with the neutrality clause. Which prompts two questions:
When will the media start chastising Obama for such fast-talking? How could Obama have voted to deny legal protection to these "born alive" babies?"
No need to apologize...
No need to apologize...- skypilot
Nobody expects it, right wing nuts post here all the time without apologizing. We find you entertaining, like clowns.
Babies like the ones ex-nurse Jill Stanek saw discarded and left for dead at her hospital. The experience moved her to push for "Born Alive" legislation in Illinois, but Obama voted against the legislation -- three times."
You lose any argument when you mention that nutty nurse.
That lunatic wrote THIS: Stanek wrote: "That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby or THIS: Stanek noted that Illinois state Senate majority leader Debbie Halvorson had disclosed her human papillomavirus (HPV) status, stated that "you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease" [underline in original], then criticized Halvorson for not disclosing the "number of sex partners she has had," "whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women," or "if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, [in which case] she could discuss ways to avoid rape." or THIS: Stanek wrote that Fritchey "is now working toward his Teen Genocide Promotion award."
ANYONE who uses that lunatic a creditable souces is not playing with a full deck.