Myths and falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on "born alive" bills
In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.
Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following:
MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation
Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal.
In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part:
On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.
No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.
[...]
While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.
From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law.
In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."
Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.
In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.
Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite
In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek.
MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose
Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law.
In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it."
Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired."
But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said:
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.
The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed:
On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session.
Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected."
From Fund's column:
It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.
But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.
From Freddoso's article:
Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.
But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.
MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no"
In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present.
In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote:
Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"]
Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy.
MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place"
In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions."
Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.
This post is for Tommy's edification.
This documents some of the 'facts' that the righties on this site have been wrong about in discussions here over the past 3 weeks. They can't win on the facts, because it's not true that Obama sanctioned infantcide, or that the proposed law was the same as the Federal law, or that viable fetuses weren't already protected under the existing law.
The facts don't support an objection to abortion before the fetus is viable, and the facts don't support the attacks on Obama, but they came anyway, because they want to win. And if they can't win with the facts, they'll try to win with lies and distortions. And that's a typical rightwing tactic here and elsewhere, and that's why Media Matters exists.
He didn't.
Fake-Science 101 has drank the Kool-Aid, served up by Rush and Savage and Coulter.
THATS A LOT OF STUFF...
Post your address so every female can deliver her unwanted baby (instead of aborting it) to you. You can raise them. Abortion is not an ideal situation but, the alternative is even worse and that is why it was legalized. I am curious as to how you would prevent what used to occur before Roe v Wade from repeating itself if Roe v Wade were repealed? ("back alley" abortions, cladastine "clinics" where women used to bleed to death etc.) Would you have any exceptions to "killing a baby" (abortion)? If the woman did not want the baby she forced to carry to term, what would happen to the baby?
See Tommy, facts.
Like that an aborted fetus is not a baby. A non-viable fetus is not a baby when it leaves the womb.
A viable fetus, one that can sustain life, is either just a 'baby', or is a premature baby if the pregnancy didn't go to term. A fetus is not the same as a baby. That's a fact. Rightwingers can win using the facts, though, so they call these aborted fetuses babies to enflame emotions! They lie and distort facts because they can't win using facts.
Obama's not a baby killer, or in favor of infanticide, which is what Rush Limbaugh claimed earlier this week and at the end of last week too. Infanticide is already illegal (another fact) and Obama's not in favor of killing babies.
"Obama's not a baby killer, or in favor of infanticide"
He's a fetus killer, and yes-he is in favor of infanticide. Read the mmfa article again. He DID vote present on the bill that would have prevented the infanticide from continueing. THAT indicates he supports infanticide.
"Infanticide is already illegal (another fact) and Obama's not in favor of killing babies."
Which is why so many people who aren't crazed liberals don't understand why he would not denounce the infanticide that is happening in Illinois.
And, now that Biden is the VP choice of O'bama, we have a plagiarist who supports children recieving violent videos and an infanticide supporter running for VP/President on the liberal side of the ticket. Oh, yeah, you people sure know how to pick em. You people really love the children of America. You kill them before they are born, then if they slip through your net of murder, you give them violent videos and turn them into drug users. Good thing your VP choice supports letting drug criminals loose.
Philbin's also a liar.
Just like McCain lies when he says that Obama didn't want to support the troops because he rejected a specific Senate bill, when the facts are that he approved another bill that funded the troops, and Senators all the time approve of one version of a bill and not another, Obama had legitimate objections to the wording of a bill, but supported a very similar bill.
You're just a liar who can't win on the facts, so you lie and distort reality to get your corrupt message out there. You've never won a debate here on abortion facts, and even so, you keep coming back, week after week, with the same already debunked talking points.
You have no shame. That's not a good thing to have someone say about you, Philbin. Most people would be ashamed to be accurately portrayed in that way. You wear it like a badge of honor.
"You've never won a debate here on abortion facts, and even so, you keep coming back, week after week, with the same already debunked talking points."
I haven't?? Perhaps you will post the "born alive" portion of the LAW in Illinois. I've asked for it before, but you keep ignoring me. Why are you afraid to post what the LAW says about "born alive"?!?
Media Matters provided the link to the existing criminal code, and I did provide the quotes from that existing criminal code that talked about the issues under discussion. The issues under discussion were the existing criminal code at that time versus the proposed bill, and the proposed bill's language was also posted.
You got nothing. As usual. You were horribly outclassed last week and I think it's funny that you think that you can fight your way out of a paper bag now!
No, mmfa provided the link to the laws on "homocide". Here is the current law on the books about abortion: 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
When you go there (I doubt you will), look up viable. Then look up "born alive"/"live born". Keep claiming ignorance and people will believe you are ignorant.
Duh. The issue was what the existing law was during the debate over the proposed law.
What a moron. Those are the two things that are relevant!
"Admit it...the fanatics will employ any technique possible to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Please explain how rejecting the liberal claim of the right to kill a live born baby will overturn Roe v Wade? Did you read the law as it is written? No? I didn't think you would. Neither did blondie. But, she is a blonde so I expected that from her. You, on the other hand, claim intelligence. So, you have no excuse for not reading the law as written then claiming that allowing the killing of a live born baby is not infanticide.
The key was providing "person" status to the product of an abortion. It would therefore be a short hop to argue that there is no difference between an in utero fetus and one that leaves the woman by way of abortion. As a practical matter, I suspect that the number of aborted fetuses that leave the woman breathing is miniscule. And if the fetus has just been aborted one can imagine in what condition it must be...and it's chances of living are likely miniscule. This law was designed to correct a real problem..it was designed to get wording upon which the fanatics could later piggy-back. Admit it...
"And if the fetus has just been aborted one can imagine in what condition it must be...and it's chances of living are likely miniscule."
Just a clarification. An aborted foetus's chance of survival is NIL. A premature baby can survive, with assistance if needed, because it has reached a developmental stage that makes it possible for it to survive outside the womb. A foetus has not reached that developmental stage and even with assistance cannot survive.
"My point is that even if the the product of the abortion is a "premature baby", in what condition will it be after the procedure?"
I think this is where some clarity of terms is becoming essential. No matter what procedure is used to end a pregnancy if the result is a developmentally viable baby - even if premature - then it's not, under the law, an abortion. It's pre-mature birth and the resulting baby is protected under the laws against homicide.
An abortion is any procedure used to terminate a pregnancy before the stage of developmental viablity. Even a handicapped baby is still a BABY if it has reached the developmentally viable stage.
And yes, there are tests that can be done to determine such things as Down's Syndrome and the foetus (not the baby) can be aborted if the parents choose. But they can't so choose if the pregnancy has progressed past the point of developmental viablity. They can end the pregnancy, but they cannot choose to have a developmentally viable baby killed after it is delivered - that would be homicide.
"An abortion is any procedure used to terminate a pregnancy before the stage of developmental viablity. "
Explain how a partial birth abortion or late term abortion work again? What part of viability do you not understand?
" Explain how a partial birth abortion"
There's no such thing
" or late term abortion work again? "
late term abortions are only done to save the life of the woman. You would prefer that both she and the foetus die? I'd have to presume so.
"What part of viability do you not understand?"
All of it.
"...and it's chances of living are likely miniscule."
So, you are going to base your litmus test of viability of a live born baby on "chances" without the benefit of medical procedures that may save it? Ok, I understand you belief, now. Will you use the same theory when a handicapped baby is born?
Thank you for, at least, reading the law.
"Would you place an aborted "infant" on life support for the rest of its life."
It doesn't need to be that way. However, some may survive without having to stay on life support. (my belief is that life support should be used for a limited time, at some point a decision has to be made)
http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp
"(my belief is that life support should be used for a limited time, at some point a decision has to be made)"
"at some point"? At WHAT point? If the foetus is going to die anyway...and it will...why delay the decision? It's not going to live - no matter what is done. Let it die sooner, rather than later.
Irony,
Do you know what you are saying? (I'll admit I'm late to the discussion.) Have you never heard of the Hippocratic Oath?
Of course you would put the baby on life support just the same as if you needed it.
"It would therefore be a short hop to argue that there is no difference between an in utero fetus and one that leaves the woman by way of abortion."
So, what you're saying is that if the woman goes into the doctor's office to have an abortion, she can give birth then have the doctor kill it? What you are saying is that as long as the 'intent' is to have an abortion, then you can wait until it is born then kill the live born baby? That sounds like a "short hop" to murder of a live human that should be allowed because the intent was to kill it anyway.
"What you are saying is that as long as the 'intent' is to have an abortion, then you can wait until it is born then kill the live born baby?"
Nobody's saying that. We're talking about botched abortions, not passing thoughts about abortions. Once you reach the six-month point (barring any health concerns) you're committed to the welfare of the child, whether that is through raising the child or putting it up for adoption.
"Once you reach the six-month point (barring any health concerns) you're committed to the welfare of the child, whether that is through raising the child or putting it up for adoption. "
Not according to your liberal demands! You abortion supporters demand abortion rights up to the delivery date. Anything less is risking having Roe v Wade overturned (as you liberals so often put it).
You people are so screwed up in the head you don't even know what you're trying to achieve, other than have another baby killed- but you want a nicer name for it besides murder, so you make up terms like viable and phoetus so somehow magically turn an unborn human into something it isn't. As if you think it will be a dog or cat, then suddenly on the day it touches oxygen it morphs into a human. Before that happens there's no telling what that 'growth' in a woman's belly is. Well, that's according to you loony-liberals.
"Not according to your liberal demands! You abortion supporters demand abortion rights up to the delivery date."
Wrong. What part of "abortion should be safe, legal and RARE" don't you understand? And as has CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY been shown to you in this thread WE understand the difference between an abortion and the premature delivery of a viable child.
"Anything less is risking having Roe v Wade overturned (as you liberals so often put it)."
Wrong again. Protection of a viable child, regardless of the delivery method used has nothing to do with abortion. And an aborted foetus is not a child and is never going to survive - not matter what is done to it.
"You people are so screwed up in the head you don't even know what you're trying to achieve, other than have another baby killed- but you want a nicer name for it besides murder, so you make up terms like viable and phoetus so somehow magically turn an unborn human into something it isn't."
Wrong again. It is YOU, and others like you, that are trying to turn an aborted foetus into an "unborn child" - which it is not.
"As if you think it will be a dog or cat, then suddenly on the day it touches oxygen it morphs into a human. Before that happens there's no telling what that 'growth' in a woman's belly is. Well, that's according to you loony-liberals."
There's not telling whether that foetus will develop into a viable human being or not. Of couse it's ridiculous to say it might turn into a "dog or cat" - but then you've shown NO reluctance to be ridiculous, so it's not surprising you would try to project that attitude onto others who DON'T share it.
You're getting hysterical and this post shows your increasing separation from the reality of what is abortion and what is not, and what is a child and what is not.
"and I did provide the quotes from that existing criminal code that talked about the issues under discussion. "
No, you did not. You talked about homicide and so did the link provided by mmfa. The issue under discussion is about 'live born' babies being killed after they are extracted from the mother. But, being a blonde, I never expect you to understand simple things like that.
No, the issue under discussion was Obama voting present, years ago, and what that meant. So the relevant statutes would be the statutes about fetuses dying and the proposed new law from years ago.
We know that now he supports the current law.
Neither the previous law nor the current law condoned infanticide! The proposed law would have interfered with abortion rights, and he rejected it because it unconstitutionally interfered with those rights. Infanticide has always been illegal, and Obama has never supported infanticide. Again, the facts will never support your spin. You can't win a debate on the facts, because they're all against your corrupt position.
Philib,
"He DID vote present on the bill that would have prevented the infanticide from continueing. THAT indicates he supports infanticide."
I live in Illinois and I follow the news. Local and via the internet going out of my way for blogs and I talk with people daily and not just about the weather and until this time that Obama has become so popular with the people and is really that close to the presidency, this is the first time I have ever heard about alleged Obama support of 'infanticide'!
Only two kinds of people would actually believe, (since this issue is several years old,) that Obama would not have been called out on this one? Not just him, but every single politician in Illinois?
The two types of people: those that are unable to think critically enough to realize they are being duped and those that are paid to say and spread those lies that dupe those not getting paid for spreading those lies.
Think for a moment, you don't think that this would have been national, if not worldwide news if Obama or any American politician actually supported 'infanticide', now or at any time in such a direct way? But now that Obama is this close to the WH, suddenly it turns out that he was always in support of 'infanticide'?
And now , by using this kind of logic you would then have no choice but to believe that every single person that knew about this posiblility (from the reporters to the Republicans in the Illinois Senate) were all in a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Obama was/is an advocate for the murder of babies?
Not even hard core Republicans like Hastert or Henry Hyde spoke about this then? This bill was covered in the media, so they would have had to have known about it at the time. Are you believing that they covered for Obama? You would think that truely Conservative Republicans would have moved mountains to expose that one.
Are you stupid or something?
"Are you stupid or something?"
Ditto. Through that entire diatribe, you didn't once mention that O'bama didn't support infanticide through his voting record. So, what part of my statement are you argueing against?
"you didn't once mention that O'bama didn't support infanticide"
You really are a lost cause Philib.....
Considering my wording of my post, one might use a little logic and common sense to come to the conclusion that I firmly believe that Obama didn't, doesn't and never has supported 'infanticide'.....
And you completely ignored my entire post... other than the simplest sentence that any 3 year old might easily recognize!
Why not go back and reread my post and come back to me with a answer that forces you to think!
Philbin has such a difficult time here because he is just plain ignorant.
Just because someone opposes a bill in a certain form doesn't mean that they oppose everything in that bill, moron.
Did you even read what Media Matters posted? Do that then slither off like the snake you are.
It's ridiculous to claim that he supports infanticide when the evidence proves that he does not, and contemporary reports don't support that interpretation of his actions!
"He DID vote present on the bill that would have prevented the infanticide from continueing. THAT indicates he supports infanticide."
There's no evidence that there was ever infanticide happening. None. Therefore, there's no reason for you to claim that something needed to be done to prevent it from continuing. Secondly, there are currently, and were at the time, laws that prevent, sanction, and punish infanticide. Lastly, being against one form of a bill because it's deemed to be unconstitutional doesn't mean you're against many of the aims of that bill. What a moron.
Philbin has such a difficult time here because he is just plain ignorant.
Have to disagree with that statement. He's not ignorant...he's a F-A-N-A-T-I-C.
You ask that question like the fanatical stupid liar Philib is actually going to provide a credible answer from a credible source (Liar Flush Drugbaugh is a NON-CREDIBLE source, for the record).
Philib i, among other things, a fanatical, stupid, ignorant, bald-faced LIAR.
Poor Philib, off his meds AGAIN!
He's a fetus killer, and yes-he is in favor of infanticide. Read the mmfa article again. He DID vote present on the bill that would have prevented the infanticide from continueing. THAT indicates he supports infanticide.
A bill won't prevent infanticide.
Infanticide has always been a crime in Illinois.
The bill was phony. Its purpose was to define a fetus as a child which could eventually be used to ban abortions.
...because they want to win.
Exactly...And as a former POW, John McCain will win this by, uh...by winning. Because he's an American...and Americans are winners. And John McCain is a former POW...but he doesn't like to talk about it.
Of course on the other side we have someone who... uh ... can't take a stance on a crucial issue because ... uh ... it's above his pay grade. And, he'll visit all 57 states to make sure they support infanticide, like he does.
If "I" supported infanticide, I wouldn't have answered that question either. You people are as good at pickin a winner as the republicans are. Too bad we don't have a viable 3rd option. Neither of the current 2 are viable and their candidacies should be aborted
Ah ha ha ha, I expected just that kind of answer.
It's not the country I don't like, I don't like those who support infanticide. If you want to change this country into one of those type, then perhaps it is YOU who should move to a country that supports your priorities (like infanticide).
"What exactly do you like about America?"
Freedom, and the unalianable rights given to me by my Creator to pursue life, liberty and happiness
"You are sick...who is drooling? I don't care for abortion...but I believe the issue is too personal and complex to allow FANATICS like yourself to deprive women the right"
Again, I am not attempting to remove ANY right, other than your percieved right to kill a live born baby before (law required) medical attention is administered. But, considering that you are NOT a fanatic, you obviously aren't skipping over the point. Maybe the drool is making the print fuzzy and you can't read it.
"And how far must that attention go?"
Long enough to find out whether the baby will live or not.
Again: http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp
"Long enough to find out whether the baby will live or not."
If it's a baby, that will be done anyway. If it's a foetus it's not going to live, no matter what is done.
"If it's a baby, that will be done anyway. If it's a foetus it's not going to live, no matter what is done."
Well, then we have no differences. Unless you hold to the belief that premature babies do not need to be cared for at birth. All I say is the law says 'live born' babies deserve the medical attention required of any baby born alive. Not killed simply because that was the original intention.
"Well, then we have no differences."
Well...we do. Because I know the difference between a foetus and a baby. You apparently do not.
"Because I know the difference between a foetus and a baby. You apparently do not."
Actually I do know the difference. Here's merriam-webster's definition of "fetus" (note the spelling): "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
So, our differences are not differences after all. I think babies that are born (outside the womb) are called a baby and before they are born they are called a fetus. My arguement (from the beginning) is that when an abortion goes wrong (usually from the hack doctors liberals prefer to use) and the fetus is taken outside the womb, then life sustaining procedures must be attempted. You, on the other hand, continue calling a baby a fetus even after it has been born.
O'bama supports killing these 'live born' babies, I do not. You seem to be confused as to what the heck the arguement is even about. But, I expect that because you are a liberal and do not know how to argue using FACTS. When you learn what you are even talking about, then you can attempt to continue your feeble arguement that babies are not babies and are instead called fetus's.
" O'bama supports killing these 'live born' babies, I do not."
I know exactly what the argument is about. You just don't have the courage to admit it. Just because a foetus is outside the womb does not make it a baby if it has not reached the develpmental stage where it can be expected to survive. Our medical technology has not advanced to the stage yet where a foetus at ANY stage can be "supported"
It's a foetus, no matter what you do it's not going to survive. Allow it to die with dignity. If it's developmentally at the point where it is a PREMATURE BABY then the laws against homicide already apply. There's no need for any additional laws - especially if said law is intended to confer "personhood" on something that is not a person.
"Again, I am not attempting to remove ANY right, other than your percieved right to kill a live born baby before (law required) medical attention is administered."
If it's a live born BABY it's already protected by laws against homicide. A non-viable foetus is going to die no matter what is done. IT CAN'T SURVIVE outside the womb, there's no technology that makes that possible EXCEPT the "technology" of the woman's womb.
It's calling a non-viable foetus a BABY that clouds your thinking and your emotional response. A BABY is already protected. A BABY is already protected. A foetus is NOT A BABY.
You already have the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You just don't have the right to make painful personal decisions for other people, just as no one else can make such decisions for you or your family.
This debate is an intense one, but it should not be infused with so much hate. After November 4 the country will have to come together no matter who has been elected. Can't you step back and see that people with different opinions on this very difficult topic may not be stupid or evil but may honestly just see this in a different way?
Philib....
"Freedom, and the unalianable rights given to me by my Creator to pursue life, liberty and happiness"
I hate to have to burst your bubble in here yet again......
But those freedoms and rights you have to pursue life, liberty, and happiness were given to you because of the founding fathers blood, sweat, tears, and in many cases their personal wealth and their families lives, not to mention some of their own lives.... not some imaginary Creator.
And if you had any brains you'd come to realize that its those that you seem to want to defend that are the ones responsible for you losing some of that ability.....
"not some imaginary Creator."
Our founding fathers certainly thought so. So much they mentioned that these rights are "endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence.
You ever wonder why they didn't just say God if that was what they meant? They were being intentionally ambiguous.
It should also be noted that the word "sacred" was changed to "unalienable" as well to be more ambiguous towards religion.
" And the thing you looney liberals hate the most...it was a religious reference just the same! You people just hate any mention of the word God, don't you? When you make excuses to make yourself believe the founding fathers did not reference God, that must be true"
A "religious" reference is not, by fiat, necessarily a reference to the Christian God. THAT's what the founding fathers KNEW. They embodied freedom of religion into the Constitution and tried their best to use such references that would encompass ALL religions as they knew them. Yes, of couse they assumed people would be "religious" - but they made no assumptions about WHICH religion the people would follow.
So it's quite true they did not reference the "God" you have been brought up to worship. But they did refernce the BELIEF in A god - but using the word "creator"
"A "religious" reference is not, by fiat, necessarily a reference to the Christian God. THAT's what the founding fathers KNEW. They embodied freedom of religion into the Constitution and tried their best to use such references that would encompass ALL religions as they knew them."
I never said it WAS a reference to the Christian God. Although, HE is one of the God's being referenced to. What's your problem with my statement, again? I pointed out the reference to a "Creator" and you whine about Christianity. My God (ambiguous)... get over it!!
"You people just hate any mention of the word God, don't you? When you make excuses to make yourself believe the founding fathers did not reference God, that must be true."
See. You contradicted yourself in 2 short sentences. To a Christian "the word God" is specific to the Christian God of the bible. Then you reinforce that reference by saying "reference God"
If you were trying to be generic you should have said "the word god" and "reference A god"
It still wouldn't be true that liberals "hate" the word god. But at least you would have been consistent with the argument you THINK you are making. You aren't succeeding, but keep trying.
"To a Christian "the word God" is specific to the Christian God of the bible. "
And like a good liberal when you lose another arguement you can't point out where I said anything about a "Christian God". So, you go off and whine about something different. Good job
"And like a good liberal when you lose another arguement you can't point out where I said anything about a "Christian God". So, you go off and whine about something different. Good job"
As a good Christian...when I say God I mean the God of the Bible. If you had professed to be a Muslim and said God I would have taken that to mean Allah. You self identified as a Christian. It's not my fault you can't be more specific...or in this case more generic...if you meant the discsussion to be about gods in the generic.
It ain't me that WHINING, buddy.
More lies from Philbin.
It is a moral issue as to when a human being comes into existence. The Bible is even silent on it, and what it does say about the soul entering the body is contradictory.
So Obama, being a good Christian, says he doesn't know, and he'll leave that kind of question up to God to decide and God to punish or praise.
You, on the other hand, as a poor Christian, lie about another person and then decide that you can be judge of another person's heart.
There have been tons of myths about Obama's stances. That's the topic of this posting by Media Matters, and you don't seem to understand the hypocrisy of your spewing false memes here in a topic about false memes!
And the crap about 57 states? He had been to 47 states. He was getting ready to say that he's been to 47, and was trying to get to all 50, and he misspoke and said 57. You've never called your kids by their wrong name, or said the wrong street name when giving someone directions, or said that wrong number when describing an amount because you were tired? Give me a f'in break. If this is the best you got, and I've seen lots of your attempts, so it is the best you've got, you're sorely lacking, chum.
"You've never called your kids by their wrong name, or said the wrong street name when giving someone directions, or said that wrong number when describing an amount because you were tired?"
No. And, if you have then you are as smart as you act. And if that's how his brain works when he's tired, then is he worthy of being in control of nuclear weapons at 3am?? Maybe he isn't the one to trust when that phone call comes in (like Hilary claimed she was ready for). The internet is full of 'mis-speaks' by O'bama because he "was tired". If he wins, I pray he gets plenty of sleep or we may be in for more mismanagement than Bush ever thought of doing.
" for you to claim that you've never had a brain fart is ridiculous. Everyone does."
I've never had a "brain fart" and the only way your brain can fart is if it's stuck up your ars. Which is probably true considering the way you argue facts.
F***'em if they can't take a joke, that's my philosophy... ;>)
BTW, that stuff on reproductive rights was hilarious... Keep'em coming.
"I've never had a "brain fart"...
That's because you've never had a brain in the first place, Philib!
The right-wing doesn't give a flying f*** about "saving babies," or ending abortion.
They want this "issue" kept alive as a "wedge," so the right-wingers can pretend to be "holier than the liberals," without doing diddly squat to actually help any women OR their babies.
And this "born alive" BS is no exception.
It's a fake, a phoney "issue," to try and paint "the liberals" as being "for killing babies."
Peebs,
I'm late to the discussion. However if you happen to read this, can you provide a link to back up your claim?
Thanks
Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life (mostly anyway)...really simple.
All of this publicity by the media...pro and con...is just a lot of yammering for ratings and audiences. In the end all of this useless chatter about infanticide, previable fetus, and unborn children is just so much yada,yada, yada when it comes to the presidential election.
If you're pro-choice...you'll support Obama. If you're pro-life you'll support someone else. The principle of Roe v Wade will remain the law of the land with the current make up of the SC...only subject to change with the coming appointments of new judges...probably in the next presidential term.
All of this publicity by the media...pro and con...is just a lot of yammering for ratings and audiences. In the end all of this useless chatter about infanticide, previable fetus, and unborn children is just so much yada,yada, yada when it comes to the presidential election.
Come on Wes, it's not just the media.
Each year around election time the lunatic right comes out with their "get of the vote" issues like abortion and gay marriage. It's become standard operating procedure for the right to create new code words to go with their "get out the vote" drive, infanticide, pre-born, pro-abortion. They even have a "protect marriage" code word as if someone is out there holding a gun on marriage.
Our media is too dumb to realize the pattern and play follow the leader with the Republicans and report it.
And right after elections those issues vanish. Curious.
"And right after elections those issues vanish. Curious."
No kidding! Six years of Republican controlled Congress AND White House and still the Roe v Wade decisions stands. AND gay marriage is making inroads towards ending that injustice.
You'd think, wouldn't you, that at least SOME R's would figure out - eventually - that they're being played for suckers on both of those issues.
Exactly. When Terri Schiavo was allowed to die, they were flipping out. But it happens every day in America, and there's not a big stink outside hospices and nursing homes and hospitals, is there?
Hypocrisy. The pervasive infection of righties. If it was wrong to let her die, it's wrong to let anyone die.
"Hypocrisy. The pervasive infection of righties. If it was wrong to let her die, it's wrong to let anyone die."
Let's test the hypocrisy of liberals. Do you support the decision of person who has 'power of attorney' to send this guy back to Mexico? Or, do you support the family's desire to keep him in America and continue receiving free medical care?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-patient-deportaug20,0,1937823.story
" Let's test the hypocrisy of liberals. Do you support the decision of person who has 'power of attorney' to send this guy back to Mexico? Or, do you support the family's desire to keep him in America and continue receiving free medical care?"
What does this have to do with either hypocrisy or abortion rights? And before you ask, yes I did read it.
Blondie mentioned the hypocrisy of the stance of right wingers in comparison of Terrie Shaivo and to abortion.
Good, you read it. Now, who do you think should prevail?
As expected... NONE of you liberals would answer my question about hypocrisy.
Blondie-- you can dish it out but you're afraid to take it, huh? What?! Are you scared?! I thought so. You're scared of your own shaddow and won't answer your own hypocrisy comparison because you know the answer. You're a hypocrit... a blonde hypocrit. And, we all know the old saying about blondes!
" As expected... NONE of you liberals would answer my question about hypocrisy."
Maybe because you didn't actually ASK a question about hypocrisy. Could that POSSIBLY be the reason you didn't get an answer? You positied a scenario based on a news story and asked a question about that story. And you assumed the answer to that question would tell you something about our "hypocrisy." Since the story had NO relation to the subject of this thread, of course no one bothered to answer.
"Since the story had NO relation to the subject of this thread, of course no one bothered to answer."
Of course. That's why Schaivo and righty hypocrisy was so distastefully denounced by all you liberals.
"That's why Schaivo and righty hypocrisy was so distastefully denounced by all you liberals."
You're improving! At least you can now admit that the Schiavo case WAS righty hypocrisy. Keep it up, you'll get there yet.
Dogg, Earlier, you told me not to respond to the Wussie. I've tried with Philib in the past and came to the realization that if you wait until a little later into a Saturday, he runs out of his Rush points and just gets lost. But you must wade through his world of ignorance and reluctancy to even discuss an issue. His/her mind is diluted with Rush stuff and their is no room for intelligent discussion.
It is not that you can't debate with him/her, it is just useless. (Between you and me, ask him if he can prove who is his CREATOR. The answer is parents but if Rush didn't tell him, well, who knows what the answer will be.)
"Dogg, Earlier, you told me not to respond to the Wussie."
Actually, no I didn't. I think you are referring to someone else. And responding to such posts is NOT necessarily for that person, but for everyone else reading the responses.
That was Maddog who mentioned it...my bad. Too many breeds floating around here. Sorry again but my content makes me content. That should throw someone for a tizzy. Wait, a minute, according to Snoopy, another dog, POWs cannot make mistakes.
This has nothing to do with the Terri Schiavo case, or anything similar.
It also has nothing to do with the hypocrisy I mentioned. Gosh you're lame and without any shame.
The same goes for abortion. You don't believe in the soul or eternal life, since you obviously think that all there is to life is in the flesh. It's pathetic.
"Chrinos (Christians in name only) are not."
And how does Mary (the Christian) feel about abortion? Don't worry, mary, I don't expect you to answer. I would hate to have you decide between your party and your God. Afterall, a Christian knows how that choice will turn out. And, if you're half the Christian you claim to be, answering how you feel about abortion would make all those argueing in favor of abortion and killing live born babies start calling you names, too.
The way you keep avoiding the subject, I suspect you would never publically announce you're anti-abortion. Well, unless you're a "Chrino" then I would understand your lack of emotion on this subject.
"Our media is too dumb to realize the pattern and play follow the leader with the Republicans and report it."
Which is why mmfa can't get enough of this issue and continues to post artical after article about it. With the liberal based media promoting most of the headlines that you don't want to read, but for some reason you blame right wing media. Hmmm, when you say "our media" you must mean the liberal media is too dumb?
"Hmmm, when you say "our media" you must mean the liberal media is too dumb?"--philib
Nice demonstration of what happens when your premise is based on an incorrect assumption.
Which is why mmfa can't get enough of this issue and continues to post artical after article about it. With the liberal based media promoting most of the headlines that you don't want to read, but for some reason you blame right wing media. Hmmm, when you say "our media" you must mean the liberal media is too dumb?
Philb, when the we start discussing abortion? When the LUNATIC RIGHT decided to start the "Obama approves of killing live babies" crap! Before that we were discussing the economy and the war but because Republicans screwed up BOTH the economy AND the war, they decided to backtrack to their tried and true "get out the vote" issue ABORTION!
"Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life (mostly anyway)...really simple."
And wrong. Obama is pro-choice. McCain is ANTI-ABORTION. He's not pro-life. He supports a war started and continued on false pretenses.
"If you're pro-choice...you'll support Obama. If you're pro-life you'll support someone else"
Wrong again. I'm pro-choice AND pro-LIFE and I support Obama. Pro-lifers don't support sending our troops to die for a lie.
"Pro-lifers don't support sending our troops to die for a lie."
AMEN! Brother. And when that happens us pro-lifers will be the first to complain about it.
Good thing no one died (on our side) when Clinton bombed those hospitals in Bosnia, or we would have raised holy-heck!
"AMEN! Brother. And when that happens us pro-lifers will be the first to complain about it."
Then start now.
"Good thing no one died (on our side) when Clinton bombed those hospitals in Bosnia, or we would have raised holy-heck!"
What false pretense was used for those attacks? That was a NATO action and we are obligated to support NATO by virtue of our membership in that organization.
"Then start now."
Why? Who lied? What lies were told? Are these the same lies that leading democrats told us in '98 about WMD's and the danger of Saddam to the world? I have protested those lies, but so many people say those aren't lies until someone else told the same things, then those lies became lies. Wait, this is all too confusing... They weren't lies before a republican took office, but they were lies after a republican took office. Hmmm
" Why? Who lied? What lies were told? Are these the same lies that leading democrats told us in '98 about WMD's and the danger of Saddam to the world?"
There was no war started in 1998.
"I have protested those lies, but so many people say those aren't lies until someone else told the same things, then those lies became lies. "
Nope, they were always lies - even if AT THE TIME they were believed as the truth. But no one started a WAR based on them, until Bush came along...just looking for an excuse.
"Wait, this is all too confusing... They weren't lies before a republican took office, but they were lies after a republican took office. Hmmm"
Interesting logic. The point isn't whether they were lies or not...it's THAT A WAR WAS STARTED BASED ON THEM. THAT was, and is, the biggest LIE of all.
"Interesting logic. The point isn't whether they were lies or not...it's THAT A WAR WAS STARTED BASED ON THEM. THAT was, and is, the biggest LIE of all."
Sorry, you got nothin. Even your VP candidate says the war was a good thing. He has NO problems with the reasons we went to war. How do you expect me to believe the war was based on lies when your own VP candidate fully agrees with the reasons we went to war?
" Sorry, you got nothin. Even your VP candidate says the war was a good thing. He has NO problems with the reasons we went to war. How do you expect me to believe the war was based on lies when your own VP candidate fully agrees with the reasons we went to war?"
I make my own decisions based on my own interpretation of the events. If God herself agreed with the reasons we went to war in Iraq I would still say it was based on lies and was, and is, a bad thing. So don't quote me "my" VP candidate. If *I* had been choosing that candidate it would have been someone else anyway.
"I make my own decisions based on my own interpretation of the events."
I would expect no less from you. Do you mind if I do the same? Or, are you going to continue to tell me how to think?
"If God herself agreed..."
Jesus is a girl? I guess with that mindset, I would expect you to claim lies all the time.
" I would expect no less from you. Do you mind if I do the same? Or, are you going to continue to tell me how to think?"
Hypocrisy they forum name is Philib. But that's no big surprise. You object to me telling you how to think, but apparently see no contradiction is YOU telling ME how to think.
" Jesus is a girl? I guess with that mindset, I would expect you to claim lies all the time."
Jesus is dead. No, JESUS was not a "girl" - he was a man. But my reference was not to Jesus, it was to GOD.
"But my reference was not to Jesus, it was to GOD. "
Which explains a lot for your thought patterns.
" Which explains a lot for your thought patterns."
Elucidate, please.
"Elucidate"
Don't know what that means and I don't have a dictionary handy. I'll assume it means 'explain further'. I figure you arrive at your abortion opinion because you aren't a Christian. Which would explain why you support the killing of 'live born' babies without effort to save them after a botched abortion.
I am a Christian, too. Where does it say thou shallt not abort? I must have missed that verse.
" Where does it say thou shallt not abort?"
Apparantly you missed; Thou shalt not murder
"Thou shalt not murder "
Abortion is not murder...because a foetus is not a person. The primary legal definition of murder is: n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. (per law.com dictionary)
" Thank you, doggie. So, to kill a "live born" baby (even after an attempted abortion) is murder."
Certainly it would be murder, IF it was a live born CHILD and not a foetus that cannot, under any circumstances, survive outside the womb. In THAT case, regardless of the procedure used to terminate the pregnancy, it would be PRE-MATURE BIRTH, not an abortion.
" Maybe you people better recheck your mmfa link for the rules of homocide, again. You call killing a live human murder, but you call killing a live born baby legal and justified"
Wrong. No one here ever adovocated or supported the killing of a child that is delivered by any method used to terminate a preganancy. A foetues that cannot survive outside the womb is not a baby.
In my religion - Christianity, we are taught that a fetus is just a vessel or flesh - without a spirit. The Bible says: The "Spirit" gives life; the flesh counts for nothing (John 6:63). Of course, we all know that the Greek word that is often translated to "Spirit" in this instance is derived from "pneuma" - which means "breath" (it is also that way for Hebrew and Latin words for "spirit" and its synonyms). The Bible has several verses that when read in the original Ancient Greek support the argument that breath is necessary for life in my religion - the only real difference between a fetus and a baby, btw.
" Thank you, closed mind. So when a baby is live born after a botched abortion attempt and it takes a single breath of air, then you accept that it is a live human being, with a soul? What do they call killing a live human being in America?
Well, more improvement. You actually said it correctly. If a BABY is delivered to end a pregnancy and it takes a breath, then yes it is a human being...and as such it is protected by the laws against murder.
Of course, this still has NOTHING TO DO with aborting a non-viable foetus that CANNOT SURVIVE because it has not reached a developmental stage where it is not dependent on the woman's womb to sustain it.
"I figure you arrive at your abortion opinion because you aren't a Christian."
Then you figure wrong.
"Which would explain why you support the killing of 'live born' babies without effort to save them after a botched abortion."
Babies are not the result of an abortion. And a botched abortion would be one that FAILED to end the pregnancy. And, OH once again...yet again...live born babies are already covered by existing laws.
What makes you think I support the killing of BABIES? This ought to be about as good as your guessing I'm not a Christian.
"Do you think Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes?"
No
"What color was his skin?"
Bronze
"Are we in agreement Homo Sapiens originated in Africa."
And you have absolute proof of where the 'garden of eden' is? I've always heard it was in the Iraq area. Which is NOT Africa. Since you changed the subject, why don't you provide some proof of your inacurate claims-of-fact.
" And you have absolute proof of where the 'garden of eden' is?"
Try to keep up. He's talking genetics, not ancient myths.
" I'm sorry, I didn't see him ask 'where did the first Africans come from'. I thought he asked where did humans first start. Which was NOT Africa. "
Proof please. And don't quote the Bible- that's not proof, that's myth from ancient times past.
"Bring some facts to the table. If I'm not allowed to use fables, neither are you"
DNA testing is a fable? That's news to me. Provide some proof.
"DNA testing is a fable?"
He said DNA testing "now show" routes..blah blah blah. What did DNA previously show that is different than "now"? Is this another science that you people only believe in when it agrees with your theories? Which all remain THEORIES.
" He said DNA testing "now show" routes..blah blah blah. What did DNA previously show that is different than "now"? Is this another science that you people only believe in when it agrees with your theories? Which all remain THEORIES"
Does your rigid view of the world REALLY not allow for improvements in technology and the reading of the results of that technology? REALLY? REALLY?
I figure you arrive at your abortion opinion because you aren't a Christian.
JUDGE NOT, LESS YE BE JUDGED AND FOUND UNWORTHY!
"JUDGE NOT, LESS YE BE JUDGED AND FOUND UNWORTHY!"
I notice you didn't come out with those words of wisdom as others were judging my opinion on killing live born babies. Thanks for your good Christian words of enlightenment.
" I notice you didn't come out with those words of wisdom as others were judging my opinion on killing live born babies. Thanks for your good Christian words of enlightenment"
And you've completely failed to notice that we ALL have supported your opinion on killing live born BABIES. What we have not, and will not, support is your framing an aborted foetus as a baby.
Just for the record, it was Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the neocons and other Republicans, such as the former POW, John McCain, who sold the lies in the nineties...and it was the Republicans who were pushing those lies in the Republican controlled Congress. Get your history straight...
BTW, speaking of history, were you aware, before I pointed it out, that John McCain is a former POW? He doesn't like to talk about it...
We do see a very vocal group on each side of the issue. But we also have many people who are anti-abortion but pro-science, concerned with human rights, opposed to torture, against war and in favor of seeing that America's children are educated and have health insurance.
king,
I don't disagree...and I also was not trying to make the point that abortion is the defining reason to vote for a candidate. But in the specific case of abortion...Obama is a clear supporter of Roe and opposes any weakening of abortion rights.
The issue is a volatile one and my contention is that the media's agenda is to pour gasoline on the issue for one goal only...a larger audience. Not to add anything to the debate...but to increase their audience.
Hannity is the poster boy for this time of journalism...inciting his audience about Obama and abortion. Hell, anyone capable of sitting up and taking nourishment already knows Obama's staunch support of abortion rights...and the Hannity-like style of the media does little to change anyone's mind.
For what little it's worth, king...it won't surprise you to know that I oppose abortion. Yet, I am not so dogmatic as to support a complete ban. I believe that there are many situations in which abortion could be appropriate.
But what I won't ever support is abortion performed for the convenience of the parents...and it happens all too frequently in today's society...and that is a travesty.
"But what I won't ever support is abortion performed for the convenience of the parents...and it happens all too frequently in today's society...and that is a travesty. "
A travesty of what? Do you really think it's better that a women be force to bear a child she does not want, and that a child be born into a family where it won't be loved and nurtured and appreciated? THAT would be travesty. A travesty of the "loving family" that is supposed to be the norm.
Me? I take an entirely practical view of the whole issue. First, It's a woman's right to decide and second, there are FAR, FAR worse things than never being born.
Obama, the "baby-killer." Sure.
Wonder how many babies McCain actually did kill personally before he got his arse shot down?
"WHITE WOMEN OVER 40 WHO SUPPORT ROVE V WADE"
Is it just me, or is this really an incomplete thought and sentence? I can't seem to make any sense of it, even in the context of the entire incoherent post.
Dog, just a normal "fat" post by this fair-minded individual. He/she is gone now to reappear at a later date.
My question to you Dog, isn't it great to hear the "new info" put out by some posters. The other night on KDKA radio, a caller ask the host if he heard that Obama was not an American citizen. He had it from a good source and was excited to have this "new info". His family sent him an email with the information listed. Couldn't help myself and called in and asked the Con host if he actually believed that Obama was not an American citizen..he said he'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Not good enough for me, I asked him if anyone could get this far in the election without someone really investigating this or if his opponents wouldn't expose him. Then, he stumbled and said he wasn't sure if the birth certificate in question was from Hawaii or Kansas..at this point, I realized that I had wasted breath.
"My question to you Dog, isn't it great to hear the "new info" put out by some posters."
It gets pretty ridiculous, no doubt. But it's scary how easily some people are taken in by such stuff.
Yeah, I heard that too on talk radio yesterday evening - I was in the old truck that only has an AM radio.
There was some nonsense that the birth certificate is invalid, or a forged document - factcheck.org has debunked that myth, and then he claimed that the stepfather adopted him in the the stepfather's homeland and that somehow made Obama lose his US citizenship.
Except it doesn't, and couldn't. A child born of one or two American parents is an American citizen unless he renounces that as an adult and chooses another nationality to which he is entitled.
Facts have a liberal bias.
"GOOD PIC OBAMA WITH BIDE"
I held this post upside down and looked at it in a mirror. Its the bush doctrine by God!
I tried posting this before, for definitional clarity. I'll try again, in abbreviated form. (i) An individual human life begins at conception. (ii) Fetuses and embryos are children.
If anyone is interested, I will post the relevant quotes from my source, the 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica.
-dubois
There are some very cynical right wing politicians who every election cycle use abortion as a wedge issue to sucker voters into voting for them and against their own economic interests. We have one Republican running for Congress in Oregon, Mike Erickson, who has been running on being "Pro-Life". Turns out he got a girlfriend pregnant and drove her to the abortion clinic and dropped her off. There is much documentation to support this allegation; in fact, his primary opponent brought it up, but of course he won't admit it.
I'll accept that a few of the Republican legislators are sincerely against abortion, but their position is so shallow on the subject...as if legislation and proabition could stop abortions. The Illinois law had provisions which would allow lawyers to second guess doctors and their patients making very difficult decisions in life threatening situations. And has been said repeatedly, the law already protects babies born alive in any situation, including abortion.
However, back to the cynical use of this: they get so much traction by bringing up gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc. that it becomes an overall obsession, while the economy continues to tank and the middle class continues to lose ground.
"they get so much traction by bringing up gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc. that it becomes an overall obsession, while the economy continues to tank and the middle class continues to lose ground."
Maybe some Christians don't want to trade their morals for money. If you think that's the right way to do it, then you go right ahead and do it that way, mary.
Maybe Media Matters can come up with a ten word explanation of Obama's vote in Illinois.
He will need it. A long tortured answer won't do the trick.
"Maybe Media Matters can come up with a ten word explanation of Obama's vote in Illinois"
It doesn't take ten words. It doesn't even take 5. It only takes 3: It wasn't needed