Everything I need to know about Obama

[danielh41]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

[mrkelley23]

Thanks for sharing.


Gratuitous post # 100013

[christie1111]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

[TheCalvinator24]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

[danielh41]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

Obama's voting record is a matter of public record, and there really is no excuse for killing that bill. It just shows that Obama is the most amoral candidate ever nominated for President by a major party...

[Bob78164]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

Since no one posted the rebuttal, I will. Obama opposed the bill because (as should surprise no one) Illinois law already requires medical care for infants born alive, so the benefit you're touting here is illusory. Technical language in the bill would have made it more difficult for women to exercise their federal constitutional right to choose. --Bob

[hf_jai]

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

I doubt the truth of it, Cal. I only glanced at the "white paper" at the link. It's was pretty one-sided, so I doubt what it said about the bills he was voting on. But I also doubt the part about killing babies. I have a great deal of doubt that we are actually talking about babies.

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

[Beebs52]

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

I doubt the truth of it, Cal. I only glanced at the "white paper" at the link. It's was pretty one-sided, so I doubt what it said about the bills he was voting on. But I also doubt the part about killing babies. I have a great deal of doubt that we are actually talking about babies.

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

That really is the key to this particular debate, though.

[danielh41]

kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb

Oh Puleeze!

Back to the Lounge for me.

Seriously!

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

I doubt the truth of it, Cal. I only glanced at the "white paper" at the link. It's was pretty one-sided, so I doubt what it said about the bills he was voting on. But I also doubt the part about killing babies. I have a great deal of doubt that we are actually talking about babies.

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

What else are they then? Fetuses are unborn. When they are born, they are babies. Therefore, they are unborn babies...

[mrkelley23]

christie, do you doubt the truth of that?

Barack Obama opposed a bill that would have prohibited letting infants born after a botched abortion from being allowed to die.

I doubt the truth of it, Cal. I only glanced at the "white paper" at the link. It's was pretty one-sided, so I doubt what it said about the bills he was voting on. But I also doubt the part about killing babies. I have a great deal of doubt that we are actually talking about babies.

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

What else are they then? Fetuses are unborn. When they are born, they are babies. Therefore, they are unborn babies...

By that "logic," sperm are unborn babies. Ova are unborn babies. Stem cells are unborn babies. Corn is unborn babies. Sunlight is unborn babies.

Connote however you will. Just don't insist that everyone else buy into your particular interpretation of words.

[TheCalvinator24]

There is absolutely no way that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would undermine Roe v. Wade.

None.

[danielh41]

I doubt the truth of it, Cal. I only glanced at the "white paper" at the link. It's was pretty one-sided, so I doubt what it said about the bills he was voting on. But I also doubt the part about killing babies. I have a great deal of doubt that we are actually talking about babies.

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

What else are they then? Fetuses are unborn. When they are born, they are babies. Therefore, they are unborn babies...

By that "logic," sperm are unborn babies. Ova are unborn babies. Stem cells are unborn babies. Corn is unborn babies. Sunlight is unborn babies.

Connote however you will. Just don't insist that everyone else buy into your particular interpretation of words.

What are you talking about? Sperm never go through a birth process; ova never goes through a birth process; and corn and sunlight just top off an asinine argument. It amazes me how many ways the anti-choice crowd can try to justify murder...

[mrkelley23]

There is absolutely no way that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would undermine Roe v. Wade.

None.

Excuse me, Cal. I don't know this particular bill, so I may be talking through my hat here. But if it's similar to literally thousands of bills that have been introduced in state legislatures around the country, then it's not only implicitly designed to "chip away" at Roe v. Wade, the leders of the Pro-Life movement are quite open about the fact that they are trying to chip away at the facade by use of legislation like this.

Before you ask for cites, here are a few:

http://www.theinterim.com/2006/july/08howtochip.html

http://tinyurl.com/5gfm6y

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0613/p01s03-uspo.html

And if the Illinois bill could never undermine Roe v. Wade, why is Illinois Right to Life so involved with it?

http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080527/3/

[hf_jai]

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

That really is the key to this particular debate, though.

Absolutely agree, bb.

I absolutely understand that people who think babies are being killed want to make it stop. If I believed that, I might too. But I don't.

[TheCalvinator24]

There is absolutely no way that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would undermine Roe v. Wade.

None.

Excuse me, Cal. I don't know this particular bill, so I may be talking through my hat here. But if it's similar to literally thousands of bills that have been introduced in state legislatures around the country, then it's not only implicitly designed to "chip away" at Roe v. Wade, the leders of the Pro-Life movement are quite open about the fact that they are trying to chip away at the facade by use of legislation like this.

Before you ask for cites, here are a few:

http://www.theinterim.com/2006/july/08howtochip.html

http://tinyurl.com/5gfm6y

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0613/p01s03-uspo.html

And if the Illinois bill could never undermine Roe v. Wade, why is Illinois Right to Life so involved with it?

http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080527/3/

The BAIPA would not hinder a woman's "right" to choose to have an abortion. All it would have required is that if the baby is born alive after an attempted abortion, the medical personnel would have an affirmative duty to provide medical care to the newborn baby.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is an incremental step that chips away at Roe v. Wade. The BAIPA has no effect on Roe v. Wade. None.

Might it bring to light some of the horrendous practices of what I am sure is a tiny minority within the abortion industry? Sure. And if that helps change people's minds about abortion, then all the better, but the bottom line is that this bill would not have hindered a woman's so-called "right to choose."

Why is NRLC involved? Maybe because the NRLC isn't only about trying to put an end to legal abortion. It makes perfect sense for that organization to champion legislation that would protect the life of the newly born.

Why are they weighing in on Senator Obama's vote? Probably to highlight that he is by far the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for President on one of the Major Party tickets.

[TheCalvinator24]

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

That really is the key to this particular debate, though.

Absolutely agree, bb.

I absolutely understand that people who think babies are being killed want to make it stop. If I believed that, I might too. But I don't.

You don't believe that born babies were being allowed to die?

Or you don't believe that pre-born infants are "babies"?

[mrkelley23]

What else are they then? Fetuses are unborn. When they are born, they are babies. Therefore, they are unborn babies...

By that "logic," sperm are unborn babies. Ova are unborn babies. Stem cells are unborn babies. Corn is unborn babies. Sunlight is unborn babies.

Connote however you will. Just don't insist that everyone else buy into your particular interpretation of words.

What are you talking about? Sperm never go through a birth process; ova never goes through a birth process; and corn and sunlight just top off an asinine argument. It amazes me how many ways the anti-choice crowd can try to justify murder...

Yeah. (deep breath) I'll try once, just as I did in an earlier incarnation of the Bored for another of its denizens, then I will cry uncle and stop.

If you want to trace the baby back to before it is a baby, then why not trace it all the way back? You cannot have a fetus without a sperm and an ovum, at least not yet. So if a fetus is an unborn baby, then a sperm and an ovum are just unfetusized fetuses. Which makes them unborn babies as well. Since sperm cells and ova would never be possible without the person ingesting food, then all food is really potential sperm, which means potential fetuses, which means unborn babies. And since all energy on Earth is originally derived from the Sun, then sunlight ... well, hopefully you get the picture by now.

Okay, the corn and sunlight is a little bit of hyperbole. But if you're gonna position yourself as "pro-life," and casually toss around terms like murderer, then you'd better expect a little hyperbole and derision.
Cause in your world, I guess I'm a murderer too. Except I know I'm not.
To me, "pro-life" means REALLY pro-life. All of it. The innocent and the guilty. The born and the unborn. At least be consistent, as the conservative parts of the Roman Catholic Church are. Be against all birth control. Be against the death penalty in all situations. Be against abortion in all situations, including rape and incest. And I will do everything in my power to make sure that your view does not carry the day.


Feel free to run off screaming now.

[Beebs52]

The anti-choice crowd has scored a major victory by getting a great many people to think of fetuses as "unborn babies." But calling them that doesn't make it so.

That really is the key to this particular debate, though.

Absolutely agree, bb.

I absolutely understand that people who think babies are being killed want to make it stop. If I believed that, I might too. But I don't.

Thank you for realizing that all I was saying is that it was the crux of the discussion.

I don't think it's the driving issue of the campaign. For me. I also think that some would consider me some sort of choice person only because I think abortion is an option in the event of the mother's possible death. Someone else compared it to "putting your oxygen mask on before your child's" or something. A choice definitely has to be made in that situation. I'm still undecided on rape. Incest, maybe not so much. I realize this is not linear nor logical.

Unfortunately, I don't believe abortion should be an easy means to birth control and there are many women who use it as such. Convenience isn't a good reason to dispense with a life.

Federal intrusion into these issues is dangerous. Viable is, indeed, in the belief of the beholder, which is where it all gets messy. And because a baby is flawed is not a reason to get rid of it, ie, Down Syndrome, Chromosome 13, etc. And yes, I know someone who has dealt with that particular nightmare for the last 8 years or so. The child is loved and taken care of and brings joy and light.

Oh, and depending upon your religious beliefs, that conception concept is the one making it so prickly, there. Not the nutrients contributing to the pre-conceived bits and parts.

Anyway, I'll stop.

[mrkelley23]

There is absolutely no way that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would undermine Roe v. Wade.

None.

Excuse me, Cal. I don't know this particular bill, so I may be talking through my hat here. But if it's similar to literally thousands of bills that have been introduced in state legislatures around the country, then it's not only implicitly designed to "chip away" at Roe v. Wade, the leders of the Pro-Life movement are quite open about the fact that they are trying to chip away at the facade by use of legislation like this.

Before you ask for cites, here are a few:

http://www.theinterim.com/2006/july/08howtochip.html

http://tinyurl.com/5gfm6y

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0613/p01s03-uspo.html

And if the Illinois bill could never undermine Roe v. Wade, why is Illinois Right to Life so involved with it?

http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/080527/3/

The BAIPA would not hinder a woman's "right" to choose to have an abortion. All it would have required is that if the baby is born alive after an attempted abortion, the medical personnel would have an affirmative duty to provide medical care to the newborn baby.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is an incremental step that chips away at Roe v. Wade. The BAIPA has no effect on Roe v. Wade. None.

Might it bring to light some of the horrendous practices of what I am sure is a tiny minority within the abortion industry? Sure. And if that helps change people's minds about abortion, then all the better, but the bottom line is that this bill would not have hindered a woman's so-called "right to choose."

Why is NRLC involved? Maybe because the NRLC isn't only about trying to put an end to legal abortion. It makes perfect sense for that organization to champion legislation that would protect the life of the newly born.

Why are they weighing in on Senator Obama's vote? Probably to highlight that he is by far the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for President on one of the Major Party tickets.

Question: do you believe "infringe on a woman's right to choose" and "undermine Roe v. Wade" are interchangeable? Because you used them interchangeably, right there in the message I quoted. I don't believe they are, which may be one reason we are seeing this bill through a different lens.

If your statement about NRLC above is correct, and all they are concerned about is the health and well-being of the newly born, then maybe that explains it. But I wonder why they are not championing legislation requiring other things that contribute to the safety of the newly born, that doin't have anything to do with abortion. The cynic in me says that they jump on the bandwagon of any bill that regulates, makes more expensive, makes more difficult, makes less publicly acceptable, or otherwise does anything to help eliminate abortion in this country. I think that is their overriding and perhaps solitary goal.

So sue me.

[hf_jai]

That really is the key to this particular debate, though.

Absolutely agree, bb.

I absolutely understand that people who think babies are being killed want to make it stop. If I believed that, I might too. But I don't.

You don't believe that born babies were being allowed to die?

Or you don't believe that pre-born infants are "babies"?

The latter (altho I'm not sure the former statement is true either).

Look, I don't pretend to know exactly when a glob of cells becomes a live human being. Obviously it's human, and it's alive, and probably both from conception on, but that's not the same thing as a live human being (a baby) with all the rights that go along with it in our society.

My hand is human, and it's alive, and if I cut it off (not that I would) it dies, but a human being has not been killed.

Personally, I am relatively sure a new human being is created some time after conception, and probably at or after the point it becomes viable, and possibly even as late as when it becomes at least partially self-aware and/or sentient, altho I'm not sure when these events happen either.

If I were a more spiritual person, I might refer to ensoulment, but I'm not sure what that means or whether it occurs at all.

I do think this is a matter of religious belief at its core.

[danielh41]

Here's an op-ed that makes the points I was trying to make in my original posts...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ouble.html

[christie1111]

So much for the 9/11 observence.

[danielh41]

So much for the 9/11 observence.

Yep. I was going to abstain today, but some posts in another thread got my temples pounding.

[marrymeflyfree]

So much for the 9/11 observence.

Yep. I was going to abstain today, but some posts in another thread got my temples pounding.

...just as this one has mine...

[Jeemie]

I do think this is a matter of religious belief at its core.

Not necessarily.

I am a social liberal on just about every social issue, and I am an atheist...yet I am anti-abortion.

For the simply reason that I believe abortion, and the debates about "when a fetus becomes a baby", or "what is a viable human being" cheapen what it means to be human.

Because when "what it means to be human" starts to become a "choice" or a "preference", then being human becomes essentially meaningless.

I mean- think about it- you can get an ultrasound at the time in pregancy when abortion is still considered legal in most states.

If you're like most parents, you will start thinking about your child as a baby. if the sex can be determined, you may start thinking of names, picking out clothes, decorating the room, etc.

And yet, at that point, it's still legal to terminate the pregnancy.

So for all practical purposes, "when human life begins" essentially becomes subject to individual choice...and that, I believe, cheapens all human life in general.

The definition of "when human life begins" should not be dependant upon personal choice.