Born Alive Infant Act?
How come when anyone makes reference to Obama and the infant born alive act, his supporters think they are talking about abortion itself?
How come people cant realize what is being asked about is the fact that Obama feels no need to protect babies BORN ALIVE outside the womb after BOTCHED abortions. He feels that these babies shoudl be allowed to be left to die instead of being protected by law as a human being.
Maybe because most babies who do survive an abortion do not live regardless of the medical treatment they could be given. Furthermore, these are the rarest of procedures. It’s not like failed abortions occur on a routine basis. Would you rather have the baby live in excruciating pain only to die of the failed abortion? What is the difference anyway? Abortions are legal. How can someone say that it is ok to kill a baby via an abortion inside the womb versus killing the baby outside the womb? It really is hypocritical. It is still a life in and outside the womb. That is like saying a baby is not a human being 5 minutes before it is born after 9 months of the mother being pregnant. What was in her before she gave birth? Yes, a human being. So, why do people get on Obama for the Born Alive Infant Act, but do not get on him as much about being pro-choice? If they are going to define a human being as life outside the womb, then what species is it inside the womb?
It’s easier to parrot what someone on a late night talk show said rather than doing some actual research and learning what really happened. Bursting the Obama balloon would be too much for many to bear. Obama himself said he doesn’t know when someone gets human rights when he said that information is above his pay grade. If you don’t know when human life begins and if you don’t think a baby no longer attached to an umbilical cord is human, then maybe he isn’t fit to be President. He is on record as saying it would be too costly for the hospital to provide another doctor in case the baby survived the abortion. Talk about thinking life is cheap.
Abortion supporters are afraid that any little give will spawn a massive change in abortion legality.
They fear returning to a time when women died due to dirty back rooms and filthy equipment, and far too many abortions
They forget that today there are forms of birth control that are not only more convenient, but can even be hidden from abusive husbands who want to even control reproduction.
There are forms of birth control that can be inserted at the Dr office and work 5 years but I digress.
Back on point
Allowing a baby born alive to live does not change the legality of abortion, but protects the rights of a newborn child. The biological parent gave up rights to that baby the moment they went through with the procedure, and the baby can be raised by someone who would love it.
Obama supporters are renowned for their mental brilliance.
Okay, let me stop laughing.
They do not know about subjects, YET, when they see something that questions their savior, they immediately jump to assuming that no matter what, Obama would have made the right decision. This idiocy also seeps in even when the NAME OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IS EXPLAINED IN THE TITLE. You wrote “Born Alive”. They immediately assume abortion while the whole idea, as you put, is to leave a baby to die on a table. This, I would like to think, is something that NO American, nor anyone of the human race, would allow to happen, never mind even bring it up as a bill, and definitely not to support it!!
Good question. Unfortunately, there will not be any coherent answers.
Stackola..: Even if babies of botched abortions have a small chance of survival, why shouldn’t everything be done to SAVE AN INNOCENT LIFE? That’s the point! They desserve a shot at life no matter what circumstance they were born under.
Reconstructive surgery IS worth it! Obama said that “you shouldn’t punish a woman with a baby”- maybe the woman should have to look at what pain and misery she put another HUMAN BEING through and not be allowed to just destroy a life and walk away. Maybe the woman desserves that as punishment for attempted murder- more gut-wrenching than sitting in a jail cell, isn’t it?
wow at the answer over here.
I am a pro-choice but says, I had premature labor (not a botched abortion) and my baby needs reconstructive surgery…I don’t know about you but I will love him/her all the same. I wouldn’t kill him/her.
I know I’m projecting what I will do in this scenario but I hope this case is very rare and this should dissuade women to do late term abortion. If it passes 3 months, unfortunately IMO, the only decision is to move forward and consider adoption.
For Sophie’s choice situation – the mom’s live or the baby; I feel all the same. If the baby survive, then love him/her and provide the best quality live in the shortest period of time. Don’t toss him to the garbage bin, treat him as human being!
Again, I’m projecting but aren’t we all? That’s why we vote for the best candidate who represents our values and Obama doesn’t represent mine!
thedude and crazyk: your both IDIOTS, but at least your major IDIOTS.
Ya’lls out looks are so retarded I don’t even know where to begin telling you.
crazyk: What does it matter if I adopt a child? I can still have the opinion that abortion is an abomination.
thedude: really, your going to argue the FINANCIAL VALUE of a human being. Really. If that’s the case I hope you never get maimed b/c someone might question if you are worth saving or reconstructing.
You both are wastes of air.
I better not say anything,least I get ripped apart like the poor little innocent babies do! Oh what the heck,we need to pass a law that will give the death penalty to those who abort their Babies and the ones who do the abortions! Let the people vote and see who wins! Obama will meet his maker one day and maybe he will be the one that gets aborted!
Ignore Dr. Phillip. I’ve been reading Dr. Phillip’s responses for a few days now and have not read one honest response yet.
Let Dr. Phillip continue to hurt the Obama cause with her disingenuous replies.
the doctor has some responsibly here. Obama is not in the room. enough, your beating this to death accomplishes nothing, other than giving people reason not to read your rants.
They don’t want to believe that their Messiah believes in infanticide. They don’t want to believe in his other short comings either.
They conveniently ignore the facts. They ignore everything negative about the man and follow him around hoping to touch his robes…
Obama pretends to support the born alive infant act when pressed on the issue.
Better than smashing their little heads like true abortionists.
because they don’t listen, read, learn, think… they blindly follow…
This is one issue that I could care less about. Sorry!
Many on this site are falsely presuming that Obama’s voting against certain abortion legislation was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion. He correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections already, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman’s rights.
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. In fact, 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.
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, 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.
It’s been said that, if it weren’t for lack of context, there would be no news.
You have to consider the source.
One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.
Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions. She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say “Faithful Condom Users” in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use. She claims that “aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies” in China to which she added, “I think this stuff is happening.”
Nurse Jill Stanek claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. The Illinois Atty. General’s office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama’s position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct. The investigation 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 her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views — simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.
Don’t extremist conservatives think it might hurt their cause to put out stuff that’s so easily debunked? or do they not think their audience would feel its intelligence is being insulted?
One version of the legislation in question threatened the standing abortion laws in the state, while others were bundled with other provisions that created liability for doctors, designed to intimidate doctors and make it more difficult to perform legal procedures. So Barack Obama opposed it for that reason, not because of any result on babies born alive. The legislation was designed to be a “wedge” legislation that would have no effect on medical procedures, designed just for these sorts of attacks. The Illinois legislature, after Barack Obama left to take his US Senate seat, passed a law that explicitly said it wouldn’t affect existing Illinois law on choice. Barack Obama has said he would’ve supported that law. When a group does this, they put one horrible provision (the “infanticide”) part of the bill and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman’s right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the “infanticide.” This attack is nothing more than a political hit job by supporters of John McCain.
how many of those botched abortions are really viable , if you know how intrusive a abortion is you would also know that those “baby’s” would need major reconstructive surgery,
and frankly that is money spent better some where else
If you want CHANGE cash a dollar : you can call a bill anything you want but it doesn’t mean it is what it says it is
well consider the alternative: die, or live in a foster home… ask yourself, are you a foster parent? would you adopt? if the answer is “no”, then you have no right to an opinion on the issue.
probably because they do not want another four years of Bushlike policies!