Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 8:27 PM
43 online now:
14174dm, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   The world has turned upside down!!! (Re: McCain vs. Obama for President)
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 196 of 210 (479394)
08-26-2008 7:46 PM


Infanticide
Though it has escaped my attention for a long time, a not-so-new (new to me) revelation has recently come to my attention. Senator Obama is apparently so in favor of abortion that he has voted against the Congressional act of Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). What is this bill?

Occasionally abortions don't go as planned. And by some miracle, the fetus, sometimes horribly mangled or severely brain damaged, survives the termination attempt and is born alive (no longer a fetus and is now an infant). This bill ensures that, in keeping with the Born Alive Rule, that infants born alive are guaranteed the right to his or her own personhood.

What Obama believes is that, if a mother had predetermined that the fetus be terminated prior to his/her birth, regardless of the failed attempt to take its life, the mother should still be guaranteed a dead baby. And so, what the doctors will do is either terminate the child upon birth through several gory techinques, or simply let the baby die from hypothermia in a medical receptacle.

Wow! What a nice guy!!! As I understand it, not even Barbara Boxer, the Queen of Mean herself, voted against BAIPA. Just how "moderate" is Obama really? That's pretty hardcore, and is unambiguously infanticide. There is no ambivalence here to speak of on his part. He signed against the bill with deliberation.

Even among Pro-Choice advocates, does this not seem ghastly and barbaric? Doesn't this clearly violate the terms set forth for abortion during Roe v Wade? If so, does this change your opinion of Obama, however slightly it may be?


“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by subbie, posted 08-27-2008 12:02 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 199 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2008 10:34 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 197 of 210 (479413)
08-27-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Hyroglyphx
08-26-2008 7:46 PM


Re: Infanticide
quote:
What Obama believes is that, if a mother had predetermined that the fetus be terminated prior to his/her birth, regardless of the failed attempt to take its life, the mother should still be guaranteed a dead baby.

Is this what he said, or is it your spin on the meaning of his vote? Forgive me, but I'm not inclined to rely on your description, unless you can cite a source attributing those thoughts to Obama. Can you find anything wherein he gives his reasons for his vote?

{AbE}

Someone is lying, either you or your source.

According to The Library of Congress website , it passed the Senate unanimously on 7/18/2002. That means that nobody voted against it, and the Senate voted on it more than 2 years before Obama even entered the Senate.

Curious.

{AbE - pt 2}

After a bit more research, I discovered that it was an Illinois version of a similar act that he voted against while in the Illinois legislature.

The closest thing that I've been able to find in describing Obama's actual motivation for his vote (as opposed to someone's spin on it) is this site, which purports to quote Obama. It's apparently a conservative blog, so I'm not going to vouch for the credibility of the website, but present it in the interest of as much accuracy as I can find in a quick search.

Edited by subbie, : A little bit of research on the claims made.

Edited by subbie, : A little more research


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-26-2008 7:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 7:16 AM subbie has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 198 of 210 (479437)
08-27-2008 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by subbie
08-27-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Infanticide
Here is the most impartial, two-sided debate. I don't have more time right now, gotta get to work.


“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by subbie, posted 08-27-2008 12:02 AM subbie has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 199 of 210 (479451)
08-27-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Hyroglyphx
08-26-2008 7:46 PM


Re: Infanticide
1. Obama wasn't in the Senate when the BAIPA was passed and he has said directly that he would have voted for that version of the bill.

2. Obama did not support a state version of that bill that also included provisions for expansion of the ability to sue doctors and to limit standard abortion services. Despite that, it passed the Illinois senate and was killed in the house.

3. There was already a law on the books in Illinois for the provisions in the BAIPA that protects infants born from botched abortions! Obama knew this at the time.

4. The Illinois bill that failed passage was a poision pill put into contention just for this purpose, to unfairly slander good people.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-26-2008 7:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 1:06 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 200 of 210 (479464)
08-27-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Jazzns
08-27-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Infanticide
1. Obama wasn't in the Senate when the BAIPA was passed and he has said directly that he would have voted for that version of the bill.

But he didn't, even after it was made explicit what the bill was. In his haste to protect abortion, wholesale, he was the only one to vote against something that should have been unanimously approved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc

Flip-flopping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU2Yv-rnJEo&feature=related

Inexperienced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=related

Once again, his words indict him.

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add links


“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2008 10:34 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2008 2:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 204 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-27-2008 7:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 201 of 210 (479467)
08-27-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hyroglyphx
08-27-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Infanticide
Can you please debate in your own words and not youtube links? Not all of us have access to youtube all the time.

You do realize that there were 2 bills right?

You also didn't respond to any of my other 3 points.

There was already a law in the books in Illinois and Obama knew that as he was informed by various medical associations in Illinois.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 3:06 PM Jazzns has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 202 of 210 (479471)
08-27-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Jazzns
08-27-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Infanticide
Can you please debate in your own words and not youtube links? Not all of us have access to youtube all the time.

You do realize that there were 2 bills right?

You also didn't respond to any of my other 3 points.

Those points were addressed in those links. Yes, there were two bills, one federal and one for the state of Illinois. They were basically the same thing. The one that passed in the Senate was done so unanimously before he entered in to office. Illinois had nearly a duplicate of the bill that he rejected. He shot it down, thinking that it would be tantamount to undermining abortion, which it doesn't. This is the same man that said about partial-birth abortion ban was "a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women."

When pressed where he would determine life, he gives an ambiguous answer, presumably because if he arbitrated between life or death on record, he would then have to answer to contradictions later down the road.

His response to when he thought a human being began:

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade." - Senator Obama

Really?!?! Above your pay grade, yet you are the one voting on these matters! You are the arbiter, as laws are passed through your legislation! We don't make laws, but you do! So you better have a better answer for that extremely important question, and if not, step down!

So when they call him out on his complicity for facilitating what any reasonable person would constitute as murder, he had to back peddle on his position and say that the wording of the bill was iffy. Yet there is a mountain of evidence against him.

This is the bill that he shot down, verbatim.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

What part of the language didn't he like??? Where is the confusion?

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo


“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2008 2:12 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Jazzns, posted 08-27-2008 5:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 203 of 210 (479482)
08-27-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Hyroglyphx
08-27-2008 3:06 PM


Re: Infanticide is a smear
Those points were addressed in those links.

Nem, I can't debate a link. Evn if I wanted to I cannot see youtube videos from where I am.

You have not in fact responded to point 3 which is that under existing Illinois law, medical providers already had to provide care to infants born alive as a result of a botched abortion. Why purpose would lawmakers have to introduce a bill whos effect already existed in current legislation?

Poison. Thats why.

You also failed to mention that bill 1082 which you site was bundled with 1083:

Link to Bill

Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth. Provides that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. Provides that, if the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that the Fund shall be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice.

There are also problems with 1082 and especially its predecessors with regards to federal versus state jursidiction. The Federal BAIPA Act cannot ammend existing state legislation that regulates abortion but a state version can. It is a subtlty that get COMPLETELY lost when you have sites like worldnetdaily other right-wing fanatics howling 'BABY KILLER'.

But in a civilized discussion, which I certainly hope we can have Nem, you can be pursuaded by this:

(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

Which when added is all it took for the law in Illinois to be passed. Heck, that version passed unanimously, even with the support from Planned Parenthood.

Maybe you can go over that and figure out why. But if you are determined to smear Obama with only right-wing sources to back you up, if you honestly believe that a man like him does not care about life, then there is nothing I could ever say or do that would change your mind. At the very least the information is here for others who may not be so wrapped up in the hype.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 3:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2306 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 204 of 210 (479498)
08-27-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hyroglyphx
08-27-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Infanticide
Wow, thanks for the links, and the ammo.

At the very least the information is here for others who may not be so wrapped up in the hype.

I guess you either buy into the Hope and Change Hype, or don't. Its not like the man has any experience, or a record to back himself up with, and from what I'm seeing he changes his mind and tries to change what he said depending on who he is talking to. The whole that is not in my pay-grade comment is clearly showing his ineptitude for handling this job, and is a comment you would NEVER hear a Clinton say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2008 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by subbie, posted 08-27-2008 7:11 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 208 by Jazzns, posted 08-28-2008 10:36 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 205 of 210 (479500)
08-27-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Artemis Entreri
08-27-2008 7:01 PM


Re: Infanticide
quote:
The whole that is not in my pay-grade comment is clearly showing his ineptitude for handling this job,

Or perhaps he understands that this is a question that the Supreme Court has already answered, as far as the law of this country is concerned, and that there's nothing that a President can do to change it.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-27-2008 7:01 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-28-2008 8:58 AM subbie has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2306 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 206 of 210 (479546)
08-28-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by subbie
08-27-2008 7:11 PM


Re: Infanticide
Or perhaps he understands that this is a question that the Supreme Court has already answered, as far as the law of this country is concerned, and that there's nothing that a President can do to change it.

no, he basically said its not his job to answer that question. its not his audacity to hope, its his audacity to make dumb comments like that.

BTW the supreme court has said nothing about infantcide, nice try at glossing this over as a general abortion thing.

Cee-lo from the album Still Standing writes:


I Thought you said you was the G-O-D
sound like another nigga to me, ha ha, yeah


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by subbie, posted 08-27-2008 7:11 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 08-28-2008 10:03 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 207 of 210 (479552)
08-28-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Artemis Entreri
08-28-2008 8:58 AM


Re: Infanticide
quote:
BTW the supreme court has said nothing about infantcide, nice try at glossing this over as a general abortion thing.

True, but then again, the question that he was answering when he made the pay grade comment didn't have anything to do with infanticide either, so I wasn't so much glossing over anything as I was responding on point to your somewhat off topic comment.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-28-2008 8:58 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 208 of 210 (479556)
08-28-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Artemis Entreri
08-27-2008 7:01 PM


???
Why is it that you never ever comment on the substance of what someone says huh?

Have you ever tried chat rooms?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-27-2008 7:01 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-28-2008 1:10 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2306 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 209 of 210 (479592)
08-28-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jazzns
08-28-2008 10:36 AM


Re: ???
stray of the topic much.

Just calling you out on a wasted post, because I know the liberal admin refuses to Administer thier own.

Barack is a sham, he proves his inability with his yes today no tomorrow speeches.

True, but then again, the question that he was answering when he made the pay grade comment didn't have anything to do with infanticide either, so I wasn't so much glossing over anything as I was responding on point to your somewhat off topic comment.

So he has no opinoin on that issue, or maybe his handlers weren't thier to tell him what he should say.

Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jazzns, posted 08-28-2008 10:36 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 210 (487816)
11-05-2008 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-05-2008 2:49 PM


No offense to anyone, but between a white elderly and a black youngster... um... I guess we will see if America is more racist or more ageist.

So.... Obama won because Americans are ageist!?

:laugh:

Wow, that's some backwards thinking that the liberal mindset has.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 2:49 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019