Obama: Infanticide...

[TheEarl]

Yeah; the usual suspects. You know who you are.

I'm afraid you've lost me completely. If it helps, I'm English. In our politics, liberal is a political party, rather than an insult, democrats are people involved in democracy and republican is an Australian policy for further independence from the Crown. The Usual Suspects is a film starring Kevin Spacey.

Care to translate?

The Earl

 

[Pure]

hypocrisy

Those pesky scientists, if I watched the programs with accuracy, are able to use electron microscopy and actually watch the division of cells whenever the first division after fertilization occurs.

Within that very first division of cells is contained the complete DNA and genetic and chromosomal blueprint for the human that will emerge after a successful period of time.

ami professes concern for certain strands of DNA prior to implantation, these being visible under an electron microscope.

these he says are "life".

the question, however, is person, and here ami, in his sloppy style is on the money. the strands are a "blueprint for the human"; NOT the human person, his/her 'blueprint.'

he's sloppy on "will emerge" probably knowing it's false; lots of fertilized eggs, i've heard estimates of 25%, do NOT implant. i guess these would be terminiations of life, according to ami. however they aren't terminiations of living persons.

this view, about 'life' prior to implantation needing protection, leads to the interesting conclusion that breastfeeding moms who have sex are murderers. (conceptions if they occur, less often implant).

of course, ami opposes all state programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to aid expectant moms. he's opposed to interventions and monitoring of newborns, once they return home, for the 'at risk' cases, e.g. the less mature teen moms.

beneath the professed concern for DNA strands is a police state mentality. HOW would one protect them without tracking and even sequestering the women? How often would there be compulsory tracking? Clearly regular pregnancy tests every month or so for the sexually active, are needed. Once there is a 'positive', then, on ami's view, there's a life to protect. Mom, then should report regularly for instpection. Ovaries, tubes, and wombs, on ami's view, belong to the state.

ami here makes common cause with the clear theocrats like Dobson.

 

[Liar]

That's a very interesting viewpoint from which to offer a definitive opinion. May I ask whether, as a corollary to this opinion, you oppose current IVF methods (as they create unused zygotes) and whether you take the Huckabee position of regarding certain forms of hormonal contraception that prevent implantation as infanticide? As a rather silly corollary, does it follow that you would hold a funeral if a woman had a very heavy period a few days after having sex in a fertile part of her cycle?

It could be argued that a man and a woman having sex (when the woman is fertile and the wind is in the right direction) is the necessary blueprint for a baby. The two partners are providing all of the DNA information for the baby, the blueprint is there. In our hypothetical scenario, without intervention, there is a 100% chance that a baby will result. Surely science is proving that, in this scenario, life begins at ejaculation. The result is going to be a baby; it's not going to be a grape.

Yes, I know, it's a silly position to take. However, I'm curious as to why you're certain that you're not drawing a line in the sand. Science cannot tell us when life begins. It can tell us when a zygote begins, when implantation happens, when a heart beats, a brain fires, when limbs form and senses start. It can tell us when a foetus is viable. At which of those points life is defined is an ethical question, and far too wibbly-wobbly for science to think about.

I'm surprised that you don't even see it as a grey area, considering your fondness for debating. Surely the fun of a good debate is that everything isn't black and white. If you already know everything before you start, then what's the use in opening your mouth?

The Earl

The,

First of all: Hi.

Second of all, this is exactly the questions that I've time and again tried to ask amicus, without getting any answers other than the equivalence of "I know this, because i've Really Thought about it. And if you Really Think about it, you'll see that I'm right."

I wish you better luck.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that choice is easy. Hell, life isn't easy either. I've been faced with the choice - was up on the table with my first unexpected pg at the age of twenty, still in college, whole life ahead of me - and couldn't do it. I don't judge any woman who can or can't make that decision. It's a heartbreaking one. I'm pregnant now, so probably overly emotional about this topic (and everything else!) and since I'm now of "advanced maternal age," we're getting all the testing for Downs Syndrome and all the other chromosomal abnormalities that increase with age. I may be faced with that choice again. It's a very real possibility. And I still don't know what I would choose, if I'm faced with it.

It's never easy. But it IS very, very personal. Technically, it's a medical procedure that should be up to the consumer, period. But I believe in euthanasia and assisted suicide, too.

As for viability - twenty-four week fetuses wouldn't live outside a mother's wound without serious medically interventive help. I've had this discussion with nurses who oversee and care for these babies--many many many babies who end up with serious problems and issues, from brain damage to deafness to blindness to cerebral palsy (the list goes on)--and I've often heard them say that if they ever went into preterm labor before the twenty-fifth week, they'd stay at home. The courts and docs have made it hard for parents to choose what's right for their children - and you can't ask, anymore, for them not to "work on" a baby, no matter how early it is. The hospital's got a judge on the phone in five minutes willing to order it done.

Neither the state, the federal government, nor doctors, should make these decisions. If you really believe in individual rights, then it should be up to the individual who is capable of making the decision for themselves and their family. To me, that's what Obama supports, and that's why I'll vote for him, regardless of his worrisome record of experience.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

That the question is absurd, is likely the reason AMICUS doesnt address it. I mean, when does a milkshake begin? With the milch-cow? With the appetite for a milkshake?

The real question is: Where do you get off thinking YOU have a right to alter the course of a process that becomes human? I think you can argue that birth is maybe the most fundamental civil right there is. My life isnt your toy to fuck with.

On the other-hand abortion is like herbacide for Democrat weeds.

 

[epiphany65]

Here's a salon.com article that goes beyond the divisive rhetoric and misinformation that Republicans are spewing on this issue:


Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008 11:00 EDT
Antiabortion 527 group attacks Obama

A 527 called BornAliveTruth.org has just released an anti-Obama attack ad that could prove troublesome for the Democratic nominee.

The spot goes after Barack Obama for having opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and other similar measures during his time in the Illinois Senate. The bill mandated medical care for babies born after a failed abortion.

Certainly it sounds pretty bad -- not to mention callous -- to oppose a law like this. It's why some Republicans have accused Obama of supporting "infanticide." Of course, this being politics, that simplistic explanation may, sadly, be the one that matters most.

But the truth is that Obama was not supporting infanticide with his vote. He opposed the bill because he saw it as a back-door assault on abortion rights, and in this view he was joined by plenty of other legislators, in Illinois and elsewhere. The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn explains:

Illinois' liberal lawmakers needed more reassurance than federal lawmakers before agreeing to pass a "born alive" law. In part this was because abortion practice is regulated mainly by state laws, not federal laws, so seemingly benign changes in wording stand to have far-reaching consequences. And in part because the proposals were usually introduced with companion legislation that revealed a stronger intent behind the law by exposing doctors who perform mid-term abortions to additional legal risk.

So "born alive" bills failed repeatedly in Illinois from 2001 to 2004 in both chambers, with and without the involvement of then State Sen. Barack Obama.

In 2005, when additional language was added to a "born alive" bill in Illinois that explicitly spelled out that it would not impact abortion rights in any way, the law passed easily.

Proponents of the original bill, despite their constant reassurances that the proposals had nothing to do with abortion, nevertheless objected to the inclusion of the new language.

Also, as FactCheck.org says, "It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is 'a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.'"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_r.../index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

 

[TheEarl]

That the question is absurd, is likely the reason AMICUS doesnt address it....
The real question is: Where do you get off thinking YOU have a right to alter the course of a process that becomes human?

I think that post is the saddest thing I've ever seen. It opens by denigrating my point and then follows that up with an attempted rhetorical question whose wording is perfect ammunition for my argument.

I'm not sure whether to leap at the obvious sarcastic answer of, "Surely a fertile woman denying a fertile man sex is altering the course of a process that becomes human?" or whether to just mock you for your epic failure.

The Earl

 

[DesertPirate]

Just watched a piece on, yup, you guessed it, Fox, Hannity & Colmes, that was truly heart wrenching.

This young woman survived an attempted abortion at seven and a half months, by saline injection into the womb, was born alive weighing two pounds after 18 hours of labor, the abortion doctor was not present so she was rushed by ambulance to a hospital and placed in an incubator.

Obama has voted against legislation that would sustain the life of an aborted child that survives the attempt, four separate times.

Yes...this is a hot button issue, I know it, but again, I am the messenger, I didn't make the news item, just repeating it here.

As Roe v Wade, the abortion issue, is a 'litmus test', on this forum, perhaps this is time for a few to rethink their basic positions.

This issue, which is divisive in American society, should be of equal controversy on any forum site worth its salt, if we are playing on a level surface.

That this forum is so heavily weighted to the left, that never happens here, in my several years I can barely remember a handful of posters that defended the pro life position.

Why is that?

Since there seems to be wide spread hysteria as the campaign winds down, it is also fitting to mention the cover photo of Atlantic Magazine that was retouched by the photographer to make John McCain appear as 'evil' and admitted it on her blogsite.

The magazine is preparing an apology and may press charges against the rogue photographer.

Curious, eh?

Amicus....

Ami, I have met this young lady and if you ever get the chance to hear her sing you will be amazed!

 

[Safe_Bet]

LIAR

That the question is absurd, is likely the reason AMICUS doesnt address it. I mean, when does a milkshake begin? With the milch-cow? With the appetite for a milkshake?

The real question is: Where do you get off thinking YOU have a right to alter the course of a process that becomes human? I think you can argue that birth is maybe the most fundamental civil right there is. My life isnt your toy to fuck with.

On the other-hand abortion is like herbacide for Democrat weeds.

The above highlighted statement just proves your hypocrisy. You "proclaim" your allegedly belief in the sanctity of life and then endorse the death of those who dare to disagree with you. Disgusting!

 

[DesertPirate]

Wonder if anyone might check and question the stat that the victims of 67% of the abortions done in the U.S. are black?
Planned Parenthood (biggest abortion factory of them all) accepts donations for minority abortions.

just askin

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SAFE-BET

My position isnt hypocritical at all. Think of it this way: If youre an ugly old skag, I dont wanna sleep with you, but I'm 100% ok if someone else does. I certainly dont wanna impose my values on Democrats. I dont approve of suicide, either, but if a Democrat wants to blow her brains out I'll sell her the gun.

I think my position makes me...flexible.

 

[amicus]

49 dayes until the election but who is counting?

Ya have to, well, you don't 'have' to, but if you want to under stand the humor of JBJ, is is a bit wry & dry. And it is an irony that the liberal left ladies basically have no children while the religious right pops them out almost yearly.

I have a story, among the hundreds written or waiting to take flight, that speaks of a young lady, of course she has to be eighteen, sighs, anyway, an over amorous boyfriend, even against her protestations, pulled her undies aside spurted all over her thighs and addomen and apparently some hit elsewhere and the young lady became pregnant while still technically a virgin.

It is perhaps a real but sad story as the young lady would not get rid of the child and the boyfirend was not father material, and of course, all the young bucks after the birth and recovery, hit on the girl as 'experienced', and needful of intercourse.

The premise being, the one you refuse to acknowledge, is that it is not the 'choice' or the cirumstances that determine the defintion of life, it is the incontrovertible existence of a new human life from the instant of conception.

Of course you know that to be true, it can be nothing else.

I watched an IFC film the other night, Indie Sex, Teens, the portrayal of sex in the movies involving teenaged boys and girls. The usual arguments abounded of course, but something else too, crept in as they went through the discussion and film clips.

The mystery and the magic of first time sexual relations is a once only, never to be repeated experience and as such, should inherently be possessed of some personal value.

I suspect many of the denizens here have accquired a jaded, calloused, worldly view of sex as sport and recreation and new, 'Kinky' ideas that confront traditional and conventional morals are the soup d'jour.

I don't really like the use of condoms, which have been around forever or birth control pills, around since about 1960, for the simple reason that artificial birth control removes the spontaneity of sexual intercourse and removes the risk pregnancy and thus, what might become a meaningful relationship based on mutual choice and attraction, deteriorates into a moral dilemma.

According the Indie film, one in five teenaged girls in the 60's & 70's between the age of 15 and 19 were unmarried and pregnant.

Add that to the hysteria about world over population, the left wing liberals, teachers all, (they vote 70-80 democrat every time), pushed through instructions intended to lessen the rate of teen pregnancy by education and the provision of birth control devices at earlier and earlier ages.

During that same period of time, with resistance from many, the 'silent majority'
resisted the implementation of nurse and social psychologists, (gag), in the school system, basicall to reorient the thinking of the captive children in ways more suitable to the liberal, progressive left.

Since when did parents lose the obligation of providing those things for their children. That is just one small point.

The major point I would like to stab at, is that all of this educational concern with sex at a very young age, Obama style, has cheapened the very concept of that which should be the most intimate, personal and valuable experience in a persons lifel.

You don't see the connection, I am sure, of the explosion of single mom families, or gay and lesbian families, the the welfare class that has been created to feed and house fatherless children. I suppose you view that as just a normal corollary of feminism and the liberal, egalitarian left.

Many do not view it that way, but as a moral intrusion on all the values they held to be fundamental and basic.

Thus, we have a many tiered election on the horizon, basically the left economics versus the right, huge government opposed to small. We also have a housewife, mother, active woman whose vitality seems to have captured the nation and has reminded us of the true, consistent values of this nation, again, as opposed to the elite liberal left stance of the Obama family.

Interesting, ain't it?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... (snoring)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... (snoring)

<poke>

 

[Safe_Bet]

....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... (snoring)

Hey Pure - wanna play cards till somebody says something intelligent?

 

[sr71plt]

Seems to me that silence is the intelligent response to this thread.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Seems to me that silence is the intelligent response to this thread.

Your right. It greatly reduces the *Head : Wall* reflex.

 

[Guest]

. . .

You don't see the connection, I am sure, of the explosion of single mom families, or gay and lesbian families, the the welfare class that has been created to feed and house fatherless children. I suppose you view that as just a normal corollary of feminism and the liberal, egalitarian left.

Many do not view it that way, but as a moral intrusion on all the values they held to be fundamental and basic.

Thus, we have a many tiered election on the horizon, basically the left economics versus the right, huge government opposed to small. We also have a housewife, mother, active woman whose vitality seems to have captured the nation and has reminded us of the true, consistent values of this nation, again, as opposed to the elite liberal left stance of the Obama family.

Interesting, ain't it?

Amicus...

Yeah.

Especially her very young, unmarried and pregnant daughter.

 

[Safe_Bet]

[...] You don't see the connection, I am sure, of the explosion of single mom families, or gay and lesbian families, the the welfare class that has been created to feed and house fatherless children. I suppose you view that as just a normal corollary of feminism and the liberal, egalitarian left. [...]

As a member of one of those "lesbian families”, I can categorically refute your bullshit here.

1.) The number of lesbian families in So. California (and I belong to an organization that works specifically with this group) that are on any type of government subsistence is a fraction of a percent of the national average (actually I personally know of none, but I can't document that statement. So I don't want to be a dumb-ass and make unsubstantiated claims now do I).

2.) There is only one group that has more two parent families than Lesbians - that is households consisting of gay men with children.

3.) Gay and lesbian family units CONSISTANTLY produce the most well adjusted children of ANY grouping (Believe me, if they didn't dipshits like Amipus would try to take out children away immediately).

My twin daughters are happy, healthy, well adjusted and well taken care of. They each have a fully funded college account which will pay for any university they wish to attend (inc. adjustments for inflation). They live in a 5 bedroom house worth more than $900K and swim in their own pool every day. Both my husband and myself LAVISH love on our children. So, in other words Amipus, you don’t have a clue as to what the fuck you are talking about as usual!


P.S. Thank you Sarah for reposting this segment. I had missed it. I must have gone brain dead reading the first half of his drivel.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SAFE-BET

Humans have tried virtually every combination and permutation of household there are. Each of these contributes something, and each confiscates something. Monogomous male-female pairs are what the majority of humans prefer.

Mother Nature is wiser than the organizations we join. Long ago she decided children thrive better with genetic contributions from males AND females, and so it remains. Momma can then cohabitate with a battalion of Marines or a convent of women, but the beginnings all start the same. Children require men and women.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that choice is easy. Hell, life isn't easy either. I've been faced with the choice - was up on the table with my first unexpected pg at the age of twenty, still in college, whole life ahead of me - and couldn't do it. I don't judge any woman who can or can't make that decision. It's a heartbreaking one. I'm pregnant now, so probably overly emotional about this topic (and everything else!) and since I'm now of "advanced maternal age," we're getting all the testing for Downs Syndrome and all the other chromosomal abnormalities that increase with age. I may be faced with that choice again. It's a very real possibility. And I still don't know what I would choose, if I'm faced with it.

It's never easy. But it IS very, very personal. Technically, it's a medical procedure that should be up to the consumer, period. But I believe in euthanasia and assisted suicide, too.

As for viability - twenty-four week fetuses wouldn't live outside a mother's wound without serious medically interventive help. I've had this discussion with nurses who oversee and care for these babies--many many many babies who end up with serious problems and issues, from brain damage to deafness to blindness to cerebral palsy (the list goes on)--and I've often heard them say that if they ever went into preterm labor before the twenty-fifth week, they'd stay at home. The courts and docs have made it hard for parents to choose what's right for their children - and you can't ask, anymore, for them not to "work on" a baby, no matter how early it is. The hospital's got a judge on the phone in five minutes willing to order it done.

Neither the state, the federal government, nor doctors, should make these decisions. If you really believe in individual rights, then it should be up to the individual who is capable of making the decision for themselves and their family. To me, that's what Obama supports, and that's why I'll vote for him, regardless of his worrisome record of experience.

I normally wouldn't respond on a thread like this, but you hit a sensitive subject for me as a father of a Down syndrome child. I also am very much pro-choice and believe that women should have control over their own bodies with regards to reproductive rights.

Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to support the choices that women are actually making. Using abortion as a form of birth control is not the intended purpose. It is a difficult decision to continue a pregnancy, even one that was planned and doesn't go as expected.

Deciding to bring a special needs child into this world is one that parents need to consider carefully. The problem with that is, quite often prospective parents are not given a balanced view of an unborn child's diagnosis. If the opinion wihin the medical community is such that, Down syndrome children should be aborted and the information that the parents recieve reflects that bias, are the parents really making that choice? Or is it doctors influence that causes that choice to be made?

For myself I couldn't imagine wht life would be like without my Down syndrome son. We didn't get prenatal testing done because we had no intention of aborting even if it would have found out before he was born. I personally have contact with a huge number of Down syndrome parents and the number of them that actually regret going through with it, even if they knew before, is very small. Yes it changes your life in a bigway. More than a "normal" child would. Many of those changes are very positive ones that I'm thankful for.

I just wanted to make sure that I presented a more balanced viewpoint. The public perception is very negative, leading to an extremely high termination rate, which needs to be corrected. I have an article I wrote on the subject, linked in my sig. (steps down off my soapbox)

 

[sr71plt]

I normally wouldn't respond on a thread like this, but you hit a sensitive subject for me as a father of a Down syndrome child. I also am very much pro-choice and believe that women should have control over their own bodies with regards to reproductive rights.

Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to support the choices that women are actually making. Using abortion as a form of birth control is not the intended purpose. It is a difficult decision to continue a pregnancy, even one that was planned and doesn't go as expected.

Deciding to bring a special needs child into this world is one that parents need to consider carefully. The problem with that is, quite often prospective parents are not given a balanced view of an unborn child's diagnosis. If the opinion wihin the medical community is such that, Down syndrome children should be aborted and the information that the parents recieve reflects that bias, are the parents really making that choice? Or is it doctors influence that causes that choice to be made?

For myself I couldn't imagine wht life would be like without my Down syndrome son. We didn't get prenatal testing done because we had no intention of aborting even if it would have found out before he was born. I personally have contact with a huge number of Down syndrome parents and the number of them that actually regret going through with it, even if they knew before, is very small. Yes it changes your life in a bigway. More than a "normal" child would. Many of those changes are very positive ones that I'm thankful for.

I just wanted to make sure that I presented a more balanced viewpoint. The public perception is very negative, leading to an extremely high termination rate, which needs to be corrected. I have an article I wrote on the subject, linked in my sig. (steps down off my soapbox)

But part of that balance, and a big part of the "it just is reality" of it is that a very large percentage of prospective parents put in this vice are not capable of stepping up to this Hollywood version of what it will be like--for everyone involved--and know it, and shouldn't be trapped into going down that drain, if it's going to be a drain for them, in their own lives just because someone who isn't going to face it with them has a set of beliefs they feel compelled to evangelize everyone else with.

I quite agree that abortion should be used as just another birth control option and also believe that dropping babies every year shouldn't be used as a for-profit career.

 

[Safe_Bet]

SAFE-BET

Humans have tried virtually every combination and permutation of household there are. Each of these contributes something, and each confiscates something. Monogomous male-female pairs are what the majority of humans prefer.

Mother Nature is wiser than the organizations we join. Long ago she decided children thrive better with genetic contributions from males AND females, and so it remains. Momma can then cohabitate with a battalion of Marines or a convent of women, but the beginnings all start the same. Children require men and women.

JAMESBJOHNSON (Hey, it is fun putting names up like this )

Wow. That is one of the most profoundly inane statements I have ever read. I am going to work on the assumption that you meant to say something completely different that what you posted. I KNOW you are much smarter than that.

I HOPE we are in agreement on how babies are created: Eggs from females. Sperm from males. 1 egg + 1 sperm cell = 1 baby. We still in agreement here? If not, you have scared me severely!

Once the baby is born, this has NO bearing on how well the baby thrives. That is dependent upon the baby’s health and on whether the child is in a loving, nurturing home. With the exception of substandard medical care or poor nutrition, even financial circumstances do not come in to play. A poor kid that is loved and nurtured will flourish. Regardless of what gender the child's parents may be. Period.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

But part of that balance, and a big part of the "it just is reality" of it is that a very large percentage of prospective parents put in this vice are not capable of stepping up to this Hollywood version of what it will be like--for everyone involved--and know it, and shouldn't be trapped into going down that drain, if it's going to be a drain for them, in their own lives just because someone who isn't going to face it with them has a set of beliefs they feel compelled to evangelize everyone else with.

I quite agree that abortion should be used as just another birth control option and also believe that dropping babies every year shouldn't be used as a for-profit career.

I would agree with that as well (although not sure when I was evangelizing anyone, try reading the article). It is ultimately up the parents themselves and I would rather have them abort then have the child and not be able to cope. The problem is the 80%+ abortion rate for Down's babies. That would seem to be more than just the group of parents that can't cope with it.

I certainly don't need anyone telling me that I have a "Hollywood" idealized version of what it's like to be a parent of a Down's child or a "normal" child I have both and can make that comparison for myself thanks. If parents choose to abort without actually having all the facts, because they are presenting in a very biased manner, do they really know whether they can cope or not?

In many cases, their is virtually nothing to cope with. Many Down's children have very few health issues and develop only slightly slower than average, much like many "normal" chldren. My son is not in that group, so I'm well aware of the potential pitfalls.

 

[sr71plt]

although not sure when I was evangelizing anyone

Nor did I mean you take this as directed at you personally.