Infanticide

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Dr. Zaus

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/...f-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

"here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported -- which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born -- even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
Click to expand...

The intent of the legislation was to protect any infant who survived a botched abortion by requiring the doctor to give life-saving care. In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Click to expand...

When the legislation came up for a vote in 2001 and 2002, Obama once voted "present" -- essentially a non-vote -- and once voted against it.
Click to expand...

I'm against abortion as birth control but for a woman's right to chose what she does with her body.

Not sure how that would guide my views of voting not voting to demand heroic measures in saving a baby born of abortion though...
 
JTsyo

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,723
881
126
There's something wrong if you're aborting a baby that is developed enough to survive.
 
cybrsage

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Yeah, Obama has shown is is for infantcide...provided the mother wanted the unborn child dead. The gaining of basic human rights at birth should be obvious to all...but Obama somehow does not get it.

I can understand there being a debate over basic human rights for the unborn human...but once the human is born it becomes a human being - a person - and a US Citizen (in the context of being born in the US).
 
Nemesis 1

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
DixyCrat said:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/...f-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS







I'm against abortion as birth control but for a woman's right to chose what she does with her body.

Not sure how that would guide my views of voting not voting to demand heroic measures in saving a baby born of abortion though...
Click to expand...

I would say that you are setting yourself up as Judge . Than Judge the fact . If the Baby is alive and crying . Than it must be cared for . Murder is the only recourse. Obummer vote is anything but a surprize the guy is a bumbling moron and as evil as evil gets
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
Nemesis 1 said:
I would say that you are setting yourself up as Judge . Than Judge the fact . If the Baby is alive and crying . Than it must be cared for . Murder is the only recourse. Obummer vote is anything but a surprize the guy is a bumbling moron and as evil as evil gets
Click to expand...

Nothing 'moronic' about getting rid of unwanted costs by the government. The support of infanticide is a cold and calculated financial move.
 
Nemesis 1

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Its a moral move and is in fact murder. If I have a neighbor who brings down the value of my property . Than I should have the right to kill him based on your calculated financial move. Judge not least ye be judged . I think maybe judgement to you should come sooner than later for your foul mouth. So it was written so shall it be done.
 
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,341
28,615
136
Nemesis 1 said:
Its a moral move and is in fact murder. If I have a neighbor who brings down the value of my property . Than I should have the right to kill him based on your calculated financial move. Judge not least ye be judged . I think maybe judgement to you should come sooner than later for your foul mouth. So it was written so shall it be done.
Click to expand...
306 days left Harold.
 
CallMeJoe

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I will note this, from your linked article:
"He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive"
 
Dr. Zaus

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
CallMeJoe said:
I will note this, from your linked article:
"He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive"
Click to expand...

Right. Which is why I mentioned heroic measures.

UberNeuman said:
Isn't the death penalty nothing more than a late term abortion?
Click to expand...
Except the baby didn't do anything to piss-off society enough to want to kill her or him.
 
CallMeJoe

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
DixyCrat said:
Right. Which is why I mentioned heroic measures...
Click to expand...
When did not requiring "heroic measures" (whatever that means) become "supporting infanticide"?

Did the Illinois legislation even use that term, or was it another bill requiring life-saving measures but adding a "personhood" clause?
 
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
DixyCrat said:
Do we all agree with this?
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't agree at all. Children should be abortable up until they're naturally born, and sometimes afterwards (in the event they're unable to live without life support\incubator.)
 
Dr. Zaus

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
Nope, I don't agree at all. Children should be abortable up until they're naturally born, and sometimes afterwards (in the event they're unable to live without life support\incubator.)
Click to expand...
Isn't that infanticide?

CallMeJoe said:
The link explains "heroic measures" but doesn't tell if the phrase was even used in the legislation
Click to expand...

Why would it be used in the legislation? I was trying to juxtapose the concept of trying to save the life of the baby "if the doctor thinks she can" vs. trying to save the life of the baby "If it is born still living".

The space between "if he thinks she can" and "if it is still living" implies that a greater level of intervention would be required by non-heroic measures.
nor does it explain how not requiring a physician to maim an infant in an attempt to save it equates "supporting infanticide".
Click to expand...
That's the part I'm asking about; it's being spun as supporting infanticide to not vote against legislation that would require said heroic measures in saving the life of the baby.
 
Last edited:
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
momeNt said:
It's tissue still until it naturally passes the cervix /sarcasm
Click to expand...

Someone once told me that if it's alive when it exits the vagina, it's a person. Two days later, as I pulled out after coming, I looked down at my willy and said, "Hello, brother!"
 
M

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Nebor said:
Nope, I don't agree at all. Children should be abortable up until they're naturally born, and sometimes afterwards (in the event they're unable to live without life support\incubator.)
Click to expand...

what baby can live without life support?

They all depend on someone to support them.


dont worry. the british medical journal is already saying killing babies is ok.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/...l-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html

same logic used to defend aborition, now used to kill born kids
 
O

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
I say we outlaw abortion. And every idiot who agrees with the decision should be forced to feed/bathe/clothe/educate/support all of the unwanted, out of wedlock offspring that will further over populate this planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom