Saddleback point: At what point is a life a life?

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
Personally, I don't care if there are 1st trimester abortions. If I ever met a woman who told me she had a 3rd trimester/partial birth abortion I would definitely pass judgment and probably call her a fvcking disgrace to the human race.

That said, personally (I'm NOT religious) I believe it should not be allowed for post Trimester 1....but if a woman wants to kill off her own baby then that's her choice. I hope they have more emotional harm doing that than actually delivering selflessly and putting him/her up for adoption.

I agree here.

The whole debate of 'at what point does life begin' is stupid, because all it does is setup the question of:

If life begins at the point where a baby or fetus or whatever you call it has all the physical characteristics (fingers, toes, etc) then its a life. Once you admit that the next question will be 'at what point does a baby or fetus start to gain these attributes?' and you end up having the stupid debate.

The bottom line is this:

If we banned abortions today, totally, people would not stop having abortions. Some people are never ready to be parents and will find some illegal ways to accomplish this. And the argument that families out there are ready to adopt babies is utter bullshit, because orphanages are full and I don't see the conservatives that argue against abortion lining up to adopt babies themselves.

The only real way to limit the number of abortions is to teach kids how to prevent pregnancies in the first place. Its common sense. Do that, and the abortion rate will drop dramatically.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Are the skin cells left on your sheets at night a human being?

You are trying to argue that because the DNA is human that the entire structure is human also. The above question is made in a way that might sound condescending, but it is also a very valid question. The DNA of a human skin cell is going to return a human DNA chain. Does that make the cell(s) human or just of human descent?

Why do you insist on maintaining your ignorance? This has been discussed numerous times before, yet you throw out the same arguments every time. The skin cells are human. "Human" is a taxonomic term designating a species. Thus, what is or is not human is defined genetically beyond any doubt.

You might think that I am parsing words...but there is a huge, ginormous difference between "human" and "human being". It is not about ignorance (although I might argue that your command of the English language is a bit off if you cannot distinguish between the examples given) but about when does that zygote (by it's very definition a cell not a human) become a being.

Once again, of human decent or lineage != human being.

Oh, and your insistence that it is a human being seems to be in conflict with the medical/scientific community even though you declare there is no question:

Medical dictionary definition

Zygote: The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum). The zygote develops into the embryo following the instruction encoded in its genetic material, the DNA.

The unification of a sperm and an ovum to form a zygote constitutes fertilization.

Scientific definition

zygote
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

zy·gote / 'zi?got/ ? n. Biol. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum. DERIVATIVES: zy·got·ic / zi'gätik/ adj.

Maybe it is just me and my ignorance, but I don't see any mention to "Human being" in either of those definitions despite your absolute certainty that both of those groups have declared that there is no doubt about it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: bdude
Q. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

MCCAIN: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment, that's my commitment to you."

OBAMA: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground -- and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. ... I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducting the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need. Have we given them the support services that they need. Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary. That I think can make a genuine difference."

Are these the answers verbatim? can I get a link to read more?

Based upon this post, it appears to me that McCain isn't putting thought into his response. Seems to be pandering to the audience, not surprised. I bolded Obama's comment which I think is applicable in describing McCains response to the question.

Obama's comment directly addresses what he thinks the role is of the US government with regards to abortion, and that is, how do we work together to reduce the amount of unwanted abortions and unwanted babies in america?

Pro-lifers and Pro-choicers actually have the ability to work together to eliminate the number of abortions that we see today. Through education and assistance. Yet people on both sides insist on fighting/arguing the more difficult moral and ethical questions...and not seeing any progress.

And this is a complex issue, McCain's response is sorely lacking.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: KIRBYEEThe question was: At what point does a baby get human rights?

My answer: When it is born.

They're both giving silly answers. Why are presidential candidates arguing about abortion or their faith anyway?

Strangely enough, Obama didn't agree with you, at least before he started running for President.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html">That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.</a>

I heard about this a couple of weeks ago. His(Obama) answer to the question in the OP makese sense. Defer it to god :disgust:

Because quite frankly if he answered it the way he has voted, people in the middle may get quite turned off.

I believe life begins at conception. But at this point would settle for banning of late term and partial birth abortions. Something Obama apparently doesnt support. The delivering of a partial birth aborted baby and tossing it in the trash is just some sick shit our country has devolved into. Dr. Mengele must be grinning from hell.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Colt45
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one... simple enough, yeah?

If you don't like Fox news, don't watch it.

If you don't watch Fox news, stop complaining about it.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I heard about this a couple of weeks ago. His(Obama) answer to the question in the OP makese sense. Defer it to god :disgust:

Because quite frankly if he answered it the way he has voted, people in the middle may get quite turned off.

I believe life begins at conception. But at this point would settle for banning of late term and partial birth abortions. Something Obama apparently doesnt support. The delivering of a partial birth aborted baby and tossing it in the trash is just some sick shit our country has devolved into. Dr. Mengele must be grinning from hell.

And Obama's answer doesn't square with his past actions (surprise!). Not considering his response to the testimony of the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act and his subsequent blocking of the bill that had the same exact language as the Federal bill. Also not considering his position as a legal scholar at the University of Chicago.

Obama called people who were bring up the fact that he blocked the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act liars as late as Saturday. That was until today when the Obama camp claimed that he 'mistated' his position.

The abortion issue isn't anywhere near the top of my list of priorites. (mostly because I don't see the status quo changing much if at all). However, Obama's complete dodge of the question was unacceptable. Even Kerry gave a better answer.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Conky
All quotes are taking from the rather liberal LA Times, with the link furnished here: http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...8aug17,0,3145888.story

Obama said: "I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He added that he supports the landmark decision Roe vs. Wade but said the issue has "moral and ethical content" and stressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions.

McCain, however, immediately responded that a baby's rights begin at conception. Perhaps seeking to tamp down alarm among conservatives over his recent comment that he's open to a running mate who favors abortion rights, he continued: "I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

-------------------------

Here's the part I find simply hilarious... Obama, being the highly educated Harvard graduate, doesn't know what the average highschool student knows about human reproduction.

Human life begins at conception, and this is strictly speaking from a scientific point of view.

Barack, despite making far more money than the average highschool science teacher, claims this is "above my pay grade".

The beautiful part is that McCain doesn't flinch on this question and answers it like a highschool freshman would.

Hi! I'm back!

Uh, welcome back I guess, were you this much of a hack before?

The question was "when do human RIGHTS attach" not "when does human life begin." If McCain wants to attach full human rights to a fertilized egg, I hope he's ready to lock up every woman who miscarries for involuntary manslaughter.

It's also disturbing that you're seemingly proud of a presidential candidate answering a complex question that is heatedly debated every year with the black and white worldview of a high school student.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: brandonb
My response:

Life starts at conception. The DNA has mixed and the cells start to reproduce with its own unique charactistics found in that DNA. Life has started there, every definition of life is there.

An analogy would be: You decided to babysit for your friend for a day. The mother was out grocery shopping got into a car accident and died. The baby is now yours (provided no other family could be found)... Is it ok for you to kill the baby because you never wanted it to begin with?

What are you 10?

If I was, I'd still a few years older than you. I'm rubber your glue. Blah blah blah. Have anything to contribute or are you trying to bump up your post count again?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You might think that I am parsing words...but there is a huge, ginormous difference between "human" and "human being". It is not about ignorance (although I might argue that your command of the English language is a bit off if you cannot distinguish between the examples given) but about when does that zygote (by it's very definition a cell not a human) become a being.

Once again, of human decent or lineage != human being.

Oh, and your insistence that it is a human being seems to be in conflict with the medical/scientific community even though you declare there is no question:

Medical dictionary definition

Zygote: The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum). The zygote develops into the embryo following the instruction encoded in its genetic material, the DNA.

The unification of a sperm and an ovum to form a zygote constitutes fertilization.

Scientific definition

zygote
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

zy·gote / 'zi?got/ ? n. Biol. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum. DERIVATIVES: zy·got·ic / zi'gätik/ adj.

Maybe it is just me and my ignorance, but I don't see any mention to "Human being" in either of those definitions despite your absolute certainty that both of those groups have declared that there is no doubt about it.

I don't see anywhere where those definitions state that it's not, either. So, by your logic, it's neither a human being or not a human being. If you would argue that the zygote is not a human being, I would hope that you could offer something other than some definitions that do not attempt to discuss this tack. I submit that it is a human being because it has, at the moment of conception, all of the necessary ingredients that make it human, thus initiating the continuum of development which inevitably continues until death. If it is not a human being at this point, then I don't see how it would ever become one.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You might think that I am parsing words...but there is a huge, ginormous difference between "human" and "human being". It is not about ignorance (although I might argue that your command of the English language is a bit off if you cannot distinguish between the examples given) but about when does that zygote (by it's very definition a cell not a human) become a being.

Once again, of human decent or lineage != human being.

Oh, and your insistence that it is a human being seems to be in conflict with the medical/scientific community even though you declare there is no question:

Medical dictionary definition

Zygote: The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum). The zygote develops into the embryo following the instruction encoded in its genetic material, the DNA.

The unification of a sperm and an ovum to form a zygote constitutes fertilization.

Scientific definition

zygote
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

zy·gote / 'zi?got/ ? n. Biol. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum. DERIVATIVES: zy·got·ic / zi'gätik/ adj.

Maybe it is just me and my ignorance, but I don't see any mention to "Human being" in either of those definitions despite your absolute certainty that both of those groups have declared that there is no doubt about it.

I don't see anywhere where those definitions state that it's not, either. So, by your logic, it's neither a human being or not a human being. If you would argue that the zygote is not a human being, I would hope that you could offer something other than some definitions that do not attempt to discuss this tack. I submit that it is a human being because it has, at the moment of conception, all of the necessary ingredients that make it human, thus initiating the continuum of development which inevitably continues until death. If it is not a human being at this point, then I don't see how it would ever become one.

That is a huge negatory. After the meeting of the two gametes, in order for normal development to occur the zygote must successfully implant itself into the uterine wall of the female (and by then, if successful, is no longer a zygote, but a blastocyst).

Then, and only then can "normal" development occur.


Remove religion from the debate, and there is far more clarity.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
You might think that I am parsing words...but there is a huge, ginormous difference between "human" and "human being". It is not about ignorance (although I might argue that your command of the English language is a bit off if you cannot distinguish between the examples given) but about when does that zygote (by it's very definition a cell not a human) become a being.

Once again, of human decent or lineage != human being.

Oh, and your insistence that it is a human being seems to be in conflict with the medical/scientific community even though you declare there is no question:

Medical dictionary definition

Zygote: The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum). The zygote develops into the embryo following the instruction encoded in its genetic material, the DNA.

The unification of a sperm and an ovum to form a zygote constitutes fertilization.

Scientific definition

zygote
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

zy·gote / 'zi?got/ ? n. Biol. a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum. DERIVATIVES: zy·got·ic / zi'gätik/ adj.

Maybe it is just me and my ignorance, but I don't see any mention to "Human being" in either of those definitions despite your absolute certainty that both of those groups have declared that there is no doubt about it.

I don't see anywhere where those definitions state that it's not, either. So, by your logic, it's neither a human being or not a human being. If you would argue that the zygote is not a human being, I would hope that you could offer something other than some definitions that do not attempt to discuss this tack. I submit that it is a human being because it has, at the moment of conception, all of the necessary ingredients that make it human, thus initiating the continuum of development which inevitably continues until death. If it is not a human being at this point, then I don't see how it would ever become one.

I would submit that it has none of the necessary ingredients that make it human but it has the ingredients to evolve into a human being.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

 

[NeoV]

omg, I'm so surprised, GenX is using the Sean Hannity talking points to come up with material for this board....why thank you...

Obama's vote in the example you cited - you, and your boy Sean for that matter - forgot to mention that there ALREADY WAS A LAW that required doctors in IL to care for babies in that type of situation if they had any chance of survival.

Only an idiot would think any sane person would vote to destroy a perfectly healthy, viable baby, let alone someone with presidential aspirations.

I think the difference between McCain's answer and Obama's answer speaks volumes about the differences between the two - McCain gives the standard, cookie-cutter pro-life answer - whereas Obama actually expresses thought and emotion in his answer.


Move on to the next talking point now....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NeoV
omg, I'm so surprised, GenX is using the Sean Hannity talking points to come up with material for this board....why thank you...

Obama's vote in the example you cited - you, and your boy Sean for that matter - forgot to mention that there ALREADY WAS A LAW that required doctors in IL to care for babies in that type of situation if they had any chance of survival.

Only an idiot would think any sane person would vote to destroy a perfectly healthy, viable baby, let alone someone with presidential aspirations.

I think the difference between McCain's answer and Obama's answer speaks volumes about the differences between the two - McCain gives the standard, cookie-cutter pro-life answer - whereas Obama actually expresses thought and emotion in his answer.


Move on to the next talking point now....

Um I havent listened to Sean Hannity since 2004. But thanks for playing................:disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeoV
omg, I'm so surprised, GenX is using the Sean Hannity talking points to come up with material for this board....why thank you...

Obama's vote in the example you cited - you, and your boy Sean for that matter - forgot to mention that there ALREADY WAS A LAW that required doctors in IL to care for babies in that type of situation if they had any chance of survival.

Only an idiot would think any sane person would vote to destroy a perfectly healthy, viable baby, let alone someone with presidential aspirations.

I think the difference between McCain's answer and Obama's answer speaks volumes about the differences between the two - McCain gives the standard, cookie-cutter pro-life answer - whereas Obama actually expresses thought and emotion in his answer.


Move on to the next talking point now....

Um I havent listened to Sean Hannity since 2004. But thanks for playing................:disgust:

He's still as big a fool as he was in 2004.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeoV
omg, I'm so surprised, GenX is using the Sean Hannity talking points to come up with material for this board....why thank you...

Obama's vote in the example you cited - you, and your boy Sean for that matter - forgot to mention that there ALREADY WAS A LAW that required doctors in IL to care for babies in that type of situation if they had any chance of survival.

Only an idiot would think any sane person would vote to destroy a perfectly healthy, viable baby, let alone someone with presidential aspirations.

I think the difference between McCain's answer and Obama's answer speaks volumes about the differences between the two - McCain gives the standard, cookie-cutter pro-life answer - whereas Obama actually expresses thought and emotion in his answer.


Move on to the next talking point now....

Um I havent listened to Sean Hannity since 2004. But thanks for playing................:disgust:

He's still as big a fool as he was in 2004.

Good to hear and the reason I stopped. I ASSume you listen to him often? Apparently NeoV does.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
Well, gee, let's see if we can come up with a distinction between murder and abortion.

Before demonstrating what a condescending douchenozzle you are, maybe you should teach yourself to read. Please show me where I said abortion is murder.

It was YOU who made the analogy between abortion and murder, stating that there's a moral equivalence between allowing people to decide for themselves when to obtain abortions and allowing people to decide for themselves when to commit murder. In other words, you claimed that because "freedom to murder" is rejected by society, "freedom to abort" should also be rejected.

I refuted your nonsensical analogy by showing that society's moral views toward abortion and murder are quite different. Thus, any attitudes about "freedom to murder" are irrelevant to "freedom to abort."

Nice try, attempting to evade responsibility for your typically faulty reasoning.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I'm still waiting for how life can start at conception when all conception is combining two living cells.

You just answered yourself.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: smack Down
I'm still waiting for how life can start at conception when all conception is combining two living cells.

You just answered yourself.

So according to this, removing a cancerous tumor is also murder.

I've taken collegiate level biology classes, multiple in fact. And I feel I can firmly state that there is no scientific evidence to say that life begins at conception. I don't know enough science as to say when it can officially start being called a human, but for the first several months it is little different than a tumor in my opinion from having studied the science.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

It's always convenient to put words into the mouths of those we oppose. So this, "He effectively voted for infanticide" is almost certainly subject to debate. I'm guessing that Obama had a pretty good reason for opposing the bill - it might have been linked together with another, unpalatable measure or included an unacceptable provision.

For example, suppose a bill that banned the killing of already-delivered babies also included a provision that legalized child prostitution. Would you vote for such a bill? I thought not.

If you could provide us with text of the bills, we might be able to figure out what the problem was.

Passed 98-0 in the Senate . . . highly controversial, I'd say

The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a law virtually identical to this one (with the only exception being a clause that makes it explicit that this law doesn't change any legal status of pre-born fetuses). Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gave a floor speech explaining why no pro-choice Democrat should worry about such a bill undermining or conflicting with the Supreme Court's guarantee of abortion rights. Hillary Clinton was among the 98 Senators who voted yes. No senators voted no. Yet Barack Obama refused several times to sign on to what a unanimous U.S. Senate was willing to pass.

. . .

"The legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple," she said. "Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was."

On the narrower issue of "born alive" infants, Sutherland said, Planned Parenthood of Illinois worked last year with the anti-abortion group, the Illinois Federation of Right to Life, to pass legislation that protects infants that survive abortion procedures.


This will not fly, however. The only difference between the federal law and the state law is the extra clause in the federal law declaring that the law does not affect any legal status of unborn fetuses.

. . .

The second reason this defense of Obama won't work is because the Illinois state legislature considered an amended bill that does have the clause from the federal version. Obama killed the amended bill in committee. Unless there's some independent justification for this, I don't see how he could consistently have voted for the federal law that passed the Senate unanimously and garnered a floor speech from Senator Boxer about how no pro-choicer should vote against it.

Again, stop putting words in others mouth. Why don't we just read the actual statute and come to our own conclusions. It's pretty short, and here it is:

(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) 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.

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

Thank God Obama opposes this bill. It has nothing to do with protecting babies. It has everything to do with outlawing abortion.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

It's always convenient to put words into the mouths of those we oppose. So this, "He effectively voted for infanticide" is almost certainly subject to debate. I'm guessing that Obama had a pretty good reason for opposing the bill - it might have been linked together with another, unpalatable measure or included an unacceptable provision.

For example, suppose a bill that banned the killing of already-delivered babies also included a provision that legalized child prostitution. Would you vote for such a bill? I thought not.

If you could provide us with text of the bills, we might be able to figure out what the problem was.

Passed 98-0 in the Senate . . . highly controversial, I'd say

The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a law virtually identical to this one (with the only exception being a clause that makes it explicit that this law doesn't change any legal status of pre-born fetuses). Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gave a floor speech explaining why no pro-choice Democrat should worry about such a bill undermining or conflicting with the Supreme Court's guarantee of abortion rights. Hillary Clinton was among the 98 Senators who voted yes. No senators voted no. Yet Barack Obama refused several times to sign on to what a unanimous U.S. Senate was willing to pass.

. . .

"The legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple," she said. "Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was."

On the narrower issue of "born alive" infants, Sutherland said, Planned Parenthood of Illinois worked last year with the anti-abortion group, the Illinois Federation of Right to Life, to pass legislation that protects infants that survive abortion procedures.


This will not fly, however. The only difference between the federal law and the state law is the extra clause in the federal law declaring that the law does not affect any legal status of unborn fetuses.

. . .

The second reason this defense of Obama won't work is because the Illinois state legislature considered an amended bill that does have the clause from the federal version. Obama killed the amended bill in committee. Unless there's some independent justification for this, I don't see how he could consistently have voted for the federal law that passed the Senate unanimously and garnered a floor speech from Senator Boxer about how no pro-choicer should vote against it.

Again, stop putting words in others mouth. Why don't we just read the actual statute and come to our own conclusions. It's pretty short, and here it is:

(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) 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.

So lets analyze:

This bill defines any living fetus outside the womb, at any stage of development, a person.

That statement alone makes it clear why this bill is totally unacceptable to anyone who is pro-choice: If a fetus (even a one-week-old fetus) happens to survive extraction from the womb, then killing the fetus thereafter is murder. And if the fetus cannot be killed absent fear of prosecution for murder, that means it's the abortion clinic's responsibility to fight to keep the fetus alive. regardless of cost.

Thank God Obama opposes this bill. It has nothing to do with protecting babies. It has everything to do with outlawing abortion.

Oh yeah? How many 1 week old fetuses can even been recognized much less survive outside the womb in that description? Breath, heart beat? Maybe you need to reread when the heart starts to pump. It isnt in the 1st week.

It is clear this is in regards to partial birth abortions. Where babies are born in the 3rd trimester and have a real chance to live outside the womb if delivered. Now how does one survive partial birth abortion? I'd say sloppy workmanship by the doctor where the baby is fully delivered instead of just partially with the head still in the birth canal where its brains are sucked out. And it sounds like a nurse witnessed such a delivery only to let the baby die on its own. Simply ridiculous.

If a baby survives an abortion you better damn well give it basic human rights. It was born under some of the most disgusting circumstances one can think.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: shira
Thank God Obama opposes this bill. It has nothing to do with protecting babies. It has everything to do with outlawing abortion.

Really, then why did Obama say this in an interview Saturday night?

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.

The Illinois bill included the exact same language as the Federal bill that gave protection to babies that survive an abortion attempt but still keeps Roe v Wade intact. Even NARAL supported this bill.

Like I said earlier, the abortion issue isn't at the top of my list of priorities but Obama's evading and maneuvering with the "above my pay grade" comments is ridiculous. Unless of course, being an Illinois State Legislature (when he did make a determination of when a fetus becomes a person with rights) is now above the pay grade of US Senator and POTUS.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: smack Down
I'm still waiting for how life can start at conception when all conception is combining two living cells.

You just answered yourself.

So according to this, removing a cancerous tumor is also murder.

I've taken collegiate level biology classes, multiple in fact. And I feel I can firmly state that there is no scientific evidence to say that life begins at conception. I don't know enough science as to say when it can officially start being called a human, but for the first several months it is little different than a tumor in my opinion from having studied the science.

Does Cancer have its own unique DNA?

 

[DealMonkey]

Beyond all of the rhetoric on both sides, our legal system clearly does not define aborting a fetus to be murder, so given that our legal system is a rough mirror of our society's beliefs, we apparently believe that a fetus is NOT a human being deserving of all inherent rights bestowed upon us by the government.

Don't like it? Try and change it, but so far the effort to do so has been spectacularly unsuccessful.

I think the reason it has been unsuccessful is that the majority people support some form of abortion option, albeit with some restrictions placed on it (e.g. first trimester only, some don't like the lack of parental consent for girls under 18, etc.). The Republicans know this well, and thus they act to chip away at abortion, restrict it in some ways, but they know it would be political suicide to support a total outright ban.

In fact, the only ones supporting a total and complete ban are the usual extremists. "Fundies," if you will.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Beyond all of the rhetoric on both sides, our legal system clearly does not define aborting a fetus to be murder, so given that our legal system is a rough mirror of our society's beliefs, we apparently believe that a fetus is NOT a human being deserving of all inherent rights bestowed upon us by the government.

Don't like it? Try and change it, but so far the effort to do so has been spectacularly unsuccessful.

I think the reason it has been unsuccessful is that the majority people support some form of abortion option, albeit with some restrictions placed on it (e.g. first trimester only, some don't like the lack of parental consent for girls under 18, etc.). The Republicans know this well, and thus they act to chip away at abortion, restrict it in some ways, but they know it would be political suicide to support a total outright ban.

In fact, the only ones supporting a total and complete ban are the usual extremists. "Fundies," if you will.

Our legal system is conflicted. If I were to kill a women at the doorstep of an abortion clinic. I may very well be charged with two counts of murder. So while you are correct in saying performing an actual abortion is legal. The law also seems to recognize in some states an unborn child has rights as well.

 

[Vic]

I just want to jump in and say that this is not a medical or scientific question, but a legal one. From a medical standpoint, life begins at conception. From a scientific standpoint, life began some 3.5 billion years ago (DNA is seemingly immortal), and each individual is not new life but the propagation of life.
From a legal standpoint, interested in protecting the rights of individual life, the question is a bit more clouded. It comes down to: whose individual rights are more important? The mother's or the fetus'? This is why a person who murders a pregnant woman at the doorstep of an abortion clinic would be charged with 2 counts of murder. His rights are not at issue here. But so long as the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then the mother's rights are of issue here. So I believe that it will be legally determined that life begins at the point where the fetus is able to survive outside the mother's womb on its own.
This is why I applaud Obama in supporting the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, while simultaneously recognizing the right of a woman to choose -- up to a point.
And also why I frown upon McCain for abusing science to forward his own ideological agenda even when it trounces upon the legal rights of pregnant women. Obviously, he could spout out his response without thinking. That's because he didn't think.