Obama and Infanticide

Yes. The notion that some humans are less than persons has led to some of history's worst atrocities. It is also philosophically untenable:

http://lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html

 

Is it murder to fertilize many eggs in vitro when you only have the intention of implanting one or two into a womb?

 

It's murder to destroy the "leftovers." They should be placed for adoption:

http://www.embryoadoption.org/

 

i've read through this whole thread, and would like to insert this:

Well, maybe not all jurisdictions, since abortion IS murder, no matter which way you cut it, and these partial-birth abortions? SICKENING! Google it and be prepared to be grossed out!

And, MJ? Your beef is with the Catholic hospital you took your wife to, not with abortion laws or lack thereof. Most folks can tell you that a Catholic hospital will try to save the life of a baby in extremis. They will wait until the last minute, when the fetus spontaneously aborts, before they will intervene. Yeah, they're some of those religious folks that sort of take their tenets seriously.

 

About the 'leftovers'...

WHAT ARE WE DOING, DORKING AROUND WITH THE CREATION OF LIFE???

If you stopped all the 'for convenience' abortions, make people responsible for their actions, there would still be accidents, and there would be plenty of children for adoption.

Something that has been seriously, imho, overlooked in ALL of the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life stuff is the FATHER. What if he DOES want the child? Why doesn't HE have a say? It's his, too, and if he wants to step up and take responsibility, why shouldn't HE be able to make That CHOICE?

In other words, it really isn't even truly 'Pro-Choice.' It's Pro-Selfishness, in order to commit murder.

 

agreed... some of these threads really worry me with our nation's future... kind of unsettling how blindly, blatantly, and happily ignorant some of these people are.

 

As persons then, you believe they should be counted in the census, no?

I see, and until they are adopted, are they eligible for social assistance?

Are they also entitled to representation in the legislature?

 

I have no problem with counting the unborn in a census, and I strongly support providing them with health care. Despite all of Obama's rhetoric about reducing the demand for abortion, he has opposed providing S-CHIP coverage to the unborn:

"Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it."

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/v...George_Robert_Obama's Abortion Extremism_.xml

 

The US constitution gives states seats in the House of Representatives based on population, which is calculated through census data.

Should states with vast amounts of embryos on ice receive more representatives since they have more "persons"? Could a state simply fertilize a bunch of eggs and store them in order to raise its stature?

 

MJ,

You're being ridiculous. Quit wasting my time.

 

Really? I am wasting your time?

I think if you were a little more familiar with current events, you would know I've asked a question relating to this upcoming election, at least in one state.

There is a ballot initiative in Colorado that asks voters if personhood should be granted to embryos.

I've asked a question regarding just one of the legal implications. If it's a waste of your time to answer questions regarding the full implications of your position, why are you here?

 

Wow. This thread is completely bizarre.

To preface this, I am the mom of 3, pregnant with #4 - and I think abortion is the killing of another human being. This is not a voting issue for me, however, because I find that "antiabortion" candidates actually only want to control women, rather than having any interest whatsoever in preventing unwanted pregnancy, crafting policies that would support mothers and families, or generally revering human life.

With that said, I find it strange that no one is taking on the main claim here, which is that Barack Obama opposed legislation that would require medical treatment for babies that survived abortions. The reason he did not vote for the specific legislation being referenced is because Illinois already had legislation on the books that would require such treatment. The law was introduced as antiabortion propaganda, not to change the law - the law already protects babies and requires that they receive treatment.

 

Senator McCain agreed with Bush's veto of the SCHIP legislation:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

 

funny that the right wants to give health care to the unborn

but take it away once they grow up

[the right hates adults]

 

Very good, Willow. That is absolutely true. The legislation was also modified after he had said he would be inclined to support it, such that the language was vague enough to require resuscitation attempt for a fetus that is not viable.

But what do you find bizarre about my line of questioning?

Or maybe you find it bizarre that Colorado actually has a ballot referendum that, if approved, would grant personhood to embryos? Yes, I find that bizarre as well.

I share your personal views on abortion, but as a matter of law, the interests and rights of the woman supersede those of the government.

 

mary, I don't find your line of questioning bizarre - I was referring to the way this thread turned into an abortion debate, rather than addressing the issue, which was whether Obama opposed providing care to infants - which wasn't true.

 

That may be off topic vis-a-vis the thread starter, but I wanted to get a feel for Huck's basic philosophical position before addressing the politics.

If I'm not arguing with someone who really believes in a position but rather just the parts of that position that are convenient, I don't see the point.

 

Some rights (such as voting) are age-dependent. The right to life, however, is far more fundamental.

Obama has steadfastly opposed any legislative attempt to reduce abortion. He even wants to eliminate the meager funding for crisis pregnancy centers:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/v...George_Robert_Obama's Abortion Extremism_.xml

Nice try, but you omit the fact that the previous Illinois law had been gutted by the courts and was clearly not being enforced, as evidenced by Jill Stanek's experience at Christ hospital in Chicago. Obama's excuses for opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Senate have shifted as often as Bush's justifications for invading Iraq:

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

 

You are dodging my question. Age has nothing to do with how many representatives a state gets in the house. It is based purely on US Census calculations of total population, defined as the number of persons.

 

Worse yet, they want to mandate life for the unborn, while providing no assistance after birth.