Obama and Infanticide

What "facts or logical debate" have you presented here?

Check out the links I cited in my original post. See also:

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

Since when are doctors' offices beyond the reach of the law? If a doctor is performing lobotomies, for example, is the government prohibited from obtaining a duly issued search warrant in order to investigate this crime?

 

If the doctor lives in your uterus, yes.

 

I have a question for you HuckFinn (if you don't mind answering): who have you/will you be voting for in the presidential election? I'm just wondering because I hope your decision for president doesn't hinge on this, or any other, single issue.

For example, I've voted for Obama and Biden, yet I strongly disagree with their stance to continue the war in Afghanistan and other potential aggressions in the Middle East. Overall, I think they will be more beneficial to this country and the world. I don't think Obama is a messiah or that he's the best thing since pre-sliced hot dog buns, but I do think he's the best thing on the ticket right now.

Disagreement is patriotic and, in fact, that's what democracy is based on. It's possible to agree with a candidate on some things and then strongly disagree with them on other things. Obama has repeatedly stated that he wants to hear from the people and that he'll actually listen. When and if he is our next president, I have no doubt that he would hear your concerns and those of others who share your views and will make decisions accordingly.

Obama is pro-choice, but he is anti-unwanted pregnancies. The focus should be on cutting down or even eliminating unwanted pregnancies, i.e. sex education and access to safe sex materials (birth control, condoms), not on who wants to kill babies because no one running for president right now wants to kill unborn or live-born children.

Your thoughts HuckFinn?

believe

 

Huck, let me give you a VERY personal example of why the right to privacy is so important to human dignity.

3 years ago, my wife tested positive for pregnancy. We were scared, but overjoyed at the same time. Then the bleeding started. It would not stop. I assumed she was miscarrying, so we went to the hospital. We had no healthcare, so we went to a Catholic hospital, where we were given a break on the cost. This was a teaching hospital. I'm assuming you know what that means. An ultrasound was provided to us which confirmed an ectopic pregnancy, which I will also allow you to look up yourself if you don't know what it is. During the examination, a rep from GE was present, as she was trying to sell the machine to the hospital. She put her hands on an instrument that was inside my wife. My wife was in tears, so was I, and this woman (not a doctor) was talking about the features of the machine. I almost hit her in the face, but instead I just stood by because we were in no position (I thought) to protest.

In order to save her life, my wife had to get an abortion, which amounted to a light dose of chemo (kills the fast growing cells). About a week later, I had to call an ambulance when she went into shock trying to get ready for work. She wound up losing a fallopian tube.

At which point do you think I should have been forced to file a police report. At which point would I have deserved to defend my actions to the government? What if the local D.A. had something to prove? What if I had to get government approval before getting the abortion?

If not for Roe v. Wade, my wife could be dead right now. So what makes your position pro-life?

 

Hey I agree abort abort


Having just grown up in the previous generation things are only going down hill...

 

Read the article I cited in my previous post. Obama isn't moderately 'pro-choice.' He opposes even the most modest abortion restrictions and consistently thwarted legislation simply protecting babies who survive abortion attempts. He also wants to force taxpayers to subsidize elective abortions. He is willfully deaf to the concerns of pro-lifers, not to mention babies deemed unwanted and marked for death. The astronomical death toll of abortion on demand (~1.3 million per year) dwarfs war casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I just can't bring myself to support any politician that favors continuing and even expanding this wholesale slaughter of innocent life.

Every pro-life bill I've ever seen includes an exception to save the life of the mother. In an ectopic pregnancy, neither the baby nor the mother can survive, so abortion presents no ethical quandary in this situation.

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has now publicly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was a judicial usurpation of power:

"I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman's choice, but the court should not have done it all."

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/10/ginsburg_roe_de.html

 

Its this simple, If you are against abortion DONT HAVE ONE

I am partly responsible for 2 abortions 1 from my ex wife and 1 from my ex gf birthcontrol isnt 100% effective

I am also A proud parent

We got harassed by a bunch of religious protesters going to the clinic hearing enough I turned around and told them there are millions of children who are alive and in serious trouble from abuse neglect starvation GO SAVE THEM dont encourage others to add to that population.

and unwanted unexpected pregnacy turns into an unwanted child Children deserve better than that.

 

I guess killing babies is an effective form of birth control ...

Wouldn't killing off the poor masses would be a nifty way to eliminate poverty?

 

I won't contend this point, for now.

My point, which you missed entirely, was that the government has no business asking what kind of pregnancy my wife had. A simple positive hcg test would have to be reported if the law granted personhood at conception. Since the "person" (actually a blastocyst in this case) has a right to life, don't I have to prove the medical emergency in order to obtain the abortion? If not, when would anyone have to prove medical emergency? Never? What if the evidence is lost, or improperly documented? The government has no business in my bedroom or doctor's office.

Maybe I would have to prove it after the fact? So after losing a fallopian tube, a chance at motherhood, and her dignity, my wife has to defend herself from a murder accusation?

Roe v. Wade may have saved her life. It DEFINITELY saved our dignity. I could never support a law that denies dignity to women. Your intentions are good, and I share your moral values when it comes to abortion, but as a matter of law, you make no sense, and what you seek would destroy more life than it protects. If you truly believe what you say, you will cease your efforts to police the wombs of others, and do your best to support the least among us according to the words of Jesus. Now THAT would be pro-life.

 

First, it's not at all difficult for a doctor to document a genuine threat to a woman's life. Second, prior to Roe v. Wade, only abortionists were prosecuted, not women who had abortions:

http://www.aul.org/Prosecution

 

lIf young red necks that go out putting notches in their belts supported the children they produce abortions wouldn't be necessary. Would they?

 

In law, we do not compel people to act because "it's not that difficult". We have cause or we don't regardless of the level of hardship. The rights of a person should stand up not only to what happens most of the time, but also what could happen some of the time.

My wife is alive because there was a doctor there to perform the abortion legally. Without the abortion, she would have died. Any delay could have jeopardized her health as well.

And what happened before Roe v. Wade is irrelevant. I'm concerned with what could happen if we defined "personhood" as something that begins at conception. If all you want to do is outlaw specific procedures, you will have to find some legal basis. If your legal basis is not a recognition of personhood from the moment of conception, on what grounds are you advocating such an invasion of privacy. What is your compelling state interest?

Either you believe a person has full rights at conception, or you are lukewarm, and then I really think we should spit you out. Which one is it?

 

The sole reason for abortion mainly is because the mother doesn't feel she can support the lfe of another. Where do the anti abortionists solve that problem?

Where exactly are the fathers, the sperm suppliers on this issue are they willing to support their children?

 

Abortions and ethnicity

Abortions are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women.[8]

Seems to be more than just 1 "sole" reason
Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[9] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[10]

• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[11] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

• 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
• 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
• 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
• 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
• 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
• 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
• 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
• 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
• 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
• 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
• 11% Other

Source

 

It's nobody's business why you want an abortion.

Making a claim about why people get abortions only opens the door to haggling over the facts.

It's either a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, with her blood, and with her energy, or it isn't.

You either have a right to privacy inside your own body, or you don't.

Which is it?

 

Yes, I believe that all humans, born or unborn, are persons. The only lawful justification for taking human life is the necessity to protect the life of another. You've offered no evidence whatsoever in support of your fearful argument that abortion cannot be effectively restricted to such cases. It's asinine to insist that allowing unfettered abortion on demand is the only way to maintain the availability of abortion for the tiny percentage of cases in which it is medically necessary.

 

Of course, this ignores the fact that abortion carves up the body and sheds the blood of an innocent third party.

 

not really. You can take a stand for what you believe in, or you can try to beat around the bush and confuse the issue. Either life begins at conception and you are a person from that point, with all the rights of an individual, or it's more complicated than that.

Which one is it? It's a complex moral issue, and either way you decide there are problems. Don't insult me with your halfway, lukewarm deceptions and slow drift measures that are meant to obscure your true intentions. Take a stand, or go home.

 

I don't see how this is "lukewarm" or somehow unclear:

"Yes, I believe that all humans, born or unborn, are persons. The only lawful justification for taking human life is the necessity to protect the life of another."

Do I need to restate this for you? I believe that the law should protect the most basic of all human rights for the unborn: the right to life.

 

So a human embryo is a person?