Barack Obama wants to kill babies? Another example of crazy Liberalism...

This is sickening... Here is the story...

A few years ago, a baby was aborted because it was mentally retarded. The baby was thrown into a soiled janitor closet. A nurse found the baby in the closet and held it for 45 minutes while it was still alive and was crying. Barack Obama was the only person against a bill that would have protected the baby. He said that the baby was still part of the mother even though it lived and cried for 45 minutes outside of the woman until it died.

Liberals are all about saving convicted pedophiles from the death penalty, but they do not care if an aborted baby lives? WTF?

I hope to God that Obama looses this election or he is going to ruin the country... He wants to raise taxes and is a socialist and won't even protect babies from botched abortions... God help us...

Here are 2 youtube videos that explain the entire story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsBooE2Ols
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVYW-_0jVU

New Video, shows that Obama is a liar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76foO3Gqx-M

Extended coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbEajxNPCw8

 

Do you have the video of Obama saying those things you listed?

 

Probably the most contrived story I've read in a while...

How do can you tell a baby is mentally retarded before its born?

Since when did they throw *LIVING* aborted babies in janitor closets?

I hope to God someone is going to stop that iron grip you fanatical right wing Christians seem to have on this poor country.

 

There are tests that are done to tell if you will have a mentally retarded baby before birth.

But yes Obama did support a bill that pretty much says you can kill a living human. You can be against abortion and make arguments favouring pro choice. But once the baby is born then you really have no legit argument. Obama supported a bill saying you can kill the baby after birth if for some reason the abortion failed

 

Yep, sickening ehh? :-\

 

The problem with so many movements like Pro Life and Pro Choice, is that it's members become blinded to the real world.

Pro Choice groups need to recognize that once a fetus passes a certain state, it is a baby.

Pro Lifers need to yield to the choice of the mother in very early stages of development.

They need to argue over where to draw the lines instead of their all or nothing stances.

Obama is 110% pro choice which, for him, extends beyond the birth of the child.

 

Here is Obama caught on tape.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/baipaobamamp3.html

Here is a pretty sickening description of the process.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/stanek_on_the_o.html

 

In this specific case, the child had down syndrome, also called "trisomy 21", which is caused by an surplus chromosome and can rather easily be tested for (just count the number of chromosomes in a sample cell). A person with this genetic disorder suffers from mild to moderate mental disabilities.

Thats the problem with 3. trimester abortions: The child may survive the procedure if the physician botches (which this case is about). However, once it leaves the uterus, it is legally born and finishing the act would therefore technically no longer be an abortion, but in fact murder. "Forgetting" the child in a closet however is well ... a work around

And here I could not agree more with you. I am quite sick of arguing with prolifers and their insane propaganda. If Obama did what they say he did on that video, then he actually did the right thing. The point here is not women's choice, it's euthanasia. The child was born in a severely crippled state due to it's initial condition as well as the surgery and because of this whole religious crap about life being holy had to suffer for 45 minutes before it's body finally gave up. If something like that happens to your horse, you shoot it. With people however we insist on keeping them alive no matter what (which is quite ironic btw, as the whole Christian mentality is centered around a better live after mortal death).

In other way: That bill, Obama voted against was one of those things, causing other things to go from bad to worse. Another brilliant example of how good intentions lead to bad results, if people do not think before acting.

 

It is just incredible to find such insanity in this forum. Are you really comparing killing a baby with shooting a horse?

In this instance, it might seem humane because the baby sufferred from Down's Syndrome. I hope that you are not suggesting that it is the mother's choice to kill other babies.

Usually premature babies do not have sufficient lung development to survive outside the womb without being placed in an incubator. Premature babies often survive after being born as early as 26 weeks at our local hospital. My wife works in the complicated pregnancies unit, so I hear these stories a lot.

Many of these babies can live. There is plenty of loving couples in the world that would love to adopt. What would be the difference to the mother if the baby was given up for adoption?

I just cannot belive that anyone could ever justify letting a baby die.

 

Wow. I think that may of been the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on these forums.

 

No, I am pointing out, that we tend to be way more mercyfull towards our pets, then with our own kind. This 45 minutes in the closet was a cruel act, just delaying the inevitable. An abortion (if done properly) causes lethal damage to the fetus. Whatever went wrong in this case apparently resulted in the baby being born in the process of dying. The right thing to do would have been to end it and not prolong the suffering.

Unfortunately, those videos are rather sketchy about what happened exactly and what condition the baby was really in. Also I am not a native english speaker and quite tired at the moment (meaning: I have some trouble following the videos right now). What I gather however is, that the name of the nurse was "Jill Stanek" and a bit of googling turned this up (actually, she seems to be a pro-life icon by now):

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/stanekbakercongress.htm

Reading this testimony reveals, that J. Stanek is heavily biased towards prolife and deeply religious. The whole account she gives sounds extremely surreal (apparently everyone in her clinic was constantly running around with aborted babies in their pockets) and the procedures she describes do not match the descriptions given in wikipedea. It is blatantly obvious, that this person is trying to associate abortion clinics with the image of a slaughterhouse, which is an Appeal to emotion fallacy and costs her pretty much any credibility.

Edit: I have some serious doubts, that this closet story really happened that way.

All in all, you do not have to dig very deep to get the impression, that this whole thing here pretty much is nothing but a smut campaign. And before someone here calls me an Obama fanboy: I am not a US citizen and hence not a voter.

 

what a crap!

 

It is so nice to find people that I agree with, especially after reading this piece of horseshit. Did you even follow the link?

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/stanek_on_the_o.html

You have doubts? You think she is lying because she is pro life and deeply religious? She was the nurse on duty at the hospital. The baby died in her arms!

When God passed out brains, you thought he said "trains" and said, "No, Thank you!"

 

What Happened to "CHANGE", Sound like to me is being the same old same old as past demos. Does anyone disagree. He keeps saying "HOPE" for what, and "CHANGE" more like change back to the same old ways of the demos.

 

No, I did not, for the simple reason, that it is the first time, it is mentioned in this thread! I watched the video now, though.

Edit: My bad, I was just looking at the OP videos. Anyhow, yes I watched your video.

Yes, I have doubts and I very much think she is lying, because my experience is, that pro-lifers and religious people ( pro-life is a religious motivated movement in general) are known to use missinformation, deception and pretty much every logical fallacy on the planet if it helps their cause. The thing, that makes me skeptical about Jill Stanek is the fact, that every hospital has protocols for the handling of patients in order to safeguard against malpractice lawsuits. If what she told was true (and mind, she is not just talking about a single case, but claims such things happened on a regular basis), then I'd expect attorneys and health inspectors to stand in line to shut the hospital down. Apparently that did not happen. Also there has been an investigation about the matter, in which the claims she made could not be substantiated:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808200008?f=s_search

This alone makes J. Stanek quite dubious and questionable. Here is another source, showing how creditable she is:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808210078

And lastly, one highlight directly from the horses mouth:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/faithful_condom.html

She is supporting campaigns against the use of condoms! While condoms are certainly not the best form of protection, they offer at least some protection, which is better then no protection at all. These billboards are designed to give poorly educated people the impression, that in fact condoms are the cause of AIDS, so they would stop using them. This obviously does not help fight HIV.

Sorry, but here I find all my initial claims about pro-lifers using missinformation and deception confirmed. So in fact: Yes, I strongly believe, that J. Stanek is lying and therefore does not provide any grounds for further discussion.

I think I will pass back this compliment.

 

The only reason Obama was against it was because:

1) Similar bill already existed.
2) The new bill have other parts which would've limited abortion rights.

Although I personally don't agree with abortion when the fetus is alive, the above reasoning sounds OK for a Democrat.

Peace,

 

This is complete BS. It's just the neocons trying to twist an Obama vote into something it wasn't. LIE LIE LIE. The neocons keep lying and some of you keep buying it.

 

So are you saying Obama is against abortion?

 

I don't agree with all the "don't use condoms" rhetoric and I will not even try to argue in support of all the material you listed, but I don't think that any of the articles you quoted showed that she is a liar. Seemed like they were upset that she was quoted as a source and that the Washington Post supposedly only presented one side of a story. Finally you send me a link to a "don't use condoms" story which is not related to the topic at hand. Then because you don't agree with her position, you label her as a liar. I don't think this case would stand in a court of law.

Additionally, I cannot find any information where she states that the baby died in a janitors closet. Your first article quotes a blog twice saying that there was no evidence to suggest that any baby every died in a janitor's closet. But, Jill Stanek, herself states in the O'Rielly interview that she stopped an aide that was carrying a baby to the closet and held it in her arms until it died.

You have only presented peripheral information which leads you to believe that she is a chronic liar. Your case has no justification. Care to try again?

 

I haven't heard about this, but it doesn't surprise me. I would imagine it has something to do with partial birth abortion? This story was likely fabricated to show just what type of situation might arise with a positive vote on such an issue. There is absolutely no excuse, partial birth abortions should never happen in any case.