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

The condoms story is very related, because this is a question of credibility. As a nurse she should know better then to support "don't use condoms" campaigns, which have no grounds to stand on except religious dogma. By demonstrating, that she cares more for dogma then for peoples welfare, she completely disqualifies herself as a health care provider and unveils herself as a religious zealot.

To put it into very simple words, even you should be able to understand: This person is willing to support fundraising for wantonly negligent campaigns, that actually kill people. Meaning she will stop at nothing to push her agenda. Such a person does not have any credibility to begin with, her failure to substantiate her claims, she testified about and the rather awkwardness of the story she told do the rest. In a court of law, she would fail miserably. No sane lawyer would put her on the witness stand (go ask one!).

It does not take much to realize, that Stanek is willing and able to deliberately spread misinformation, which btw. is mentioned in the blogposts, I gave you.

Actually no. It seems to take dynamite to get common sense through your skull, which in this case is not to blindly trust witness accounts, if the witness herself has something at stake (also something every lawyer can tell you).

 

Look like you are going to believe what you want no matter what anyone says, anyway.

I sure hope your kid never breaks his leg.

 

Of course not. He is pro choice (as am I) but that has nothing to do with killing "live babies." Get a grip.

 

Addendum concerning common sense:

McCain is known for his intent to overturn Roe vs. Wade (I wonder of prolife would finally get the negative PR it deserves, once slums start to grow in america like in the third world), which is a wet dream for zealots like Stanek.

What Obama did was speaking against a bill, which already existed in a similar version. This speaking against is now exaggerated into a support for infanticide, in order to shift popularity towards McCain. In other words: This is just a smear campaign, the oldest trick in the book and sadly people fall for it. And to repeat: Thats exactly that kind of dishonesty, that makes me not believe anything, people like Stanek say.

 

It would require you to remember your first post in this thread. I guess I assumed too much. Sorry.

This nation will never get along as long as everyone is so divisive. Everyone should have the common sense to allow a baby to live once it leaves the womb. Are we really going to have to have a discussion about how long a child must live on it's own before you feed it? So if a mother's choice is not to have a baby and yet, it lives, do you guys really still think it is a valid choice for the mother just to let it die? Maybe if you announce to the world that you are not giving birth, you are aborting, that you will somehow be allowed to let it die? Or do you have to be a doctor to let it die? That is what you "pro choicers" are advocating here.

 

Abortion has nothing to do with killing babies?

 

I remember my first post very well, thank you. And I thought I made my position very clear, that I am against torturing to death. Is the concept of allowing to die without suffering, if death in inevitable really so hard to grasp? Do I have to draw a diagram for you to understand that? Maybe, if I try it very slowly:

1. Abortion is botched
2. Child gets born, mortally wounded as a result of the botching and is beyond help.
3. Being born, the child is considered a person and as such killing it would be murder.
4. Child is left to die from it's injuries.
5. Body breaks down slowly.
6. Child dies.

I am talking about cutting out steps 4 and 5. Got it now? It is not even a question of abortion. It is a question of euthanasia.

 

Ahhh, sarcasm...

Well, there are still several problems with your position.

[BEGIN INSANE PROLIFER PROPAGANDA]

1) The abortion could only be called "botched" because the baby lived. No malpractice suit on these grounds.
2) I cannot find any reference to your claim that the baby was mortally wounded. If you can, then please site your reference.

It is at that point that the rest of your statements have no merit. Premature babies born as early as 26 weeks survive on a regular basis. Of course the longer that a mother carries her child, the better chance for survival. Babies born this early usually have an underdeveloped respiratory system and will die without oxygen, not because of injuries, so being left to die of oxygen starvation instead of placing the baby in an incubator cannot really be considered humane, can it?

Jack Kevorkian spent time in prison for euthanasia. That would tell me that it is not legal. You just can't do that.

Yes, I know that the baby had Down's Syndrome, but who's to say if it would have enjoyed it's life.

As it turns out, this is a fairly common practice in abortion clinics. This is only one case we are discussing here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Baby+left+to+die+after+abortion

[/END INSANE PROLIFER PROPAGANDA]

EDIT: You know the article never states the age of the baby. If this baby was under 24 weeks there was no way to save it anyway and we are arguing over nothing.

 

It has nothing to do with killing live babies. A baby isn't a baby until it's born - otherwise it is what is known as a fetus.

Science: look into it.

 

Killing is killing. To take a life of an unborn child is wrong. Just remember you were unborn once as well and it would have been wrong for you to be murdered.

If an unborn baby is murdered by a drunk driver the drive could be charged with the death.

 

This was a general statement on the assumption, that a botched abortion fails to kill the fetus before it is removed from the uterus, but leaves enough damage to make death inevitable.

When I read the OP, I had the saline injection in mind, as the mechanical abortion methods should ensure, that no living baby is born. Since the salt burns the whole skin as well as inner organs like the lungs, I'd consider such damage to be quite lethal and beyond saving by an incubator (because of lung damage).

Yes, unfortunately! It is a shame, how we have to torture people to death instead and this is nothing to be proud of.

Please stop fantasizing about the fetus already being the person, it might develop into some day. It is not so yet and being born with Down syndrome means you can expect anything from being socially isolated to becoming a nursing case. Some existences are simply something you do not force into being, if you actually care for the later child's welfare.

Uh-hm ... Lets see, the first hit turns up an article about 66 cases in Britain, with nearly 200k of abortions in total for the same year, this amounts to 0.03% ... quite common, I must say.

Granted, the numbers will look differently, if compared to the amount of late term abortions, but since these are generally done for medical reasons (that is: a serious health risk for either mother or baby) and not for "oops, I got pregnant again", this just screams "change of procedure" to me. And no, I will not even discuss single cases, where the decision was made on seemingly low risk. Risk evaluation is the job of doctors.

 

The republicans have to wake urban legends alive...

 

I guess Obama is prolife when it comes to convicted felons. Unborn vs. convicted scum.

That is a weird way to choose.

 

So this entire line of defense is based on an incorrect assumption? I saw no reference to saline injections. Maybe you are saying that in cases where the physician mutilates the baby beyond repair, that we should not try to save it? What is your view when that is NOT the case? I'm hoping to find some common ground here.

Well, I'm not sure that I would call it torture, but one person cannot legally kill another, no matter what the reason. That said, I agree that there are many cases where it would be more humane to allow euthanasia.

Fantasy? No. Here is a reference to Illinois law, which is Obama's home state that does not agree with you.

Source

Here is the supporting text from the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002

Source

Hmmm... I'm trying to understand your point here. I agree that late term abortions should only be allowed for medical reasons, but aren't we discussing the infants (is that a better word for you?) that survive in spite of the reason for the abortion?

 

Dictionary: look into it.

This is really in dispute. Dictionary.com defines a baby as "a human fetus" Source

Other sources do not include use the term "fetus" in this manner.

Would anyone here agree that a fetus is an unborn baby?

 

When I made that argument, I thought the only way to abort without making sure, the fetus is dead was saline injection, as all mechanical methods dismember the body. Drug induced labor did not cross my mind then as an option.

While I wouldn't quite use the term "damaged beyond repair", that is in essence, what I meant, when I made that statement. Anyway, I do not see this as a political matter any more then putting pressure on medical research to come up with procedures actually ensuring, that no abortion ends in a born alive situation (which should be fairly simple).

Person as in "personality", that is someone you could actually communicate with. Not person as in legal personhood. The thing you simply cannot do is ask a fetus "do you want to live" and then give yourself an answer based on the assumption of who that fetus might be at an age where it could rationalize the question.

My point is: Late term abortions are in reality only performed for medical reasons (in which case it's always a go for me). A woman not wanting a child does not wait till the third trimester to get it removed (yes, there might be exceptions, but laws are not made for single cases) and personally I think making laws about dealing with born alive situations is putting the cart in front of the horse. They should (and can be) prevented in the first place by simply modifying the medical procedures.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be done, as making abortions more "humane" would automatically make prolifers come up with "wait a minute, you want to make it more humane? Doesn't that mean, you agree with the fetus being a human? Drop that scalpel at once you murdering bastard". Funny, ain't it?

 

Well, since you need the qualifier "unborn" to describe a fetus as a baby, this means a fetus is not a born baby and hence whatever is in the womb is of a different quality then what is in the cradle and hence both things cannot be equal.

But thats really a matter of playing with words and definitions. I am not really interested in continueing it.

 

I would like to point out to the OP that Jefferson was a liberal, and the Founders generally were into Liberalism.

It was not the New Dealism, or soft socialism you see today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

So you are saying, yes, my assumption was incorrect.

That is where you lose all reason. When a woman states "don't tell me what to do with my body", we have to listen up to a point. That point is defined by Roe v Wade, but now you assume the role of God or of an executioner by deciding that any unborn baby should die if we are going to do an abortion. It doesn't matter to you whether the baby could live, just kill it before it has a chance to be a person.

Incredible. You argue that we cannot assume that the baby will want to live, so let it die.

It is simply abhorrent to hear you try to justify killing babies that could be saved. You are a very sick person. You would kill instead of giving the baby a chance for life under the guise of being humane. You voice so much hatred of prolifers that you can't even see what you have become.

Duh... A born baby is not the same as an unborn baby? Thanks for the insight.

You are a very sick person. You are not pro choice, you are pro death. Satan has saved a special spot for you.