Believers in Obama

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

<devils advocate>

You earn your money but your body is a gift from God (and therefore subject to God's laws).

</devils advocate>

[rebeccajo 14]

<devils advocate>

You earn your money but your body is a gift from God (and therefore subject to God's laws).

</devils advocate>

Which God?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You will never be able to truly understand a person who chooses to have an abortion unless you've been in their shoes and had to make the choice. It's their body and their choice. Unless you want them to be able to decide what happens with your body then you can't argue with me.

The baby being aborted has a body, too, and it's being killed without a choice due to a self-serving mythology that it's:

1. not really alive;

2. only a clump of cells.

You're probably glad your mother didn't abort you.

Babies who survive abortion are NOT a clump of cells, neither are they dead until they re left to die without medical intervention, which OBAMA opposed.

<devils advocate>

You earn your money but your body is a gift from God (and therefore subject to God's laws).

</devils advocate>

Children are also a gift from God.

[rebeccajo 14]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

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

[Danno 1,228]

You will never be able to truly understand a person who chooses to have an abortion unless you've been in their shoes and had to make the choice. It's their body and their choice. Unless you want them to be able to decide what happens with your body then you can't argue with me.

There are laws concerning what you can do to your body all over the books, why

do some only focus on defending abortion?

Do you take a stand against minimum wage? (People do have a right to put there body to work at what ever wage THEY decide right?)

You must firmly stand for the rights of people to sell off spare organs?

And how is it prostitution is still so illegal with all of the people committed to "body rights"?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Additions to the information posted here:

Originally posted: August 14, 2008

Obama answers the 'baby killer!' brigade

The Obama campaign has responded to Jill Stanek's "Breaking news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill."

FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN:

I recent days the right wing blogosphere and rumor mongers have falsely accused Senator Obama of misrepresenting his position on “Born Alive” legislation. Please see the Fact Check below which documents that Senator Obama supported such legislation when it did not threaten the Constitutional rights embodied in Roe v Wade.

FACT CHECK: “BORN ALIVE” LEGISLATION

CLAIM: “Barack Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator. He spoke against the bill, calling it an “unnecessary burden” for women and voted against it three times. Despite that opposition, he has since declared support for the federal version of the same legislation that aims to protect newborn babies who survive abortions. After NARAL pulled its opposition to the legislation, Obama continued to oppose it. Obama has publicly stated he opposed the legislation due to its lack of a “neutrality clause” – language expressing that the bill had no bearing on the legal status of unborn children with regard to abortion.” [susan B. Anthony List press release, 8/12/08]

Fact: OBAMA OPPOSed State legislation which could have threatened Roe; Federal Bill Stripped out language that could have been used to challenge roe

The Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: “The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge” Roe V. Wade. “Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring ‘infanticide’ because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

· State And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language—IL Legislation Said “A Live Child” Born Under These Conditions Would Be “Fully Recognized as a Human Person.” The Illinois legislation read, “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.” The Federal legislation did not [sB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

· State And Federal Definitions Of “Born Alive” Differed. According to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, “born alive” was defined as “when applied to an individual organism of the species ** sapiens, each mean he or she was completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and after such separation breathed or showed evidence of any of the following: beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy and whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.” According to US Code, “As used in this section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species ** sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such 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.” [illinois Compiled Statutes; US Code]

· Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation Because it Could Not Be Used to Undermine Roe. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

Claim: “Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.” [susan B. Anthony List press release, 8/12/08]

FACT: There are MAJOR differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a“Neutrality Clause:”

[rebeccajo 14]

Obama did not oppose medical intervention. He allowed that medical intervention should be left to the decision of the physician.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm....I find it interesting with that logic. I cannot seem to make a connection between god and children because I can create a child whenever I want.

Extremism is very dangerous. Certain things in the world needs to be taken out of context. A true literal meaning is a detrimental interpretations of life. However, one cannot prove things based on science alone. There's always singularities in the universe that still need to be find.

Heck, we're so close to finding the link between the QED forces with that of gravity. This will provide us with a theory of everything. Until then, a higher being is used to provide comfort in our completeness in satisfaction of the universe.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Claim: "Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where "neutrality clause" language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the "neutrality clause," Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the 'neutrality clause.' The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports." [susan B. Anthony List press release, 8/12/08]

FACT: There are MAJOR differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a"Neutrality Clause:"

I don't get it. ROFL.

It looks like the focus is on this neutrality clause that is modified to match that of the federal bill. However, there are still more differences between the State and the Federal as this quote have been shown.

[Amby 490]

You will never be able to truly understand a person who chooses to have an abortion unless you've been in their shoes and had to make the choice. It's their body and their choice. Unless you want them to be able to decide what happens with your body then you can't argue with me.

Are you ready to take on VW, Amber? She doesn't mind telling you what to do with your body. But she doesn't want anybody screwing around with 'her' money.

Conflicting - no?

I'm ready to take her on

You will never be able to truly understand a person who chooses to have an abortion unless you've been in their shoes and had to make the choice. It's their body and their choice. Unless you want them to be able to decide what happens with your body then you can't argue with me.

The baby being aborted has a body, too, and it's being killed without a choice due to a self-serving mythology that it's:

1. not really alive;

2. only a clump of cells.

You're probably glad your mother didn't abort you.

so since you can decide what happens to my body does that mean I can just come over and chop off one of your limbs or something since that would be my decision about your body?

eta: the idea is just as silly as what you're fighting for

Edited October 27, 2008 by Amby

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so since you can decide what happens to my body does that mean I can just come over and chop off one of your limbs or something since that would be my decision about your body?

Only if you have reason to believe (you only have to believe it, you don't have to actually know it) that by cutting off her limb you will be saving the life of another organic life form of some kind.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

I will be posting the video for that last bolded part soon.

[Amby 490]

so since you can decide what happens to my body does that mean I can just come over and chop off one of your limbs or something since that would be my decision about your body?

Only if you have reason to believe (you only have to believe it, you don't have to actually know it) that by cutting off her limb you will be saving the life of another organic life form of some kind.

yes I have reason to believe that by cutting off her arms we would be saving the life of all of those people who want to have abortions

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so since you can decide what happens to my body does that mean I can just come over and chop off one of your limbs or something since that would be my decision about your body?

Only if you have reason to believe (you only have to believe it, you don't have to actually know it) that by cutting off her limb you will be saving the life of another organic life form of some kind.

yes I have reason to believe that by cutting off her arms we would be saving the life of all of those people who want to have abortions

Since this is a good cause, I will lend you a Klingon bat'leth.

[rebeccajo 14]

so since you can decide what happens to my body does that mean I can just come over and chop off one of your limbs or something since that would be my decision about your body?

Only if you have reason to believe (you only have to believe it, you don't have to actually know it) that by cutting off her limb you will be saving the life of another organic life form of some kind.

What if that limb could be used to save the life of someone who got their arm caught in a combine accident (combine as farm equipment)?