Believers in Obama

[Niels Bohr 72]

I gota give VW some credit for being able to tolerate the retaliation. However, I still disagree with her views or his views due to the fact that it's from someone else and without any credit to factual, or any key evidence that could sway a voter.

But, if VW wants McCain. Have it her/his way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

NickD, I was born before Roe v. Wade and know how it cae about and about back alley abortions. I know its history. I also know the history since then. I also know obfuscation when I see it. The current issue is how Obama opposed legislation designed to protect post first term babies born alive during an abortion.

Obama is more pro-abortion than NARAL:

Wednesday, June 20, 2001

Opinion

NARAL Says It Does Not Oppose Born Alive Infants Act, Calls Bill 'Trap' to Put Abortion-Rights Supporters on Defensive

Despite a report by the Washington Times that several abortion-rights organizations, including the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, oppose the recently reintroduced Born Alive Infants Protection Act (S 1050/HR 2175), NARAL has indicated in a statement that it does not oppose the bill. Introduced on Friday in the Senate by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) and in the House by Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Melissa Hart (R-Penn.) and Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), the bill would "grant federal protection to newborns who are fully outside the mother, regardless of their stage of development" ( Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 6/15). The bill defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother ... a member of the species ** sapiens ... 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, Caesarean section or induced abortion" (S 1050/HR 2175 bill text, 6/20). In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose" (NARAL release, 6/13). NARAL explains in its "Congressional Record on Choice," "In response [to the Supreme Court decision striking down Nebraska's "partial-birth" abortion ban, anti-choice lawmakers launched a new attack through the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation ... seeks to further mischaracterize Roe v. Wade to the American public as a decision that has recently been 'expanded' to the point that newborn infants are now at risk. Although the legislation [is] statutorily unnecessary because newborn infants already receive full legal protection (and thus NARAL did not oppose its final passage), [when introduced last year] it was openly used by its anti-choice sponsors to lure pro-choice lawmakers and advocates into the trap of defending against their preposterous mischaracterizations of the current state of abortion-rights law" (NARAL "Congressional Record on Choice 106th Congress, 2nd Session," January 2000).

[Danno 1,228]

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

It would seem to me.... a bit of conflict of interest would reside with that concept.

Woman come to Doc to abort Jr.

Doc collects said money and gets to work.

Somehow Jr comes out alive.

Does doc inform the lady patient that he somehow did not perform a "clean Kill" thereby sending the patient into hysterics or does he "snuff-out" this little Mis-hap?

How does leaving treatment of the live-born baby in the hands of the doctor serve anyones' interest but his?

Once the baby is independent of the Mother, doesn't it have rights?

How long must the child be breathing air before the child enjoys the same rights as the mother?

(Rights over it's own body)

[Morning Sunshine 0]

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.

Exactly who is doing the killing? Is Obama forcing this woman to kill her own baby? Exactly what are you proposing, you have this innate ability to make statements with zero common sense, logic, suppositions, but not spelling out the detail.

Are you suggesting that if this woman begs for an abortion, has one, that Obama or any other leader kill her too?

Frankly, you do not know your history, a major reason for the 5-4 supreme court decision as narrow as it was, was to save women's life from back alley abortions. And are abortions really an issue? Happen to live very close to an extremely large medical complex and know for a fact zero abortions are performed there. There are no laws that force a medical institution to perform abortions. Even dated a couple of women that had messed up abortions, broke down in complete tears and confessed they couldn't have children. But perhaps that isn't enough for you, we should try them for murder as well.

You are very strong on your opinions, just wonder if you are making a living at it. But if you want an issue, drop abortions and become anti-war, totally disgusted we have a leadership that used lies for an imperialistic action of this once great country, this is not an America I want to continuer. War in history never has solved anything, but always money for war, very little for the good of people. This trend has got to end.

NickD - right on!

PlatypiusFace and VirtualBrat

Accept reality! Obama will win....oh and I will go away.....but I will be back to congratulate you on your new president!

It's all about change!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

~Obama for 2008~

What will you do when he wins the election? What will you post at that time? LOL

I'm hoping she'll go away.

Hope all you want. It's not bringing about that change.

Yes, I should go away so those of you who have successfully bullied others who disagree with you can have the board to your group-think selves. There aren't that many of you bullies and I can't imagine why anyone cares that you don't like them if they disagree with you.

[Amby 490]

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

It would seem to me.... a bit of conflict of interest would reside with that concept.

Woman come to Doc to abort Jr.

Doc collects said money and gets to work.

Somehow Jr comes out alive.

Does doc inform the lady patient that he somehow did not perform a "clean Kill" thereby sending the patient into hysterics or does he "snuff-out" this little Mis-hap?

How does leaving treatment of the live-born baby in the hands of the doctor serve anyones' interest but his?

Once the baby is independent of the Mother, doesn't it have rights?

How long must the child be breathing air before the child enjoys the same rights as the mother?

(Rights over it's own body)

Ok soooo...I've had an abortion and I was awake and I saw the "stuff" and it would have been pretty damn obvious if it was alive. If you have a late term abortion they inject saline (I could be wrong on the exact thing they inject) into your uterus to kill the fetus before it even comes out. Really one of the only times a partial birth abortion would be performed is if there was something wrong with the fetus and it dies in the womb. You people are insane.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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

It would seem to me.... a bit of conflict of interest would reside with that concept.

Woman come to Doc to abort Jr.

Doc collects said money and gets to work.

Somehow Jr comes out alive.

Does doc inform the lady patient that he somehow did not perform a "clean Kill" thereby sending the patient into hysterics or does he "snuff-out" this little Mis-hap?

How does leaving treatment of the live-born baby in the hands of the doctor serve anyones' interest but his?

Once the baby is independent of the Mother, doesn't it have rights?

How long must the child be breathing air before the child enjoys the same rights as the mother?

(Rights over it's own body)

Obama's stance is that the doctor and mother have ALREADY decided that the baby must die, so saving it is contrary to their plan. He opposed having a neutral physician examine the live birth and assess its viability, choosing instead to support the clear conflict of interest that would put the abortionist in the position of admitting he did a poor job killing the child, who was still alive, opening him up to medical liability.

Doing nothing to save it relived the abortionist of that conflict and followed thru with the plan to be rid of the child. Leaving the choice up to the abortionist, whose JOB is to kill babies, is a definite conflict of interest.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You people are insane.

There must be quite a few insane legislators since bills to protect the rights of babies born alive during abortions are a reality.

[rebeccajo 14]

Obama's stance is that the doctor and mother have ALREADY decided that the baby must die, so saving it is contrary to their plan. He opposed having a neutral physician examine the live borth and assess its viability, choosing instead to support the clearly conflict of interest that would put the abortionist in the position of admitting he did a poor job killing the child, who was still alive, opening him up to medical liability.

Doing nothing to save it relived the abortionist of that conflict and followed thru with the plan to be rid of the child. Leaving the choice up to the abortionist, whose JOB is to kill babies, is a definite conflict of interest.

Only if you're trying to write laws with conflict with the premise of Roe.

[Danno 1,228]

Obama's stance is that the doctor and mother have ALREADY decided that the baby must die, so saving it is contrary to their plan. He opposed having a neutral physician examine the live borth and assess its viability, choosing instead to support the clearly conflict of interest that would put the abortionist in the position of admitting he did a poor job killing the child, who was still alive, opening him up to medical liability.

Doing nothing to save it relived the abortionist of that conflict and followed thru with the plan to be rid of the child. Leaving the choice up to the abortionist, whose JOB is to kill babies, is a definite conflict of interest.

Only if you're trying to write laws with conflict with the premise of Roe.

Speaking of Preserving Roe.

It's interesting to know the landmark case Roe v wade ended in the Woman never getting the Abortion, and she is committed to the pro-life work.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Danno

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Tamara, u mentioned God, u bad girl. That's like chumming the water for sharks when libs r involved

Even after the wording of the bill was changed to reflect the federal Born Alive bill, Obama STILL voted against it. He didn't want it, period. As he has said, don't punish a woman with a baby, and that's how he voted.

Oh, and you fear God too?

But you come here telling lies about another human?

Where did Obama say this?

You still haven't given a source for your first set of lies.

Go ahead...keep drinking that HaterAid...and calling yourself a child of GOD.

As he has said, don't punish a woman with a baby,

Obama's stance is that the doctor and mother have ALREADY decided that the baby must die, so saving it is contrary to their plan. He opposed having a neutral physician examine the live borth and assess its viability, choosing instead to support the clearly conflict of interest that would put the abortionist in the position of admitting he did a poor job killing the child, who was still alive, opening him up to medical liability.

Doing nothing to save it relived the abortionist of that conflict and followed thru with the plan to be rid of the child. Leaving the choice up to the abortionist, whose JOB is to kill babies, is a definite conflict of interest.

Only if you're trying to write laws with conflict with the premise of Roe.

Speaking of Preserving Roe.

It's interesting to know the landmark case Roe v wade ended in the Woman never getting the Abortion, and she is committed to the pro-life work.

Yes, she is. She would prefer that the decision that began with her, end with her.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe today

[IAMX 3,055]

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.

Not everyone believes what you do, thus when it comes to an individual's body, they are not subject to your beliefs.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I gota give VW some credit for being able to tolerate the retaliation. However, I still disagree with her views or his views due to the fact that it's from someone else and without any credit to factual, or any key evidence that could sway a voter.

But, if VW wants McCain. Have it her/his way.

Let's see, in addition to commentary, I posted audio of him expressing his opposition to a neutral physician to examine the baby, transcripts from legislative session, and other such material, but it is not enough. It swayed me, but then, I'm not drunk on kool-aid.

[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.

Not everyone believes what you do, thus when it comes to an individual's body, they are not subject to your beliefs.

I have posted in response to a request by Ling Ling regarding Barack Obama's position on live birth abortion. I'm not a legislator, so no one subject to my beliefs. I think that is a rhetorical statement on your part. Yet, we are subject to the beliefs of our political leaders. It's best that we be aware of what they are. Our media, so deep in the bag for Obama, has not served us professionally, examinng issues and asking the hard questions. I do my own research and determine for myself, as you are also free to do.