TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama on live abortions....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama on live abortions.... - Page 2

post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ping View Post
Not IMO. What we seem to be talking about is parents and doctors choosing not to use life saving measures. And as far as my knowledge goes thats perfectly legal.

Do I think its right that the premature child is placed in a soiled linen closet until it passes? No. I think even if the child was not wanted someone be it a nurse or volunteer or whatever should be there until said child passes. I don't feel one should be forced into using life saving measures (and 1,000's in bills) if that is not what they want.
No, it is not legal. A baby that is born alive is to be given medical care.

Public Law 107-207
U.S. Code
Title 1, Chapter 1: Rules of Construction
Section 8.
''Person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'' as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''born alive'', with respect to a member of the species homo 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.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.




I can't state this as fact because I don't know how the BAIPA works but it seems logical that once the birth mother refuses care for the baby that the baby would become a ward of the State and that the State would be responsible for any bills incurred in saving or attempting to save the baby's life.
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
I'm going to be slammed and this procedure is awful, but there are times it is used is when other options will do more damage to the mother's health. It is not the technique that is used for on-demand abortions. It isn't a procedure to be taken lightly. Laws continue take away doctors' options to address a serious health issue. So does he do a procedure that will put him in jail to save her life, or does he use a less effective procedure and risk her health?

It seems that in the abortion debate, the woman becomes a disposable vessel and should always be subordinate to a fetus. If she dies or has serious health issues for the rest of her life, who cares? The fetus is more important even if it isn't viable. She shouldn't have had a faulty pregnancy to begin with.
Yeah. That.

People act as though this is something that takes place as casually as a nose job or teeth bleaching. It's not something that is done by a reputable physician unless the situation is dire. And if the situation is dire, the woman comes first. Always and unapologetically.

That's when this is done.

Late-term abortion is used as propaganda by many (not ALL, so get off m'back) in the anti-choice movement. They hijack what is undoubtedly an extremely sad, difficult situation for everyone involved and politicize it for their own agenda. Gross, immoral, and unfathomable.

Nobody likes it. But when it's necessary, it's necessary, and I will always choose the life of the woman.

And I will be voting for Obama.
post #33 of 49
Obama's official position, and voting record, indicate that he wants to give states the right to decide for themselves whether to allow partial-birth abortions in instances where the mother's health is in danger.

I don't necessarily agree with him either, but this really isn't that big of a deal in choosing a president. The president will never be the last word on abortion, and nothing is going to go through congress anytime soon. If a case is brought before the Supreme Court, Bush had put so many blatantly conservative judges in place that anything regarding partial-birth or late-term abortions would likely go the way pro-lifers want it to.

So, this is in the not-really-an-issue category for this election.
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
The problems with laws like these is that everyone walks away thinking they are just great saving babies.

But they don't have to be there when the parents are faced with a baby that is too damaged to live but is forced on life support. Their agony is prolonged and they are left with 100s of $1000s of dollars of debt.


I don't think the reality of this is as simple and as black and white as people think it is. For some reason people get the idea that these are healthy women and babies we are talking about.
post #35 of 49
There is plenty of propaganda to go around on both sides of the abortion argument, including the propaganda used to convince people that late term abortions are only performed by ethical doctors whose only concern is for saving the life of the poor distraught dying mother.

But back to the topic of the thread, which was not Obama's position or voting record on abortion but the fact that "On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, "the words 'person,' 'human being,' 'child,' and 'individual' include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Two related bills introduced that day included slightly more controversial provisions about liability and medical procedure, but SB 1095 did not go nearly that far. This bill did not apply to those not born, nor did it grant born persons anything beyond recognition of their rights as persons.

Under this bill, SB 1095, babies born alive during an abortion would have to be treated just like every other baby that is born alive and prematurely — not left to die as at Christ Hospital, but given treatment according to an acting physician's medical judgment as to what is necessary and what is possible — the same standard that applies to any other human being." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jkyNmY=&w=MA==

A lot of people may be pro-choice, but many of those same people would have a problem with not giving medical care to a baby that was born alive, so it might be a non-issue to some of you, but it may not be a non-issue to others. Obama said that determining at what point a baby gets human rights was above his pay grade but apparently it wasn't above his pay grade when he was in the Illinois State Senate because he determined that a live-born baby did not deserve human rights.
post #36 of 49
But being born alive and being born with congenital defects that means the baby will be on life support for life is not up to the doctors to decide. It is up to the parents who will ultimately be responsible for the life and care of the child.
You can't usurp the rights of a parent when it comes to the care of their child and what they decide is in the best interest of a terminally ill baby.
post #37 of 49
Thankfully, all live-born babies have human rights since the passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Agree or disagree, it's the law.
post #38 of 49
I dont really buy this. Not once did they produce video of obama stating that he was for partial birth abortions and just letting the babies sit in linen and die. There is more to this story and I am sure they are twisting their words to make Obama look a lot worse.
post #39 of 49
There is more to the story - but some of the media, and anti-Obama folks, have either not read all the legislation (both federal and state), or have and are just hoping no one else does.
post #40 of 49
His official position: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

No matter how bad the neocons want to make this a divisive issue in this campaign, it just ain't. We have WAY bigger issues to worry about.

Besides, McCain doesn't give a hoot about it either, and won't change anything any more than Bush did. Like I pointed out before, abortion is not really an issue that can be decided by the president one way or another.
post #41 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
His official position: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

No matter how bad the neocons want to make this a divisive issue in this campaign, it just ain't. We have WAY bigger issues to worry about.

Besides, McCain doesn't give a hoot about it either, and won't change anything any more than Bush did. Like I pointed out before, abortion is not really an issue that can be decided by the president one way or another.

I don't see where it says in that link what his position is on partial-birth abortion or infanticide. It just said he's pro-choice.

But looking at his record in the Illinois senate, he does support both partial-birth abortion and infanticide. Its not a "neocon's" opinion, its a fact. And if you don't think this issue is going to have an effect on how people decide to vote, you might be surprised.
post #42 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by binkyhoo View Post
People its "You Tube" Is this where you get your news?
I really have a hard time accepting that Obama would let something like this go on. I also find it hard to believe these babies would just be left in a room to die.
post #43 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportBikeMike View Post
But looking at his record in the Illinois senate, he does support both partial-birth abortion and infanticide. Its not a "neocon's" opinion, its a fact. And if you don't think this issue is going to have an effect on how people decide to vote, you might be surprised.
No, I don't think I'll be surprised at all. The people who would allow a single issue to decide who they would vote for for president are not the sort who might vote for either side.

Infanticide is illegal, and has been since before Obama was born. Partial-birth abortion, on the other hand, he has said should be up to states to decide in cases where the mother's health was in danger, and he voted against any laws that did not include that specific provision.
post #44 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by darlili View Post
There is more to the story - but some of the media, and anti-Obama folks, have either not read all the legislation (both federal and state), or have and are just hoping no one else does.
I have read quite a bit on the topic of Obama's vote against IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I have posted information on this thread which I don't think some people have taken the time to read judging from the state of denial some appear to be in, or maybe it's just so horrific that people don't want to believe it. Please share with us what more there is to the story.
post #45 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
No, I don't think I'll be surprised at all. The people who would allow a single issue to decide who they would vote for for president are not the sort who might vote for either side.
i will be voting, & while a single issue might not decide me... all other things being equal, this would be a deal-breaker.
of course, all other things are not equal - for me, this is just 1 of the several reasons i will not be voting for him.
post #46 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
i will be voting, & while a single issue might not decide me... all other things being equal, this would be a deal-breaker.
of course, all other things are not equal - for me, this is just 1 of the several reasons i will not be voting for him.
That is exactly my point. The people for whom this matters that much wouldn't be voting for him anyway.
post #47 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecanopener View Post
I have read quite a bit on the topic of Obama's vote against IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I have posted information on this thread which I don't think some people have taken the time to read judging from the state of denial some appear to be in, or maybe it's just so horrific that people don't want to believe it. Please share with us what more there is to the story.
Denial indeed.

This thread is not about abortion rights. It is about human rights. Is a child who is born alive despite being aborted, entitled to medical care and being treated with dignity and compassion, simply because he or she is a human being? The majority of democrats, even those who are staunchly pro-choice said "yes". Obama said "no".

Thecanopener has posted excellent information in this thread which does, in fact, seem to have been largely ignored. So, understanding that this is basically an exercise in futility, fwiw...


http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-...abortion/84059
post #48 of 49
I read canopener's information, I just don't interpret it the same way. I know the National Review is a conservative news source so I don't believe the wording in their articles are just straight journalism. It is highly editorialized.
I happen to agree with some things in the National Review at times but this is not one of them.
Once I did some further digging like I said there is more to the story. They are not talking about viable fetuses who with medical intervention are able to live.

It is a red herring kind of argument.
post #49 of 49
There is so much information available to anybody who wants to learn. If people choose to believe that all of the aborted babies who end up being born alive are non-viable, who am I to shatter that fantasy? Maybe other people will continue to read.

Induced labor abortions happen late term. It's illogical to think that none of the live-born babies would survive if given medical care but even if they didn't survive, they deserve to be given the chance. That is all the Illinois bill did and Obama voted against it. It's such a horrible concept that Obama himself has continually tried to deny it.

From the Sun article posted by KTLynn.
"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

The Obama campaign finally had to come clean.

"Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate...".

The Induced Birth Infant Liability Act http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legi...SB1661LV.htmln passed after Obama left the Illinois State Senate.


Other items I thought were interesting.

"The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous."

http://www.nysun.com/national/younge...miracle/49036/

Amillia's mother tells her story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...life-odds.html

"The Florida baby that had been called the “youngest surviving preemie†has turned 1.
Amillia Taylor was born at 21 weeks 6 days weighing 10ozs in Miami Florida last year.
It was amazing that the baby was even resuscitated because:

'The American Association of Pediatrics says that babies born at less than 23 weeks of age and 400g in weight are not considered viable. The survival rate for a child born at 23 weeks and weighing a pound is just 30 per cent'."

http://growingyourbaby.com/category/...ies/22-weeker/

Amillia wasn't considered "viable" but with medical care she lived didn't she? That link has other stories of very premature babies surviving so be sure to read those if you're interested.

For people who think late term abortions are only performed on mothers who are dying or carrying babies with severe abnormalities.

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library.../aa080700a.htm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama on live abortions....