Obama: Infanticide...

[amicus]

Just watched a piece on, yup, you guessed it, Fox, Hannity & Colmes, that was truly heart wrenching.

This young woman survived an attempted abortion at seven and a half months, by saline injection into the womb, was born alive weighing two pounds after 18 hours of labor, the abortion doctor was not present so she was rushed by ambulance to a hospital and placed in an incubator.

Obama has voted against legislation that would sustain the life of an aborted child that survives the attempt, four separate times.

Yes...this is a hot button issue, I know it, but again, I am the messenger, I didn't make the news item, just repeating it here.

As Roe v Wade, the abortion issue, is a 'litmus test', on this forum, perhaps this is time for a few to rethink their basic positions.

This issue, which is divisive in American society, should be of equal controversy on any forum site worth its salt, if we are playing on a level surface.

That this forum is so heavily weighted to the left, that never happens here, in my several years I can barely remember a handful of posters that defended the pro life position.

Why is that?

Since there seems to be wide spread hysteria as the campaign winds down, it is also fitting to mention the cover photo of Atlantic Magazine that was retouched by the photographer to make John McCain appear as 'evil' and admitted it on her blogsite.

The magazine is preparing an apology and may press charges against the rogue photographer.

Curious, eh?

Amicus....

 

[SeaCat]

Ami,

I have made my position clear on this several times in the past and while I know it is not popular I will do so once again.

I am a firm believer in a persons personal freedoms. Therefore I strongly support Roe vs. Wade.

That being said I do not believe in Abortion as a method of Birth Control. In my personal opinion it should be used to abort pregnancies caused by Rape or Incest or in the case of a woman's health being threatened by the pregnancy. (In rare cases I support it in the termination of a fetus that is going to be terribly disfigured or handicapped. ie. Bands.)

Those though are my personal beliefs on it. I can't logicly support them without supporting a womans right to abortion.

As for my personal feelings on those who are strongly against abortion, well I have stated those quite clearly here as well and received plenty of hate mail about them.

Cat

 

[TheEarl]

The problem with the abortion issue is that it's so bloody polarised that it's very difficult to try and take a moderate position. If you're pro-life, then you're accused by one wing of denying the rights of women. If you're pro-choice, then you're accused by the other of infanticide.

Myself, I would view that abortion limits are at the moment way too late, as babies can survive outside the womb (although it's very unlikely) beyond the last legal abortion point. That to me would suggest that they are alive. However, I thoroughly disagree with the idea that life begins at conception and believe completely that a woman has more rights than a potential person (otherwise, why should any attempt at sex be denied. It's stopping a potential person from existing!). So I get accused (by extremists) of both limiting women's rights and of infanticide.

On a tangent: I was talking about American politics with my mum the other day and happened to mention one of Sarah Palin's trump cards in that she has "walked the walk" when it comes to the abortion issue in choosing to continue a pregnancy that would result in a baby with a severe disability. My mum pointed out that it's a lot easier for a wealthy politician to have a baby with a disability than it is for someone whose only option of caring for it would be to give up work and live off benefits.

The Earl

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My position, and the position of the majority of Americans according to polls, is the same as Sea Cats. Unfortunately, the 'bully pulpits' on this issue belong only to the extremists of both sides.

 

[DG Hear]

Ami,

I have made my position clear on this several times in the past and while I know it is not popular I will do so once again.

I am a firm believer in a persons personal freedoms. Therefore I strongly support Roe vs. Wade.

That being said I do not believe in Abortion as a method of Birth Control. In my personal opinion it should be used to abort pregnancies caused by Rape or Incest or in the case of a woman's health being threatened by the pregnancy. (In rare cases I support it in the termination of a fetus that is going to be terribly disfigured or handicapped. ie. Bands.)

Those though are my personal beliefs on it. I can't logicly support them without supporting a womans right to abortion.

As for my personal feelings on those who are strongly against abortion, well I have stated those quite clearly here as well and received plenty of hate mail about them.

Cat

Cat, I pretty much agree with you. I don't believe in abortion and luckily no one in my family has ever chosen it. I honesty believe that it shouldn't be a political issue what so ever. It should be a private choice between a woman and her doctor.

No outside interference by outsiders. I also believe that if the woman/girl is a minor that her parents have a right to know. They are still responsible for her.
DG

 

[amicus]

Thank you both, SeaCat and The Earl, long time no see...

It is the 'down and dirty' season for this campaign, nothing new, it happens every four years, which I am certain is amusing to most of the world looking on.

I am not going to debate the abortion issue with anyone, but for clarification, human life, life, is the basic and fundamental right of all humans, regardless of what political system they are born or live under.

Without that innate and unalienable right to live, no other rights are possible. My stand is not one of belief, but of reason and logic and it follows in rational order that a woman's reproductive rights, the right to choose, are secondary to the new life's right to live.

I realize that conflicts with even moderate views such as SeaCat's who can not countenance the results of rape or incest. However, those circumstances do not override the right of the new life to exist.

Again, I appreciate your contribution and the manner in which you expressed your opinion.

Amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

Nice to be back Amicus. I notice you've been keeping busy.

Without that innate and unalienable right to live, no other rights are possible. My stand is not one of belief, but of reason and logic and it follows in rational order that a woman's reproductive rights, the right to choose, are secondary to the new life's right to live.

I realize that conflicts with even moderate views such as SeaCat's who can not countenance the results of rape or incest. However, those circumstances do not override the right of the new life to exist.

Again, I appreciate your contribution and the manner in which you expressed your opinion.

Amicus...

Where does new life begin though? Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at fertilisation of an egg, or at implantation of a zygote? Does it begin at the start of sex? Does it begin at the decision to use or not to use contraception? Does it start when the girl and guy both assent to sex? Does it start when the guy or girl ask the partner out? At which point does choosing against pregnancy become denying the rights of a new life?

If you can claim to answer that question with a 100% certainty, then you're either a fool, a liar or God.

The Earl

 

[SeaCat]

Now the other thing to remember here is the flip side of the coin. The Right to Die.

Both are Hot Button Topics, although the later is rarely talked about in politics

There are many arguments both for and against both, and on both as Ami has noted I am a moderate.

Oh and Earl, Welcome. I haven't seen you in a while and have missed you.

Cat

 

[Pure]

note

obama and infanticide,
obama as muslim,

etc. etc. sounds pretty desperate.

ami as pro life? gimme a break. he favors measures that INCREASE teen pregnancies, some of which lead to abortions. he opposes sex ed in the public schools, and making birth control methods, e.g. condoms and pills available to teens.

he favors the present US approaches to infant mortality, giving the US one of the worst records among advanced nations, and excess deaths, over what occurs in these countries, of over 10,000 babies per yer.

we needn't even get into his sympathies with genocidal measures against native children and slave children in the old South.

his views are those of such death-dealing theocrats as Jerry Falwell.

 

[amicus]

Nice to be back Amicus. I notice you've been keeping busy.

Where does new life begin though? Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at fertilisation of an egg, or at implantation of a zygote? Does it begin at the start of sex? Does it begin at the decision to use or not to use contraception? Does it start when the girl and guy both assent to sex? Does it start when the guy or girl ask the partner out? At which point does choosing against pregnancy become denying the rights of a new life?

If you can claim to answer that question with a 100% certainty, then you're either a fool, a liar or God.

The Earl

~~~

Well, Earl, I would prefer not to be any of the above...but I will offer, if not an answer, then a means to arrive at one.

Those pesky scientists, if I watched the programs with accuracy, are able to use electron microscopy and actually watch the division of cells whenever the first division after fertilization occurs.

Within that very first division of cells is contained the complete DNA and genetic and chromosomal blueprint for the human that will emerge after a successful period of time.

Medical science holds no doubt or question that life begins at the instant of conception; it can be defined as nothing else, it ain't gonna be a grape.

There are those that can tell you the percentage of fertilized eggs that fail to mature, I cannot, and those who can speak of the frequency of spontaneous abortions, I can't do that either.

To me, it is not a difficult or complex question, life begins at conception.

Dunno if you have or want children, but the process, for this old atheist, is rather a miraculous event and for many or most, take your pick, is a joyous moment in a couple's life.

And, I might add, to bolster my case; that new life is totally unique...never before in all the history of humanity will or has that event been repeated.

Of course, this position tucks in quite nicely with the political and sociological aspects of existence, that of the individual, liberty, freedom and all those virtues that a large part of civilized men hold as values.

So, I guess that is as well as I can make that point in an extemporaneous manner without references.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

A fetus is viable at 24 weeks. I am not going to site chapter and verse of where to find this information, but if you are really needing it go and check the AMA site and books.

Viable is defined as:

• viable (adj.) Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
• viable (adj.) Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
• viable (adj.) Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

There have been LESS then a handful of cases where a fetus survived outside of the womb before that time, but those were considered EXTREMELY rare.

I am Pro Choice.
I have been that way my entire remembrance of having a thought about this subject. I do not believe in abortions as a form of contraceptive. However, I will not deny the right of ANY woman, whether she is 50 or 10, the right to decide what to do with her body.

I cannot and absolutely will refuse to vote for anyone that is pro-life. My reasoning is simple. The majority of their belief system is that they feel that ANY time a woman gets pregnant she must keep the fetus to term and then decide what to do with it.

ANYTIME!!!
Rape... yep
Incest... yep
Mother's life is in jeopardy.... yep
fetus's future life in jeopardy... yep
severe birth defects... yep

I do not have the right nor does anyone else have the right to tell a rape victim that she must carry the fetus that was created in her body due to extreme violence to term. I do not have the right nor does anyone else to tell a 10 year old girl that because her Dad/Uncle/Brother/Grandfather/etc got her pregnant that she has to carry that fetus to term. I do not have the right to tell a woman who knows that carrying that fetus to term has the potential to kill her... or that the fetus will not make it to term for whatever medical reason.... to tell that women that she must carry to term whether or not she will die or whether or not the fetus will die within her body.

I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Neither do YOU.

I believe in age appropriate education. I believe in contraceptives. I believe in Family Planning clinics. I believe in the morning after pill. I believe in the right to choose to have an abortion if the choice is needed. And I even believe in adoption when or if that comes up.

I also know two things for an absolute fact:
1. I would not be alive today if abortions were illegal. "to protect the life of the mother...."
2. I could potentially have an almost 3 year old if the morning after pill was not legal. "in the case of a rape..."

 

[sr71plt]

Obama has voted against legislation that would sustain the life of an aborted child that survives the attempt, four separate times.

I quite agree. I think any child who survives four separate abortion attempts deserves his/her own piece of legislation. Maybe even a round of applause.

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

A fetus is viable at 24 weeks. I am not going to site chapter and verse of where to find this information, but if you are really needing it go and check the AMA site and books.

Viable is defined as:

• viable (adj.) Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
• viable (adj.) Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
• viable (adj.) Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.

There have been LESS then a handful of cases where a fetus survived outside of the womb before that time, but those were considered EXTREMELY rare.

I know a set of triplets born before 24 weeks. They are now 8 years old. At the time, they were the youngest surviving preemies at that particular hospital, but I've been told that record has been broken since then. It's not as rare as people think.

I'm pro-life, but I'm not getting into an argument about it. I know I'm not going to change a pro-choicers mind, and they aren't going to change mine, so there's no point in discussing it.

 

[sr71plt]

I know I'm not going to change a pro-choicers mind, and they aren't going to change mine, so there's no point in discussing it.

Bingo. And it's only brought up here so everyone would be at each other's throats in another useless round of yammering that won't change anyone's mind.

 

[Carnevil9]

It is incredibly clear to me: since abortion is NEVER mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it is clearly a State's Rights issue (as explicitly described in the 9th and 10th amendments). Therefore, Feds have no place issuing an opinion, let alone a law. Let the several states decide each for themselves.....Carney (still a Federalist, after all these years)

 

[Pure]

carnevil

good point. a princpled 'pro life' person who believed in smaller fed'l govt would support leaving abortion laws to the states.

yet few prolife on the right, do. i'm speculating, but i'd say NOT more than 20% pro lifer persons who label themselves evangelical or conservative are supportiv of a states right approach.

conclusion; your standard right winger, including most pro life right wingers wants INCREASED powers of the federal government. for these persons, moral issues call out their 'statist' tendencies.

there was a time, of course, where what you suggest, held true; i'm guessing about 1970 New York had more liberal laws. hence women from conservative states went to new york.

this is a kind of 'fairness' argument against the state approach; why should women of 'red' states have to go hundreds of miles away.

 

[sr71plt]

Conversely, I think there's a wide band of folks on both ends of the spectrum who don't at all accept that whatever in all of the universe that isn't grabbed by the U.S. Constitution for federal purview ipso facto belongs to the states.

I've been waiting for a bit for someone to sweep in here with a "BOTH the fed and the state can jolly well keep their hands off my body" retort. Sort of surprised it hasn't happened.

 

[TheEarl]

Those pesky scientists, if I watched the programs with accuracy, are able to use electron microscopy and actually watch the division of cells whenever the first division after fertilization occurs.

Within that very first division of cells is contained the complete DNA and genetic and chromosomal blueprint for the human that will emerge after a successful period of time.

Medical science holds no doubt or question that life begins at the instant of conception; it can be defined as nothing else, it ain't gonna be a grape.

There are those that can tell you the percentage of fertilized eggs that fail to mature, I cannot, and those who can speak of the frequency of spontaneous abortions, I can't do that either.

To me, it is not a difficult or complex question, life begins at conception.

That's a very interesting viewpoint from which to offer a definitive opinion. May I ask whether, as a corollary to this opinion, you oppose current IVF methods (as they create unused zygotes) and whether you take the Huckabee position of regarding certain forms of hormonal contraception that prevent implantation as infanticide? As a rather silly corollary, does it follow that you would hold a funeral if a woman had a very heavy period a few days after having sex in a fertile part of her cycle?

It could be argued that a man and a woman having sex (when the woman is fertile and the wind is in the right direction) is the necessary blueprint for a baby. The two partners are providing all of the DNA information for the baby, the blueprint is there. In our hypothetical scenario, without intervention, there is a 100% chance that a baby will result. Surely science is proving that, in this scenario, life begins at ejaculation. The result is going to be a baby; it's not going to be a grape.

Yes, I know, it's a silly position to take. However, I'm curious as to why you're certain that you're not drawing a line in the sand. Science cannot tell us when life begins. It can tell us when a zygote begins, when implantation happens, when a heart beats, a brain fires, when limbs form and senses start. It can tell us when a foetus is viable. At which of those points life is defined is an ethical question, and far too wibbly-wobbly for science to think about.

I'm surprised that you don't even see it as a grey area, considering your fondness for debating. Surely the fun of a good debate is that everything isn't black and white. If you already know everything before you start, then what's the use in opening your mouth?

The Earl

 

[neonlyte]

Glad you raised that Earl... I was thinking along similar tracks with the 2m+ spontaneous abortions p.a. in the USA... no one considers those 'mothers' guilty of murder yet I'm sure in some cases it could be shown lifestyle was a factor.

I would add I'm pro-choice except as a form of contraception. Mandating adoption for women seek who contraceptive abortions might make people conscious of the need to plan their lives... though I wouldn't vote for that either

I'd propose it if I was PM or Pres

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

Abortion should not include a late term fetus.

I am pro choice but an 'abortion' done that late is not an abortion, it is a preterm birth. At that late of a date there is no reason that the baby can not be born and given up for adoption.

Obama may be against keeping the baby alive but many Republicans are anti-abortion and the girl's option would have been a back-alley abortion that would have probably killed her.

Welcome to the wonderful world of a rock and a hard place.

 

[TheEarl]

I quite agree. I think any child who survives four separate abortion attempts deserves his/her own piece of legislation. Maybe even a round of applause.

<snickers>

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

I am pro choice but an 'abortion' done that late is not an abortion, it is a preterm birth. At that late of a date there is no reason that the baby can not be born and given up for adoption.

I'm assuming you're not including medical grounds in this statement. Someone I know of had an abortion at 23 weeks, because scans showed that her baby's brain had not developed properly. The brain was incapable of making the heart beat and lungs breathe independently and carrying the baby to term would simply result in many more weeks of heartbreak and pain to deliver a baby who would die upon leaving the womb. Even the 'easier' choice of a late term abortion would be hugely traumatic.

Sorry to bring up a specific example into a general debate, but generalisations are always going to marginalise someone.

The Earl

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I was PRO-LIFE until I learned that abortions reduce the number of criminals and Democrats significantly more than others, now I'm a cheerleader for the abortionists.

My problem with abortions is the same class of problem I have with executions, that is, if you draw a new line in the sand the usual suspects will immediately try to get a court to change the line. Abolish executions, and the usual suspects go to work to abolish life without parole.

Ditto for abortions. Draw a line anywhere, and the usual suspects want to snuff-out any child younger than 18.

The bottomline is: The usual suspects are anarchists who groove on turmoil and chaos, theyre excitement junkies. But abortions are keeping their numbers down.

 

[TheEarl]

I was PRO-LIFE until I learned that abortions reduce the number of criminals and Democrats significantly more than others, now I'm a cheerleader for the abortionists.

My problem with abortions is the same class of problem I have with executions, that is, if you draw a new line in the sand the usual suspects will immediately try to get a court to change the line. Abolish executions, and the usual suspects go to work to abolish life without parole.

Ditto for abortions. Draw a line anywhere, and the usual suspects want to snuff-out any child younger than 18.

The bottomline is: The usual suspects are anarchists who groove on turmoil and chaos, theyre excitement junkies. But abortions are keeping their numbers down.

The usual suspects?

The Earl

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yeah; the usual suspects. You know who you are.