# Obama and infanticide



## mrhnau (Jun 23, 2008)

Read an interesting article the other day. Can't find the article online, but this one gives the general idea.

Apparently Obama voted against a protection act that would protect babies from failed abortions. Apparently, one method of abortion is to induce the mother prematurely. The infant is normally born dead. However, occasionally the baby is born alive. The act in question would have made it illegal for doctors to just let the baby die. Kind of leave it alone on the table and wait for it to die. Obama opposed this act.

I'm sorry, but I can't think of any other word for this then infanticide. This is killing a child that would otherwise live. Might need some help, but so do 6 month old babies that get sick, or anyone on this board that gets very sick (heart attack, pneumonia, etc). This is no longer abortion. This is murder. And Obama supports it.

:barf:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2008)

Abortion is infanticide no matter how you look at it.  A human life is terminated.  The real question is how much does it really matter.

And!

What purpose does it serve?

I think that abortion is a fabian eugenics program and that it will never go away because the elite want that.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 23, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Abortion is infanticide no matter how you look at it.  A human life is terminated.  The real question is how much does it really matter.


I'm not arguing that. Just making the point that no way you look at it, this can no longer be considered abortion. It's murder. I tend to think any form of abortion is murder, but this thread is just to point out Obama's support of murder. And this should correctly define murder in anyones book.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2008)

They all support murder in some way shape or form.  Whom to kill is always a political choice.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 23, 2008)

You guys do know that it is not uncommon for rape victims to get pregnant, right? Or that incest victims also get pregnant sometimes. Or that more then a few prositutes get pregant. It is also possible for a woman to be (essentially) allergic to pregancy, or that pregnacy/birth can kill certain women. I know a girl from high school who will die if she gives birth, but wants to be married. What if she gets pregnat? 

What would you do for these cases? I'm not saying a support abortion completely, but these are instances that one should keep in mind. However, there are safer and more humane ways to accomplish this. I have a feeling that Obama simply, didn't read the entire bit of legislation, and thought it was outlawing abortion whole-sale. Senators/Congressman do do that sometimes. Why do you think the Patriot Act was passed?


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 23, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> You guys do know that it is not uncommon for rape victims to get pregnant, right? Or that incest victims also get pregnant sometimes. Or that more then a few prositutes get pregant. It is also possible for a woman to be (essentially) allergic to pregancy, or that pregnacy/birth can kill certain women. I know a girl from high school who will die if she gives birth, but wants to be married. What if she gets pregnat?


while I'm not a fan of abortion, you don't need to wait 6 months to get one! If you know you will die, then don't wait 6 months.


> What would you do for these cases? I'm not saying a support abortion completely, but these are instances that one should keep in mind. However, there are safer and more humane ways to accomplish this. I have a feeling that Obama simply, didn't read the entire bit of legislation, and thought it was outlawing abortion whole-sale. Senators/Congressman do do that sometimes. Why do you think the Patriot Act was passed?


I don't think Obama did not know about the details. He sat in hearing and talked with one of the ladies testifying about the need for such an act. Ignorance is not an excuse here.

As I said, this is not abortion. These are failed abortions that produced a living child! Adopt the child out! The risk for the mother is no longer a viable excuse. Neither is the "mother does not want it" excuse. Geez, help the LIVING child and adopt them out! Plenty of people would love a sweet child and can't have any.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 23, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> You guys do know that it is not uncommon for rape victims to get pregnant, right? Or that incest victims also get pregnant sometimes. Or that more then a few prositutes get pregant. It is also possible for a woman to be (essentially) allergic to pregancy, or that pregnacy/birth can kill certain women. I know a girl from high school who will die if she gives birth, but wants to be married. What if she gets pregnat?
> 
> What would you do for these cases? I'm not saying a support abortion completely, but these are instances that one should keep in mind. However, there are safer and more humane ways to accomplish this. I have a feeling that Obama simply, didn't read the entire bit of legislation, and thought it was outlawing abortion whole-sale. Senators/Congressman do do that sometimes. Why do you think the Patriot Act was passed?


Suppose your parents hadn't planned on having you when they did, lots of people began as surprises. Would you rather your mother had chosen to abort you? 


I didn't think so.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm not an Obama supporter but really we should read the entire bill that was being voted on.  It's too easy for people to pick out one thing and stretch it like "Silly Putty."

In any case "don't vote for Obama."


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 23, 2008)

The middle of the road conservative stance on abortion is commonly understood to be against, _except_ "in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is at risk." So no, just because somebody is against abortion generally does not make them ignoramuses or neanderthals.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 23, 2008)

The article read like something out of David Letterman's "Top 10 reason to....."  Not being familiar with the issue and Obama's stance on it and not reading anymore at this point I would take it with a grain of salt.  As Ray so eloquently put it articles tend to "Stretch things out like silly putty"

Lets keep this to what facts there are, and not make it a personal "would you want your mother to do that to you"  That really has no bearing on Obama's stance on this.  The thread isn't about whether anyone would have wanted their mother to abort them.  Kind of a silly question if you ask me.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 23, 2008)

Lisa said:


> Not being familiar with the issue and Obama's stance on it and not reading anymore at this point I would take it with a grain of salt.


OK. This is the article I came across. Finally found it online.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647



> At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being &#8220;very clear and forthright,&#8221; but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested &#8220;doctors really don&#8217;t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.&#8221; He told her, &#8220;That may be your assessment, and I don&#8217;t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can&#8217;t support that.&#8221;


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 23, 2008)

I dont need any more reasons not to vote for the guy.

But I favor keeping abortion legal.

First trimester abortion that is

partial birth, or stuff like this needs to go, but the liberals will never vote to get rid of it, the pro-abortion crowd would demand thier heads on pikes if they ever did.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 23, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Suppose your parents hadn't planned on having you when they did, lots of people began as surprises. Would you rather your mother had chosen to abort you?
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.


 
Thank you for completly ignoring my post. Your pseudo-illiteraticy has been noted.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> OK. This is the article I came across. Finally found it online.
> 
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647


 
Does this article come from an unbiased and non political source?
If not one has to treat it with caution. At election times as everyone knows each party and candidate is not only trying to get elected they are trying to stop their political opponents from being elected so emotive and not always exactly truthful articles appear everywhere. This is true of all sides not one side or the other. Abortion seems a far more emotive matter in America than probably anywhere else in the world so it's always going to be something that is used as the ball in the game of political tennis.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 23, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Suppose your parents hadn't planned on having you when they did, lots of people began as surprises. Would you rather your mother had chosen to abort you?
> 
> 
> I didn't think so.



Would you rather your mother had chosen to abort you?  This is a meaningless question, to me, as it didn't - and therefore couldn't - happen.

I think that this a broader issue than "don't vote for Obama".  If you check the thread Pregnancy Pact ~ What utter stupidity!, you will note that one of the concerns in this country is the lack of proper education for teens (the group most at risk for abortion) about contraception - often because their parents don't want them taught (for whatever reason) and abortion is the only option they have left, or feel they have left.

There are people and organizations that go out of their way to prevent abortions - which is fine, _*if*,_ and only *if*, they are going to raise the resultant child from birth through college; otherwise, they have no business interfering in the life of the mother or the child.  There are also a wide range of reason why a pregnant woman might not be able - or willing - to have an abortion during the first trimester.  Don't get me wrong - I find the use of abortion as a replacement for contraception to be morally wrong, as I see a significant difference between _preventing_ conception and _ending_ it once it has occurred - but lots of people don't. 

Yes, there are lots of people who would love to adopt those aborted babies - and it would be great if all the pregnant women who didn't want their children took proper care of themselves, carried the baby to term, and then gave the unwanted child up for adoption - but that's not going to happen, at least not the way things are going now.

For most women, having an abortion is not an easy choice, and it may take a while for it to sink in - thus, the need for 2nd trimester abortions.  I'm not saying it's right - at least, it wouldn't be for me - but at the same time, _it's not my life_.  Were I, for some reason, to find myself pregnant with an unwanted child, I would complete the the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption - but many women cannot do that, for reasons that are as widely variant as the women themselves.

And honestly - I've seen some of the kids who were preterm births (not from late term abortions) - and while some are okay, many have significant problems - including one who was born at the edge of viability; her skull never formed (so when she moved her head, you could see her brain slosh inside her scalp), she "ate" through a permanent stomach tube, she had a permanent tracheotomy, she couldn't talk, couldn't walk, didn't have the motor control to learn to sign; she lived in her wheelchair at school.  After a life of pain and multiple surgeries, she died of pneumonia at the age of 9.

And then I knew another girl - not preterm - who was diagnosed with a genetic illness after her birth.  It was a regressive developmental disease (I've forgotten the name); she peaked intellectually at 2 (when she could feed herself with a spoon), then started to lose skills - by the time I knew her, she was 10, and had lost the ability to feed herself, had never been toilet trained, was losing the ability to walk, and was facing a lifetime as an adult-sized infant... her mother became pregnant again, and the same genetic defect was found in the new fetus, but not until nearly the end of the 2nd trimester; mom chose to have an abortion, and I do not fault her for it - although the child _could _have been viable, and could have lived as its sister "lived" - but for what purpose?  To be a vegetable most of its life?

Do I agree, in general, with abortions performed when the fetus is potentially "viable"?  Not in general... but neither will I support legislation that limits a woman's right to choose.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 23, 2008)

What is the big drama hear? Males, when you get preg you can decide for yourself if you have an abortion, females... you are in charge of your body so you can decide for yourself. When it is my body, i can and will decide for myself. Abortion is never a fun choice, it is a hard, scary, and down right horrid decision to be forced to make but it is yours to make, and only yours. The law needs to protect the womans right to choose. I wish you all had to sit and talk to a person facing the choice of abortion, because for whatever reason she feels this is her best choice,  You will find it is hardly ever a choice of opps my husband and i got preg. Infanticide killing the human once it is outside the womb is a different  think.. once the child is born and breathing then it needs to be protected.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 23, 2008)

Kacey said:


> but neither will I support legislation that limits a woman's right to choose.



Neither will I
Except for partial birth abortions and things like this.


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2008)

Folks,

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the TOS and rules of the study.  Lets keep the personal shots out of the thread please.  If you don't want to read someones post, I'm sure everyone is familiar with the ignore feature.  Please use it!

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2008)

I'd like a candidate to take the middle ground someday.  Some limitations on abortions, like 2nd and 3rd trimester procedures, should be more regulated with 1st trimester abortions being the most widely available and least regulated.  The health of the mother should always be taken into account, but I don't think that our society should be so willing to throw away developing children.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 23, 2008)

I support retroactive abortion, but only if I'm allowed to choose...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 23, 2008)

Steady, *Cryo*.  I'm sure that many would agree but we really shouldn't say such things ... or at least not often .  

Seriously, this is a deeply thought provoking issue so altho' it is tempting to 'lighten it' somewhat I really feel we should approach it with due sensitivity.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 23, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> but I don't think that our society should be so willing to throw away developing children.



Its not a child in the womb, medically its a fetus zygote or embryo. But later in stages if it could survive outside the womb then its value should be acknowledged and fought for.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 23, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> What is the big drama hear?


 
In my defense, I'm only getting dramatic because some people seem to think my defense of Roe v. Wade means that I support abortion whole-sale, even though I actually said 'I don't know either way'


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> Its not a child in the womb, medically its a fetus zygote or embryo. But later in stages if it could survive outside the womb then its value should be acknowledged and fought for.


 
Draw the line between fetus and child.  I don't think anyone can.  Abortion is murder, but society accepts this in certain instances.  When do we accept the murder of a child?


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 23, 2008)

it is a child when it has a fighting chance of living with out the mother...i believe medically that is at 23 weeks from the mothers last menstrual cycle. After that the fetus can leave the womans body, live, and be called a child ~ before that time while it may be dreadful for some to think it cannot live with out its "host". Now please do not think i am cold... personally i could never have an abortion, but my desire for my own body may not match that of another person. Morally for me i think it is a sin, but what is a sin for me because of the God i choose to serve ~is not a sin for another because they do not choose to believe in my God. We love to dish out morality and judge others and make choices for others, but when a woman has 4 kids a dead beat husband and a 5th on the way and she *knows* she cannot feed that child and her husband will not allow wellfare then who are you to stand in her way? Do you want to pay medical costs? delivery cost and raise that child till it is 18 and then send it to college? ... you may once or even twice ... but there are more then one or two people out there in a dire situation.


----------



## Darksoul (Jun 24, 2008)

-I'm pretty sure I've harked on this before, but if society wants to see less abortions, people must be educated about their bodies, sex education, forms of birth control, all of it. I realize there are certain groups out there that don't support this type of eduction, for various reasons, but therein lies the problem. Some are parents who simply never talked to their kids about sex. Some are parental groups or others who refuse to have sex-ed in school, being thats something for the parents to talk about. Some are religious groups who don't believe in birth control. A whole variety of groups and individuals who want their way, and only their way. Personally, I feel if a child can be saved, raised, put up for adoption, whatever, than do it, but if no one adopts the child, now the state has to raise it? Is there enough money to do that, or do our taxes go up? I don't know, but if we stop it in the first place, stop it from coming to a decision about abortion, it would save not only money, but a whole lot of grief, stress, depression, anxiety, you name it.

Andrew


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 24, 2008)

Such legislation is not really about protecting these babies, who will die no matter what the doctors do at that stage in the game.  This legislation is about laying down a legal framework for the definition of a fetus as a person which will be used at a later date to ban abortion all together.  Obama's vote should be viewed in this light, as I'm sure that is how it was decided.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Such legislation is not really about protecting these babies, who will die no matter what the doctors do at that stage in the game.  This legislation is about laying down a legal framework for the definition of a fetus as a person which will be used at a later date to ban abortion all together.  Obama's vote should be viewed in this light, as I'm sure that is how it was decided.


Not really... this is a baby, not a fetus. I don't think anyone can argue that. Heck, even NARAL is not arguing this. BTW, please don't try to put words into Obama's mouth. I'm sure, since he is so well spoken, he has defended this vote. Care to search for it?

Yes, these babies will die. God willing, 80 years later, not 80 minutes later. A six month old baby can die from a variety of conditions if not properly treated. They can't feed themselves. If you simply let them die, you would be charged with murder. At what age does murder of children become inappropriate?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 24, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Not really... this is a baby, not a fetus. I don't think anyone can argue that.



Only because the distinction is semantic, devoid of anything more than emotive content in this situation.  The baby is what the baby is.  It's also kind of irrelevant, since the only reason the baby is around is as a botched abortion.



mrhnau said:


> BTW, please don't try to put words into Obama's mouth. I'm sure, since he is so well spoken, he has defended this vote. Care to search for it?



Not really.  This strategy and response to it is well understood among strategists on the abortion issue.  Yet, it cannot be baldly stated as a rationale by most politicians on _either _side - it would look bad.  Thus, we have Obama's objection about this law putting more burdens on the mother.  That doesn't make much sense. Avoiding any legal framework for fetuses as persons though does make sense, and is a strategy explicitly recognized by activists (i.e. people who don't have to worry about being voted for) on both sides.



mrhnau said:


> Yes, these babies will die. God willing, 80 years later, not 80 minutes later. A six month old baby can die from a variety of conditions if not properly treated.



You could say that.  6 months is right at the limit of viability.  The majority of children naturally born at this time will die.  The totality of children born at this time as a result of an abortion will die.  That is too much trauma for nearly any preemie to survive.



mrhnau said:


> If you simply let them die, you would be charged with murder.



Then why aren't doctors that face this situation now, the situation apparently trying to be banned, being charged with murder?  Obviously, because the situation is the result of an abortion - killing.  Also, simply letting your patient die is not necessarily murder.  See Terri Schiavo.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2008)

Know what, I'm going to call a spade a spade here.  A baby is a baby.  Whether its inside or outside of the womb.

Sometimes "God" kills babies inside or outside of the womb.

Sometimes "humans" kill babies inside or outside of the womb.

I'm going to invoke the Teilhardian heresy and say that maybe, just maybe god doesn't exist right now, but is actually evolving within the human mind.  Perhaps in some future time, an Ultimate will exist...perhaps time and space may not even be an impediment for such a being.

People were burned at the stake because they thought that gods and humans might very well have the same sort of reasoning for their actions.

Kill a baby.  You wanna kill a baby!  Vote.  For.  Bombs.  That kills babies and for lesser reason, IMHO, then most women get abortions.  So, when do you think its okay to murder children?  In the womb?  Out of the womb?  If they got brown skin?  If they so happen to live on a big ****ing pot of oil?  

Of course this debate is ridiculous if you view it in such a vein.  Maybe we need to respect the people who say that killing any child is wrong, but realize that this is a pollyanna position in the real world?  Maybe we need to take into account the fact that life is important, but **** happens?  

If we can murder babies to put gas in our SUVs, we can murder them because the mother can't take care of them...or maybe some other reason that people have abortions...in the end it doesn't match up the truth that we murder babies for some really ****ing SHALLOW reasons.

What are your priorities?


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 25, 2008)

my priorities are taking care of MY body, and last time i checked i am free to do with MY body as I please. That means i can smoke, i can drink, i can have unprotected sex and get an STD and i can get pregnant and CHOOSE to not give birth to that child.  When YOU get pregnant you can CHOOSE to have that child. It is not for selfish reasons, its not for BS reasons, and its not normally  because the child is black or white or purple or green that people CHOOSE not to have children. When a woman decides not to give birth, not to have a 9 month strain on her body then risk her life to give birth to a child it is not because she wants to have an abortion she just does not want a child and for what ever  reason that may be, it is her right. It is HER body. It sucks sometimes, and yeah useing abortion as a form of birth control is dispicable as is using it to choose the gender of your child, but a few bad cases should not take away every other womans right to choose. Late term abortions are already banned in most places. 

As for us playing GOD and decideing to take life, maybe God gave us this knowledge for a reason? after all~ all things where created by Him, even the "sick" dr who started abortions. 

But Maybe they should be banned... then we girls  can go back to being stay at home moms and men can bring in the pay check and we can live off that, and if that doesnt work... we could always use a coat hanger or go to a back ally clinic and possibly DIE from the " medical" treatment we get there. Our country has already learned that banning something DOES NOT stop it from happening... look at prohibition and the war on drugs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 25, 2008)

I don't believe in god.

I am a man of science.

A baby is a baby.

Killing a baby is killing a baby.

I can't post pics of the dead babies that fill your gas tanks, but they are countless.  

People buy SUVs for their sex appeal...damn, chicks are turned ON by baby killin!

Oh yeah, I'm trying to conflate everything right now.  

I think that people need to start making alot more connections between the rhetoric they buy into and the reality it encompasses.  A womans body is part of the universe...but so is the small ****** peice of dirt that lots of kids get killed on because 50% of every dollar you spend on federal taxes pays for bombs.  

The whole abortion debate is a red herring.  If you really give a **** about why children get murdered, then you'll take a cold hard look at your life and try to prevent that from happening.  Birth Control, bomb control, what is the difference?

What are your REAL priorities?  Maybe if you drive an SUV you like to murder children real good?  Maybe you like to look down on folks who made a mistake and need to murder a child in order to fully develop their lives?  

Maybe all of this is stupid hypocritical ******** and people need to step up to the plate and swing for the fences every time something that is valued is pitched?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 25, 2008)

kind of getting off track here, not to mention getting a little bit weird........


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 25, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> kind of getting off track here, not to mention getting a little bit weird........


 
I get weird when its late, but I did have a point...and that was killing is killing.  Respect for life isn't a one way street that can be polarized to cover a single issue.  When you broaden the topic, you see connections and start realizing that values aren't easy things to live up to.  

A bomb can be an aborticant, albeit belated.  Anyway, enjoy the discussion...


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 25, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I get weird when its late, but I did have a point...and that was killing is killing.  Respect for life isn't a one way street that can be polarized to cover a single issue.  When you broaden the topic, you see connections and start realizing that values aren't easy things to live up to.
> 
> A bomb can be an aborticant, albeit belated.  Anyway, enjoy the discussion...


UNK, you make some decent points. I think one major difference is intention. Abortion is very precise, with a generally predictable outcome. A bomb may in fact produce the same result, but the intention of the bomb is not solely to kill the baby. Might just be semantics, but still...


----------

