Obama and infanticide

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

-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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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...