PDA

View Full Version : Barry left of Naral?


Cochise
08-21-2007, 03:57 PM
On abortion:


Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted: 12/26/2006

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... 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.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’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.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”


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


I didn't know what the procedure was, but you can read about it here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm) (warning - disturbing.)

Ultra Peanut
08-21-2007, 04:34 PM
I cannot-ah hear you, Amanda, this Hussein guy is-ah talking about how much-ah he hates babies and puppies.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 07:12 AM
I cannot-ah hear you, Amanda, this Hussein guy is-ah talking about how much-ah he hates babies and puppies.

Thank you for the productive input!

Sully
08-22-2007, 07:34 PM
Any time I see one of these articles or commercials explaining how a candidate has voted against some bill that could save the world and keep monsters from doing dastardly things, which ends up portraying said candidate as someone who doesn't care about common decency, I have to stop myself.
Typically, as we all know, there is more to a bill than what may be the face value. So basically, without hearing the explanation, an article like this means nothing.

Would I like to hear an explanation?
Absolutely.
Do I think this story is the whole truth, or even some part of it?
I doubt it.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 08:07 AM
Any time I see one of these articles or commercials explaining how a candidate has voted against some bill that could save the world and keep monsters from doing dastardly things, which ends up portraying said candidate as someone who doesn't care about common decency, I have to stop myself.
Typically, as we all know, there is more to a bill than what may be the face value. So basically, without hearing the explanation, an article like this means nothing.

Would I like to hear an explanation?
Absolutely.
Do I think this story is the whole truth, or even some part of it?
I doubt it.

Fair enough. Here's the complete text of the Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB2633lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2633&print=true). It appears to be pretty straightforward:

93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2003 and 2004
SB2633


Introduced 2/4/2004, by John O. Jones


SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

New Act
30 ILCS 105/5.625 new

Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. Provides that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as a the result of an induced labor abortion. Provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. Establishes the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. Provides that, if a child does not survive, any remaining proceeds of an action shall be deposited into the Fund. Provides that the moneys in the Fund shall be used, subject to appropriation, for neonatal care or perinatal hospice. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund.


LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b


FISCAL NOTE ACT MAY APPLY





A BILL FOR


SB2633 LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b

1 AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of
3 Illinois,represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.

6 Section 5. Findings and intent. The General Assembly finds
7 that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal
8 protection under the law regardless of the circumstances
9 surrounding the birth. Children who are born alive as the
10 result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are
11 in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent
12 of their birth is to cause the death of the born child.
13 Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect
14 a child who is born alive as the result of an induced labor
15 abortion or any other abortion and to ensure that the child
16 receives all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the
17 life, health, and safety of the child.

18 Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child is
19 born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other
20 abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the
21 county in which the child was born may maintain an action on
22 the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to
23 preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child,
24 punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees against
25 any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who
26 harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to
27 the child after the child's birth. Any damages recovered shall
28 be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the
29 life, health, and safety of the child. If the child does not
30 survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving
31 and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are




SB2633 - 2 - LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b

1 paid, shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal
2 Hospice Fund.

3 Section 20. Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. The
4 Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund is created as a
5 special fund in the State treasury. Moneys deposited into the
6 Fund shall, subject to appropriation, be used by the Department
7 of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal
8 hospice.

9 Section 90. The State Finance Act is amended by adding
10 Section 5.625 as follows:

11 (30 ILCS 105/5.625 new)
12 Sec. 5.625. The Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund.

What do you think?

HonestChieffan
08-23-2007, 08:51 AM
The problem is at its very root, that the pro lifers are so far out to the right that they cannot in any way accept anything other than their view. And worse, they would vote for anyone who supports that one position. If the candidtae was for anything else they wouldnt even notice.

more wackjob special interest non thinking followers.

patteeu
08-23-2007, 09:26 AM
The problem is at its very root, that the pro lifers are so far out to the right that they cannot in any way accept anything other than their view. And worse, they would vote for anyone who supports that one position. If the candidtae was for anything else they wouldnt even notice.

more wackjob special interest non thinking followers.

Uh, this thread is about the far out pro choicers not the far out pro lifers. Maybe you're in the wrong thread.

HonestChieffan
08-23-2007, 09:28 AM
One far out to the left one far out to the right....in both cases people who vote on the basis of one issue scare me.

Sully
08-23-2007, 10:52 AM
Fair enough. Here's the complete text of the Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB2633lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2633&print=true). It appears to be pretty straightforward:



What do you think?
I think I'd like to hear his explanation.

Cochise
08-23-2007, 11:14 AM
From the woman who testified before congress in the warning-disturbing link:


But what was most distressing was to learn of the method Christ Hospital uses to abort, called induced labor abortion, now also known as "live birth abortion." In this particular abortion procedure doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

To commit induced labor abortion, a doctor or resident inserts a medication into the mother’s birth canal close to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. This medication irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this occurs, the small second or third trimester pre-term, fully formed baby falls out of the uterus, sometimes alive. By law, if an aborted baby is born alive, both birth and death certificates must be issued. Ironically, at Christ Hospital the cause of death often listed for live aborted babies is "extreme prematurity," an acknowledgement by doctors that they have caused this death.

It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Some of the babies aborted are healthy, because Christ Hospital will also abort for life or "health" of the mother, and also for rape or incest.

In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives "comfort care," defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking a Down’s syndrome baby who was aborted alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive. I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

...Another nurse from Christ Hospital also testified with me in Washington. Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.

StcChief
08-23-2007, 11:19 AM
The real shame is the "pro choicers" parents didn't abort them.

Adept Havelock
08-23-2007, 02:39 PM
The real shame is the "pro choicers" parents didn't abort them.

Nice bumper sticker. Think that one up all by yourself? :rolleyes:

The same could be said for the pro-lifers that think it's cute to drive trucks around exposing little kids to some rather grotesque images.

Yeah, lets put that image in little 5 year old Tommy's brain. I'm sure it'll make sense to him. Won't harm him at all.

Neither side is innocent in this argument, and IMO, both extremes are quite FOS.

Jenson71
08-23-2007, 03:07 PM
The real shame is the "pro choicers" parents didn't abort them.

So abortion is bad . . . except when it's good.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 03:14 PM
One far out to the left one far out to the right....in both cases people who vote on the basis of one issue scare me.
Guess you haven't heard of the religious left?

As far as I understand there's pro-lifers in the Democratic party too and not just a handful. There's pro-choice Pubs as well and there's even pro-life and pro-choice Libertarians. It really comes down to if you see it human life or not.
It seems otherwise, only, because the party platforms hold a specific view.

Taco John
08-23-2007, 03:20 PM
Personally, I'm with Romney and Ron Paul on this. I think it's an abhorrent act, and believe the states should have local control over the matter. I don't believe this to be a federal issue.

Jenson71
08-23-2007, 03:24 PM
Pro-Life Democrats (http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1)

Cochise
08-23-2007, 04:08 PM
Personally, I'm with Romney and Ron Paul on this. I think it's an abhorrent act, and believe the states should have local control over the matter. I don't believe this to be a federal issue.

Why the states? If it's abhorrent in one state it's abhorrent in any other.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2007, 04:10 PM
Why the states? If it's abhorrent in one state it's abhorrent in any other.
Because we're a Federal Republic under a Constitution that delegates that power to the states.

StcChief
08-26-2007, 09:29 AM
So abortion is bad . . . except when it's good.

IF the pro choice folks think it's ok to make that choice to kill.

They need to think- What if their mothers decided to abort them.

You can't be above this decision to kill some one else.

Abortion is wrong

HolmeZz
08-26-2007, 09:56 AM
IF the pro choice folks think it's ok to make that choice to kill.

They need to think- What if their mothers decided to abort them.

You can't be above this decision to kill some one else.

Abortion is wrong

You shouldn't have been aborted. You should've been whacked off into a towel.

banyon
08-26-2007, 11:02 AM
Personally, I'm with Romney and Ron Paul on this. I think it's an abhorrent act, and believe the states should have local control over the matter. I don't believe this to be a federal issue.


Ideally, I would agree with this, but practically it won't work since it's pretty meaningless for one state to outlaw it if you can just hop on a bus and cross the state line. I guess a state could make it illegal to cross state lines for that purpose, but it'd be almost impossible to enforce.

Jenson71
08-26-2007, 11:21 AM
Ideally, I would agree with this, but practically it won't work since it's pretty meaningless for one state to outlaw it if you can just hop on a bus and cross the state line. I guess a state could make it illegal to cross state lines for that purpose, but it'd be almost impossible to enforce.

Wouldn't a doctor need to just see the ladies' drivers license? Or is that too naive? :)

banyon
08-26-2007, 11:22 AM
Wouldn't a doctor need to just see the ladies' drivers license?

That sounds like it would involve a Federal Scheme. If KS outlaws Abortion, what duty does a MO Doctor have to obey KS law?

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 11:48 AM
Fair enough. Here's the complete text of the Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB2633lv&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2633&print=true). It appears to be pretty straightforward:



What do you think?I think that the text you posted is dated 2004, two years after the version Obama voted against, and one year after the version that he didn't call up for vote. I think the opening post indicates that he voted against it in 2002, therefore the text you've posted is very likely amended from the language that he voted against in 2002. I think I'd like you to post what the language of the bill was in 2002. That's what I think. What do you think?

patteeu
08-26-2007, 12:05 PM
I think that the text you posted is dated 2004, two years after the version Obama voted against, and one year after the version that he didn't call up for vote. I think the opening post indicates that he voted against it in 2002, therefore the text you've posted is very likely amended from the language that he voted against in 2002. I think I'd like you to post what the language of the bill was in 2002. That's what I think. What do you think?

I think you're partially right for a change.

You're right that the link I posted was to the wrong version of the bill. My bad. You're wrong that the text was amended from the language he voted on in 2002 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661LV.html). If you haven't worn yourself out already, what do you think about that?

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 12:05 PM
IF the pro choice folks think it's ok to make that choice to kill.

They need to think- What if their mothers decided to abort them.

You can't be above this decision to kill some one else.

Abortion is wrong
The problem with your position here is that you're accepting as a given something for which there is no consensus of agreement in either the legal, medical or scientific communities - that the fetus during the period of legal abortion is, in fact, alive. For someone to "make that choice to kill," the something that is being killed must necessarily first be "alive." If it is at a point in its development where it would not be viable outside the womb, without being sustained by artificial means, then it is neither scientifically, medically or legally established as being "alive." Only the religious community (and dogma rightly should have no bearing on scientific questions), and those arguing from emotion rather than reason, hold to an absolute that it is alive. Therefore, until there is a legal, medical and scientific consensus, none of these common accusations that it is "killing" or "murder" or "wrong" are going to hold water.

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 07:57 PM
I think you're partially right for a change.
You can change that to completely right, yet again. The language of the bill is different between the 2002 and 2004 versions, though not different in any pertinent way. Nevertheless, I said it was "likely" that the language was amended, and pertinent or not, that was an accurate assessment.

It also appears that the bill has never passed, to date, with or without Obama. By looking at the text, one doesn't have to be a rabid pro-abortionist to vote against this bill. There are several reasons people might want to vote against, including conservatives. For one thing, it establishes that the special fund for taking care of these "accidental" live births is to be administered by the state Treasury. That in itself should be cause for alarm to those of you who shake in fear at any mention of the phrase "nanny state."

In addition, in stating that "the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the born child," it makes a leap that not only is not supported by accepted legal definitions of life (in order to "cause the death" of something, it must first be established to have life to be extinguished), but also stands in direct contradiction to the text of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which states, in part that nothing in the act should 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."

Furthermore, the language in Section 10 is abyssmal. It leaves it wide open that a hospital can be sued, even if they took all proper measures, if the baby doesn't survive. Considering that Illinois was, at the time, in the middle of a big fight to reverse their reputation for being one of the worst states in the country for excessive malpractice litigation, it is easy to see why anyone would have voted against the act, whether they were pro-life or pro-choice. It definitely needs a lot of work!

Last but not least, the conclusion reached in the article from the OP does not follow from the evidence. It attempts to portray Obama as left of NARAL, because he voted against a piece of legislation that, in reality, had nothing in common with the legislation that NARAL pledged to support. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act only seeks to define a legal "point of life," post natal, but says nothing about funding, about the legal liabilities of the health care industry, and so on, which is what the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act is entirely about. The only thing these two pieces of legislation have in common is that they both deal with infants that survived an abortion procedure.

StcChief
08-26-2007, 08:01 PM
The problem with your position here is that you're accepting as a given something for which there is no consensus of agreement in either the legal, medical or scientific communities - that the fetus during the period of legal abortion is, in fact, alive. For someone to "make that choice to kill," the something that is being killed must necessarily first be "alive." If it is at a point in its development where it would not be viable outside the womb, without being sustained by artificial means, then it is neither scientifically, medically or legally established as being "alive." Only the religious community (and dogma rightly should have no bearing on scientific questions), and those arguing from emotion rather than reason, hold to an absolute that it is alive. Therefore, until there is a legal, medical and scientific consensus, none of these common accusations that it is "killing" or "murder" or "wrong" are going to hold water.

Believe what you want. Tell your GF/SI Wife to have an abortion then, if it's not convenient to own up to being a Dad.

Sort it out later with God. Good luck with that.

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 08:07 PM
Believe what you want. Tell your GF/SI Wife to have an abortion then, if it's not convenient to own up to being a Dad.

Sort it out later with God. Good luck with that.
Once again, an argument from emotion, rather than reason. You'll never get out of the starting gate as long as that's the best argument you've got.

For the record, I am anti-abortion. I am vehemently anti-abortion. I am probably more anti-abortion than most Pro-Lifers (though I have no desire to associate myself with those crackpots). Most Pro-Lifers, I've found, will make an exception for a child conceived by rape, but I won't. I don't see any good argument for holding that child accountable for the actions of its father. But, though vehemently anti-abortion, I am not about to go around trying to argue ad misericordiam with people. As I said, when that's all you've got, you've already lost before you even get out of the gate.

StcChief
08-26-2007, 08:15 PM
Once again, an argument from emotion, rather than reason. You'll never get out of the starting gate as long as that's the best argument you've got.

For the record, I am anti-abortion. I am vehemently anti-abortion. I am probably more anti-abortion than most Pro-Lifers (though I have no desire to associate myself with those crackpots). Most Pro-Lifers, I've found, will make an exception for a child conceived by rape, but I won't. I don't see any good argument for holding that child accountable for the actions of its father. But, though vehemently anti-abortion, I am not about to go around trying to argue ad misericordiam with people. As I said, when that's all you've got, you've already lost before you even get out of the gate.

Science is not even a consideration, that is a man-made decision.
It's your morality and decision.

You either believe a child is a being at Conception or not.
That is your on justification to stand behind killing a conceived being.

That is really the only choice to be made. You have to live with your decision.

I know several people that have made the "abortion choice" it haunts them daily.

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 08:19 PM
Science is not even a consideration, that is a man-made decision.It's a man-made decision whether you base it on science, religion, or a roll of the dice. The difference between arguing from science and arguing from religion (aside from the reliance on empirical evidence on the part of the one, and the rejection of same on the part of the other) is that science can usually prove the source of its claims.You either believe a child is a being at Conception or not.Until "I believe" magically transforms into "I know," then you have no high ground on your opponents.I know several people that have made the "abortion choice" it haunts them daily.And you probably know several who aren't haunted one little bit, as well. There's all types. Who are you to say that the one is bad and the other is good?

stevieray
08-26-2007, 08:44 PM
umbilical cord ..transports nourishment and removes wastes...

eating and pooping...

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 08:57 PM
umbilical cord ..transports nourishment and removes wastes...

eating and pooping...
And? Is this your definition of life?

stevieray
08-26-2007, 09:05 PM
And? Is this your definition of life?

Are you eating and pooping to stay alive?

Once a man, twice a child...it's not a coincidence needing others in the beginning and end of our lives.


abort means to cancel, terminate...cancel and terminate what?

Life.

HolmeZz
08-26-2007, 09:11 PM
abort means to cancel, terminate...cancel and terminate what?

The pregnancy?

|Zach|
08-26-2007, 09:24 PM
And? Is this your definition of life?
Just check those things off man.

http://ftcneiu1.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/checklist.jpeg

Taco John
08-26-2007, 09:28 PM
You have to live with your decision.



That's the long and short of it for me.

Abortion will never be a big issue for me, because I'll never have to live with the choice on my head. As for anyone else, I figure it's up to them. I personally feel terrible about the practice, but figure there's not much that I can do about it, save educate my own kids. Whether it's legal or not, there are always going to be people who opt for abortions. I'd rather have them in counseling than in jail.

This should be a state issue.

StcChief
08-26-2007, 10:51 PM
It's a man-made decision whether you base it on science, religion, or a roll of the dice. The difference between arguing from science and arguing from religion (aside from the reliance on empirical evidence on the part of the one, and the rejection of same on the part of the other) is that science can usually prove the source of its claims.Until "I believe" magically transforms into "I know," then you have no high ground on your opponents.And you probably know several who aren't haunted one little bit, as well. There's all types. Who are you to say that the one is bad and the other is good?

Keep thinking what you want.

You sir will surely rot in hell, believing your above life and have power over decisions to keep or terminate it. Thou shall not kill.

HolmeZz
08-26-2007, 11:09 PM
Keep thinking what you want.

You sir will surely rot in hell, believing your above life and have power over decisions to keep or terminate it. Thou shall not kill.

Psh. How's he supposed to take you seriously when you didn't even threaten to pimpsmack him with a Bible?

Nightwish
08-26-2007, 11:52 PM
Keep thinking what you want.

You sir will surely rot in hell, believing your above life and have power over decisions to keep or terminate it. Thou shall not kill.
You can keep your hell, and your fire and brimstone canned responses. In the meantime, you still can't make a case for abortion being murder, or even killing, for that matter, because you don't know that the unborn fetus is a living thing. Just as you accuse the rest of us of believing in an arbitrary starting point of life in order to justify a particular position on the abortion spectrum, so have you chosen to believe in an arbitrary starting point of life in order to justify your position on the abortion spectrum (and, I might add, to justify your need to marginalize those who don't swallow your irrational reasonings as "hell bound.") Well, as I said, you can keep your hell.

Logical
08-26-2007, 11:55 PM
Keep thinking what you want.

You sir will surely rot in hell, believing your above life and have power over decisions to keep or terminate it. Thou shall not kill.

Wow the ole rot in hell argument, that is a real winning debate technique. Color me impressed.

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 12:03 AM
Wow the ole rot in hell argument, that is a real winning debate technique. Color me impressed.
It's even funnier, since he's plying it against someone who is probably more against abortion than he is!

patteeu
08-27-2007, 06:43 AM
You can change that to completely right, yet again. The language of the bill is different between the 2002 and 2004 versions, though not different in any pertinent way.

LMAO WTF does that mean? Sounds to me like it means "I was wrong, but I can't bring myself to admit it."

StcChief
08-27-2007, 08:08 AM
You can keep your hell, and your fire and brimstone canned responses. In the meantime, you still can't make a case for abortion being murder, or even killing, for that matter, because you don't know that the unborn fetus is a living thing. Just as you accuse the rest of us of believing in an arbitrary starting point of life in order to justify a particular position on the abortion spectrum, so have you chosen to believe in an arbitrary starting point of life in order to justify your position on the abortion spectrum (and, I might add, to justify your need to marginalize those who don't swallow your irrational reasonings as "hell bound.") Well, as I said, you can keep your hell.
Well maybe you don't believe it. If you believe in Heaven/Hell.

and you end up in Heaven. What will you say when you talk to the souls
that were aborted/murdered in the 3rd trimester ....

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 08:16 AM
LMAO WTF does that mean? Sounds to me like it means "I was wrong, but I can't bring myself to admit it."
It means the bills were slightly different, but that the changes did not affect what was intended to be set up. The changes were for the sake of formality, more formal header, etc. But you still don't get it, I wasn't wrong when I said it was "likely" the bill was amended, because that's true, bills usually are amended and submitted again if they don't pass muster the first time. Since my claim was about the probability of something ocurring, and not about whether or not it absolutely did occur, then your feeble to attempt to contradict me is without merit, as usual.

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 08:18 AM
Well maybe you don't believe it. If you believe in Heaven/Hell.

and you end up in Heaven. What will you say when you talk to the souls
that were aborted/murdered in the 3rd trimester ....I won't need to say anything to them, as I was never one who supported abortion. That's what you're not getting - it isn't your position on abortion that I reject (I share it, actually), it is your rationale for your position. There are rational reasons to oppose abortion, and your appeal to emotion fallacy isn't one of them.

Furthermore, when you first posted the text of the 2004 version, you sought to address Sully's questions about what about the bill Obama actually opposed, and whether the article gave the bill a fair treatment. You also claimed it was pretty straightforward. Well, for the first, you didn't manage to show us what aspect of the bill Obama actually opposed (as I showed earlier, there are several objectionable areas). And for the second, if by "straightforward" you meant that the bill was fairly clear in what it was meant to establish, you were right (except for the part about whether hospitals could be sued if they perform all proper duties and the child still dies). If, however, you meant that the article was pretty straightforward in its portrayal of the intent of the Act as being similar to the intent of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, then you were wrong, as they are not at all similar, and the article did not give a fair and informative portrayal of what the act is about.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2007, 09:20 AM
The definition of life that applies to this argument has to do with living organisms.

From the Random House College Dictionary which I'll post but which I found to be the same in other dictionaries:

1) the condition that distinguishes animals [us folks] and plants from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

The specialized science that deals with the above is embryology.
Embryology is more specific as it only encompasses the modern definition: an animal that is undergoing early development including the formation of primitive organ systems, the creation of fundamental tissues, and cleavage; especially involving the development of human individuals from the moment the blastocyst is implanted until the end of the eight week after conception. Past the eight week, the developing animal is called a fetus.
Using the above definition of life the most logical conclusion is what is inside the womb IS a form of life if it continues to split cells and divide resulting in growth, responds to stimuli etc. It is alive. It is not inanimate nor is it dead, no longer animated or splitting cells etc.

Per embryology this living human organism grows on its own determinism and accord independent of the mother as a seperate living organism. It has all the DNA of a complete human organism. It doesn't even have her blood, which changes. It needs the womb for shelter, protection and nourishment to keep it safe so it can grow or continue to split cells. It responds to stimuli, has brainwaves at a certain point, can hear the mother's voice and can respond and can even feel pain and respond to that.

Now is it human life? Logically it is.
It's NOT a frog. It is NOT inanimate. It has all the requirements of being in the category of being human. It has all the dna of a complete human being, so it is not a tissue blob. It's just a human in an early stage of life. Allowing it to continue to spit and divide cells and grow would be allowing a right to life. Not a full set of rights as an adult human organism, such as a right to vote...just a right to life aka to continue on its path of growth (cell division).

The only logical conclusion is that it is a form of human life. All human orgnisms go through these stages until death.

That's the science on it. The other half of this argument includes the philosophical (including the idea of souls) and legal arguments. But you can't say it is not human life. So if you end it's life, you have taken human life.

I might add, I cannot fathom the blood lust of pro-lifers on killing other human organisms that are adults, that bear no threat to them or for an idea like democracy and freedom. By that I mean Iraq. How is this different than any arguments of convenience by pro-choicers. It's sees to me that they are just as much pro-choice. They just disagree at what stage human life can be ended by man and the reasons. LOL!

patteeu
08-27-2007, 09:50 AM
It means the bills were slightly different, but that the changes did not affect what was intended to be set up. The changes were for the sake of formality, more formal header, etc. But you still don't get it, I wasn't wrong when I said it was "likely" the bill was amended, because that's true, bills usually are amended and submitted again if they don't pass muster the first time. Since my claim was about the probability of something ocurring, and not about whether or not it absolutely did occur, then your feeble to attempt to contradict me is without merit, as usual.

The bills weren't different, not even slightly. It doesn't count as a difference that one was for the 92nd legislature and one was for the 93rd. I fully understand your attempt to hide behind your weasel word, likely, but I'm not even going to accept as a given that that's true. You expected the language to be amended, it wasn't, and you can't admit you were wrong. Typical.

StcChief
08-27-2007, 10:14 AM
The definition of life that applies to this argument has to do with living organisms.

From the Random House College Dictionary which I'll post but which I found to be the same in other dictionaries:

1) the condition that distinguishes animals [us folks] and plants from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

The specialized science that deals with the above is embryology.

Using the above definition of life the most logical conclusion is what is inside the womb IS a form of life if it continues to split cells and divide resulting in growth, responds to stimuli etc. It is alive. It is not inanimate nor is it dead, no longer animated or splitting cells etc.

Per embryology this living human organism grows on its own determinism and accord independent of the mother as a seperate living organism. It has all the DNA of a complete human organism. It doesn't even have her blood, which changes. It needs the womb for shelter, protection and nourishment to keep it safe so it can grow or continue to split cells. It responds to stimuli, has brainwaves at a certain point, can hear the mother's voice and can respond and can even feel pain and respond to that.

Now is it human life? Logically it is.
It's NOT a frog. It is NOT inanimate. It has all the requirements of being in the category of being human. It has all the dna of a complete human being, so it is not a tissue blob. It's just a human in an early stage of life. Allowing it to continue to spit and divide cells and grow would be allowing a right to life. Not a full set of rights as an adult human organism, such as a right to vote...just a right to life aka to continue on its path of growth (cell division).

The only logical conclusion is that it is a form of human life. All human orgnisms go through these stages until death.

That's the science on it. The other half of this argument includes the philosophical (including the idea of souls) and legal arguments. But you can't say it is not human life. So if you end it's life, you have taken human life.

I might add, I cannot fathom the blood lust of pro-lifers on killing other human organisms that are adults, that bear no threat to them or for an idea like democracy and freedom. By that I mean Iraq. How is this different than any arguments of convenience by pro-choicers. It's sees to me that they are just as much pro-choice. They just disagree at what stage human life can be ended by man and the reasons. LOL!
Thanks. :clap:
and let God sort out the murders.

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 10:28 AM
I fully understand your attempt to hide behind your weasel word, likely, but I'm not even going to accept as a given that that's true.
You don't accept that what is true? That I said "likely?" All you have to do is go back and read it for yourself, it isn't that hard. Or is it the fact that there is a good chance that any given bill will be reworded and amended after getting shot down the first time that you can't accept? Are you really that dense?

You expected the language to be amended, it wasn't, and you can't admit you were wrong. Typical.
I didn't expect that it was or wasn't. I said there was a good chance it was. And now you're childishly trying to avoid admitting you had misinterpreted my claim. I know that you see the world in black and white, there is no subtlety, no nuance, no gray areas for you, and that you have a great deal of difficulty comprehending that when someone uses a nuance word, they actually intend a less than absolute meaning. That's your problem. But you seem to be enjoying your strawman, so by all means, keep beating at it!

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 10:44 AM
The definition of life that applies to this argument has to do with living organisms.

From the Random House College Dictionary which I'll post but which I found to be the same in other dictionaries:

1) the condition that distinguishes animals [us folks] and plants from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

The specialized science that deals with the above is embryology.

Using the above definition of life the most logical conclusion is what is inside the womb IS a form of life if it continues to split cells and divide resulting in growth, responds to stimuli etc. It is alive. It is not inanimate nor is it dead, no longer animated or splitting cells etc.

Per embryology this living human organism grows on its own determinism and accord independent of the mother as a seperate living organism. It has all the DNA of a complete human organism. It doesn't even have her blood, which changes. It needs the womb for shelter, protection and nourishment to keep it safe so it can grow or continue to split cells. It responds to stimuli, has brainwaves at a certain point, can hear the mother's voice and can respond and can even feel pain and respond to that.

Now is it human life? Logically it is.
It's NOT a frog. It is NOT inanimate. It has all the requirements of being in the category of being human. It has all the dna of a complete human being, so it is not a tissue blob. It's just a human in an early stage of life. Allowing it to continue to spit and divide cells and grow would be allowing a right to life. Not a full set of rights as an adult human organism, such as a right to vote...just a right to life aka to continue on its path of growth (cell division).

The only logical conclusion is that it is a form of human life. All human orgnisms go through these stages until death.

That's the science on it. The other half of this argument includes the philosophical (including the idea of souls) and legal arguments. But you can't say it is not human life. So if you end it's life, you have taken human life.

I might add, I cannot fathom the blood lust of pro-lifers on killing other human organisms that are adults, that bear no threat to them or for an idea like democracy and freedom. By that I mean Iraq. How is this different than any arguments of convenience by pro-choicers. It's sees to me that they are just as much pro-choice. They just disagree at what stage human life can be ended by man and the reasons. LOL!
That's all fine and good, and I am inclined to agree with you. But the scientific community does not agree with you, in consensus. Nor does the legal community. Nor does the medical community. The problem is, you're taking a lay definition of life, and extrapolating that certain conditions that are common to all living things (but which do not necessarily comprise the entire, or even the near package of what ultimately constitutes and defines life) are sufficient to declare legally, scientifically and medically that an unborn fetus (which is not independent of the mother) is a life form (as opposed to a potential life form).

Until there is a satisfactory entire definition of life (not just a convenient one), then all the rhetoric on both sides remains exactly that - rhetoric. I would much prefer that expectant mothers would always err to the side of caution, in case it is a full-fledged life form. But all the argumentum ad misericordiam in the world is not going to win the day.

Sadly, with people like StcChief, it isn't enough that someone is against abortion. If we aren't against abortion for their exact same reasons, we're pieces of shite. And they wonder why they have such a hard time convincing people to come to their religion!

patteeu
08-27-2007, 11:20 AM
You don't accept that what is true? That I said "likely?" All you have to do is go back and read it for yourself, it isn't that hard. Or is it the fact that there is a good chance that any given bill will be reworded and amended after getting shot down the first time that you can't accept? Are you really that dense?

I don't accept as true that bills like this one, once rejected and then re-submitted in the next session of the legislature are amended more often than not. It's something you are taking for granted without providing any evidence.

go bowe
08-27-2007, 11:23 AM
Keep thinking what you want.

You sir will surely rot in hell, believing your above life and have power over decisions to keep or terminate it. Thou shall not kill.rot in hell?

that sounds kinky...

btw, where do you get tickets for the ride to hell?

do you ride a hell bound bus?

it's awfully crowded on this bus, but there's one seat left next to me...

i'll save it for you... :p :p :p

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't accept as true that bills like this one, once rejected and then re-submitted in the next session of the legislature are amended more often than not. It's something you are taking for granted without providing any evidence.It's been rejected and resubmitted more than once, and more than once under the same legislature, and to this day it has never passed. It's been languishing in committee since 2005, now, and I can almost guarantee you that it won't pass unless it is rewritten.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2007, 12:31 PM
That's all fine and good, and I am inclined to agree with you. But the scientific community does not agree with you, in consensus. Nor does the legal community. Nor does the medical community.

If my definition is a point of convenience then it is no different for those that are pro-choice claiming it to be a tissue blob, inanimate or non human. It's really just simple logic. Complicating it obfuscates. Truth is simple.

The fact of the matter is that the true experts are embryologists. AFAIK, they share this stand. I know this, as it was from reading embryology whereby I changed my own stand from stubbornly and staunchly pro-choice to pro-life. That's hardly taking a position of convenience. There are many others that have changed their minds on this basis as well. In fact more have changed from pro-choice to pro-life once educated.

As for the scientific community, that is generality. (See point about embryologists.) Science had always considered it life and human life up until the RvW decision which influenced folks politically since this matter was decided by some judges who did not call in expert (true embryologists) testimony in the case. Up until then it was not the consensus. Scientists can and are influenced by politics just like anybody else.

As for the legal community, that's another generality. They're divided also. One of my best friends is a constitutional lawyer and she is pro-life. It's also a generality for the medical community. My former OB/GYN was pro-life. The one before that pro-choice. Ron Paul an OB who is pro-life. Some medical people who are pro-choice do not deny it's a form of life either or a form of human life. It's a philosophical pov for them. Another point regarding the medical community is that it is no secret that abortion doctors tend to have been hack doctors who did not do well professionally. Many OB/GYNs refuse to perform abortions.

There is NO such consensus. Consensus is also not an indication of truth, especially when science is one long line of mistakes correcting earlier mistakes that were consensus. This topic has nearly every group (including professions) divided at pretty close to a level of 50/50% which is why it is so controversial.

Other than that I see that stchief at least admits to being pro-choice himself based on my latter paragraph.

Anyhow, I don't want to debate this topic....I just wanted to provide a common sense definition of life. Anything, different, is just a form of denialimo.

StcChief
08-27-2007, 12:36 PM
Sadly, with people like StcChief, it isn't enough that someone is against abortion. If we aren't against abortion for their exact same reasons, we're pieces of shite. And they wonder why they have such a hard time convincing people to come to their religion! I don't want you to join any religion.

I don't want you to do anything you don't want.

Freedom and freewill exist in America.

Just making you aware that your definition of what life is may be wrong. Consequences may exist later on.

Science isn't big on changing what they think they have established as their definition on much of anything. Darwin comes to mind.....

believe what you will.

Logical
08-27-2007, 06:17 PM
Well maybe you don't believe it. If you believe in Heaven/Hell.

and you end up in Heaven. What will you say when you talk to the souls
that were aborted/murdered in the 3rd trimester ....If that were to happen I would say, congratulation you avoided all the trials and tribulations on earth and got a pass here, you lucky little one, you.

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 06:52 PM
IJust making you aware that your definition of what life is may be wrong. Consequences may exist later on.
Okay, so my definition of life might be wrong, although I've not put forth any definition of life? There isn't an agreed-upon definition of life, that's my point. There are lots of different points at which people have chosen, for their own purposes, to define the starting point of life. None of them speak with an authority that overrides all the others. And no offense to BEP, but the emryologists are in the same boat, they speak with their own authority, but it doesn't override all the rest. And short of God coming down and telling the whole world in person, or all the stars randomly aligning across the universe to spell out the message, "Life begins at [insert point in time]," it's all arbitrary.

Science isn't big on changing what they think they have established as their definition on much of anything. Darwin comes to mind.....
If Darwin is what comes to your mind as an example of how science tends not to change its position, then you've not kept up with the evolution argument very well. The Theory of Evolution has changed so many times over the years that it is hard to keep count.

Nightwish
08-27-2007, 07:03 PM
There is NO such consensus.
My point exactly. There is no consensus. There is no agreed-upon definition. There is not even consensus among members of the same community. If you were to take a poll of embryologists, no doubt you would still find quite a few among them who do not define life as the others do. Like all the rest, they are still assigning their (limited) definition of life, and trying to establish a starting point that fits that definition. But they neither have offered nor received any guarantee that their definition is sufficiently complete enough to settle the question. Nor is it sufficient to address only the physical aspect of the question without also addressing the philosophical. Signs of life, and aspects of life, do not, in and of themselves, necessarily equate to life. A corpse still possesses aspects of life, some tissues continue to regenerate and grow long after death. But that isn't sufficient to consider the corpse "alive." Where does the line begin - at what point are the presence of life aspects numerous enough to be considered "life," and at what point are they too few to be considered "life?" And who makes that line? And why should everyone else recognize the same line?