President Obama

Name, schmame, I cannot bring myself to vote for a democrat. I'd sooner not vote at all. Democrats and Republicans both lie, prevaricate, do immoral things, pander to the baser issues of our nature....BUT, with republicans it is human frailty, with democrats they accept it as part of their PLATFORM. IOW, with them, it is part of their belief system.

Republicans strive for truth/honor/etc. and fail....Democrats strive for themselves and succeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]397180[/snapback]</div>

I could vote for lieberman

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb 26 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]396961[/snapback]</div>

BS

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 07:28 AM) [snapback]397180[/snapback]</div>

Schmika demostrates how to hit the nail on the head. It's the same analogy as cutting someone off in traffic Repubublicans do it on accident, demoncrats do it on purpose and as part of their nature.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 24 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]395918[/snapback]</div>

You mean like this type?

We support the troops. - demoncrats

We will strangle the ability of the military to supply and train the troops in Iraq. - demoncrats


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb 27 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]397295[/snapback]</div>

If the care is already in place for live births of aborted babies why would someone vote against a provision to insure medical care for these babies? Not very smart on Obama's part now is it? Of course he is a smoker so we already knew that he isn't the brightest bulb in the pack, right? The MSM is protecting its baby. As I said before its all spin cause as far as I'm concerned the lack of medical care for aborted babies born alive and his support for partial birth abortions makes him and unsavory character.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1918_0_2_0_C/



" I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

Wildkow

 

Republicans, more so than Democrats, are into money and particularly corruption. I love it when nitwits like you try to make an equivalency argument that is flat out not respresentative of reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 27 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]397340[/snapback]</div>

Hahahahahahahahahaha..

Thats like saying "Charlie Manson isn't as much as a pyscopath as Ted Bundy"..

They're both evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Feb 27 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]397344[/snapback]</div>

I read that the legislation Obama voted against used a legal trick of referring to the unborn fetus as a legal entity.
Remember the Laci Peterson case of charging murder for her unborn child.That Bush was pushing for the legislation was a wink and nod to his evangelical base.
Eventually their strategy is to culminate in making all abortion illegal,by protecting the rights of the unborn fetus.

 

The law was opposed in its earlier drafts for the following language, which (see bolded text) pretty much specifically defined a fetus:
the term "person" includes "an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive, regardless of whether or not the baby's development is believed to be, or is in fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival, and regardless of whether the baby survived an abortion."
Why right-to-be-a-person legislation keeps failing, Chicago Tribune, August 5, 2002

The law as passed is as follows. The law has been rewritten so, while not excluding fetuses, it does not specifically extend protection to them (i.e., set legal precedent to outlaw abortion). The law also specifically adds items c, d, and e to stop the law from altering Illinois abortion rights or medical practice (i.e., law won't inhibit protecting the mother):

HB0984 Enrolled LRB094 04181 MKM 34205 b

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

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

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
"human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every
infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at
any stage of development.
( B ) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that
member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion
or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the
umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,
regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and
regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or
induced abortion.
C Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm,
deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right
applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any
point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/94/094-0559.htm

Obama did his job and represented the will of the majority of people in Illinois. Nuff said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 27 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]397385[/snapback]</div>

Obviously the law you quoted above wasn’t working as this Illinois nurse testified to under oath.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm

Therefore, the need for a law that mandates care for aborted babies born live is required. To defend Obamas position and spin on this is to acquiesce to the practice.

So, your supporting a poll driven candiate for the Presidency?

Wildkow

 

I think I'm entitled to rights as well. Wth is a fetus w/o a developed neurological system (can't think, can't feel... no firing neurons) gonna do to help society? How the frak is this group of cells - which at that point is embryologically very similar to a reptile (you can't tell the difference between a reptile fetus and a human one at 4 weeks)?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 28 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]398068[/snapback]</div>

Once, just once, check a fact Wildkow. The law I quoted was passed after a compromise rewrote the text cited in the Tribune article from 2002. Your Nurse's testimony is from 2001. The law as passed works fine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 28 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]398081[/snapback]</div>

Live birth aborted babies do have all the above. You on the other hand may have been and probably still are an exception to the norm and the criteria listed in your post. Oh silly me of course you’re an exception according to your stated similarities to reptiles. My bad!

Almost had me fooled for a moment but I see you trying to change the subject away from Obama and his position on abortion. Come on mirza tell me would you toss a live birth aborted baby in the trash or on a shelf or deny it medical care or would you heroically man the vacuum and suck the brains out? Oh! I forgot we would need someone to insert the scissors into the base of the skull and make an opening, any volunteers?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]397180[/snapback]</div>

Reality is closer to being the other way around:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Scien...TF8&s=books

But if your last statement is true, why do some nuts call some Dems socialists and even commies when that's not true?

(not that there is inherently anything WHATSOEVER wrong on a personal level with being a socialis/communist and caring for the greater good)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 28 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]398089[/snapback]</div>

OK i promise to check my facts if you promise to check yours, deal?

Fact, your law is not a law it is nothing more than a public act that defines what a Born Alive Infant is. There is no medicare care provision in it.

The law as it is or was (1975?) in place puts the doctor in the room and mandates him/her to pronounce death. It did not mandate that medical care be extended to the live birth aborted baby. This obviously is not being done as Christ hospital after being singled out for it's practice of tossing them in the trash or shelving live birth aborted babies in utility or soiled laundry room have now added a . . .

“Comfort Room.” So now I can no longer say that live aborted babies are left in our Soiled Utility Room to die. We now have this prettily wallpapered room complete with a First Foto machine, baptismal gowns, a footprinter, and baby bracelets, so that we can offer keepsakes to parents of their aborted babies. There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.

It is wrong that current Illinois law mandates a doctor to pronounce a born-alive aborted baby dead but does not mandate the doctor to assess that baby for life and chances of survival. It is wrong that Illinois law mandates both birth and death certificates be issued – admitting that these aborted babies are indeed human – but does not give these babies any rights whatsoever to medical care. No other children in Illinois or America are treated this way. It is just not right that a baby should be left to die simply because her mother does not want her. It is not right that the very doctors who may be miscalculating due dates and fetal birth weights or misdiagnosing fetal handicaps are the same ones deciding that these babies should not be assessed after delivery. They're being allowed to destroy the very evidence that might make them liable for lawsuits if they have been wrong.


http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm


Wildkow

p.s. prehaps you would like to man the sissors?

p.p.s. The constitution gives rights to persons only, however long or short their lives maybe, thus the need to deem the live birth aborted baby as a person to mandate medical care. Do you have a problem with giving medical care to live birth aborted babies or are you just trying to deflect this topic to abortion and away from Obama like mirza?

[attachmentid=6733]

 

And what on earth do you hope medical care to an aborted baby will accomplish? If you want to go by your imaginary friend's way - you let the baby go off on it's own. To heck with everything else.

Or does that mean your imaginary friend is - *gasp* - powerless to do anything about it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 28 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]398127[/snapback]</div>

What would you do?

Wildkow

 

Depends - but in all likelihood it's about as useful as keeping Terri alive... but much worse. Meaning under most circumstances I wouldn't attemt the naive and impossible. Assuming that an aborted fetus actually has any shot at living, it would live an awful life... I can't imagine what kinds of health problems would result from trying to keep an aborted fetus alive (and it would have to be pretty darn late to have any shot at life). I am all for abortions up to 6 weeks. I'd offer them to that stage and not have to make a decision post 6 weeks when neurons are actually firing (and that's just nervous activity - I am not aware of whether we know the fetus is even capable of pain even at 6 weeks)... but until somebody develops "mother machinery" that can feed the fetus and whatnot... there is absolutely no point in trying to save the fetus... it's not going to continue that early... period.