this makes me sick .. I am a Father of 4 wonderful daughters .. how could anyone do this?
this makes me sick .. I am a Father of 4 wonderful daughters .. how could anyone do this?
Sick indeed. I'm going to go hug my kids now.
Disgusting. But what makes it even more sad is that rather than focusing on the issue that live babies are being killed they set up the whole video like a campaign ad.
"Barack Obama can play word games, but at the end of the day his opposition was responsible for living babies being left out to die."
I don't know why he opposed the bills, I'm sure there was some mistake or misunderstanding or something as he said (because if there wasn't then that would be a campaign destroying move) but it's not his fault. They are going out of their way to blame Obama before they blame the patients who had the procedure done, the doctors who did the procedure, and everyone else on staff (including the lady in the video) who just stood around and knowingly let it happen. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that it is illegal to deliver a baby and then go put it in the hazmat room to die. Why don't they call the cops rather than watching so that they can have a story to use against Obama.
"Barack Obama can play word games, but at the end of the day his opposition was responsible for living babies being left out to die."
I don't know why he opposed the bills, I'm sure there was some mistake or misunderstanding or something as he said (because if there wasn't then that would be a campaign destroying move) but it's not his fault. They are going out of their way to blame Obama before they blame the patients who had the procedure done, the doctors who did the procedure, and everyone else on staff (including the lady in the video) who just stood around and knowingly let it happen. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that it is illegal to deliver a baby and then go put it in the hazmat room to die. Why don't they call the cops rather than watching so that they can have a story to use against Obama.
There is no mistake or misunderstanding on Obama's part, his position is crystal clear ... read below.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terencej … idate_ever
... refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
...
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."
...
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "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."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
...
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."
...
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill." In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terencej … idate_ever
... refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
...
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."
...
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "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."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
...
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."
...
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill." In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.
The leftists picked a extremist this time.
Too bad.
Vote Ron Paul.
Too bad.
Vote Ron Paul.
Obama wants to kill babies?
OH THE HUMANITY!
The moral question of abortion should not be a legislated issue. There should be regulations in place allowing for people to get medical attention for abortions up to the first trimester and later on for medical conditions.
According to that article (townhall.com), Obama said he opposed the first legislation because it contained verbiage that could be contradictory to the Federal Roe vs. Wade decision. He said he would support similar legislation that contained new verbiage. The author of the article says "In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill" because there was no vote on it while he was Chair of a committee assigned that particular bill.
Seems like it's just author of the article's opinion vs. Obama's statement on the subject.
OH THE HUMANITY!
The moral question of abortion should not be a legislated issue. There should be regulations in place allowing for people to get medical attention for abortions up to the first trimester and later on for medical conditions.
According to that article (townhall.com), Obama said he opposed the first legislation because it contained verbiage that could be contradictory to the Federal Roe vs. Wade decision. He said he would support similar legislation that contained new verbiage. The author of the article says "In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill" because there was no vote on it while he was Chair of a committee assigned that particular bill.
Seems like it's just author of the article's opinion vs. Obama's statement on the subject.
Read again. Pro-abortion Democrats added the verbage that Sen. Boxer described as not attacking Roe vs. Wade. In spite of that addition, Obama still voted no. This is far beyond even partial birth abortion let alone your conditions of first trimester or medical conditions, KJ. This is full delivery of a baby and allowing him/her to die. Even pro-abortion people oppose this, yet Obama refused to do so.
The verbiage was added to the Illinios bill after Obama's vote. I did read it. After the verbiage was added, there was no vote on it - supposedly (according to the author of that article) because Obama wanted "kill it" (apparantly just like he wants for every other baby - infanticide).Stingray24 wrote:
Read again. Pro-abortion Democrats added the verbage that Sen. Boxer described as not attacking Roe vs. Wade. In spite of that addition, Obama still voted no. This is far beyond even partial birth abortion let alone your conditions of first trimester or medical conditions, KJ. This is full delivery of a baby and allowing him/her to die. Even pro-abortion people oppose this, yet Obama refused to do so.
Yes you are correct. He let it sit to die. The Abortion of it failed so he left it sit in the room to die.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
INNOCENT BABIES DYING CUZ OBAMA WANTS THEM ALL TO DIE.
Us Dems rejoice in the killing of the young. Rejoice!
Us Dems rejoice in the killing of the young. Rejoice!
Given the subject, try to be serious.
Let's not mind Obama destroyed Keyes in a Chicago election. That has nothing to do with anything.
Humanity fails, why are you surprised?
I'm pro-death
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa kill them little fuckers
stingray, your source reeks of right wing bias
(and you know what the real disturbing thing is? You actually believe that crap)
It used to be the Jews....... now its the liberals cough cough bolsheviks cough cough......
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa kill them little fuckers
stingray, your source reeks of right wing bias
(and you know what the real disturbing thing is? You actually believe that crap)
It used to be the Jews....... now its the liberals cough cough bolsheviks cough cough......
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-10 18:25:22)
he used the dreaded "chicago style" politics to win the election. He bought victory with a dumpster full of fetuses (feti?) and the head of Jimmy Hoffa.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Let's not mind Obama destroyed Keyes in a Chicago election. That has nothing to do with anything.
Home is right. There is a whole string of complicity here...but the government's job is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. To care for those who cannot care for themselves.
To vote no on an issue like this is the complete abrogation of those responsibilities as an elected official.
This is not a choice issue...those babies were alive outside the womb.
I personally don't believe in making abortion illegal...but those fuckers need to be thrown underneath the jail and forgotten.
To vote no on an issue like this is the complete abrogation of those responsibilities as an elected official.
This is not a choice issue...those babies were alive outside the womb.
I personally don't believe in making abortion illegal...but those fuckers need to be thrown underneath the jail and forgotten.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
looks like election propaganda to me. Abortion is murder. Legal murder though.
And who are the killers? The parents who have one. Not Obama.
And who are the killers? The parents who have one. Not Obama.
Firstly, those 'Illuminati Pictures' videos reek of horrible bias in their editing and presentation and I notice they seem to always use FOX News snippets (interesting that).
Secondly, it would appear that Obama is pro-choice and the only issue here is that these incidents involve abortions that have gone wrong and resulted in the babies remaining alive and making it out of the womb, am I correct in assuming that?
If so, this is a horribly complex minefield of a topic. What does one propose should be done with these survivor babies? Should a rape victim be forced to raise the child with the prospect of maybe one day not only having to tell the child that he/she is the product of a rape but is also the survivor of a failed abortion?
Or should a rape victim give up said child for adoption and live out her life knowing that her child may be wandering the earth full of bitterness that his/her father was a rapist and that his/her mother never wanted them?
I use rape as an example because in my opinion abortion has to be boiled down to a scenario involving rape because that for me is the primary reason I believe in pro-choice (that and the health of the mother - which does not apply in this case if the baby was able to make it out alive in any case).
Secondly, it would appear that Obama is pro-choice and the only issue here is that these incidents involve abortions that have gone wrong and resulted in the babies remaining alive and making it out of the womb, am I correct in assuming that?
If so, this is a horribly complex minefield of a topic. What does one propose should be done with these survivor babies? Should a rape victim be forced to raise the child with the prospect of maybe one day not only having to tell the child that he/she is the product of a rape but is also the survivor of a failed abortion?
Or should a rape victim give up said child for adoption and live out her life knowing that her child may be wandering the earth full of bitterness that his/her father was a rapist and that his/her mother never wanted them?
I use rape as an example because in my opinion abortion has to be boiled down to a scenario involving rape because that for me is the primary reason I believe in pro-choice (that and the health of the mother - which does not apply in this case if the baby was able to make it out alive in any case).
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama wrote:
[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
What a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING!
And for the record, I only support abortion when it comes to rape and incest (or cases where the mother's life is at stake). However, you (and Stingray, unfortunately...guess he's fallen into the trap too) actually believing that crap which actually tries to paint him like some sort of bloodthirsty baby killer is beyond, and I mean BEYOND pathetic.
The fact that you now have that in your sig disturbs me, Stingray. You're too smart of a person and too old to believe something SCHITTLOAF posted.
Last edited by Poseidon (2008-09-10 19:08:18)
srsly how many women get raped and then get an abortion .... prolly not as many as say the unprotected sex type that is to busy to be bothered with motherhood... oh and as far as the women being responsible for bringing up that child.. maybe if they knew the baby was still alive they would keep it .. however there are plenty of people willing to adopt these babies . where is that baby's pro-choice in this matterBraddock wrote:
Firstly, those 'Illuminati Pictures' videos reek of horrible bias in their editing and presentation and I notice they seem to always use FOX News snippets (interesting that).
Secondly, it would appear that Obama is pro-choice and the only issue here is that these incidents involve abortions that have gone wrong and resulted in the babies remaining alive and making it out of the womb, am I correct in assuming that?
If so, this is a horribly complex minefield of a topic. What does one propose should be done with these survivor babies? Should a rape victim be forced to raise the child with the prospect of maybe one day not only having to tell the child that he/she is the product of a rape but is also the survivor of a failed abortion?
Or should a rape victim give up said child for adoption and live out her life knowing that her child may be wandering the earth full of bitterness that his/her father was a rapist and that his/her mother never wanted them?
I use rape as an example because in my opinion abortion has to be boiled down to a scenario involving rape because that for me is the primary reason I believe in pro-choice (that and the health of the mother - which does not apply in this case if the baby was able to make it out alive in any case).
Do you dispute the facts or just not like the source? This is not about abortion. This is about a procedure the American Medical Association deems medically unnecessary. Pro-abortion people supported the bill that Obama refused to support in spite of the fact that the bill contained language which protected abortion.Spearhead wrote:
I'm pro-death
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa kill them little fuckers
stingray, your source reeks of right wing bias
(and you know what the real disturbing thing is? You actually believe that crap)
It used to be the Jews....... now its the liberals cough cough bolsheviks cough cough......
Sad
Abortion: artificially-instigated premature birth, usually fatal. In most other circumstances, heroic measures would be enacted to save the child.
I don't agree with the use of abortion as a form of contraception but that doesn't mean the right to choose should not be available to rape victims. As regards these rape victims maybe selecting to keep the babies in the event of them surviving the abortion, well, maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't... I actually know a girl who was raped but decided early on that she would keep the child so it is true that different people react differently to the rape/pregnancy scenario and the possibility of these failed abortions would no doubt have a major effect on this decision making process. But at the same time there are plenty of girls who are raped and don't want to, and simply aren't able to, raise and look after a child and these woman should not be forced to permanently pay for the sins of a sex offender. Giving the child up for adoption is just as tough on the mother because they have to live out their life in the knowledge that there is a child walking the earth possibly full of bitterness at the fact that its father is a rapist and its mother didn't want him/her.Schittloaf wrote:
srsly how many women get raped and then get an abortion .... prolly not as many as say the unprotected sex type that is to busy to be bothered with motherhood... oh and as far as the women being responsible for bringing up that child.. maybe if they knew the baby was still alive they would keep it .. however there are plenty of people willing to adopt these babies.
Hey, I know it sounds harsh but when rape is involved the choice of the mother/victim comes first. Imagine it were possible for someone to rape you and make you shit out a baby... how would you feel if society started insisting that you put your needs and ambitions second and the needs of this unwanted child first?Schittloaf wrote:
where is that baby's pro-choice in this matter
This is why I consider rape almost as serious a crime as murder, it is a horrible, horrible crime, often with huge repercussions.
let's stomp some babies!