Basic Logic...

Jarod said:
Okay leaning...

What evidence do you have that Senator Obama supports Abortion?
Click to expand...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/

I don’t think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I’ve arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don’t think they make it lightly. I don’t think they make it callously...
Click to expand...

With the exception he is answering a question which compares a case of animal abuse to abortion (which was kind of a stupid way to ask about abortion...) he pretty much has the boiler-plate standard answer of politicians in the pro-choice camp: it is up to the woman to determine the morality of killing her unborn child. ie: he is definitely pro-choice.

OTOH he seems to indicate he is not opposed to regulation of late term abortions. What he did not answer is what kind of regulations he believes to be reasonable. But then that was not the question, he just thrust out the idea to show he believes there is some agreement on some aspects of the abortion issue.

I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues.
Click to expand...
 
Good Luck said:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/



With the exception he is answering a question which compares a case of animal abuse to abortion (which was kind of a stupid way to ask about abortion...) he pretty much has the boiler-plate standard answer of politicians in the pro-choice camp: it is up to the woman to determine the morality of killing her unborn child. ie: he is definitely pro-choice.

OTOH he seems to indicate he is not opposed to regulation of late term abortions. What he did not answer is what kind of regulations he believes to be reasonable. But then that was not the question, he just thrust out the idea to show he believes there is some agreement on some aspects of the abortion issue.
Click to expand...


He has supported not giving treatment to 'born alive' babies from botched abortions in hospitals. CBS refers to his Illinois record as a 'goldmine' come fall. I was just going to quote this part, but figured someone would check the link and bring up the things they agree with:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics
SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Jan. 17, 2007(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama — who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination — may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.

Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.

"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.

That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
 
So had he just voted to allow the second doctor in the clinic all the anti-choice people would have voted for him. Boy I bet he lost tens and tens of votes for that one.
 
Socrtease said:
So had he just voted to allow the second doctor in the clinic all the anti-choice people would have voted for him. Boy I bet he lost tens and tens of votes for that one.
Click to expand...

No, the pro-life people would have still most likely have voted against the pro-abortion politician.

This is simply a case of WTF??? If the attempt at killing the kid doesn't work, ya just leave the child to die? Wow.
 
So what exactly would you do for a 12 week old fetus? Put it on life support? That doesn't exist yet. The extra doc provision is a provision in laws to drive up costs and make abortion cost prohibitive.

The fact is there are damn few abortions preformed at a time when the fetus could every survive longer than a few minutes because it can't breathe. From CDC number from 2002 "for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas)...Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.0% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks." A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002 from 49 reporting areas, So that means that 46, 122 were after 16 weeks. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

A report I read from the CDC about abortions in Georgia showed that unless a woman spontaneously evacuated a fetus that had died in utero. This report is from 1983 but that is how Georgia reported them then and I have found nothing to show that they report them any different now, but I have not conducted an exhaustive search. So of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero. 74% of those horrible late term abortions were ALREADY DEAD. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000078.htm
 
Socrtease said:
So what exactly would you do for a 12 week old fetus? Put it on life support? That doesn't exist yet. The extra doc provision is a provision in laws to drive up costs and make abortion cost prohibitive.

The fact is there are damn few abortions preformed at a time when the fetus could every survive longer than a few minutes because it can't breathe. From CDC number from 2002 "for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas)...Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.0% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks." A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002 from 49 reporting areas, So that means that 46, 122 were after 16 weeks. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

A report I read from the CDC about abortions in Georgia showed that unless a woman spontaneously evacuated a fetus that had died in utero. This report is from 1983 but that is how Georgia reported them then and I have found nothing to show that they report them any different now, but I have not conducted an exhaustive search. So of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero. 74% of those horrible late term abortions were ALREADY DEAD. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000078.htm
Click to expand...

These are babies that survived partial birth abortions, not 1st or even 2nd trimester.
 
Socrtease said:
So then you really don't need a second doctor at ALL abortions do you?
Click to expand...

I've read that a couple times now, seems like it was Obama and supporters that were arguing that? In any case, leaving a baby-even damaged by procedure to just wail alone to dead, wrong.
 
Nor, I would add, would you at the 74% of the procedures where the fetus was already dead. See I think the most telling thing is that DnC's and DnE's of dead fetuses are reported as third trimester abortions. Methinks to pad the stats so that states run by people beholden to the totalitarian biological imperative can make it look like all these poor late term babies are being murdered. When it is BULLSHIT plain and simple.
 
Socrtease said:
Nor, I would add, would you at the 74% of the procedures where the fetus was already dead. See I think the most telling thing is that DnC's and DnE's of dead fetuses are reported as third trimester abortions. Methinks to pad the stats so that states run by people beholden to the totalitarian biological imperative can make it look like all these poor late term babies are being murdered. When it is BULLSHIT plain and simple.
Click to expand...

So I guess you would argue likewise that one dead innocent convicted death row inmates life was worth it, considering the others were guilty? Isn't 1 too many?
 
Socrtease said:
So what exactly would you do for a 12 week old fetus? Put it on life support? That doesn't exist yet. The extra doc provision is a provision in laws to drive up costs and make abortion cost prohibitive.

The fact is there are damn few abortions preformed at a time when the fetus could every survive longer than a few minutes because it can't breathe. From CDC number from 2002 "for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas)...Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.0% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks." A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2002 from 49 reporting areas, So that means that 46, 122 were after 16 weeks. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

A report I read from the CDC about abortions in Georgia showed that unless a woman spontaneously evacuated a fetus that had died in utero. This report is from 1983 but that is how Georgia reported them then and I have found nothing to show that they report them any different now, but I have not conducted an exhaustive search. So of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero. 74% of those horrible late term abortions were ALREADY DEAD. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000078.htm
Click to expand...
The above statistics also indicate that 25.6% were NOT from in utero death.

It also indicates that over 11,000 babies were killed which science has proven to be at a survivable stage of development. (>21 weeks)
 
Kathianne said:
So I guess you would argue likewise that one dead innocent convicted death row inmates life was worth it, considering the others were guilty? Isn't 1 too many?
Click to expand...
Wow scarecrow I would head back to the wizard lickety split. The fetus is not a person under color of law. Until it is feet out the constitution don't apply. Don't like it, amend it. Until then if you don't believe in abortions don't have one. No one is forcing you too. The force comes from the anti-choice side.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow scarecrow I would head back to the wizard lickety split. The fetus is not a person under color of law. Until it is feet out the constitution don't apply. Don't like it, amend it. Until then if you don't believe in abortions don't have one. No one is forcing you too. The force comes from the anti-choice side.
Click to expand...

So now it's not about numbers, it's just OK to kill. BTW, Roe v Wade may be law, but it's not settled and it never was 'constitutional.'
 
Socrtease said:
Wow scarecrow I would head back to the wizard lickety split. The fetus is not a person under color of law. Until it is feet out the constitution don't apply. Don't like it, amend it. Until then if you don't believe in abortions don't have one. No one is forcing you too. The force comes from the anti-choice side.
Click to expand...
The constitution uses birth to define CITIZEN, not person. Do try to get it straight. Otherwise all non citizens would not be protected by law. But the 14th amendment DOES apply constitutional protections to all persons, not just citizens.

While the word "citizen" is defined, the word "Person" is not defined. Therefore the common use rule of law would apply, and common use of the word person is defined as a living human.

Science has proven beyond any doubt that a human fetus is, by definition, a living human. Therefore is a person. Therefore is (except for the fact we ignore the Constitution when convenient) under the protection of the 14th amendment.

And, as is typical of the so-called "pro choice" faction, we are not worried about abortions being forced on people. We are objecting to the wholesale slaughter of living humans.
 
Good Luck said:
The constitution uses birth to define CITIZEN, not person. Do try to get it straight. Otherwise all non citizens would not be protected by law. But the 14th amendment DOES apply constitutional protections to all persons, not just citizens.

While the word "citizen" is defined, the word "Person" is not defined. Therefore the common use rule of law would apply, and common use of the word person is defined as a living human.

Science has proven beyond any doubt that a human fetus is, by definition, a living human. Therefore is a person. Therefore is (except for the fact we ignore the Constitution when convenient) under the protection of the 14th amendment.

And, as is typical of the so-called "pro choice" faction, we are not worried about abortions being forced on people. We are objecting to the wholesale slaughter of living humans.
Click to expand...
It's not whole sale which the inclusion of dead fetuses in the abortion. They also do DnE's and DnC's for women who have miscarried on whose fetus dies in the second trimester as well. Christ, 74% of abortions in Georgia that you totalitarians decry as callous murder are actually fetuses that died and you Callously lump women who WANTED their children but they died. The majority of abortions in this country are done in the first 15 weeks. While it without argument, kills mechanistic human life, it is hardly the slaughter you emo totalitarians make it out to be.
 
Jarod said:
I dont support Satin worship.... But I also dont support the government making it illegal.

Is that inconsistant?
Click to expand...
LOL.

I'm sorry, I don't normally hassle the spelling thing.

Satin worship though... well, the picture is hilarious!
 
satin:

satin_burgundy.jpg


Satan:

the-satan-pit-doctor-beast3.jpg
 
Jarod...

Why would you support the worship of one "imaginary" being, while totally rejecting another?

Laws against murder and theft, etc stand, but I support the right of people to worship any "imaginary" being they so choose to worship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top