|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/22/2008 10:54:38 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
Vicious attacks on the unborn and partially born are mainstream Democratic Party religion. They love the right to dismember a baby more than Muslims love Mecca. 50 million dead has not satisfied them. Instead, like a lion preying on helpless villagers, they become bolder and bolder, pushing the sicko envelope to include the fully born.
When arguing against a law to protect babies who've escaped the abortionist's fangs, BO argued that providing life saving medical care to the newborn was unconstitutional.
We've accepted a political party where mainstream religion includes the cherished right to suck the brains out of babies. That now their nominal leader is after the fully born is not surprising.
Why won't you die? Search for "unconstitutionality" in the linked pdf.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/22/2008 11:57:49 PM
|
|
|
Rockwall
Posts: 432
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
This is one of the reasons why I believe that if Barack wins then Bush will be the last pro-life president for a long time. Barack will nominate pro-infanticide justices and there will be no turning back as far as Roe v. Wade goes.
Who cares though? There are more important issues than the silent holocaust happening within our borders such as homosexual marriages, saving wildlife that might be harmed if we drill for oil, and continuing perpetual welfare and a socialist agenda.
When Barack talks about "Hope", he means that he hopes the baby doesn't make it or the mother's "constitutional" right to kill her baby will be violated Also note that this is one of Baracks "Present" votes because he did not have the wherewithal to make a firm stance.
quote:
Page. 86:
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out that during the testimony a number of
members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an
abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that
your you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the
testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to
craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect
to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this
fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and
so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much
difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not
going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution,
what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that
are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to
a a child, a ninemonthold child that was delivered to
term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by
a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it it
would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection
clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a
child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that
purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The
second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is
that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
Page 87:
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to
describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the
Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or
cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor
that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as
possible and give them as much medical attention as as is
necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably
crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said
before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the
last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of
here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it
was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh
Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I
I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important
to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we
might have compromised and and arrived at a bill that dealt
with the narrow concerns about how a a previable fetus or child
was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re
going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I
think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we
often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting
Present.
I got news for you, it is a child that is being killed; it is not a puppy and it is not a kitten, it is a human child. If you can't make a decision on an important issue like this, then I don't want you answering the phone at three in the morning.
_____________________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 12:18:34 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
One of the points I'm trying to make is that BO seems to be doing one of two things. One, he's expanding the boundaries of Death Roe to include fully born human beings. A right to abort a child does not end at birth. Or two, he's pushing for a new make-believe constitutional right to kill people by denying medical care.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 12:41:12 PM
|
|
|
stampinlady
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Northern IL
Status: offline
|
I'm pro life, but Obabma did bring up some concerns as he should considering he is a representative of the people. He's prochoice and represents those who are pro choice, What would you have him do?
_____________________________
Deb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 12:44:47 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
The baby that survives an abortion should have the same rights as any other citizen period. Any politician who can't guarantee the basic constitutional rights for the weakest of society does not deserve to represent anyone in office. He should know better since he was a constitutional law professor.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 12:51:17 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
I'm pro life, but Obabma did bring up some concerns as he should considering he is a representative of the people. He's prochoice and represents those who are pro choice, What would you have him do?
Well ... if we lived in the first few centuries ... and were Roman ... and had a representative in a land where everyone thought "the games" which consisted of watching two gladiators fight to the death ... I would expect a representative that had enough backbone to stand up to do the right thing, even if that meant putting his political career in jeopardy. It is more than representing your constituents ... it means doing what is best for those constituents, not necessarily what they want.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 1:39:30 PM
|
|
|
stampinlady
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Northern IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
Number one, whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution,
what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that
are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to
a a child, a ninemonthold child that was delivered to
term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by
a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it it
would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection
clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a
child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that
In his opinion the determining factor is "previable fetus as a person." If it is determined a person then there is a risk that abortions could be made illegal. I don't think you guys get it.
_____________________________
Deb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 1:49:29 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
I do get it. The problem is that those who are pro-abortion refuse to see the truth about who they are killing. Technology is out there now showing the growth and development from conception to birth. The National Geographic Channel has a program that they air fairly often. The fact is that every last one of us all started out exactly the same way but we just had the opportunity to grow in utero to be viable. Babies are viable much earlier than they used to be.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 1:51:31 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5668
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
A number years ago I was in Mainland China in the rural areas, and was absolutely appalled by the population control method called "Post delivery abortion", it was infanticide practiced by the families in remote areas to insur their one governmental approved child was male.
And now i find that some yo-yo running for President; Obama, supports the same thing.
Utterly disgusting.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 1:54:31 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
I do get it. The problem is that those who are pro-abortion refuse to see the truth about who they are killing. Technology is out there now showing the growth and development from conception to birth. The National Geographic Channel has a program that they air fairly often. The fact is that every last one of us all started out exactly the same way but we just had the opportunity to grow in utero to be viable. Babies are viable much earlier than they used to be.
Exactly. And the fact is that when a "pre-viable" fetus survives an abortion the new-born child proves that it was, indeed, VIABLE!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 2:00:54 PM
|
|
|
stampinlady
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Northern IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do get it.
No you don't . He's concerned that if the "personhood" is established then Roe v Wade could be in trouble. We should be happy he's questioning this.
_____________________________
Deb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 2:05:02 PM
|
|
|
jadab
Posts: 99
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
quote:
Number one, whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution,
what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that
are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to
a a child, a ninemonthold child that was delivered to
term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by
a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it it
would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection
clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a
child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that
In his opinion the determining factor is "previable fetus as a person." If it is determined a person then there is a risk that abortions could be made illegal. I don't think you guys get it.
Right. It is a constitutional argument and not necessarily a judgment call. But everyone is so busy wagging their fingers... And thus begins the Roe v. Wade argument that is put on the front burner every four years but no Republican administration to date has managed to repeal it. They just promise to. Then they get elected. Then they don't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 2:35:08 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 2335
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
quote:
I do get it.
No you don't . He's concerned that if the "personhood" is established then Roe v Wade could be in trouble. We should be happy he's questioning this.
I get it. God forbid we allow a human unborn baby personhood. They already have a unique DNA at conception. Science has already proven that. If he gets in office though he will make sure that there is no personhood granted to them. The judges he will appoint will be left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
50,000,000 and counting.
_____________________________
Stephanie
The heart of the wise inclines to the right but the heart of the fool to the left.
Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is. ~ Ecc. 10:2-3
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 2:51:49 PM
|
|
|
LabGuy
Posts: 3281
Joined: 9/22/2007
From: NW Pennsylvania
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jadab
And thus begins the Roe v. Wade argument that is put on the front burner every four years but no Republican administration to date has managed to repeal it. They just promise to. Then they get elected. Then they don't do it.
I hear that argument a lot, but I don't think it holds water. Here's why:
Passing anti-abortion legislation in Congress is a herculean task. Not only do you need a majority in both houses (which is not guaranteed by a Republican majority since there are pro-choice Republicans, like the senior senator from my own state), but in the Senate at least you need the 60-vote supermajority to break the filibuster that is guaranteed to happen. There has not been a 60 member pro-life majority in the Senate to my knowledge. Politicians usually do not start a fight they have no hope of winning, and save their political capital for other battles.
Furthermore, even if by some miracle Congress passed an abortion ban and the President signs it, it will end up before the Supreme Court. At this time there are only four Justices who are pro-life. (Well two we know for sure; the other two we hope President Bush chose wisely.) That's not enough. The others are either confirmed pro-choice or "swing votes" that usually vote to preserve Roe v. Wade. One more appointment is necessary to replace a pro-choice or swing vote. The only way we get that is with a pro-life President. (And a Senate that will vote to confirm.)
I still doubt it's possible to get a real ban through Congress, even if the composition of the Supreme Court is favorable. It will probably take a state legislature to enact a ban. And it must be a state that is populous enough that abortion proponents cannot ignore it and would have to challenge. (Odds are if they see an unfavorable balance on the Supreme Court they would be willing to sacrifice a small state to keep abortion in the rest; they are anything but stupid.)
Do Republicans use the pro-life vote? Of course. But I'm not going to dismiss them because they face long odds in Washington in advancing that particular agenda. And besides, there has been progress. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban anyone? Some babies are being saved.
-Robb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 3:34:38 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
quote:
I do get it.
No you don't . He's concerned that if the "personhood" is established then Roe v Wade could be in trouble. We should be happy he's questioning this.
And that would be a bad thing? I dare say you are the one who doesn't understand ... those who value life understand that a baby that survives an abortion is indeed a person and has rights. Denying personhood because of the possibility of it causing Roe v Wade is an incredibly mind boggling argument that reveals either someone who does not understand the incredible gift of life or has been terribly deceived by the belief that women have the right to allow the baby they are carrying to die when it does not fit their agenda. If giving "personhood" to this baby (who is indeed a person) causes R v W to be reviewed would only be icing on the cake.
We are talking about a baby that is outside of the womb, breathing on its own and struggling to stay alive. Your argument says "sorry you must die because for you to live means I must acknowledge you are a person ... and if I give you that title of person, R v W may have to be looked at more closely, and your life is not worthy of such a grand thing as this."
Roe v Wade probably would not have passed today because of the medical advances over the last 38 years. We now know that this is not a blob, but a real LIVE human being. I met a little 4 and a half year old who was born after only being carried for 18 weeks ... he was 12 ounces at birth ... and is the most delightful little boy you can imagine and has overcome most of the early difficulties that came with such an early birth.
I understand completely what Senator Obama was saying ... and what you are saying. Words cannot express the depth of my disagreement with both views. I cannot even imagine going to the Lord in my quiet time and attempting to rationalize such a view with Him.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 3:51:20 PM
|
|
|
LabGuy
Posts: 3281
Joined: 9/22/2007
From: NW Pennsylvania
Status: offline
|
I just posted this in another thread, but felt it was very appropriate here. The relevant quote is 44 seconds in:
"I don't want them punished with a baby."
I think that speaks volumes.
-Robb
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 4:17:48 PM
|
|
|
jadab
Posts: 99
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LabGuy
I just posted this in another thread, but felt it was very appropriate here. The relevant quote is 44 seconds in:
"I don't want them punished with a baby."
I think that speaks volumes.
-Robb
Again, are you assuming that he is saying that the 'mistake' is pregnancy and the 'punishment' is a baby, or that the 'mistake' is pre-marital/unprotected sex and the consequences (including a baby) can be avoided via proper sex education and prevention?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 4:20:57 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jadab
quote:
ORIGINAL: LabGuy
I just posted this in another thread, but felt it was very appropriate here. The relevant quote is 44 seconds in:
"I don't want them punished with a baby."
I think that speaks volumes.
-Robb
Again, are you assuming that he is saying that the 'mistake' is pregnancy and the 'punishment' is a baby, or that the 'mistake' is pre-marital/unprotected sex and the consequences (including a baby) can be avoided via proper sex education and prevention?
I remember watching the clip in its entirety and he was talking about abortion at the time.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 4:40:54 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2179
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
No you don't . He's concerned that if the "personhood" is established then Roe v Wade could be in trouble. We should be happy he's questioning this.
I'm unhappy that the people of my state have been denied their constitutional 10th amendment right to do what we want to do and that is ban abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't automatically outlaw abortion it only outlaws it in states and jurisdictions where the people don't want it.
What a noble idea- the governed people of a country actually being able to elect candidates and vote for the most divisive issue they face. We can't have that now can we?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 4:45:10 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2789
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: online
|
More scary are the views of Pete Singer- an ethics professor at Princeton. He has written that a baby is not fully human until at least two years of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
quote:
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [23]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[24].
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 5:13:39 PM
|
|
|
Peter_Gunn
Posts: 706
Joined: 6/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
More scary are the views of Pete Singer- an ethics professor at Princeton. He has written that a baby is not fully human until at least two years of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
I don't have the words to describe this "person"...maybe Satan incarnate? Absolutely amazing.
He thinks it's okay to kill a toddler, but don't be cruel to animals. It's okay to engage in...ahem...mutually satisfying activities with an animal as long as the animal is not harmed. ???? Am I reading that right?
It always amazes me to see that there are people so thoroughly reprobate in the world...and even more amazing is that this someone will pay this guy to spread his sickness by reading this guy's book or listening to him talk.
Back to the point...if killing full term babies, even after birth, is made fully legal, then the next thing to be pushed will be killing elderly people who can no longer care for themselves. That seems to be the "slippery slope" that none of the pro-death people want to acknowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 5:27:07 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
More scary are the views of Pete Singer- an ethics professor at Princeton. He has written that a baby is not fully human until at least two years of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Slippery slopes are very scary indeed!!
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 5:36:26 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stampinlady
quote:
I do get it.
No you don't . He's concerned that if the "personhood" is established then Roe v Wade could be in trouble. We should be happy he's questioning this.
Happy that he thinks it is against the law to provide medical care to a baby? You're no pro-lifer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You were supposed to die, so do it! - 9/23/2008 5:40:38 PM
|
|
|
stampinlady
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Northern IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
I understand completely what Senator Obama was saying ... and what you are saying
No you don't. "Personhood" should be discussed and brought up because that is what needs to be determined. Prolife people believe that a baby whether newly conceived or 6 mos. old are persons and those who are prochoice do not. Establishing personhood means alot and defines shaded lines. I want to know exaclty what the other side thinks so I know what I'm up against. He has no busniess agreeing with a bill he, nor the people he represents, agrees with.
_____________________________
Deb
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Being OK with the deaths of *born* premature infants and insisting they are not "persons" is what bothers me the most. The line keeps being pushed farther. Birth no longer makes one a valuable person. The first breath (though it may be taken with a struggle) no longer makes one a valuable person. What does?
