Barack Hussein Obama supports Live Birth Abortion (Infanticide)
repo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4kdWN5WllGc
Alan Keys on Barack Obama's support of killing of
full born infants (infanticide), left to die
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbp2-Tm9z4
*us*
are known to poison mothers so badly as to cause them
to abort. Bush also kills children outright in Iraq.
free....@gmail.com
That's a lie...Only if they are Zionists
*us*
wrote:
No, it's true. Bush's disastrous environmental damage
definitely causes even mothers who want their babies
to abort. Bush is not only bombing families in their
homes in Iraq, he's spreading DU around there.
repo
who supports killing of babies out of the womb?
awthr...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:35:51 -0700 (PDT), "free.tun...@gmail.com" <free.tun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 7, 8:39 am, * US * wrote:
> >> The pollutants increased by Bush's treasonous policies
> >> are known to poison mothers so badly as to cause them
> >> to abort. Bush also kills children outright in Iraq.
>
> >That's a lie...Only if they are Zionists
>
> No, it's true. Bush's disastrous environmental damage
> definitely causes even mothers who want their babies
> to abort. Bush is not only bombing families in their
> homes in Iraq, he's spreading DU around there.
Umm, abortions have gone down during the Bush presidency.
In case you didn't know it, legalized abortion began about 1973.
BTW, if you think women abort due to the air quality index, etc.,
you're probably not real successful with women.
repo
> On Sep 7, 9:49 am, * US * wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:35:51 -0700 (PDT), "free.tun...@gmail.com" <free.tun...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 7, 8:39 am, * US * wrote:
> > >> The pollutants increased by Bush's treasonous policies
> > >> are known to poison mothers so badly as to cause them
> > >> to abort. Bush also kills children outright in Iraq.
>
> > >That's a lie...Only if they are Zionists
>
> > No, it's true. Bush's disastrous environmental damage
> > definitely causes even mothers who want their babies
> > to abort. Bush is not only bombing families in their
> > homes in Iraq, he's spreading DU around there.
>
> Umm, abortions have gone down during the Bush presidency.
>
Millions are aborted every year, but Obama contrary to the
Americans would legalize the killing of infants.
*us*
>...supports killing of babies ...
You do that because you're not emotionally healthy, bushfilth.
*us*
>...abortions ...
Pollution forces them on women, and, as a bushfilth,
you support making that problem worse.
*us*
>... killing of infants.
You support that because you're filled with hate, bushfilth.
You support killing with toxins and with war crimes.
klunk
"repo" <Kcaj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2072bd61-2018-4aad...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------
ummm... he would not... infants by definition are babies who have been born
and are considered infants usually until they are one year old... i haven't
seen anyone EVER condone the killing of infants...
FACE
<kl...@theothershoo.org> in glistered weave wrote large for all to see:
Then you should read up on his opposition to the "Born Alive Infant
Protection Act" while in the Illinois State senate -- and his oral
opposition to that bill on the senate floor -- the only senator to speak out
against it. . It was presented three times, the last was Senate Bill No.
1095, IIRC.
As he did another 130 or so times, he voted "present" when the bill came to
a vote.... A vote of "present" is the same as a no vote since it takes a
majority of positive votes to pass a bill.
FACE
klunk
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
news:jse8c495us31kbn5s...@4ax.com...
thanks.... i found this article... which seems to be clearly written from an
anti-abortion perspective... so, i understand the emotion behind the
article... but will attempt to address it in my own humble fashion:
Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
here is probably the most poignant example of this issue (in this article):
"One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby
who was born 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 21 to 22
weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long."
-------------------------------------
first off, i'm not a lawyer... so i will not profess to speak from a
position of legal authority... but, it does raise some questions for me...
1. i am assuming that this would be considered a "partial birth
abortion"...?...
2. i am wondering what the parental liability is with respect to such a case
3. i am wondering what the hospital's liability is with respect to such a
case
the reason i am asking these questions is because i don't know whom would
actually be deemed legally responsible for the life of that child....
4. i am wondering about the specifics of that case with respect to chances
for long-term survival... iow... is this another version of the "terry
schiavo" situation where the issue of prolonging life through "extreme
measures" is applicable here...
part of what i'm wondering may be wrong with this picture is that the
measures necessary to protect that life may simply be the capitalist nature
of your medical system... iow... it's just not financially feasible for
either the hospital or the parents to afford providing for those
measures....
now... please do not misconstrue my questions as a lack of empathy.... quite
the contrary... this issue, in my mind is also a symptom of the problems of
the capitalist based system of health care you have... in canada, the issue
of cost is irrelevant because such a cost is amortized over the
contributions of our entire nation....
so... the opposite would be the case here, where there would be no issue in
regards to the costs of extreme measures.... the hospital would simply be
left with a medical and not a financial decision... and the parents would be
facing an intensely emotional decision that would not be further complicated
by financial issues...
this then leads me to consider the medical implications... would such a baby
survive...?... and who decides... i certainly don't think it should be
anyone other than the parents who make such a decision... and i certainly
don't believe that cost should be a factor in their decision-making
process... i think it should be a responsibility they can bear on one factor
alone... will the baby survive....
the saddest part about this story to me... is the, what seems to be callous
manner, that the baby was deposited into a soiled laundry room.... and this
to me, seems to be a result of no one really knowing what to do... and no
one wanting to stick out their necks on behalf of that baby to do the right
thing for it....
-----
now... as far as obama's specific views on such issues are concerned... i
can only speculate that he does have a keener insight into the legalities of
such an issue... well... i can easily acknowledge the simple fact that
someone who headed an internationally renowned law publication would have
several legal insights on this issue that i would not have... but, if i were
to speculate... i would consider the issues i just have raised above... and
that perhaps he views the implementation of universal health care as a
solution that works for everyone....
hopefully, you found my two cents on this matter helpful... and i hope i
didn't offer any views that you found offensive, since that was certainly
NOT my intent...
*us*
>Umm, abortions have gone down during the Bush presidency.
You lie.
"A total of 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported in the United States for 2002
from 47 states, DC, and NYC, which reflects an increase of 0.1% from the number of legal
induced abortions reported for 2001 from the same reporting areas..."
*us*
it can be born unwanted and used for cannon
fodder later on.
*us*
>... infants by definition are babies who have been born
>and are considered infants usually until they are one year old... i haven't
>seen anyone EVER condone the killing of infants...
Anyone who supports Bush condones killing infants, children, and other innocents.
FACE
Nothing offensive to me there. The bottom line is that the question of
abortion has passed and the infant is a living human being, fully separated
from its mother and is denied medical care to its death....to its intended
death.
If that can be described as anything other than murder, i am at a loss to
know what it could be. Obama's arguments to let the child die are on the
web.
I have said a good bit about this on a local group, but personally, I never
refer to the testimony of the nurse -- Jill Stynek (IIRC) -- and give the
reason why in my posts on the subject: she is very definitely pro-life and
may be biased, whereas the facts are public record.
It is my opinion that many of the children may have some kind of serious
birth or other defect, but there must be some that would develop into
healthy children. I believe if that were not the case, then there would
have been no such law advanced. In fact, I understand that it was advanced
in the Illinois legislature more than one time over the last few
years.......
No, this is not a case of "partial birth' abortion.
I found it highly ironic when at "Saddleback" about three weeks ago that
Obama cited as his favorite bible verse, the part of Matthew (I think it
was) about "caring for the least of us". Rhetorically, is this not a case
of the "least of us"?
I think it is.........
FACE
*us*
>... murder, i am ...
You're in favor of it: you support Bush, the mass murderer.
>... there must be some that would develop into
>healthy children ...
You have no valid basis for your beliefs, bushfilth.
klunk
i'm certainly not arguing against it being a case of murder... i'm just
wondering:
1. who's liable...?...
2. what's the best solution for preventing this from happening...?...
> I have said a good bit about this on a local group, but personally, I
> never
> refer to the testimony of the nurse -- Jill Stynek (IIRC) -- and give the
> reason why in my posts on the subject: she is very definitely pro-life
> and
> may be biased, whereas the facts are public record.
>
> It is my opinion that many of the children may have some kind of serious
> birth or other defect, but there must be some that would develop into
> healthy children. I believe if that were not the case, then there would
> have been no such law advanced. In fact, I understand that it was
> advanced
> in the Illinois legislature more than one time over the last few
> years.......
>
> No, this is not a case of "partial birth' abortion.
>
> I found it highly ironic when at "Saddleback" about three weeks ago that
> Obama cited as his favorite bible verse, the part of Matthew (I think it
> was) about "caring for the least of us". Rhetorically, is this not a case
> of the "least of us"?
>
> I think it is.........
>
> FACE
i think part of the problem obama is facing is the same thing all
politicians face... is how do you distil something as complex as this into
an effective soundbite...?...
i don't actually see how it is possible to address it in any way that would
satisfy all concerned... ranging from parents and average people... to
hospitals and their staff... to "crasser" parties such as hospital
stockholders... to legislators who have do deal with creating legislation
that is both effective and not so unwieldy that the resulting laws actually
accomplishes the opposite of creating more and unnecessary layers of
government beauracracy...
i think it's quite a challenge to be able to pack all that into an effective
30 seconds of airtime... let alone into a single and easily marketable
slogan...
my personal belief is that universal health care will address much of
this... but, that's just another and much bigger kettle of fish... and not
so much a hot button issue where people are driven more by emotion than they
are about sensible solutions that may not necessarily be what everyone
wants... but that everyone can live with as a compromise...
FACE
Those are two questions that I don't have an answer too. If we took it as
an actual case of law, I think everyone actively involved with the death
would be an accessory to murder, or to put a fine point on it, infanticide.
What a sticky wicket that would be!
What I can say is that I would not be against a bill to provide medical care
to another human being that is not otherwise severely compromised -- I know
that doctors make hard decisions all the time.
I read that article you cited after I sent the first post. Even though I do
not cite her, and got her name wrong, i think that Stanek had a good line
about having a cradle provided 'to rock them to death'.
I think that the Netherlands experience with their NHS and end of life care
is indicative of what a moral (or amoral) morass this could become. But
then I have years on that subject. This is the other end of life on the
table right now........ No matter how opposition to Acts like BAIPA is
dressed up and bathed, it is still ugly and it stinks. :-)
Australia and the UK (and I think France too) have better experiences
because they have allowed private care to coexist beside public care.
IMO, the worst case, and don't take this personally, is Canada where private
practice is outlawed, though I do understand as of about a year ago they are
beginning to let at least neighborhood clinics operate, though not
officially condoned.
Bottom line on that is no system is perfect.
FACE
klunk
there's no question in my mind that such a scenario is horrifying... it's
just that there isn't a clear cut and easy solution... beyond removing the
money from the equation... i know that americans generally get a chill down
their spines at the first hint of what can be perceived as "socialism"...
but... you are paying taxes to your government with an expectation of
getting something in return...
no one seems to mind that taxes foot the bills for so many things like
police and infrastructure... it's just the idea that government involvement
is always bad in any form it may take... personally, i find that a little
short-sighted... for example... your taxes should be paying for a government
to provide the oversight necessary to ensure shit like the current mortgage
crisis that's been happening doesn't happen in the first place...
here, we've had our own beefs with government taking over services and doing
a pitiful job of handling them... so they get turned over to the private
sector...
i certainly don't think there's a clear-cut path toward finding a balance
that works... or at least one other country on this planet would have
already drawn out an effective road-map for everyone to follow... it really
boils down to need at a specific time for a specific issue or set of
issues...
from a "moral" perspective (and i usually hate to invoke such a word in
constructing an argument), the question of health care really boils down to
whether essential services that involve the life and death or the physical
health of a person should fundamentally be an industry that runs at a
profit...
this isn't to say that there cannot be aspects of the medical industry...
such as "uneccessary" cosmetic surgery... like breast implants as opposed to
facial reconstruction... for examples of contrast between "necessary" and
"unecessary"... could be run at a profit... or... perhaps lasik eye surgery
could be run on two levels... one for profit and the other subsidized... for
whatever reasons you may feel qualify them in one way or the other...
but... i ramble... and i think you got my point... ;-)
ok... after my ramble... i've just seen this... so, i think we're probably
close to being on the same page... if we are not already... ;-)
> IMO, the worst case, and don't take this personally, is Canada where
> private
> practice is outlawed, though I do understand as of about a year ago they
> are
> beginning to let at least neighborhood clinics operate, though not
> officially condoned.
>
> Bottom line on that is no system is perfect.
>
> FACE
totally agree... what you guys do have an advantage with right now... is the
benefit of learning from everyone else's mistakes... so... i do wish you
luck on finally getting that screeching cat into its kennel.... ;-)