Obama's Extreme Stand on Abortion

I have never discussed my personal op's on this subject on the forum but just in case obama or mccain is reading the forum here it is:

I believe in abortion, I think that anyone can make a mistake or be raped and own the responsibility to terminate the pregnancy within the first trimester.

Not allowing birth control and abortion is an even greater crime than the issues themselves. The biggest crime is allowing 6 billion unconscious people to continue to overpoulate a world that has not the equality or the consciousness to know what to do with that many people other than to create suffering and inequality for all, save a few of the most sick of minds.

Geneticists know even now how to eliminate retardation, mental disease, cancers, they also work for the sick minds that want to perpetuate a world filled with willing cannon fodder, lame brains, slaves.

The question is not about abortion it is about responsibility, and up till now everyone wants to pass the buck and avoid the real issues.

I just love how the pro lifers stand in front of safe havens for young girls and try and talk them into keeping the pregnacy with promises of full support both spiritually and materially, right! Not even close, once the baby has arrived and the young unprepared mother is properly placed in the welfare state, they abandon her! They are not there with promises of a lifetime of support no they are there for just the safety of their own souls, they are there to convince another that it is morally, spiritually wrong, they are there on a mission to save their own souls, to convince themselves of their self rightousness.

There IS NO support for the lower class moms on welfare who continue to have babies one after another. The welfare lines are filled with the hopelessly abandoned.

If I had my say I would suggest that a young unprepared woman could have 1 abortion in the first trimester, but at that time her tubes would be tied, if she later educated herself and decided that she wanted a child and could afford a child she would first pay for her tubes to be untied and then she could move forward by choice not happenstance. And the reality of abortion as birth control would no longer exist.

Edit to say: We could also do this for the migratory "Anchor Babies" Mom's. Once in the country and on our dime they would have their tubes tied untill such time as they were financially responsible to carry on a larger more secure family.









[edit on 20-8-2008 by antar]

Another point I would like raise is that if you have ever held a crying AIDS or crack or fetal alchohol babie then you should, if you feel that abortion is inherently wrong, then go to the local hospital and volunteer to just sit with these innocent children that did not ask to be born in this sick state. You will not find the same people who march on the abortion clinics and the safe house there, no they have their job to do in the field, keeping fetuses from going back to the noos, to the place where all creation comes from.

So many lives have been touched by the 'do gooder' but in the end, what did the little innocent baby do to be born of an unprepared and unwilling irresponsible parent?

I am not talking about the responsible, educated adult that got PG by no irresponsible act of their own, by nature choosing them, I am talking about the millions of unwanted pregnancies that happen to the uninformed ignorants each and every year.

One of the first acts as president that bush signed in his first days in office was to discontinue the foreign programs which sent birth control to places like Africa, places that are so poor, starved and uneducated that rape and AIDs has affected over 90% of its people.

This was genocide! Take away the pills that not only saved lives by controlling the already out of control poulation, but also kept the already infected from birthing babies into a world that had no place for them, no food no hope. It was one of the single most dispicable acts ever imposed on the innocent.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by antar]

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by jsobecky

 

what you are failing to realize is that you CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALS

However we must. It is not right to abort children, it is right to prepare a proper system for human growth. We must legislate morals by placing an educational system in front of those who we believe perhaps won't be able to care for children. Most are scared that they might not be able to or are financially unable to. The hard core story of "Junky parent" is a small percentage. Education can eliminate teen pregnancy. Benifits along educational lines instead of just hand outs will allow for a more clear sighting of when abortion is truly neccessary.

I think abortion should be left to an individual's own choice. There's different circumstances why a person might choose to end a pregnancy, and I definitely cannot judge a person's decision if I'm not familiar with that one circumstance that made that person decide to end it. Abortion is not an issue that should be generalized. In my opinion, it's different in each case. With this said, I don't think a presidential candidate should have a say-so on this topic.

Originally posted by antar
I have never discussed my personal op's on this subject

OP means Original Poster, BTW(by the way)

Found this cartoon from 2006. Seems quite appropo.

Originally posted by Dronetek
Obama feels its ok to kill a baby after a failed abortion.

Please read carefully...

When Obama voted on this, Illinois state law already stated that doctors must provide care for fetuses who remained alive and were viable and would survive even with artificial life support. That was not at issue in the bill. Doctors were already obligated to do everything possible to save a fetus with chances of survival.

The bill that Obama voted against was to force doctors to provide medical care to "pre-viable" fetuses. In other words fetuses that could NOT survive, even if given life support.

Source

Between 2001 and '03, Obama repeatedly voted to oppose bills in the Illinois senate that would have declared, simply, that any child "born alive" as a result of an abortion shall be protected as a "human person" under the law. The bills broadly defined a live birth as any child outside the mother who shows voluntary movement, breathes or has a beating heart, among other attributes.

At the time, as the Obama campaign has pointed out, Illinois state law already required doctors to provide medical treatment for all children born after abortions who demonstrated viability, which was defined under the law as a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." The Born Alive legislation, therefore, would have primarily impacted a different category of babies — those born with life signs that doctors decided did not have a reasonable chance of survival.
...
In a 2001 statement on the state senate floor, Obama explained his rationale for opposing the bill. "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 child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term," he said. "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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."

Just a little cold, hard facts to balance out the emotional drama.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The bill that Obama voted against was to force doctors to provide medical care to "pre-viable" fetuses. In other words fetuses that could NOT survive, even if given life support.

That is an incorrect interpretation of a "pre-viable fetus".

Obama's rationale is based upon his definition of a "pre-viable fetus". His opinion is that a pre-viable fetus is not afforded the same protections as a fetus brought to term (9 months). So therefore, he says, protecting pre-viable fetuses would prevent abortions.

His statement "I mean, 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" is particularly cold, imo.

Those are the cold, hard facts.

This is the definition of a pre-viable fetus, from

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF ABORTED PRODUCTS OF CONCEPTION SPECIMENS
Dr. D.K. Kalousek

Previable fetus: Developing human from the beginning of the ninth week post-conception until gestational viability is reached (18 developmental or 20 gestational weeks).

www.pathology.ubc.ca/path425/.../

Notice the word HUMAN. And notice the very short (2 week ) period declared by this definition. How unlucky for a fetus to be aborted during this 14 day period, if Obama's rule were to be followed!

Another view on this is presented by

The only possible link between the previable fetus and the child it can become is the pregnant woman’s autonomy. This is because technological factors cannot result in the previable fetus becoming a child. Thus, the link between a previable fetus and the child it can become can be established only by the pregnant woman’s decision to confer the status of being a patient on her previable fetus. Therefore, the previable fetus has no claim to the status of being a patient independently of the pregnant woman’s autonomy. In our view, the pregnant woman is free to withhold, confer, or, having once conferred, withdraw the status of being a patient on or from her previable fetus according to her own values and beliefs. The previable fetus is presented to the physician solely as a function of the pregnant woman’s autonomy.
www.anesthesia-analgesia.org...

Notice that this does not prohibit the female from obtaining an abortion. It in no way removes her right of decision on whether to abort. The issue here is whether the fetus can survive, or, should abortion be an automatic death sentence.

I say no. Let the woman decide to abort. But we as human beings have the responsibility to exercise compassion as the only spokesperson the fetus has. We have a duty to protect a fetus that can live outside the womb, whether or not the woman wants us to. Her rights end when she decided to have it removed from her womb with malicious intent.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
We have a duty to protect a fetus that can live outside the womb, whether or not the woman wants us to.

Yes. And that law already existed in Illinois.

It was the fetuses that couldn't live outside the womb (even with life support) that this bill addressed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
We have a duty to protect a fetus that can live outside the womb, whether or not the woman wants us to.

Yes. And that law already existed in Illinois.

It was the fetuses that couldn't live outside the womb (even with life support) that this bill addressed.

That is not true. If they couldn't live outside the womb, there would be no reason for the bill.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by jsobecky]

So, you're saying that the article I posted is lying?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Don't use inflammatory words, BH.

I'm saying that your interpretation that these fetuses could not live outside the womb even with life support systems is incorrect.

Furthermore. those are not the only fetuses that Obama would limit his law to.

Just ask Jill Stanek.

community.mccainspace.com...

[edit on 13-10-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't use inflammatory words, BH.

I didn't mean them as inflammatory, you're just being overly-sensitive. I'll use whatever words I want.

I said my piece in my first post here. I have not misinterpreted anything. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it.

Without angering and inciting others...there are other issues that most Americans probably have on their minds during these days.

It should also be noted abortions are at an all-time low as well.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It's always someone else's problem, isn't it, BH? Their interpretation, their opinion is always the problem.

There are many ways to ask for clarification. Using words like "lying" are inciteful.

And I care about your inflammatory rhetoric even less. I've proven my point. I have nothing more to say to you.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I believe when someone speaks of morality,we should not look toward any human morality,because none of us are perfect. We should look at what God says about morality,and specifically how we treat and LOVE one another. The greatest commandment is for us to love one another. From one human being to another,or from a doctor to a defenceless baby,there is no love in abortion. Look inside yourself ,you have a conscience, and if you are truthful to yourself,you can only come to one conclusion, that abortion is a choice lacking love.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
All I am saying to you is if your are going to use you moral compass to create social law then use it universally.

No, that's not "all you're saying". You attempted to poke fun at the word morality by painting it as "old-fashioned" "traditional" "out-of-touch", etc.

And whether you want to admit it or not, morality does play a big factor in legislation. What else are we to be guided by? *You*? Ha!

I see, you know what I am saying better than I do?
You must obviously think I am a pregnant woman, and as such, you show no hesitation to speak on my behalf.

And morals do play an overwhelming role in our society and laws. Thankfully we don't all have to check with you as to where those morals should lie. In fact we don't have to take any one person arrogant belief that they some how are endowed with the ability to extrapolate from their own ego how the rest should live our lives.
That's why we have elections, and as a result abortion is legal. Be sure to tell us how we are all wrong and you are right.

Last I knew ,abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court and not by an election.

And please stop looking to other people to see where morals lie. Check with God ,he has the right answer

[edit on 8/17/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


"His stand on partial-birth abortions is that an exception must be made in any bans if the health of the mother is at risk. We need to remember that. "

~~~~

Please do not misunderstand me; it is not my intent tostart an argument with anyone. However, could someone PLEASE explain this to me? I do not understand how partial-birth abortion could ever be needed for the “health of the mother. If you can partiallybirth the child so the doctor can pierce the baby’s neck and suck out the child’s brain why can’t you just birth the child????

If this has already been discussed I apologize; I have not finished reading the thread.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


"Isn't it funny when a Republican claims to be pro-life but yet, he'll support the death penalty. (Bush)"


yeah, that is funny. See I find it funny that the same people who want to kill innocent babies want to save murderers and rapists.


edit for spelling

[edit on 24-10-2008 by undinemyth]