It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by jsobecky
what you are failing to realize is that you CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALS
Originally posted by antar
I have never discussed my personal op's on this subject
Originally posted by Dronetek
Obama feels its ok to kill a baby after a failed abortion.
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."
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.
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/.../
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...
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.
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't use inflammatory words, BH.
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]