Aborted baby, sorry "FETUS" lives after hours in cooler vs Obama policy

[Wndrtch]

It's reasuring to know, that if Obama becomes President, things like this won't happen. He will make sure that there is a medical professional standing over the "fetus" until it dies.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060118/posts

Oh and just for the record here, this woman had internal bleeding and needed to abort the child. IMHO, this is an acceptible use of abortion. No one can force you to sacrifice your life. You have a right to defend it, even if that threat comes from the person inside you.


Baby pronounced dead lives after hours in cooler

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A stillborn Israeli baby who was pronounced dead by doctors "came back to life" on Monday after spending hours in a hospital refrigerator.

The baby, weighing only 600 grams at birth, spent at least five hours inside one of the hospital's refrigerated storage units, before her parents, who had taken her to be buried, began noticing some movement.

"We unwrapped her and felt she was moving. We didn't believe it at first. Then she began holding my mother's hand, and then we saw her open her mouth," said 26-year-old Faiza Magdoub, the baby's mother.

The baby was pronounced dead several hours earlier, after doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort her mother's pregnancy because of internal bleeding. Magdoub was 23 weeks into her pregnancy.

"We don't know how to explain this, so when we don't know how to explain things in the medical world we call it a miracle, and this is probably what happened," hospital deputy director Moshe Daniel said.

The baby was then taken to the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit for further treatment, but doctors were not sure how long she will live.

Motti Ravid, a professor of internal medicine, told Israel's Channel 10 that the low temperature inside the cooler had slowed down the baby's metabolism and likely helped her survive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLI23405020080819

[Osborn F. Enready]

Yes, a miracle....surely..... :dizzy:

Glad to see the child live, but it doesn't change the fact that a fetus has no rights, nor does it become a child until delivered.

[Wndrtch]

Yes, a miracle....surely..... :dizzy:

Glad to see the child live, but it doesn't change the fact that a fetus has no rights, nor does it become a child until delivered.

So, if a child IS delivered, it's still not a child? :shame:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Oh no, its a child with rights if delivered, at least in the U.S., under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Birth is the transition of "potential person" to "actual person". Potential persons have no rights.... as they don't own their own life. Actual persons own their own life, and are recognized for their rights as individuals among born men.

[brien]

Any child who survives birth should be afforded all of the rights to life any other citizen in this nation has afforded to them. The hospital has an obligation and a duty to do everything it can to prolong the life of any live born baby, and if it doesn't, then it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of criminal law and be subject to the laws of liability for civil negligence.

This business of "late term" abortion is merely a "term" to protect those who participate in this horrendous activity. Rather than crushing a baby's skull, or tearing it limb from limb, the baby should be delivered and if it can live, so be it. I see nothing wrong with medical professionals aiding in the protection of the life of a baby who is labor induced by a mother who chooses to abandon the welfare of that baby. There are certainly no shortage of people who would adopt, love and protect that child and raise them with all of the love anyone in the world, except its birth mother, could give that child. Late term abortions are cruel, inhumane, and shameful, and should be outlawed immediately.

[preservanation]

We're crossing into the realm of infanticide here.
Shocking.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Preserva said:
We're crossing into the realm of infanticide here.
Shocking.

Who is?

[preservanation]

Who is?Good question...
I just read this link in the OP.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060118/posts
What Barack Obama defended three times: Live Birth Abortion
Monday, August 11, 2008

Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 3:40:00 PM by cpforlife.org

It is well known by Pro-Lifers but not by the general public. The MSM has done everything to keep it that way. We must help get the fact out that Barack Obama strenuously defended the indefensible at least three times.


The procedure is frequently called “Live birth abortion” but it is not really an abortion at all:


“... doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.” [1]


Obama… “refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.” [2]


“On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills.” [2]


Obama fought it for three years as a Illinois state senator, even after it passed 98-0 in the US Senate as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. [3]


Barack Obama fought it even after NARAL “…released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.” [4]


Barack Obama goes way beyond “choice on abortion”. This is outright murder that he wanted paid for with our tax dollars. Voters must take into account just how radical Obama is when every democrat and even NARAL went against him. Voters must soberly consider where Obama wants to lead this Nation.


Obama has repeatedly proven that he does not respect the life of born children. How can we honestly expect him to respect ours.


Americans must know about his repeatedly horrendous public policy judgments. Perhaps then they will finally realize how wrong for America Barack Obama would be as president.

[Osborn F. Enready]

My apologies... didn't see the noted Obama implications at the top of the OP.

Thanks Preserva. ;)

[preservanation]

*~p tips hat jauntily*

[ilikegw]

My sister was 2 months premature, should they have bashed her head in because she wasn't a full term delivery?

Who decides when a born "fetus" becomes a baby? Is it at 38 weeks gestation? 40? Anything under 30, it's not a baby, but still a fetus?

My step-mother had to have an emergency C section because both she and my sister would have died without it. She was under 3 lbs and her lungs and other organs were underdeveloped. Was she a baby or was she a fetus?

[preservanation]

We as a nation have become way to comfortable with the disposal of baby's life.
If we don't regain our souls, well be disposing of red headed freckled fetuses, because they would clash with Mom's Gucci bag.

[piratemonkey]

Hey!

Let's all make public policy based upon one absurdly rare anecdote!

:rolleyes:

[Osborn F. Enready]

IlikeGW said:
My sister was 2 months premature, should they have bashed her head in because she wasn't a full term delivery?

Who decides when a born "fetus" becomes a baby? Is it at 38 weeks gestation? 40? Anything under 30, it's not a baby, but still a fetus?

My step-mother had to have an emergency C section because both she and my sister would have died without it. She was under 3 lbs and her lungs and other organs were underdeveloped. Was she a baby or was she a fetus?

Obviously once born, and physically seperated it becomes a person under U.S. law, with limited rights.

[Drocket]

A baby is a baby when its capable of surviving outside of the womb on its own. All this whining over Obama's vote is to disguise one simple fact: what the right-wingers claim Obama opposed making into a law was already the law. You can't go around murdering infants. That's been the law since, oh, pretty much forever. What Obama opposed - quite rightfully - was a deliberate attempt to muddy waters to make abortions, if not illegal, then almost impossible to legally perform. The attacks on Obama on this issue are, quite bluntly, a lie.

[Phyxius]

A baby is a baby when its capable of surviving outside of the womb on its own. All this whining over Obama's vote is to disguise one simple fact: what the right-wingers claim Obama opposed making into a law was already the law. You can't go around murdering infants. That's been the law since, oh, pretty much forever. What Obama opposed - quite rightfully - was a deliberate attempt to muddy waters to make abortions, if not illegal, then almost impossible to legally perform. The attacks on Obama on this issue are, quite bluntly, a lie.

But, par for the course. Again, if this is all they've got, they ain't got much... :peace:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Phyxius said:
But, par for the course. Again, if this is all they've got, they ain't got much...

LOL... all they got....

As if being anti-individual rights wasn't enough.

[Phyxius]

LOL... all they got....

As if being anti-individual rights wasn't enough.

Then why isn't THAT what you're harping on? Simple answer - because you know it's bullshit. So you go with the other tried and proven Reich-wing tactic: Spread the outrageous lie (and as many as possible) in the hope that something sticks. Unfortunately for you, this time your candidate is so pathtetic that NOTHING is going to save you... :madlaugh:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Phyxius said:
Then why isn't THAT what you're harping on? Simple answer - because you know it's bullshit.

Other than you haven't noticed, I don't know what to tell you.

I have been pointing out how McCain and Obama are anti-individual rights since my first day in this forum.

Phyxius said:
So you go with the other tried and proven Reich-wing tactic: Spread the outrageous lie (and as many as possible) in the hope that something sticks.

Where have I done that? Any quotes?

Phyxius said:
Unfortunately for you, this time your candidate is so pathtetic that NOTHING is going to save you...

My arms will save me, I don't need no stinkin candidate. ;)

[ilikegw]

Obviously once born, and physically seperated it becomes a person under U.S. law, with limited rights.

I would hope so, but it seems people consider this baby who lived a short while at a very early gestation to still be a fetus.

I'm curious as to when a fetus stops being a fetus as in at what gestational age. Is it 20 weeks, 27 weeks, 30+ weeks??? Would people have considered my sister a fetus as she was born 2 months premature with underdeveloped lungs?

This whole live baby abortion thing is sickening and I don't even know why it's even being discussed as being legal.

[Wndrtch]

I would hope so, but it seems people consider this baby who lived a short while at a very early gestation to still be a fetus.

I'm curious as to when a fetus stops being a fetus as in at what gestational age. Is it 20 weeks, 27 weeks, 30+ weeks??? Would people have considered my sister a fetus as she was born 2 months premature with underdeveloped lungs?

This whole live baby abortion thing is sickening and I don't even know why it's even being discussed as being legal.


Earliest surviving preemie to remain in hospital
Doctors decide not to release infant girl who was born at 22 weeks

updated 8:44 p.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 20, 2007
MIAMI - A girl born after just under 22 weeks in the womb — among the shortest gestation periods known for a live birth — will remain in a hospital a few extra days as a precaution, officials said Tuesday.

Amillia Sonja Taylor, born Oct. 24 after just under 22 weeks in the womb, had been expected to be sent home from Baptist Children’s Hospital on Tuesday.

However, routine tests indicated she was vulnerable to infection, said Dr. Paul Fassbach, who has cared for the baby since shortly after she was born.

“She has been fine,” Fassbach said, but doctors are being extra cautious “now that she’s going into the world.”

Doctors say Amillia is among the few babies known to have survived after a gestation of fewer than 22 weeks. She was just 9½ inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was delivered by Caesarean section. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

Amillia, the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead, now weighs 4½ pounds and is just over 15½ inches long.

She has suffered respiratory and digestive problems, as well as a mild brain hemorrhage, but doctors believe the health concerns will not have major long-term effects.

Amillia was conceived in vitro and has been in an incubator since birth. She will continue to receive a small amount of supplemental oxygen even after she goes home.

She was delivered because her mother was suffering from complications. Fassbach said that if doctors had known Amillia’s real gestational age, they might not have intervened. He said he thought she was at least 23 weeks, and doctors were shocked when the Taylors’ fertility specialist pinpointed the exact date of fertilization.

Fassbach cautioned against rushing to redefine the medical standards for fetus viability.

“We just don’t know which 21- to 22-weekers are going to do well and which are not going to do well,” he said. “I don’t think we should change what we do, but it shows us we need to do more research and find out where our edge of viability is going to go.”

Preterm births occur in about 12 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S., according to the National Institute of Health.

Well, if you care about "life" then I would say you would have to extend the Right to Life to cover 21 weeks and after. This is the earliest that a "fetus" has the chance to survive untethered to Mom.

If you care more for the right to kill off a mistake of yours to avoid any inconvenince, then it doesn't matter how early a child could be born, you will come up with something to rationalize killing it anyways.

[Osborn F. Enready]

IlikeGW said:
I would hope so, but it seems people consider this baby who lived a short while at a very early gestation to still be a fetus.

There are some who feel that way I am sure, but much like the crowd who thinks a 1 week or 20+ week fetus is a person with legal rights, they don't have much logical or legal ground to stand on.

IlikeGW said:
I'm curious as to when a fetus stops being a fetus as in at what gestational age. Is it 20 weeks, 27 weeks, 30+ weeks???

None of the above.... Its upon delivery and physical seperation if you are discussing facts and legality.

IlikeGW said:
Would people have considered my sister a fetus as she was born 2 months premature with underdeveloped lungs?

The act of being BORN is when a fetus stops being a fetus.... regardless of age or maturity. Only born persons have rights, and a fetus is at no time a born person, or a rights holder, except as determined by the will of the mother in legal cases when the fetus is injured by the acts of another..... even then, the rights are EXTENSIONS of the mothers rights over her own body, not the rights of a fetus.

IlikeGW said:
This whole live baby abortion thing is sickening and I don't even know why it's even being discussed as being legal.

I don't understand it either.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
Well, if you care about "life" then I would say you would have to extend the Right to Life to cover 21 weeks and after.

I disagree, and say that if you care about life, rights must take precedent. You can't have rights until you own your own life.... no fetus owns its own life.

Wndrtch said:
This is the earliest that a "fetus" has the chance to survive untethered to Mom.

In some cases, when things work out. Rights, as in "being recognized for having them legally", are based on BEING BORN.... not your age or conception.

Wndrtch said:
If you care more for the right to kill off a mistake of yours to avoid any inconvenince, then it doesn't matter how early a child could be born, you will come up with something to rationalize killing it anyways.

UNLESS you simply ignore the logical basis for rights, you undermine your entire argument that a fetus should deserve them, because its not logically possible for a fetus to have rights until born.

Rights are recognized at BIRTH for BORN PERSONS.... a fetus is not a born person, only a potential person.


http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=15965

[Wndrtch]

There are some who feel that way I am sure, but much like the crowd who thinks a 1 week or 20+ week fetus is a person with legal rights, they don't have much logical or legal ground to stand on.

The Founders made no reference protecting abortion as a "Right", therefore the legality of abortion is to be determined by our society through the democratic process. If our society as a whole determines that abortion for convenience is wrong, then it can pass or ammend our laws to reflect that.

As to this issue of "logic", if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and flies like a duck, the odds are high it's a duck.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/amilliataylor_wideweb__470x289,0.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/0220baby1_narrowweb__300x426,0.jpg

Looks like a duck to me!

The act of being BORN is when a fetus stops being a fetus.... regardless of age or maturity. Only born persons have rights, and a fetus is at no time a born person, or a rights holder, except as determined by the will of the mother in legal cases when the fetus is injured by the acts of another..... even then, the rights are EXTENSIONS of the mothers rights over her own body, not the rights of a fetus.

A "Right" as defined by our Founders, is a "natural" state of existance, and does not require another person's involvement. No one can "give" you a Right, just as no one can take away your Rights.

For abortion to be considered a "right" then Mom has to kill the "fetus" by herself, without assistance. If you are asserting that the fetus does not have a Right to it's life, just because it lives by Mom's will, then it should only be terminated by Mom.

The medical profession should not be dragged into it at all.

They swear an Oath, afterall.

Hippocratic Oath
Original Greek text:


Ὄμνυμι Ἀπόλλωνα ἰητρὸν, καὶ Ἀσκληπιὸν, καὶ Ὑγείαν, καὶ Πανάκειαν, καὶ θεοὺς πάντας τε καὶ πάσας, ἵστορας ποιεύμενος, ἐπιτελέα ποιήσειν κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμὴν ὅρκον τόνδε καὶ ξυγγραφὴν τήνδε.
Ἡγήσασθαι μὲν τὸν διδάξαντά με τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἴσα γενέτῃσιν ἐμοῖσι, καὶ βίου κοινώσασθαι, καὶ χρεῶν χρηίζοντι μετάδοσιν ποιήσασθαι, καὶ γένος τὸ ἐξ ωὐτέου ἀδελφοῖς ἴσον ἐπικρινέειν ἄῤῥεσι, καὶ διδάξειν τὴν τέχνην ταύτην, ἢν χρηίζωσι μανθάνειν, ἄνευ μισθοῦ καὶ ξυγγραφῆς, παραγγελίης τε καὶ ἀκροήσιος καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς ἁπάσης μαθήσιος μετάδοσιν ποιήσασθαι υἱοῖσί τε ἐμοῖσι, καὶ τοῖσι τοῦ ἐμὲ διδάξαντος, καὶ μαθηταῖσι συγγεγραμμένοισί τε καὶ ὡρκισμένοις νόμῳ ἰητρικῷ, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί.

Διαιτήμασί τε χρήσομαι ἐπ' ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμὴν, ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν.

Οὐ δώσω δὲ οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδενὶ αἰτηθεὶς θανάσιμον, οὐδὲ ὑφηγήσομαι ξυμβουλίην τοιήνδε. Ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω. Ἁγνῶς δὲ καὶ ὁσίως διατηρήσω βίον τὸν ἐμὸν καὶ τέχνην τὴν ἐμήν.

Οὐ τεμέω δὲ οὐδὲ μὴν λιθιῶντας, ἐκχωρήσω δὲ ἐργάτῃσιν ἀνδράσι πρήξιος τῆσδε.

Ἐς οἰκίας δὲ ὁκόσας ἂν ἐσίω, ἐσελεύσομαι ἐπ' ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων, ἐκτὸς ἐὼν πάσης ἀδικίης ἑκουσίης καὶ φθορίης, τῆς τε ἄλλης καὶ ἀφροδισίων ἔργων ἐπί τε γυναικείων σωμάτων καὶ ἀνδρῴων, ἐλευθέρων τε καὶ δούλων.

Ἃ δ' ἂν ἐν θεραπείῃ ἢ ἴδω, ἢ ἀκούσω, ἢ καὶ ἄνευ θεραπηίης κατὰ βίον ἀνθρώπων, ἃ μὴ χρή ποτε ἐκλαλέεσθαι ἔξω, σιγήσομαι, ἄῤῥητα ἡγεύμενος εἶναι τὰ τοιαῦτα.

Ὅρκον μὲν οὖν μοι τόνδε ἐπιτελέα ποιέοντι, καὶ μὴ ξυγχέοντι, εἴη ἐπαύρασθαι καὶ βίου καὶ τέχνης δοξαζομένῳ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐς τὸν αἰεὶ χρόνον. παραβαίνοντι δὲ καὶ ἐπιορκοῦντι, τἀναντία τουτέων.

Hippocratic Oath
Translation of original Greek text:


I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

[brien]

All you blustering abortionists who would deliver a baby from its mother and then kill it are either sick bastards or you have no idea of what you are blathering on about here. Perhaps YOU should crush its skull as it is being delivered or tear its limbs away from its torso as the baby is making its way into the world. Why don't YOU "terminate" the "fetus" after it is born alive and come back and tell us how you feel then.

Hold that little baby in your arms, watch it move, look at you, and then expect the help it deserves to successfully make it into this stinking cruel life. Terminate that baby, and then come back here and tell us how proud you are of your opinion that a woman has the right to deliver a live baby and then the state has the obligation to destroy that life.

If you can do that, you are no better than Josef Mengele, in my opinion.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXYP-T7J4OOw

And this blog is interesting in comparisons as well:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/obama-abortion-joseph-mengele-nazi-final-solution-david-freddoso-the-case-against-barack-obama-obama-pro-abortion-non-persons-illinois-senate-bill-playing-god-pro-abortion-candidate/

Now, many years later, consider the following exerpts from David
Freddoso’s book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”
“She had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet.”
“In leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was
doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no
ethical obligation to treat them. Under the law, they were non persons.”
“There was no legal conflict between O’Malley’s bill and the right to
legal abortion, but Barack Obama nonetheless had problems with it.
He was a liberal, a proponent of legalized abortion.

Here are Obama’s words in the Illinois Senate in 2001 speaking
against Illinois’s born alive protection bill:

“There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something
that might meet constitional 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 nine month old–child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it is accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

While we are not suggesting that Obama is of the calibre of Joseph
Mengele, the following similarities are glaring:

The cold, calculating manner of describing human life.

Deciding who lives and who dies.

A policy of evaluating human worth based on a political agenda.

Ultimately, playing God and doing a poor job of it.

************************

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/


Editorial Note: People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama's concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

Obama has made several points, which we should recount.

First, Obama claimed doctors must render the care away. As David Freddosso has regularly pointed out, that was not true.

In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.

Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.


This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.

Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, "even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law."

But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama's excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

What did he say?

I've got the transcript. I've got Senator Obama's own words.

Here is what you need to know.

The legislation came up more than once. In 2001, Senator Obama was concerned about the legislation's impact on abortion. But when the bill came back in 2002, the issue about the law undermining abortion had been redressed.

In 2002, Senator Obama was not concerned about Roe v. Wade. He was not concerned with undermining abortion laws in Illinois. No, what Senator Obama today claims were his concerns were not his concerns back in 2002.

In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law.


He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

Here is what he said:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

SHORTER BARACK OBAMA: Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.

That's it. If a baby comes out and is alive, Barack Obama thought it too damned burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby was viable.

Don't believe me? Read the transcript here.

No one else spoke out against the legislation. Only Barack Obama was so concerned about the doctor performing the abortion, he did not think it worth having a doctor used to live babies coming in to see if the baby might live. Only Barack Obama

********************************

I am not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies, but rather merely suggesting they carefully consider the many choices we have in life and in death. Late term abortions that produce viable babies, even babies that can live assisted until they are strong enough to live individually, are wrong and should be "terminated" immediately.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch, if you want to discuss abortion and American individual rights, in application to a fetus, I already started a thread for that.

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=15965

I thought you were talking about THIS case.

You keep confusing fetus for children, and obviously are missing a part of the crucial understanding of individual rights.

[ilikegw]

This subject makes me sick. How a doctor, even an abortionist, can kill a live baby, regardless if it was a botched abortion or not is insane.

They should have the mothers sign a waiver that if the child lives and is viable once the abortion is "botched" (it's not really botched if the baby lives, I'd call that a miracle) she is giving up the rights and would allow the baby to be taken in by the hospital and allow the doctors to save it and the child can then be given up for adoption... yes, I know.... in a perfect world.

[sam]

I am pro choice but would like to see stricter guidelines. No abortions past the first trimester. NONE for those who seem to appear on a yearly basis.

There are 'miracle babies' such as this one who are born so incredibley early yet manage to not only to survive but surive physically and mentally as a normal child.
But that is far from the norm. A normal pregnancy is 40 weeks. 22 is barely half that amount of time. In all liklihood, most infants who survived at that juncture would be severely brain damanged and suffer incredible physical defects for the rest of their lives.

If I were a parent of a child born that prematurely, I know I would want the medical profession to do its best to save that child, regardless of outcome.

So now we can save a fetus born at half term and even resusitate people who have been clinically dead for minutes. We weren't capable of doing either just 15 years ago.

Our advancements in the medical field have been literally astounding; but ethically I think it has been a battle for most of us to determine just how far we should let science interfere with nature.

Most people now have a living will. Most of those do not wish to be kept alive on artificial support when there is no brain activity. I myself would insist on at least 5 different specialists before I would agree it was time to 'pull the plug'.

I'm listed as an organ donor and would like to think that at least some good could come from my death. I just want to ensure no one is too hasty in their diagnoses if I hve even a remote chance of recovery.

I think I might have meandered into a little bit of off topic here. My apologies. On Fridays, I award myself a gin and tonic when I get home, and that usually puts me in a rambling, ruminating state of mind.

It is supposed to be a beautiful weekend on the Eastern shores of MD;
low 80's, extremely low humidy and sunny. Hope the rest of you have an equally fine forecast.

cheers.

[Rage]

Cool, another thread on the semantics of abortion.

[sam]

It does seem to be a subject of semantics; what differenciates a fetus from a normal child, when life begins, when a fetus is viable.

All are arbitrary decisions. If you believe that life begins at conception, and at that point should have have the same rights as a child born outside the womb, then technically, even a 6 celled zygote should have the same rights as the rest of this.

Who gets to decide when a zygote becomes a fetus?

[Osborn F. Enready]

The point everyone seems to miss though is the fact that rights were created for born citizens, as social constructs. A fetus is not a born citizen.

Its the social construct recognizing the burden we all bear as born living beings, who own our own destiny through choice.

[ilikegw]

My problem with this story is that the baby was called a "live miscarried fetus" even though she was breathing on her own. WTF is a live miscarried fetus?

My sister was a delivered 30 month gestational fetus if we want to get technical. Again, should her head have been bashed in because she was so small and born too early and not a baby, but a fetus (based on some people's thoughts anyway)?

I just want to know when a live fetus, when born early, becomes a baby, no matter how it's born, whether by labor, miscarriage, emergency C section.... Is it at 20 gestational months? 25? 30? 38 - 40?

I hope I'm making sense..... this issue is very confusing.

[Osborn F. Enready]

IlikeGW said:
My problem with this story is that the baby was called a "live miscarried fetus" even though she was breathing on her own. WTF is a live miscarried fetus?

I don't think there is such a thing... but you would have to ask those who chose that terminology to describe the issue.

IlikeGW said:
My sister was a delivered 30 month gestational fetus if we want to get technical. Again, should her head have been bashed in because she was so small and born too early and not a baby, but a fetus (based on some people's thoughts anyway)?

Was your mom there for a birth, or an abortion? That should tell you the answer.

IlikeGW said:
I just want to know when a live fetus, when born early, becomes a baby, no matter how it's born, whether by labor, miscarriage, emergency C section.... Is it at 20 gestational months? 25? 30? 38 - 40?

I hope I'm making sense..... this issue is very confusing.

Physical seperation by cutting the umbillical cord is what I would tell you.

I can't explain the use of the terminology in the OP.

[ilikegw]

I don't think there is such a thing... but you would have to ask those who chose that terminology to describe the issue. It's an odd term to say the least.



Was your mom there for a birth, or an abortion? That should tell you the answer. Step mom, emergency c section, they were both in danger of dying.

I can't explain the use of the terminology in the OP.
Yea, me either, it makes no sense.

[Wndrtch]

Wndrtch, if you want to discuss abortion and American individual rights, in application to a fetus, I already started a thread for that.

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=15965

I thought you were talking about THIS case.

You keep confusing fetus for children, and obviously are missing a part of the crucial understanding of individual rights.

THIS case, demonstrates clearly, the folly in your thread. You can't argue that it is "just tissue", when here is a picture of a child at 22weeks, and doing fine.

The "fetus does not have to "live by it's mother will", not after 22 weeks.

[piratemonkey]

If you can do that, you are no better than Josef Mengele, in my opinion.
.

Good rule:
The merits of an argument are inversely proportional the the level of Nazi comparisons within the argument.

[brien]

Good rule:
The merits of an argument are inversely proportional the the level of Nazi comparisons within the argument.

So, the Nazis are never to be mentioned ever again? Good rule for you maybe, but I'll never forget, along with millions of other Jews, and the legacy left by the Nazi regime..

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
THIS case, demonstrates clearly, the folly in your thread. You can't argue that it is "just tissue", when here is a picture of a child at 22weeks, and doing fine.

The "fetus does not have to "live by it's mother will", not after 22 weeks.

When its living within her, yes, it surely does depend on the will of the mother.

If the mother falls over dead, nobody notices her missing for a few weeks, is that fetus going to be alive?

Until the mother PURPOSELY births the child, or if she is in an accident, dies and emergency personnel are lucky to act fast enough, SOMETIMES a fetus delivered this early can live.....

Regardless, it doesn't have rights until birth.

The intellectual dishonesty in your argument is obvious.

[azzig]

what the "bleep" does an abortion performed in another country have to do with OBAMA????????is there ANYONE out there with half a brain?????????what a crock of you know what. unbelievable. so, go over there and adopt it. make yourself happy.

[Wndrtch]

When its living within her, yes, it surely does depend on the will of the mother.

If the mother falls over dead, nobody notices her missing for a few weeks, is that fetus going to be alive?

I bet you could guess I was going to say this, because I think I have.

If a 7-month old was left for weeks alone, with mom dead, he/she to would be just as dead as the "unborn child".

Of course, both instances assume no dad around.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
I bet you could guess I was going to say this, because I think I have.

If a 7-month old was left for weeks alone, with mom dead, he/she to would be just as dead as the "unborn child".

Exactly.... as it is not self-dependent, and it RELIES on A LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR ITS OWN LIFE until it can become SELF SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ENACT ITS OWN RIGHTS.....

The fetus has NO criteria to deserve, or undertake the obligation of rights.... the born infant does, is legally recognized AS SUCH, as well as the infant is APPOINTED BY LAW a LEGAL GUARDIAN....


As I said...a fetus has no rights, has no criteria to be recognized as having rights, and CERTAINLY wouldn't trump the rights of the mother WHO IS CARRYING THAT FETUS, regardless of the situation.

Wndrtch said:
Of course, both instances assume no dad around.

NO, both instances assume NOBODY around....no dad, no cops, no passerby with good intentions, no emergency personnel, etc....

[Wndrtch]

Exactly.... as it is not self-dependent, and it RELIES on A LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR ITS OWN LIFE until it can become SELF SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ENACT ITS OWN RIGHTS.....

So, you're saying a mom should have the right to kill a seven month old, given a seven month old rely's on mom for it's survival?

That's F'd up dude.

Are you sure you read my comment correctly?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
So, you're saying a mom should have the right to kill a seven month old, given a seven month old rely's on mom for it's survival?

No, thats what you just said.

I said individual rights are in effect once the fetus becomes an infant, by BEING BORN.

If you can't debate what I say, don't bother replying to me.

You constantly create arguments, and then act as if I SAID IT, which anyone with a brain can figure out is bullshit by simply reading the THREAD.

It really only embarasses you, or should.....

Wndrtch said:
Are you sure you read my comment correctly?

Yea, are you sure you READ MY REPLY correctly?

Notice how I pointed out that INFANTS WHO ARE BORN, have RIGHTS, and with those rights come RESPONSIBILITY, which is charged to a LEGAL GUARDIAN UNTIL THE INFANT GROWS INTO A CHILD, which has slightly more rights, and then an ADULT WITH FULL MAJORITY AGE RIGHTS......

Come on Wndrtch... be honest at least if you want to debate the issue.