Yes, we can … elect a guy who votes for infanticide
posted at 1:57 pm on August 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There’s not much new here if you read Ed’s post two days ago, but since Freddoso wrote the book on this — literally — it’s worth hearing him tell the story in his own words. Of all the ways in which The One has pandered to try to capture the center, his abortion makeover is the most cynical. The DNC announced today that Bob Casey will speak on Tuesday night at the convention to give him extra cover on the subject and they’ve tweaked the platform to let pro-lifers knows that their concerns are valid and appreciated, although not quite valid enough to stop the party from nominating a guy who thinks live-born mis-aborted fetuses should be left for dead. This goes back to one of my early posts about Doug Kmiec’s starry-eyed spin of Obama’s abortion position: You’re supposed to give him a pass, at least vis-a-vis McCain, because he’s willing to respectfully hear abortion opponents out even while he votes to the left of Hillary Clinton on the issue. Here’s Freddoso, addressing Obama’s floor statement (which is quoted in the piece) during the debate in the Illinois senate:
The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.
But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.
In other words, even if a pre-viable baby is born alive during a botched abortion and is considered a “person,” the state still shouldn’t require doctors to treat it lest some wingnut judge seize on the idea to try to extend “personhood” to unborn fetuses still in the womb. Note that the Illinois bill explicitly addressed this concern by limiting itself to “born” fetuses so that it couldn’t be used in this way as anti-Roe precedent. Not good enough for Obama. But say this for him: His liberal logic is consistent. If the mother’s intent is to abort and the baby somehow survives the procedure, why should its stroke of luck (or the doctor’s negligence) thwart her “choice”? She came there to kill it, she has a constitutional right to kill it, so she gets to kill it. Anything less would be insufficiently “progressive.” Exit question: Never mind how Obama voted — how’d they get 40+ Democratic senators to oppose this?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Don’t forget FOCA…
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-and-freedom-of-choice-act.html
ninjapirate on August 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I have had the privilege of talking to Jill Stanek, and exchanging several emails with her, while all of this was going down. Obama is at least as bad as he looks on this. Sad thing is, he wasn’t alone in the Illinois Senate.
Buford Gooch on August 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM
One of the most disgusting and inhumane acts ever. For Obama to support this is going beyond a mother’s right to choose, but supporting murder.
jencab on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Illinois law dictates that these babies be issued birth certificates and then death certificate. Illinois even recognizes them a living beings. Obama is a hypocrite.
George on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Ship ‘em to the glue factory while their still alive, then you don’t have to refrigerate them. Saves $$.
Akzed on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Right now, Freddoso’s book “The Case Against Barack Obama” should be on everyone’s required reading list. What Freddoso talks about here is just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the book lays the REAL B.O. out for all the world to see, and what there is to see is not pretty.
And it will get downright ugly if this guy is elected President.
pilamaye on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
& if this doesn’t convince you to NOT vote for obambi…..then perhaps read Jerome C’s book….pretty fkng frightening.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416598065/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=2322638485&ref=pd_sl_7wd1v0jt08_b
lobosan5 on August 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeFHYiI6pw Jill Stanek verifies about the Birth and death certificate.
George on August 13, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Plenty of senior citizens depend on others’ care to ensure their viability. Does that make them non-persons as well? Do those charged with their care, as a mother does to her child/fetus/thing, have a constitutional right to kill them?
What about the retarded? The handicapped? Anyone who lacks the mental or physical capacity to survive unassisted?
If the deciding factor is viability, millions of people alive today fall into the category of non-person. The implications of that logic are concerning, to say the least.
fourstringfuror on August 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Freddoso was on Levin’s show and to listen to just a few of Obama’s positions and how Obama defended the indefensible is downright radical and outrageous. He is by far the most staunch liberal…no…socialist put forth by the democrat party.
jencab on August 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Please import the comments from the headline story on this earlier today. Thanks.
INC on August 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I first heard about this maybe 8 months ago on Medveds show. After an easy internet search to verify, I was horrified by what I had read. I have tried telling every democrat I know about this, but they just wont listen or refuse to believe. This single issue alone should make him unelectable. We have got to make this front and center, and I would love for BO himself to be asked this at a townhall meeting and see how he cold possibly spin his way outt of it.
redshirt on August 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
But Linda Hirshman says it is time to revive the moral argument for protecting a woman’s right to choose: Abortion is about the value of women’s lives. It’s just that the issue has been distorted by “30 years of ghastly representations of abortion by the right” (people like Stanek, I suppose) and then someone managed to dig up “a few thousand women who signed affidavits about their regrets at having had abortions.”
Quisp on August 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Media bias is a double edged sword whose forward edge is duller than the backward edge. The vetting process that should happen for Democrat candidates for President does not exist.
silverfox on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
.
You are getting too far out in front of the plan. Euthanasia comes much later in the program – at least a few years later.
Think_b4_speaking on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
When I tell people about this issue and Obama’s position on it, they flat out think I’m lying. First, people don’t think it’s possible that infanticide like this could be even remotely legal, and second, they think it’s flatly unimaginable that a politician could vote to uphold it.
So I think we have a lot of work to do to spread the word on this. Not only can it move votes, but it is an incredibly important issue in its own right.
Nessuno on August 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Judgment to Lead.
benrand on August 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM
…and I get this argument from my Leftist Democratic (Oxymoron ALERT!) “friends” all the time:
“Democrats” CARE about people…
Republicans only care about “property” and “money”!
Yep, “Democrats” “Care” about people alright, EXCEPT:
Whites
Republicans
Men
WASP’s
Christians
Our Military Forces/Troops
Our First Responders: Firemen, Policemen, EMTs, etc…
Americans
Heterosexuals
Victims of Crimes
Victims of Pedophiles
Capitalists
LEGAL entrants into the United States
“Middle Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles”
Gun Owners
and of course, “fetuses” up to and including, those in the act of actually being born…
Otherwise, except for those aforementioned inconsiquential groups mentioned above, “Democrats” care about ALL “People”…….chirp……chirp……chirp…..
Any others?
Kinda makes me proud to be an American, ya’ know?
Dale in Atlanta on August 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Heck, my twins still rely on me to survive, and I gave birth to them 3 years ago. Sure, I suppose they could go feral if I left them outside, but they probably wouldn’t survive for very long. Are they non-people, is it too late to get an abortion if they are?
/sarc off
This absolutely disgusts me. If the child is born and takes a breath, just one inhalation of oxygen, he or she is indeed a person. Even if the life cannot be sustained long-term due to prematuraty. Ask any mother that miscarried after her first trimester – they gave birth to a baby, not a ‘thing.’
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:18 PM
That does make it a tad inconsistent, doesn’t it? I suppose Barry was hoping no one would notice.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Alan Keyes has been beating this drum for I don’t know how long. Glad to see that people are waking up.
emailnuevo on August 13, 2008 at 2:23 PM
P.S. That sounded condescending, I meant the general market (if a book’s out about it, that’s a good sign).
emailnuevo on August 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Skewered.
RushBaby on August 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM
And which, pray tell, “moderator” will be a brave knight and question the Obamessiah about this during the debates?
Jim Lehrer?
Gwen Ifill?
Tom Brokaw?
Bob Schieffer?
Anyone? Anyone?
Brat on August 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM
How come those stupid girls who throw their babies in trash cans to die get prosecuted for murder, and the mothers and doctors who leave the babies on a steel tray in a hospital to die aren’t?
aero on August 13, 2008 at 2:27 PM
What kind of treatment, exactly, do people expect doctors to give a pre-viable fetus?
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You’re starting to catch on. In England, under the National Health Service, which, of course, can’t afford to treat everybody, serious proposals have been made to stop caring for the elderly, the obese, smokers, etc.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Because our laws are written and passed primarily by lawyers and applied exclusively by lawyers. A bit simplistic, perhaps, but in the ball park.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I was wondering the same thing about teenagers. Some of them say they can’t survive without texting enabled on their cell phones. I think that means their mothers are allowed to terminate them at will. But only their mothers. Or perhaps doctors hired by their mothers.
aero on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Love, and comfort. There may be nothing to sustain the life, but a doctor can ensure that the baby dies as peacefully and humanely as possible. A warm blanket and a mother’s arms will do wonders. If the mother wants no part, how hard would it be to find a nurse (or somebody) to give the babe human contact?
I have a friend that gave birth to a baby boy that had a fatal chromosonal defect. He lived 16 hours after birth. They knew the baby would not live, and yet they did not treat him as if he were human waste. He was cuddled, and fed, and loved very much for his 16 hours of life.
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
You’re confusing fetal viability with health, when they are not the same thing. Fetal viability is dependent on the development of organ systems that can allow survival when separate from the uterine environment and the umbilical cord. If a fetus is extracted too early, there is literally nothing we can do (given current technology) that will allow it to survive. We can’t develop its body systems for it.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I’m starting to look at the phrase “I brought you into this world, I can take you back out” in a whole ‘nother light right now… even though I say it at least 3x a week.
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Well one of the babies from the testimony was already 2lbs.
ninjapirate on August 13, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The same treatment they give to wanted pre-viable fetuses (aka “preemies”). Incubator, lung-maturing medication, intravenous nutrition, etc. Babies have survived at just 22 weeks gestation, and some of these late-term abortions that survive the procedure are older than that.
aero on August 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
How is being pro-abortion, regardless how radical, “socialist”? Now, if he proposed that the state got to decide who was aborted, I would see your point. But as far as I understand him, it is still the woman’s choice. In fact, he is trying to limit the power of the state vis a vis the individual (the woman). So, in fact, you are the one advocating the states power to limit individual freedom. You are the socialist!
tommylotto on August 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Well, then, that should be specified by the law. Any law that could be construed to require doctors to provide certain medical care for very pre-viable fetuses after a legal abortion procedure would make it too high a liability for doctors to perform such a procedure. That is obviously the goal of the proponents of such a law, but it should be unsurprising to see a pro-choice politician oppose it.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I EMailed the creeps at Christ Hospital and asked them how they thought their namesake felt about how they were treating His children? I then EMailed my Senators and demanded action to stop this!
sabbott on August 13, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I used to work with Preemies as a nurse. What do littler babies want? Food, Cuddles, Love, and more cuddles. Just like any other baby.
How far could this go? How about people in an ICU? They’re sick, they’re on a ventilator, they can’t survive without it. Let’s just take ‘em off and let nature take its course. If they survive, hey, survival of the fittest. If not, oh, well, c’est la vie.
mjk on August 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Do I want to even talk about this? Tommolotto: if you think that outrage at deliberate infanticide is “socialist” then I suggest you take a long, long walk and commune about morality with yourself.
Pro abortion is socialism, plain and simple. “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”; no conception of individual rights for the infant.
Government is necessary at some point, fool, if only to protect the weakest against the strongest. And I don’t know who could be considered weaker than an attempted aborted baby.
Your comment disgusts me tremendously, if you cannot see a reason to intervene here.
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I was not aware that blankets and being held were ‘medical care.’ I know that if I’m massaging a terminal patient, I’m not providing medical care – I’m providing comfort and touch. If it were medical, I’d be outside of my professional bounds. I don’t see much of a difference here, and comfort is not something that should or really could be regulated.
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
It isn’t “socialist” to see that the state intervenes to protect the most helpless in our society and a newborn infant qualifies in my book! NOBODY including a mother, doctor or an idiot politician gets to decide that it’s ok to stuff the living baby in a closet to die!!!
sabbott on August 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I once worked with a baby who had a weird liver/kidney thingie. No chance whatsoever of surviving. Should we have thrown this one in the closet and washed our hands of him?
Nope. I cuddled with the baby, I fed the baby, I told the baby stories. I sang to the baby. And I cried harder than the parents when the baby died.
mjk on August 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM
You are correct, sir. Those activities are part of his second Five Year Plan, for the last five to ten years of his administration….
ScottG on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I think what Big S means is that a pre-viable fetus will not be able to survive even with incubators and other machines. This would apply even to premies who weren’t aborted.
According to the comments on the headline thread, before 21 weeks doctors don’t treat the baby because of this fact.
Now, of course not all of these babies were pre-viable, and that’s where the main problem lies. Though I agree with Anna, even pre-viable babies should be given some kind of comfort care. To do otherwise simply feels inhumane.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 PM
This thread is making me cry. That anybody could leave a preemie to die, alone in a closet – that is the nonperson right there.
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Both f you are assuming the most borderline case to promote this law, in which a fetus that could have survived is delivered as a result of a botched abortion. In such cases, I am all for trying to care for such a baby. However, You’re ignoring the approx. 22 weeks of gestation before viability, during which there is nothing even the best doctors around today can do to allow the fetus to survive. The issue is not with the viable fetuses, but the unviable ones, and the kinds of restrictions that the law would put on doctors performing abortions.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Big S, do you support abortion? Do you support letting living, breathing babies die? Why aren’t you outraged at this? Yes, as Allahpundit said, it makes sense for a progressive to want to kill babies: The mother doesn’t want them, she came to kill it, so kill it they must.
You are of the same mindset?
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Barack- Shouldn’t we at least negotiate with them before we tear their skulls open?
whitetop on August 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM
It depends on your perspective. If the born-alive fetus is considered a human, than he/she needs the protection of the government just as much as any other human. It would be no more government intervention than the law against murder.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Big S: Guess what: I was seven weeks premature. Back when I was born, that was quite dangerous. Now, it’s no big deal, really.
Sure, 22 weeks might be insurmountable NOW–but next year? You are perfectly fine with passing a law mandating that any baby born who’s younger than 22 weeks is to be left to die?
That’s what you are saying. Kill anyone under 22 weeks through neglect.
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Which, of course, is a reiteration of what AP said above.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM
There was a time, not all that long ago, when no one thought a baby could survive before 28 weeks of gestation. Then a 24-weeker survived. And another, and another. People still thought there was no way a baby any younger than that could possibly survive, though. And then a 22-weeker made it. Technology improved. Medical professionals’ determination grew. And more ultra-preemies made it. Who’s to say a 20-weeker can’t make it some day? I guess it will have to be a wanted 20-weeker who breaks that barrier, because no one cares enough to try it with an unwanted 20-weeker. What’s the harm in putting a living baby in an incubator and hooking up the IV? The cost? The state pays for a whole lot more useless stuff than attempting to sustain a human life.
I know you’re not exactly arguing with me, Esthier, just giving me your take on BigS’s argument. So don’t take my explanation of my point of view as belligerence towards you. :-)
aero on August 13, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I was 2 lbs when I was born. My twin brother was 2 lbs 2 oz. Since that was 1948, nobody expected us to live. But they tried mightily to save us. Liberals claim to love humanity. Perhaps they do. But individual people are of no consquence. It’s only groups that matter.
NNtrancer on August 13, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Off the rails we go, right on cue whenever abortion breeches the subject line. This thread is about The Messiahs character and belief system, the hypocrisy and pandering not the pro-life/choice debate.
Obama and Die!
dmann on August 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM
+1
Think_b4_speaking on August 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Wow. That certainly is amazing, doubly so for the time period.
Anna on August 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM
So, using this logic, there is no need for life support equipment, anywhere?
But wait, you made a parenthetical caveat: “(given current technology)”. So, if technology can be applied which would give the slightest chance of success, then it should be applied? Is this what you mean?
Or is it simply your position that if a woman enters a room for the purposes of an abortion, that abortion must not be intefered with in anyway, and the human being inside her must be dead at end of the procedure?
C’mon, stop mincing words.
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I support abortion rights, but with a lot of restrictions. What I have an issue with here is the “living, breathing babies” characterization. Proposed laws like BAIPA do not generally make that distinction, and instead define things in terms of “beating heart(s)”, etc. Well, the developing heart starts beating about three weeks after conception, before many women even know that they are pregnant and at which point there is no possibility of extrauterine survival. Now, I understand that I’m speaking of the earliest possible case for such a regulation to kick in, but there’s an awful lot of time between 21 days and 21 weeks, and requiring doctors to provide medical care for an unviable fetus within that window of time will put a huge cost (supplies, time, and insurance) burden on many doctors.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Of course the real issue is that the “unviable ones” are only unviable because they were intentionally removed from the womb prior to viability.
You’re arguing that there’s nothing wrong with not treating babies who are premature and can’t survive anyway. Of course the reason they’re premature and can’t survive is someone is trying to kill them via abortion.
That’s a nifty piece of pro-abortion logic you got there, Big S.
John on August 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I’m not, though I do mostly agree with Big S.
Considering our technological advances, I think it would be stupid to say that only 22-week-olds should get treatment. However, I wouldn’t be against a law that only required hospitals to provide medical treatment for all who are viable, meaning all that can possibly be saved.
The definition of viable will change as our technology does, so no specific age should be necessary.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM
What really got my attention here, apart from the general horror (and I’m an atheist, mind you) is the fact that the crazies at NARAL had no problem with the state bill. So why did Obama, the politician without a paper trail, stick his head up on this one?
Law students will sometimes find themselves arguing a legal principle to an absurd conclusion. Was Obama’s vote simply a case of intellectual and moral confusion, or is he (or Michelle) much more of an ideologue on this issue than we generally suppose?
Infidoll on August 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I’m actually surprised these cynical doctors aren’t using the botched abortion babies to experiment with new methods of trying to save ultra-preemies. There would be no consequences for failing with an unwanted “fetus,” but if they made a breakthrough they could then charge parents of wanted ultra-preemies hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement the techniques to save their babies.
aero on August 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Darn it! Here’s that settled law thing again….
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Big S: by that same reasoning, let’s pull the plug on all those brain dead people too–they aren’t “Viable” and it’s sure expensive to keep them around too. What about those incurable cancer types, too? Whoooole lot of money spent on them! That could be better used on new boob jobs, right?
In fact, people are all going to die no matter what, so why have any medical care at all?
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM
It shouldn’t matter how they became premies. Isn’t that the pro-life argument? Treat them like you’d treat any other premie?
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM
You people just want to punish women for choices they make. Go Barak…kill the babies…hope…change….SARCASM
ihasurnominashun on August 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Another issue that is not dealt with sufficiently is the cost of medical care. If a woman is planning on having an abortion, she is probably expecting to pay a few hundred dollars for the procedure. If the abortion is botched and the state requires that the fetus be cared for, who pays the tab for the extremely expensive medical care required to give it any chance of survival, if any exists at all?
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM
That is a flawed argument. Show me a law in which the government mandates continued care for a brain-dead patient, and then we can talk.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Sorry to appear to be a “fool” to you, but I do not see how the abortion debate fits into the economic philosophy of socialism, or any other definition of socialism, for that matter. To lable Obama a socialist because he supports a woman’s right to an abortion or even slaughter and eat her 2 year old toddler, is just nonsensical. Unless, of course, you mean “socialist” in the retarded school yard taunt sense of, socialist = bad, abortion = bad, abortion = socialist.
tommylotto on August 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I read the Hirshman article at Slate, but failed to see the argument. The money quote is:
That’s not an argument: it’s a claim and a rather nebulous one at that. She seems to conflate the freedom not to get pregnant with the putative freedom to terminate a pregnancy:
It’s one thing to say that a woman has the right not to conceive; it’s quite another thing to say that she has a right to kill her fetus.
Bill Ramey on August 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM
There are matters on which reasonable adults can disagree and still remain civil.
This isn’t one of them. If one of my friends or relatives supported what Obama supports here, I would cease speaking to them.
This is just vile. This is akin to the Nazi death camps. Actually, it is like running a death camp.
Anyone who thinks it’s OK to allow a newborn baby to die of exposure in a utility closet, is not a member of the human race. Period. And should be treated as the cockroach they are.
Including Barack Obama.
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM
The same people who pay when the patients are too poor.
Though personally, I have no problem making the “mother” pay or making abortion more expensive to cover this possible expense.
At 22 weeks, she waiting long enough to start showing before ending her pregnancy. She could have used condoms, the pill, a depo shot, the morning after pill, etc., or she even could have had her abortion earlier.
Having an abortion that late shouldn’t be an easy thing. I don’t even like allowing abortions past when a fetus can be viable outside the womb.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM
.
Succinct, pithy, and devastating – I like it.
Think_b4_speaking on August 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM
That is a flawed argument. Show me a law in which the government mandates continued care for a brain-dead patient, and then we can talk.
Ah, remember what Congress did with Terry Shiavo (sic) a few years ago?
jim m on August 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Oh well, then by all means, let’s let newborn babies die of exposure in a utility closet then.
How about taking it out of the millions of federal dollars sent to immensely profitable planned parenthood? Or how about taxing “Big Abortion”?
The question itself is just vile. What price do you put on a human life?
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I’d agree with most of that, but the earlier the abortion, the more expensive the care for a baby that is the result of a botched abortion will likely be. That is, until a certain cut-off is reached in which the fetus will die anyway within minutes no matter what is done.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM
“This isn’t one of them. If one of my friends or relatives supported what Obama supports here, I would cease speaking to them”–NoDonkey
You strike me as an old, opinionated know-nothing fart that few people would want to talk to, anyways.
P.S. Price of human life = cost of a knife or gun + buller. Simple equation.
jim m on August 13, 2008 at 3:22 PM
That’s not even a good analogy, because the conflict in the Schiavo case was between her husband, who wanted to pull the plug, and the family, who wanted to keep her on life support. Congress sided with the family in that one, but in the case of care for a fetus after a botched abortion, there is unlikely to be such a situation.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Ugh. Why does providing comfort and medical care for a living human being have to be legally mandated? Shouldn’t it be a given? How sick do you have to be to be a member of the medical profession who has to have a law force you to provide care for a living human being? What the hell are you doing in the medical profession in the first place if you have to be forced by the government to care for suffering human beings? It’s just so wrong I can’t wrap my head around it. Obama should be deeply, deeply ashamed of his vote on this issue.
aero on August 13, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Pay no attention to that woman, she’s quite mad. I’ve heard her on Medved a couple of times. She “advised young women to find jobs that show them the money, to marry ‘down’ or to marry feminist men, and to have no more than one child.” She wrote “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World.”
Brat on August 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Ah, but is the term all who are viable based on specific criteria? I realize you want to avoid using age as criteria. What measurements will be used? What if only one out of ten is viable at a certain age? One out of one hundred. I suspect there is variability within the population. Do you mean the lowest or highest prognosis, the average,…? How do we categorize them? Will the criteria ever be without error? How does one justify going against the wishes of the mother who has a constitutional right to kill her child? It can’t be classified as a person,..Obama recognized the danger there.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM
That’s why I’d support a law indicating whatever that is, not an age specifically but whatever “viability” means according to what we can do to save a fetus.
If we do not have the technology to save the particular fetus in question, then we shouldn’t force doctors to try. When we do get the technology though, we should.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM
“You strike me as an old, opinionated know-nothing fart that few people would want to talk to, anyways.”
I haven’t struck you yet jimmy, or you sure would remember it.
“P.S. Price of human life = cost of a knife or gun + buller. Simple equation.”
I’m not old but I am opinionated – how about trying your hand at the “intellectual” argument for allowing newborns to die of exposure in a utility closet, Dr. Mengele?
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Yeah, I’m surprised here. “Obama did no wrong! It’s expensive to care for a baby! Let’s kill it instead!”
Look, BigS. Yeah, it might well be expensive to care for this baby. But guess what? If it is going to die anyway, within minutes or an hour or so, just how expensive will care be? If giving care means it survives for days…. weeks…. etc–then yeah, it will be expensive. It’s a baby who’s alive at that point. You still want to kill it?
You really want to mandate, via a law, that doctors break the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm?” I cannot believe you here.
It’s a very vile method of looking at human life–”right, well, I think it won’t make it, so we won’t try–just let it die! That closet isn’t being used, just toss it in there. Make sure you close the door so no one can see it struggle! Wouldn’t want some nurse to get any sense of compassion! What’s for lunch, Edward?”
Where’s your sense of compassion? You don’t have one, do you?
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Isn’t the whole issue here, the exposure of Obama’s contortions to avoid allowing personhood to a baby so Roe vs Wade couldn’t be threatened?
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Somebody, please make a 30 second TV spot on this…
Think_b4_speaking on August 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I’m not a doctor. Surely, what 8+ years of schooling can allow them a sufficient answer.
Right now, according to one commenter in the headlines comment section of this same post, claimed doctors consider 21 weeks or less to be too young to be viable. In ten years, maybe our technology will advance so much so that they’ll starting saying 19 weeks is too young.
I have no problem trusting their judgment on that and would only want doctors to be making that call, not politicians who want to appease some voting block.
And yes, it can be classified as a person. It already has in Chicago where the issue birth and death certificates.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM
“Where’s your sense of compassion? You don’t have one, do you?”
They are leftist devotees of Barack Obama, what do you expect?
They think an ideology that resulted in the murder of over 100 million people during the past century, deserves another chance.
Leftism is by definition morally and intellectually bankrupt.
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 3:34 PM
OTOH, physicians are quite meticulous about not getting involved with proper needle placement in capital punishment executions, because it violates their oath.
a capella on August 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Roe v. Wade, stupid law though it is, cannot be threatened by acknowledging that a baby outside of the womb is a person.
That law only applies to what a woman can do with her own body, not with a body outside of hers.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM
A cappella–valid point. My solution is bring back hanging or firing squad. Who needs to pull a trigger? I’m sure there’s a way to rig it up so that some computer can do it.
Vanceone on August 13, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Ah, I see. The distinction for these people is that there is no reason to care for a bundle of cells on a cold steel table, regardless of the presence of a beating heart. A bundle of cells does not suffer because it is just a bundle of cells, not a human being. To them, it would be the same as being required by law to ensure a tumor they remove from someone be put on a machine and given a blood supply after excision.
aero on August 13, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Replace “unviable fetus” with “illegal alien” and let’s continue this discussion with the Democrats.
We don’t want illegal aliens here, but we treat them medically (for free) don’t we?
omnipotent on August 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM
The SS had to go through intensive indoctrination in order to see Jews, the mentally ill and the crippled as less than human.
Apparently, Democrats, feminists and public schools have done their job well. Now, fully viable babies are seen as less than human.
And with universal “health” care, I’m sure the next step will be to convince the public that it’s really better for everyone that “A” has to die, as it will free up valuable resources in order to save “B”.
The left has done an outstanding job of educating millions of Americans to believe exactly as the SS did when they ran the death camps. Congratulations are in order.
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 3:50 PM
That’s correct. However, as was alluded to earlier in this thread, there is the possibility that the parents could decide to “pull the plug” on an infant on life support if the prognosis is not good. If the state mandates care for an infant as the result of a botched abortion, does this option still exist? Or does the decision to have an abortion in the first place prevent the parent(s) from exercising that option?
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Not all unviable fetuses are unwanted.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Yes. I agree. (most are wanted actually, including mine!)
omnipotent on August 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM
It shouldn’t, not if we’re to treat all of the born-alive babies the same.
Obviously the intent of those who wanted an abortion is more suspect than those who did not, but it’s not as though we’re not requiring the other mothers to prove their devotion before allowing them to pull the plug (nor should we).
Besides, even then this is only an option given when the prognosis is not good, meaning after they’ve been treated and given the best care possible.
Esthier on August 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM
The “best care possible” if often not given, even for wanted premature babies, due to cost and availability. That should not be the standard we are talking about here.
Big S on August 13, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I think the point is, we’re morally obligated to at least make an attempt to save the life of any person, no matter at what stage of human development. Otherwise, we play God. Life is a continuum, and I have yet to hear any argument that makes a case for protecting the life of one innocent person and destroying the life of another.
NNtrancer on August 13, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »