McCain 08!

“The whole mistake of the pro-abortion people from the start, he said to himself, was the arbitrary line they drew. An embryo is not entitled to American Constitutional rights and can be killed, legally, by a doctor. But a fetus was a “person”, with rights, at least for a while; and then the pro-abortion crowd decided that even a seven month fetus was not “human” and could be killed, legally, by a licensed doctor. And, one day, a newborn baby – it is a vegetable; it can’t focus its eyes, it understands nothing, not talks… the pro-abortion lobby argued in court, and won, with their contention that a newborn baby was only a fetus expelled by accident or organic processes from the womb. But, even then, where was the line to be drawn finally? When the baby smiled its first smile? When it spoke its first word or reached for its initial time for a toy it enjoyed? The legal line was pushed back and back. And now the most savage and arbitrary definition of all: when it could perform ‘higher math’.” (at age 12)

.

Saline, scissors, boiling oil — whatever. It’s all the same when you’re making money, when it’s your living, when you’re a white-collar professional.

OK, that sounds at least defensible.

But you know, every single baby would eventually die, without care.

Seems reasonable to me that if the child makes it out of the womb alive, it’s unquestionably a human. And in the case of a parent who has already decided to kill the child, who makes the decision about the born-alive child? An objective 3rd party expert, doctor, basing it on the condition of the child, and nothing else? Because I’d be OK with that.

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Although I’m moderately pro-choice, my concerns with BAIPA and similar laws do not really relate to abortions, but to their effects on medical practice. I’m afraid that such laws run substantial risk of creating cases like the Terri Schiavo affair. For a more extensive argument along these lines, look here.

But you know, every single baby would eventually die, without care.

And of course, every single person dies, so why bother letting anyone live?

logic.

This video posted to youtube account Vote with the Church just begins to show his position … Obama will give NARAL 110% of what they ask, Nationwide repeal of Partial birth abortion ban, No paretal consent laws for minors, Late term abortions legaliz…

“When is the lump of cells not a lump of cells?” …When it gets a show on MSNBC?

Far too many lumps of cells have shows already on MSNBC for this to be an acurate criteria.

Big S on August 21, 2008 at 4:20 PM

OK, that sounds at least defensible.

But you know, every single baby would eventually die, without care.

Seems reasonable to me that if the child makes it out of the womb alive, it’s unquestionably a human. And in the case of a parent who has already decided to kill the child, who makes the decision about the born-alive child? An objective 3rd party expert, doctor, basing it on the condition of the child, and nothing else? Because I’d be OK with that.

It seems like this question has morphed beyond “At what moment does a lump of cells become a person?” We have skillfully tricked into accepting the new premise “When is the lump of cells not a lump of cells?” When it is in 1st grade? When it goes to college? When it gets a show on MSNBC?

We have so undervalued life as a society that we have people legitimately debating whether or not to save a human life. Laws apparently must be created to spur people to action to save a human life simply because a doctor and a woman have decided that a human should die. Is there anyone here that believes that these infants are not people?

So when, Big S, does the fetus acquire rights – specifically the right to not be killed? High-school graduation?

misterpeasea on August 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM

To answer this question, I think it is legally difficult to guarantee rights to a fetus before viability (somewhere upwards of 22 weeks nowadays), especially if you don’t have the stomach to criminalize the procedure and prosecute women who have abortions. I know this is a moving target, but for me, it’s a reasonable one. I should note that I’d like it to be earlier, but I do not consider a fertilized, implanted egg or an early stage embryo to be worthy of the same rights as you and me (for scientific and religious reasons).

Good Lord. You’ve already said a fertilized egg doesn’t have rights. An early fetus doesn’t have rights. Now you’re saying a child that has been born doesn’t have rights?

It’s up to the parent whether the child born alive is killed or not?

That can’t be your position.

I’m not saying that a child that has been born has no rights; I’m saying that we shouldn’t mandate certain kinds of care even when a doctor determines, based on his or her knowledge and experience, that a baby will not survive. Newsflash: Doctors “kill” babies, even wanted babies, every day when they make decisions not to continue care because it is determined to be futile. Sure, they could hold out for a few more hours, or keep the baby in neonatal intensive care, but if they think the likelihood of improvement is low and the resources may be needed elsewhere, they move to palliative care (that is, painkillers). In most cases, the parents are consulted somewhere along the line to decide if/when they want to continue care. BAIPA, and bills like it, generally leave a lot of this kind of stuff to interpretation, and therefore open to new kinds of lawsuits against doctors who do not try as hard to save each baby as some outside agency (such as an anti-abortion group) might like. I do not object to it based on the few borderline cases of viable or almost viable infants that it is ostensibly aimed at; instead, I object to it because it fudges its definitions and threatens to alter the standard of care for a much larger number of non-borderline cases that arise far more often, and even in situations not dealing with abortion.

The hell he didn’t.

It’s been proven so many times it’s not even worth debating.

Barack does exactly what the far left extremists in his party want him to do.

No way Obama ever becomes President of this great nation. No way. This will abort his candidacy and it was never worth saving in the first place.

The problem is that this assumption has already been proven false. Which is the whole reason why the bill was put forth in the first place.

MarkTheGreat on August 21, 2008 at 8:06 AM

Apparently, you are the one making an assumption. See jim m’s post. If you look past the poor grammar, it appears that leaving a viable infant to die (even after an abortion) was already illegal before the bill, and the allegation made by the nurse could not be substantiated. So, what Obama said made sense. There was no need for this legislation.

Ed and Freddoso need to be careful. It is clear that they oppose Obama and oppose him on abortion, but if they are too zealous in attacking him by attributing positions to him that he did not take, it undermines their credibility across the board.

The reason we all turned away from the main stream media is because we no longer trusted it to be accurate due to its overriding bias. I, for one, think that the righty blogs tend to be more honest than the lefty blogs or the MSM. However, over reaching can damage that reputation.

All jokes aside, Obama did not support infanticide and claiming that he did is not honest.