"Independent voters are rejecting Romney"

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion. As his position on abortion is radical, that's understandable. I respect that fact that even though Santorum knows that his views on abortion will turn off a lot of folks, he doesn't hold back. That's a lot more courageous, and a lot more honest, than Obama. When Obama was campaigning, and a reverend asked him when he thought life began, Obama answered "that's above my pay grade". That's called d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g, that's called lying. Everyone knows what Obama's position on that issue is. And if someone from the National Organization For Women asked Obama that same question, he would have given a substantially different answer.

So. The media is making a big deal of Santorum's radical pro-life stance. Why, I wonder, didn't the media make as big a deal about Obama's monstrous stance on abortion? Since I'm sure many don't know this (because it wasn't widely reported), when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a mom's right to kill her baby, after the baby was born and out of the womb. Sound too shocking to be true? Google Obama and the Infants Born Alive Protection Act.

In communist China, a truly barbaric place, they will force women to have abortions against their will. However, as they are dragging a woman off to perform an abortion, if the baby is born first, Chinese law demands that the baby be cared for, because even the Chinese realize that this is clearly an innocent, precious human life. In other words, Obama's position on abortion is more barbaric than the Chinese.

But the American media are telling me to be afraid of Rick Santorum? And some here are buying into that?

Go ahead Spence, tell me where that's even a little wrong.

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

"Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable."

Absolutely, 100% false. You could not be more wrong. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was a proposed law that said that if a baby was born, doctors would be required to care for it. The bill was proposed SPECIFICALLY because babies that somehow survived abortions, were allowed to wither and die, if the moms told the doctors not to care for it.

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, insane as they are. You are not entitled to your own facts, and once again, you are making them up.

Obama twice rejected the bill, which allowed the practice of living abortions to continue, until a federal law was unanimously passed by the US Senate which forbid the practice.

Yuo go ahead Spence, you show us the law that existed BEFORE THEN, that made living abortions illegal. If that was the case, why did the US Senate feel the need to pass their own law?

You really just feel free to make it up as you go along, don't you?

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Let's see what you're made of Spence, this post is a defining moment for you. You either show me what law prevented living infanticide, or you admit that you made it up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's see what you're made of Spence, this post is a defining moment for you. You either show me what law prevented living infanticide, or you admit that you made it up.

Defining moment, ha!

Here's the original law that was proposed to be amended. It clearly states that in the case of an aborted baby being born alive the doctor by law must work to preserve the health of the fetus. This was used to argue that the amendment was not necessary.

720#^&ILCS#^&510/#^&#^&Illinois Abortion Law of 1975..

Considering that abortion is regulated by the states, an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade...when there was already law on the books giving the living baby legal protection in the state.

Sure, there's some politics at play here...but your accusation of infanticide is bogus.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Defining moment, ha!

Here's the original law that was proposed to be amended. It clearly states that in the case of an aborted baby being born alive the doctor by law must work to preserve the health of the fetus. This was used to argue that the amendment was not necessary.

720#^&ILCS#^&510/#^&#^&Illinois Abortion Law of 1975..

Considering that abortion is regulated by the states, an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade...when there was already law on the books giving the living baby legal protection in the state.

Sure, there's some politics at play here...but your accusation of infanticide is bogus.

-spence

Spence, did you read the factcheck link I posted? The irrefutable fact is this...babies who were born alive were denied care, and allowed to whither and die. The doctors were not charged with any crimes, because they broke no existing laws. This practice is what led to the proposed bill. You are the only person I have ever heard deny this.

"an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade"

Wrong again. If offering protection to living babies was designed to be a threat to Roe V Wade, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN why the federal law passed UNANIMOUSLY in the US Senate? There's a lot of liberal democrats in the Senate who admitted that what was happening in Illinois (what Obama supported) was not abortion, but infanticide.

Sorry Spence, you are really showing your true colors here, more than I've ever seen. You're really coming un-hinged.

"your accusation of infanticide is bogus."

Please tell me, specifically, how what was happening in Illinois (until teh feds stopped it) is different from infanticide. In that state, partly thanks to OBama, living babies, who were born alive, outside the womb, and in no way physically connected to the mother, were born alive but injured (because of the failed abortions). Screaming in pain, the cries of these babies were ignored at the wishes of the mother. The babies were put in a room alone, to eventually die of their wounds.

I don't care what one thinks of abortion...I don't see how any human being can be OK with this...but when a bill was proposed to require medical care to these babies, Obama (then a state senator) blocked the bill 3 times. Now, of course he didn't say that he was blocking the bill because he likes infanticide. He said he blocked the bill because he was afraid of threats to Roe V Wade. But regardless of his stated reasons, the fact remains that Obama's actions allowed the practice of infanticide to continue in Illinois, until the feds voted unanimously to stop it.

If Obama was such a gifted and talented legislator, and such a swell guy, why didn't he draft a state law (similar to the federal law) that would protect these babies and still uphold Roe V Wade? That's the type of decisive leadership that, in my opinion, warrants promotion from state senator, to US Senate, to president. How could he sleep at night, knowing what was taking place in those hospitals?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, did you read the factcheck link I posted? The irrefutable fact is this...babies who were born alive were denied care, and allowed to whither and die. The doctors were not charged with any crimes, because they broke no existing laws. This practice is what led to the proposed bill. You are the only person I have ever heard deny this.

The FactCheck link doesn't contain any information about babies being "allowed to wither and die." I'm not saying it's never happened, but under Illinois law it should be illegal if the fetus was viable.

From your own link:

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.

The law seems pretty clear, if there was a problem perhaps there was an enforcement issue.

My understanding is that small government conservatives like to enforce the laws on the books rather than just pile on more...

Wrong again. If offering protection to living babies was designed to be a threat to Roe V Wade, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN why the federal law passed UNANIMOUSLY in the US Senate? There's a lot of liberal democrats in the Senate who admitted that what was happening in Illinois (what Obama supported) was not abortion, but infanticide.

Because by passing it at the Federal level you don't muck with efforts at the state level to regulate abortion.

Sorry Spence, you are really showing your true colors here, more than I've ever seen. You're really coming un-hinged.

No, I'm just laughing really hard

Please tell me, specifically, how what was happening in Illinois (until teh feds stopped it) is different from infanticide. In that state, partly thanks to OBama, living babies, who were born alive, outside the womb, and in no way physically connected to the mother, were born alive but injured (because of the failed abortions). Screaming in pain, the cries of these babies were ignored at the wishes of the mother. The babies were put in a room alone, to eventually die of their wounds.

I don't care what one thinks of abortion...I don't see how any human being can be OK with this...but when a bill was proposed to require medical care to these babies, Obama (then a state senator) blocked the bill 3 times. Now, of course he didn't say that he was blocking the bill because he likes infanticide. He said he blocked the bill because he was afraid of threats to Roe V Wade. But regardless of his stated reasons, the fact remains that Obama's actions allowed the practice of infanticide to continue in Illinois, until the feds voted unanimously to stop it.

I love it...

"he likes infanticide"

Obama is very consistent in his support for the original IL law and in his support for the Federal provision.

Listen, abortion isn't a pretty thing under even the best circumstances, but the majority of Americans believe that at times it's necessary. You're free to oppose it under any circumstances, but labeling someone as "liking infanticide" isn't even rational.

I'd accuse you of more hyperbole, but in this case you might just believe it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The FactCheck link doesn't contain any information about babies being "allowed to wither and die." I'm not saying it's never happened, but under Illinois law it should be illegal if the fetus was viable.

From your own link:



The law seems pretty clear, if there was a problem perhaps there was an enforcement issue.

My understanding is that small government conservatives like to enforce the laws on the books rather than just pile on more...


Because by passing it at the Federal level you don't muck with efforts at the state level to regulate abortion.


No, I'm just laughing really hard


I love it...

"he likes infanticide"

Obama is very consistent in his support for the original IL law and in his support for the Federal provision.

Listen, abortion isn't a pretty thing under even the best circumstances, but the majority of Americans believe that at times it's necessary. You're free to oppose it under any circumstances, but labeling someone as "liking infanticide" isn't even rational.

I'd accuse you of more hyperbole, but in this case you might just believe it.

-spence

Spence, you are really coming un-glued here. Here is what I posted, this is a direct quote...

"of course he didn't say that he was blocking the bill because he likes infanticide"

What I said, assuming you can read, is that Obama of course did not say he likes infanticide.

Here is how you posted my quote out of context...

""he likes infanticide"

Spence, I didn't say, or imply, that he likes infanticide. You are deliberately ommitting the first part of my sentence to make me look as crazy as you are, and everyone here knows it.

This is what folks do when they know they have been backed into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape.

"My understanding is that small government conservatives like to enforce the laws on the books rather than just pile on more..."

Well, as usual, your understanding of something is warped, frustrated, simple-minded, and wrong. Even small government conservatives want a government big enough so that it has laws protecting precious babies.

Spence, that federal law passed unanimously in the US Senate. Conservatives and liberals alike agreed that what was happening in Illinois was infanticide, and had to stop. The vote was 98-0 Spence, and that 98 includes some very liberal Democrats (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer). All of them were united in their stance again te barbaric practice that Obama irrefutably helped promote.

Spence, in tennis, do you know what they call where we are? Game, set, and match.

Spence, no one except you denies that these living abortions took place. Nurses and doctors from Illinois hospitals testified on the floor of the US Senate as the federal bill was being debated. But because that fact paints Obama in a negative (in fact, barbaric) light, you cannot accept that fact. Your brain obviously cannot accept that which doesn't serve your agenda.