I vehemently disagree with abortion except in some extreme cases but our murderer in chief takes being a vile piece of trash to a whole new level. Barrack Hussein Obama supports killing THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES. Can someone please explain this to me?
For the more ignorant on this board the third trimester starts at 27 weeks and ends at 40 weeks or birth. Children have survived outside the womb as early as 22 weeks but regularly survive as early as 24-25 weeks.
President Clinton believed abortion should be "safe, rare; and legal." But Clinton also believed in a work requirement in his welfare reform bill.
President Obama apparently disagrees on both counts.
After unilaterally allowing states to waive the central pillar of the landmark and bipartisan 1996 welfare reform act -- the work requirement -- Obama has also proven himself to be a wild-eyed extremist on the issue of abortion and way out of step with at least two-thirds of the American people. And his convention platform backs this extremism up.
In 2008, the Democrat Party platform on abortion read this way:
Quote:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay(this means tax payer funded abortions), and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right(how is this a right?).
Obama was in charge of the Democrat Party in 2008, and there's been no scuttlebutt whatsoever about any change that might include an exception for children who are already partially born and very much alive -- but still aborted. The practice known as partial-birth abortion is infanticide -- nothing more, nothing less. It's a horrifying procedure that over two-thirds of Americans believe should be illegal.
And there's little hope the 2012 platform will calibrate towards sanity and include this exception. After all, Obama is still in charge of the Democrat Party, and while running for the U.S. Senate in 2003, Obama defended late-term abortion:
Worse still, as a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and in his defense said something that should put a chill up every mother's spine:
Quote:
There wasn't any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren't cooperating. They wouldn't die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was "movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead."
No, Senator. They wouldn't go along with the program. They wouldn't just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among "the least of my brothers." But of course, an abortion extremist can't very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters - millions of them - is somehow not among America's greatest moral failings.
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
The record, however, doesn't lie.
Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it's the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she'd spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.
The same media currently killing themselves to tie an idiotic statement made by a Missouri Senate candidate to Mitt Romney did everything in its corrupt power to protect Obama from his own statement and voting record in 2008 and is engaging in the same coverup now.
Here's something else the corrupt media is covering up about Obama's abortion extremism -- Obama's actions as recently as 2008:
Quote:
Obama's 2008 endorsement of late-term abortion bans also appeared to be in conflict with his support for the Freedom of Choice Act. In 2007, Obama cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would strike down restrictions on abortion at the state and federal level. The bill stated that all abortions must be legal before "viability" for any reason and that abortions must be legal until birth if a woman's health is at risk. FOCA does not contain a definition of "health," therefore "anything an abortionist says is related to 'health' is sufficient," according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "A state would not be able to adopt any limiting definition (for example, defining 'health' to exclude emotional distress), because that would be to narrow and infringe on the federally guaranteed right which FOCA would establish. The entire purpose of FOCA is to prohibit any narrowing of the federally guaranteed right -- for example, by requiring parental notification, or by refusing to fund abortions."
There's a culture of life and a culture of death, and the man leading the charge in the culture of death is the same man who just took over our entire health care system.
Who's the real extremist? The man who won't stand up to oppose aborting a live child already partially born or the ticket that believes in protecting life but is in favor of the rape, incest, and life-of-mother exceptions?
Like Medicare, this is another debate the Romney Campaign should be eager to have and is, thankfully, starting to engage on.
The only extremist on this issue is Obama, which is why the media is working so hard to focus all of their fire on Todd Akin and la-dee-da a president who is on record supporting infanticide.
Oh yes, It is true. As vile as it is, to some, it was more important to put a black man into the white house, for historic reasons, than to hold Obama accountable for his views on late term abortion.
The radical Dims platform: Allows for abortion on-demand, for any reason, up until the moment of birth… paid for by the taxpayers!
It explicitly calls for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, America's abortion giant.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 08:27 AM by SumOfAllFears.)
"Paul Ryan would turn away a woman nine months pregnant, in labor, from a hospital so she could not have an Abortion to save her life.."
Are you Fing Kidding me?
1) At 9mos in labor a C-section is safer than an abortion Heck at 20 weeks the maternal mortality rate for Abortions is 20 per 100,000. The Maternal mortality rate for C-sections is in the 5-8 range per 100,000.
2) How often does this scenario even play out? Seriously how often is a woman 38weeks+ into her pregnancy go into labor and then needs an abortion to live.
The veil of moderation democrats have tried to wear abortion has been lifted with this convention.
They want any woman, to get an abortion at any time in the pregnancy and (we all know) if she can't afford it they want the tax payers to cover it.
(09-05-2012 03:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: I vehemently disagree with abortion except in some extreme cases but our murderer in chief takes being a vile piece of trash to a whole new level. Barrack Hussein Obama supports killing THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES. Can someone please explain this to me?
For the more ignorant on this board the third trimester starts at 27 weeks and ends at 40 weeks or birth. Children have survived outside the womb as early as 22 weeks but regularly survive as early as 24-25 weeks.
President Clinton believed abortion should be "safe, rare; and legal." But Clinton also believed in a work requirement in his welfare reform bill.
President Obama apparently disagrees on both counts.
After unilaterally allowing states to waive the central pillar of the landmark and bipartisan 1996 welfare reform act -- the work requirement -- Obama has also proven himself to be a wild-eyed extremist on the issue of abortion and way out of step with at least two-thirds of the American people. And his convention platform backs this extremism up.
In 2008, the Democrat Party platform on abortion read this way:
Quote:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay(this means tax payer funded abortions), and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right(how is this a right?).
Obama was in charge of the Democrat Party in 2008, and there's been no scuttlebutt whatsoever about any change that might include an exception for children who are already partially born and very much alive -- but still aborted. The practice known as partial-birth abortion is infanticide -- nothing more, nothing less. It's a horrifying procedure that over two-thirds of Americans believe should be illegal.
And there's little hope the 2012 platform will calibrate towards sanity and include this exception. After all, Obama is still in charge of the Democrat Party, and while running for the U.S. Senate in 2003, Obama defended late-term abortion:
Worse still, as a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and in his defense said something that should put a chill up every mother's spine:
Quote:
There wasn't any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren't cooperating. They wouldn't die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was "movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead."
No, Senator. They wouldn't go along with the program. They wouldn't just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among "the least of my brothers." But of course, an abortion extremist can't very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters - millions of them - is somehow not among America's greatest moral failings.
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
The record, however, doesn't lie.
Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it's the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she'd spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.
The same media currently killing themselves to tie an idiotic statement made by a Missouri Senate candidate to Mitt Romney did everything in its corrupt power to protect Obama from his own statement and voting record in 2008 and is engaging in the same coverup now.
Here's something else the corrupt media is covering up about Obama's abortion extremism -- Obama's actions as recently as 2008:
Quote:
Obama's 2008 endorsement of late-term abortion bans also appeared to be in conflict with his support for the Freedom of Choice Act. In 2007, Obama cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would strike down restrictions on abortion at the state and federal level. The bill stated that all abortions must be legal before "viability" for any reason and that abortions must be legal until birth if a woman's health is at risk. FOCA does not contain a definition of "health," therefore "anything an abortionist says is related to 'health' is sufficient," according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "A state would not be able to adopt any limiting definition (for example, defining 'health' to exclude emotional distress), because that would be to narrow and infringe on the federally guaranteed right which FOCA would establish. The entire purpose of FOCA is to prohibit any narrowing of the federally guaranteed right -- for example, by requiring parental notification, or by refusing to fund abortions."
There's a culture of life and a culture of death, and the man leading the charge in the culture of death is the same man who just took over our entire health care system.
Who's the real extremist? The man who won't stand up to oppose aborting a live child already partially born or the ticket that believes in protecting life but is in favor of the rape, incest, and life-of-mother exceptions?
Like Medicare, this is another debate the Romney Campaign should be eager to have and is, thankfully, starting to engage on.
The only extremist on this issue is Obama, which is why the media is working so hard to focus all of their fire on Todd Akin and la-dee-da a president who is on record supporting infanticide.
WTF are you talking about? I just saw a bunch of rambling words that is full of lies and BS. I mean, your evidence is a You Tube video? Really? Oh, Romney takes those "babies" and disposes of them.
(09-06-2012 08:36 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: Yep.. Barack's just out there murdering babies. Gave up golf on the weekends so he had more time for it.
So you support being able to kill a child up to, and after, the last trimester? Obama does.
I would prefer there be as few abortions as possible.
Me too.
Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice? I think that women should have reproductive freedom. Makes sense. I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Y'know I remember something similar to this a while back and we got into the whole "Why don't you support abortion if you support executions" debate and it went on and on and on, Lord I don't want that again...
09-06-2012 11:57 AM
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
(09-06-2012 08:36 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: Yep.. Barack's just out there murdering babies. Gave up golf on the weekends so he had more time for it.
So you support being able to kill a child up to, and after, the last trimester? Obama does.
I would prefer there be as few abortions as possible.
Me too.
Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice? I think that women should have reproductive freedom. Makes sense. I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Y'know I remember something similar to this a while back and we got into the whole "Why don't you support abortion if you support executions" debate and it went on and on and on, Lord I don't want that again...
We know you have trouble with complicated discussions. Destroying a life is destroying a life.
(09-06-2012 08:36 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: Yep.. Barack's just out there murdering babies. Gave up golf on the weekends so he had more time for it.
So you support being able to kill a child up to, and after, the last trimester? Obama does.
I would prefer there be as few abortions as possible.
Me too.
Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice? I think that women should have reproductive freedom. Makes sense. I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Y'know I remember something similar to this a while back and we got into the whole "Why don't you support abortion if you support executions" debate and it went on and on and on, Lord I don't want that again...
We know you have trouble with complicated discussions. Destroying a life is destroying a life.
lol, I don't have trouble with "complicated discussions". When I give my opinions you guys push it all off and ignore me usually.
If destroying a life is destroying a life, why would you ever support the death penalty? Talk about hypocrisy... It's an accepted view of the GOP that they don't support abortions but they do support executions. I find that to be rather damn wrong. I find both abortion and executions to be objectionable, and I wonder who if anyone at all will say the same. Challenge accepted, anyone?
FWIW, this question was asked on Yahoo! Answers: When does a fetus in the womb gain consciousness? I find this to be a well-thought out answer.
Quote:"Alive" and "conscious" are not the same. As at least one answer said, the sperm and egg are alive.
Consciousness does not and cannot occur until birth, when the infant is given something different from its previous existence to compare it with. It does have the hard-wired faculty of perception, and even of epistemic logic. But until it is given the gift of the trauma of birth, when all of its senses are sent screaming into its mind--where before there was merely a satisfied watery existence from which it was protected from all senses except perhaps sound--then it never gets the chance to experience perception. Perception is the action upon the brain of sensations, the point at which sensations end and consciousness of them begins.
Though it can suck its thumb, it cannot gain knowledge of either the action of sucking, nor of the object called its thumb, its mouth, its tongue, etc. until it is thrown into the world of sensory overload. The womb is a sensory deprivation tank, by naturally occurring benign forces: the watery womb protects it, but at the same time it shields it from its sensory organs.
Thus, there is really nothing for it to be conscious of, because consciousness is consciousness of something, and until it is forced into the world of the senses, it really has nothing to be conscious of. At the very least, it has nothing to compare its consciousness to, if it is at all aware of the world--which it might be, but it doesn't know it is "the world". Whatever it senses through hearing it presumed to be part of its watery world.
An unborn child has no rights except those that apply to keeping it safe from harm, such as fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addiction; and from wrongful death such as through the murder of its mother, in which case 2 murders ought to be the rule.
But otherwise, an unborn is merely potential, and has no rights until birth. Partial-birth abortions sound at first like murder, but unless the child has taken a breath it is not the same as murder-after-birth. Some States however have made it illegal, and I do not object because it is a judgment call, and that call is the right of the State. (Not, however, of the Federal government.)
You do realize I'm against abortion, right? I don't believe it's the government's place to step in and say that women do not have the freedom to choose what they do to their unborn, unconscious offspring. That being said - I find it morally objectionable, but what you don't seem to be grasping is that fundamentally it is the choice of a woman to do what she pleases to her body. When that baby is born, though, it is no longer a part of her. She gave birth to a new human being - and at that point of birth, therefore, the baby is conscious and the societal norm is that harming others is unacceptable. Harming a born child is unacceptable. I feel that harming an unborn child is unacceptable too, but the point is up until that child is born that child is - literally - a part of that woman.
Women have the freedom to not make a baby, IMATY you say - does that include being able to use contraceptives? How about condoms or the morning after pill? That's just an abortion without the final product. Is that morally objectionable too?
(09-06-2012 08:36 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote: Yep.. Barack's just out there murdering babies. Gave up golf on the weekends so he had more time for it.
So you support being able to kill a child up to, and after, the last trimester? Obama does.
I would prefer there be as few abortions as possible.
Me too.
Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice? I think that women should have reproductive freedom. Makes sense. I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Y'know I remember something similar to this a while back and we got into the whole "Why don't you support abortion if you support executions" debate and it went on and on and on, Lord I don't want that again...
Here's where there's a good discussion. When does it transition from a woman's reproductive freedom to protecting a human life? I've never heard that question asked before.
(09-06-2012 11:57 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote: Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice?
It says you can't kill a baby 10 minutes after Birth why would it be wrong for them to say ten minutes before Birth?
Quote:I think that women should have reproductive freedom.
Me to! Abstain or use protection and accept that protection, when used properly, is only about 95% effective.
BTW should men have reproductive freedom?
Quote:I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Many have turned a blind eye to atrocities throughout the ages with the idea that so long as they themselves abstain they have no right to prevent others from doing it.
All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing!
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 01:08 PM by Bull_In_Exile.)
Let's stay on subject. I'd be glad to answer your questions in a different thread. For now I would like to understand how people can justify voting for a man who tacitly endorses the murder of babies that can survive outside of the womb.
BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.
(09-06-2012 11:57 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote: Is it really the place of the government to say that a woman can't make that choice?
It says you can't kill a bay 10 minutes after Birth why would it be wrong for them to say ten minutes before Birth?
Quote:I think that women should have reproductive freedom.
Me to! Abstain or use protection and accept that protection, when used properly, is only about 95% effective.
BTW should men have reproductive freedom?
Quote:I don't like abortion, and as a Christian I don't agree with it in most cases, but still that's their choice.
Many have turned a blind eye to atrocities throughout the ages with the idea that so long as they themselves abstain they have no right to prevent others from doing it.
All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing!
Well, that is fine until Paul Ryan and the fundementalist Christians take that choice away.
(09-06-2012 01:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: Let's stay on subject. I'd be glad to answer your questions in a different thread. For now I would like to understand how people can justify voting for a man who tacitly endorses the murder of babies that can survive outside of the womb.
BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.
I think you are a good example of why a botched abortion baby should be left to die.
Seriously, if the baby ends up being born with severe injuries due to a botched abortion and there is no way to save them with medical procedures, I say I have no problems letting them die but it has to be humanely.
Uh yeah, that's pretty much one of the main jobs of government: protecting innocent lives.
