In 2002 Obama supported infanticide

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Translation: Hi, I'm Iriemon and I was just talking out my ass when I made that assertion.

You are really arguing that most conservatives here support "the nanny state?"

Felicity · 08-25-08, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

Not voting for "born alive" bills is not equivalent to supporting infanticide.

His STATEMENTS on the issue are what tell us what he is in favor of.

Quote:

Even if you consider letting the infant die as infanticide, that's a logical fallacy to equate negative support of the former with positive support for the latter.

Look at his statements on the matter--he wants to redefine "person" so that he can justify letting live babies die. Currently "person" covers live babies born and separate from mom--to speak on behalf of removing those rights is support of infanticide as the law stands TODAY.

Quote:

I certainly understand why pro-life voters would be dissatisfied with his voting record, but there's no need for hysterical posturing to pretend he's all that different from many pro-choice legislators.

It's a very important issue and just because you don't find it absolutely atrocious and inhuman doesn't mean others don't or that you are correct in your perception. I think you should be horrified that he's in support of removing human rights from a certain class of people--namely deathly ill babies who cannot defend themselves. Who's next?

And--he IS crazy radical on this--my understanding is that NARAL had no opposition to the federal legislation that was mirrored exactly in the State legislation Obama killed.

Quote:

Not really since you're trying to come up with some automatic mechanism for transfering responsibility to the state. It has to cover all the situations.

It would be different because as Obama describes--no person acts in a parental role on behalf of the live child. If a father was there to consult, so be it--let him be on the birth certificate and the death certificate--That child LIVED and at least a record of his existence should be noted somewhere.

Quote:

Actually I was just adopting that assumption for argument's sake. I'm willing to accept a parent's decision for what are generally considered non-viable fetuses.

A parent--yes. Not a woman who tried to have an abortion, and not a doctor that failed the gruesome task.

Felicity · 08-25-08, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I don't care what Mikva says. Not voting is a no vote too then by that logic. How many bills has McCain in essence voted "no" on by not voting? I know he has missed some important votes concerning supporting the troops this year.

You don't care?

Okay--you just tattooed "The messiah has come and He is Obama" on your forehead.

(I've seen your forhead--it'll fit

)

So you switch to some non-comparison attempt to smudge McCain? I thought you were trying to work on that partisan thing...not going so well, eh?

Are you noticing that every angle you guys try to use to wiggle Obama out of his statements and his record keep coming up bust? Face it--this is what the guy stands for.

Facts are facts.

jallman · 08-25-08, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

You are really arguing that most conservatives here support "the nanny state?"

No, I am arguing that your assertion that "conservatives wouldn't care for the children" is absurd, at best.

independent_thinker2002 · 08-25-08, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

You don't care?

Okay--you just tattooed "The messiah has come and He is Obama" on your forehead.

(I've seen your forhead--it'll fit

)

So you switch to some non-comparison attempt to smudge McCain? I thought you were trying to work on that partisan thing...not going so well, eh?

Are you noticing that every angle you guys try to use to wiggle Obama out of his statements and his record keep coming up bust? Face it--this is what the guy stands for.

Facts are facts.

Way to avoid my point. You couldn't dispute the logic so you called me a partisan. Outstanding.

Your logic is anything but a "yes" vote is a no vote. Fallacy of false dilemma.

Felicity · 08-25-08, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Way to avoid my point. You couldn't dispute the logic so you called me a partisan. Outstanding.

Your logic is anything but a "yes" vote is a no vote. Fallacy of false dilemma.

It's not my logic

--it's how the Illinois legislature works. It's different in different states and it's different at the federal level.

independent_thinker2002 · 08-25-08, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

It's not my logic

--it's how the Illinois legislature works. It's different in different states and it's different at the federal level.

Being from Illinois, I am quite aware how it works here. If a "present" vote is a "no" vote, why do they even have the option of voting "present"?

Jerry · 08-25-08, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

So NP, do you support higher taxes to pay for the costs of caring for unwanted children born when abortion is made illegal?

No that's what Child Support was invented for.

cascadian · 08-25-08, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

His STATEMENTS on the issue are what tell us what he is in favor of.

Look at his statements on the matter--he wants to redefine "person" so that he can justify letting live babies die. Currently "person" covers live babies born and separate from mom--to speak on behalf of removing those rights is support of infanticide as the law stands TODAY.

I've looked at a number of quotes and transcripts provided by pro-life sources about Obama and have seen nothing to back these assertions up.

Where does Obama advocate removing rights, and what words did he use, that made you come to this conclusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

And--he IS crazy radical on this--my understanding is that NARAL had no opposition to the federal legislation that was mirrored exactly in the State legislation Obama killed.

that was Federal law that didn't affect the state laws of Illinois, however that would not be the case for a state law.

Once again here is the Planned Parenthood statement about 1082 made in 2003

Quote:

The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois.The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.

(bolding mine)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

A parent--yes. Not a woman who tried to have an abortion, and not a doctor that failed the gruesome task.

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this. They are either parents or not. Now if performing a legal abortion is giving up parental rights you need to be clear about how this process takes place. It's not clear at all to me that state ownership is the next step as opposed to the father, next of kin, etc...

Iriemon · 08-25-08, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

No, I am arguing that your assertion that "conservatives wouldn't care for the children" is absurd, at best.

Now whose pulling things out of their ass.

Please show where I made the assertion "conservatives wouldn't care for the children."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode