• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

In 2002 Obama supported infanticide

You did notice that I squashed that whole stance a few pages ago. :roll:

No, I didn't notice it or have any idea what you are talking about. :roll:
 
No, the Republicans insist able people get off their ass and find a job within two years, or be thrown off welfare.

Democrats want to pay them welfare to their grave and fuel the problem by rewarding laziness.

That's one of many reasons why Republicans usually don't have to raise taxes, and the Democrats do.

I disagree with your characterization of fact, but how does that provide care for unwanted babies?
 
Do you know how much even a single day on life support costs?
Who will absorb this expense, if not taxpayers?

Having "taxpayers" is not the same as "increasing taxes." See--you just proved my point.
 
Do you know how much even a single day on life support costs?
Who will absorb this expense, if not taxpayers?

So you want taxpayers to pay for your tampons but not the saving of innocent children?
 
:doh Geez you libreral monkeys...A flat tax or fair tax and reallocating could solve the problem. But, it's true that getting consensus would be hard--so...like so many liberals, the easy way is the way to go.:roll: Don't give people a "choice" (how ironic!) and TAKE MORE.
 
Last edited:
:doh Geez you libreral monkeys...A flat tax or fair tax and reallocating could solve the problem. But, it's true that getting consensus would be hard--so...like so many liberals, the easy way is the way to go.:roll: Don't give people a "choice" (how ironic!) and TAKE MORE.

Neither the flat tax nor the so-called fair-tax would provide more revenues, both are at best revenue neutral and more likely would result in decreased revenues. Neither "solves the problem".

Here you are complaining about taxes necessary to pay for programs for unwanted babies. You want to bring unwanted babies into the world but not the taxes necessary to provide care for them.

It's the typical conservative position.
 
Neither the flat tax nor the so-called fair-tax would provide more revenues, both are at best revenue neutral and more likely would result in decreased revenues. Neither "solves the problem".

Here you are complaining about taxes necessary to pay for programs for unwanted babies. You want to bring unwanted babies into the world but not the taxes necessary to provide care for them.

It's the typical conservative position.

Increased taxes:doh
 
Increased taxes:doh

Borrow money and devalue the dollar. :doh


Or, behind door number three, don't put aborted fetuses on life support.
Don't apply any heroic measures toward maintaining their lives.
Save the (fictional) money you would've used for that and apply it instead toward medical care for the born and wanted children of the poor.
 
Increased taxes:doh

Affirming what I said. You are all for requiring the 40 million unwanted children being born, but you don't want to pay for the cost.

I really have little sympathy for the conservative position that seeks to compel the birth of unwanted children but doesn't want to pay for the cost associated with it.
 
In the case of abortion, the woman was not going in to give birth. She was going in to have a procedure done upon herself to remove an unwanted pregnancy (as so many on the pro-choice side will attest to). Therefore, she has no social or legal right to anything concerning the live born individual that may result--any right she had to the welfare of a resulting child is forfeited by her (failed) abortion. The child becomes a ward of the hospital and they are responsible at that time.

Can you show me a link to the law the covers this? I'd be interested to see it.

Oh, and it still wouldn't change my mind that Obama was signing off on infanticide, but it would be a very interesting piece of information.
 
As the pro-abortion choicers love to say, "biology is irrelevant." :roll: There may be a biological parentage, but if THAT'S the case, they are abusive parents (trying to kill their offspring) and their rights are removed. Signing the medical release for an abortion effectively signs away all parental rights.

What parental rights? What parenting? There is no kid.
 
B.O.R.N. A.L.I.V.E. What is unclear here?

Do you happen to have any links to a fetus surviving an abortion?

Credible links, I mean. Reverend Billy Bob's Outreach.com won't cut it.
 
So money is more important to you than these abortion-surviving fetuses?

For shame.

No, we borrow the money to pay for it and when they turn 18 it will be their generation's problem. ;)
 
Can you show me a link to the law the covers this? I'd be interested to see it.

Oh, and it still wouldn't change my mind that Obama was signing off on infanticide, but it would be a very interesting piece of information.

325*ILCS*2/Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.


(325 ILCS 2/15)
Sec. 15. Presumptions.
(a) There is a presumption that by relinquishing a newborn infant in accordance with this Act, the infant's parent consents to the termination of his or her parental rights with respect to the infant.
(b) There is a presumption that a person relinquishing a newborn infant in accordance with this Act:
(1) is the newborn infant's biological parent; and
(2) either without expressing an intent to return for
the infant or expressing an intent not to return for the infant, did intend to relinquish the infant to the hospital, police station, fire station, or emergency medical facility to treat, care for, and provide for the infant in accordance with this Act.

(325 ILCS 2/20)
Sec. 20. Procedures with respect to relinquished newborn infants.
(a) Hospitals. Every hospital must accept and provide all necessary emergency services and care to a relinquished newborn infant, in accordance with this Act.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Information from Answers.com
If a mother intended to abort her pregnancy and the child survived the abortion attempt, then the Farmer decision suggested that the child had no right to medical care because the mother was not seeking to give birth in the first place. As a result, these controversial decisions brought another issue to the forefront of the abortion debate—the need for the legal protection of infants who survive abortion procedures and are born alive.
...During legislative hearings, witnesses confirmed the implication of the Farmer decision by presenting evidence that infants born alive after failed abortions went without medical care and subsequently died. Nevertheless, opponents of the legislation questioned whether it interfered with a woman's right to choose in contravention of Roe and the jurisprudence arising from that decision. Although the proposal passed out of the House of Representatives, the bill failed to gain sufficient support in the Senate. However, the proposal made its way back to Congress one year later in the form of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001. Citing the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution as the legal basis to enact the statute, the House of Representatives passed the bill by voice vote and the Senate unanimously agreed in mid-2002. President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (P.L. 107-207, 116 Stat. 926) into law on August 5, 2002.
 
Last edited:
What parental rights? What parenting? There is no kid.

The thing that survived the abortion attempt is a live human individual being with all the rights afforded every other human being. This is so despite all the protestations.
 
So money is more important to you than these abortion-surviving fetuses?

For shame.

This is ridiculous.

1st--as people like to note, there are not that many that survive the abortion attempted upon them--most end up dead.

2nd--to address the issue of babies that are abandoned as a result of stricter abortion regulation, there ARE ways to figure out funding. Simply raising taxes isn't appropriate--the tax system is screwed up and inefficient as it is. I suggest thinking outside the box and reallocating tax monies. To continue to charge me with the accusation that I want babies but aren't willing to pay for them is ludicrous since I don't make enough money to pay for them anyway--Maybe Bill Gates does--not me. I am being practical in that the system needs work in this *and many other issues'* regard. I would be vary happy to know that my tax dollars were spent in the care of human beings rather than supporting the killing of them as it currently does. NO--I don't want to be taxed more to have much of it go to funding destructive "services"--it needs to be fixed, and then tax me at a high rate--as long as I have CHOICE in the matter.

I am no economist, but I have suggested a mandatory taxation with a percentage of that tax going to particular charities that the individual paying the tax gets to determine. I'm not sure how it would work, but let the free market determine what public services (aside from basic infrastructure/governmental support) are supported--but do so by mandating individual income tax service allocation. People could set up something like mutual funds for services they support ...as I said, I am no economist--I just HATE that MY money is spent so inefficiently and for things I do not support at all but have NO CHOICE but to give my money to. That's my problem with merely "increasing taxes"--it's not the money--it's the inefficiency and the support of programs I am against.
 
No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.:doh

He's making an accurate point. The last three Republican administrations of cutting taxes and borrowing money to make up for the shortfall caused, a principal reason the debt of the country increased from $1 trillion when Reagan took office in 1981 to $9.5 trillion today.

If the Govt spends more money to take care of unwanted babies, either taxes are raised to pay for it or the Govt borrows more money.
 
This is ridiculous.

1st--as people like to note, there are not that many that survive the abortion attempted upon them--most end up dead.

2nd--to address the issue of babies that are abandoned as a result of stricter abortion regulation, there ARE ways to figure out funding. Simply raising taxes isn't appropriate--the tax system is screwed up and inefficient as it is. I suggest thinking outside the box and reallocating tax monies.

We all want to reallocate money to programs we support. Good luck convincing the warmongers to cut military spending.

You are promoting a major new cost program -- forcing people to bear unwanted babies, yet offer no support to pay for it other than "thinking outside the box."

Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
Sunday, August 17, 2008

Obama on the Born-Alive Act [Yuval Levin]

The clip mentioned below is pretty striking. If they’re going to argue this, the Obama folks will need to offer some facts and documents, because as it stands now the only way I can read the evidence uncovered by the National Right to Life Committee compared to the assertion made by Obama in that interview is that Obama is not telling the truth. He had a chance to vote on a bill that dealt with the larger Roe v. Wade issue in exactly—verbatim—the same way as the federal bill (which Obama now claims he would have supported), and he voted against it in committee and killed it. The NRLC’s evidence seems pretty clear. If Obama wants to argue it’s “a lie,” he’ll need to prove it.

The Corner on National Review Online

And while we're on the subject of Obama's views on Baby's Rights vs Abortion
let's look at his statement's at Saddleback Church the other evening.

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

WARREN: Have you –

The decision to allow abortion is apparently not above his pay grade. The question and answer is somewhat the same as asking when will any particular human being die of man made or natural causes. And Obama's response would be 100% spot on in that context. It is above his pay grade. Only God can know when a person will die. However, what we assume in the case of babies is quite different than what we assume in the case of adults.

Where adults are concerned, because we can't know their moment of death ahead of time...the moment their rights as human beings stop...we legally safeguard their life.

But when it comes to babies, because we can't know the moment their rights as humans begin we declare them fair game.

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

When I was reading this text the first time I initially thought he was stalling or trying to make points with the evangelical crowd in attendance. But then I thought about it some more and I realized that there may be some people who really do not recognize the moral and ethical aspects of abortion. I am regularly astounded not only by the numbers of people who don't get this, but by the fact that they exist at all.

OBAMA: But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.

This is a key statement. Just as a criminal might not casually consider their legal defense and may consult lawyers and spouses and family members, the emphasis is here should not how seriously they consider their choices AFTER the pivotal event but how little thought and responsibility and good judgment was part of the decisions they made BEFORE the crime or before the act of conception.

Women are not acting responsibly at the time of sexual intercourse and that failure to exercise good judgment helps contribute, mightily, to the need to make these weighty decisions after they have made their mistake.

Luckily, women can kill their mistakes in judgment. :roll: A man does not have that right.

OBAMA:And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

Good.

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

The religious aren't the only ones who believe life starts at conception.

OBAMA: What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.

WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. [/SIZE]

Full Transcript: Saddleback Presidential Forum, Sen. Barack Obama, John McCain; Moderated by Rick Warren : Clips & Comment

"Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" This attitude is that the government knows what's best for us and is the Big Daddy. The nanny state. Haven't we learned the hazards of creating and expanding entitlement programs? :doh
 
"Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" This attitude is that the government knows what's best for us and is the Big Daddy. The nanny state. Haven't we learned the hazards of creating and expanding entitlement programs? :doh

No, the point is if you are to force women to have unwanted babies, then are you willing to support programs to pay for it?

Many women do not have resources to pay for bringing up a child. Obama is absolutely right that if you want to reduce abortions, then provide the means for supporting the child you want brought into existance.

You and other conservatives are all in favor of forcing women to have a baby she doesn't want and can't care for, but then rant about the "nanny state" when it comes to providing food, shelter, health care and education for it.

Again, I have little sympathy for the conservative position that cares so much about life until the child is born and then abandons it; making women have babies they don't want and then refusing to fund support to help care for it.
 
Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.

Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. :shrug:Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom