Obama Supports Infanticide

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 November 2009 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1258574690' post='2004986']
OBAMA GOOD! REPUBLICANS BAD!
[/quote]


Walking on all fours good, walking upright, bahd, bahd.


Jim

Edited November 18, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1258576108' post='2004994']
Walking on all fours good, walking upright, bahd, bahd.


Jim
[/quote]
Yes, it's evolution to support Overman. I know Nietzsche, too.

[rkwright]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1258573597' post='2004974']
Its not only a matter of getting sued, but losing their licences to practice medicine.

What will happen and in fact has already started to happen, medical students are avoiding
obstetrics, because of laws like this.

What will we end up with, if we don't have enough physicians to serve in this field?

More people will die, mothers and babies included.

Just as we look to theologians for their expertise on theology and lawyers for their expertise on law, we should look to physicians for their expertise in medicine, not those pushing political agendas.

Jim
[/quote]

There are other ways to take care of lawsuits than denying rights to the unborn (actually born in this case).

Texas tort reform pretty much killed all medical malpractice cases here.

The right to life is non-negotiable regardless of someone's potential liability.

I can imagine if slave owners had said "No we can't free the slaves! We'll be put out of business... no one will want to be a plantation owner/farmer we just couldn't afford it!"

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='rkwright' date='18 November 2009 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1258578320' post='2005027']
There are other ways to take care of lawsuits than denying rights to the unborn (actually born in this case).

Texas tort reform pretty much killed all medical malpractice cases here.

The right to life is non-negotiable regardless of someone's potential liability.

I can imagine if slave owners had said "No we can't free the slaves! We'll be put out of business... no one will want to be a plantation owner/farmer we just couldn't afford it!"
[/quote]


The pediatricians are concerned over previable fetuses born dead, or presumed to be dead at the time of extraction, which may move due to nerve activity or merely because the mother thought she saw it move, and then reports to a government board, that the doctor didn't try to save the baby's life. Some government bureaucrat could have the physicians licence to practice suspended, pending and investigation, or even revoked.

Would you work under such conditions?

Many doctors will chose to go into other areas of medicine, rather than risk their careers and well-being to government bureaucrats and lay people who have no clue about medicine.


Jim

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1258578920' post='2005032']
The pediatricians are concerned over previable fetuses born dead, or presumed to be dead at the time of extraction, which may move due to nerve activity or merely because the mother thought she saw it move, and then reports to a government board, that the doctor didn't try to save the baby's life. Some government bureaucrat could have the physicians licence to practice suspended, pending and investigation, or even revoked.

Would you work under such conditions?

Many doctors will chose to go into other areas of medicine, rather than risk their careers and well-being to government bureaucrats and lay people who have no clue about medicine.


Jim
[/quote]


is it really that difficult these days to determine "Life?" I read your posts, and I'm thinking...the culture of death has made it all so ridiculously complicated...

back in the good ol' days, if you had a heart beat...you were alive...

[Jesus_lol]

you know, this can be looked at another way. it seems that fairly regularily both parties, while intentional or not, introduce bills/laws etc, that when reduced to a headline seem completely obvious, but are completely flawed in other aspects. Thus, when a person/party votes against it, on the grounds that the flawed details leave too much open, etc they can be slammed by the other party for voting against such an "obviously" smart or moral thing.

both parties do this, Democrats introduce a "healthcare for the Poor" that has some serious flaws. Republicans(some of which might have been inclined to vote for it) vote against because of far reaching flaws. Republicans all look like they hate the poor.
Likewise, every year GOP introduces a Bill that "Saves Babies", some Democrats that might otherwise say "yeah ok, that sounds good" take a look at the details and say "uhhh, whats up with these? try again." and Democrats all look like they hate babies.

i wouldnt go so far as to say this is endemic, but its something ive been thinking about, and it may play a role. Smaller, more focused laws would probably have a better effect.

politicians get Re-elected either by making themselves look really good, or by making their opponent look really bad. i suspect the latter is easier.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 November 2009 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1258579305' post='2005036']
you know, this can be looked at another way. it seems that fairly regularily both parties, while intentional or not, introduce bills/laws etc, that when reduced to a headline seem completely obvious, but are completely flawed in other aspects. Thus, when a person/party votes against it, on the grounds that the flawed details leave too much open, etc they can be slammed by the other party for voting against such an "obviously" smart or moral thing.

both parties do this, Democrats introduce a "healthcare for the Poor" that has some serious flaws. Republicans(some of which might have been inclined to vote for it) vote against because of far reaching flaws. Republicans all look like they hate the poor.
Likewise, every year GOP introduces a Bill that "Saves Babies", some Democrats that might otherwise say "yeah ok, that sounds good" take a look at the details and say "uhhh, whats up with these? try again." and Democrats all look like they hate babies.

i wouldnt go so far as to say this is endemic, but its something ive been thinking about, and it may play a role. Smaller, more focused laws would probably have a better effect.

politicians get Re-elected either by making themselves look really good, or by making their opponent look really bad. i suspect the latter is easier.
[/quote]
+1. Good insight.

Obama, though, did indeed vote against the Infant Born Alive Act. Take from that what you will.

[JimR-OCDS]

Jesus_lol

[quote]politicians get Re-elected either by making themselves look really good, or by making their opponent look really bad. i suspect the latter is easier.[/quote]

This happens all the time. The campaign rhetoric that comes out is something like, Senator A voted against a bill to fund abortions while senator B voted for it.

As you look deeper, the bill was merely to increase funding for a health-clinic, which provides a vast array of services to women, including abortion. Senator A voted against increasing the funding, but if you look back, he voted for the funding in the first bill that made it possible. Senator B merely voted for the increase and wasn't even around when the original funding bill was voted and enacted.


Jim

[Jesus_lol]

USairways

thanks. yeah im not really going to draw an specific conclusions, my thoughts were more about a general trend, but i wager more people would vote pro life if the pro life bills were more comprehensively sound.

If attempting to pass a lame bill one year, gives a lot of democrats anti pro life voting records, that is a lot more votes for the republicans from people who might otherwise vote against them next year. you would think after decades of introducing Pro-Life bills and laws, some of these offending factors might have been fixed. introducing the same bill that keeps failing year after year does nothing but pander to their target voter base.



^jim, exactly.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Jesus_lol

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 November 2009 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1257561220' post='1997460']
Yea, even most pro aborts aren't that disgusting. Although I guess it's the logical extension of allowing abortion.
[/quote]

Bingo. Nail on the head.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1258580155' post='2005048']
As you look deeper, the bill was merely to increase funding for a health-clinic, which provides a vast array of services to women, including abortion. Senator A voted against increasing the funding, but if you look back, he voted for the funding in the first bill that made it possible. Senator B merely voted for the increase and wasn't even around when the original funding bill was voted and enacted.


Jim
[/quote]

That is a salient point for discussion.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1258578920' post='2005032']
The pediatricians are concerned over previable fetuses born dead, or presumed to be dead at the time of extraction, which may move due to nerve activity or merely because the mother thought she saw it move, and then reports to a government board, that the doctor didn't try to save the baby's life. Some government bureaucrat could have the physicians licence to practice suspended, pending and investigation, or even revoked.

Would you work under such conditions?

Many doctors will chose to go into other areas of medicine, rather than risk their careers and well-being to government bureaucrats and lay people who have no clue about medicine.


Jim
[/quote]

A solution to this would be to have healthcare worker panels review cases before they hit Govt/Judicial systems. I believe in Indiana (where I'm currently a second year medical student at IU) that medical malpractice casese are reviewed by an independent panel involving a physician (and nurses, etc) to see if negligence or malpractice occurred. Then this report is presented to a judge who will determine if the case should be heard. It seems, anecdotally anyway, that the majority of cases that these physician panels deem as "not malpractice" end up w/ favorable outcomes for physicians. In this way, the medical professionals have their professional input before the beaurocrats and laypeople mess things up.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1258572184' post='2004953']
[color="#000000"][color="#000000"]Here's an opinion from the Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics on the The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), back in 2005.

I suggest you read what doctors, not bureaucrats or people with political agendas had to say about it.

This is a part of the article.

[/color]

[color="#000000"]


Jim[/size][/sup]
[/quote]
Or perhaps we should look at what [b]Obama himself[/b] originally said about his reason for opposing the bill:
[quote][b]Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
[/b]
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.[/quote]
Straight from the horse's mouth: Obama opposed protecting infants that survive abortion because he saw it as a threat to the "right" to kill an unborn child.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Socrates

[Jesus_lol]

well, that was incredibly confusing. socrates why are you using the same avatar as Fidei Defensor?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 November 2009 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1258581836' post='2005063']
Or perhaps we should look at what [b]Obama himself[/b] originally said about his reason for opposing the bill:

Straight from the horse's mouth: Obama opposed protecting infants that survive abortion because he saw it as a threat to the "right" to kill an unborn child.
[/quote]
Socrates,

If I could I would give you +1's [i]infinity[/i] for this post. We need to quit trying to make excuses for pro-abortion politicians and their pro-death policies and the actions they take to ensure their agenda is not snuffed out...

there are no ifs, ands or buts. The culture of death is real, as real as Pope John Paul II told us. The ministers of this culture don't hesitate with their agenda...they know exactly what they are doing...I dont' care if Obama denies being for infanticide...straight out of his mouth, he considers killing babies born during abortions as necessary to protect the right to kill unborn life...how can anyone defend him???

[Laudate_Dominum]

According to a Nova episode infanticide is more common among homo sapiens than among any of the other higher apes, and that is without even considering abortion.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='18 November 2009 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1258585095' post='2005106']
According to a Nova episode infanticide is more common among homo sapiens than among any of the other higher apes, and that is without even considering abortion.
[/quote]

Wait so does that support or contradict evolution?!?!?!?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1258572184' post='2004953']
[color="#000000"][color="#000000"]Here's an opinion from the Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics on the The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), back in 2005.

I suggest you read what doctors, not bureaucrats or people with political agendas had to say about it.

This is a part of the article.

[/color]

[color="#000000"]


Jim[/size][/sup]
[/quote]

Okay, I read it and still maintain Obama supports infanticide. Murdering children inside the womb and leaving them to die outside the womb is a violation of the basic oath doctors take to do no harm. From a medical standpoint not only are all abortions an atrocity, but killing by omission those survivors of such murder attempts is an atrocity as well as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 November 2009 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1258585931' post='2005120']
Wait so does that support or contradict evolution?!?!?!?
[/quote]
I just brought it up as a disturbing curiosity, wasn't trying to say anything about evolution.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 November 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1258582726' post='2005072']
well, that was incredibly confusing. socrates why are you using the same avatar as Fidei Defensor?
[/quote]
Yeah. Weird.