Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This issue is very important, for it deals with the most important human right: that of Life. The Founders recognized this most basic right when they wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", for without Life no other rights can exist.

I'm not talking about abortion and I do not wish to bring that issue up in this thread. Rather, I am talking about the killing, nay, murdering of born babies.
Babies who, after their birth, were left alone to die in dark and empty rooms. And a politician who, on three different occasions, voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have protected those babies who had every right to live.

Frankly, any politician who votes against the protection of the innocent, against the basic human right to Life on three seperate occasions does not deserve my trust. The very fact that a politician would vote against the most basic of human rights is disturbing. If he is unwilling to protect a basic right, what else will he be unwilling to protect?

 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Would someone explain the distinction between delivering a baby and murdering it, and delivering a baby up to the neck and murdering it?

Obama's not stupid-- he knows what abortion is. Whether the baby is "born" makes no difference. That's why he doesn't care.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
No. There is a legal difference between a baby outside the womb and one inside. Regardless of what you, me or anybody thinks about the status of said baby. The status of a baby inside the womb is murky, the status of one outside the womb is much clearer.

That has no bearing on the status of that baby as a person, or on the baby's status as a human being, but as a citizen.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
The law makes a lot of distinctions that are utterly meaningless in reality. Fortunately, the law has been moving away from that for a long time. The idea that we ought to go back to 19th-century formalism to decide who lives and who dies is sickening.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
This issue is very important, for it deals with the most important human right: that of Life. The Founders recognized this most basic right when they wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", for without Life no other rights can exist.

I'm not talking about abortion and I do not wish to bring that issue up in this thread. Rather, I am talking about the killing, nay, murdering of born babies.
Babies who, after their birth, were left alone to die in dark and empty rooms. And a politician who, on three different occasions, voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have protected those babies who had every right to live.

Frankly, any politician who votes against the protection of the innocent, against the basic human right to Life on three seperate occasions does not deserve my trust. The very fact that a politician would vote against the most basic of human rights is disturbing. If he is unwilling to protect a basic right, what else will he be unwilling to protect?

Yet again we have a post that doesn't take into account the complete legislation that was before the Illinois Senate. If the bill were that simple that it only protected the situation you mention then it would have passed. It wasn't and it didn't. In fact there was already a law on the books in Illinois that protected a born alive infant. Here it is:

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall 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. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. []

It's like ground hog day with this stuff. Alan Keyes tried to make an issue of this and the people of Illinois called him on it. In fact he was soundly defeated because most people in this state thought he was a raving loon.

Again, a bill was introduced that was multi-faceted and already covered a law that was in force. The real aim of the legislation was not to protect born alive infants (since they were already protected by Illinois statute) but was an attempt by hard line pro-life forces to limit a women's right to choose.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,937 Posts
Fetus

Gentlemen

That is interesting regarding abortion, and if a fetus is alive. The abortion should be done when this is not to happen my friends. How far into the pregnancy is the mother determines this.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Seems appropriate in the context of discussing people who are anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment.
Abortion is the arbitrary and pointless taking of the life of an innocent child. Capital punishment is the execution of a dangerous convicted murderer after an exhaustive judicial process.

If you can't see a real difference, you're a moron. No other way to put it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
Abortion is the arbitrary and pointless taking of the life of an innocent child. Capital punishment is the execution of a dangerous convicted murderer after an exhaustive judicial process.
At the end of the day, either way it's about killing people. I thought the ten commandments clearly stated "Thou Shalt Not Kill", I didn't know there was an addendum to that one.

If you can't see a real difference, you're a moron. No other way to put it.
Praise from caesar. You're the reason half the veteran poster's on this forum have left, it's no wonder Kav wants to "get you" as you constantly whine about. I'm just surprised you've gone this long without getting the boot like you did on SF.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
At the end of the day, either way it's about killing people. I thought the ten commandments clearly stated "Thou Shalt Not Kill", I didn't know there was an addendum to that one.
As a small child in Sunday School learning about the ten commandments clearly stateing "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but a couple of weeks later, in Sunday School learning, God is commanding them to kill some people. Later when you read in the Bible God outlines when to kill murders, fornicators, etc. In fact, in one section of the Bible it is the parents job to cast the first stone showing no sorrow if the son or daugther has done a sin worthy of death. So many people take Scripture out of context and it really shows. My Biblical perspective is those that do abortion should be pushed into the circle and be stoned to death. How can it be ok to kill the baby and be wrong to kill those that kill the baby? If you are going to kill somebody kill the person that is guilty.

When the sperm and egg become one that is indeed the beginning of life and nobody has the right to kill the innocent. If you are going to take a life take the parents, for the baby is innocent.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
This issue is very important, for it deals with the most important human right: that of Life. The Founders recognized this most basic right when they wrote "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", for without Life no other rights can exist.

I'm not talking about abortion and I do not wish to bring that issue up in this thread. Rather, I am talking about the killing, nay, murdering of born babies.
Babies who, after their birth, were left alone to die in dark and empty rooms. And a politician who, on three different occasions, voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have protected those babies who had every right to live.

Frankly, any politician who votes against the protection of the innocent, against the basic human right to Life on three seperate occasions does not deserve my trust. The very fact that a politician would vote against the most basic of human rights is disturbing. If he is unwilling to protect a basic right, what else will he be unwilling to protect?

Embryonic stem cell research- where is the human respect for these people? When does life begin and when can we decide who is one of us and who is not? Who has what right/s? Hiding these human Grievance under the title "law" is no excuse. If we didn't condone Germany for doing these kinds of "laws", and rightly so, we can not condone this behavior here, even more so.

This is another reason not to vote for Obama. I don't want my hands tied to murder.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top