Obama’s opposition to Born Alive goes International
The Barack Obama/Born Alive issue made the UK’s The Guardian today, called “smear.” Oh brother on the title.
The Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn also tried in vain to bat the issue away once again today. Oh brother on the title of his piece, too….
A liberal’s last resort: mockery and hyperbole. Love it. In this case, they only burn the wrong image of Obama into people’s heads.
Meanwhile, recall I previously wrote that David Freddoso, author of the book, The case against Barack Obama, was highlighting Obama’s opposition to Born Alive while an IL state senator.
Turns out Freddoso dedicated almost an entire chapter to it. I read it two days ago, and it was excellent. The book is ranked #13 on Amazon’s best seller list this afternoon. Congratulations, David!
An August 7 article in Human Events showcased that chapter.
Liberal attempts to ridicule this topic betray a very real fear: The Obama/Born Alive issue is gaining traction.
Stay tuned.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The smears are only “gaining traction” among the hate merchants who are pushing them.
I expect a backlash by voters against the tactics of desperation by the extremists.
Remember the non-existent “I hate whitey” tape that Jill was trying to sell a few weeks ago?
Don’t forget Hisman’s secret video tape too.
Jill, you’re seeing mockery because this whole issue is so mock-worthy.
What’s the matter PPC?
Can’t take it when your “idol” is being smeared?
Yeah, let’s wait for that backlash and see, shall we?
RSD I appreciate your acknowledgment that this is a smear and is not the truth.
I think most reasonable people do not like smears, and that the use of them will provoke a backlash.
If we’d only put air in our tires…
If we’d only put air in our tires…
Posted by: mk at August 8, 2008 5:42 PM
……………………….
Better air in the tires than between the ears eh mk?
air in the tires in one thing McCain and Obama agree on. Now that McCain has come over to the idea after mocking it for awhile
PPC, 5:37p, said: “RSD I appreciate your acknowledgment that this is a smear and is not the truth.”
PPC, specify exactly what is untrue.
Sally,
LOL
Hal,
It’s not that putting air in your tires is a bad idea, it’s the notion that this will solve the oil crisis…We can’t get people to take responsibility for their own pregnancies. You want us to take responsibility for inflated tires????
Well, Jill. As I explained on the related thread earlier today. The WHOLE THING is exactly untrue.
Obama didn’t vote the way you wanted on the bill, but that doesn’t mean he supports killing live babies.
You might even say “Obama’s votes as an Illinois State Senator are being twisted into the right’s latest smear.”
Obama’s going to win. Get used to the idea. Accept it.
Me thinks he doth protest too much! All those like Zorn are doing is keeping it in front of our eyes. If you do that long enough people start to think “What’s up?” And then they do a little investigating. Thank you to the left!
Obama didn’t vote the way you wanted on the bill, but that doesn’t mean he supports killing live babies.
Posted by: Hal at August 8, 2008 7:50 PM
Yes, that’s exactly what he supports by his opposition to the bill. How do you figure otherwise? There is a LIVE BABY that survived an abortion and he won’t even give that baby comfort care? Quite a guy.
Once again, anybody have anything positive to say about McCain? …I think I hear crickets.
What did all you Christians think about him suggesting that his wife might do OK in the Miss Buffalo Chip biker beauty pageant (bikinis frequently optional) at Sturgis?
Ray,
OK, McCain has a sense of humor. It was just a joke. Can non-Christians comment as well?
What do you suppose Obama thinks of all the other Democrats who voted in favor of Born Alive? He thought it to be an attack on Roe. Obviously none of the other Dems thought of it that way. So does he think all those other Dems are idiots for having voted differently?
Ray,
OK, McCain has a sense of humor. It was just a joke. Can non-Christians comment as well?
Posted by: Janet at August 8, 2008 9:09 PM
………………..
OK. McCain’s sense of humor is less sophisticated than the that of the bikers he attempted to use his wife to pander to. He made the mistake of offering up his wife as a sexual object rather than allowing his wife to choose to do that for herself as biker chicks will and do. He was trying to be cool to an audience of the 60s rather than bikers of the 2000s. Apparently he doesn’t know what a Harley costs. the man is not in touch with the present.
air in the tires in one thing McCain and Obama agree on. Now that McCain has come over to the idea after mocking it for awhile
Posted by: Hal at August 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Hal, The annointed one has already picked a Pennsylvania Givernor Kaine to head his Department of Transportaion. They plan on expanding the DOT personell by 50,000 to go around checking peoples tire pressure. Those who are found more than 5% off the manufacturers recommended pressure wil be fined $10 for every pound of variance. The funds will be used pay for research companies that Obama will designate to come up with alternantive energy sources (another 1000 jobs). That makes 51,000 new jobs created. The genious in the annointed one is just beginning to blossom. Oh, he is also going to open up tire inflation stations throughout the US (another 5000 new government jobs) where people can stop in and get their tire pressure pressure checked for free once a week. According to a DOT spokesperson, “it is time the ignorant citizens either start inflating or suck it up and pay for our gas guzzling ways.
There is a LIVE BABY that survived an abortion and he won’t even give that baby comfort care”
What are you talking about? Obama wasn’t at the hospital. Someone else can give it comfort care.
He didn’t outlaw that baby comfort care. He didn’t vote for a law that wasn’t needed.
Still awaiting PPC’s response to my question, “specify exactly what is untrue” with the allegations that Obama supports infanticide by his repeated votes and actual leadership against IL’s Born Alive Infants Protetion Act. In fact, he was the sole senator to speak against it on the Senate floor 2 years in a row, and he has freely admitted he strategized with Planned Parenthood to beat the bill.
I appreciate that Hal chimed in. (Are you PPC, Hal?) “Well, Jill. As I explained on the related thread earlier today. The WHOLE THING is exactly untrue.”
Not good enough, Hal. No generalizations. Get specific.
Is this specific enough for you, Jill?
AS Obama pointed out Jill, there are laws on the books that require care for a viable infant. In order for Obama to be in favor of infanticide, he would need to be trying to overturn those laws or to have infants excepted from them. He is doing neither. To say he is, is a smear. Which you are promoting and participating in yet again. Real journalists don’t do smears, Jill.
Val sent me this email…should clear up the notion that Obama knew that there was NO SUCH LAW!
“The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that stated you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster ”
He is so full of it. It had been established through US supreme court (and various state supreme courts): Stenburg vs Carhart; Planned Parenthood of central NJ VS Farmer; Roe v Wade; PP vs Casey just to name a few all agreed that the location of the infant did not matter. Under the law before the Born Alive Infants Protection Act the infant that survived an abortion had no legal rights under the constitution because the only reason that child was born was because the Mother wanted an abortion. So the “abortion” was considered finalized upon death of the “aborted” child no matter when death occured. There would be no law in the Illinois senate that would protect such a child because the mother wanted an abortion, not a live child. In the Carhart decision Justices Gisberg and Stevens even wrote:
“That holding–that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman’s right to make this difficult and extremely personal decision–makes it impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty. But one need not even approach this view today to conclude that Nebraska’s law must fall. For the notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures performed at this late stage of gestation is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 14. ”
That has been interpreted in other cases to mean that if a woman wants an abortion – then she gets a dead child no matter what happens.
He is such a liar! He knows darn good and well that these babies were not protected under the law when he voted against the bill.
Once again, anybody have anything positive to say about McCain? …I think I hear crickets.
Posted by: Ray at August 8, 2008 8:46 PM
_________________________________
Quick, quick – change the conversation!!!
BAIPA Ray – that’s the thread topic. Not McCain.
Illinois B.A.I.P.A.
Maybe if you all stopped avoiding the subject, you’d actually do the research to morally defend Obama… oh – that’s right – you can’t.
When are we gonna get a chance to talk about McCain then? He’s hardly ever mentioned on this site. It’s all Obama Obama Obama 24/7. You think with this many conservatives in one place someone would actually want to talk about their own candidate.
Oh, well I don’t blame you. The last time there was a candidate as dull as McCain running for prez (Gore), he was defeated by a trained monkey (In the eyes of 49% of those who voted, that is).
When are we gonna get a chance to talk about McCain then? He’s hardly ever mentioned on this site. It’s all Obama Obama Obama 24/7. You think with this many conservatives in one place someone would actually want to talk about their own candidate.
Oh, well I don’t blame you. The last time there was a candidate as dull as McCain running for prez (Gore), he was defeated by a trained monkey (In the eyes of 49% of those who voted, that is).
Posted by: JKeller at August 9, 2008 8:57 AM
Since you mentioned it, at least Bush was trained, having had administrative experience as Texas Governor and owner of the Texas Rangers before becoming President. What experience does Obama have besides giving speeches on the campaign trail?
Gosh, JKeller, if you’re that determined to discuss McCain, why don’t you go to deviantart.com and post an article about him? Then you could tell us all about it and we’ll all go rushing over there to check it out, debate, and everybody happy!
Now about BAIPA…
JKeller: When are we gonna get a chance to talk about McCain then? He’s hardly ever mentioned on this site. It’s all Obama Obama Obama 24/7. You think with this many conservatives in one place someone would actually want to talk about their own candidate.
Do you remember at the beginning of the school year when a new kid came to school? Everyone was talking about him. This campaign is similar. Obama’s the new guy people are curious about.
Since you took the time to actually visit my page, carder, and actually take notice of what the website is called, I thought you would have realized that what people post on deviantart is, ummmmm, ART.
If we’d only put air in our tires…
Right on, MK. I hadn’t checked my truck for a long time, and here it was 35 PSI when the max is 80. I took ’em up to 75 and it definitely rolls better.
Art? Okay.
Yes, that’s what the art stands for in deviant(art)
Yes, dear.
Phylo, 5:59a, said: “Is this specific enough for you, Jill? AS Obama pointed out Jill, there are laws on the books that require care for a viable infant.”
You’re saying Obama opposed the IL Born Alive Infants Protection because it was unnecessary?
Why then did the Democrat-controlled IL General Assembly finally pass Born Alive in May 2005 (6 months after Obama was elected to the US Senate) and Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich sign it into law on August 12, 2005?
mk @ 6:06 AM
But one need not even approach this view today to conclude that Nebraska’s law must fall.
Liberal activism at it’s finest – I must say!
Jill and her bigot-buddy Corsi can beat the “infanticide” drum until there are blue in the face, and it may get them some publicity on the hate sites.
Outside of the fringe groups, it will only reinforce the perception of the desperation of the extremists. The best political strategy is to do nothing, while the other side makes fools of themselves.
This smear has not inspired a response on fightthesmears.com, so it doesn’t even have the “traction” of the “I hate whitey” tape.
I’m not sure it even merits the ridicule linked above.
Jill Stanek @ 11:35 AM
If there were laws on the books, wouldn’t that also mean those laws were being broken?
Where were the investigations into these crimes?
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.
PPC,
The infanticide drum beat is part of a bigger package, that of the Unquestionable Obama.
A book that debuts at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list is hardly what I consider fringe.
You’re saying Obama opposed the IL Born Alive Infants Protection because it was unnecessary?
Why then did the Democrat-controlled IL General Assembly finally pass Born Alive in May 2005 (6 months after Obama was elected to the US Senate) and Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich sign it into law on August 12, 2005?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 9, 2008 11:35 AM
Immoral pandering by spineless politicians, perhaps seeking to avoid similar smears in their political future.
Chris, 11:42a, asked: “Where were the investigations into these crimes?”
Yes, the IL Attorney General responded after an investigation that no laws were being broken, hence the need for Born Alive.
PPC, first you called the fact that Obama condones infanticide “smears” (8/8, 4:21p). I asked you for specific corroboration (8/8, 7:09p) that I am wrong, for you made a serious accusation against moi, a citizen journalist.
At 11:47a today you – yawn – simply continued the name-calling without corroboration. You stated, “This smear has not inspired a response on fightthesmears.com.” That’s because Obama doesn’t want to touch this. He wants it to go away.
You added, “The best political strategy is to do nothing, while the other side makes fools of themselves.”
You need to divulge your strategy to Media Matters, Huffington Post, The Raw Story, Dan Kennedy of the UK’s The Guardian, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, etc. In recent days, they’ve all been trying their best to bat this one away, which they can’t.
PPC and Phylo are like seaguls, they fly in, drop their turds and leave….
Jasper is such a class act.
…and then somebody else has to clean up the mess they left behind.
Hal,
not as classless as not giving rights to babies that are aborted alive..
But Hal, Jasper is so busy, always looking up in wonder, mouth agape, sometimes, it’s just too hard to resist.
PPC,
Why do you find it such a stretch that Obama would not stop infanticide? He and his wife spent their time fighting to keep partial birth abortion legal. Why do you think it is that that different just cause the babies head gets delivered before it is punctured with a scissors?
I see you’ve gone from “support killing babies,” to “would not stop infanticide.” You’re getting closer. What you mean to say is he “didn’t vote for a law you liked for reasons you don’t agree with.”
I see you’ve gone from “support killing babies,” to “would not stop infanticide.”
What in the world is the difference?
someone who doesn’t see the need for the law, or doesn’t think this particular law is the right solution to the perceived problem, is not thereby “supporting the killing of babies.”
Hal, what exactly did Obama do to make sure that babies in question were going to be protected from then on?
While turning down the law, did he present other options for their safety? No, he made excuses for continuing the infanticide, excuses which were proven to be lies. (for example, the wording of the federal and illinois acts, and the idea that there was already a law in place protecting the babies, lies lies lies)
Of course he supports killing born babies.
It was within his power to do something about it, and he chose to actively NOT support babies, and therefore he actively supported killing them.
If I saw a child being raped, and I had a gun and could point at and kill the rapist to protect the child, but chose to walk away, would I be effectively supporting or opposing the rapists’ actions to the child?
Obama saw and understood exactly what was happening to those children, that they were being born alive, and being left to die, and Obama had the power to do something about it, and yet, Obama made the choice to “walk away”, and to let those children continue dying.
I see no reason in this world to believe that Obama did not/does not support those baby’s killings.
I see no evidence that he actually cared about any of their lives, ever, or ever will take any action to protect them in the future.
omg. I give up.
Obama is a baby killer. Okay. fine.
Honestly, refute Zorn, point by point. It’s the best way to stuff it to that pompous jerk. He’s demanding that those who disagree with him admit that they are doing so in hopes of bigger things. He can’t admit that whatever you think of the larger issue, it is inhumane to have babies die in a metal pan. If you think that the law should require care for the little ones who are dying this way, you are only doing so for invidious reasons. And if you don’t admit that, you’re in bad faith. It’s why Zorn is a jerk.
i don’t know what to say, unbelievable.
I know, can you believe these sleazy attacks on Obama?
above post was ts.
Hal he didn’t see a need to outlaw PBA either when he consistently cast his vote in favor of that baby killing “procedure”. And his wife Michelle held fundraisers to keep that barbaric
“procedure” legal. And his friends at Planned Parenthood went all the way to the Supreme Court of the US last year to keep their “right” to kill these babies. Here is the actually testimony of the procedure as given during the Supreme Court case where PP was the plaintiff:
??At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and ?hooks? the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
??While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fin-gers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it con-tact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.??[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.??The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.??
Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26?-week fetus and who testified??Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby?s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby?s body and the arms?everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .??The baby?s little fingers were clasping and un-clasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby?s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. ??The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby?s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . ??He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.??
Now hal, I know you agree that people who would stab a mostly delivered baby in the head with a scissors as she leaves the birth canal are psychotic. it is insanity and it frightening that somebody who would fight for the right to do that is now favored to win the presidency of the US. How can anybody be comfortable with that. In my eyes a person who would do that to a baby is a sociopathic killer. And a person who would fight to keep it legal for a person to do that is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
So how is it a smear when I call Obama a sociopathological supporter of baby killing.
AND HE WAS EVEN MORE WRONG WHEN HE FOUGHT TO STOP THE BORN ALIVE INFANT ACT FROM BECOMING LAW!!
omg. I give up.
Obama is a baby killer. Okay. fine.
Why did my post frustrate you, Hal? Try to understand it from my point of view.
I do not want the president of this great country to be one who condones and tolerates infanticide.
I think babies should be loved, kissed, and hugged, not left on a shelf, without their mommy or daddy, to die, alone and helpless.
I would take every single one of those children and adopt them if I had the means to. Don’t you feel at least a little bit of sorrow for those little ones?
I haven’t had a chance to read all the recent comments, but I came across a 2006 speech of Obama’s at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I think there’s no doubt Obama is in favor of abortion.
An excerpt:
…Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
Read the complete speech here.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
That sounds about right to me.
I’m not really understanding the problem with this speech. I don’t think his linguistic use of “if” was meant to imply intention to do so, but rather to provide a hypothetical situation: IF he were to ban abortion, it would need to be for non-religious reasons.
Whether there are non-religious reasons to ban abortion is another issue entirely; obviously many people feel there are.
Alexandra: I’m not really understanding the problem with this speech. I don’t think his linguistic use of “if” was meant to imply intention to do so, but rather to provide a hypothetical situation: IF he were to ban abortion, it would need to be for non-religious reasons
Exactly. I think his use of “IF” was to make his statement ambiguous to appease both sides. This is proof in my opinion that Obama is in favor of abortion but doesn’t want to admit it for fear of losing votes.
Notice later he says ” I MAY be opposed to abortion for religious reasons…” Again, that statement is ambiguous. We don’t know if he is stating fact or a hypothetical situation. No where is Obama saying for fact ” I am against abortion”, therefore, I think this proves he is in favor of it – a point many commenters here have been trying to refute. Whether you are an Obama fan or not, If you haven’t read the whole speech I linked to, it’s worth it to more fully understand his point of view. He claims to be a Christian, but what he actually says is anti-Christian.
@Janet at 10:21 AM
Oh well done Obama! Great straw man you set up there. Make abortion into a strictly religious issue, struggle back and forth with it, say “oh I WISH I could follow what religion teaches”, and then say our laws must be acceptable to people of all faiths and none. At that point, people won’t even question whether abortion is the killing of an innocent human person; they’ll just assume it’s some esoteric religion doctrine. Here, let me try:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to rape for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why rape violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”
Wow! All I had to do was change two words, and now I’ve successfully turned rape into a religious issue! I’m personally opposed to rape, but I would never force my personal beliefs on someone. Against rape? Don’t rape someone! Keep your laws off my body.
I could go on all day spouting off meaningless drivel and catch-phrases.
Alexandra,
“Whether there are non-religious reasons to ban abortion is another issue entirely; obviously many people feel there are.”
All of the best pro-life and anti-abortion literature out there makes no reference to God or religion except sometimes to point out that it will never mention God or religion. Frank Beckwith, Robert George, Scott Klosterdorf, Mark Crutcher, Frank Pavone, Tad Pacholczyk, etc. all have arguments that are purely secular. Obama has to set up this straw man in order to try and please everyone. It’s very, very lame.
I know, huh Bobby… what a liar he is.
Bobby @ 11:58,
Excellent points. Just to re-emphasize his ridiculous position for anyone who missed it the first time:
Obama said: “At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.”
Oh my goodness! “Religion is the art of the impossible”? Has OBAMA forgotten that “with God, all things are possible”? (Matthew 19:26)
“If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences.”
I know you’re not catholic, Brother Barack, but IF you were, I’d have to rub St. Thomas More in your face. Charitably, of course.
Bro B has summed it up eloquently: even if it flies in the face of his religious foundation, politics is an idol none dare displease.
At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.
I suppose he just missed religion class the day they went over the part “though your sins be as scarlet”!
but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
Dangerous for whom? The pols?
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.
I’d say then that in any community gathering the obvious most common reality for all there would be their lives…their “common” existence! Now if you hold a gun up to the head of anyone in the crowd (as you do the child in the womb) I just bet you wouldn’t have too much trouble persuading them all of that reality you hesitate to “commit to” and claim is held only by “certain” groups!
All of the best pro-life and anti-abortion literature out there makes no reference to God or religion except sometimes to point out that it will never mention God or religion.
I agree, Bobby.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous to say that, if you don’t find the secular arguments against something convincing on their own, your religious views are not enough to be the basis for enacting legislation.
Thank you for your time.
I would take every single one of those children and adopt them if I had the means to. Don’t you feel at least a little bit of sorrow for those little ones?
Posted by: Bethany at August 10, 2008 7:51 AM
……………………………………..
Adopt them Bethany? Let’s say that a fetus is born or aborted at 19 weeks. It is ‘alive’ because it’s heart is still beating. What is it that you think can be done to ‘save’ it or ‘comfort’ it? How about a fetus ‘born’ at 25 weeks with no brain but has a beating heart? How about a fetus ‘born’ with some brain activity but missing other vital organs?
Passing a law mandating the prolonging of death doesn’t magically make science capable of the impossible.
Adopt them Bethany? Let’s say that a fetus is born or aborted at 19 weeks. It is ‘alive’ because it’s heart is still beating. What is it that you think can be done to ‘save’ it or ‘comfort’ it?
Yes, make abortion illegal. And Jill was able to comfort one such child until it died, since obviously there was nothing else she could do. At least the baby Jill held was able to have someone to hold him until he died. I would have done the same thing, with a broken heart that the baby had been taken in such a way.
How about a fetus ‘born’ at 25 weeks with no brain but has a beating heart?
I would hold that child and love him/her until he or she died, and then the baby would have a proper burial. Some of those babies can make it for months- they don’t always die at birth. I would make sure that within those months, that baby had someone to love him/her.
How about a fetus ‘born’ with some brain activity but missing other vital organs?
My last comment applies…
Passing a law mandating the prolonging of death doesn’t magically make science capable of the impossible.
But it might make doctors/parents more careful about who they choose to abort.
Sally:2:27,
Passing a law mandating the prolonging of death doesn’t magically make science capable of the impossible.
Come on, Sally. Doctors already have an obligation to do all that is humanly possible to save a life. BAIPA would require Doctors to save the life of an infant born alive if humanly possible. How hard is that to understand? They are not required to perform miracles.
Correction:
BAIPA would require doctors to save the life of an infant born alive **during an abortion attempt** if humanly possible.
Thank you, Janet (3:05).
Bethany,
You’re welcome.
Adopt them Bethany? Let’s say that a fetus is born or aborted at 19 weeks. It is ‘alive’ because it’s heart is still beating. What is it that you think can be done to ‘save’ it or ‘comfort’ it?
Yes, make abortion illegal. And Jill was able to comfort one such child until it died, since obviously there was nothing else she could do. At least the baby Jill held was able to have someone to hold him until he died. I would have done the same thing, with a broken heart that the baby had been taken in such a way.
…………………………………..
So you understand that the Born Alive thing is a pointless waste of time and effort. A dishonest ploy meant to emotionally manipulate the willingly manipolated. Meaningless.
Jill comforted Jill. She knows very well that if that baby had been capable of feeling anything, her handling of it would have caused it immense pain and discomfort. JIll’s action served Jill.
………………………………….
How about a fetus ‘born’ at 25 weeks with no brain but has a beating heart?
I would hold that child and love him/her until he or she died, and then the baby would have a proper burial. Some of those babies can make it for months- they don’t always die at birth. I would make sure that within those months, that baby had someone to love him/her.
…………………………………..
Do you enjoy watching suffering Bethany? Do you really find the concept of an infant being forced to experience prolonged suffering and pain to be somehow loving? Have you ever watched a person die slowly in extreme pain? It’s horrid enough watching someone go through it that has experienced life without such pain. To force life upon an infant that will never know anything else but such suffering is sadistic to my way of thinking.
………………………………..
Passing a law mandating the prolonging of death doesn’t magically make science capable of the impossible.
But it might make doctors/parents more careful about who they choose to abort.
……………………………………..
More careful? What would that consist of? The carefulness your higher level of training in gestational development and obstetrics could afford in such decisions? Your higher level of investment in stanger’s pregnancies that makes you feel you should have a say so?
Sally:2:27,
Passing a law mandating the prolonging of death doesn’t magically make science capable of the impossible.
Come on, Sally. Doctors already have an obligation to do all that is humanly possible to save a life. BAIPA would require Doctors to save the life of an infant born alive if humanly possible. How hard is that to understand? They are not required to perform miracles.
Posted by: Janet at August 10, 2008 3:05 PM
……………………………….
Abortions performed during a time that an infant might possibly survive birth are the extreme minority. Even more rare would be a fetal anomoly diagnosed so inacurately that the infant could survive even with assistance. This is all much ado about nothing.
Sally, Children with Down’s have a very high chance of survival, but they are aborted 90% of the time.
Ditto with cleft palat, genetic blindness, or spinal befida.
Of course, abortions are also performed for no fetal abnormaility whatsoever.
Hardly much ado about nothing.
“Abortions performed during a time that an infant might possibly survive birth are the extreme minority”
2% of 1,300,000= 26,000 per year.
This is all much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Sally at August 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Not if it’s your child’s life on the line.
So you understand that the Born Alive thing is a pointless waste of time and effort. A dishonest ploy meant to emotionally manipulate the willingly manipolated. Meaningless.
Jill comforted Jill. She knows very well that if that baby had been capable of feeling anything, her handling of it would have caused it immense pain and discomfort. JIll’s action served Jill.
What is dishonest about wanting to save whatever babies you can, in the time you have?
How could a supposed non-viable, insensate baby be caused such pain and discomfort as you describe?
Do you enjoy watching suffering Bethany?
Do you really find the concept of an infant being forced to experience prolonged suffering and pain to be somehow loving? Have you ever watched a person die slowly in extreme pain? It’s horrid enough watching someone go through it that has experienced life without such pain. To force life upon an infant that will never know anything else but such suffering is sadistic to my way of thinking.
You mentioned a brain dead preemie, Sally. How would a baby without a brain be capable of experiencing the suffering that you mention?
Besides, if I have to suffer, I would much rather suffer with people who love me around me, than to be killed because people considered me too much of a burden.
Suffering is a sad part of life, Sally. A reality we must accept, and try to deal with as best we can.
We can ease the suffering of babies who are suffering…With technology as it is today, there are many ways to relieve pain and suffering, without killing. Euthanasia isn’t the answer.
What is dishonest about wanting to save whatever babies you can, in the time you have?
How could a supposed non-viable, insensate baby be caused such pain and discomfort as you describe?
………………….
Obviously they can’t. Otherwise Jill would be sadist.
……………………..
Besides, if I have to suffer, I would much rather suffer with people who love me around me, than to be killed because people considered me too much of a burden.
……………
So, you are transferring your personal fears of not being loved to extremely premature infants incapable of feeling anything pleasant of a physical nature let alone an emotional one?
Why do you feel that your life is a burden?
……………………………
We can ease the suffering of babies who are suffering…With technology as it is today, there are many ways to relieve pain and suffering, without killing. Euthanasia isn’t the answer.
………………………………
I fail to see how attempting to force an infant to suffer to live serves anything more than a sadistic exercise by those afraid of dying.
Sally @ 11:57,
Too many assumptions.
Do you not suppose that the presence of another heartbeat while lying in someone’s arms would give comfort to a baby that has been prematurely taken from its own mother’s womb by abortion and survived?
As for preemies, have you not heard of cases of tiny premature babies who have been given barely any chance to live by doctors that somehow find the strength to hold on and after time, not only do they survive, but thrive? There was a story within the last year about an athlete (I believe he was the Heisman Trophy winner) whose in utero diagnosis was grim, but his mother did not give up on him and she refused to follow her doctor’s advice to abort? Her attempts to save her son were not futile in their opinions.
Sally, here’s an amazing story of hope and trust and faith:
QuOTD:
“Termination was not an option for me, and I informed the doctor of this immediately. He is our creation and God’s creation and we will take him as he comes.”
~ A happily married Catholic teacher, 20 weeks into her pregnancy was informed her baby had holoprocencephaly – a hole in the brain stem – as well as fluid in the brain and a severe heart condition. After being given her medical “options”, including the choice to terminate her baby’s life, she informed her doctor that she refused to be the one responsible for her child’s death, trusting that God had a plan for her son.
As quoted on lifesitenews.com
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080604.html
More from the QuOTD story link above:
“She observed that in her own case her doctor’s initial “certain” prognosis that her child would not live outside the womb soon transformed into the doctor saying he could not predict when the baby will die. Furthermore, her child has already defied the probabilities, as many unborn babies with such severe health conditions would have self-aborted within the first few months of gestation.”
“I say he must really be extraordinary to be discounting all medical theories with respect to chromosome-gene results, and his longevity,” she said of her child. “I tell him that even the doctors aren’t sure why he’s lived so long (most babies with these abnormalities self-abort long before now), and that he is special because of this. I tell you this because I want you to know that, despite the grim outlook
Obviously they can’t. Otherwise Jill would be sadist.
No, she wouldn’t, Sally. By the way, how do you suppose that lying on a dirty shelf to die would be any less painful than being held in a loving, caring person’s arms?
So, you are transferring your personal fears of not being loved to extremely premature infants incapable of feeling anything pleasant of a physical nature let alone an emotional one?
Again, you assume that premature infants cannot feel anything. You also assume that I have fears of “not being loved”. Both assumptions are incorrect.
Why do you feel that your life is a burden?
Read my post again, Sally. I was speaking of people “considering” my life a burden to THEM, in the hypothetical instance that I have a disease.
I was trying to make a point about the babies who are considered burdens to their parents because they might not be “perfect”.
I fail to see how attempting to force an infant to suffer to live serves anything more than a sadistic exercise by those afraid of dying.
Sally, is a doctor who gives his patient chemotherapy a sadist? Obviously, the patient will go through tremendous physical and emotional suffering throughout the chemo and radiation treatments. Why do you think they do it? Because they want to “force” cancer patients to suffer?
Should all doctors instead be required to euthanize any patient who has cancer, to relieve the suffering they would go through if given chemo?
I fail to see how attempting to force an infant to suffer to live serves anything more than a sadistic exercise by those afraid of dying.
Couldn’t I also just as easily say “I fail to see how attempting to force an infant to die serves anything more than a morbid exercise by those afraid of suffering”?
Preemies need skin to skin contact
Skin to skin contact with a parent can soothe a lil one like nothing else.
After my daughter’s first doctor’s appointment when she got vaccinated, the pediatrician encouraged me to nurse and hold her close to my body.
A new study shows that preemies benefit even more from skin to skin (also known as kangaroo mother care) contact. To see what was revealed, read more.
A study published in the BioMed Central Pediatrics journal researched premature babies born between 28 and 31 weeks.
After the babes were subjected to routine blood drawings from their heels, the researchers used the PIPP (Premature Infant Pain Profile) to measure the infant’s pain. PIPP measures grimacing, maximum heart rate and blood oxygen saturation levels.
Those who were cuddled in the kangaroo mother care style prior to and during the procedures recovered faster than those babies who were just swaddled in blankets in their incubators.
Cuddled children appeared to be in pain for about a minute and a half where the swaddled babes often suffered longer than three minutes.
Contact with mother’s skin relieves preemie’s pain
Updated Wed. Apr. 23 2008 7:21 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A new study suggests that very premature babies, born between 28 and 31 weeks, benefit from skin-to-skin contact with their mothers before and during painful procedures.
Skin-on-skin contact between a mother and her baby, commonly known as kangaroo mother care, has been proven to be effective at relieving pain among preemies born between 32 and 36 weeks.
However, the common assumption has been that it could not work on very premature babies because they are too underdeveloped to benefit from it.
The team from McGill University in Montreal that proved the effectiveness of KMC for the older preemies decided to test its effectiveness on the younger ones. They analyzed whether KMC could help the littlest preemies recover from the pain of a heel lance, where blood is drawn from a baby’s heel.
The same babies were analyzed twice. First, researchers instructed mothers to hold their babies for 15 minutes prior to a heel lance, as well as throughout the duration of the test. During a second heel lance on another occasion, the babies were simply swaddled in their incubator before and after the test.
The researchers assessed the babies’ pain levels using the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP), which factors in facial expressions, heart rate and blood oxygen levels. These were measured just before the test, and then at 30-second intervals during and after.
The results showed that 90 seconds after the test, PIPP scores were considerably lower when babies had KMC.
Specifically, it took KMC babies only a couple of minutes to recover from the pain of the test, while babies who didn’t receive KMC were still suffering three minutes after the test. Also, the facial expression of pain was evident less than half the time in babies who received KMC.
“The pain response in very preterm neonates appears to be reduced by skin-to-skin maternal contact,” said researcher Celeste Johnston of McGill University.
“This response is not as powerful as it is in older preterm babies, but the shorter recovery time using KMC is important in helping maintain the baby’s health.”
Johnston also pointed out that providing KMC to her preemie could have benefits for a mother, who has a diminished role in her baby’s life while the infant is in intensive care.
The findings were published Wednesday in the journal BMC Pediatrics.
*********************************
It appears that Jill did exactly the right thing to relieve that babys suffering before he died.
I’m still waiting for the public “backlash” on this issue….all we have are the very few typical liberal, pro-abort responses here….
Slally, the point is that you are trying to save the child’s life.
Trust me, during my son’s 7 weeks in the NICU we saw some pretty scary stuff. From IV’s in his head (the veins are better there) to blood transfusions and feeding tubes.
But, and this is a *huge* but, it was worth it to see him getting this treatment because he is now a happy, healthy 3 year old. There was a time when he was “touch and go” and could very well have died, but he didn’t, and I’m so thankful that we didn’t tell the doctors to yank out his feeding tube and let him die.
He suffered, and he suffered late on after 3 surgeries, but I’m sure if I asked him now if it was worth it he would say yes. He loves every minute of being alive and although he hates the shots, he’s glad to be able to run and play with all of the other kids.
My husband has a cousin who has two children with sever medical problems. One is severly diabetic and the other has a rare genetic disorder. They are both subjected to tests fairly frequently, and are both on a very restricted diet. Even though they occasionally get upset by the injustice of having their disorders, they are happy children who are thankful to be alive.
Sometimes treatment is painful, but I think that most people can agree that a life that has moments of pain is worth it.
Slally, the point is that you are trying to save the child’s life.
Trust me, during my son’s 7 weeks in the NICU we saw some pretty scary stuff. From IV’s in his head (the veins are better there) to blood transfusions and feeding tubes.
But, and this is a *huge* but, it was worth it to see him getting this treatment because he is now a happy, healthy 3 year old. There was a time when he was “touch and go” and could very well have died, but he didn’t, and I’m so thankful that we didn’t tell the doctors to yank out his feeding tube and let him die.
He suffered, and he suffered late on after 3 surgeries, but I’m sure if I asked him now if it was worth it he would say yes. He loves every minute of being alive and although he hates the shots, he’s glad to be able to run and play with all of the other kids.
My husband has a cousin who has two children with sever medical problems. One is severly diabetic and the other has a rare genetic disorder. They are both subjected to tests fairly frequently, and are both on a very restricted diet. Even though they occasionally get upset by the injustice of having their disorders, they are happy children who are thankful to be alive.
Sometimes treatment is painful, but I think that most people can agree that a life that has moments of pain is worth it.
Posted by: lauren at August 11, 2008 3:48 PM
…………………………………
All you can be sure of is that your son’s pain was worth it to you.
I understand becoming desensitized to pain very well. I wonder if an infant becoming desensitized to pain from the get go won’t make for an adult desensitized to the pain of others.
Sally, Children with Down’s have a very high chance of survival, but they are aborted 90% of the time.
Ditto with cleft palat, genetic blindness, or spinal befida.
Of course, abortions are also performed for no fetal abnormaility whatsoever.
Hardly much ado about nothing.
Posted by: lauren at August 10, 2008 8:23 PM
……………….
Uh huh. How many 3rd trimester abortions are performed in a year in this country? That is what you are talking about eh? How many have the survivable forms of birth defects you mention? You don’t know? Of course you don’t. That would be why such matters are left up to professionals and those actually concerned. That would be why late term abortions are so rare.
I’m getting the impression that you are feeling guilty for forcing life upon your son and are looking for justification for doing so. Am I wrong?