Jill, do you know when the site will be online? I just tried searching via Google and Yahoo but didn't get any results.

Obama was not crusading against caring for infants. His objections had to do with the requirements in the IL bill for more than one doctor, a thing which is not in the Federal law that is now in effect, and a thing that he said the Medical Society also objected to.

The IL package for the BAIPA was in three parts, and the first two passed. Obama stated his objections to the two-doctor requirements, but he wasn't ranting and raving against the bill, and in no way was he against caring for born infants. The last part did not pass - there were enough people that voted against it.

I pray Jill's incredible segment on Bill Bennett's
Morning in America this am is available on line for all to hear!

The angle about Rev Wright's possible influence in
BO's opposition to the BAIPA is the Blockbuster for me.

More on Wright's involvement on the board of Christ Hospital might really get the blogosphere going on this pernicious influence over the Dem nominee - forming his conscience, or lack thereof!!

This 7 year old dispute on technical language in a bill, has no relevance today or in the future due to subsequent state and federal statutes,and is unlikely to have any traction beyond the hard core Obama haters.

I hope the reporters will present the facts, rather than the hysteria.

However, since this 7 year old dispute was Jill's 15 minutes of fame, it will be pushed endlessly on this website.

"His objections had to do with the requirements in the IL bill for more than one doctor, a thing which is not in the Federal law that is now in effect, and a thing that he said the Medical Society also objected to."

They why did object to making the federal and state bills identical? Read the transcript, this guy is a freaking monster.

@ Jasper, 9:37 AM --

That's "Monster", with a capital 'M', right?! Better yet, in a neon sign, flashing on-and-off!

Obama was not crusading against caring for infants. His objections had to do with the requirements in the IL bill for more than one doctor, a thing which is not in the Federal law that is now in effect, and a thing that he said the Medical Society also objected to.
The IL package for the BAIPA was in three parts, and the first two passed. Obama stated his objections to the two-doctor requirements, but he wasn't ranting and raving against the bill, and in no way was he against caring for born infants. The last part did not pass - there were enough people that voted against it.

Posted by: Doug at June 30, 2008 8:55 AM

Doug, he objected on Constitutional grounds too. And he said it was cause he was afraid the law could be used to ban all abortions. The guy is an abortion rights "fanatic".

Didaskalos, 8:30a: The site is being developed and will be up soon. Believe me, you'll hear it here first. Please check back.

Doug, 8:55a: With all due respect, you do not know the topic you're attempting to explain. The focus is on the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He, particularly in 2003, was specifically responsible for holding up identical language to the federal bill that passed with flying colors.

Bystander, 9:33: The only people attempting to downplay Obama's opposition to declaring abortion survivors legal persons are pro-aborts and Obama supporters. Do you really think we'll listen to you?

Jill, I am certain the hard core anti-Obama extremists will never listen to me or anyone else, but fortunately the other 97% of the population will decide the election.

Why is it legal to kill babies that are already born? That counters everything I think abortion stands for, ending a pregnancy. The woman is no longer pregnant, the child isn't inside her body, it shouldn't be her choice anymore. No ones choice.

Is it only survivors of abortion who are killed? What if a woman, after giving birth, said she tried to abort earlier in the pregnancy and it didn't work, would she be able to request her baby is killed?

Doug:

Why in the world do you want to protect Obama who considers a baby as punishment from God. These are words from his own mouth. Somewhere in his psyche is buried a darkness that hates unborn children or don't word mean things to you?

This is what abortion is my friend:

Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, Satan's ultimate power.

Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan's feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.

Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan

Then why did object to making the federal and state bills identical?

Truthseeker, he didn't like part of the IL bill, so it stands to reason that he wouldn't want the federal bill to be the same.

Jess, 11:34a: No, it is not just abortion survivors who are killed. I previously wrote about Elizabeth Ehlert, from IL, who killed her baby at delivery. Her conviction was overturned because it could not be ascertained the baby was separated when killed. Had an IL Born Alive Act been in place, she would have been convicted.

Read more here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=21089

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=28762

TS: Doug, he objected on Constitutional grounds too. And he said it was cause he was afraid the law could be used to ban all abortions. The guy is an abortion rights "fanatic".

TS, sorry for the confusion there - it was Jasper that said what I replied to, above.

What, exactly, in the bill did he object to on Constitutional grounds?

I don't know to what extent the IL legislators may have intended the bills to be against abortion in general - perhaps none - but it's not unreasonable to be wary of "incrementalism," etc., with respect this area.

Being for abortion rights is one thing, and being against caring for born infants is another.

HisMan, what if we don't believe in your God or Satan? I don't think that's a good argument, because many people in this country believe many different things.

With all due respect, you do not know the topic you're attempting to explain. The focus is on the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He, particularly in 2003, was specifically responsible for holding up identical language to the federal bill that passed with flying colors.

Jill, I'm doing my best. I've read the proceedings of the Senate - what he said was against the two-doctor requirements in the IL bill, not against caring for born infants.

You may be able to say that he held up the same language in the IL bill as appears in the federal bill, but that is because he objected to the IL bill on other grounds, on language and requirements that did not appear in the federal bill.

Are there statements from Obama to the effect that he's really not for caring for born infants? 2 of the 3 bills in the IL "package" passed, and there were just enough "no" votes that the last one didn't pass. Thus it's not like he was some rabid lone-wolf crusader against it.

HisMan 11:34

Very good!! I like that and thank you for posting it.

Why in the world do you want to protect Obama who considers a baby as punishment from God.

HisMan, I don't think that's what he said. A baby could be seen as a punishment by a given woman, but he didn't generalize the way you make it sound. Did he even actually say anything about God, there?

Not everybody believes as you do, and it's also not just a question of the unborn. There is the pregnant woman to consider.

You're a good writer, but everything you say could be said about taking away the freedom that women currently have in the matter.

Of course I will do my duty and submit the interview and news of the website to the Drudge Report.

I guess Doug is going to hang himself on killing babies after they are born by exposing them to adverse conditions (hypothermia, starvation, dehydration).

He won't be the first pro-abort to do that.

Hopefully we can get the rest of them to read Obama's actual testimony on the constitutionality of the bill. Obamanator is one poor adjunct instructor of constitutional law. His words would have been funny if the topic weren't actual infanticide. Locking up the last bill, modeled after the WHO and UN requirements, in his committee was a poor choice.

The slippery slope, which pro aborts vehemently denied is readily visible now. They defend killing babies after they're born. Many think that Tiller's associate abortionist was correct to stab that 35 week baby who was born alive.

We use killed humans for research, vaccines and transplant. This is gross, but maybe people will become accustomed to other recycling, as veal perhaps?

Not everybody believes as you do, and it's also not just a question of the unborn. There is the pregnant woman to consider.

Abortion is logically all about the unborn, and nothing else. You can say it isn't all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

I bet you have rules to follow at work and if you don't feel like following them on any given day, there could be far-reaching consequences. Why is it that you cannot do what ever you want at work, if "it's" all about what you want?

From "Praying With Saint Paul, Daily Reflections" (Magnificat):
"The Antithesis of Wisdom" (Nov.7)

Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge. By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith. Grace be with all of you. (1 Tm 6: 20-21)

Hisman,

What a brilliant display of God's creative genius, giving you amazing mind and grasp on language to glorify Him in such a fantastic analysis of the good that is life and love and the evil that is abortion and all its destruction!

Hisman,

What a brilliant display of God's creative genius, giving you such an amazing mind and grasp on language to glorify Him in a fantastic analysis of the good that is life and love and the evil that is abortion and all its destruction!

This 7 year old dispute on technical language in a bill, has no relevance today or in the future due to subsequent state and federal statutes,and is unlikely to have any traction beyond the hard core Obama haters.

I hope the reporters will present the facts, rather than the hysteria.

However, since this 7 year old dispute was Jill's 15 minutes of fame, it will be pushed endlessly on this website.

Posted by: Bystander at June 30, 2008 9:33 AM

Abortion is a perennially relevant topic.

Obama's objections to Born Alive Infant Protection may not be well understood by the public, but if they are discussed often enough, many people will understand that his stand on abortion is not like theirs, even if they aren't particularly interested in abortion as a political issue. It will sway some moderates away because they don't draw the line where he does. The issue also causes many moderates to see those abortion supporters as more fanatical than they previously did.

Just having moderates see or hear the words Abortion Survivors, Born Alive Infant Protection and Barack Obama's opposition in the same paragragh is enough cast doubt on him and move some independent voters away from him.

I guess Doug is going to hang himself on killing babies after they are born by exposing them to adverse conditions (hypothermia, starvation, dehydration).

Well that was silly, kb.

Hopefully we can get the rest of them to read Obama's actual testimony on the constitutionality of the bill.

Where is it? I'll gladly read it.

"Not everybody believes as you do, and it's also not just a question of the unborn. There is the pregnant woman to consider."

Janet: Abortion is logically all about the unborn, and nothing else. You can say it isn't all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman.

.....

I bet you have rules to follow at work and if you don't feel like following them on any given day, there could be far-reaching consequences. Why is it that you cannot do what ever you want at work, if "it's" all about what you want?

Because my desires don't trump everything else there. Likewise, your desires don't trump those of the pregnant woman, and it's that fact that has you dissatisfied with the situation as we have it now, in the first place.

Here is what Obama said in 2001:

"It would essentially bar abortions."

"I think it would be found unconstitutional."

He mentions a prior bill that he suggested would be struck down, and it turned out that it was.

"This is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital.

We decided not to do that. We're going much farther than that in this bill."

Once again, his concern is not to deny care to born babies, it is abortion rights.

I bet you have rules to follow at work and if you don't feel like following them on any given day, there could be far-reaching consequences. Why is it that you cannot do what ever you want at work, if "it's" all about what you want?

Doug: Because my desires don't trump everything else there.

What if a co-worker decided he wanted to change protocol because it met his needs better? It's his right to do so, because it's better for him, right?

Janet: Abortion is logically all about the unborn, and nothing else. You can say it isn't all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman.

That's like saying "eating meat" is pretty much about the differing opinions between meat- eaters and non-meat-eaters, and not about the animals being eaten. That's illogical.

No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman.

Janet,

When have you ever involved an animal in a discussion about whether or not you should eat it?

Edyt: Never. I don't talk to fetuses either. Is there a point?

Yes, Janet. You said:

That's like saying "eating meat" is pretty much about the differing opinions between meat- eaters and non-meat-eaters, and not about the animals being eaten. That's illogical.

For many meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters, they don't care about animals being eaten and do not bother to involve the decisions of those animals. Similarly, pro-lifers often do not care about the mother, nor do pro-choicers care about the baby. They differ in opinion about what concerns them most.

Edyt: 8:28:For many meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters, they don't care about animals being eaten and do not bother to involve the decisions of those animals.

And I thought vegetarians didn't want to hurt animals, the same way pro-lifers don't want to hurt babies. Silly me for trying to throw logic at the abortion issue. I give up trying to understand killing babies or vegetarians for that matter.

Oops!!!! That's "I give up trying to understand killing babies or (understand) vegetarians for that matter."

I'm not advocating killing vegetarians! :)

Lol, Janet.

Nah, I know a few vegetarians (and even vegans!) who don't care one iota about animals, they just don't like eating meat, or prefer the "healthier" lifestyle of eating only veggies.

No, Leaving babies to die alone of hypothermia, dehydration/starvation isn't "silly" Doug. It is a cruel means of willfully killing a human. It used to be called murder, before your people decided that it's acceptable, and that barring this killing might be "unconstitutional".

It appears that Doug did read and extract from context parts of Obama's testimony, and agreed with Obama that a law preventing people from the above form of killing would be found unconstitutional.

(Brief interlude to thank God that I'm not a liberal).

On the other hand, the meat eating humans are most often much nicer to the prey than the average abortionist, whether aborting after birth or while in utero.

The usual hunter or stock yard worker will seek a very rapid kill of the animal before processing as food. In addition, much expense has been undertaken by stockyard owners to improve the environment for the prey immediately prior to death, including consultations with animal behavior specialists, and elaborate design modifications.

By contrast the abortion process or death by exposure is excruciatingly slow, and protracted avoidance behaviors and outward signs of discomfort and pain are frequently evident from the victim. PETA, SPCA and other animal rights groups appear unmoved.

The humanity shown to a feeder steer is much greater than that shown to 30 percent of humans starting life in America.

Kb, you need to learn more about factory farming.

And did you really suggest that 30 percent of humans get aborted by labor-induction?

Jill, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't BAIPA require us to spend large amounts of money prolonging the lives of second-trimester premies?

The statement stands as is, along with the agricultural realities.

Having the pro aborts pretending to talk ag with a rural person will amusing for a short while. Who would like to continue? (This never lasts long..)

This has been as ridiculous to me as the urbanite, media talking-heads feigning understanding and concern for the wants, needs and desires of rural women.

Yes, your liberal socialized medicine will not be able to fund the care of preemies at our nearby level 3 NICU. Government waste rapidly renders such systems insolvent. We do understand this. That's why the Royal College of Medicine in the UK is recommending live birth abortion for congenital defects which can be repaired in other countries, such as the Philippines.

By contrast the abortion process or death by exposure is excruciatingly slow, and protracted avoidance behaviors and outward signs of discomfort and pain are frequently evident from the victim.

And did you really suggest that 30 percent of humans get aborted by labor-induction?

It demonstrates that it can't read (again).

TS: Doug, he objected on Constitutional grounds too. And he said it was cause he was afraid the law could be used to ban all abortions. The guy is an abortion rights "fanatic".

TS, sorry for the confusion there - it was Jasper that said what I replied to, above.

What, exactly, in the bill did he object to on Constitutional grounds?
Posted by: Doug at June 30, 2008 11:41 AM

Doug, you would have to ask him. He didn't elaborate in his speech. Maybe you can tell me how providing care to a baby that is already born could be considered unconstitutional.

"No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman."

Chris: (To kill the unborn.)

Or not - it's up to the woman, not to you and me, It's not like Pro-Choicers "want" abortions on their own. Were there no unwanted pregnancies, there'd be no abortions, and that'd be fine with me.

KB: No, Leaving babies to die alone of hypothermia, dehydration/starvation isn't "silly" Doug. It is a cruel means of willfully killing a human. It used to be called murder, before your people decided that it's acceptable, and that barring this killing might be "unconstitutional".

Now what we were talking about. Obama doesn't have objections to caring for born babies.
.....

It appears that Doug did read and extract from context parts of Obama's testimony, and agreed with Obama that a law preventing people from the above form of killing would be found unconstitutional.

Well, you're wrong again.
.....

(Brief interlude to thank God that I'm not a liberal).

But thank goodness for your skill at straw men arguments, eh?
.....

On the other hand, the meat eating humans are most often much nicer to the prey than the average abortionist, whether aborting after birth or while in utero.

Now we've gotten to the really silly part.....

"What, exactly, in the bill did he object to on Constitutional grounds?"

Truthseeker: Doug, you would have to ask him. He didn't elaborate in his speech. Maybe you can tell me how providing care to a baby that is already born could be considered unconstitutional.

Heh, TS, you previously said, in this very thread:

he objected on Constitutional grounds too. And he said it was cause he was afraid the law could be used to ban all abortions.

Obama didn't object to providing care for a born baby, and that is the point. His objections were to other things in the bill.

He mentioned a past bill that he had suggested would be found to be unconstitutional, and that did occur.

I think it is 40 states that have restrictions on third-trimester abortions or abortions past viability. It's not like the other 10 states didn't want similar laws. What happened in several cases was that very poorly written laws were passed by legislators who should have known better, that they couldn't be sneaky and try to curtail women's rights without anybody noticing. Then the laws got struck down. Now those states have no legal restrictions on late-term abortions...HELLO...

Janet: Abortion is logically all about the unborn, and nothing else. You can say it isn't all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

"No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman."

That's like saying "eating meat" is pretty much about the differing opinions between meat- eaters and non-meat-eaters, and not about the animals being eaten. That's illogical.

No, what you just said was a different thing. "Not about the animals being eaten" is not the same as "all about the animals being eaten, and nothing else." I know you can see the difference. One excludes the one deal. The other does not, and excludes everything else.

I didn't say the abortion debate was not about the unborn, analogous to your "not about the animals."

Abortion is about the pregnant woman as well, not only about the unborn - that was my point.

Janet: I bet you have rules to follow at work and if you don't feel like following them on any given day, there could be far-reaching consequences. Why is it that you cannot do what ever you want at work, if "it's" all about what you want?

Doug: "Because my desires don't trump everything else there."

What if a co-worker decided he wanted to change protocol because it met his needs better? It's his right to do so, because it's better for him, right?

No, his desires don't trump everything else there either. It's not "all about what he wants."

For example, one of the most important rules for me at work is Lockout/Tagout - where an apparatus to be worked on must have stored energy released - mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, etc., and be rendered physically unable to be turned on - literally having locks placed on it so nobody can fire it up.

It can be a hassle - getting work permits, signing onto the Lockout/Tagout form, putting your lock on and taking if off when done, etc. And it's not like we "want" to do it, on its own. But for safety's sake it makes sense, and the people who make the rules aren't going to give that up because Joe Blow thinks it's better to do without it.

It could be said that, "We understand that you don't like it, but though it does involve something that you'd rather not have, your objections are not sufficient to have the rules changed."

Likewise, I understand that you don't like abortion, but I don't see your objections as sufficient to trump the desires of the pregnant woman.

Going back to what you originally said, while I can say my piece and have my input, my desire (for example) to not follow Lockout/Tagout rules isn't going to change the rules - it's not sufficient. My desire isn't the only deal there.

Likewise, your desire isn't the only deal in the abortion debate - there are those who disagree with you, and there is indeed also the pregnant woman to consider. It's not just the consideration of the unborn, alone.

KB wrote:
I guess Doug is going to hang himself on killing babies after they are born by exposing them to adverse conditions (hypothermia, starvation, dehydration).

KB: Even Jill admitted, in an interview (can't remember which one, but it was posted here) that the time frame was much too short for something like dehydration or starvation to occur - as a matter of fact, she kept correcting the interviewer (O'Reilly?) who was trying to push the same point as you, KB.

The neonate hospice movement - which many on this board support actually allows more of that type of thing (carrying a pregnancy of a soon-after-birth- terminal-baby to term and allowing it to be born, only to die soon after) than would a late term abortion.

Obama supported in those Senate records) and urged the compromise of comfort care for non-viable infants aborted infants. Hence, the comfort care room that Jill now rails against.

One is tempted to caution that anti-choicers should figure out what it is they want before they start fighting for it.

Barbaric.

No, Janet. The abortion debate is pretty much between people like you, who want all the unborn lives to continue, first of all, and people like me, who want it to be up to the pregnant woman.

(To kill the unborn, i.e. terminate the pregnancy or to carry the baby to term)
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 30, 2008 6:59 PM

I corrected your incomplete post, and also wanted to ask if you had ever reposted your glitched reply - don't want to overlook answering.

10: 29 post 'twas me.

Edyt: Never. I don't talk to fetuses either. Is there a point?
Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2008 8:00 PM

Yes Janet - this would be the crux of that personhood argument antichoicers keep trying to bring up.

Edyt: Never. I don't talk to fetuses either. Is there a point?
Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2008 8:00 PM

Yes Janet - this would be the crux of that personhood argument antichoicers keep trying to bring up.

Posted by: phylosopher at July 1, 2008 10:33 AM

Anti-choicers ? oh, pro-lifers. Nobody says "anti-choicers" any more, do they? Maybe some other time on the personhood.... I've had enough chit chat about talking to animals that I might want to eat. YIKES!

Just as nobody says pro-aborts, right Janet?

Phylo 2:38: Seriously, I haven't noticed anyone using the term lately. Maybe it's just my over site......

Oops! That's my "oversight"! (checking misspellings too!)

Janet: Nobody says "anti-choicers" any more, do they?

On one of the AOL boards there was a woman who rather than saying "pro-choicers" preferred "abortionados."

Seriously, I haven't noticed anyone using the term lately. Maybe it's just my over site......
Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 5:16 PM

Like in what - the last 2 minutes? Check the quote of the day - "pro-abortion writers." Check back over this very topic - kb's posts, for starters. And Jill prides herself on prejudicial language - "commit" abortion is one that she bragged about. And I'm fairly certain she uses the inflammatory pro-abort terminology, though I don't have time to go through recent archives to find instances.

Buzzwordism and misrepresentation.... you're gonna have that.

Philo,
O.K. I guess I'm wrong. (And I hadn't read the new QoTD yet....)

As I'm sure you know in 1973 there was just "pro-abortion" and "pro-life". The term choice was introduced later to make abortion seem kinder, friendlier, and more civilized.

Although today, pro-choice is the preferred, watered-down version of pro-abortion; anti-choice still fails in its attempt to describe pro-lifers, IMO.

Doug,
Of course, not all PC'rs are abortionados, but they know who they are.

Obama didn't object to providing care for a born baby, and that is the point. His objections were to other things in the bill.
Posted by: Doug at July 1, 2008 6:50 AM

Yeah, he objected to those sneaky people who tried to overturn RoeVWade by giving rights to babie that are already born. HELLOO in there.
Anybody home? The only thing this law had to did with abortion is that some of the babies cared for we be abortion survivors.

anti-abortion - which always seemed on target, was the term - why was it dropped? Why not go back to it?

Pro-abortion has never been correct. Pro-choice isn't watered down at all. It's a different issue, but the real, underlying one.

Pro life is too broad, as many on that side hold differing views, esp. when is comes to war and capital punishment - so that one's a misnomer.

Phlyo:10:38:

anti-abortion - which always seemed on target, was the term - why was it dropped? Why not go back to it?

Pro-abortion has never been correct. Pro-choice isn't watered down at all. It's a different issue, but the real, underlying one.

Pro life is too broad, as many on that side hold differing views, esp. when is comes to war and capital punishment - so that one's a misnomer.

You make some good points. Especially about the anti-abortion term. I had forgotten that one. Pro-life can be confusing if some people want to lump all kinds of issues into it. It can muddy up an argument really quickly if you aren't clear what you're talking about.

About pro-choice, one could argue there are at least two sub-headings of PC'rs, if not more. Those who use abortion as birth control, and those who use it because they are scared to death of the other options. It's the former that tend to get called pro-aborts by pro-lifers because they accept abortion so readily. I think there is some merit to that line of reasoning.

pro-choice? pro-choice for what? paying taxes? owning a gun? what a lie.

KB: No, Leaving babies to die alone of hypothermia, dehydration/starvation isn't "silly" Doug. It is a cruel means of willfully killing a human. It used to be called murder, before your people decided that it's acceptable, and that barring this killing might be "unconstitutional".

Now what we were talking about. Obama doesn't have objections to caring for born babies.>\ -doug

It is lying in denial of the fact that Obama approved the procedure of allowing born babies to die of exposure, by repeatedly stopping a law to prevent the practice at a hospital with affiliation to his church leaders. It also denies in the same post as the quote, the protracted killing process in abortion procedures and this form of killing infants after birth.
_________________________

KB: Even Jill admitted, in an interview (can't remember which one, but it was posted here) that the time frame was much too short for something like dehydration or starvation to occur - as a matter of fact, she kept correcting the interviewer (O'Reilly?) who was trying to push the same point as you, KB.

This particular pro-abort attempts to convince us that each case of live birth abortion is the same. This practice has occurred at many different hospitals to babies at various stages of development. The babies delivered earlier in development die of respiratory failure and hypothermia. Both things are very uncomfortable. The death process is protracted. There is insufficient surfactant in the lungs, and this causes rapid respiratory failure. In the later cases, in which the baby has sufficient respiratory development to breathe unassisted for awhile, the baby could live long enough to die of dehydration, cardiovascular sequelae of impaired respiration, starvation, etc. It is important to the earlier preemie to give rapid nutritional support. A bag of dextrose solution is hung very quickly. After that pharmacy mixes a bag of dextrose solution with pediatric amino acids and whatever electrolytes are needed. First one is often calcium gluconate. Within less than a day, a full TPN specific to the baby's needs is ordered and hung. If one sees the care and rationale for procedures in NICU, then one understands that the comfort room procedures may immediately be inappropriate or painful, depending upon the baby's state of development.

The neonate hospice movement - which many on this board support actually allows more of that type of thing (carrying a pregnancy of a soon-after-birth- terminal-baby to term and allowing it to be born, only to die soon after) than would a late term abortion.

Perhaps phylosopher will tell us which neonatal hospice program I need put out of business for gross medical neglect of the patients if the kind of non-care it implied is being rendered. More likely, it will simply have to end the medical discussion for obvious lack of information.

What really happens is the baby with congenital defects incompatible with life is made comfortable as possible, but futile heroic measures to keep him or her alive are not taken. Same as DNR patients, they get basic care, but not extreme measures to prolong life.

___________

'Prochoice' is a garbage term. There are infinite choices. The choice in controversy is abortion. Choice = abortion. 'Might as well say' abortion.

Some people favor it, promote it, defend it, justify it, perform it. Commit is a term that fits. And some people are very committed to abortion.

"Obama didn't object to providing care for a born baby, and that is the point. His objections were to other things in the bill."

Truthseeker: Yeah, he objected to those sneaky people who tried to overturn RoeVWade by giving rights to babie that are already born. HELLOO in there.

Nope, he never said that nor proceeded as if that was the case. He's fine with caring for born babies. His objections were to things that he saw as unconstitutional and/or as intended to curtail abortion rights while not being necessary for ensuring the care of born babies.

"Now what we were talking about. Obama doesn't have objections to caring for born babies."

KB: It is lying in denial of the fact that Obama approved the procedure of allowing born babies to die of exposure, by repeatedly stopping a law to prevent the practice at a hospital with affiliation to his church leaders.

Not at all - he has never objected to caring for born babies. His objections were to other things in those bills.
.....

It also denies in the same post as the quote, the protracted killing process in abortion procedures and this form of killing infants after birth.

There too, not what we were talking about. I will agree with you on those procedures, if what you say is factual.
.....

'Prochoice' is a garbage term. There are infinite choices. The choice in controversy is abortion. Choice = abortion.

No, Pro-Choice is understood to be about the woman continuing or ending a pregnancy by her own desire. You already knew that, anyway - yes, that's the "controversy," that's understood on an abortion board.

Likewise, "Pro-Life" is with respect to the unborn, here, and (for example) not necessarily about capital punishment.

About pro-choice, one could argue there are at least two sub-headings of PC'rs, if not more. Those who use abortion as birth control, and those who use it because they are scared to death of the other options. It's the former that tend to get called pro-aborts by pro-lifers because they accept abortion so readily. I think there is some merit to that line of reasoning.
Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 11:05 PM

I'm enjoying this productive discussion with you, Janet.

What about something like pro-reproductive choice?
Although not quite as pithy, it seems to be more accurate.

I see your distinction - though I would think there are few pro-choicers who see abortion as birth control as a good option. No one is running around saying, "Stop using the pill, if you get pregnant, you can just have an abortion." and if they did, then pro-choicers would be as quick to denounce them as some on your side were to denounce the anti-BC movement.

One: did anyone else notice that as soon as yllas was asked to leave KB popped up - hmmm. Mods ISP check?

Two: Your argument, KB, is with Jill, not me. She's the one who told O'Reilly that starvation wasn't a factor.

Three:
Read the NYTimes article below. The measures you suggest run counter to the findings of the perihospice movement. It is quiet time and contact that is important for these wanted babies (and most late term abortions are of intended pregnancies which result in fetii with anomalies) not measures that may be appropriate to a neonate with longer term survival possibilities. I believe Jill quoted the longest survival time of a late term abortion at 8 hours.

Though he doesn't name it directly, Obama in his Senate record seems to refer to the perihospice movement, the setting of which is a comfort room. It seems a noble idea and one which both sides could work towards, if it is approached honestly.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE1DF1539F937A25750C0A965948260

Phylo,
Do you see a distinction between the perihospice care(as in the article you cite)and the comfort room that was opened after Jill came out with her story?

This is really nuts. Both the Illinois and Federal Born Alive Acts have been signed into law. Should we be arguing over the Alien and Seditions Acts next or maybe focus on things that could matter in the future?

JohnS,
It's not so moot cause the guy who was Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committe in 2003 is the guy who did his best to keep Born Alive Protection from becoming law and he is trying to become our president. Not so moot. How can you not see the relevance in that.
You strike me as being high on BHO Kool-aid.

And as President what exactly will he do concerning either the Federal or State Born Alive Acts? Has he said he wants to repeal them? If not, then again, this issue is moot. Move on to something relevant.

P.s. the only thing a Pres can do to effect any of this is his Supreme Court nominations, and since the 3 most likely retirees in the next 4 years are all liberal all Obama can do is keep the current mix.

Not at all - he has never objected to caring for born babies. His objections were to other things in those bills. -doug

It has become redundant and continues to pretend that all the bills were the same. The one Obama stopped in Committee was the same as the federal BAIPA, and modeled after internationally accepted (UN, WHO) protections of babies after birth. Kennedy and Clinton signed it.

There too, not what we were talking about. I will agree with you on those procedures, if what you say is factual. doug.

No factual rebuttal possible. It will "agree" on the inhumane procedures, yet continue to support them avidly.

_______________________________________

One: did anyone else notice that as soon as yllas was asked to leave KB popped up - hmmm. Mods ISP check? phylosopher

It does not notice obvious difference in style and content, nor timing of the posts.

Two: Your argument, KB, is with Jill, not me. She's the one who told O'Reilly that starvation wasn't a factor. phylosopher

It continues to pretend that all experiences in all the hospitals performing live birth abortion are the same. This is repetitive misrepresentation. The differentiation between this and hospice care is not expected, as its original motive was to obfuscate.

"Not at all - he has never objected to caring for born babies. His objections were to other things in those bills."

KB: It has become redundant and continues to pretend that all the bills were the same. The one Obama stopped in Committee was the same as the federal BAIPA, and modeled after internationally accepted (UN, WHO) protections of babies after birth. Kennedy and Clinton signed it.

That's untrue. You appear to not have read them. The bills were not the same. The federal law does not have what Obama objected to.

Doug is right, just for the recond so we don't have to keep having this debate, the Illinois Act (and the Federal Act as well) was written in such a way that you could argue that a pre-viability infant/fetus/whatever (the threshold in Roe v. Wade before abortion could be prohibited) was a "person" and thus protected under the Constitution. The FEDERAL Act threw in a clause that prohibited anyone from arguing that, which thus took away the issue that Obama was concerned with. Jill calls it a "fig leaf" but in fact it was essential to making the Federal Act not liable to prohibit all abortions, and thus unconstitutional under Roe.

Right, JohnS, and we've seen the testimony and heard Obama's position. It's not hard to understand.

I don't like the practice in legislatures of adding "riders," etc., to bills, whether it be for pork-barrel projects, unrelated issues, or sneaky tries for end-around runs - I wish they'd stick to the issues the bills were designed for.

However, it happens all the time, and there are an enormous amount of bills that get voted down or voted against because they've got this "other stuff" in them.

One: did anyone else notice that as soon as yllas was asked to leave KB popped up - hmmm. Mods ISP check?

Heh - Phylosopher, that'd be funny if she was the same, but the possibility hadn't occurred to me yet. "kb" thus far has kept her mind under control, which yllas could not do. However, we'll see. ; )

True, Doug, but it seems that "kb" is not able to refrain from including the subtle insult. S/he insists on referring to gender neutral monikers not as s/he or by name (as you did above for the gender neutral "kb") but instead uses "it." Ah well, benfit of the doubt, right? maybe kb just doesn't know any better.

Phylo,
Do you see a distinction between the perihospice care(as in the article you cite)and the comfort room that was opened after Jill came out with her story?
Posted by: Carla at July 2, 2008 9:23 AM

The comfort room is a precursor, perhaps. Not necessarily different. Obviously having the space is essential to any program. And having a hospice program gives parents the ability to choose a spot on a continuum of care in the relative quiet before the natural or induced birth/termination. That's why BAIPA is objected to by many. It seems to put us back in that etiher/or dichotomy. Either heroic measures or total abandonment. The hospice alternative allows for some planning and, if you will, a "flowchart" of actions to be taken. Some questions can't be answered until the baby is born, and then hurried decisions need to be made - and those aren't always the best decisions.

Hmmmm...
The comfort room is for aborted babies that are taken from their mothers bodies who don't want them. I often wonder just HOW MANY parents want to rock their child to death....they caused their child's death. How many pictures are taken of the babies that they themselves wanted dead? How many baptisms are done? Is the whole family there to ooh and aah at the baby that was aborted? So many questions, so little time.

Hospice is for parents that love their babies regardless of the anomalies that they have. They know their children will pass away soon after their birth and so they prepare in the best way they know how. Lovingly naming their children, holding them, singing to them, introducing them to family members and taking pictures. Those babies die naturally. I have been a part of two perihospice experiences.

Just want to add that if the same comfort room is used for aborted babies and those that die naturally I would have a really hard time with that, personally.

There is no way to "pretty up" an abortion, especially a live birth abortion.

Carla:
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were asking just to argue the point. I'll try to be less thoughtful and more confrontational in my responses now that I know where you're coming from.

But since you want to argue, refusing to acknowledge that third trimester abortions may be done for reasons of severe defect shows your rigid ideology. It is the prerogative of a woman and her doctor (in consultation with her family or others if she desires to include them) as to what is best for her health.

The parent(s) who choose the termination of severely deformed child have no more "caused" his/her death than the parents who let such a deformed child go to term. It's the severe defects that cause the death in many of these cases. You addendum post is cruel and willfully ignorant when it ignores the above possibility. All parents have a right to grieve and say good byes in these cases.

Not arguing. Wanted to know your thoughts. Now I do. I disagree.

If a child with Down Syndrome isn't wanted it is killed by delivering it early in a live birth abortion. If a child with anencephaly will die soon after birth but isn't wanted it is killed by live birth abortion.
If a child with Potter's syndrome will die soon after birth but isn't wanted it is killed by live birth abortion.
A severely deformed baby has a right to live as long as he/she lives. Why is killing it a good thing, in your opinion?
I am not cruel when I say to rock a child that will die naturally and know that babies that are willfully killed would be hard for me. I am being honest.
Unless someone wants to comment about using a comfort room for their live aborted baby, I shall stick to my rigid ideology that all life is precious.

OK Carla, it was difficult to know your sincerity over the net. But, here's the genesis of my reasoning, due to a friend's recent experience -

This friend has a chronic condition. It is generally kept in check with pharmaceuticals. During the pregnancy, she went off her meds, with doctor's nervous approval. Should there have been something abnormal, such as severe anencephaly, diagnosed in utero, it would have been wiser, medically, for her to terminate and resume her meds. The ultimate decision would have been hers, of course. And I would argue that she would deserve the same consideration with an early termination that someone continuing such a pregnancy to term would receive - such as perihospice care.

...and the baby whether a product of natural labor or termination would also be entitled to such hospice care.

I hear you. Really I do. I had a friend that was pregnant and the pregnancy was literally killing her. She couldn't bear the thought of inducing to let that child die, she asked us to pray and her water broke and her son was born. He lived a short time.

I have a very hard time with the whole idea. I just do. If a woman's life is not in danger and she doesn't want a baby with Down's Syndrome she can have a live birth abortion. Are you ok with that?

I am sorry that your friend went through what she did. My heart goes out to all of those facing such heartbreaking circumstances.

Carla:

Glad we're talking.

Your friend was lucky, and I hope the short time they had was as she wanted it.

The Down's Syndrome is a bit tougher. Through another friend's child, I know there can be complications that accompany Down's, (that child died at 18 months)and degrees of severity. Thus every case would need to be judged individually.

One of the unfortunate aspects of Down's is that older women have a higher incidence of Down's children. Another acquaintance has a Down's son, now in his thirties. She is very concerned about his care now that her husband has passed and the son has developed additional problems. She worries a lot about what will happen if the son survives her. There are no other siblings or family, and there won't be an estate left for his care. Some of this worry and stress has communicated itself to her son. It is sad to watch.

I would have to say that the parents(s) are the most capable at making the decision. Knowledgeable about their own capabilities (to deal with the consequences of whichever option - abortion, adoption, keeping the child) and support system.

So, yes, I'm OK with the woman making the decision. I know that you aren't.

And there are some who will raise the eugenic specter at this point, but the women who choose abortion of Down's babies aren't eugenicists who want to claim that all Down's children be aborted. It's an individual choice based on their own capabilities. I see the acquaintance with the Down's son as heroic in her devotion to him - long story, much advocacy. But we don't require heroic acts of all humans.

Thanks Phylo. Glad to be talking to you too.

I have always wanted a child with Down Syndrome so I will never forget reading about Jill Stanek years ago....

The proaborts continue to pretend that the Born Alive Infant Protection Acts in Illinois were the same each year. They were modified, until the one (Which Obama stopped in the health and human services committee) was like the federal law which was passed. It specifically protected the babies after birth but did not include babies before birth in the protection.

There is too much committment to the obfuscation. They can't stop now.

Eighty percent of Downs sydrome babies are killed prior to birth in the United States. Now all the women with breast cancer have gotten a similar message: you cost too much... the world would be better off with you dead. I guess that's not as bad as other countries....... where women get the message through sex selective abortions, that their societies don't need any of them.

Before sex selective abortion in those ocountries, which I'm not condoning, those female would have been left on a hillside to die of animal attack or exposure. Sounds like you want a return to those "good ole days," KB.

It has been shown time and time again, that the way to raise the status of women in a society is through education and access to birth control. My side is working on it. Yours? (is trying to prevent it through blocking funding of those efforts).

Carla:
I wrote a longer post earlier, but it must have been cybergulped.

The gist was why specifically wanting a Down's baby? I can understand wanting to care for a born unwanted Down's, but you sound as if you would prefer that a child born to you have Down's. With all the other complications that can accompany Down's and the shorter life span,...please explain if you want to.

I would gladly adopt a child with Down's Syndrome or have been more than happy to raise a child of my own with it, should that have happened. It could have am I right? I have been pregnant 7 times and any one of those pregnancies could have carried a child with Down Syndrome.(or any number of things....)

When I was 16 I met a 2 year old with Down Syndrome. His name was Adam. He was beautiful to me. From that moment I knew that I would be a special education teacher and surrounded myself. Special Olympics, group homes, summer camps and other activities. My niece has Down Syndrome, my friend's daughter as well. They have been such a joy to me in so many ways.

God has his own reasons for making every individual the way they are. You are asking me why and I say why not?? It makes sense in my life experience but not to you and that's ok. :)

Carla, I'm not judging, just asking.

And, you're right, that is ok. I'm glad you've found the opportunity to interact with people you value highly, and a career that values your gifts in working with them. That experience of knowing and then working professionally with such children does explain it. Thanks.

This thread is scrolling down, so...BYE, too.

Before sex selective abortion in those ocountries, which I'm not condoning, those female would have been left on a hillside to die of animal attack or exposure. Sounds like you want a return to those "good ole days," KB. Phylosopher,

It lies by projecting it's proclivities onto others. Those it supports upheld the practice of killing babies by means of exposure in a hospital utility room. The side I support protested the infanticide and sought to make it illegal.

It has been shown time and time again, that the way to raise the status of women in a society is through education and access to birth control. My side is working on it. Yours? (is trying to prevent it through blocking funding of those efforts). -phylosopher

It makes statements unsubstantiated by the data, which point to the opposite. Perhaps it believes that increased rape victimization, suicide, placement in the medical garbage heap, and being left to raise children alone in poverty is a rise in status. But I think it more likely places sexual availability of girls and women to be paramount to the social status and quality of life. This is judging from the actions.

Bye for now Phylo and thanks for letting me get to know you a little better.

Carla, you wrote: "I would gladly adopt a child with Down's Syndrome "

Why haven't you then? Or at least put your name on a list of willing adopters, which list would be shown to pregnant women by CPCs?

KB: Pro-Choicers continue to pretend that the Born Alive Infant Protection Acts in Illinois were the same each year. They were modified, until the one (Which Obama stopped in the health and human services committee) was like the federal law which was passed. It specifically protected the babies after birth but did not include babies before birth in the protection.

Nope, wrong again. Obama objected to parts of the Illinois bill that were different from the federal law. He was fine with the parts of the IL bill that protected born infants.