gadgetlady

See, the thing is, abortion doesn't prevent dead babies in toilets at the prom. Abortion is legal and we still have this happening. It's not because abortion wasn't available to them. I believe it's precisely because abortion was available to them that we have this issue. You see, if it's legal to abort through 9 months of pregnancy, what's the difference between the unborn baby and the born baby, but for a few days and passage through the birth canal? Do you really think we don't teach birth control? Do you really thing birth control isn't readily available to anyone who wants it? Because it is, and it has been for years. And it hasn't stopped abortion.

How can a video showing an actual abortion being performed be an exaggeration of the truth. If it's "horribly gruesome and violent" then perhaps the procedure is "horribly gruesome and violent"? The video Carrie referred to earlier in this thread is a first trimester abortion. If she found that compelling enough to sway her view, I can't begin to imagine what a second trimester video would have had her thinking.

:smile2: Thank you for posting that, Carrie. Most people are woefully unaware of what the actual abortion procedure is all about, and of fetal development at the stage when abortions are performed -- and when they learn the facts, they often change their minds on the matter. I agree that it has nothing to do with politics. I also believe it has nothing to do with religion. There are many atheists and agnostics that are pro-life, simply due to biology.

You are 100% wrong. Watch this video -- there are no gruesome photos of unborn babies as you've said so many times that you hate to watch. Just watch it. 5 minutes out of your day. This is the nurse who testified about this matter in front of Obama. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo]YouTube - I Invented the Internet (Ep. 4: Kill and Destroy)[/ame]

That's not true. There are many abortionists -- people who used to perform abortions -- who are now pro-life. Bernard Nathanson, who was a co-founder of NARAL, is now a pro-life advocate. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, is pro-life. Sadly, many women become pro-life after they've had an abortion and come to terms with what they've done. I have met people who used to be pro-abortion and are no longer. I have convinced people, based on biological and logical evidence, to change their opinion. Yes, there are some people who will never be convinced. But that does not mean that there aren't any who will ever be convinced. If you look at the statistics of support for Roe over the years, you will notice that the numbers have changed and are still changing; as a country, we are slowly becoming more pro-life. I hear that said often, and it's a misunderstanding. Most of the children that are "in the system" as you say, are older children. Infants of all colors, cultural backgrounds, disabilities, etc. are, when available, adopted very quickly. Furthermore, mothers don't abort because they don't think anyone will adopt their child. They abort because they don't want a child themselves.

If you truly think that's not already being done, look around you. I guarantee you, if you have a woman who needs help placing her baby for adoption, or a place to live while she's pregnant, or any other kind of assistance, I can find pro-lifers who will provide it for her. In fact, I have several friends who are looking to adopt any baby in any condition. If you know of anyone who is wanting to place a baby for adoption, please PM me. Wow. Well, according, to this, why don't we just kill off everyone who's living a life we don't think is worthy, and start over. Heck, if a woman keeps getting pregnant and doesn't want to be, why don't we just kill her and the baby? After all, she might be better off dead. (is that your decision to make?) Imagine you are a slave in the 1800's. Someone says to you, "It's not about freeing the slaves. Forget about the slaves and look deeper at the real problem. Let's look at the infrastructure. Let's look at whether these slaves will have jobs if we free them. Let's look at whether we have the ability to educate them. It's better that they remain slaves and we try to create a social utopia first, and then people will just naturally let their slaves go free when they see the help that's available for them." Or how about this? You live in Nazi Germany and you're slated for the gas chamber in a week, and someone says to you, "It's not about stopping the genocide. Forget about the Jews and look deeper at the real problem. If we were to just cleanse the world of the Jews and the problems they cause, then we would all live in a better place and we wouldn't have the problems we have in our society right now. Then the remaining Jews would see their place and they wouldn't try to impose themselves on the rest of the world." Do you see the problem here? While you hem and haw about social ills, 4,000 babies died today! You might not care about their lives, but someone should. They are voiceless because they can't speak or be seen, which is why others choose to be a voice for them.

With all due respect, Butch, the after-effects of abortion, if you're the baby, are death. So it is QUITE important to discuss the matter. When a baby is entitled to the most basic of all human rights, the right to life, is 100% of the issue. I agree that we should prevent the exploitation of women. I agree that movies and television don't provide an accurate representation of real women. But selling women short, telling them they need to kill their unborn babies to lead a full life, that they can't be mothers and still be successful, telling them that it's OK to kill their offspring to move forward with their lives, and most of all telling them that the thing growing inside of them isn't a baby, is telling them a lie.

What is a "fully developed human being"? Is a toddler a "fully developed human being"? Are you? Maybe we reach "fully developed-hood" at puberty, or sexual maturity? Or do we reach it when we graduate college? Do we ever start devolving into someone who once was a "fully developed human being" but is no longer? At what point do we grant rights to a person, and why? When is a person owed the right to continue his or her life? And once a person has that right, is that right later eligible to be taken away (i.e. at the end of life)? Does our right to life simply depend on whether another person believes we are alive? The mother and the baby are both already alive. In virtually 100% of the cases, a mother's carrying her child to term won't kill her (pro-life laws allow for abortion in the case of the mother's life being in physical jeopardy). In virtually 100% of the cases, the mother's choice to abort does kill her child (certainly that's the intent of the procedure, although it does occasionally fail and the babies are born alive -- but Obama wants to deny those babies life, too).

Great article posted on MSNBC (linked to Newsweek) at Opinion: Are the Democrats Dodging Abortion? | Newsweek Religion | Newsweek.com. The whole article is worth reading, but I particularly like this paragraph (emphasis mine) -- for those of you who have said science hasn't determined when a human life begins: At the Aug. 16 "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Sen. Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama quickly changed the subject to when life begins, and then demurred: "... whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity ... is above my pay grade." Why, though? An embryology text widely used in American medical schools, "The Developing Human," is not so reticent about the science involved: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatazoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." That is the science. It's quite specific, and understanding the science here is surely not about the "pay grade" of a president who will be making public-policy decisions based on that science.

So you accept the facts of the issue without debate (as indeed does Obama -- he has finally admitted it after trying, unsuccessfully, to claim that he was protecting Roe). The problem is, the facts of the issue are that Obama fought and voted precisely not to extend life saving medical care to viable babies. We determine the heart and beliefs of people based on their actions, and most especially in the case of political candidates, based on their voting record -- precisely because there is no way one person can know another person's "heart and beliefs". We only know what they say, and more importantly what they do. If a person votes to deny medical care to babies who might survive with said medical care, why is it a problem to point that out and name it for what it is?

How about a recap, a concise and factual history? FACT: A nurse in Illinois was concerned about the number of aborted babies who survived and then were deprived of life-saving medical care, so she spearheaded a campaign to protect these infants. FACT: Then-state senator Obama opposed, spoke against, voted against, and/or blocked the legislation three times. FACT: Obama claimed the reason for his opposition was that the bill didn't provide sufficient protection for Roe. FACT: A similar bill unanimously passed in the US Senate, with all 100 Senators including Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voting for it. FACT: NARAL did not oppose the bill, but took no position on it because it didn't affect abortion "rights". FACT: The verbiage used in the federal bill to protect Roe was also used in the Illinois bill to protect Roe. Where is the hyperbole? Where is the smear campaign? This is all a matter of public record. As an aside, for those of you who doubt that babies survive abortion, see AFAJournal.org - Gianna Jessen abortion survivor.

So, in your opinion, when does a baby have a basic human right to life? Because live, potentially viable babies are being shoved into utility closets to die. This wouldn't have become a legislative issue if it weren't happening. Furthermore, and again, even NARAL didn't oppose this bill! Ergo, it is not an issue that interferes with abortion rights. It doesn't matter if it's the norm. It matters if it happens ONCE (the fact is, it happens more often than you'd like to admit, but the quantity is inconsequential). Why would Obama be against saving the life of just ONE baby who dies in this way? So now it's no longer a woman's right to make decisions about "her body", now it's her right to make a decision about the medical treatment of her child? And she therefore has a right to deny treatment to a child who's dying? A right that isn't protected isn't much of a right, is it? If I have the right to choose what books to read, but every time I pick up a book someone yanks it out of my hands, someone's going to have to intervene for me to exercise that right. If a baby has a right to receive medical care to sustain or save his or her life, no one is providing that medical care, and there is no intervention on anyone's part to require the provision of that medical care, then it's a useless right. That's just basic common sense. There is nothing, NOTHING, that I've said that isn't 100% factual. Period. Democrats are just trying to muddy the waters and somehow claim that Obama had some noble motive for doing what he did.

Sorry. I should have said that a baby is not a baby deserving of the basic human right to life until that baby is outside the mother's womb. I should have put those clarifying words in there. Once the baby is detached from the mother and breathing on his or her own, how does saving the life of that baby affect the mother's medical care? Shoving a live baby in a utility close to die is a "normal course of action"? You miss the point. Obama fought against this bill -- he didn't just vote against it. He fought against providing those babies with medical care. You can't candy-coat it.

Just to properly punctuate the issue, I just came across a quote from Obama on the issue -- which he is no longer denying or trying to obfuscate. "As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. In other words, if the baby who was slated for an abortion survives, Obama thought it was too burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby could survive with medical care. One of the people speaking in favor of the bill was a nurse who testified that these "botched abortion" babies (who survive the abortion) are often put into a utility closet and left to die, sometimes with hospital workers being able to hear their little newborn cries and whimpering. Obama's trying to make it complicated so people don't see what he really did. It's not complicated, though. It's plain as day.

I understand (because you've said it before) that you believe a baby isn't a baby until it is physically outside of the mother's body and breathing on his or her own, and that you believe abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. That's not what Obama was voting on in this particular instance. What Obama was voting on was the medical care that baby should (or shouldn't) have a right to receive once he or she is out of the mother's body and breathing on his or her own. You've said you believe that the baby is part of the mom's body until birth, but once the baby is detached from mom and breathing on his or her own, he or she is finally a person in his or her own right. However, Obama voted that the baby isn't entitled to life-saving medical care after this physical separation happens; he is therefore saying that the baby is still the property of mom despite the lack of physical attachment to mom. Or, in other words, the baby is still part of mom's body and therefore eligible to be killed even though the baby is physically separated and breathing outside of the womb. By what reasoning do you define the killing of the already-separated-and-breathing-baby part of "a woman's rights"? How you can not call that infanticide is beyond me.

Obama claimed that he was concerned about this bill eroding Roe. He later said that he would have voted for the federal bill (had he been a US Senator at the time) because it had a clause that protected Roe. The truth is both bills had the same verbiage. He voted for infanticide, plain and simple, and then tried to cover it up by lying and claiming the facts were misrepresented. Nope, you can opt out any time you want. It's your choice. Really? Because you follow in the same paragraph with: Sounds like a personal accusation about me and my motives, doesn't it?

How was the way in what I presented how Obama voted biased? What part of what I wrote wasn't 100% factual? When you say you "agree with those senators wholeheartedly", are you saying you agree with the 100 US Senators who voted to provide medical care for infants born alive after "unsuccessful" (read: "failed to kill the intended target") abortions? Or do you agree wholeheartedly with Obama, who voted that those babies should be actively killed or left to die?

Abortion is a human rights issue. Or, as a dear friend of mine just coined, "social justice starts in the womb". IMO, it has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with biology and basic, intrinsic human rights. If you believe God gave us free will and by making laws against choice we are violating what God gave us, then there should be no laws against anything, right? No laws against slavery, no laws against murder, no laws against physical abuse? The problem is, some choices have victims.

:cursing: Yup, we're anti-sex (that's sarcasm for those of you who don't know me). Do you also disagree that every infant should and can mature into a toddler? Or that every tween should and can mature into a teenager? These are all stages in the continuum of life. An unborn baby doesn't magically turn into a human being as he or she travels through the birth canal, as those in favor of abortion would have us believe. Neither should they be viewed as trash, simply because that particular baby's mother chooses to define her baby as a "product of conception" instead of a human being. Here's where Obama REALLY stands on babies and why he's rightly being attacked (this is cut and pasted from another thread where I posted it). Obama's campaign, after trying to dodge this issue for weeks, has finally conceded that the facts below are 100% accurate: While an Illinois state senator (2001 to 2003), Obama addressed (by his vote, speech, and actions) the issue of whether children who were born alive during induced abortions had the right to medical care (the "Induced Infant Liability Act"). In 2001, he voted against medical care in committee, and he voted "present" during the actual vote. In 2002, he voted against medical care in committee and in the actual vote. In 2003 he was the chair of the committee and kept the bill from going to a vote. He was the only senator in Illinois who spoke out on the floor of the senate against the bill -- remember, this is a bill which says if a baby is born alive during an induced abortion, he or she is entitled to medical care. In other words, to oppose it means the person supports directly killing or simply doing nothing and allowing a helpless infant who is already born -- separated from his or her mother's body, and who might be saved through medical care -- to die. There was a similar federal bill which Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and 98 other senators in the US Senate voted for, unanimously. Even NARAL did not oppose it! No hyperbole here AT ALL. These are just straight facts. Obama opposed, thrice, medical care for infants born alive after botched abortions.

Studies firmly show there is no correlation between unplanned pregnancies and child abuse. In fact, the opposite is true: most abused children were planned. You are absolutely right. The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a kid. Her only choice at that point is a live baby or a dead baby. I'm ALL FOR prevention of unplanned pregnancies. What I'm against is making the decision once a baby is already created.

I would normally say, "one hundred ninety-two point six", but the reason I said "and six-tenths" is because the ONLY place "and" is correct in a number is at the decimal point.

Although I love the convenience and ease of IM and texting, I think it encourages people to misspell, to the point where our youth will lose touch entirely with what proper spelling and grammar are. I can't believe it when I get business emails with "u" instead of "you" and "enuf" instead of "enough" and "i" instead of "I" (I could go on ad naseum). I understand it in a personal context, but in a business email? It's scary to think of where we will be in 20 years.

Here's another one that makes me nuts, but it's in speech, not writing. "2008" is "two thousand eight", not "two thousand and eight". 192 is "one hundred ninety-two", not "one hundred and ninety-two". "And", numerically, indicates a decimal point, as in 192.6 ("one hundred ninety-two and six tenths").

Obama just admitted that he lied about his stand on the born alive legislation -- after accusing pro-lifers of lying even after they released documentation of his position. See Hot Air for details.

It was in a parking lot (I seem to remember underground or covered, but I'm not sure). The problem was the windows were tinted, and while security patrolled the lot regularly, they couldn't see in (unless they were intentionally trying to).