who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

I understand and agree with what Senator Obama said about the reasons behind his vote and I disagree with the narrow-minded, intellectually inferior people who felt railroaded into voting the way you think is right.

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.

Do we have to go through this exercise again?

Nope, you can opt out any time you want. It's your choice.

But I will stop short of making personal accusations about you and your motives.

Really? Because you follow in the same paragraph with:

You are brainwashed and you are comfortable with that brainwashing and you make it your job to brainwash others.

Sounds like a personal accusation about me and my motives, doesn't it?

Edited August 22, 2008 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

And by the way, your statement that Senator Obama voted to actively kill babies or leave them to die is one of the stretches of your propaganda makers that is what I was talking about. Senator Obama does not believe that a woman's rights and the judgement of her doctor should be second guessed by an outsider, a government entity or anyone else.

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.

Edited August 22, 2008 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

Edited August 22, 2008 by gadgetlady

[BJean 16]

First let me clarify something that you have stated, here in writing, that is my belief but which in fact is completely incorrect and not a belief that I hold true. I do not, nor have I ever said, that a baby is not a baby until it is outside a mother's womb. You are completely and totally inaccurate about that statement and I resent it very much. Don't make me have to spend the time explaining the difference between what I have actually said here and what you have stated that I believe. You can rest assured that you are utterly and completely wrong about this.

Your declarations about what I believe are similar to the way the right wing has chosen to characterize and put emphasis on what Senator Obama stated about the reasoning behind his vote. You, and others, have put your own interpretation on what you think he believes because you do not like his vote and you want to make him look like a baby killer. He has explained that he believes that a woman's medical care, provided by a doctor she whom trusts and has put her life in his hands, should not be legally required to have intervention by an outside doctor if there is a baby born that is viable. He went on to say that it is a given that if a baby is born that is alive, every normal course of action should be utilized to save the life of the baby.

I know that you do not understand. I do not expect you to. Your beliefs are clouded by all the horrors that you envision surrounding a woman's right to choose her own medical care. I wouldn't want to know the number of times you have viewed bloody, horrible videos of botched abortions. I know that you feel that saving babies is your job and I believe that you will do it however you can.

I understand your passion but I cannot justify the way you and others go about trying to get your beliefs legislated with regard to this issue.

[gadgetlady 4]

I do not, nor have I ever said, that a baby is not a baby until it is outside a mother's womb.

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.

He has explained that he believes that a woman's medical care, provided by a doctor she whom trusts and has put her life in his hands, should not be legally required to have intervention by an outside doctor if there is a baby born that is viable.

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?

He went on to say that it is a given that if a baby is born that is alive, every normal course of action should be utilized to save the life of the baby.

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.

[BJean 16]

You're still wrong. I do not believe that a baby must be outside a mother's womb in order to deserve the basic human right to life. Period. No qualifiers. You have messed with the facts so much you believe that you know what I have said and what I believe but what you've come up with is just simply wrong.

Doctors are well trained in life saving measures. All doctors. If they are not, there's no way that they as human beings attending to the medical needs of a woman, should they or can they be certified as doctors. So if there is a qualified doctor present, why would additional doctor(s) be required? You want to make it sound like any doctor who would find it necessary to medically abort a baby to preserve the life of the mother, would desire to kill a viable baby. I know all you've stated about doctors and medical personnel tossing babies into a closet, but I do not believe that is the norm and I do not believe that it is fair to characterize it in that way. It is the way you would like for people to believe is the norm because it adds fuel the fire against Senator Obama and his views. And it furthers your cause against a woman's right to make decisions about her own medical treatment and that of her child. You want to inteject yourself into any scenario that could possibly involve an unborn child and I (and I believe Senator Obama) do not believe in your right to you to do that.

And no, you are wrong, Senator Obama did not fight against any baby's right to medical care. He fought against the government's forced intervention in those types of medical situations. You don't understand it. I get that.

But you are the very one here at LBT who is using this to convince people that you and the Republican media spinners are right about Senator Obama. The fact is that you are wrong and you justify your depiction of what he believes because you want abortion to be illegal. Period.

People deserve the truth. People are smart enough to make their own decisions. It is patently unfair for people who oppose things to make claims about their opponent's beliefs in order to further their agenda. That's what the Republicans are all about. They don't run on the true issues that are facing Americans. They run on fear tactics, lies and innuendo.

Just lobby for abortion to be made illegal and play fair. I believe that the reason that you don't play fair is because you know you can't win if you don't make anyone who has the opposing viewpoint, out to be a baby killer. I am not a baby killer. I don't believe that Senator Obama has any desire to kill babies either.

[gadgetlady 4]

You're still wrong. I do not believe that a baby must be outside a mother's womb in order to deserve the basic human right to life. Period. No qualifiers.

So, in your opinion, when does a baby have a basic human right to life?

Doctors are well trained in life saving measures. All doctors. If they are not, there's no way that they as human beings attending to the medical needs of a woman, should they or can they be certified as doctors. So if there is a qualified doctor present, why would additional doctor(s) be required?

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.

I know all you've stated about doctors and medical personnel tossing babies into a closet, but I do not believe that is the norm and I do not believe that it is fair to characterize it in that way.

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?

And it furthers your cause against a woman's right to make decisions about her own medical treatment and that of her child.

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?

And no, you are wrong, Senator Obama did not fight against any baby's right to medical care. He fought against the government's forced intervention in those types of medical situations.

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.

People deserve the truth. People are smart enough to make their own decisions. It is patently unfair for people who oppose things to make claims about their opponent's beliefs in order to further their agenda. That's what the Republicans are all about. They don't run on the true issues that are facing Americans. They run on fear tactics, lies and innuendo.

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.

[BJean 16]

Conotrary to your claims, your last paragraph isn't 100% factual. I don't doubt that Democrats try to muddy the waters too, but the facts are not what the Republicans (right winger Republicans - not all mainstream Republicans) have said. Yes, there are some facts that are thrown in to give their claims validity - and unfortunately many Americans believe the entire content of their claims - just because there is even one single element of truth involved. But it is the right wingers who have done such a magnificent job of muddying the waters on this issue. And the thing that I can't get past is that they claim that everything they're saying is true. In fact that is not factual.

Stick a fork in me - I'm done with this dead horse. If people are so ignorant that they want to believe Senator Obama has death and killing as his motive, then nothing I can say will change their minds. If they choose to listen to you here at LBT and believe that everything you put forth is factual, then they will learn the truth after the election. Just like I hope they did after the last election.

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

[BJean 16]

That's an easy question to answer: the exaggerations and untruths come when it is said in several sneaky ways that Senator Obama does not want to extend life saving medical care to viable babies. There have been characterizations placed on his motives that just do not jibe with his heart and beliefs although you can make those claims and people can believe them since you go about posturing and posting the way you have here to make it look like everything you've previously said is undoubtedly true. You people are quite good at what you do.

I have no doubt that if you win this battle, you will choose to believe that the ends justifed the means. Just as those authors of the Swift Boat campaign did.

[gadgetlady 4]

That's an easy question to answer: the exaggerations and untruths come when it is said in several sneaky ways that Senator Obama does not want to extend life saving medical care to viable babies.

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.

There have been characterizations placed on his motives that just do not jibe with his heart and beliefs

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?

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

[BJean 16]

Human development does begin at fertilization. No doubt about it. That is a scientific fact. But it is still being debated whether a fertilized egg has all the rights of a fully developed human being. You talk about a zygote's right to life. I talk about a woman's right to life. Senator Obama is intelligent enough to know that what he says is not going to be accepted as evidence of anything with regard to when life begins. He does not presume to be God. Whereas many of you do make that presumption for yourselves.

[gadgetlady 4]

But it is still being debated whether a fertilized egg has all the rights of a fully developed human being.

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?

I talk about a woman's right to life.

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).

Edited August 27, 2008 by gadgetlady

[FuelMan 2]

White Girls, Please................ Let's not fight about the after affects of the real problem. Lets look at the solution, what is it going to take for us to enlighten our young lady's of this country ?????? We need to not fight among our self's, we need to ban together and fight the real problem of this "Thing". As I see it and I call it is the disrespect of our women, treating them as "Meat", "Sex Things", this behavior has to stop if we want to make our young women more independent, and self reliant. Stop fighting about what is a baby a baby, when is it suppose to be human, that's not the issue. The powers that be would like to keep us fighting about that instead of coming up with a solution, keeping us fighting about the little shit and keeping our focus off the real problem. We need to unite against the "Madison Ave's", The Film Indus'", The TV vision of Woman. If I was from another plant, and I was watching TV & Movies, I would think all people in the US are buiteful, white, blond, and have large breasts. Just watch any show and see what you come up with.

OK I'll get off the soap box, sorry, I can really go on about this. It just really piss's me off.

Butch

Om Sai Rama