GostHacked Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 More amazing is Obama's support for abortion on a viable fetus. Clearly the fetus must be liquidated in the womb so there is no chance it is born and rescued. Only if the mother's health is at stake. Or did you miss all that? Shady You can keep repeating that mantra, but it doesn't make it true, or at the very least, true in the case of Christ Hospital. And Obama doesn't refer to it at all in his defense of his vote. It's the "burden" of having another physician actually have to care for the abortion surviving baby. Damn those burdens. Most of the doctors I have enountered in my life have empathy. Also when the decision is made to abort, you will have doctors doing it and not Obama or McCain. So, what you need to do is blame the doctors who actually carry out the so called sick practice. You can repeat the opposite as well. Does not make it any truer than what A.M. is saying. But to miss the post where she shows you the laws, pretty hard to go against that. These are the same posters/proponents who think Obama is a Muslim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 On one hand the disciples say Barry's vote was because there was a law in place (a law that says a viable fetus must have an attending physician...a law introduced because as in the words of the opening post The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. ....If only we knew why, in barry's own words why he voted in down http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3 What a burden..what a load.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Only if the mother's health is at stake. Or did you miss all that? See, that's the thing, I can't imagine why if the child is viable there needs to be a abortion...most mothers who want their children would have a caesarian....unless of course, having a living baby is a burden....which according to Barry it is... http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 See, that's the thing, I can't imagine why if the child is viable there needs to be a abortion...most mothers who want their children would have a caesarian....unless of course, having a living baby is a burden....which according to Barry it is...http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3 My sister had an abortion at 14. 20 years later, it still bothers her. Her health was not at stake. My parents made the decision to abort. Doing that saved her life (in many other aspects) or it would have ripped our family apart. It was not an easy or a light decision. But it was made. At 14, she was not mentaly in the right spot to take care of a child. It is a full time job to take care of children. Once you have them, you are in it for the long run. There are so many children out there that did not have a good go from the start because of something similar to my sister's case. There is much more to consider when you want to make the choice. His name is Barack. People call him Barry because they I listened to that MP3 link a few times. You guys need to listen more carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 More amazing is Obama's support for abortion on a viable fetus. Clearly the fetus must be liquidated in the womb so there is no chance it is born and rescued.Only if the mother's health is at stake. Or did you miss all that? Clearly some people repeatedly "miss" what doesn't fit in with their agenda. Another example would be the sound bite that keeps getting re-posted. It's only part of what Obama said; not surprisingly, a very selective part. When he says he feels that 'doctors would be under that obligation' and 'that they would already be making this determination,' he's saying that the attending physician would be under the obligation to do all that can be done to save the baby, that they would already have made that determination; that they don't need an additional doctor to do what they would already be doing. That's the part of his speech that preceded what's being said in the sound bite being posted. And as has already been pointed out, to do less, to not try to save the baby, would be committing a felony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 See, that's the thing, I can't imagine why if the child is viable there needs to be a abortion...most mothers who want their children would have a caesarian....unless of course, having a living baby is a burden....which according to Barry it is...http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3 The burden is on the desicion to abort. So .. could the woman sue the doctor for not peforming the job properly? The burden is on everyone to make sure the child gets what she/he needs after the failed procedure. What burdens happen there? If you look at the results compared to desired results, you will run into this. Well see that is the thing here, ain't it. IF you want an abortion it is because you do not want the baby. Women who want abortions do not go through with a Cesarian so the unborn can live. These abortions go into the 2nd trimester. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in the US and Canada If the child is viable, the doctors will first try to get her to give the child up for adoption when born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion Late-term abortions are abortions which are performed during a later stage of pregnancy. Late-term abortion is more controversial than abortion in general because the fetus is more developed and may even be viable. Abortion rates in the later trimesters drop drasticly compared to first trimesters. All because the chances of the baby surviving is greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortionAbortion rates in the later trimesters drop drasticly compared to first trimesters. All because the chances of the baby surviving is greater. Which makes Barry's opposition toi the law troubling to say the least. maybe it has soomthin to do with his parents abandoning him..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Which makes Barry's opposition toi the law troubling to say the least.maybe it has soomthin to do with his parents abandoning him..... And people say that intelligent debate is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.