|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 9:52:42 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1934
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Obama lied (or at least was misleading) on the state senate floor by stating that this bill would not pass Constitutional muster by limiting a woman's ability to have an abortion.
The bill IN NO WAY states that.
The bill does, in fact, clearly define what a live born child is. The problem many democrats have with this, I believe, is that it attempts to more clearly define terms. When an infant is outside the womb, moving and breathing, it is now defined as a live child and not just a fetus.
How is this lying? He believed that this law would eventually be challenged and overturned, not because of what it says, but because of what it implies.
In essence, he was making the same case that pro-lifers make. What is the difference between a fetus that has traveled through the birth canal and one that hasn't? In my opinion, your opinion, and Sen Obama's perception of judicial opinion - there is none. According to Obama's statements, the legal precedent for limitations on the availability of abortions depends on the fetus' viability outside of the womb.
What is the difference between a "pre-viable" fetus still in the womb and one accidentally born moments later through a failed abortion? None.
If we assign rights to the just-born, pre-viable fetus, why shouldn't we assign rights to the not-yet-born, pre-viable fetus? When you and I answer this question, we say that the pre-viable fetus should enjoy those rights. However, Obama and the courts are working from the other direction - they're starting with the premise that a pre-viable fetus should not have those rights and that therefore, assigning those rights to an accidentally-born pre-viable fetus raises constitutional legal concerns for abortion.
Obama may be morally wrong on his abortion stance, but he was right to conclude that this law would likely be overturned by a court operating under the premise that a pre-viable fetus does not have rights.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 9:53:41 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
This is what the prior 2001 statute already claims.
You are just making criticisms of Obama's legal arguments in the 2003 bill, which is fine, but at the end of the proverbial day the screeching by Jill Stanek over this matter is not viable.
SB 1095 clearly defines what a live born child is.
The problem has been the age old question, "when does life begin"? In the world of abortion, the answer has never been clear and in recent years the question has actually extended outside of the womb. It hasn't been that long ago when such rigorous definition was not necessary but with lawyer and "Constitutional scholars" successfully confusing the issue a more rigorous definition was needed.
Regarding Jill Stanek, I still don't understand your criticism of her testimony.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 9:59:36 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Obama lied (or at least was misleading) on the state senate floor by stating that this bill would not pass Constitutional muster by limiting a woman's ability to have an abortion.
The bill IN NO WAY states that.
The bill does, in fact, clearly define what a live born child is. The problem many democrats have with this, I believe, is that it attempts to more clearly define terms. When an infant is outside the womb, moving and breathing, it is now defined as a live child and not just a fetus.
How is this lying? He believed that this law would eventually be challenged and overturned, not because of what it says, but because of what it implies.
In essence, he was making the same case that pro-lifers make. What is the difference between a fetus that has traveled through the birth canal and one that hasn't? In my opinion, your opinion, and Sen Obama's perception of judicial opinion - there is none. According to Obama's statements, the legal precedent for limitations on the availability of abortions depends on the fetus' viability outside of the womb.
What is the difference between a "pre-viable" fetus still in the womb and one accidentally born moments later through a failed abortion? None.
If we assign rights to the just-born, pre-viable fetus, why shouldn't we assign rights to the not-yet-born, pre-viable fetus? When you and I answer this question, we say that the pre-viable fetus should enjoy those rights. However, Obama and the courts are working from the other direction - they're starting with the premise that a pre-viable fetus should not have those rights and that therefore, assigning those rights to an accidentally-born pre-viable fetus raises constitutional legal concerns for abortion.
Obama may be morally wrong on his abortion stance, but he was right to conclude that this law would likely be overturned by a court operating under the premise that a pre-viable fetus does not have rights.
-Dan.
The term "pre-viable" is a subjective term based on the opinion of a doctor. The FACT that the child survived (even if just for a few hours) is objective evidence of viability.
Whether it is one person's opinion (Obama's) that the court would overturn the law should not preclude the legislature from doing what they perceive to be their responsibility regarding a new life.
The bill passed the senate, I assume it became law. Has it been overturned yet?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 10:21:46 AM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whether it is one person's opinion (Obama's) that the court would overturn the law should not preclude the legislature from doing what they perceive to be their responsibility regarding a new life.
So this amendment, in other words, is an academic honing of the legal language from the prior statute. It reflects no substantive change in the legal protections already established regarding a child born from botched abortions in Illinois.
quote:
The bill passed the senate, I assume it became law.
Not if the governor vetoed it. I'm not sure if that happened or not.
quote:
In essence, he was making the same case that pro-lifers make. What is the difference between a fetus that has traveled through the birth canal and one that hasn't? In my opinion, your opinion, and Sen Obama's perception of judicial opinion - there is none. According to Obama's statements, the legal precedent for limitations on the availability of abortions depends on the fetus' viability outside of the womb.
Yes, agreed.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 10:30:25 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
This is what the prior 2001 statute already claims; the language has been slightly modified, but the spirit is the same (i.e. the reference to "child" in both versions).
You are making criticisms of Obama's legal arguments in the 2003 bill, which is fine, but at the end of the proverbial day the screeching by Jill Stanek over this matter is not viable.
Three days they've been flogging this non-issue, and all they've got is an AGREEMENT that the rejected bill was redundant to existing law AND wouldn't pass Constitutional muster - ie, was 'bad' law.
i think this is a dead issue - if, indeed, it was ever alive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 10:43:54 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
Whether it is one person's opinion (Obama's) that the court would overturn the law should not preclude the legislature from doing what they perceive to be their responsibility regarding a new life.
So this amendment, in other words, is an academic honing of the legal language from the prior statute. It reflects no substantive change in the legal protections already established regarding a child born from botched abortions in Illinois.
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 10:58:46 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7828
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
I think the biggest thing at issue here is Obama's representation of what happened and the reasons for which he argued for the bill - The NRLC (National Right to Life Committee) has chronicled what it believes to be such misrepresentations and concludes:
How to make sense of all this? All of Obama's misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability -- so-called 'viability.' This is the same objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the point of the bill -- to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute.
Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002 state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any member of Congress of either party.
The Obama campaign and its apologists are now asserting that the state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill was part of a "package" of bills. This is an obvious attempt to change the subject and avoid prolonged scrutiny of Obama's record on the sole bill that has been the focus of the national debate, that being the bill that was copied from the federal bill. In 2001-2003, there were various bills in the Illinois Senate that dealt with the procedures to be followed during very late abortions, but those bills each had separate numbers, were each subject to separate amending processes, and were (of course) each voted on separately. The 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) could have been passed regardless of what happened to the various abortion bills -- and SB 1082 would have passed the Illinois Senate in 2003, if Chairman Obama had not killed it in his committee.
The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:06:43 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Identify the alleged 'loopholes'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:10:47 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Identify the alleged 'loopholes'.
I just did.
Read my statement that you quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:30:57 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Identify the alleged 'loopholes'.
I just did.
Read my statement that you quoted.
quote:
If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Unfortunately, your offered statement is false-to-fact, consisting merely of your INTERPRETATION of what the law read, rather than the clear language of the 2001 amendment itself:
You'll especially like:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/PDF/920SB1093sam001.pdf
> (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born
alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in
attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional
skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of
the child as would be required of a physician providing
immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of
a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.<
(Similar language is repeated several times throughout the 2001 amendment - the one you say doesn't necessarily provide for diligent medical care for a born-alive infant.)
Do you REALLY want to continue arguing from an obviously erroneous interpretation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:36:56 AM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So this amendment, in other words, is an academic honing of the legal language from the prior statute. It reflects no substantive change in the legal protections already established regarding a child born from botched abortions in Illinois.
This is done all the time by legislatures. They draft and pass a bill with some terms that may be vague, general, or have unforeseen consequences or as Dubya called them - loop-holes. So they have to go back and amend an existing law to better clarify the language and thereby close any existing loop-holes. There is nothing academic about it but rather it is sometimes necessary to help clarify the intent/spirit of the original law.
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:45:13 AM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
This is true.
However, my whole intent in creating this thread was to establish an understanding on existing IL law concerning abortion (specifically, on children born from botched ones), and how such situations are legally addressed.
Thanks to Dubya for doing his own homework, and providing the legal info regarding the 2003 measure, and how it's language relates to the 2001 statute.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 11:51:53 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Identify the alleged 'loopholes'.
I just did.
Read my statement that you quoted.
quote:
If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Unfortunately, your offered statement is false-to-fact, consisting merely of your INTERPRETATION of what the law read, rather than the clear language of the 2001 amendment itself:
You'll especially like:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/PDF/920SB1093sam001.pdf
> (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born
alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in
attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional
skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of
the child as would be required of a physician providing
immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of
a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.<
(Similar language is repeated several times throughout the 2001 amendment - the one you say doesn't necessarily provide for diligent medical care for a born-alive infant.)
Do you REALLY want to continue arguing from an obviously erroneous interpretation?
Instead of trying to be as offensive as possible you might want to calm down and actually read what has been posted.
I was referring to the OLD law when I spoke of loop-holes. LINK.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 12:03:53 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Of course at the end of all this Mr Obama doesn't have a problem with unborn children being murdered so what does it matter...
John
Thereby surrendering the subject of the thread and trying to divert attention away from that surrender.
Like the sad and futile attempts of Obama supporters to make the man something he's not in the face of the truth?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 12:05:10 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
This is true.
However, my whole intent in creating this thread was to establish an understanding on existing IL law concerning abortion (specifically, on children born from botched ones), and how such situations are legally addressed.
Thanks to Dubya for doing his own homework, and providing the legal info regarding the 2003 measure, and how it's language relates to the 2001 statute.
Does this speak to the intent of the vote itself by Mr. Obama?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 12:08:52 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
Not exactly.
The old Illinois law had rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Identify the alleged 'loopholes'.
I just did.
Read my statement that you quoted.
quote:
If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.
Unfortunately, your offered statement is false-to-fact, consisting merely of your INTERPRETATION of what the law read, rather than the clear language of the 2001 amendment itself:
You'll especially like:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/PDF/920SB1093sam001.pdf
> (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born
alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in
attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional
skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of
the child as would be required of a physician providing
immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of
a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.<
(Similar language is repeated several times throughout the 2001 amendment - the one you say doesn't necessarily provide for diligent medical care for a born-alive infant.)
Do you REALLY want to continue arguing from an obviously erroneous interpretation?
Instead of trying to be as offensive as possible you might want to calm down and actually read what has been posted.
I was referring to the OLD law when I spoke of loop-holes. LINK.
My link is TO the "old law".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 12:09:22 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
This is true.
However, my whole intent in creating this thread was to establish an understanding on existing IL law concerning abortion (specifically, on children born from botched ones), and how such situations are legally addressed.
Thanks to Dubya for doing his own homework, and providing the legal info regarding the 2003 measure, and how it's language relates to the 2001 statute.
Does this speak to the intent of the vote itself by Mr. Obama?
John
It certainly speaks about the smoke-screen attempted by the Obama campaign on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 5:02:17 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
The bill passed the senate, I assume it became law. Has it been overturned yet?
I think this became a moot point when the Federal version of the "Born Alive Act" was passed into law in 2002 - which raises another question of why this law was even an issue in Illinois in '03, as the Federal law would have superceded the state version.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 5:17:45 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
In light of all this, I would like to know the frequency of incidents where children are born via a botched abortion.
Say, over the past ten years or so from a neutral data source.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 5:21:39 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5392
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
This is true.
However, my whole intent in creating this thread was to establish an understanding on existing IL law concerning abortion (specifically, on children born from botched ones), and how such situations are legally addressed.
Thanks to Dubya for doing his own homework, and providing the legal info regarding the 2003 measure, and how it's language relates to the 2001 statute.
Does this speak to the intent of the vote itself by Mr. Obama?
John
It certainly speaks about the smoke-screen attempted by the Obama campaign on this issue.
I wonder if any of the Obama backers here can/will answer... They seem to be playing games as if Obama has some great regard for life and how dare one even suggest he's support such evil... Laughable...
Though I am sure I will get some wonderful secular argument to why it's not a big deal...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 5:55:28 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
In light of all this, I would like to know the frequency of incidents where children are born via a botched abortion.
Say, over the past ten years or so from a neutral data source.
It would be interesting to know, but really what difference would it make?
Even if it was only 1 case, what is wrong with tightening up the legal wording and definitions in the state legal codes? When language is left vague it seems like there are many who are quick to twist the words to give them whatever meaning they desire.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 6:39:04 PM
|
|
|
inthysite
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
The bill passed the senate, I assume it became law. Has it been overturned yet?
I think this became a moot point when the Federal version of the "Born Alive Act" was passed into law in 2002 - which raises another question of why this law was even an issue in Illinois in '03, as the Federal law would have superceded the state version.
Well I hate to say it but I'm afraid I have to (gulp!) I have to (ahem....) I feel I must ag... agr.... (cough) agree with you. Ouch!!!!!
Here is a fact-check on this
Fact Check on CNN and Bennet's Inaccurate Claim That IL ''Born Alive'' Legislation Obama Opposed Was the Same as Federal Legislation He Supported
There does appear to be one major difference between the two bills, which is why I think Illinois tried to pass one of their own;
Illinois' Bill:
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Federal Bill:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
Now I read somewhere that they tried to change the Illinois bill to match that of the federal bill but NObama blocked that. I can't find it now though and it makes me wonder the same thing that you have asked. If it was exactly the same then why the need for a separate law?
_____________________________
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer - Psalm 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 6:49:39 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Even if it was only 1 case, what is wrong with tightening up the legal wording and definitions in the state legal codes?
Because the way some pro-lifers tell it, one would think these procedures occurred all the time. And I somehow doubt that's the circumstance.
Further, if a child is born "alive" from a botched abortion, does that mean the mother automatically loses all parental rights, and the he/she becomes state property?
quote:
Illinois' Bill:
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Federal Bill:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."
Thanks. So this means that when Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter claim the language in the state and federal bills was the same, they're lying.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 6:51:29 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:
Even if it was only 1 case, what is wrong with tightening up the legal wording and definitions in the state legal codes?
Because the way some pro-lifers tell it, one would think these procedures occurred all the time. And I somehow doubt that's the circumstance.
Further, if a child is born "alive" from a botched abortion, does that mean the mother automatically loses all parental rights, and the he/she becomes state property?
Why should that necessarily be the case? I would hope that each situation would be examined on its individual merits.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's Vote on IL Born Alive Protection Act - 8/20/2008 6:56:39 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1571
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why should that necessarily be the case? I would hope that each situation would be examined on its individual merits.
How so?
If the mother came in for an abortion doesn't that imply that she wants her fetus terminated? Otherwise, defeats the purpose of going in for the abortion in the first place.
So shouldn't both her (and the father's) parental rights be automatically revoked?
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
