Based Upon Obama's Voting Record, when Does Palin's Chance to do Something About the Downs Syndrome Birth End?

Question

Based Upon Obama's Voting Record, when Does Palin's Chance to do Something About the Downs Syndrome Birth End?

Answer 1

It can be terminated late term.  I come from a strong pro-choice family, and still have a family member born with extensive disability.  Just because we believe in choice, doesn't mean we believe in abortion.

Answer 2

Well, he has voted to allow babies to die after they're born.

So the messiah might sharpen the sword.

Thank goodness no one else voted on his side.

Answer 3

Ask the nanny raising her child with downs that question.

Answer 4

Obviously if Obama becomes President.  Obama will say that children with Down's Syndrome will be an undue 'punishment' on the parents and society in general and have them terminated before birth.  His administration will require all pregnant women to submit to a test for 'inferior children' and have them eliminated.  He'll be able to do this if his government-run healthcare plan is passed.

Answer 5

Based upoin Obama's record with the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, I'd say about the 25th trimester.

Answer 6

Could you spell out a little how you've come to ascribe such thinking to Obama?  There seems to be much smearing of Obama as being for killing of babies after they're born, but weak reasoning to back up the accusation.

Considering additionally that such protection is already granted by federal law, which Obama pointed out when he explained his votes, your implication seems even more tenuous.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation seems phony.  (see more below)  Are you sure this whole thing isn't a right-wing gullibility test for the rest of us?

As Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here:http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript... ) his being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion.  Obama wants to reduce the abortion rate, just like the rest of us.  He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother.

This doesn't really seem to jive with your insinuation at all, making it a bit extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're not even providing any evidence at all.

As for the actual need of such legislation (setting aside for a moment  that the baby-protection part was already redundant) the perception of a need was triggered by a nurse called Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would.  But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that it couldn't be true, in fact was not true.  The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.  Nevertheless, not too credible, huh?

Jill Staneck also says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China, to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

So why was the legislation put forth in the first place, given that the baby-protection part was redundant?  The act was designed as "wedge" legislation.  It was designed for just for the sort of attack that you are making.  When a bill-authoring group does this, they put in one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman's right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

Articles that spin such legislation as infanticide are little more than gullibility tests, and I'm afraid you failed the test.  Didn't this story seem a little implausible to you from the start?

Furthermore, this story has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so  you really don't have an excuse for posting this nonsense.

If you want to attack Obama for not making abortions illegal, then OK, fine.  If you want to scold him for not doing enough to reduce the impulsiveness that leads to so many abortions and an STD rate among teens of 25%, then OK, fine.  But passing on stuff that's just made up is a bit much.  Trying to keep others from breaking Commandment 6 doesn't give you permission to break Commandment 9.