Does Obama's inability to back a law that prohibits infanticide change anybodies opinion of the messiah?

Question

He (and his campaign admits this) shot down an Illinois law that would have prohibited an abortion doctor from killing a born infant if that infant showed signs of life after an abortion attempt. His reasoning at the time was that the addition of a doctor with the ability to help an infant would have put undo pressure on the mother. He, therefore, believes that if a child is born alive, a mother should still be able to kill it.

Does this change the views or voting stance of any Obamaphiles?

Answer 1

Alas... many are so in love with the prospect of having him in office, they will glaze right over it with statements like those above.

I think it is a valid point and it deserves some scrutiny.

I love the word 'obamaphiles' by the way... excellent play on words!

Answer 2

NOPE - still voting for Obama!

Answer 3

Do you KNOW when life begins? Or is it just your opinion. Because I'm sure MILLIONS of scientists would love to know. Abortions should be kept legal, safe, and as few as possible per year. That decision is between the woman and her doctor and if she's religious, between her and God. Judge not lest ye be judged.

VOTE OBAMA In '08!  

Answer 4

A woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy is not infanticide. I think you are creating a new definition of infant. If a pregnancy is aborted the fetus is not an infant yet. It's only an infant after it's birth. Let's call a spade a spade okay?

Answer 5

Read this if you are really interested in knowing the whole truth about this.  If you're just trying to stir things up, maybe others will read it.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche...

Answer 6

Obama said it himself.  It is above his pay grade.  So who is going to make the big decisions in the White House if he gets in?  That will definately be above his pay grade.

Answer 7

nope I still am not voting for him

Answer 8

Lie.

The bill would have overturned roe v wade measures, making women and doctors criminals. There was NO language in the bill that protected a woman if the abortion were needed for the medical health of the mother.

Answer 9

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents’ criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

It's been said that, if it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news.

You have to consider the source.

One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who 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."

Nurse Jill Stanek 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.  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.

Don't extremist conservatives think it might hurt their cause to put out stuff that's so easily debunked? or do they not think their audience would feel its intelligence is being insulted?