How many feminist are upset about this?

Question

SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A 6-year-old girl playing hide-and-seek with her grandmother found a newborn baby girl abandoned in a vacant lot next to her home..

Police estimated the child was born an hour or two before she was discovered. The baby girl was taken to the hospital with a fever but was expected to recover.

Are you upset the baby will live? I remember when the pro-choicers used to agree an infant born alive has the right to live. Now many pro-abortionist say, even when a baby is born alive, they still have the right to abort the child. Example, Obama supporting infanticide, and the pro-abortionist applauding the effort.

What time frame after birth is it still acceptable to you to abort an infant that has left the mothers womb?. 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_re_us/baby_found

Answer 1

Well have you heard the saying "Life begins at forty?" So maybe you should be able to abort until then.

Answer 2

I'd rather a person have an abortion than leaving it out in the gutter.   That law they speak of in the article is the one that should be questioned and outlawed.

Answer 3

What are talking about? WHAT "pro-abortionists" say that a baby born alive can still be aborted? Please provide some evidence for this highly inflammatory statement. I can't see how this is true, and will assume it's not true, unless you can back it up.

And for the record, I'm hugely relieved the baby is going to make it.  

Answer 4

oh wow.  I would have to side with religon on this one.  the baby should live after it's left the womb.  I don't see why the mother didn't decide to put it up for abortion, but then again there are porbably a lot or reason going on about finace and things.  darn, aren't these one of the hardest things to figure out.

Answer 5

I think the line that needs to be drawn is when is homicide actually homicide? Infanticide is just a type of homicide as is murder

I personally think that taking the life of any genetic human entity is homocide.

Human cells don't fall under this category because they were not entities in of themselves they were part of an entity. Embryo is an entity unless someone can show scientifically that it having different genetic material doesn't mean it cannot be a literal part of the entity that is the mother. I don't think it logically can but I'm willing to hear thoughts.

Answer 6

I do realize that not everyone is able to analyze the information they happen to hear on a street. In fact, it must hurt a lot to be twisting around the words you did not fully understand to begin with... However, in your unnecessary rage you completely missed the point: someone had a baby and threw him / her away. Could that be done by an intelligent mother, someone who wanted that baby more than anything in this world? NO. That is why blame should be placed directly on the shoulders of a people who are not intelligent, educated, responsible adults ( like pro-choce people ), but your kind ( stupid, uninformed and irresponsible ). And FYI, abortion is permitted only in the first trimester of a pregnancy, which means first 3 months. So, how do you suppose anyone can abort a child, when she or he was already delivered into this world? Please, do use your brain occasionally at least, because your ignorance and inability to express yourself are painful to read for he rest of us.

Answer 7

Obama is not pro-infanticide. Stop trolling.  

Answer 8

"Now many pro-abortionist say, even when a baby is born alive, they still have the right to abort the child",

This is anatomically impossible.

Answer 9

I don't know about the baby, but I do know I wish your mother had aborted you.

Answer 10

No-one advocates the deaths of children who are already born. Your 'facts' are not facts.

Partial birth abortions are not full-term births and it is not infanticide.

Answer 11

Are people still saying that Obama supports infanticide? He CLEARLY stated that the law he opposed was unnecessary because infanticide was already illegal in Illinois, and didn't need any more legislation.

Answer 12

I think it's extremely douche-baggy to suggest that "Feminists" would be upset that the baby was born alive and is OK. That's nothing more than a straw man, and a highly insulting one, at that.

But I guess that was your sole intent here, right?  

Answer 13

'What time frame after birth is it still acceptable to you to abort an infant that has left the mothers womb?. 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks?'

Zero.  What you're describing is illegal by federal law.

'Now many pro-abortionist say, even when a baby is born alive, they still have the right to abort the child. Example, Obama supporting infanticide, and the pro-abortionist applauding the effort.'

Could you spell out a little bit how you arrived at that conclusion?  You don't give any reasoning or evidence to back it, and it sounds a little phony.

Considering that such protection is granted by federal law, including during the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, which Obama pointed out as part of his explanation of his voting record, your conclusion seems even more tenuous.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation itself seems phony (see more below) -- I mean, hospital-induced death to which the Ill. bill referred, not the type of desertion you're describing.  (The type you referenced even got its own Dragnet episode some 40 years ago -- QUITE illegal and established in the law.)  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 claim at all, making your claim increasingly extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you're providing is less than extraordinary.

As for the actual need of such legislation (setting aside 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 the journalist you link is 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 flunked it.  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 reposting it here.

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 combat the impulsiveness and short-sightedness that leads to so many abortions and an STD rate among teens of 25%, then OK, fine (although a link below says that's not true either).  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.

Furtherm

Answer 14

Of course that is tragic. Anyone would be upset about it. Not least because we're talking about a fully formed child who was fit to be outside the womb long enough to suffer for hours. Call me a utilitarian if you want. Naturally I'm very happy that the child will live and I hope they find her a wonderful home.

Obama voted to uphold a woman's right to choose. Nothing more. That someone else might s***w up an abortion does not change that right. It shouldn't.

By your standard, if someone was on trial for a serious crime and convicted with illegally obtained evidence that got through because the judge was lazy, well there goes your fair trial because someone else screwed up!