If you support Obama, by default do you support killing live born babies?

Question

If you support Obama, by default do you support killing live born babies?

Answer 1

i have been reading these stupid answers on here about killing live born babies if  A woman is pregnANT  FIRST OF ALL AND SHE FEELS AS IF SHE CANT  TAKE CARE OF CHILD SHE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WITH HER BODY WHAT EVER POSSIBLE IF SHE CHOOSES TO HAVE AN ABORTION ITS BETWEEN HER AND HER GOD NOT HER AND CONGRESS. THIS IS THE SAME GOVT WHO SAY TO MANY PPL IS ON WELFARE BUT DONT WANT WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS IF SHE'S NOT READY TO BE A MOM'.  A LOT OF THESE TALKS ARE CARRIED OUT BY STUPID **** MEN IN CONGRESS WHO WERE NEVER THERE FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT IS TO RAISE A CHILD WITH LITTLE OR NO MONEY I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THIS GOVT TRYIIN TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS SO I APPLAUD OBAMA FOR NOT BEING A FOLLOWER AND SAYING WHAT HE FEELS NOT WHAT IS FAVORABLE TO GET VOTES. AND BESIDES THIS NOT A IMMIGRATION QUESTION

Answer 2

Well from a religious point of view some religions says by knowingly allowing something to happen and not doing anything to stop it, you're just as guilty as the person sinning. So based on that standpoint, I would say yes.  

Answer 3

A. Yes

B. Immigration?  

Answer 4

No. supporting Obama does not mean I support killing live born babies.. does supporting McCain mean by default you support a ridiculous illegal war that is killing thousands of our military men, women and innocent civilians including children?

Answer 5

Bibically if you know something is wrong or that a fellow believer is doing something wrong and continue to stand with that person, then you are wrong as well!  Besides, if you fundamentally disagree with something somebody believes in or does, how can you support that person and still feel good about yourself?

Furthermore, how can the term partial birth abortion be misconstrued?  They deliver the baby's body, leave the head in and stab the base of the skull with a sharp object.  Then they suck the brain out disabling the brain so that the baby will not breath or survive!  How is this anything but a partial birth?  Obama claims he will not vote agains this to protect the mothers life.  If the mothers life is in danger, why not just deliver the baby via c-section?  If the baby can live then great!  The mothers life would no longer be in danger right?  This is the great lie!  They don't want the baby to stand a chance which is why they suck the brain out!

Answer 6

No doubt about it. Thats why my vote will go to the most moral man I know. That is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I cannot vote for evil, no matter what party it comes from. Vote the man, not the party. The results belong to God.  

Answer 7

What firstly is thsi doing in thsi section?Secondly, i don't  think you know what you're talking about? Who wants to destory their political campaign by killing live born babies?

If you mean abortion-you're wrong women have a right to choose its their bodies.

Answer 8

No.  If you support Obama's position, you support sane families.. affordable families.  If you support his position, you support fathers in the home with economical viable homes.

It is crummy to suggest we are killing live born babies... but that is wrong.  That is morally as bad as the partial abortions that actually do happen.

Answer 9

Not by default. By default you would think he is better then Mcain.

Answer 10

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.

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."

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?

Answer 11

lol partial birth abortion is not the same thing as "killing live born babies"

Actually, a lot of people think that the term "partial birth abortion" is misleading and a product of conservative rhetoric.

Answer 12

You are untruthful to your followers about the treatment of babies that survive abortion.

Shame on the Religious Right for forcing this awful bill on the American people. Obviously, no one has read the bill upon which this bill in ILL is modeled. The intent of the bill is wonderful, but the effects of the bill as written are terrible. No one should have voted for this bill. The intent was to avoid torture of babies that are born alive, but the effect is to force "overkill" of fetuses that "could" be born alive. Prior to this bill the intent of many doctors could have been to make as gentle an abortion as possible and when the abortion failed, to allow the fetus a peaceful death. The bill as written takes away the possibility of using a gentle abortion due to the fact that such an abortion could result in a live birth that would then result in a possible lawsuit for the doctor for failing in his abortion effort. As a result of this bill more aggressive means of abortion must be used to assure the fetus dies.

Many people such as myself believe the bill could have been written in a much more loving manner and could have allowed the gentle death of fetuses that would die no matter what is done to save them. We have forced our doctors to go from gentle methods to aggressive methods. The religious right should be ashamed of their actions in passing such a cruel bill.

Another problem with the bill is that if a woman has a miscarriage at home, and is not medically prepared to sustain the life of a miscarriage that is born alive, she can be convicted of murder. This will surely happen should a pro lifer suspect abortion when in fact a miscarriage occurred. Some women will likely be convicted of murder once there is a pro life supreme court.

This highly morally sounding bill is nothing more than a morsel set out to feed the religious right. It has nothing to do with compassion or common sense.

It should be noted that most people who read this will have never heard these arguments. And that is exactly the way the pro lifers want it to be. No truth, no honor and no justice is allowed in the abortion debate