What do you think of this view of Obama's?

Question

Stop Obama on... Abortion

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. In short, Obama is ok with abortions of all kinds. And, in the event a baby survives an abortion, he is cool with letting the baby sit in a room by itself while it dies.

http://www.stop-obama.us/

Answer 1

That's a lie. The bill was similar to another bill already passed. This bill did not protect roe v wade.

Answer 2

That bill defined a fetus as being a living person and could have been used to ban all abortions. A cynical ploy by so-called "right to lifers" who insisted on that wording.  

Answer 3

It show the real obama, an evil murderer that prays to a ghetto god.

Answer 4

and what if he is pro-choice?  Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to have an abortion?  I don't think so.

Meanwhile, the "pro-life" administration started an unnecessary war in which over 3000 American soldiers died, as did thousands of Iraqis.  And millions of people are in poverty in the US and can't life life abundantly.  Others die for lack of health coverage.   That's "pro-life" for you.

I support the Sojourners option:  legal, safe and rare.  (See Jim Wallis, God's Politics, for a third option in addressing abortion).

Answer 5

And believe it or not his supporters will either tell you it's not true- or that there was already a law protecting these babies- or they just don't care.  I have asked this question before.  Good luck!

Answer 6

I think Obama should be honest and take the benefits/liabilities his position garners him.^

Edit - "Dis-Information Police" - The bill is -identical- to the Federal bill Obama said he "would have supported".

"Mr. Obama, while chairman of a Senate committee, in 2003, voted against a "Born Alive" bill that contained nearly identical language to the federal bill that passed unanimously, including the provision limiting its scope."

Answer 7

He's pro choice ..

Have you ever been put in a situation that you couldn't handle .. ?

Well wouldn't you rather have the CHOICE to chose, rather than just being completely one sided ?

& I think we all know about his veiws on abortion, no need to inform us of what we already know ..

Answer 8

'in the event a baby survives an abortion, he is cool with letting the baby sit in a room by itself while it dies.'

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 pretty 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)  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 (though I give a link below contradicting this).  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.

Furthermore, McCain is hardly one-sided on this matter.  McCain's saying to great applause at Saddleback that life begins at conception (actually it begins before conception; sperm and egg cells are respiring cells) of course doesn't reconcile with his support of embryonic stem cell research.  When he reminded the church audience of his position, he was met with -- crickets.

But back to the exceptions: note also that prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape, incest, of even the endangerment of the life of the moth

Answer 9

I think if you liked Stalins veiws you'll love Obama!

Answer 10

I think is not my view