Who is ready to stop someone like Barack Obama who won't protect babies born alive? ?

Question

http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/16/more_on_obama_and_babies_born_alive

http://www.registersetgo.com/bobama.html

Answer 1

  To funny but I guess you know that you posted blogs by paid republicans.  I could post ones about Mccain just like that.  A bunch of lies.  So I guess you rather post a lie then tell the truth.  

Answer 2

so u cant use the in experience card now, ...this is what u got?

Answer 3

Sarah Barracuda!

Answer 4

Governor Palin of Alaska.

Answer 5

It saddens me that people would vote on one issue - abortion - and ignore everything else. My boss voted Bush into office because he was the candidate against a woman's right to choose.

How many abortions did Bush stop? None.

How many American soldiers died in his Oil War?  

Answer 6

I just don't have a good feeling about Obama. I don't know why, I don't really have valid reasons because his proposals seem good.Maybe because I'm pro-life, but for what I know he hasn't been very openabout being pro-choice. I just trust McCain more.

Answer 7

Me!

http://www.prolifewitness.com/resources/...

Answer 8

Could you spell out a little why you provided these links?  The line of reasoning from the facts given in the article to the unlikely sounding conclusion that Obama won't protect babies born alive seems tenuous at best.

Considering additionally that such protection was already granted by federal law, which Obama pointed out, your conclusion 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 claim at all, making your claim a bit extraordinary.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you're providing is less than extraordinary.

As for the actual need of such legislation, never mind 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, if 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 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 both you and Mr. Jeffrey failed that test.  Didn't this story seem a little implausible to you at the start?

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

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 the STD rate among teens to climb to 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.