Abortion's Death as a Wedge Issue in the West

Reader Comments
Back to article

orale ta cabron.

claudia marinez of CA 4:49PM February 27, 2009

orale ta cabron.

claudia marinez of CA 4:49PM February 27, 2009

If you think that because you can't afford the baby that you should kill the baby then DON'T have the sex! Killing a baby is not the way to deal with it. Asking someone who didn't do the screwing around to take care of YOUR baby is not the answer either. Get responsible! The baby is a person.

Prolife in GA of GA 2:39PM December 12, 2008

Whenever the issue of abortion is raised, it seems that nobody in America is prepared to address the root cause for pregnancy, which is sex between a man and a woman. There is never a meaningful discussion on how to address the issues of ensuring that unwanted pregnancy does not ensue from sexual concourse, and the idea of educating kids to the consequences of their actions is considered reprehensible, while the most outrageous teenage pregnancy statistics in the world are not.
Hmmmmmm.
Let's start by doing whatever it takes to reduce unwanted pregnancies, then see how many abortions we would have. We could then study vastly reduced number, and move towards a scenario where nobody ever needed to have an abortion, because people will know how to avoid unwanted pregnancies completely.
If we do this, then the abortion issue simply goes away.
Stop believing. Start investigating.

Richardhg of CA 10:20AM November 18, 2008

I too believe in a woman’s right to choose. I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have sex. I believe a woman has the right to choose to abstain from sex during the few days per month she can be made pregnant. I believe a women has the right to choose what type of birth control measures are taken by her and her partner. I believe a woman has the right to choose alternative sexual activities during which pregnancy is not an issue. But do I believe that a woman may choose to kill the unborn because she and her partner have acted irresponsibly and now the life she carries within her somehow interferes with her or her partner’s personal schedule and agenda? I do not. There is the 9 month and then adoption, “choice”.
Millions of women know that the life they carry in their wombs is sacred and that not wanting to kill the unborn does not somehow disenfranchise them from being women or even "feminists". Nor does it make them intolerant or radical.
Now, may I suggest a first step in this effort to reach common ground on the question of abortion? I would propose a 5 day "cooling off" period (kinda like there is when you buy a gun - Which, I might add, is also a Constitutional right...(similar to the Right to Privacy, which some judges believe, guarantees abortion rights). During this period the women should be required to attend 1 hour of counseling, during which she should be made to view her baby by ultrasound and watch a video of an actual abortion procedure in DETAIL FROM INSIDE THE WOMB. Again, in a way, like the required gun safety videos and classes required of some gun purchasers - Or like those traffic accident videos required in Driver Ed. and traffic school. After all, a human life is at stake - No just a gun purchase or driver’s license.
Ok, there a first step to the "Common Ground" of reducing abortions - A five day period of reflection (remember, we’re considering killing a human being) and a 1 hour ultrasound and video session. I can already hear the shrill, hysterical howling. Hard to face it, isn't it?
So what’s the problem? I thought liberals and feminists were all for “reproductive education” and “openness”.
You know, it’s easier to kill the “unseen”... We can deny what’s really happening. Hitler and Himmeler knew that. That’s why they didn’t just simply shoot Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Slav’s, mental incompetents, etc in the street. They were shipped to the country side for extermination in “special camps”... These victims needed to be invisible... German citizens needed that comfort of “plausible deniability” .
I say they should have made themselves turn their heads and look at the horrible truth- So should we.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:31PM November 17, 2008

MIA, "fertilized eggs' don't have heartbeats and brainwaves. Keep your head in the sand and out of science books; I suppose it makes your "choice" easier. Too bad you can't see and hear the babies as they are sucked out by a vacuum; perhaps than you will join the human race. I would rather gamble on the quality of life an unwanted baby might have THAN fall for a sure thing such as death (abortion). Where is your human compassion, Woman? How pathetic.

FLNonny of FL 12:52AM November 17, 2008

What a sad commentary on our society in 2008. Government does not allow us to kill our neighbors, but somehow it's ok to kill children. Babies are not rocks. They have DNA markers, heart beats within a few short weeks and brain waves by week 6.We are KILLING real live children, but becasue we can't see or hear them, we tell ourselves they are a "choice." How inhumane we are as a society. I am tired of us women thinking we are too weak to deal w/ the consequences of our actions. No CHILD should die because we are too selfish to choose either adoption or having and keeping the CHILD. Does any CHRISTIAN truly believe Jesus would support abortion? We all need to look in the mirror and decide why we feel it's OK to kill and why we accept our own immoral souls w/ regard to his KILLER ISSUE. Our society is going down the drain fast and we're too into oursleves to see our fall... GOD FORGIVE US ALL!

FLNonny of FL 12:49AM November 17, 2008

A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama's tenure.
The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, aka "Born Alive Infant Defined," which defined legal personhood to include born alive infants any time the words "person," "human being," "child," or "individual" was stated in IL law.
This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955.
Following are Obama's actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.
2001
Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001
Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001
2002
Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.
Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.
2003
Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)
Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)
Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2
For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.
But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.
The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
Breaking news: Obama campaign changes story, admits he misrepresented Born Alive vote
Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgFrom the New York Sun, dated August 18:
Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law....
Bearing in mind the Obama campaign now admits he voted as state senator against the very same legislation passed overwhelmingly on the federal level to stop infanticide, read again what he told CBN's David Brody only last night:
Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.
I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.
Thumbnail image for obama mad.jpg
That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in IL that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.
So for people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.
It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did "defies common sense and it defies imagination." In fact, it was heinous.
While the Obama campaign tonight finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that "I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported."

of 6:06PM November 15, 2008

The antiabortion movement is like a deadbeat dad--once the baby is born they want nothing to do with the mother and her child. I can tell you why women have abortions--they can't afford the hospital bill, they live in an area with poor schools, and day care is costly. The antiabortion movement is going to have to fork up child support if they want to see their dream of bringing every fertilized egg to maturity. That's the way it is.

Mia of 3:11PM November 15, 2008

If a baby is born into this world, I would want the mother to have affordable health insurance for herself and her baby. Let's tackle affordable health insurance, and the mother won't stress out how she is going to pay her medical bills and raise her child in a decent school. This is what the antiabortion movement completely lacks--compassion for the child after it is born.
They are all for big government when it comes to personal business, but once people start requiring help to raise this child, the antiabortion bolts like a deadbeat Dad.

Mia of WI 3:06PM November 15, 2008