obama supports infantacide

[xort]

This must have been lost amid other stuff so I am reposting it here.

In the Illinois senate while obama was there, a bill called "The Born Alive Act" was brought up.
The background is that during late term abortions, sometimes the baby 'accidently' is born before it's skull can be cut open and it's brains sucked out. The Illinois senate was considering a law that requires that baby to be treated as now alive and no longer subject to an abortion. NARAL, the most strident pro-abortion group supports this legislation along with pro-abortion types like barb boxer & diane fienstein. But obama voted against it. The dems consulted with him and made modifications to the law to molify his concerns but he still got it defeated, same a second time and a third time. After he moved on to the US senate, the bill was passed.
What obama wanted to be done with these babies was to put them in a box, put the box on a shelf and let the baby starve to death.

What kind of man would consider doing that to a live, healthy baby?
We have hundreds of thousands of people looking to adopt healthy babies in this country. That baby would get adopted in a minute and be well taken care of. Instead obama wants it to starve to death. He voted 'present' 130 times in the Illinois senate, refusing to take a stand. But he voted against this Born Alive act 3 times, against the wishes of the most strident pro-abortion advocates.

What a guy

[BlueWaterMD]

To precede this, I do NOT support Obama.

While the born alive act seems to make a lot of sense, it has some flaws. The main problem is that most people assume these are healthy babies, when often they are not. Unfortunately, through my work I have wittnessed the outcome of babies born severely premature, as much as 17 weeks early. These babies go on to develop many medical problems, most often involving their lungs and intestines, the later often having to be removed. Many of these babies live out their days in an intensive care setting, and and of the ones who make it out of the hospital, few if any go on to live normal lives.

In the US, we resussitate babies, that in any other county would otherwise not be ressusitated, only to prolong the inevitable. And it is my belief that the the babis that are going to be covered under this act fall into this category. The average gestational age is 40 weeks (about 9 months). No one is having abortions at that time when you would actually expect to see a healthy baby. These late term abortions are occuring halfway through the pregnancy, just when the baby is deemed "viable" but still far from a healthy fully developed baby. Now compound those problems by other injuries that may have occurred during the abortion attempt and you end up with a very complicated and sad case. Are we saving a life, or just prolonging pain and suffering?

I really don't know what the solution to all of this is, and I am not here to support either side of the abortion debate. I just wanted to express my opinion of the flaws I see in this law, and clarify misconceptions of the babies it applies to.

[xort]

The proposed solution was to have a second opinion. This second opinion comes from a pediatrician. The pediatrician makes a determination as to whether the baby is viable or not. obama wants the abortion doctor to make that decision. he said getting a second opinion puts too much burden on the hospital. we often get second opinions for many routine situations. obama wants to deny this for born alive babies no matter the situation. what do you think the abortion doctor is going to decide? why did NARAL support this act along with all the major pro-abortion players?
you have to draw the line somewhere and obama wouldn't even draw the line there.
the campaign for the born alive act was started by a nurse who did see perfectly viable babies shelved to die.

dr mengele would love this guy

[BlueWaterMD]

I agree that it is very situational. A baby born alive with any reasonable chance of survival should absolutely be treated. I also like the idea of a pediatrician making that decision.

[PBzeer]

To be fair, it's not that Obama particularly supports infanticide as it is, he supports Roe v Wade above all else. If that means voting against the Born Alive bill, then, as he said, that is what he will do.

[tommays]

Well

With a nephew that made 5 days and a niece that made 18 months and a SUNY hospital that trys to push the limit of what is viable it is pretty twisted


My brother and wife both lived through childhood heart defects with a bit of brain injury thrown in from the things that were tryed 50 years ago


And that is the twisted part that nobody deals with, BOTH of them are living good lives BUT they should NOT be having children as both children did have serious fatal birth defects (heart)

So the cycle started over again matthew who made 5 days never had a chance

I thank god that nature did what was best and ended his suffering as there was nothing they were not prepared to do

Then comes Shannon a few years later a bit bigger and healther but a blue baby who had to get big enough for heart surgey which was put off to 18 months .

It was numbing as she did not make it


The above while not a everyday thing is not that rare


Then there is the teaching hospital which pretty much trys fulll time to see how low of a birth weight they can get to live 20oz,16oz ,12oz

I wish i was a better bloger but the things i have seen done are beyond my abilty to write well

[xort]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

To be fair, it's not that Obama particularly supports infanticide as it is, he supports Roe v Wade above all else. If that means voting against the Born Alive bill, then, as he said, that is what he will do.

for sure obama does not support killing all babies. but to have such a strident opposition to the Born Alive act puts him in the category of supporting the killing of viable, living babies. call it what you want but it is vulgar, despicable, inhumane and cold. just what we need in the leader of the free world.

[xort]

Originally Posted by tommays

Well

With a nephew that made 5 days and a niece that made 18 months and a SUNY hospital that trys to push the limit of what is viable it is pretty twisted


My brother and wife both lived through childhood heart defects with a bit of brain injury thrown in from the things that were tryed 50 years ago


And that is the twisted part that nobody deals with, BOTH of them are living good lives BUT they should NOT be having children as both children did have serious fatal birth defects (heart)

So the cycle started over again matthew who made 5 days never had a chance

I thank god that nature did what was best and ended his suffering as there was nothing they were not prepared to do

Then comes Shannon a few years later a bit bigger and healther but a blue baby who had to get big enough for heart surgey which was put off to 18 months .

It was numbing as she did not make it


The above while not a everyday thing is not that rare


Then there is the teaching hospital which pretty much trys fulll time to see how low of a birth weight they can get to live 20oz,16oz ,12oz

I wish i was a better bloger but the things i have seen done are beyond my abilty to write well

Tom

Difficult times for your family for sure. you have my sympathies.

but I'm not sure of your point, you gave some very strong examples of the complexity of birth but made no conclusions relative to this thread.

[tommays]

I suck at writing

The point is i am all for doing everything for a child that has a fair chance of becoming healthy even a handicapped child

BUT were does everything END ,The problem is it does not and makes the open heart opp my brother had 50 years ago at 9 months old look tame

The second problem is what do you do with a person you keep alive that will pass on the defect they were saved from

The reality is you pretend it is not a problem

[PBzeer]

tommy, this isn't about babies born with defects. It's about babies who survive late term abortions.