Do we want a President who sees nothing wrong with leaving live babies out to die?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

...we're in debt to China and our hands are tied about speaking out about the forced abortions and other atrocious human rights violations there...

 

We can't put pressure on AT ALL because of that debt. The debtor is servant to the lender.

[Kelli in TN]

I am just thinking here that if the baby has the potential to survive the procedure, maybe the procedure should be made illegal? Maybe the fact that an actual live human baby is delivered just might be a sign that this procedure is morally wrong?

 

Kathleen, thank you. While I thought the video was overdone and over dramatic, I do think I needed someone to give me a nudge on this subject. This is the first time in my life that I have ever wavered and given consideration to voting for someone who did not value the lives of unborn babies.

 

It is a heavy decision and I need to think and pray carefully.

[Kathleen in VA]

It's the same 21 week gestation, though. Nothing changes as far as chances of surviving if it's induced or is spontaneous. If it's induced, of course it's less likely to have a parent introduce aggressive measures to keep it (artificially, IMO) alive. Isn't it then murder if the spontaneously lost fetus isn't intubated? How can it not be if the other is?

 

Both should be treated with all possible dignity, I think. But neither are, at least not 100% of the time.

 

It is very true that the chances of surviving are the same regardless of the situation. I am probably guilty of some muddled thinking along those lines. We recently had a baby born to a mom at my church - wish I could remember the exact week of gestation - but the doctors did not expect him to live and strongly recommended that he be left to die. The parents disagreed and the medical staff did everything in their power to save little Noah's life. This was a matter on our prayer chain for many days - perhaps weeks. Well, Noah survived and is a healthy baby. The staff called him their "miracle" baby. The parents brought him to church a couple of weeks ago and apart from being rather tiny, he looked wonderful and alert and happy. Again, I am not sure what I do if it were me. It is so easy to say I would want the baby intubated, but when it came down to brass tacks, especially if the baby were severely ill, I honestly don't know what I'd do.

 

In any case, you are right that they both ought to be treated with dignity at the very, very least.

[Johanna]

Absolutely NOT! Obama will have to stand before the creator one day and answer for his decisions. I will not support a man who has no regard for life.

[dragons in the flower bed]

It seems to me that once we rejected conception as the beginning of human life the line just became more and more fuzzy.

 

:iagree: I am aware that technically this is the slippery slope fallacy, but watching opinion and behavior change in the modern world, I'm starting to believe that a slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all.

[clarkacademy]

A heart beat can be heard when you or something else animal infant whatever is alive, A heart beat should be what signifies life. This procedure is horrible. These babies had a heart beat. In the case of the nurse who stated the baby was down syndrome my guess is why they chose to abort that is wrong. If you cannot say when life begins then the question is when do your rights begin?? If we are just going on this politician that politician etc. on the subject then what if their opinion is that mentaly retarded or autism if they think this is not life?? If you are pregnant and a drunk driver injures you to where your fetus dies if that baby was wanted then it's a life??? That makes no sense. You cannot charge the man who attacked a pregnant woman and killed the fetus yet allow women to decide to use this as birth control or choose birth. Every woman who has an abortion must face their maker it is not something I would ever do again my choice. I don't like it when this happens it is terrible to me, but this procedure is abominating in every nature. It is not a regualr abortion. Which to me is wrong anyway. If one chooses to abort I am sad I will pray but when you choose something like this to a baby who is half grown then you truly do not want to know what I think should be done to you. Life begins with a heartbeat and I am sorry but society is becoming morally bancrupt on this level. How can anyone justify sending young men to die and infants left to suffer. The men who made this nation did not have this in mind. I can't believe that they ever did. This world is fast becoming a sad state of affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. Well, I guess I am, by your definition, morally bankrupt. There is no way I could answer that question. I know a whole lot of very decent people who also cannot answer it. I know some who cannot, but prefer to err on the side of a taking no chances and say "conception." I know some who prefer to err on the side of the mother's choice. I know some who say, because they believe that the soul enters at birth, "birth."

 

So, perhaps we are all morally bankrupt. ??

[clarkacademy]

The Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing;but in our culture, we apply for a curse and reject blessings. Something is wrong with this picture." ~ Doug Phillips

[Sharon in SC]

I have nothing but the deepest sympathy with a mom who gives birth prematurely to a severely ill newborn. I honestly do not know what I would do in that case. I could suppose what I would do about it now and then, when faced with the actual challenge, go a completely different way. I, too, feel that is the mother's (parent's?) prerogative. There are no easy answers in cases like that. I very much agree that the baby's humanity should be recognized and every effort to make the baby comfortable should be attempted.

 

"Induced-birth abortion" is not the same thing, however. These are cases where the mother has chosen to deliberately end the life of the baby by being artificially induced to give birth prematurely and then allowing the live baby to die from neglect.

 

:iagree: "Apples and oranges"

[cin]

As a mom of a Chinese orphan, This turns my stomach. We are heading down a slippery slope and it is my earnest hope and prayer that someday we (America in General) is not trying to cover up something like this on the internet.

 

I seriously feel like I'm going to puke.

[Sharon in SC]

It's the same 21 week gestation, though. Nothing changes as far as chances of surviving if it's induced or is spontaneous.

 

But, see, in my mind at the heart of the issue is the fact that except the pregnancy was induced in the first place, there's nothing to say that *that* 21 week in gestation infant wouldn't have gone on to full term and good health.

[beansprouts]

But, see, in my mind at the heart of the issue is the fact that except the pregnancy was induced in the first place, there's nothing to say that *that* 21 week in gestation infant wouldn't have gone on to full term and good health.

 

:iagree:

 

I think the crime was in the induction.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

:iagree: I am aware that technically this is the slippery slope fallacy, but watching opinion and behavior change in the modern world, I'm starting to believe that a slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all.

 

As technology changes, we are pushed further and further back into what *can* be kept "alive" artificially on either end of the lifespan. The question that results is, is it life that *should* be kept alive artificially?

 

As to what constitutes the blob vs. the baby, some would say ensoulment at the time of birth.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But, see, in my mind at the heart of the issue is the fact that except the pregnancy was induced in the first place, there's nothing to say that *that* 21 week in gestation infant wouldn't have gone on to full term and good health.

 

I hear what you are saying. That is a different law, Sharon.

[genie]

A heart beat can be heard when you or something else animal infant whatever is alive, A heart beat should be what signifies life.

 

So you would support a law requiring every woman to register her baby for a social security card 21 days after conception? You would support women who miscarry at 9 weeks pregnant having to apply and file a death certificate? You would support somehow paying for all the additional employees that would be required to handle the vast paperwork this would entail? Should we then require investigations of all women who have a miscarriage to make sure they didn't do anything to cause the death of the baby?

 

These are the legal issues that come up with defining exactly when a baby has legal rights.

[Sharon in SC]

I hear what you are saying. That is a different law, Sharon.

 

Just to clarify, Pam, I was not attempting to speak to one law or another - I was specifically responding to your statement: "It's the same 21 week gestation, though. Nothing changes as far as chances of surviving if it's induced or is spontaneous." :001_smile:

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2006/(LH)BAIPA.pdf For those who are opposed to abortion at all this article is of no moment but for those who believe abortion may be permissable under some circumstances this is a must read article to understand that the legislation in question was uneeded and served only to further push the goal of blocking partial birth abortion procedures and ultimatelyall abortion procedures. Whether you fall on one side or the other or somewhere on the continium- cheap shots by distorting the language of a bill to fit political purposes and or pandering to a voting bloc with outright falsehoods is deplorable and actually undermines the issue in question. It is a crucial issue and deserves far better treatment than a clip and distort treatment complete with video clip level of discussion.

[kailuamom]

"The other things that are wrong" involve lots of innocent people suffering and dying. The suggestion that because I vote on more than one issue I don't take human suffering into account and I'm "selfish" is untrue and insulting.

 

Well said. There is a lot to look at in the coming months.

[cin]

Do I dare even post, that while these babies are dying in a dirty linen closet, there are families out there, PLENTY of them, who would gladly take and raise and love that baby? Oh yes. Many families have paid more than your first car for just such an opportunity. And many families are going halfway around the world to do just that.

[TexasRachel]

Why is this such a bad answer?

 

Because of his hoped-to-be pay grade. TBH, it sounds rather flippant for someone who wants to be the person who heads our country. If he is to be President than he needs to be firm on his positions. Yes, there are lots of actual implications of the right to life beyond abortions, but a President-hopeful needs to get his own stand on life out there.

[Colleen]

I think that it was incredibly herioc for you to post that on this board.

 

What was heroic about it?

 

Many people get so involved in issues that are, in light of baby murder, just plain selfish. Sure there are other issues the economy, loved ones going off to fight in wars, etc.

 

What about wars that result in baby murder? Where on your spectrum does that fall?

 

But until something is done about gruesome acts against innocent babies, we cannot move on to fix the other things that are wrong.

 

Why not?

[kailuamom]

Do I dare even post, that while these babies are dying in a dirty linen closet, there are families out there, PLENTY of them, who would gladly take and raise and love that baby? Oh yes. Many families have paid more than your first car for just such an opportunity. And many families are going halfway around the world to do just that.

 

Don't take this the wrong way -- I DO NOT think any baby, regardless of health, gestation age, whatever, should be but in a dirty linen closet. And I am not commenting on the procedure that put them in such a position. They should be treated with dignity and grace. But, that said, I don't believe the video was talking about babies that are well enough/old enough to be put up for adoption. I believe the nurse said most live only a few minutes. I think even that baby should be held and shown care. But, my earlier point was that the video uses propaganda and strong images (full term baby being left in a room alone) to give the impression that is what you mention is actually happening.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Just to clarify, Pam, I was not attempting to speak to one law or another - I was specifically responding to your statement: "It's the same 21 week gestation, though. Nothing changes as far as chances of surviving if it's induced or is spontaneous." :001_smile:

 

I suspect if we were wielding foot axes together, I would be able to show you what I was saying, but I'm afraid I'm losing the battle for clarity here. :001_smile:

 

Yes, the child carried longer would no doubt have had a perfectly fine chance of survival -- well, we assume that. We didn't see the genetic tests. But the law to not allow the termination is not the same law as the one to protect a viable infant. It is not the same one that allows a mother and father to choose to withhold care from a very early preterm infant (such as the one in the video, though NOT the one that was pictured) or to withhold care from a medically-aborted infant *at the same gestational age*.

 

Trash can? Horrors. What this nurse witnessed? I wouldn't be able to handle it. But the law to abort and the law to withhold care are two different laws. I would hate to have a law that says I would have to aggressively try to save an abruptly-born 21 week infant of my own. I would be heartbroken. But I have to say that from where I sit right now, I would not choose such a road for my family or for my baby. (And I've faced that decision before, on a Mag Sulfate drip for weeks.)

 

Cautiously submitted, and I wouldn't bother writing and rewriting this over and over for just anybody, you understand. ;)

[bairnmama]

That wasn't the question. The question was when does a baby get the rights, by law, that are entitled to American citizens. This is a legal question that would have a huge impact on the execution of the Constitution in our country. I'm sure Obama has his own opinion of when life begins, but that was not the question that was asked.

 

 

I also believe it was not a good answer. By not stating when a baby's rights as a human and citizen of this country begin he's leaving open a whole realm of frightening possibilities. Right now the practice of abortion is legal, hotly contested, but legal. But if we refuse to declare with certainty when babies have rights of their own, that a mother's choices don't wholly supercede the rights of her children, how can we declare that killing a 3 day old or 2 week old infant after they leave the hospital murder? Regardless of when the child was born/aborted, an infant left on it's own without warmth and feeding will eventually die. Just to play devil's advocate I will put forth an example (absolutely not to say I actually believe this way but to make a point): Let's say a mother has a late miscarriage and could have legally let her child die but chooses to have the hospital try to save her child and they do. But then after the mother and child get home, the burden of being a mother to a small infant gets to be too much and she neglects the child until it dies - do we prosecute her for murder? Currently, yes. But because she could have chosen to let the child die "naturally" earlier (by neglecting it) why is it now illegal to choose to let the child die now that they are home from the hospital? Couldn't she just say that she changed her mind, that she is not ready to be a mother, that a child at this point in her life is an inconvienience that she is not willing to sacrifice for? Those are all arguments that are accepted as valid for having an abortion (even those late term abortions), why not for "letting" a very small infant die? Can't you see how with a very powerful attorney those arguments could be made and actually considered by a jury? That is why it is so important to be able to say exactly when a baby has rights of it's own, apart from the mother's choice!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Because of his hoped-to-be pay grade. TBH, it sounds rather flippant for someone who wants to be the person who heads our country. If he is to be President than he needs to be firm on his positions. Yes, there are lots of actual implications of the right to life beyond abortions, but a President-hopeful needs to get his own stand on life out there.

 

He's personally opposed to abortion. So, there's that.

[Colleen]

I had not heard this before my friend sent the link. I think carefully considering this video along with much researching is in order. No doubt, the makers of this video had a reason to produce and distribute it. If you google "obama infanticide" you will get many responses to this question (Whether or not Obama supports infanticide or not) on both sides of the issue. That is what I have been doing - researching, reading, etc. I'm not sure it is possible to get to the real answer - the nature of the political game is to leave you guessing on the most controversial issues. I'm just saying, if you haven't heard of this before, take it in into consideration.

 

I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I'm frankly surprised this is news to so many here, as the "Obama infanticide" issue hasn't been a secret. Like you, I believe we must do our best ~ not easy, I agree ~ to understand as much as we can about the candidates. Considering their past voting record is part of that process. Forming opinions based on propaganda distributed by "no hussein" fear-mongering is not.

[cin]

Don't take this the wrong way -- I DO NOT think any baby, regardless of health, gestation age, whatever, should be but in a dirty linen closet. And I am not commenting on the procedure that put them in such a position. They should be treated with dignity and grace. But, that said, I don't believe the video was talking about babies that are well enough/old enough to be put up for adoption. I believe the nurse said most live only a few minutes. I think even that baby should be held and shown care. But, my earlier point was that the video uses propaganda and strong images (full term baby being left in a room alone) to give the impression that is what you mention is actually happening.

 

 

Oh no, I understand, and agree. But if the mother carried the baby to term.

[8filltheheart]

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2006/(LH)BAIPA.pdf For those who are opposed to abortion at all this article is of no moment but for those who believe abortion may be permissable under some circumstances this is a must read article to understand that the legislation in question was uneeded and served only to further push the goal of blocking partial birth abortion procedures and ultimatelyall abortion procedures. Whether you fall on one side or the other or somewhere on the continium- cheap shots by distorting the language of a bill to fit political purposes and or pandering to a voting bloc with outright falsehoods is deplorable and actually undermines the issue in question. It is a crucial issue and deserves far better treatment than a clip and distort treatment complete with video clip level of discussion.

 

 

Obama claims that he rejected the bill b/c it did not have the same language as the federal bill which explicitly foreclosed any impact on abortion. However, this is not accurate.

 

In March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill....... "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.") was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

 

 

To read the 2 versions side by side, follow the link.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html

 

Regardless of your POV, this is fact.

[Just Me]

Do I dare even post, that while these babies are dying in a dirty linen closet, there are families out there, PLENTY of them, who would gladly take and raise and love that baby? Oh yes. Many families have paid more than your first car for just such an opportunity. And many families are going halfway around the world to do just that.

 

:iagree:

 

Thank you. As I sit here reading this, with tears stinging my eyes, my thoughts are not with Barrack Obama. Did he agree with this? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care at this moment. My thoughts are with the children dying alone in a cold, dark room. My dh and I would love to adopt children, but cannot afford the over-the-top fees at this point in our lives. What I am looking for is a candidate who would make adoption more reasonable for normal, working-class families. Gosh, my heart breaks...

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Obama is against late term abortion- unless the health of the mother is in danger.

 

This video is nothing but right wing propaganda IMHO.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2006/(LH)BAIPA.pdf It is a crucial issue and deserves far better treatment than a clip and distort treatment complete with video clip level of discussion.

 

"30 Here, one can imagine more cases occurring along the lines of Miller v. H.C.A., Inc., in which the Texas Supreme Court held that a health care provider may provide medical care to a child, even over a parent’s express refusal to consent to such treatment, where the care is necessary to prevent the immediate death of the child. Miller v. H.C.A., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758, 767 - 68 (Tex. 2003). In this case, the defendant hospital provided intensive life-sustaining care and treatment to an infant born emergently at 23 week’s gestation. The infant ultimately survived but, according to the court, was “legally blind, suffered from severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy, seizures, and spastic quadriparesis in her limbs. She could not be toilet-trained and required a shunt in her brain to drain fluids that accumulate there and needed care twenty-four hours a day. The evidence further demonstrated that her circumstances will not change.†Id. at 768. She still survives to this day."

 

 

Not that this is not a precious human being and deserving of care. Not that I don't know that many of our wonderful boardmates are caring for precious lives such as this. I take nothing from them and I know their beautiful ones are precious and unique and loved beyond measure. But this girl's parents did not want this for her. And they were, because of this court decision and now because of the wording of this law, FORCED to this point.

 

Do we really want laws that force this? FORCE it on parents who are in unimaginable circumstances already?

 

NO we don't leave them to gasp alone in a linen closet. NO we don't want a president who will "leave babies out to die."

 

But do we want someone who thinks through what these laws REALLY mean? Who knows that protections are already in place for infants born alive and VIABLE and refuses to play politics with precious lives and intimate choices? (And by choices, I'm talking about the choice to give extraordinary care with little hope of a quality of life to a spontaneously born infant -- not even talking about abortion laws here.) Maybe we do want a president who can think these things through, who graduated more than last quartile in his class for a change. Maybe THAT's who we want to be president.

 

I'm sorry if there are typos. Tears are in the way.

[8filltheheart]

That wasn't the question. The question was when does a baby get the rights, by law, that are entitled to American citizens. This is a legal question that would have a huge impact on the execution of the Constitution in our country. I'm sure Obama has his own opinion of when life begins, but that was not the question that was asked.

 

I believe I misunderstood your post initially. Are you saying that there is no way to legally define, not when life begins, but when human beings are considered alive with the expectation of rights?

 

That is a huge slippery slope. According to Peter Singer, “In my view, a newborn infant is not a person, whether they’re disabled or not. I think that there should be options for making life and death decisions for newborn infants, which do not exist for later beings who have become persons. In addition, there may be some people with severe cognitive disabilities who never become persons. In that case, the question about ending the life of someone with that kind of disability is like the question of ending the life of a newborn infant, I think different from ending the life of someone who is a person.”

 

Without defining when rights of protection under civil law begins, the above is one alternative.

 

In the state of Illinois, the babies delivered through pre-term induction are issued both birth and death certificates.

[dragons in the flower bed]

As technology changes, we are pushed further and further back into what *can* be kept "alive" artificially on either end of the lifespan. The question that results is, is it life that *should* be kept alive artificially?

 

Also, I think, in the past, it was harder for human life to continue onward and thrive, so every life was more precious from a practical standpoint. I hate living in a world where human life is so common it's no longer seen as precious.

[Jugglin'5]

He's personally opposed to abortion. So, there's that.

 

Okay, I'm really not trying to be snarky here, really, (I'm not sure how not to sound that way though, so please give me the benefit of the doubt here):

 

But isn't this a cop-out? To me this is just like saying, "I'm personally opposed to killing Jews (or Colombians or Minnesotans or whatever). But you guys just go right ahead because that's above my pay-grade."

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Okay' date=' I'm really not trying to be snarky here, really, (I'm not sure how not to sound that way though, so please give me the benefit of the doubt here):

 

But isn't this a cop-out? To me this is just like saying, "I'm personally opposed to killing Jews (or Colombians or Minnesotans or whatever). But you guys just go right ahead because that's above my pay-grade."[/quote']

 

No, it is being intelligent enough and treating the American people like they are intelligent by saying- I have personal beliefs, some of which are based on my religion. But I don't expect everyone's beliefs to be my beliefs. I am against abortion so I am going to do everything in my power to reduce the number of abortions through reaching out, helping and educating people.

[Sharon in SC]

I suspect if we were wielding foot axes together, I would be able to show you what I was saying, but I'm afraid I'm losing the battle for clarity here. :001_smile:

 

Yes, the child carried longer would no doubt have had a perfectly fine chance of survival -- well, we assume that. We didn't see the genetic tests. But the law to not allow the termination is not the same law as the one to protect a viable infant. It is not the same one that allows a mother and father to choose to withhold care from a very early preterm infant (such as the one in the video, though NOT the one that was pictured) or to withhold care from a medically-aborted infant *at the same gestational age*.

 

Trash can? Horrors. What this nurse witnessed? I wouldn't be able to handle it. But the law to abort and the law to withhold care are two different laws. I would hate to have a law that says I would have to aggressively try to save an abruptly-born 21 week infant of my own. I would be heartbroken. But I have to say that from where I sit right now, I would not choose such a road for my family or for my baby. (And I've faced that decision before, on a Mag Sulfate drip for weeks.)

 

Cautiously submitted, and I wouldn't bother writing and rewriting this over and over for just anybody, you understand. ;)

 

Pam, I appreciate your desire to work at clarity, especially in the name of "friendship". :) I certainly appreciate the fact that we have two different laws factoring in, here. I think it is that very thing that represents the crux of the matter for me. *Because* I happen to hold a Creationist worldview and also happen to believe that conception represents the point in time when basic human rights are due, then law #1 (which provides the right for purposeful termination of a viable pregnancy, or "mother's choice") is the very thing that necessitates the existing discussion regarding whether or not it is humane to withhold care from a purposefully aborted infant. One (law) is not exclusive of the other, really, when you think of it that way. Remember now, I'm speaking solely from my own personal point of view and opinion base - *If* the burden for dictating life (or death, as the case may be) were left up to the Creator (and not afforded to man), then there would be no need to discuss how to rightfully address the needs of a newborn who has just been resolutely thrust into this world horribly handicapped by gestational age alone.

 

Now, having said all that, I want to be very quick to say that I fully understand that this vantage point is richly dictated by my worldview and, therefore, I do not expect someone with a differing worldview to see it the same way as me.

 

In any case, like you, I choose (pun intended, :-) to invest the time and energy that I have into this discussion because I value my fellow discussor!

 

Take care, Pam! BTW, the liriope continue to *thrive*! :D

Sharon

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Okay' date=' I'm really not trying to be snarky here, really, (I'm not sure how not to sound that way though, so please give me the benefit of the doubt here):

 

But isn't this a cop-out? To me this is just like saying, "I'm personally opposed to killing Jews (or Colombians or Minnesotans or whatever). But you guys just go right ahead because that's above my pay-grade."[/quote']

 

The short answer (as opposed to what I just typed) is no.

 

I will leave this part of what I wrote, though.

---------------

No. Personally opposing abortion yet being adamant about (and taking major heat for) not voting for a bill that doesn't stipulate that a baby that will take the mother's life can't be legally aborted under ANY circumstances is not a cop-out. Personally opposing abortion yet realizing that this is a deeply personal decision and that no, not everyone believes like he does that life begins at conception is not a cop-out. Respecting that thinking, moral people come to different conclusions about this issue, and that not all the conclusions are simply for convenience is not a cop-out.

[Mom to Aly]

I knew this was coming because it has been written about for a while. This is complete nonsense, twisted and incorrectly shown by republicans under John McCain's payroll, and one of the nastiest and most devious plots to discredit a politician I have seen. If this doesn't show you John McCain's true colors, I don't know what will.

 

Please check this link.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html

[Jenny in Atl]

Also, I think, in the past, it was harder for human life to continue onward and thrive, so every life was more precious from a practical standpoint. I hate living in a world where human life is so common it's no longer seen as precious.

 

I'm not sure this is a product of a modern world. Life has been cheap in many places and cultures in the past as well as the present. In a few of the very poor places I have been, there is often a fatalistic view of life and death. Death is all around them and the comforts many of us take for granted are no where to be found (heath care, clean water, etc). I was in a hospital in Guatemala where there were a number of babies born with horrific birth defects. The parents had no way to care for these children, so they were often left. The local town hospital also had little money or support to care for the infants, and so many died slow agonizing deaths.

[Spy Car]

To suggest Barack Obama supports infanticide is the ugliest smear I've ever seen directed at a candidate for president in my lifetime. This is an ugly and appalling lie. I'm disgusted by this video.

 

Bill

[LizzyBee]

...putting the baby aside to die in the trash' date=' with no human comfort or dignity? Frankly, I cannot imagine the harm it does to the medical personnel who treat them this way. They must have to build up some extreme callouses on their humanity to not go crazy.[/quote']

 

My oldest sister worked as a labor and delivery nurse for more than 30 years in an inner city hospital that performs late term abortions. When she told me that some of the babies are born alive and left to die alone, well, it still makes me feel ill to think about it. The nurses are not allowed to hold them or give them any care (human or medical) whatsoever. Because some of these pregnancies were very late term, the babies survived for much more than a few minutes. If I were in that position, I don't know how I could walk away and do nothing; yet I don't know how I could hold a baby and let it die in my arms, either. It is a very sad situation.

 

ETA: I'm not sure how often this occurred during my sister's employment with that hospital. I don't want to give the impression that it was common, because I don't believe it was. But I think it's horrible that it happens at all.

[Kathleen in VA]

To suggest Barack Obama supports infanticide is the ugliest smear I've ever seen directed at a candidate for president in my lifetime. This is an ugly and appalling lie. I'm disgusted by this video.

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

You and I are friends in spite of our differences - at least I like to think so. I posted this video because it was news to me and I was shocked by it, but I am willing to concede that it is possibly a lie if you would please direct me to the source that refutes it. I've been clicking on links from my google search off and on all day and I cannot find anything that comes right out and refutes this. I have read people writing similar views as yours - but no *proof* that it is a lie. I was not trying to be inflammatory - just informative. I had never heard this about Obama before today - I guess I'm out of the loop. I am not the political activist type - honest - but this video just sickened me. With all due respect and in sincere desire to understand your viewpoint, how do you *know* that it is a lie?

[Mom to Aly]

To suggest Barack Obama supports infanticide is the ugliest smear I've ever seen directed at a candidate for president in my lifetime. This is an ugly and appalling lie. I'm disgusted by this video.

 

Bill

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

A voice of reason!!! Thank you, Bill!!!!!

 

And to all the rest who agreed!! I couldn't even read the commentaries after the first page--I was so upset by this disgustingly ridiculous video!

 

Also, the man who created this smear was forced to resign from the Republican National Party after it surfaced that he had had an affair with an 18 yo freshman at Fordham University, but McCain had no prob hiring him himself, to create disgusting stuff like this!!!

[swellmomma]

I feel so sick to my stomach from watching that. After fighting tooth and nail to keep my premature babies inside me for longer and then having the NICU work to keep them alive and healthy I can not imagine delivering a baby alive and then leaving it to die. IT is absolutely disgusting! If a the "mother" is willing to go through labour and delivery why not wait a few more weeks so give the baby a chance and then give it up for adoption. As a Canadian obviously I will not be voting and really don't follow american politics but this is such a monsterous thing to do to another human being especially a helpless baby.

[Mom to Aly]

Bill,

 

You and I are friends in spite of our differences - at least I like to think so. I posted this video because it was news to me and I was shocked by it, but I am willing to concede that it is possibly a lie if you would please direct me to the source that refutes it. I've been clicking on links from my google search off and on all day and I cannot find anything that comes right out and refutes this. I have read people writing similar views as yours - but no *proof* that it is a lie. I was not trying to be inflammatory - just informative. I had never heard this about Obama before today - I guess I'm out of the loop. I am not the political activist type - honest - but this video just sickened me. With all due respect and in sincere desire to understand your viewpoint, how do you *know* that it is a lie?

 

 

 

Kathleen, this is the link that refutes it! And I don't mean anything against you, I have no doubt at all that you completely believed it when you posted it. But please, if you read or see something so extreme, check it out first! I would not have posted anything like this about McCain without checking it out first. Something so extreme would not have escaped national headlines if it was true.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

You and I are friends in spite of our differences - at least I like to think so. I posted this video because it was news to me and I was shocked by it, but I am willing to concede that it is possibly a lie if you would please direct me to the source that refutes it. I've been clicking on links from my google search off and on all day and I cannot find anything that comes right out and refutes this. I have read people writing similar views as yours - but no *proof* that it is a lie. I was not trying to be inflammatory - just informative. I had never heard this about Obama before today - I guess I'm out of the loop. I am not the political activist type - honest - but this video just sickened me. With all due respect and in sincere desire to understand your viewpoint, how do you *know* that it is a lie?

 

Hey Kathleen, even from the short time I've known you I understand you have a good heart, and I understand that this video shocked you (as it would shock me if it were true) but I think you have been deceived by very ugly and dishonest propaganda of the most despicable nature, and that your loving and compassionate nature is being preyed upon by people who are twisting the truth in the most vile way to "win" an election by any means necessary.

 

We are friends. I like you and trust your goodness. I'd just ask you with an open heart to ponder whether you really believe what this video charges.

 

Bill

[Kelli in TN]

Kathleen, this is the link that refutes it! And I don't mean anything against you, I have no doubt at all that you completely believed it when you posted it. But please, if you read or see something so extreme, check it out first! I would not have posted anything like this about McCain without checking it out first. Something so extreme would not have escaped national headlines if it was true.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html

 

Okay, I read that. That's not good.

 

In my whole adult life I have never stepped outside the conservative, Republican box when casting my vote. Never. This one election year I want to really consider it because I am so very unhappy with the status quo.

 

But I can't figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, which media outlets are trustworthy. How can I know the Huffington Report is right? How can I know who is telling the truth? It's the hardest thing. I want to be true to my conscience, I want to see change in my country. I want to get this vote right.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

But I can't figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, which media outlets are trustworthy. How can I know the Huffington Report is right? How can I know who is telling the truth? It's the hardest thing. I want to be true to my conscience, I want to see change in my country. I want to get this vote right.

 

 

There are lies and spin being put out on ALL sides. No matter what side of the issues each of us are on, I think exploring both sides is always a good way to find the truth.

 

Here are some sites which might help also

 

http://www.factcheck.org/

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

[percytruffle]

Just when you think you've plumbed the depths of human depravity. I think I'm going to be sick. Thank you for sharing this. Although it is hard to read, it is harder still to turn the other way and believe that things like this don't really happen.

 

Blessings to your sister for holding up in that type of environment.

[Mrs Mungo]

Okay, here goes. I don't normally get into these discussions. I wish we had the mentality in this country, that when we disagree strongly on issues we should find middle ground. To me, this was an issue that Obama could have come to the middle on, but wouldn't. He wouldn't on partial birth abortion, either. I think pro-choice people are scared if they give us an "inch", we'll take a "mile". But if they are so right and it's what the majority of this country wants, then why are they so scared it will happen?

 

Because the extreme right is already taking that mile.

 

For example, Bush recently passed a measure that states companies *cannot refuse* to hire pharmacists who refuse to distribute birth control based on their religious beliefs. Many people on the right believe Plan B is an "abortion pill." It's those things that keep me pro-choice.

 

What the majority wants should never have a bearing on what *rights* we retain. To believe that it should is a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution.

 

I'm also going to have to agree with Pam that keeping micro-preemies alive just because we *can* is not always the right thing to do.

 

I have to agree the OP is nothing but propoganda created by the extreme right. I do find it disgusting but clearly not for the same reason as many of you.

[Sharon in SC]

Okay, I read that. That's not good.

 

In my whole adult life I have never stepped outside the conservative, Republican box when casting my vote. Never. This one election year I want to really consider it because I am so very unhappy with the status quo.

 

But I can't figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, which media outlets are trustworthy. How can I know the Huffington Report is right? How can I know who is telling the truth? It's the hardest thing. I want to be true to my conscience, I want to see change in my country. I want to get this vote right.

 

Kelli, you touch on something here that triggered a thought in my mind. As I see it we have two issues - the integrity of the news media and those about whom they report and, separate from that, the candidates themselves and how closely aligned they are, or are not, from our individual worldview. I personally believe that we really can derive a good sense of how we should vote come election day despite the lack of creditworthiness we may perceive in news being reported. (Though I use the term "good sense" loosely this election year because, like so many others, there's not one person in whom I feel I can place complete and utter trust. Very sad but that's for another commentary!).

 

For instance, for me, I know that wherever the truth may lie regarding Obama and his stance on infanticide, it's really, where the rubber meets the road, irrelevant because I've decided he's too closely aligned with "pro choice" (among other things) for me to be comfortable casting my vote his way. (Of course, this is strictly speaking from my own personal worldview and this post is not intended in any way to impose my beliefs, undesired, upon another!) I just wanted to, using myself as an example, depict how, despite the craziness of reporting measures today's society resorts to, I think we really can still make sound decisions.