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

[percytruffle]

(((Pam))), you are so much more balanced while remaining empathetic in your thinking than any political canditate could ever be. Shame on all of them.

 

I nominate Pam for president. Anybody want to second that? We'll write you in. :D

[LizzyBee]

(((Pam))), you are so much more balanced while remaining empathetic in your thinking than any political canditate could ever be. Shame on all of them.

 

I nominate Pam for president. Anybody want to second that? We'll write you in. :D

 

 

I second it. Now we need bumper stickers that say Pam for President. :auto:

[percytruffle]

I second it. Now we need bumper stickers that say Pam for President. :auto:

 

 

Pam and Pedro 2008 :D

[Jugglin'5]

 

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 don't necessarily think it is the right thing to do either. I do think that it is the right thing to at least give the baby warmth, dignity, and something besides discarded trash and linen to die in.

 

Really though, for me, like other previous posters, this is a side show. Why is this baby being thrust out to die in the first place? Whether you want to legally allow them to be suctioned out from the inside, or die of exposure and neglect on the outside is all one to me.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

(((Pam))), you are so much more balanced while remaining empathetic in your thinking than any political canditate could ever be. Shame on all of them.

 

I nominate Pam for president. Anybody want to second that? We'll write you in. :D

 

You and LizzyBee are too, too funny. I'm not nearly photogenic enough to run in the US. Great Britain, maybe. The teeth, you know. :D And the skeletons rattling in my closet -- I went to BJU for two years, and association with them is a death-knell for any national campaign. And according to some, I may be bereft of morals. And really there's no place in politics for someone with moths where there morals should be.

 

I want "Mrs. Wiggins for President" t-shirts, in honor of Freddy the Politician by Walter Brooks (Freddy the Pig series).

 

Seriously, you're sweet. I'm in a funk today, what with the man-boy leaving for college this afternoon. And I'm not anywhere near tough enough to talk about politics or abortion on any given day. It takes way too much out of me. I HATE conflict. (My sword has never actually seen combat. Please don't tell.)

[Elaine]

I hate living in a world where human life is so common it's no longer seen as precious.

 

Very well said!

[elizabeth]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576'>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576 Food for thought -this legislation is about many things ...power, money , malpractice , control and sadly, last of all about those who would be affected by it-woman and child. Pandering for votes under the guise of morality is not new I am just amazed that it still works. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't necessarily think it is the right thing to do either. I do think that it is the right thing to at least give the baby warmth' date=' dignity, and something besides discarded trash and linen to die in.[/quote']

 

I haven't seen *anyone* who said they thought the baby should be thrown in the trash, so, I'm not sure with whom you're arguing that point.

[Jugglin'5]

I haven't seen *anyone* who said they thought the baby should be thrown in the trash, so, I'm not sure with whom you're arguing that point.

 

I understand, and of course I don't think anyone here personally wants to see that happen. But the question for me is: are the babies being discarded this way? And can something be done about it? Why is it tolerated? Did Obama vote against legislation that might prevent it? Why or why not?

 

It is a question for me. But like I said before, it is a side show to the real issue, and because of that there is no way I can vote for Obama. I know we disagree on this. Once again, I ask myself why did I get involved in this thread? It is not very productive. I don't think any of us get anywhere with it. Wrong medium, I guess.

[Colleen]

I've gotta agree with Jenny. Moral degradation and disregard for human life has been with us throughout the course of history. There is nothing new under the sun.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've gotta agree with Jenny. Moral degradation and disregard for human life has been with us throughout the course of history. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

I have to agree. I would think most people on this board would know something about history. Many, many, *many* cultures in the past left weak or deformed or unwanted babies to die from exposure.

 

eta: Even in many other countries *now* children are treated as property, not human beings. I think many here would be shocked and appalled at the some of the real-life accounts I've heard from people. And those are the sorts of things that the UN Rights of the Child is meant to help and prevent. And yet most here are against it.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I have to agree. I would think most people on this board would know something about history. Many, many, *many* cultures in the past left weak or deformed or unwanted babies to die from exposure.

 

eta: Even in many other countries *now* children are treated as property, not human beings. I think many here would be shocked and appalled at the some of the real-life accounts I've heard from people. And those are the sorts of things that the UN Rights of the Child is meant to help and prevent. And yet most here are against it.

 

My OB clinical instructor last spring was from Nigeria. She (a twin) told us that one generation before her in her village, twins were not both allowed to live. One was left in the wild to die. (The thinking was that a mother would not have enough milk for two babies, and you sacrificed the one to save the other.) Any deformed baby was similarly left to be eaten, or to die from exposure. She spoke of her pastor, who was left out to die because he was born with a club foot. (He was rescued by passersby after a small part of his face and one ear was eaten away by rats.)

[Jugglin'5]

I have to agree. I would think most people on this board would know something about history. Many, many, *many* cultures in the past left weak or deformed or unwanted babies to die from exposure.

 

eta: Even in many other countries *now* children are treated as property, not human beings. I think many here would be shocked and appalled at the some of the real-life accounts I've heard from people. And those are the sorts of things that the UN Rights of the Child is meant to help and prevent. And yet most here are against it.

 

Warning CC! (I 'm not warning you, Mrs. Mungo, I know you are Christian):)

 

I'm against the UN thingy because the UN is itself a problem. Rapist peacekeepers, no thank you. I just generally prefer not to have the UN involved with anything. I think they make things worse, not better, with a few exceptions (where it was so bad that it would be impossible to make it any worse).

 

As far as past cultures and infant exposure go - this is very true. And the early Christians made a reputation for themselves by rescuing exposed infants and raising them as their own. I'm hoping the US is not so far gone as the Roman Empire, though. But this is why I have gotten less rah-rah about politics over the years. The government isn't a Savior. There is only one of those and He is the only hope for those children and cultures, including ours.

[Kelli in TN]

Warning CC! (I 'm not warning you' date=' Mrs. Mungo, I know you are Christian):)

 

I'm against the UN thingy because the UN is itself a problem. Rapist peacekeepers, no thank you. I just generally prefer not to have the UN involved with anything. I think they make things worse, not better, with a few exceptions (where it was so bad that it would be impossible to make it any worse).

 

As far as past cultures and infant exposure go - this is very true. And the early Christians made a reputation for themselves by rescuing exposed infants and raising them as their own. I'm hoping the US is not so far gone as the Roman Empire, though. But this is why I have gotten less rah-rah about politics over the years. The government isn't a Savior. There is only one of those and He is the only hope for those children and cultures, including ours.[/quote']

 

 

Aw. You make me want to scoop up an armload of unwanted babies and raise them as my own.

 

I agree with you on the UN not always being the best answer to the horrific crimes that are committed against children.

[Mrs Mungo]

Warning CC! (I 'm not warning you' date=' Mrs. Mungo, I know you are Christian):)

 

I'm against the UN thingy because the UN is itself a problem. Rapist peacekeepers, no thank you. I just generally prefer not to have the UN involved with anything. I think they make things worse, not better, with a few exceptions (where it was so bad that it would be impossible to make it any worse).[/quote']

 

I can totally understand being against it. I think there are good reasons to be against it but people aren't saying you are morally bankrupt or enjoy the fact that children are forced into marriage at 10 or sold into sex slavery since you don't want the act passed. Not every well-intentioned law is a good law.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam and Pedro 2008 :D

 

 

Flippin' sweet!

 

Pedro Offers You His Protection

 

And -- wait for it -- don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[percytruffle]

Seriously, you're sweet. I'm in a funk today, what with the man-boy leaving for college this afternoon. And I'm not anywhere near tough enough to talk about politics or abortion on any given day. It takes way too much out of me. I HATE conflict. (My sword has never actually seen combat. Please don't tell.)

 

 

I hear ya. I'm in the same boat. My youngest went to the community college today. That's enough to scare the bejeebers out of anyone. I'm really that old?!

 

I also am right there with you with the whole conflict thing. Certain issues are worth fighting for, but boy do they ever take a toll.

 

Speak softly and carry a big "sword". It really is more of a deterrent. ;)

[percytruffle]

Flippin' sweet!

 

Pedro Offers You His Protection

 

And -- wait for it -- don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

 

:smilielol5:

[Jugglin'5]

Not every well-intentioned law is a good law.

Touche! Actually, my sometime guy Ron Paul has voted against many "good" laws because he thought those things should be left up to the states. And the proliferation of Federal law is truly worrisome to me. I know that Obama has said he was against the Partial Birth Bill because of state vs federal issues, plus the mother's health exception. That doesn't wash with me just because he hasn't exactly been a devoted states' rightist on other things. :glare: But again, I know we will disagree on that. C'est la vie.

[Jugglin'5]

Flippin' sweet!

 

Pedro Offers You His Protection

 

And -- wait for it -- don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Lafawnda? Is that you?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Lafawnda? Is that you?

 

I'm only sending you a head shot. So quit askin'. (ETA: My digital cam is broken, sugar. Don't be mad, ok?)

[Jugglin'5]

:D

I'm only sending you a head shot. So quit askin'.

[Jennifer3141]

I'm only sending you a head shot. So quit askin'. (ETA: My digital cam is broken, sugar. Don't be mad, ok?)

 

That is hystercial! Rep to you and I don't know what party you support. :D

 

Jen

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

That is hystercial! Rep to you and I don't know what party you support. :D

 

Jen

 

I'm so independent, my behind hurts from the fence pickets. (That's ok, right? :001_smile:)

[dragons in the flower bed]

I'm not sure this is a product of a modern world.

 

I suppose I was referring to a very small world within the larger one we all share.

[PameliaSue]

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.

:iagree:

[8filltheheart]

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

 

 

I posted this info in the other link, but in case others are not reading it, I will post it here as well.

 

It is patently false to accuse McCain and his campaign of spinning Obama as pro-infanticide and that this is their newest campaign tactic. These issues may be new to the mainstream press, but are not to prolife Catholics.

 

Alan Keyes stated these ideas when he ran against Obama for the senate in 2004. Keyes stated that Obama was for allowing infanticide earlier this yr in his 2008 presidential bid.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkT_W5l9-k&feature=related

 

Regardless of your POV on abortion or BAIPA, the allegations posted in your linked article stating that this originates with Hudson and McCain are false.

[Kathleen in VA]

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

 

Bill,

 

You are so dear. I really appreciate your understanding heart on this. I had to run to the library and grocery store just now so haven't had a chance to do any more research. We're running out the door in about 10 minutes to spend the evening out. As soon as I have some time I am going to do my best to get to the truth. Again, thank you for your kind response. I'd rep you but I'm all out for now. Catch ya' next time, ok?

[Kathleen in VA]

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.

 

This is where I am at present. Who do you believe? Aren't both sides guilty of sending out propaganda? I can't believe it is only the conservatives. How can anyone really know who is telling the truth and who is lying? This is all very frustrating.

[Elaine]

Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I was calling clarkacademy out on the fact that she said:

 

"If a president cannot state when life begins then I don't think he has a right to be our president. If you cannot answer that question all I can say is moral bancruptcy."

 

It seems she was talking to me directly because she said it very closely after this post which I wrote and someone else quoted in their response. (Top is the quote I included and red is my comment.)

 

 

 

Jenni,

I hear what you are saying, really I do.:001_smile: And I think that you and I are pretty much aligned in our viewpoints so please take this post with that in mind.;)

 

I really do not think that ClarkAcademy was maligning you, it seems more of an unfortuante posting order issue. She merely stayed her opinion, that she felt a person who could not answer that question should not be president. Now I can't speak for her, but I do agree with her. The whole abortion issue is a big one and, for me, I honestly have more respect for someone if they state their views outright, rather than fumbling for an "acceptable" answer.

 

Now again, for me, I don't care who thinks I am morally bankrupt. My views are my views and I don't apologize for them.

 

I am not throwing tomatoes at you, just trying to clarify a little.:001_smile:

[PameliaSue]

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.

 

Thank you for this info!!!

[SFP]

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.

 

 

I have my suspicions that Alexander Hamilton would have been pro-choice.

 

The misfortune end here.

[unsinkable]

Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I was calling clarkacademy out on the fact that she said:

 

"If a president cannot state when life begins then I don't think he has a right to be our president. If you cannot answer that question all I can say is moral bancruptcy."

 

It seems she was talking to me directly because she said it very closely after this post which I wrote and someone else quoted in their response. (Top is the quote I included and red is my comment.)

 

Originally Posted by momof7

Question: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

 

Obama’s answer:

 

Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

 

The question was not at what term in a pregnancy. FWIW, there are numerous sites with the Illinois Senate issue addressing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). This is not news among the pro-life community. It has only been picked up by the main stream media b/c of the above direct quote during the Saddleback interview.

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JmYzY1MzQyMGQ=

 

is one summation of the the issue.

 

Why is this such a bad answer? It sounds to me as though he was not talking about just babies who have been born and taken their first breaths. It sounds to me as though he is aware of the implications that any answer he gives could have toward the abortion issue and that many pro-life people consider an embryo or a fetus as a "baby" and call it such. Basically he's saying he doesn't know, and he doesn't feel qualified either from a point of scientific or theological knowledge to answer specifically. It is a question that is difficult for many people, myself included.

 

For the record, I was not attacking momof7, just explaining why I don't think "I don't know" is a bad answer. I went into more detail in my post that was lost in the black hole of cyber space.

 

Ya know, I'm not in favor of abortion. I do like to think of myself as a compassionate person who can see why it should be allowed in certain circumstances in particular. It can't be an easy choice. Ever.

 

I may be morally bankrupt by some standards for my stance. (Ooh look! Here's the opportunity for someone to call me a "fence sitter" again! Go ahead, make my day.) However, I think anyone who cannot see the other side of this issue and would condemn (for example) a mother of two who has made the decision with her husband and doctors that her life is at great enough risk with this much anticipated pregnancy, and because the chances of survival and any kind of meaningful life for the baby are nil, that an abortion is the right thing to do--well, that person is bankrupt of compassion. What good are morals without compassion and the wisdom to see and judge circumstances individually?

 

I like to think that I am a little like Pam in that I tend toward a more moderate viewpoint and prefer to stay away from conflict. Unfortunately, I also have a quick temper and am not the best at letting go of grudges. My sword's drawn on this one.

 

I just want to make sure I understand that in your example (above in bold): both the mother is at risk in continuing the pregnancy and the baby has little chance of survival?

[Colleen]

I'm so independent, my behind hurts from the fence pickets. (That's ok, right? :001_smile:)

 

Fence sitters are undecided. Independents are...independent. A foot here, a foot there, a hand over there...Anyone for a game of Twister?:lol:

[genie]

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?

 

 

No, I wasn't saying that there is no way to legally define when human beings are considered alive with the expectation of rights. I would assume that has already been defined in some manner, although the definition is most likely debated. The person I was replying to seemed to have read the question as asking Obama when life begins. I was just pointing out the difference between the two questions.

[PameliaSue]

I posted this info in the other link, but in case others are not reading it, I will post it here as well.

 

It is patently false to accuse McCain and his campaign of spinning Obama as pro-infanticide and that this is their newest campaign tactic. These issues may be new to the mainstream press, but are not to prolife Catholics.

 

Alan Keyes stated these ideas when he ran against Obama for the senate in 2004. Keyes stated that Obama was for allowing infanticide earlier this yr in his 2008 presidential bid.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkT_W5l9-k&feature=related

 

Regardless of your POV on abortion or BAIPA, the allegations posted in your linked article stating that this originates with Hudson and McCain are false.

 

Thank you for this info!

[genie]

 

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.

 

I'm right there with ya, Kelli. Like I said in my first post in this thread, that's where I struggle the most about politics. Almost everything that we average Americans hear is filtered through some sort of bias. How do you know who to believe when two opposing reports sound equally valid? There's SO MUCH information out there, how do we wade through it all to try to find nuggets of truth?

[Mosaicmind]

I can't even believe that we are arguing about this. I mean when did we become God? He is the one who knit us in our mother's wombs so why are we debating when "life" begins? I believe that has already been decided.

 

Then when does it become our right to decide whether a baby born prematurely get treatment to try and save it's life or not, isn't that God's decision in the first place? I am so glad that my mother didn't decide to abort me like she had planned and I am sure there are many of you here because your mother's decided to chose life also.

 

I shudder to think of all the blessings whose lives have been abruptly and brutally murdered for convenience. I will stand before God myself and be judged for my own choice to abort and I grieve that everyday. Has anyone not thought about all those little lives whose purpose may have been to cure cancer, alzheimer's, or get us out of financial disaster that we have chosen to let die?

[genie]

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.

 

This is a point that also perplexes me about politics. On the one hand we want political candidates to take strong stands on issues. Yet at the same time, they are public servants. They are there to represent "the people".

 

If a politician changes his voting choices over the years he is criticized for being wishy-washy. But as a public servant, is that not precisely his responsibility? To represent the desires of the majority of his supporters? Wouldn't that possibly change over the years?

 

I don't know if there is currently an official legal definition for when human rights begin, but if there is, then what was the purpose of the question posed to Obama? It wouldn't be a matter of opinion, it would be a factual answer. If there currently is no formal legal definition for when human rights begin I would think there should be, but I would also think that it is not solely the president's job to define that.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10411-2005Apr22.html Does this bring any clarity here? It is clearly an attempt to pander to single issue voters. I am also a single issue voter on another life issue -one that I am inflexible on so I do understand where you are coming from just please recognize that you are being manipulated with half truths regarding what this legislation would accomplish. Be pro life unabashedly if that is your belief and for any reason you choose -not because these schmucks want your vote...and will say anything to get it.

[Kelli in TN]

I can't even believe that we are arguing about this. I mean when did we become God? He is the one who knit us in our mother's wombs so why are we debating when "life" begins? I believe that has already been decided.

 

Then when does it become our right to decide whether a baby born prematurely get treatment to try and save it's life or not, isn't that God's decision in the first place? I am so glad that my mother didn't decide to abort me like she had planned and I am sure there are many of you here because your mother's decided to chose life also.

 

I shudder to think of all the blessings whose lives have been abruptly and brutally murdered for convenience. I will stand before God myself and be judged for my own choice to abort and I grieve that everyday. Has anyone not thought about all those little lives whose purpose may have been to cure cancer, alzheimer's, or get us out of financial disaster that we have chosen to let die?

 

Let's just clarify something right here. I am not debating the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Oh, no, not me. I do not accept abortion as being right, no, no, no.

 

My struggle is that while I am still pro-life, I am starting to part ways with conservatives on so very many other issues that I feel like a political misfit.

 

I WANT a pro-life president. I WANT a president who will respect all life, unborn to elderly. Even life that is not American. Even life wearing a military uniform. All life. Anybody know of one candidate that values ALL life that has a snowball's chance in (insert name of very hot place) of winning? That's who I would vote for. If he or she existed.

[Kelli in TN]

I have my suspicions that Alexander Hamilton would have been pro-choice.

 

The misfortune end here.

 

 

Yes, I have to agree. That sounds pretty pro-choice to me.

 

The lives of infants and unborn have hung in the balance at the mercy of those who have power of life and death over them since the beginning of time. It's an old debate that I doubt will ever be settled.

[astrid]

I think people hear lots of campaign twaddle about "Hope" and "Together we can" and other such empty promises, the ones who believe this stuff really need to be brought down to reality.

 

You know, I was hoping that this could remain a polite, informed discussion, so it was very disappointing to read this statement, which I find insulting. Believe me, I am more in "reality" when it comes to national politics than I care to be......and SOMETHING has to change. Personally, I think it's the height of irresponsibility to vote based on ONE issue. I do not believe that is what the framer so the Constitution had in mind. But that's my opinion, to which I'm entitled, just as you are to yours.

 

Astrid

[Mrs Mungo]

You know, I was hoping that this could remain a polite, informed discussion, so it was very disappointing to read this statement, which I find insulting. Believe me, I am more in "reality" when it comes to national politics than I care to be......and SOMETHING has to change. Personally, I think it's the height of irresponsibility to vote based on ONE issue. I do not believe that is what the framer so the Constitution had in mind. But that's my opinion, to which I'm entitled, just as you are to yours.

 

Astrid

 

I think the 10 funerals I attended last year was plenty of reality for me, quite frankly. I *absolutely* take offense at anyone thinking I'm just falling for a pile of twaddle. Maybe the pro-it doesn't matter if we stay in Iraq for a thousand years-guy people need a dose of reality.

[astrid]

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

 

Well-said, Bill. And i'm disgusted by those who continue to perpetuate this garbage, and deeply saddened that so many have jumped on this and run with it, without even considering that it could be false. Further, It's such an egregious smear, I'm disappointed that the OP didn't make an attempt to verify it before it was tossed into this forum for everyone to tsk-tsk over and proclaim their moral superiority to Obama. I see that the link refuting this has already been posted, so I wont repeat it.

 

Sorry folks, but this really sets my blood to boiling. Slam away.....

 

astrid

[astrid]

I think the 10 funerals I attended last year was plenty of reality for me, quite frankly. I *absolutely* take offense at anyone thinking I'm just falling for a pile of twaddle. Maybe the pro-it doesn't matter if we stay in Iraq for a thousand years-guy people need a dose of reality.

 

YES, I think they really do! It insults my intelligence to intimate that that I"m falling for a pile of "twaddle." I thought we were all above that.

 

Astrid

[astrid]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

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!!!

 

God forbid he gets her pregnant! Sheesh!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I can't even believe that we are arguing about this. I mean when did we become God? He is the one who knit us in our mother's wombs so why are we debating when "life" begins?

 

I'm not sure we were. Were we? Not overall, at least. Discussing it as essential to one's POV, sure.

 

Then when does it become our right to decide whether a baby born prematurely get treatment to try and save it's life or not, isn't that God's decision in the first place?

 

Are you advocating a law that *mandates* that I give "treatment" to my 23 week child? How do you propose that God let me know what his/her wishes are for my extreme premie?

 

Has anyone not thought about all those little lives whose purpose may have been to cure cancer, alzheimer's, or get us out of financial disaster that we have chosen to let die?

 

I don't think you can logically argue this way unless you are willing to have the argument turned the other direction.

 

 

I'm glad you were born, Lisa. And I respect the passion you bring to the conversation. I just want to make sure you read the entire thread before you say that we are all arguing about when life begins. Or whether, indeed, we are arguing at all.

[Kelli in TN]

Well-said, Bill. And i'm disgusted by those who continue to perpetuate this garbage, and deeply saddened that so many have jumped on this and run with it, without even considering that it could be false. Further, It's such an egregious smear, I'm disappointed that the OP didn't make an attempt to verify it before it was tossed into this forum for everyone to tsk-tsk over and proclaim their moral superiority to Obama. I see that the link refuting this has already been posted, so I wont repeat it.

 

Sorry folks, but this really sets my blood to boiling. Slam away.....

 

astrid

 

 

Gently.....

 

I don't think Kathleen was trying to be inflammatory. This post shows a bit of her motive in posting that.

 

And much of the subsequent conversation was really mostly people grappling for the truth. With very few exceptions it really has been a good, respectful thread where both sides have had their say.

 

Obviously this is a topic that few people can be in the middle, it is something that people tend to be passionate about.

 

Please don't be angry with Kathleen for sharing what she thought was worthy or with the rest of us for hashing it out.

[Mosaicmind]

I have read the entire thread and all the points I mentioned have been brought up. I guess what it comes down to is what kind of country are we to debate a point like this. It really is just sick. I guess I would have never thought that this would ever be an issue.