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

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

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.

 

Since the beginning of humanity it has been an issue. We're not really so special that it isn't an issue for our country.

[Mrs Mungo]

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

 

Oh, I agree. I definitely am not mad at Kathleen or really anyone in the thread. I agree with those who felt it was extremely respectful given the subject matter.

[Kelli in TN]

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.

 

With all due respect, are you sure you understand what they point of the thread really is?

 

I don't believe anyone popped up and said "Oh, fabulous! Just leave that cold, suffering premature baby over there until it expires."

 

The debate is actually more along the lines of where do the candidates line up with these issues.

 

I am pretty sure that neither candidate is okay with that treatment of dying infants. I think the question we are wrestling with has to do what the candidates will do about it.

 

I don't think we have one truly evil candidate and one truly righteous candidate and that is why so many are struggling with this election.

 

But nobody is supporting leaving babies to die alone.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong here.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

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.

 

I agree. And we've all seen this stuff someplace or other, and even though it's sort of an... ok, for me it was an unfortunate subject line (sorry Kathleen), it was a worthy discussion. I think we were *this close* to what it would be like if we, caring for each other as we do as truly as we are able from knowing each other (mostly) vitually, were to sit down with one another on comfy couches in someone's actual living room and share our hearts.

[astrid]

Hi Kelli,

Yes, I read that post. But I can't help but wonder, if the tables were turned and this was said about McCain, we'd be knee-deep in righteous indignation. It just bothers me so much that people feel so free to jump on the bandwagon with a hot-button topic like abortion without bothering to check facts and verify the information. I always feel like the bomb is dropped "by accident on purpose" so those on the fence, who might have voted for Obama, will recoil in horror and jump to the candidate of the OP's choice. *I have no idea WHO the OP is supporting, if anyone. I'm just speaking hypothetically.* Then, when the smear is disproved, the "OOPS! Sorry! Nevermind!" is lost in the hubbub, and the damage to the candidate is done. Think of all those ridiculous "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" emails that are circulating.....and all the other lies, so many that Obama had to put up a separate web page, "Fight the Smears" to say "No, I'm not a Muslim. I'm a Christian." And "Yes, I AM a natural born American citizen."

 

Forgive me for getting hot under the collar, but i"ve seen it time and time again, and it's JUST. NOT. FAIR, no matter WHICH candidate it involves. I completely respect everyone's right to their personal opinion.....I've never said anything to the contrary. But in my book, it is NOT right to perpetuate untruths, knowingly or unknowingly, in order to harm another person. I'm not saying that's what the OP did knowingly did, but by default, that's what happened. And to my brother-in-law who keeps sending me the outrageous anti-democrat emails--- you ARE doing it on purpose, so stopitstopitstopit!

 

Whew. I need a Mike's! :-)

Astrid

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hi Kelli,

Yes, I read that post. But I can't help but wonder, if the tables were turned and this was said about McCain, we'd be knee-deep in righteous indignation.

 

Uh... no. Nobody can get quite that excited about Sen. McCain. I couldn't even when I was rooting for him in 2000.

 

:lol::lol:

 

Whew. I need a Mike's! :-)

 

 

Girl, it's only Monday. Pace yourself! :D

[astrid]

Uh... no. Nobody can get quite that excited about Sen. McCain. I couldn't even when I was rooting for him in 2000.

 

:lol::lol:

 

 

 

Girl, it's only Monday. Pace yourself! :D

 

:001_smile::D:lol:

 

Good one, Pam!

 

Astrid

[Kelli in TN]

Hi Kelli,

Yes, I read that post. But I can't help but wonder, if the tables were turned and this was said about McCain, we'd be knee-deep in righteous indignation. It just bothers me so much that people feel so free to jump on the bandwagon with a hot-button topic like abortion without bothering to check facts and verify the information. I always feel like the bomb is dropped "by accident on purpose" so those on the fence, who might have voted for Obama, will recoil in horror and jump to the candidate of the OP's choice. *I have no idea WHO the OP is supporting, if anyone. I'm just speaking hypothetically.* Then, when the smear is disproved, the "OOPS! Sorry! Nevermind!" is lost in the hubbub, and the damage to the candidate is done. Think of all those ridiculous "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" emails that are circulating.....and all the other lies, so many that Obama had to put up a separate web page, "Fight the Smears" to say "No, I'm not a Muslim. I'm a Christian." And "Yes, I AM a natural born American citizen."

 

Forgive me for getting hot under the collar, but i"ve seen it time and time again, and it's JUST. NOT. FAIR, no matter WHICH candidate it involves. I completely respect everyone's right to their personal opinion.....I've never said anything to the contrary. But in my book, it is NOT right to perpetuate untruths, knowingly or unknowingly, in order to harm another person. I'm not saying that's what the OP did knowingly did, but by default, that's what happened. And to my brother-in-law who keeps sending me the outrageous anti-democrat emails--- you ARE doing it on purpose, so stopitstopitstopit!

 

Whew. I need a Mike's! :-)

Astrid

 

 

Okay. That's fair. But for the record, let it be known from this point on to the end of time....if Kelli in TN posts what she thinks is a really. great. link. on. a. hot. topic. and the link turns out to be less than accurate.....

 

I was sincere. I am not always the sharpest crayon in the box.

[Sharon in SC]

There is a difference between on the one hand miscarrying a pre-term baby and choosing to let it die naturally (because it is so early), being comforted by parents and warmth and reassurance, and on the other hand, going in with the express purpose of killing a baby and letting it finish dying alone. kwim?

 

The two are worlds apart.

 

Yes.

[starlashine]

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.

 

What if my answer to that question is, quite honestly, that I believe only God knows, so it is not our right to define it, only our place to attempt to do what seems best in any given situation?

[Heather in Neverland]

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 might agree if I hadn't just spent the day watching my 3yo niece splash in her little pool...my micro-preemie niece who is perfectly healthy and beautiful now. This issue hits pretty close to home for me.

[Sharon in SC]

I might agree if I hadn't just spent the day watching my 3yo niece splash in her little pool...my micro-preemie niece who is perfectly healthy and beautiful now. This issue hits pretty close to home for me.

 

I know what you mean. My 82yo mother in law weighed 2-3 lbs when she was born. She's a walking miracle in light of the *lack* of medical technology available in the 1920s to deal with premature births.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I might agree if I hadn't just spent the day watching my 3yo niece splash in her little pool...my micro-preemie niece who is perfectly healthy and beautiful now. This issue hits pretty close to home for me.

 

See, I know this is truth for many on the boards. My dear buddy Brigitte, who had 28 week twins. Your family. Others who have had precious little tiny souls given to them and who took the chance and won. The wonderful stories we hear about.

 

But for me... I wrestled with that, what I would do. And I found that deep in my heart, knowing the risks and the probabilities -- I just couldn't do it. I needed more weeks in order to make a decision to aggressively intervene.

 

Perhaps that makes me cold or hard or weak or something. But I cannot *imagine* for one instant being forced by law (and it appears there is indeed precedent) to violently intubate and otherwise try to sustain a 23-week baby and take that gamble with her life.

 

Does that make sense? I would in no way deny you the right to make this choice. Heck, if I were your baby's nurse, I'd cover it with love and good thoughts and sneak in a prayer or two when no one was watching. But for this to be forced upon me? It's hard to contemplate.

[Mrs Mungo]

I might agree if I hadn't just spent the day watching my 3yo niece splash in her little pool...my micro-preemie niece who is perfectly healthy and beautiful now. This issue hits pretty close to home for me.

 

But I have a friend whose baby was born at 25 weeks and he is far from perfectly healthy.

[Jugglin'5]

I know what you mean. My 82yo mother in law weighed 2-3 lbs when she was born. She's a walking miracle in light of the *lack* of medical technology available in the 1920s to deal with premature births.

 

My grandmother weighed 1 lb.3 oz. They kept her in a shoe box at first.

[Sharon in SC]

My grandmother weighed 1 lb.3 oz. They kept her in a shoe box at first.

 

Oh, my. My mil shares how her mother was too frightened to hold her, early on, so her grandmother cared for her. They placed her on a pillow to move around. I cannot even imagine!

[Jugglin'5]

Oh, my. My mil shares how her mother was too frightened to hold her, early on, so her grandmother cared for her. They placed her on a pillow to move around. I cannot even imagine!

 

She was an only child. There had been a baby brother, who oddly enough, was so big, (they estimated 11 lbs), that they couldn't get him out and he died and was delivered D&C. Not pleasant. Especially when you consider that these were both home births. I don't know how she survived, but there was nothing wrong with her, and she lived to a healthy old age.

[SFP]

Originally Posted by Mrs Mungo

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 agree, and I'm the mother of a preemie.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

yup.

 

even w/o the charges of infanticide Obama is still to the left of NARAL

and [when compounded w/ his other issues] is absolutely not a choice for me.

 

and the interesting part is that his campaign for President PUTS him at the "paygrade" for answering these questions.

If a bill comes through defining a new legal definition of a person, HE will be the one to sign it.

assuming he's elected ;)

 

and he is CAMPAIGNING to do that job.

it WILL be at his paygrade.

 

i do agree that there can be extreme measures taken that have some seriously inconvenient consequences. i do support the right of parents to let that child go for adoption. But I would still rather err on the side of life than death. Our technology is changing so rapidly that i expect it won't be long till we CAN grow a human in an artificial womb. Using artificial means to keep them alive doesn't make them any less alive.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

i do support the right of parents to let that child go for adoption.

 

OK- I have a situation for you- let's say a black woman who is a drug addict (I know I am stereotyping, but I need this particular example) is forced to give birth to a 20 week old fetus she doesn't want and that baby, once it's born, has a whole host of mental, physical, and medical problems but by law must be kept alive.

 

It is not going to be easy to adopt out a severely handicapped, sick, deformed, black, crack baby. I know a woman who has adopted 2 African American children, and she says there are families who would rather go overseas to adopt than adopt a healthy African American baby. Racism still very much exists, only now it's in whispers and false political correctness.

 

Who then is going to pay for that child's care? Certainly not the birth parents. It's the taxpayers who are going to have to pay. We can not even manage health care for children born to parents who want them and want to be able to provide for their needs. IMHO THAT should be our first priority.

[CAMom]

But for me... I wrestled with that, what I would do. And I found that deep in my heart, knowing the risks and the probabilities -- I just couldn't do it. I needed more weeks in order to make a decision to aggressively intervene.

 

 

 

This isn't directed at you, Pam, and I'm not in a position to comment on the Obama thing but I am a mom who watched her baby die. She wasn't a preemie but she was born very ill at term. I cannot imagine not having done what we did to preserve her life.

 

When she was 6 weeks old, we had to make the heart wrenching decision to remove her life support and we sat with her, held her hand and prayed with her while she took her last breath.

 

To hear of babies being left to die without someone to love them into the next life and hear people speaking of them as "expiring" is just heartbreaking.

 

My daughter would have been four on September 17th.:(

[Peek a Boo]

OK- I have a situation for you- let's say a black woman who is a drug addict (I know I am stereotyping, but I need this particular example) is forced to give birth to a 20 week old fetus she doesn't want and that baby, once it's born, has a whole host of mental, physical, and medical problems but by law must be kept alive.

 

It is not going to be easy to adopt out a severely handicapped, sick, deformed, black, crack baby. I know a woman who has adopted 2 African American children, and she says there are families who would rather go overseas to adopt than adopt a healthy African American baby. Racism still very much exists, only now it's in whispers and false political correctness.

 

Who then is going to pay for that child's care? Certainly not the birth parents. It's the taxpayers who are going to have to pay. We can not even manage health care for children born to parents who want them and want to be able to provide for their needs. IMHO THAT should be our first priority.

 

 

i would STILL err on the side of life.

 

Just because other people are racists doesn't mean another child deserves to die.

I do understand that many consider one's right to live as a purely financial matter.

 

i don't.

 

I do, however, know that there are soooo many economic variables in play at this moment that our "managing healthcare" problems have very little to do w/ our healthcare systme or having money available. But that's a topic for another thread. :)

 

ETA: "first priority"??? someone else pointed out earlier in this thread that just because we want to focus on ONE problem doesn't mean we can't tackle a couple simultaneously :D

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

To hear of babies being left to die without someone to love them into the next life and hear people speaking of them as "expiring" is just heartbreaking.

 

My daughter would have been four on September 17th.:(

 

I honestly did not know how else to say what they did to those little lives without it being worse. I cannot imagine being in the place of my mother (had she known the actual truth of her situation) or of my dh's grandmother. I can only vaguely imagine walking in your shoes. :grouphug:

 

I'm so sorry for your loss. It's hard to type anything on this subject without knowing there are real live wonderful people who your words will probably hurt just by their very presence. But I think it's important for a civilized society to have these discussions. Sometimes the words don't come out just right, though.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

i would STILL err on the side of life.

 

Just because other people are racists doesn't mean another child deserves to die.

I do understand that many consider one's right to live as a purely financial matter.

 

i don't.

 

I do, however, know that there are soooo many economic variables in play at this moment that our "managing healthcare" problems have very little to do w/ our healthcare systme or having money available. But that's a topic for another thread. :)

 

ETA: "first priority"??? someone else pointed out earlier in this thread that just because we want to focus on ONE problem doesn't mean we can't tackle a couple simultaneously :D

 

You would force this sweet baby in this example to be kept alive if possible? REALLY? Oh my. I really do not understand this position at all. I can't fathom understanding this position.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm against the UN thingy because the UN is itself a problem. Rapist peacekeepers' date=' 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']

 

 

yup. The countries where the RotC are supposed to make such a difference have already signed it. That the UN is impotent and a joke doesn't mean those of us who oppose their "treaties" are against reasonable *action* being taken to right such a despicable wrong. More in my posts in the Rights of the Child thread.

[Peek a Boo]

You would force this sweet baby in this example to be kept alive if possible? REALLY? Oh my. I really do not understand this position at all. I can't fathom understanding this position.

 

 

And i do not understand why one would just as easily be supportive of killing this sweet baby.

But then again, i can't fathom understanding the position of killing someone when we have technology and understanding growing by leaps and bounds that might one day be able to FIX this sweet baby's life.

 

I will not decide that a child must die based on our TECHNOLOGY, health care systems, economy, or convenience. Death erases every. single. opportunity that child had.

 

and I won't pretend for one moment to try to assume that this sweet baby would rather have us kill it than afford it every opportunity to live.

 

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

It is not my life to take, period.

[Mrs Mungo]

And i do not understand why one would just as easily be supportive of killing this sweet baby.

But then again, i can't fathom understanding the position of killing someone when we have technology and understanding growing by leaps and bounds that might one day be able to FIX this sweet baby's life.

 

I will not decide that a child must die based on our TECHNOLOGY, health care systems, economy, or convenience. Death erases every. single. opportunity that child had.

 

and I won't pretend for one moment to try to assume that this sweet baby would rather have us kill it than afford it every opportunity to live.

 

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

It is not my life to take, period.

 

You're not *taking* a life by not taking extreme measures. We allow people who would otherwise live healthy, productive lives to die in this country *every day* due to lack of health insurance. The argument is not allow the child to live v. kill the child. The question is how far do you go to unnaturally prolong life? And I have seen families have to make this decision. I know how heartbreaking it is. Let's not pretend I'm eating babies for breakfast just because I don't agree we should take *every possible* measure to save *every* micropreemie.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

i would STILL err on the side of life.

 

Just because other people are racists doesn't mean another child deserves to die.

I do understand that many consider one's right to live as a purely financial matter.

 

i don't.

 

I do, however, know that there are soooo many economic variables in play at this moment that our "managing healthcare" problems have very little to do w/ our healthcare systme or having money available. But that's a topic for another thread. :)

 

ETA: "first priority"??? someone else pointed out earlier in this thread that just because we want to focus on ONE problem doesn't mean we can't tackle a couple simultaneously :D

 

Bad choice of words. I meant that healthcare for families should take priority over keeping unwanted or severely damaged (for lack of a better word) fetuses alive.

 

So you would be okay with an increase in your taxes to pay for this?

 

How do you feel about adults that have DNR orders drafted? Do you think their rights to do this should be taken away?

[Peek a Boo]

You're not *taking* a life by not taking extreme measures. We allow people who would otherwise live healthy, productive lives to die in this country *every day* due to lack of health insurance. The argument is not allow the child to live v. kill the child. The question is how far do you go to unnaturally prolong life? And I have seen families have to make this decision. I know how heartbreaking it is. Let's not pretend I'm eating babies for breakfast just because I don't agree we should take *every possible* measure to save *every* micropreemie.

 

 

 

many would say that life is worth some "unnatural" means to prolong it.

others would argue that just going to a hospital is "unnatural."

and "unnaturally prolong life" is certainly in the eye of the beholder.

 

It boils down to how much you think that child needs the opportunity to simply live.

Many don't believe the opportunity would be very fulfilling.

I disagree with that assumption.

 

who said anyone's eating babies for breakfast?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You're not *taking* a life by not taking extreme measures. We allow people who would otherwise live healthy, productive lives to die in this country *every day* due to lack of health insurance. The argument is not allow the child to live v. kill the child. The question is how far do you go to unnaturally prolong life? And I have seen families have to make this decision. I know how heartbreaking it is. Let's not pretend I'm eating babies for breakfast just because I don't agree we should take *every possible* measure to save *every* micropreemie.

 

THANK you. And now I am done with this thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

It boils down to how much you think that child needs the opportunity to simply live.

 

And you trust the federal government to make the determination?

 

who said anyone's eating babies for breakfast?

 

Hyperbole, dear, hyperbole.

 

And I'm out, I have to shower off from our pool visit and rustle up some dinner.

[Peek a Boo]

Bad choice of words. I meant that healthcare for families should take priority over keeping unwanted or severely damaged (for lack of a better word) fetuses alive.

 

and again, we are certainly capable of doing both. One does not rely on the other happening first.

 

 

So you would be okay with an increase in your taxes to pay for this?

 

nope. but i would be happy as a clam with REAL CHANGE in our tax code and national/state/local spending that made the funds we are already forking out available for this.

How do you feel about adults that have DNR orders drafted? Do you think their rights to do this should be taken away?

 

I think that when someone DECIDES to take certain steps with THEIR life, that should be respected. It's when you are making decisions to end ANOTHER's life that I would err on the side of life, not death.

 

My fil wanted a DNR. i encouraged him to get one.

I don't mind letting someone DECIDE to forego life-saving treatment for themselves.

But neither do I fault another for "forcing" a sweet child to LIVE.

[Peek a Boo]

And you trust the federal government to make the determination?

 

TRUST them? no. But i do expect them to via the whole "protecting the lives of its citizens" angle.

[Kathleen in VA]

OK, I've researched this issue and this is what comes across as truth. The Huffingtonpost.com article states that "The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact." But if you go to the link that compares them side by side, you can see that just isn't true. They were, in essence, the very same bill - one written for the Federal level and one written for the State of Illinois. This article was the most inflammatory and emotional-filled, reactionary article I read today. The use of the word "smear" seems inappropriate when you are referring to people just laying out the facts which were taken directly from the public record.

 

The National Review article posted by Momof7 lacks an emotional, reactionary tone in its language. It is a straightforward, down-the-line, discussion of the whole issue. I do not see it as an effort to "smear," but rather an objective presentation of the facts regarding how Senator Obama voted on this issue during his years as an Illinois senator. It provides many links to the original language of the bills, the voting record and other completely neutral documents. It reveals that Obama did indeed vote against a bill that would protect live babies that survive attempts at aborting them. He voted against protecting them three different times.

 

The HumanEvents.com article is even more convincing that Obama voted against the bill that would protect these living babies.

 

The definition of infanticide is the killing of a baby in its first year of life. I am pro-life, obviously, so to me killing an unborn baby is murder, but I guess technically it could not be called infanticide. Infanticide is a term reserved for the killing of an already born, living outside the womb, baby. Since Barack Obama has no problem allowing mothers to abort babies that could live if they received medical help as well as supports the idea of just letting living aborted babies die without any intervention to keep them alive, I would have to say that Obama believes that infanticide is acceptable.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I think that when someone DECIDES to take certain steps with THEIR life, that should be respected. It's when you are making decisions to end ANOTHER's life that I would err on the side of life, not death.

 

My fil wanted a DNR. i encouraged him to get one.

I don't mind letting someone DECIDE to forego life-saving treatment for themselves.

But neither do I fault another for "forcing" a sweet child to LIVE.

 

So then you don't believe a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment in the case of that crack baby there? You know, that is just a short step from laws denying parents the right to make educational choices for their children.

[Mrs Mungo]

So then you don't believe a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment in the case of that crack baby there? You know, that is just a short step from laws denying parents the right to make educational choices for their children.

 

I agree. You take away parent's rights to make medical decisions and you're taking away rights to make medical decisions. How many of us here are selective about the vaccinations we allow our kids to have? How about those moms who want a VBAC and the doctors insist it isn't safe? How about those doctors who believe every breastfed baby who doesn't measure up on a growth chart not intended for them needs to be on formula? Those people would ALL say they are erring on the side of life and caution and that taking away parental rights would be for the greater good.

 

Now really, the next person to see me here, beat me! I must cooooook!!

[Peek a Boo]

So then you don't believe a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment in the case of that crack baby there? You know, that is just a short step from laws denying parents the right to make educational choices for their children.

 

in "that case" the mother didn't even WANT the child. So no, i don't believe she had the right to deny the child medical treatment. I'd say that any mother who is TRYING TO KILL HER CHILD loses the right to refuse or assert ANYTHING wrt that child's welfare. As such the child becomes a ward of the state, and i absolutely believe the state has an obligation to err on the side of life.

 

DO parents have the right to refuse medical treatment? sure.

Do parents have the right to SEEK medical treatment? absolutely.

Do babies THAT ARE TRYING TO BE KILLED BUT SURVIVE ANYWAY deserve medical treatment and an opportunity to live? you betcha.

Is it WRONG to keep a child alive? NO.

I'm still trying to fathom why someone would see life as a Very. Bad. Thing.

 

:: waiting to see what Mrs. Mungo cooks up for dinner. I'm starving ;) ::

[Kathy in MD]

.......

It is not going to be easy to adopt out a severely handicapped, sick, deformed, black, crack baby. I know a woman who has adopted 2 African American children, and she says there are families who would rather go overseas to adopt than adopt a healthy African American baby. Racism still very much exists, only now it's in whispers and false political correctness. .......

QUOTE]

 

Side note, when we adopted it was the black social workers that fought to prevent black children from being placed with white families. And in certain areas, hispanic foster children would be removed from their white foster parents if the foster parents expressed a desire to adopt.

 

But along the lines of knowingly adopting severely handicapped children, I admit I wouldn't have the strength to do it. And I've dealt with many problems with my adopted ds. It takes a VERY SPECIAL couple to do that. Not even my sil, who was a special ed teacher that worked primarily with the worst cases, was willing to do that. The demands of her job, where she got to send the children home at the end of the day and she had vacations from caring for them, were such that she wouldn't even consider becoming guardian of our ds. No, there aren't enough people in this world with the needed strength to adopt all the severely handicapped children.

[Kathy in MD]

......DO parents have the right to refuse medical treatment? sure. ....

 

 

But I know that parents do get hauled into court because someone objected to their decision to not use extreme measures to save their newborn. This wasn't an abortion survivor, just a poor child with so many problems that he/she would not be capable of survival. I know that other parents rights are threatened/suspended because they refuse certain types of treatment for any age child.

 

To be faced with a decision to let a child die is a horrible, unbearable situation I've thankfully never had to face. And I hope I never do. But I feel this is a time for the parents and the doctors to make the heart wenching decision. Not some faceless group of voters who will not have to see the child do nothing but suffer and deal with the consequences. And this law would require that *all* infants be given extreme, life saving techniques. No matter what their quality of life would be or even how long.

 

Some on this board have had to face this situation. I wouldn't want to make their suffering worse by interjecting the courts into the decision process.

[johnandtinagilbert]

OK- I have a situation for you- let's say a black woman who is a drug addict (I know I am stereotyping, but I need this particular example) is forced to give birth to a 20 week old fetus she doesn't want and that baby, once it's born, has a whole host of mental, physical, and medical problems but by law must be kept alive.

 

It is not going to be easy to adopt out a severely handicapped, sick, deformed, black, crack baby. I know a woman who has adopted 2 African American children, and she says there are families who would rather go overseas to adopt than adopt a healthy African American baby. Racism still very much exists, only now it's in whispers and false political correctness.

 

Who then is going to pay for that child's care? Certainly not the birth parents. It's the taxpayers who are going to have to pay. We can not even manage health care for children born to parents who want them and want to be able to provide for their needs. IMHO THAT should be our first priority.

Obama wants to provide health care for everyone, so he would want the taxpayers to take care of this child, should the law require such. In his thinking, every living person deserves health care. Why not the crack baby?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Obama wants to provide health care for everyone, so he would want the taxpayers to take care of this child, should the law require such. In his thinking, every living person deserves health care. Why not the crack baby?

 

Because he is not for forcing the birth parent to make a choice. If the parents indeed want the medical care, they should get it.

 

There is also another scenario: doctor tells a pregnant mom that if she continues to carry a 20 week old fetus she will probably not survive and neither will the baby. Now, women have made the choice to carry the baby anyway, and I admire that. They should have the right to do that. However, should they be forced?

 

What about a mom of 4 who doesn't want to risk her other children growing up without a mother?

 

What about a single mother with no living family whose kids would go into foster care?

 

And just because I am in favor of a woman's right to choose and a woman's right to deny treatment for a fetus in certain cases, does not mean I see life as a bad thing.

[johnandtinagilbert]

OK, I've researched this issue and this is what comes across as truth. The Huffingtonpost.com article states that "The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact." But if you go to the link that compares them side by side, you can see that just isn't true. They were, in essence, the very same bill - one written for the Federal level and one written for the State of Illinois. This article was the most inflammatory and emotional-filled, reactionary article I read today. The use of the word "smear" seems inappropriate when you are referring to people just laying out the facts which were taken directly from the public record.

 

The National Review article posted by Momof7 lacks an emotional, reactionary tone in its language. It is a straightforward, down-the-line, discussion of the whole issue. I do not see it as an effort to "smear," but rather an objective presentation of the facts regarding how Senator Obama voted on this issue during his years as an Illinois senator. It provides many links to the original language of the bills, the voting record and other completely neutral documents. It reveals that Obama did indeed vote against a bill that would protect live babies that survive attempts at aborting them. He voted against protecting them three different times.

 

The HumanEvents.com article is even more convincing that Obama voted against the bill that would protect these living babies.

 

The definition of infanticide is the killing of a baby in its first year of life. I am pro-life, obviously, so to me killing an unborn baby is murder, but I guess technically it could not be called infanticide. Infanticide is a term reserved for the killing of an already born, living outside the womb, baby. Since Barack Obama has no problem allowing mothers to abort babies that could live if they received medical help as well as supports the idea of just letting living aborted babies die without any intervention to keep them alive, I would have to say that Obama believes that infanticide is acceptable.

 

Well, once again, I come in after lengthy discussion...just my luck!

 

Let it be know that I do not have a candidate in this election. I am waiting to see the running mates, although I must admit, the more I research, I cannot vote for Obabma b/c we differ on way too many things. That does not mean, however, that I will vote McCain. I don't believe in voting against anyone.

 

I'd say I would be hard pressed to find any campaign that didn't use some sort of propaganda. That isn't a justifying statement, but a qualifying one. It amazes me to see anyone so up in arms about the propaganda b/c their candidate is generally willing to do the same thing.

 

From the articles posted, I would agree with Kathleen's quote as a fair assessment and would add, I have a problem with the Obama response

 

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.

 

because he didn't answer the question, he talked around it. It matters, not just what his response is, but whether or not he has answer. If he is running to be POTUS, he should be ready to tackle what could very likely be put in front of him; particularly when the issue of baby-human rights has been very much in front of him during his tenure in IL. At this point in his career, why wouldn't he have an answer for that? IMO, he's dodging because he is a politician. He wants to win, and he doesn't want to give his real answer b/c it might incriminate him, so he talked around it. He found it in his pay grade to decide definitions for the state of IL, why not answer that question? Question dodging is very unsavory to me. I would rather a politician come out and say it. I'd rather someone stand for something, than nothing at all.

 

In the end, I try not to listen to what people say, and look more at their voting records. The very fact that Obama voted against 3 times, but didn't show up to vote for, speaks to me.

 

I expect a politician to change over many years, as a representative to the people who hears the outcry and also shares knowledge to enlighten lay people, but no answer....unacceptable to me.

 

Anyways, nice job having this discussion peacefully. I would hope that anyone here would take the time to seriously review the voting records, not just listen to stump speeches or rely on articles (which always have at least a small slant). Truth being told, most people read your own worldview into any article anyways (even if just a little), so educate yourself on what they have stood on during their time in office. You'll get a better idea of who they really are, not who they or the media say they are.

 

Best to all,

[johnandtinagilbert]

Because he is not for forcing the birth parent to make a choice. If the parents indeed want the medical care, they should get it.

I don't believe he's forcing the birth parent to make the choice for medical care, but instead he's allowing people to make the choice to let a baby die, one that could live. I can't speak for the nation, but here in FL a parent can give up their child at birth, they even a small period of time after birth to leave the baby at a hospital or fire house without prosecution. If a parent does not want the baby, they have the right to allow the baby a chance at life, just not in their care. I would rather see the baby survive and be given the chance at life. There are many, many, many people willing to adopt. I also agree with making adoption less expensive. My family, for example, would gladly adopt 2-3 more children, we just do not have the finances to do such. Because of the size of our house, ridiculous, but true, we don't qualify to adopt from the state (to simplify, because they're not big on sharing bedrooms for more than 2 children) Although I am not naive to how difficult is to find homes for special needs kids, I'd rather give them the chance at life.

 

There is also another scenario: doctor tells a pregnant mom that if she continues to carry a 20 week old fetus she will probably not survive and neither will the baby. Now, women have made the choice to carry the baby anyway, and I admire that. They should have the right to do that. However, should they be forced?

 

What about a mom of 4 who doesn't want to risk her other children growing up without a mother?

This will no doubt sound callus, but I'm giving my honest answer. Both of those situations are probable anytime a woman gets pregnant. I believe, honestly, if a person is not willing to take that risk, they should not put themselves in the position to have a baby. I believe the choice comes before the time of conception, it comes at the time of, laying down, for lack of a better choice of words.

 

And before it gets mentioned, pregnancy as a result of rape, I still believe in carrying to full term. If it's too much to bare, adoption is an option.

 

What about a single mother with no living family whose kids would go into foster care?

Foster care is a better option than death. I was in foster care, good and bad homes, and I am happy to be alive and have the opportunity to have lived, so I speak from experience, not just speculation.

 

And just because I am in favor of a woman's right to choose and a woman's right to deny treatment for a fetus in certain cases, does not mean I see life as a bad thing.

I wouldn't presume such a thing. I *think* we disagree when a baby has human rights, though.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

 

ETA: I also want to add, there are plenty of people, perhaps more than some may be willing to admit, that absolutely use abortion as birth control. In our ministry, I can tell you I have come across 4 women and their partners that have aborted as a means of birth control. That is in 1 years time. More than once relying on abortion for "unwanted pregnancies" When I was in school, I knew someone who had already had 7 abortions. She was 23 years old. Often times, we focus on "health of the mother" or "born alive" and while I understand that is the whole of this thread, there is more to the issue of abortion. That is an ugly truth.

[8filltheheart]

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of hypotheticals. For every extreme scenerio posted for one direction, an equal and opposite extreme will be posted from the other.

 

A factual representation of the issue is that abortion 3 decades ago was originally limited to early term abortions to now in the yr 2008 a discussion on whether or not a baby that is born alive via late term aborition is considered a citizen with rights.

 

Obama's position is that he does not want to take any measures that would construe a reversal of Roe vs wade. His concern is the implication of stating that pre-mature baby is actually a baby and therefore a citizen with rights and not a fetus which falls legally under the mother's rights. He does not want to reduce the legality of the woman's rights.

 

Here is a link to a transcript of the nurse's testimony before the Illinois Senate.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm

 

A summation of Obama's response has been addressed here. http://67.202.21.157/forums/showthread.php?p=465166#post465166

 

Now we as voters are left with our choices.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I don't believe he's forcing the birth parent to make the choice for medical care, but instead he's allowing people to make the choice to let a baby die, one that could live. I can't speak for the nation, but here in FL a parent can give up their child at birth, they even a small period of time after birth to leave the baby at a hospital or fire house without prosecution. If a parent does not want the baby, they have the right to allow the baby a chance at life, just not in their care. I would rather see the baby survive and be given the chance at life. There are many, many, many people willing to adopt. I also agree with making adoption less expensive. My family, for example, would gladly adopt 2-3 more children, we just do not have the finances to do such. Because of the size of our house, ridiculous, but true, we don't qualify to adopt from the state (to simplify, because they're not big on sharing bedrooms for more than 2 children) Although I am not naive to how difficult is to find homes for special needs kids, I'd rather give them the chance at life.

 

This will no doubt sound callus, but I'm giving my honest answer. Both of those situations are probable anytime a woman gets pregnant. I believe, honestly, if a person is not willing to take that risk, they should not put themselves in the position to have a baby. I believe the choice comes before the time of conception, it comes at the time of, laying down, for lack of a better choice of words.

 

And before it gets mentioned, pregnancy as a result of rape, I still believe in carrying to full term. If it's too much to bare, adoption is an option.

 

Foster care is a better option than death. I was in foster care, good and bad homes, and I am happy to be alive and have the opportunity to have lived, so I speak from experience, not just speculation.

 

I wouldn't presume such a thing. I *think* we disagree when a baby has human rights, though.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

 

ETA: I also want to add, there are plenty of people, perhaps more than some may be willing to admit, that absolutely use abortion as birth control. In our ministry, I can tell you I have come across 4 women and their partners that have aborted as a means of birth control. That is in 1 years time. More than once relying on abortion for "unwanted pregnancies" When I was in school, I knew someone who had already had 7 abortions. She was 23 years old. Often times, we focus on "health of the mother" or "born alive" and while I understand that is the whole of this thread, there is more to the issue of abortion. That is an ugly truth.

 

 

So a woman should be forced to possibly leave healthy, living children without a mother for a one in 100 chance she might save a fetus?

 

And do you really think it is realistic to expect everyone to only have sex when they want to get pregnant?

 

As for women using abortion as birth control, I agree it happens, and I agree it is not a good thing. However, do you think these women would not be seeking out illegal abortions? Wouldn't the better solution be to better educate these women about how to take care of their bodies?

 

Also, no one has ever forced me to have an abortion. If someone chooses to have 7 abortions I will not agree with that choice, but I will fight to the death for their right to make it just as I will fight to the death for a Christian woman to carry a fetus to term, even if her health is at risk, IF that is the choice she makes.

[johnandtinagilbert]

So a woman should be forced to possibly leave healthy, living children without a mother for a one in 100 chance she might save a fetus?

 

And do you really think it is realistic to expect everyone to only have sex when they want to get pregnant?

 

As for women using abortion as birth control, I agree it happens, and I agree it is not a good thing. However, do you think these women would not be seeking out illegal abortions? Wouldn't the better solution be to better educate these women about how to take care of their bodies?

 

Also, no one has ever forced me to have an abortion. If someone chooses to have 7 abortions I will not agree with that choice, but I will fight to the death for their right to make it just as I will fight to the death for a Christian woman to carry a fetus to term, even if her health is at risk, IF that is the choice she makes.

I believe one should be ready to accept whatever scenario they are presented with, both good and bad, or they should not head into any endeavor.

 

No. I believe, particularly in the country we live in, especially those other countries that offer education, anyone can have sex and avoid pregnancy and I am certain many people don't take precautions when they are not ready to have a child.

 

The fact is, women are educated on how to take care of their bodies. I am 34 years old, attended public school. I was educated starting in 5th grade by the system, not my parents. The very idea that people don't have the opportunity given to them to learn how to take care of their bodies (I speak particularly to America) is honestly ridiculous. TV, school media, health departments near schools, health education...the chance is there. If they're not listening, they are choosing not to. Those women I mentioned, knew Full Well they could get pregnant. So did their boyfriends. They "don't like how condems feel" they "don't want to take a pill every day" They broke up and got off the pill. The excuses go on and on and on...the truth is, they are not careful because abortion offers them an out and they are willing to take it. That lack of value for life is simply left out of "polite conversation" When you spend time in trenches and witness the hard, cold truths of how people misuse the choice of abortion they've been given, you wonder if that choice ought to exist. I used to be pro-choice. I've seen the results again, and again, and again of how people misuse the choice and as a result, I have decided that people are not responsible enough with that choice and I'd rather they didn't have it. I understand that goes against what many of you think, but based on the choices I've seen people made again, and again, and again, I'd say the word choice is loosely used and the word responsibility has taken a back seat, resulting in a world where the choice to have an abortion is less beloved than the abortion itself. It has become, for many, not at all about choice, but a free pass. Again, I realize to many, this sound outrageous, but I assure you, I have seen it again, and again, and again.

[Kimber]

I haven't been in this discussion, but here's my take on the abortion issue.

 

All births happen through women, it may seem unfair but it's a fact of life. So a woman's right to choose to not be pregnant once she is just shouldn't be there. By the very fact that a woman is a woman her body was made to have birth. (I had to edit a little, I was thinking faster than I was typing.)

 

The only time when a woman has a right to choose, IMHO, is prior to conception. She has a choice to use birth control or to not have s@x. After conception, 2 lives now have rights, not one. (At one time it was illegal to destroy the egg of a bald eagle, but what about humans? How can that be right?)

 

And once conception has occurred, the rights of the unborn should be acknowledged. When I took EMT classes, we were told that you can't treat anyone that didn't agree to be treated, however, we got around this. As soon as the person passed out, we had legal right to treat them because they could no longer refuse and there were no written orders. It is assumed consent. How can a drunk, a murder, or just any human have such rights, but not a baby--the weakest, most fragile of us all. Are we to assume that babies don't want to live?

 

And when I have this discussion with my liberal family, both sides :), they too bring up the risk of illegal abortions and that women will die if they seek them out. I don't in anyway understand why this is an issue. Most women would draw the line at doing something illegal. Abortion is legal, therefore many women think it is okay. This is a fact from my experience. But even if a woman chooses an illegal abortion and then dies from it, I simply argue that she shouldn't do it. It is not something I'd want at all, but she agreed to the risk and put her life in the hands of some "doctor." It was a risk she agreed to and her decision to make. I can't take that away from her.

 

(My post wasn't to anyone in particular, I just jumped in with both feet and wanted to add my .02 for what it's worth.)

 

It's always a shocker to me to see these discussions on the boards, I think it's fantastic to think through these ideas out loud. Which always makes me wonder, why give such heavy discussions low stars on the rating? These are the bigger questions about right and wrong and truth, whether from the side of the right or the left. I think all of these discussions deserve 5 stars.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I believe one should be ready to accept whatever scenario they are presented with, both good and bad, or they should not head into any endeavor.

 

No. I believe, particularly in the country we live in, especially those other countries that offer education, anyone can have sex and avoid pregnancy and I am certain many people don't take precautions when they are not ready to have a child.

 

The fact is, women are educated on how to take care of their bodies. I am 34 years old, attended public school. I was educated starting in 5th grade by the system, not my parents. The very idea that people don't have the opportunity given to them to learn how to take care of their bodies (I speak particularly to America) is honestly ridiculous. TV, school media, health departments near schools, health education...the chance is there. If they're not listening, they are choosing not to. Those women I mentioned, knew Full Well they could get pregnant. So did their boyfriends. They "don't like how condems feel" they "don't want to take a pill every day" They broke up and got off the pill. The excuses go on and on and on...the truth is, they are not careful because abortion offers them an out and they are willing to take it. That lack of value for life is simply left out of "polite conversation" When you spend time in trenches and witness the hard, cold truths of how people misuse the choice of abortion they've been given, you wonder if that choice ought to exist. I used to be pro-choice. I've seen the results again, and again, and again of how people misuse the choice and as a result, I have decided that people are not responsible enough with that choice and I'd rather they didn't have it. I understand that goes against what many of you think, but based on the choices I've seen people made again, and again, and again, I'd say the word choice is loosely used and the word responsibility has taken a back seat, resulting in a world where the choice to have an abortion is less beloved than the abortion itself. It has become, for many, not at all about choice, but a free pass. Again, I realize to many, this sound outrageous, but I assure you, I have seen it again, and again, and again.

 

What birth control method is 100% effective? And you say there are all these chances to learn about birth control. In the same schools there are also many chances to learn how to read, but still there are many high school students that can barely do that.

 

People misuse freedom all the time. Does that mean we should not have freedom anymore? I don't think so.

 

Since there are some people that let their children watch TV all day and call it school, should homeschooling be illegal?

 

Since some people go around and form dangerous cults, should religion be illegal?

 

Their rights today, YOUR rights tomorrow.

[unsinkable]

This isn't directed at you, Pam, and I'm not in a position to comment on the Obama thing but I am a mom who watched her baby die. She wasn't a preemie but she was born very ill at term. I cannot imagine not having done what we did to preserve her life.

 

When she was 6 weeks old, we had to make the heart wrenching decision to remove her life support and we sat with her, held her hand and prayed with her while she took her last breath.

 

To hear of babies being left to die without someone to love them into the next life and hear people speaking of them as "expiring" is just heartbreaking.

 

My daughter would have been four on September 17th.:(

 

I'm so sorry for your loss. What a heartbreak. You'll be in my prayers.

[Sharon in SC]

in "that case" the mother didn't even WANT the child. So no, i don't believe she had the right to deny the child medical treatment. I'd say that any mother who is TRYING TO KILL HER CHILD loses the right to refuse or assert ANYTHING wrt that child's welfare. As such the child becomes a ward of the state, and i absolutely believe the state has an obligation to err on the side of life.

 

DO parents have the right to refuse medical treatment? sure.

Do parents have the right to SEEK medical treatment? absolutely.

Do babies THAT ARE TRYING TO BE KILLED BUT SURVIVE ANYWAY deserve medical treatment and an opportunity to live? you betcha.

Is it WRONG to keep a child alive? NO.

I'm still trying to fathom why someone would see life as a Very. Bad. Thing.

 

:: waiting to see what Mrs. Mungo cooks up for dinner. I'm starving ;) ::

 

Peek, I have to spread some rep around before I can send some your way so all I can say is, "Bravo"!!! Terrific post, my friend.