Bush Third Term or Obama's Change?
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/08/17/obama_and_the_infanticide_issue?page=2
Read this article.
Before you consider avoiding Senator McCain, please read this article. It is a heart wrenching article on the coldness of Mr. Obama who didn't engage in infantcide but who refused to pass a law to prevent it. There's a difference in being pro-choice and being pro-infantcide in which Senator Obama is; he's pro-infantcide since he supports partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion is infanticide when it requires an active form of euthanasia and not simply suffociation.
I am not trying to change your view but simply mention Obama's stance 9 years ago in which a nurse pleaded with him to pass a law that would allow for treatment of an aborted baby that was born alive. The question is whether it was wrong for Obama to support a bill that prohibited passive euthanasia for a partial-birth abortion baby that is born live with the hopes it will perish because of its underdevelopment.
Partial birth abortion is so haneous; it typically involves poking a hole in a baby's skull to result in death; it doesn't involve a natural death involving suffocation. That's a major distinction since 95% of the public considers abortion to involve suffocation or a "natural" death. They never think of it as a brutal slaying, a poisoning, or a burning alive or if the baby is delivered to be starved to death (if the baby can breathe on its own, i.e. beyond 7-8 months).
In this case, it involved a baby born live in the hopes it would die from underdevelopment. It requires a Kevorkian style killing style rather than a passive form of euthanasia involving the denying of medical treatment.
Even those who support the denial of medical treatment believe that a person should have to clearly constent to passive or active euthanasia.
Good posts. Thanks for your input.