Bush Third Term or Obama's Change?

Question

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.

let me be clear · Accepted Answer

Bush will kill us all babies included. I would rather see Bush get a third term than see McCain win.

nimi shaun · Answer

let me tell you something , when a women goes for abortion, or is lead into abortion due to miscarriage, the women has already consented for the euthanasia of the fetus.

Let me tell u all  against abortions/partial abortions,I dint mean to sound cold as u say about obama, but infact you should think beyond religius beliefs and  think practically and rationally in the world we r today. Partial or complete abortion is definetly a right every woman has and must have for her choice to be. There are different circumstances, where it is necessary  maybe the woman is unwed do yo8u you thik bringing a child into the world and not being able to give the child agood life and or giving the child for adoption where the child you never is growing safe or not ... in all these  conditions it better to not bring the child into the world . there are enough no of children needing for a family why do you want to add to the numbers just for the sake of proving the point that abortion is baad .

In another instance where an ectopic pregnancy risks the life of mother you have to induce the partial abortion because its the risk of death to the mother, in such case what you put the hope to the lord and say no abortion is bad . You cant ,

As far as medical procedure is concerned every medical procedure is to some extent brutal you cant help..come on child birth is also brutal . I guess untill there are are more advanced procedures for abortions one has to deal with this . 

Also as you mention the skull procedure is instant death whereas suffocation is more torture imagine yourself being drowned forever and not able to breathe that way skull procedure is instant . 

So now I have showed you all the facts and situations . I think partial/complete abortions should be allowed ,the choice should be with the woman. And embryonic stem cell research should be done , coz then we can prevent many diseases for the same embryo or further children with same mother . And contrary to many allegations embryoninc cell  process does not kill the embryo it just draws some cell from it,, just like drawing blood from a person for lab report.  It is perfectly normal it resembles the process of genitic tests only thing,
embryonic stem cell is more time taking and is more complex . 
I think every parent should have astem cell bank for their child .
So that if ever their chldren have any problem those cells could be used in such cases even transplants,skin grafts and also blood transfusions from another person is not necessary child will use his own stuff . which was perfectly normal at birth .

So before you just supporting something think about the other side too . I know the procedure sounds harsh and all religious stigmas in between in todays world one should think beyond that .

ishman · Answer

this could be, yet any talk via the two of them on the subject of human rights/suitable to existence/professional existence rhetoric is organic bollocks for my area as long as that conflict keeps- they are crammed with it. i'm going to commence listening to perspectives on abortion while certainly one of them will become rather aggressive and places an abrupt halt to the blatant disrespect for existence that keeps to flourish in the midsection East.

Anonymous · Answer

bush can not have a third term,  the max amount of years a person can be president is 10 years, and that is only when a president dies with in the last 2 years of his term and the vice takes over.  

i'm not kidding, look it up.  people who gave thumbs down, you really need to stay in school or go back to school, or something.

Anonymous · Answer

Obama clearly stated at Rick Warren's church on Saturday night (discussion w/ both candidates) that:

1. He supports Roe vs. Wade
2. He is pro-choice

My election decision is clear. I cannot vote for Mr. Obama. He does not represent my view on the sanctity of life.

Bush Third Term or Obama's Change?

Related Questions

Trending Questions