Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mavdog
no, I am saying that barack obama does not support infanticide.
the fact that he would not support the bills mentioned does not in any way validate the accusation that barack obama supports "infanticide", it just proves that he wouldn't support those particular pieces of legislation.
I agree that almost all americans believe that rights are bestowed at birth. the trick is to legislate those rights without taking rights away from the mother and/or medical professional.
in his opinion the legislation mentioned did not accomplish that balance.
that does not result in obama being a proponent of infanticide.
|
Yes, it is a sticky situation when the doctor has decided that it is "medically necessary to do an abortion for the psychological health of the patient" and then the darn baby comes out alive...
Now, the doctor is going to get sued for failure to protect the "psychological health" of the mother.
Now, the "tissue" considered less than a human with full civil rights is alive and has full civil rights....
Very sticky problem.
So, Obama's concern is this:
If the baby is now considered to have full civil rights and to be defined as a person, then why was the same baby up for abortion?
As soon as the law is passed that says the born alive baby has full rights as a person, then the logic going backwards is that the fetus which is the same baby should have had full legal civil rights as a person.
This is very sticky and disgusting problem.
So, Obama votes "present". Obama speaks out for the abortion rights movement wanting very much to avoid the conclusion that the only difference in the baby that was legally and medically supposed to be dead is still alive and by virtue of escaping the uterus and vagina and getting his/her whole body out of the "mother", that now that same "tissue" is a human.
Very disgusting arguement.