Arlos wrote:Oh please. That last is sheerest semantical crap.
We don't say a mother's right to have an abortion, or a mothers right to choose do we?
two definitions for you Arlos:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motherhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parentIt is semantics in that the definition of the word "mother" implies a child, it is not "crap" and it is not as if there are other meanings for the word "mother" in this context.
Arlos wrote:What would you have him call pregnant women, Pregnoids?
Obama could have just as easily said:
"I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the
woman’s health."
Arlos wrote:Mother is a common term and the use of that as a term implies nothing whatsoever about one's opinion of whether or not a fetus is or is not a person.
Oh I don't think he intentionally meant to imply the status of the unborn as a person or not, I would put this along the lines of a Freudian slip.
Arlos wrote:Regarding that abortion method he voted against in the Illinois state senate, that again is a misleading issue. (just had a big argument about it with some people I know in RL) Five minutes of quick web research showed several facts:
1) That method is strictly a method of late-term abortion, ie 20 weeks or later, which account for a grand total of 1.4% of all abortions.
2) That particular method of abortion was strictly used on non-viable fetuses or when the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, and then only done at the request of the would-be parents, who wanted a body to say goodbye to or spend a little bit of time with before it expired.
We're in no way talking about elective abortions here, these are largely fetuses so birth defected that they would not survive for any length of time (if at all), or would have zero quality of life if they did survive. We're discussing, say, fetuses with no higher brain whatsoever, just brain stem, etc. Alternately, it was performed under medical duress, because otherwise the mother dies.
Your argument on the issue neglects the facts above, and implies that he is somehow for aborting viable late-term fetuses which would be capable of survival outside of utero, when that is utterly and completely false.
For those born alive who have no chance of survival what harm is there in treating them as a human being at least for the time that they are alive? Part of the reason that the Federal ban on these passed was due to professional medical testimony that some babies born alive after failed partial birth abortions had a similar chance of survival to premature infants if they were given proper medical care. Regardless of the frequency that an infant may or may not survive an attempt at a partial birth abortion, even if it had no chance at all, the purpose of this bill was to ensure humane treatment, as in you treat the baby as such instead of bio-waste. The woman who spearheaded this particular Illinois bill did so because as a nurse she had witnessed some rather disturbing things:
The method of abortion that Christ Hospital uses is called "induced labor abortion," also now known as "live birth abortion." This type of abortion can be performed different ways, but the goal always is to cause a pregnant woman's cervix to open so that she will deliver a premature baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward. The way that induced abortion is most often executed at my hospital is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open. When this occurs, the small, preterm baby drops out of the uterus, oftentimes alive. It is not uncommon for one of these live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One of them once lived for almost eight hours.
In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she receives no medical assessments or care but is only given what my hospital calls "comfort care." "Comfort care" is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until he or she dies, although even this minimal compassion is not always provided. It is not required that these babies be held during their short lives.
One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.
Other co-workers have told me many upsetting stories about live aborted babies whom they have cared for. I was told about an aborted baby who was supposed to have Spina bifida but was delivered with an intact spine. Another nurse is haunted by the memory of an aborted baby who came out weighing much more than expected ~ almost two pounds. She is haunted because she doesn't know if she made a mistake by not getting that baby medical help. A Support Associate told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.
I was recently told about a situation by a nurse who said, "I can't stop thinking about it." She had a patient who was 23+ weeks pregnant, and it did not look as if her baby would be able to continue to live inside of her. The baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my co-worker. After delivery the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2-1/2 hours later.
Something is very wrong with a legal system that says doctors are mandated to pronounce babies dead but are not mandated to assess babies for life and chances of survival. In other words, our laws currently say that babies have no rights to medical oversight until they are dead. We look the other way and pretend that these babies aren't human while they're alive but human only after they are dead. We issue these babies both birth and death certificates, but it is really only the death certificate that matters. No other children in America are medically abandoned like this.
- Testimony of Jill L. Stanek, RN -Hearing on H.R. 4292, the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000"
While this testimony was given before the US Congress, it was these very same issues that prompted her to be the driving force behind the Illinois bill.
The wording of the bill is clear, it does not in anyway limit abortions, merely provide that the aborted baby showing signs of life is treated in a humane manner. It merely asserted normal human rights to a baby that showed signs of life once out of the womb. Extreme measures to try and save the life would not be mandated, just as they would not be mandated for a non aborted baby in the same conditions. Even with the neutrality clause to ensure that it did not in any way limit abortions, Obama voted against it. His allegiance to the extreme radical pro-abortion movement is what prevented him from supporting it, and so I ask again, exactly what type of late term abortion limits could he possibly support, when he can't even find the decency to support treating a living being humanly for a few hours? Again his qualifications of it needing a clause regarding the health of the mother in this case are fallacious.
I did not neglect any facts, the frequency of these occurrence are irrelevant. I simply pointed out that there is no way that I can see where the man would not support this bill, but would support other bills that actually limit abortion.
Arlos wrote:Furthermore, I find the idea of congress getting involved in legalizing or not legalizing individual medical procedures to be somewhat ludicrous, when they are in no way medical professionals, and have no idea why or why not certain procedures are or are not performed. We saw the utter folly of that sort of intervention with the Terry Schiavo nonsense. (who, it may be noted, was proved to literally have nothing left of her higher brain when the autopsy was performed, utterly vindicating the husband's position). I do not know that he feels the same, but it wouldn't surprise me at all, as it is a relatively common opinion among people I know.
Going to extreme measure to try and stop a death that is inevitable is a completely separate subject. In regards to the Federal bill, I think NARAL and many strongly pro-choice congressional members supporting it should indicate to you that it wasn't done willy nilly based on non professional opinion, in fact the bill it's self states otherwise.
Arlos wrote:I understand that you are against abortion. I happen to completely disagree with you. I simply do not consider a barely differentiated zygote or blastocyst to be in any way "human" and thus deserving of the same suite of rights as a fully adult person. See:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/w ... ticle.html for a relatively rigorous philosophical argument on the issue that I happen to agree with in general.
The entire abortion issue at large was not the focus of my discussion, however I noticed from the article you linked that it is very likely that the author would be supportive of the bill Obama voted against, with the exception that the author would seem to take issue with not putting the child out of it's misery preemptively because of the inevitable.. but that is not so much an issue with abortion but with how we as a society view humans vs animals. Society would be generally accepting of taking active measure to kill an animal who's death was inevitable, but would generally not be so receptive to doing so with a human. I'm not talking about holding back on efforts to keep someone alive, but in actively ending their life. While it is true that this bill would have effectively prevented preemptive active killing if one were to take issue with that, one is really taking issue with societies view even outside of the abortion issue. Obviously without direct assertion by the author either way, I have no way of knowing, however I think most people would be willing to make the trade off of forgoing objection because of an opposition to a societal view at large for the benefit of treating a living being in a humane manner.
Arlos wrote:So, disagree with his stance about abortion all you like, that is certainly your prerogative. But do NOT misrepresent his stance for something it is not. That is intellectual dishonesty at best, a continuation of the smear campaign at worst.
If I am painting Obama's position on this in the wrong light, then surely we could find an example of him doing more then giving lip service to support for any limitation on abortion. I would state that I am not aware of any such instance, and therefore am not intentionally misrepresenting anything, I am simply pointing out the contradiction between his statements now and his past stances and votes. Show me where he has ever voted for anything that limits abortion in anyway, or even verbally supported any specific existing laws that placed limitations on abortion, but until such time I will still maintain that his statement saying he would support any form of late term abortion is a flat out lie.
Of course you won't be able to find that because Obama when it comes to the abortion issue is as radical as it gets, even surpassing Barbra Boxer and NARAL. While you may fully agree with this extreme position, the fact is that the vast majority of the voting public would not. The real dishonesty here is not with pointing out the contradictions to his statement and his past action and stances, the real dishonesty is in pretending that the statement he made reflects his views on the matter, or is reflected in his voting record.
Seriously Arlos, you started by arguing that the word "mother" didn't insinuate the existence of children, that's how illogical you have to become to argue this?
