Would you vote for or against ?

On March 13, 2003, Illinois state legislator Barack Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Act which provides that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive should receive necessary medical care and treatment - His staff stated this was...

true - Would you: A) Vote against, as Obama did to protect 'pro-choice' or B) Vote for saving - receive life-support for this just born baby ?

Once again, FEDERAL LAW recognizes it as a 'fetus' not a newborn baby, and yes there's a difference, per FEDERAL LAW.

And Initially, the Act was flawed, and placed several people, of which FEDERAL LAW recognized as PEOPLE (which yes, trumps your fetus... deal with it) in harms way. Obama (and 5 others -- of whom you failed to mention... typical) could SEE the Act was flawed, and voted against it. Did he vote against the 2nd version once the necessary corrections were made? NO.

So... shut up.

I Am ANTI-Abortion.

Its WRONG!

I'm, sorry... I am all for a right to choose, but I think that if you can't give it up for adoption, then you shouldn't be mating!

Anyway, I would vote B, Simply because, if it s already done, they baby deserves a chance, its not his/her fault the parent is irresponsable.

Article on the subject: http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2008/09/05/

obamas_abortion_positon_to_the_left_of_naral

The 2003 Born Alive Infant legislation would have given the rights of personhood to a fetus. No matter what stage of pregnancy – even before viability
These bills would have placed criminal and civil liabilities (including punitive damages) on doctors and hospitals that provided obstetric care or abortion services to pregnant women.
These bills had the potential of placing a woman and her fetus at odds when it came to medical care because what might be in the best interest of one might put the other at risk.
Although the differences between the federal and state versions appeared to be of few actual words, the legal impact of the definitions remained significantly different between the two versions.
The state versions afforded full legal rights to pre-viable fetuses. They also excluded a section of the federal bill that clarified that legal rights of a person would not be applied to fetuses that were not yet born.

WHAT AMBLESSED DOES NOT MENTION IS THAT THIS LEGISLATION CAME UP AGAIN IN 2005 (REWORDED AND AS A STAND ALONE BILL) and it passed both the Illinois house and senate with no legislators voting against it. HB 984 was signed into law on August 12, 2005.

So, to recap:
In 2003 -
Obama and 5 other legislators voted AGAINST the bill when first introduced because it would have left doctors, nurses and hospitals that provide abortions open to lawsuits and prosecution. CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

In 2005 -
The legislation was REWORDED so it would not conflict with federal law and it was PASSED with no legislators voting against it.

Amblessed is like Paul Harvey, except that he NEVER gives you the rest of the story

utopia: CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, clearly trumps assisting this living fragile newborn baby laying there, hang on to life - do not help...very sad.

I could never support a person who knowingly voted to withhold necessary medical care and treatment to a baby laying there outside the body - surely you're smarter and value human life more than to say 'it's a fetus don't help it'...if not, very sad indeed.

DICTIONARY:

FETUS: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

***surely you're smarter and value human life***

Yeah... I am smarter... but I don't perform abortions. But I find it necessary to protect the medical professionals involved, since they're performing the procedure at the REQUEST OF THE PATIENT.

And if you want to point fingers, you need to go ahead an blame everyone who made abortion legal, and have kept it legal for all these years; because THEY don't view it as an individual either. You should also blame yourself for LIVING in a country where such atrocities against God and life are permitted.

And your definition of 'fetus' makes it sound even LESS human... well done...

Tho I'm pro-choice, I'm afraid that I would no more sit there and allow a baby to die, giving it NO care...anymore than I'd drown a litter of unwanted puppies...

Abortion is for unviable fetuses...NOT for live births; If ya can't get to the abortionist in time, then the only option would be adoption...PERIOD...I would vote FOR that bill...

p

I would vote against the original FLAWED bill and for the corrected final bill.

I'll pick (B). When botched abortions happen and the baby survives the abortion, there needs to be medical treatment instead of letting an inicent child die!
Obama had no right to vote against that.
Again, hope he loses!

I dont know this whole thing has kinda confused me, so I will say this, abortion is wrong...a woman who does that is murdering her child...end of story...you shouldn been doin what you did if you didnt want a child...if the child is born, it has every right as all theother human beings, everything from what it wants to believe in to medical care...and I agree wit bafalken, the baby shouldn suffer just b/c the parents is immature bout it...it has a right to live just like everyone else...I dont know if I answered your question or not, but thats what I believe

***I'll pick (B). When botched abortions happen and the baby survives the abortion, there needs to be medical treatment instead of letting an inicent child die! Obama had no right to vote against that.
Again, hope he loses!***

You obviously didn't read into this topic much. You should pay more attention. 'Utopia' posted additional information about the act, that amblessed LEFT OUT (just to make Obama look bad). Something he's been trying to do for the past few days.

***so I will say this, abortion is wrong...a woman who does that is murdering her child...end of story***

Well, the law doesn't agree with you... so deal with it...

utopia: WHAT AMBLESSED DOES NOT MENTION IS THAT THIS LEGISLATION CAME UP AGAIN IN 2005 (REWORDED AND AS A STAND ALONE BILL

The subject of this question is obviously on the Original Bill dated March 13, 2003 to which it cannot be denied, he voted NO to: born alive should receive necessary medical care and treatment - It is Fact, he read the Bill and voted NO.

...yeah... the bill was flawed... like your point of view.

Thanks all for your insightful comments, appreciate it !!

Somebody's got a new catch phrase.
Thanks all for your insightful comments, appreciate it !!

I LIKE it!!

Amblessed, do you really expect anyone to give any creedance to townhall.com? This site was founded by the heritage foundation. When you read something on one of the wingnut sites, do you ever check its validity, or do you just accept whatever they say?

Your view of the world is extremely skewed from reading only right wing propaganda.