A few years ago, a couple in the Chicago area found out that their unborn baby had Down syndrome. They decided to abort the child, so doctors induced labor at Christ's Hospital. The violent contractions almost always kill the baby at this stage in its development. This one lived. Jill Stanek, a nurse, was shocked at what happened next. The baby was not placed in an incubator, he was left to die. Someone suggested they put him in a linen closet until he died, but Jill took the child in her arms until he died, 45 minutes later.
Jill soon found that it is perfectly legal in Illinois to let a premature baby die if he is born in this way. She eventually found her way to state senator Patrick O'Malley, who proposed legislation to right this wrong. The bill was careful not to infringe about the "right" to abortions (this is Illinois after all). It stated that "the words 'person,' 'human being,' 'child,' and 'individual' include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” All babies who were actually born would then have to be treated, whether or not they were wanted.
Only one state senator spoke in opposition. His name is Barack Obama. His comments on March 30, 2001:
There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Essentially he argues that infants born this way may or not be "persons," but that their rights as persons are secondary to the constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, infanticide is necessary to maintain this right.
Obama pledged in July 2007 that "the first thing" he will do as president is to erase all federal and state restrictions on abortion. His top priority would be to re-legalize partial birth abortion and to force states to fund abortions. Barack Obama is a "new kind of politician" alright. He is new in the sense that he is more to the extreme left than anyone in the Senate. In 2001 the Senate considered similar legislation to the bill Obama opposed in Illinois, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. It passed 98-0.
I know most of you are leaning towards Obama, but does this trouble you? I would never argue that being a Christian means you have to vote a certain way, but how does the abortion issue factor into who how you vote?
6 comments:
That is a very sad story. I have not read all of Barack's statements on abortion, though I doubt very much that he promotes infanticide. I was sad to hear he backs partial-birth abortion, which I personally do not agree with. Being pro-choice does not make one pro-abortion.
It seems like what the argument comes down to is "when is a fetus a human"? That is a very grey area and not easily navigated without extreme conclusions being drawn. Because of this I say it is the woman's body and she should decide. No government should force her to come to term if it is against her wishes. But at some point the life inside her must have it's own rights. Again this gets into very sticky territory because how do you decide when that is? These are problems not easily solved.
Regardless, a very good way to reduce the number of abortions would be providing every woman in America with free birth control. I've always been confused why so many pro-life Republicans are against that idea.
I agree that it is very hard to say with certainty when a fetus is human. But I think it is hard to argue that a baby that could survive outside the womb is not a human (although I would argue it's far earlier). At this point, shouldn't the baby's right to live trump a woman's right to kill it (or to choose or to privacy or whatever you want to call it) for her convenience?
If we can agree on this point, an abortion that kills a potentially viable baby is murder. Obama isn't promoting infanticide, he's defending it - is that much better? This position (and others) puts him to the left of every Senator in Washington.
All poor women can already get free (or almost free, they might have a $5 copay) birth control by enrolling in Medicaid. I don't think too many Republicans argue against some sort of health care for the poor.
What nice discussions we are having, Adrienne. Maybe we should start our own Hannity and Colmes type show.
I agree that there should be some point in the pregnancy that the baby's right to life should trump the woman's right to choose. Because, yes, at some point that baby could survive on its own and should be allowed that chance.
Glad to hear folks on Medicaid can get BC fairly easily but it seem that I keep reading about conservatives who are trying to deny access in some way. They are probably people who subscribe to a more extremist type religion.
As for a show together, that could be fun - as long as it's not associated with Fox! However I'm no moderate so don't expect me to bow like Colmes!
You two are so much more civil, I'd support a show like this on the teevee.
We are civil because we respect each other's bean bag toss skills.
So no one supports Obama on this position? Good. So do all of his other qualities outweigh his defense of infanticide and other extremist abortion positions?
Post a Comment