[elledarcy]

Originally Posted by 2Bulgarianbeauties

Because conservatives believe that a baby is human at the moment of conception. The child has done nothing wrong and deserves to live. War is done to protect a nation, or to free people oppressed. Is it all right to ignore the thousands of mass graves found in Iraq, or the tourcher (sp?) rooms? Or the future destruction that Iraq could inflict with WMD (And for all the doubters the UN agreed that WMD exist). In addition, the death penalty is supported by some (but not all) because these people have been given the chance at life, and inflicted such harm on society that they do not deserve to continue to live. Guns are supported because the bad guys always can get guns, the good guys should have a right to protect themselves. A criminal is less likely to attack someone when they have to be concerned that person can shoot back. If they know a person is defenseless, they are most likely to be attacked. Finally, conservatives believe that humans have dominion over animals, that they are not human, do not have souls, and are not equal to humans.

Hope that helps.

These views may be someone’s religious views, but I certainly don’t think they represent the views of most religious people, nor do I think they are biblical sound or accurately reflect the spirit Christ.

I’m Catholic the church generally supports the idea of the “seamless garment of life,” which means that every life is meaningful and valuable to God. I’ll attempt to lay out the Catholic positions briefly (to give you an idea of what “traditional” religious folks might think)…

Abortion – Is morally wrong because life begins at conception, thus that life is cherished and special to God.

War – Can be morally okay if undertaken in the most responsible way (so as to avoid needless loss of life) and only as a last resort (see the doctrine of “just war’)

Death penalty – Is morally wrong because every life is precious to God, even a convicted murder’s life. Also, don’t forget that the murder can repent and be forgiven (and state executions cut the natural life of the person short)

Guns – Can be morally okay if used with care and concern for fellow human beings. A person would be justified in defending themselves with a gun if they felt their life was in danger.

Animals – Is morally okay to use animals for food, clothes, work, etc. But should also treat them with care and gentleness. “Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's needs.”

Other “life” issues: Poverty, AIDS, hunger and homelessness, Embryonic stem cell research, IVF, justice for workers, euthanasia, racism, the arms race.

So no one candidate is on the side of “life” on all the issues.

Religious folks love to use God to shore up their own political views. Even Catholics will emphasize certain points of doctrine over others to make their point. My thoughts are that there are no easy answers in any religion. We have a set of complicated issues to consider and would do best to remember compassion and love when making our ultimate decision on which side we fall on.

[aclee]

Originally Posted by sstuart

If there are people out there that think they can "manage" a 17 year old, then maybe they should be running for president. All I can hope for is to raise my children the best I can and hope that they make wise decisions. Even good kids make mistakes! I have yet to meet someone in my life who has never done wrong. We wonder why our politicians may not be the best choice. It is because your life is placed under a microscope and everyone you are related to or know are fair game.

i don't think they mean manage the kid like she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, I mean more manage the situation...like, she's pregnant now what are you going to do? get her counceling? Force her to get married? What? That kind of thing...

That's the impression I got from the talk shows I heard this AM anyway, and the views of many that called in...

[megaphonemo]

When you are a politician, at the level of VICE PRESIDENT, your family WILL get pulled into it. Secret service will be there to protect every one of them - from her oldest son (soon heading to Iraq) to little Trig.

I really wonder if she realized what kind of impact this would have on her family. I really do. So long, Quiet life in Alaska. So long Commercial fishing industry.

I also wonder what was wrong with McCain. Did he really think that every female would vote for him (and her) just because she is female?? If he did, I am insulted (not that it matters - Go Obama!!!).

Mega

[lovemy2boys]

Originally Posted by paigeturner

As for the "pro-life/pro-choice" question...it's not a federal issue. BTW, on the "anti-gay" stance, I understand that Palin shot down a gay marriage bill shortly after taking office. On the flip side, she pushed through a measure giving partner benefits to state employees. I don't have the time to research this entirely, but the person who told me this said he'd dig it up.

If that turns out to be incorrect...if she shot down partner benefits well then, I would find that a negative factor in casting my vote.

I looked it up, and this is what I found (not on a news source, but on Alaska's GLBT News Events

" She opposes health benefits for gay and lesbian couples, and supported a $1.2 million non-binding advisory vote for legislation that would have taken away the partner benefits granted by an Alaska Supreme Court ruling. (The vote passed by only a narrow margin, and the benefits remain.)"

[SupaModel]

Originally Posted by megaphonemo

I also wonder what was wrong with McCain. Did he really think that every female would vote for him (and her) just because she is female?? If he did, I am insulted (not that it matters - Go Obama!!!).

Mega

That's EXACTLY what he thought about us! Shame on him! Shame on any woman who falls for that.

[elledarcy]

Originally Posted by Kat-L

SB1661eng 92nd General Assembly
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and were then not given life saving medical care and wanted babies who were born just as early (prematurely) and were given live-saving medical attention.

When two babies are born at say, 24 weeks, a doctor should be required to provide the same medical care for both-regardless of the circumstances of the child's delivery. A baby born alive is a human being with the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy. It's not an abortion issue. We're talking about babies born ALIVE. And if one baby's life is worth fighting for when he was born at 22 weeks, why should the next baby born at 22 weeks be denied medical care?

Anyway, Obama voted against the Illinois act. In this country a woman has a RIGHT to an abortion. She does not have a RIGHT to make sure her baby dies when he/she is born alive. Once the baby is born alive, he/she has the same right to life as any other baby born.

I think Obama has said that the reason he voted against this bill was that he viewed it as a "back door" attack on abortion rights, which he firmly supports. I think his main concern was not eroding abortion rights. I wonder how often children are born alive as the result of a botched abortion? Pro-choice politicians routinely find themselves in this quandary as pro-life advocates use issues like this to show how “out of touch” and “left wing” the pro-choicers are. On its face, it’s pretty horrible to say Obama supports letting babies die, but I don’t think this accurately reflect his views.

Obama is pro-choice. If you don’t agree with that, and that is an important issue to you, you probably will not be voting for him.

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by lovemy2boys

I looked it up, and this is what I found (not on a news source, but on Alaska's GLBT News Events

" She opposes health benefits for gay and lesbian couples, and supported a $1.2 million non-binding advisory vote for legislation that would have taken away the partner benefits granted by an Alaska Supreme Court ruling. (The vote passed by only a narrow margin, and the benefits remain.)"

Thanks, Love. To me, THIS is a real policy issue. This type of policy stance has a real effect on members of my family and friends. Her daughter does not. Her belief on choice does not. Her religious beliefs do not...etc. But, this of course is just the way I choose who gets my vote, my campaign dollars, my support - I'm sure we all pick our candidates in a different way.

[sbaglio]

Originally Posted by Kat-L

SB1661eng 92nd General Assembly
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and were then not given life saving medical care and wanted babies who were born just as early (prematurely) and were given live-saving medical attention.

When two babies are born at say, 24 weeks, a doctor should be required to provide the same medical care for both-regardless of the circumstances of the child's delivery. A baby born alive is a human being with the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy. It's not an abortion issue. We're talking about babies born ALIVE. And if one baby's life is worth fighting for when he was born at 22 weeks, why should the next baby born at 22 weeks be denied medical care?

Anyway, Obama voted against the Illinois act. In this country a woman has a RIGHT to an abortion. She does not have a RIGHT to make sure her baby dies when he/she is born alive. Once the baby is born alive, he/she has the same right to life as any other baby born.

FactCheck.org: Obama and 'Infanticide'

Firstly, I've been to numerous deliveries where the fetus was not going to survive. Unless you have as well, do not assume you know how these infants are treated.

You have grieving parents who learn that their infant will not survive. Support is ALWAYS given (respiratory, neurologic, you name it). Medical care is never "denied". I don't know where you heard that it is. The infant is made as comfortable as possible, and the family gathers around the infant, cuddling, kissing, taking pictures, saying prayers. It's not like the infant is tossed in the bin.

Most doctors, believe it or not, go into medicine for humanistic reasons, regardless of their beliefs.

[sstuart]

Originally Posted by megaphonemo

When you are a politician, at the level of VICE PRESIDENT, your family WILL get pulled into it. Secret service will be there to protect every one of them - from her oldest son (soon heading to Iraq) to little Trig.
Mega

This is exactly why we do not have GREAT canidates! Because who wants their whole life on display. Things you did as a teenager or in college. It is ridiculous! Things brought up from over 20 years ago. People change, there are many people who have had quite the checkered past who are great people who have learned alot from their past mistakes.

[MamaS]

I found this article about the baby's father. It is a British paper, so presumably not biased toward either side.

(Link removed for language.)
(Google Mail Online for the article)

He doesn't sound like the kind of son-in-law I would want.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by sbaglio

Medical care is never "denied". I don't know where you heard that it is. The infant is made as comfortable as possible, and the family gathers around the infant, cuddling, kissing, taking pictures, saying prayers. It's not like the infant is tossed in the bin.

Most doctors, believe it or not, go into medicine for a humanistic reason, regardless of their beliefs.

Actually, that is NOT the case. Here is what Jill Stanek (who testified before Obama) had to say:

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I understand what Obama was getting at. The pregnant mother wasn't counting on giving birth to a live child, this child may not survive anyway (even with extensive medical care), and it's going to cost a fortune to try to save this life of this new baby that was supposed to be dead. In addition to this, we have a woman who thought she was having an abortion, who now has a newborn child in critical condition. So what do we do about her?

However, in this country, babies born alive are human beings and should not be cast aside because they survived birth. AGAIN, this is NOT an abortion issue. An abortion kills an UNBORN fetus. We're talking about babies born ALIVE. Obama took an EXTREMELY liberal view on this issue when he would state that a woman's right to be free of the burden of motherhood is more important than a living child's right to medical care after birth.

And a doctor SHOULD treat a newborn who survived an abortion in the same manner that he/she would treat a premature baby born to parents who WANTED to be parents.

Again, a woman has the RIGHT to abort a baby she doesn't want. However, she and her doctor shouldn't make a decision to deny life-saving medical care to a newborn that she doesn't want.


I think this viewpoint on the subject of children born alive says a LOT about his character.

[Stormster]

Great husband material! Cute girl though. Palin herself is quite a looker, she looks like my girl crush Tina Fey.

How can you be pro life but pro death (penalty) Esp. when you are Christian. Isn't it all about forgiveness? I'm not being rude...I really don't understand?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by elledarcy

I think Obama has said that the reason he voted against this bill was that he viewed it as a "back door" attack on abortion rights, which he firmly supports. I think his main concern was not eroding abortion rights. I wonder how often children are born alive as the result of a botched abortion? Pro-choice politicians routinely find themselves in this quandary as pro-life advocates use issues like this to show how “out of touch” and “left wing” the pro-choicers are. On its face, it’s pretty horrible to say Obama supports letting babies die, but I don’t think this accurately reflect his views.

Obama is pro-choice. If you don’t agree with that, and that is an important issue to you, you probably will not be voting for him.

Agreed. My understanding (and full disclosure this is from the Obama website) is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in those rare cases babies are born alive during abortions, so in fact there was no need for extra legal protections. This bill wasn't adding any new protections to babies "born alive" - it was solely an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.


I don't find anything wrong with legislators who are pro-life crafting bills to push their agenda that's part of our system. But to say that Obama somehow supports letting babies die because he wouldn't vote for this bill is a real twist of the facts.

[aclee]

When, where and under what circunstances are these late term abortions still done? I know I could do the research, but I'm supposed to be working

[mama_again]

I think I am missing something here? I have been off line for a while and it seems that the adoption stories have become politcal debates? what happened to the good mommy and daddy news? Just curious?