Veridicus Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1258580155' post='2005048'] As you look deeper, the bill was merely to increase funding for a health-clinic, which provides a vast array of services to women, including abortion. Senator A voted against increasing the funding, but if you look back, he voted for the funding in the first bill that made it possible. Senator B merely voted for the increase and wasn't even around when the original funding bill was voted and enacted. Jim [/quote] That is a salient point for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1258578920' post='2005032'] The pediatricians are concerned over previable fetuses born dead, or presumed to be dead at the time of extraction, which may move due to nerve activity or merely because the mother thought she saw it move, and then reports to a government board, that the doctor didn't try to save the baby's life. Some government bureaucrat could have the physicians licence to practice suspended, pending and investigation, or even revoked. Would you work under such conditions? Many doctors will chose to go into other areas of medicine, rather than risk their careers and well-being to government bureaucrats and lay people who have no clue about medicine. Jim [/quote] A solution to this would be to have healthcare worker panels review cases before they hit Govt/Judicial systems. I believe in Indiana (where I'm currently a second year medical student at IU) that medical malpractice casese are reviewed by an independent panel involving a physician (and nurses, etc) to see if negligence or malpractice occurred. Then this report is presented to a judge who will determine if the case should be heard. It seems, anecdotally anyway, that the majority of cases that these physician panels deem as "not malpractice" end up w/ favorable outcomes for physicians. In this way, the medical professionals have their professional input before the beaurocrats and laypeople mess things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1258572184' post='2004953'] [color="#000000"][color="#000000"]Here's an opinion from the Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics on the The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), back in 2005. I suggest you read what doctors, not bureaucrats or people with political agendas had to say about it. This is a part of the article. [/color] [color="#000000"] Jim[/size][/sup] [/quote] Or perhaps we should look at what [b]Obama himself[/b] originally said about his reason for opposing the bill: [quote][b]Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the 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 - 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. [/b] 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.[/quote] Straight from the horse's mouth: Obama opposed protecting infants that survive abortion because he saw it as a threat to the "right" to kill an unborn child. Edited November 18, 2009 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 well, that was incredibly confusing. socrates why are you using the same avatar as Fidei Defensor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='Socrates' date='18 November 2009 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1258581836' post='2005063'] Or perhaps we should look at what [b]Obama himself[/b] originally said about his reason for opposing the bill: Straight from the horse's mouth: Obama opposed protecting infants that survive abortion because he saw it as a threat to the "right" to kill an unborn child. [/quote] Socrates, If I could I would give you +1's [i]infinity[/i] for this post. We need to quit trying to make excuses for pro-abortion politicians and their pro-death policies and the actions they take to ensure their agenda is not snuffed out... there are no ifs, ands or buts. The culture of death is real, as real as Pope John Paul II told us. The ministers of this culture don't hesitate with their agenda...they know exactly what they are doing...I dont' care if Obama denies being for infanticide...straight out of his mouth, he considers killing babies born during abortions as necessary to protect the right to kill unborn life...how can anyone defend him??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 According to a Nova episode infanticide is more common among homo sapiens than among any of the other higher apes, and that is without even considering abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='18 November 2009 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1258585095' post='2005106'] According to a Nova episode infanticide is more common among homo sapiens than among any of the other higher apes, and that is without even considering abortion. [/quote] Wait so does that support or contradict evolution?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='18 November 2009 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1258572184' post='2004953'] [color="#000000"][color="#000000"]Here's an opinion from the Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics on the The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), back in 2005. I suggest you read what doctors, not bureaucrats or people with political agendas had to say about it. This is a part of the article. [/color] [color="#000000"] Jim[/size][/sup] [/quote] Okay, I read it and still maintain Obama supports infanticide. Murdering children inside the womb and leaving them to die outside the womb is a violation of the basic oath doctors take to do no harm. From a medical standpoint not only are all abortions an atrocity, but killing by omission those survivors of such murder attempts is an atrocity as well as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='18 November 2009 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1258585931' post='2005120'] Wait so does that support or contradict evolution?!?!?!? [/quote] I just brought it up as a disturbing curiosity, wasn't trying to say anything about evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 November 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1258582726' post='2005072'] well, that was incredibly confusing. socrates why are you using the same avatar as Fidei Defensor? [/quote] Yeah. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Weird that you are not only using my Avatar, but an actual picture of me. your identity theft skills are definitely over 9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Actually, I went out in my backyard and duplicated your picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 o please, like a topless photo of you would ever be allowed on PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='18 November 2009 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1258586529' post='2005128'] I just brought it up as a disturbing curiosity, wasn't trying to say anything about evolution. [/quote] And I was trying to be facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='18 November 2009 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1258591643' post='2005194'] o please, like a topless photo of you would ever be allowed on PM. [/quote] In the picture, it's actually bottomless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now