Obama Confronts Racial Division in US

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't realize abortion was mentioned in the Constitution.

that's pretty much what roe vs wade was about... texas' argument was there was no right to an abortion in the constitution...
roe's attorney's argued: "This is a liberty protected by the due process clause, or an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment"

Maybe you should learn history a bit before trying to be a wiseazz...

To laughing liberal... I'm not ignoring you...let me sift through all the material you offered me.

thanks for the info...

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's one of the transcripts:
March 30, 2001, pages 84-90:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans...
What's most disturbing about Obama is him explaining that the abortion survivor "is still temporarily alive outside the womb..."
He then goes on to rationalize the slaughter of the child so as to not challenge the legality of abortion itself when in fact, THE BABY HAS BEEN BORN!
And where do you think this abortion surviving child resides while the abortion doctor is preparing to suffocate it?
-In a blender?
-on a table?
-in a trash bag?

you are misrepresentnig his quote: here's the full quote:
"The committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?"

So in the first part he is making sure the issue is correct...he is not explaining that the survivor is alive outside the womb, as you state...but rather that that is the issue, and Senator O'Mally basically agrees in the next paragraph.

he then continues to say that the way it is written, it would essentially bar abortions.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955.
Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/obama-link...
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House.
Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

both Jill stanek and the writer of the WSJ online article - sr writer at American Values, are strong pro-life proponenets...of course they are going to be against Obama on this...they are biased on the issue...and not a good source

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>that's pretty much what roe vs wade was about... texas' argument was there was no right to an abortion in the constitution...
roe's attorney's argued: "This is a liberty protected by the due process clause, or an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment"
Maybe you should learn history a bit before trying to be a wiseazz...

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp...

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html

A couple of interesting articles that show that Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned.

Maybe you should learn the true story of Roe v. Wade.

so, due process clause allows you to murder your child and absolve you of taken full responsibility for your actions? btw, the party in that case lobbying for abortion now opposes it. for those who claim that we'd have women going to butchers or trying to perfom the murder themselves, your point? its not really surprising to hear that people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. now for the argument for rape or incest, the most innocent in All PREGNANCIES is the baby. so placing blame or punishment on that child really doesn't make such a victim so innocent.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955.
Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Wrong...it was ALMOST identical...except for the line in the federal act that states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species **** sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."

It came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves:³Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.
To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212611074804...
And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on Partial-Birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

The freedom of choice act does not overturn the federal ban on partial birth...it simply protects something that was already decided on...
Read the act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z... :

Here are some key parts:

Findings:(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balanced the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the state's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is absolute only prior to fetal viability, with the state permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

Definition of viability:
(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
After reading the transcripts I attached, I think you'll find that Obama most certainly does recognize that the baby is alive and laying on a table somewhere.
All he cares about is killing it even though this little person beat the odds and survived the 1st attempt.
Do you understand that the baby was delivered?
What you and Obama are trying to say is that an official must officially start the clock on life or else it never existed and is subject to whatever horrors we can offer.
Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 31-35.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans...

I'm not saying when to start the clock...I'm saying if you want a bill to pass, and you know what the opposition is about, why don't you rewrite it in a manner that you know it will pass, other than to politicize it?

Obama was not the only one that didn't vote for it...therefore SOMETHING was off with the act!

Redogg wrote:

Now all we need to do is hold hands and sing, right? They demanded and had Dog the Bounty Hunter taken off the air for making some remarks in private (this is just one example, the list goes on), yet I don't hear Jesse or Al or anyone in the black community asking Rev. Jeremiah Wright to step down after all of the disparaging remarks he's made, not only about whites, but about our country as a whole. In fact, these people, including Obama, are still standing behind him. Seems like a double standard to me.

I dont feel like reading all these post in between, so if I am being redundent I apologize..but I have to say..whites were absolutely freaked out when Marion Barry caught on video with the "crack pipe" was re-elected! Whites were freaked out, when Alcee Hastings keeps getting elected even after stealing millions of dollars from the same community he professes to be helping. Lets not forget OJ, Black jury wasnt convicting one of their "brotha's" for killing a white girl. Forget Rev. Jesse and Al, too many examples of those two ripping apart communities in the name of "black persecussion" the list can go on and on..Now dont think I am minimizing white examples, God knows there are plenty...but again, blacks make the mistake of thinking most whites tolerate white extortion and theft...we dont..blacks think their owed no matter how they get paid..

The racial divide is a necessity. Without racism as an excuse, what other scapegoat is there to blame all your shortcomings and disappointments on?

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
2003
Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the Actions docket, Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee.
It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.as...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp...
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members...
Know your candidate...

Prior to March 6, it did not have the same text as the federal act that was passed. He did stop it for that reason...

The days after, the amendment with the new text was introduced...

And from what I've read, it WAS voted on and lost...even senator winkel, who sponsored it, admitted it didn't pass on to the senate because it was voted against it in the committee!
"I just read a copy of the Illinois Senate Republican Staff analysis on SB 1082 (93rd General Assembly), and, contrary to the bill status report on the Illinois General Assembly Website, it shows the bill -- as amended -- was in fact called for a vote in committee on a motion to recommend the bill for passage to the whole Senate," former Sen. Winkel, now an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote me in an email. "That motion failed 4-6-0 along party lines, and the chairman, then state Sen. Barack Obama, voted no. The result is that the bill died in the committee."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...

So see, I do know my candidate...

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp...
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
A couple of interesting articles that show that Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned.
Maybe you should learn the true story of Roe v. Wade.

we could go back and forth on this...it's all a matter of opinion...even your rightgrrl carolyn states it's her opinion...

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>we could go back and forth on this...it's all a matter of opinion...even your rightgrrl carolyn states it's her opinion...

And the ruling in Roe v. Wade was also opinion, of course. You should read the dissents - interesting. Just a matter of time....

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
And the ruling in Roe v. Wade was also opinion, of course. You should read the dissents - interesting. Just a matter of time....

sorry, not an opinion...a ruling... it may be based on opinion, but it's still a ruling...

I did read them...the same things have been brought up since the RULING was made...

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>sorry, not an opinion...a ruling... it may be based on opinion, but it's still a ruling...
I did read them...the same things have been brought up since the RULING was made...

Have you ever had your unborn baby killed?

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you ever had your unborn baby killed?

First of all, that is not only totally not your business, it's totally irrelevant...

see, you pro-lifers think that pro-choice means pro- abortion, and the two are totally different...

The way I view it, while I am not for abortions, it's not my place to tell a woman what to do...

observant, it most certainly does mean proabortion. unlike some people would have us believe, on some issues there are only 2 sides. this is one of them. there are absolutes. its seem paradoxical to say pro choice when they most certainly had a choice to engage in sexual behaviour. again, when men choose to not take responsibility for their own actions, society calls them dead beats. women are excused for making a "personal choice". when you call us prolifers, you deride us for calling you proabortion. why? ashamed? it seems that its an attempt assuage the guilt of murderers by saying its a "choice". that man in tennessee made a "choice" and he is correctly called a murderer.