What would YOU do?

[layoutshooter]

Ok TalCal101, this thread is NOT about shooting, targets or anything or anyone else. I find Obama's two votes on allowing babies that survive a botched abortion vile and discusting. I find that fact that he lied about those votes even worse. I find it amazing and sick that ANYONE could support a candidate that would vote the way he did on this issue. Why even the US Senate voted 100 to 0 in favor of allowing medical care for these assault victims. Now, am I asking you, and anyone else who cares to answer, could you or would you if you were in the room when this happened, just stand there and let that baby die? This is a very simple question that requires a straight yes or no answer. No other treads involed. Just this one. Period. End of sked. (bet you don't know what end of sked means)
Layoutshooter

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I could not let that baby die...once it's out of the protection of the womb it's now a person struggling to live.

NO

 

[layoutshooter]

Thanks for the answer, more "proof" that you might not be a liberal. Most liberals can't answer a straight question with a straight answer. Layoutshooter

 

[Jack_Berry]

ever see this??

it is not a choice
it is a child

 

[layoutshooter]

Many times, I wish I had written it. Layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

While I agree that the vote was wrong, and he should be demonized by it, it's blown WAY out of proportion, IMO. The repubs are using the same old tricks the dems have for years, by putting a little kid's face up there, and telling a story that is meant to gain sympathy. I thought sympathy was the blood of the liberal brain here.

Hannity is making me sick on this subject. He's making me sick period. LOL Personally, I think there is enough on Obama to tug on the purse strings, and leave the heart strings to a minimum.

 

[layoutshooter]

It is about Obama's character. I cannot fathom letting a baby die like that. It is a VERY important insight into the type of person Obama is. Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

When Sarah Palin found out she was having a baby with Downs symdrom she did not kill it. She is rasing that child. How refreshing. Layoutshooter

 

[tallcal101]

Unwanted babies are dumped in dumpsters every day by teens with a lack of understanding of the severity of their situation,or their deeds. Education is so lacking in this country after many years of neglect it's no wonder such situations don't occure more. As a father I feel great remorse about the death of any child for any reason. Since our current goverrnment will not give us civilian casulity reports that can be trusted ,including children that are blown to bits by botched bombing raids,I find it interesting that you are so focused on perhaps a singlle incident that was a legal,but botched medical procedure.
I guess your sympathy is :

1) Only for American infants (typical)

2) Only for infants that die as the result of a legal procdure that went wrong.

3) That if Bush (your hero) was held to the same standard as a mass baby killer you blink and proclaim it's the cost of war (typical as well).

You can smear Obama on this if you choose,but unlike Bush and McCain,Obama has no blood on his hands. He,like me and many of my crazy liberal friends,said no to this waste of time ,money and the lives of countless babies and children,not to mention our troops and civilians. I can hold my head high and demand the real baby killers be voted out .They will be recorded in the history books as brutal leaders that killed children en mass for a war based on lies and fabricated evidence.And killing lots of babies Shooter,lots of mutilated babies bodies soaked in the blood of the invaders.

Have a good day,I know I will.
You stay focused on this topic shooter,I'm sure you will be able make a big spash in a very shallow pond with it. If Hannity is pushing it (another of your heros) I'm sure it's from the bottom of the FOXY pickel barrel.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

3) That if Bush (your hero) was held to the same standard as a mass baby killer you blink and proclaim it's the cost of war (typical as well).

Not to mention our troops and civilians. I can hold my head high and demand the real baby killers be voted out .They will be recorded in the history books as brutal leaders that killed children en mass for a war based on lies and fabricated evidence.And killing lots of babies Shooter,lots of mutilated babies bodies soaked in the blood of the invaders.

Now who's off topic...??

The topic was...a botched procedure...simple not complicated.
And STILL no answer to the original question...
Let the baby die? or attempt to save it? Yes or no?

 

[tallcal101]

There is no way to determine what this so called "life" may have been. I'm certainly not taking the word of Hannity,or anyone who listens to that guy and takes him seriously. I am absolutly in favor of saving a life. But I,nor you nor Hannity nor Shooter have proof that this story is accurate. I was not there. I have already said I'm not in favor of third trimester abortions. The question is about a piece of legislation that is based on an event that may happen in 1 in 100,000 cases.And yes,I would want that infant looked after.But does that make me feel any different about my choice for President ? No it does not. If it does someone else,I've no probelm with that and respect their opinion.
It just seems to me that it is one issue that will be debated ad nausium and ultimatly decided by the Supreme Court.

Good luck with your Citizen Exam,my wife took her oath in July. I learned more about American Civics helping her study then I did in school.I don't take it personaly that you feel my opinions do not represent your brand of liberalism.In fact,I take it as a good will gesture from a new soon to be citizen. I've spent many nights under the Northern Lights sky on Great Slave Lake in NWT. Perhaps one of the most beautiful spots on Earth (in the summer ) and is well protected by the Canadian Government .There is no intention of drilling there (except for diamonds) LOL

Look me up if you ever get out to the Bay.

 

[dcalien]

No

People can argue forever whether life begins at conception or birth, but I have never heard before that after birth life may not be there. I was amazed when I heard about this awhile back.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You have it right, OVM. I agree with Tallcal until he started with #3. He does it tho... comparing apples to zucchini. No big deal.

I know what they're doing here. They're trying to pump up the one-issue conservatives into a frenzy. Same way Obama has played the class warfare card with McCain's 7 houses. I don't think he was trying to hide anything; just that he keeps his nose out of his wife's business (which might not be a good idea if you want to be president).

I'm middle of the road when it comes to abortion. Before, I was pro-choice. Once they told us our baby had Trisomy-18 (a genetic defect worse than Downs), it sent my head spinning. I would be tore up had that diagnosis been correct, and we aborted Logan. But I also know it would've been the right thing to do, being that he most likely would have been in constant pain. To have a cut and dry pro-life law is not something I would not want to see. On the other hand, what we have now is unsat, when we should be focusing on personal responsibility. Using abortion as birth control is wrong, any way you cut it. Babies are too precious to just throw away. Babies are not a "burden", as Obama has stated in the past, when referring to the possibilities of his daughters being pregnant at a young age.

My wife, during her first nursing job, watched 2nd trimester fetuses being born alive, into a bedpan, put into saline, then off it went, on its way to a bio-hazard bag. Granted, that was 20 yrs ago, so I don't think that's the way it works now.

My opinion, as far as answering the question at hand, is plain and simple... government should not legislate morality, but the ignorant need governing. In this case, wouldn't it be moral to make sure the fetus (baby) is dead before it comes out of the womb? Moral for us, not the baby. Because the baby was already condemned to its fate. If the doctor doesn't have the decency to do the job before the baby sucks air, then it should be the responsibility of the hospital to keep it alive until it expires. But, like I said, that should be a vote of conscience, not of parliament.

 

[tallcal101]

Excellent post Hawk,I could not have said it better myself. Love the zuccini reference,it's so me!!!

 

[LDB]

I'm not going to retype it all but a live egg and live sperm joining to form a life is just that, life. Just because it's not viable outside the womb means nothing in regard to alive or not alive. If that's the test then astronauts are not alive in space and divers aren't alive under the water because without their umbilicals they'd perish.

I'll just add some guns and shooting with demanding the doctor attempt to save the baby and if he refused using his toes for target practice.

 

[layoutshooter]

Cool!! I WAS right, flaming liberals are NOT capable of answering a straight up yes/no answer!!!! Way to confirm my beliefs TalCal101!!!!!! You made my day!!! ****, I really need a life. Murder is murder, period. And to those who think I am a "war monger" I am not. I am also not stupid. Had we not fought WW2 Hilter would have murdered way more than the 12 million he did. Of course some in here have not problem with that since half of them were Jews. We did not directly stop the Russians and Stalin and Friends murdered 25 million Russians. There is no comparison between the horrors of war and abortion. There is a 100% comparison between what Hitler and Stalin did and abortion. And of course the government legislates morality, all laws are just that. And they make choices. A high school girl gives birth in a toliet and just leaves the baby to die, MURDER. A "doctor" bothes an abortion, as in no clean kill, then a live PERSON is born, and he lets it die. Not murder. Makes sense to me. Layoutshooter

 

[OntarioVanMan]

so Layout I "abort' your life and leave you to die...state sanctioned murder?...

 

[always confused]

in a way requiring jut a yes or no answer on this is unfair. many complex issues involved, many things need to be defined. maybe why this is a hotly debated subject.

direct answer : if 'its' alive outside the womb its not a fetus but a baby. to not provide life support is wrong.

questions concerning if and when to allow these 'medical' procedures to be done are fraught with complexities, many of which depend on personal life experience and upbringing. to try diversionary tactics such as changing the topic only avoids the issue.

if 'wrongness' is dependant on 'scale' (1 or 2 ok -- 1 or 2 thousand wrong) then i recommend a personal inner ethics review.

again point of personal beliefs come into play and definitions of concepts is required.

just to complicate things for some religious individuals - - -according to many bible scholars the ten commandment didn't say 'thou shall not kill' but 'thou shall not murder'.
which is a huge difference.

 

[layoutshooter]

I have had to make that decision once, to not treat a man and there for insure he would not survive. It was not an easy decision. It was when my wife and I were EMT's in PA. There was a large emergency services convention in Ocean City MD. My wife and I were the only two EMT's in town that did not go. It was a Friday night, our normal duty night. At about 3AM my pager went off, county was calling for an ambulance, a helicopter and the county corinor. We arrived on the scene and found a '68 Camaro wrapped around a telephone pole, it had went through a 2 foot thick rock wall to get there. There was a woman outside the car moving and a man, the driver, not moving. I did a quick exam, no pulse, no blood pressure, pupils fixed and dialated. Eyes wide open and full of glass and dirt, no blinking. He neck was cut wide open and deep, very deep, blood everwhere but no longer bleeding. A sign of no heartbeat and bleeding out. I made the choice not to even to try and only work on the woman. The emergency wervices term is "most salavegalble". With only two EMT's we put our limited resources on the one that might make it. She did. I would help the baby, no way could I let one die like that.

I never said anything about life of the "spirit" only the body. I did not mention religious beliefs. Life is there when cells devide, multiply, feeds and excretes. Therefore an un-born fetus is alive. To abort it you have to "kill" it. You can't kill something that is not alive. It is not complicated. I chose to see it as human life, it sure is not a cow for the first 3 months. I do no like killing inoccent human life. It is never good, but to do it on purpose for convenice, and no other reason, to me is sick. I can answer yes and no questions. I am a black and white person. Never have seen much gray in my life.

State murder? Capital punishment? I have no moral problem. What is Ceaser's is Ceaser's. They are not innocent. BUT I have practical objections. I don't like the idea of a mistake, have happened before and will again. I object to the costs involed. I object to the hap-hazard way it is applied. I would prefere life in prison without the possiblity of parole. Just my thoughts on that. Layoutshooter