Barach Obama Apparently Doesn't Know the Difference Between a Fetus and an Infant
Barach Obama has been accused of opposing the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which requires hospitals and doctors to treat the survivors of attempted abortion. He denies this despite having refused repeatedly to vote for the Illinois versions.
This 2001 transcript, pp.86-87, is telling. Expressing a hyper-legalism to avoid grappling with the issue, Obama argued against the legislation, stating:
The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment for a previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we place the burden on the doctor, that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention--as is necessary to try to keep the child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."A previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it"? Once the child is delivered, he or she is an infant, not a fetus. And the requirement that a living baby be treated once delivered, has nothing to do with abortion or the woman's right to the same. So, it seems to me that the only way to read Obama's statement is that he doesn't believe that abortion survivors should have to be treated as fully human beings.
And how's this for leadership? After making his statement, after asserting that the bill is unconstitutional, Obama said:
I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.The courage to lead!
HT: Yuval Levin
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:14 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your assessment of the merits of Mr. Obama's legal argument?
Obama has a new ad out in which he says his vote was taken out of context and that John McCain is sleazy because Gianna Jessen, who was born during a saline abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Southern California is running an ad about Obama's vote.
Which story is the real Obama story? The one where he called called pro-lifers liars for pointing out that Obama voted twice against the bill, or the one the next day when the Obama campaign admitted that he did indeed vote against that bill, or this one which says Obama’s vote was taken out of context ad nauseum?
Roe v. Wade, legal and moral abomination though it was, had nothing whatsoever to say about born infants. It did not say that infants born below a certain age were non-persons. As a legal matter, it was about abortion, period.
And as Wesley points out, no born infant is a fetus. That's just a terminological error from a purely medical point of view.
Finally, if Obama really thinks that Roe v. Wade means that we may not treat some born, living infants _must not_ be treated as persons in law, then he should oppose it, not uphold it.
PRESENT. PRESENT PRESENT repeat the mantra but the fact remains that once born the infant is a legal entity onto itself and worthy of the same legal standing as any other person not attached to an umbilical cord. For me I have an opinion that life starts at conception but have been over ruled by society . However a baby born is certainly a life that should get the same legal consideration as any other born human being. Obama's problem is in the factor that he wants to avoid stubbing his toes and will avoid ethics choices, like the amoeba avoids the light of a microscope.
At what stage, precisely, does a foetus become an infant/neonate? Birth is a process, not an instantaneous event.
That said, it was Obama's refusal to vote for this act that made me like him. But were I in his position, I would have voted against it, and admitted it thereafter. Nonetheless, were I an American, I'd vote for him.
Life is a process that starts at conception and should end at death without human interference . Killing a birthed baby is killing a completed life that should be nurtured in a civilized society & not strangled to death. Using your measuring stick ,I should be able to kill another human being at any time because the birthing could end at 10,20,30 years of age as human abilities change throuhgout the aging process.
So Joshua, you are saying the woman doesn't have just a right to be made not pregnant, but to a dead baby.
And birth does conclude. If the child is out of the body, he or she is no longer a fetus. It isn't that hard. Really.
Joshua, are you sure that there isn't somebody out there to whom your existence is an inconvenience? Because if there is, you are justifying your own homicide ahead of time.
Very intelligent observation on your behalf Laura. My mom used to say, "when ever you point a condemning finger at someone else, three more of your own fingers are pointing back at your own face."
Wesley, I was just asking when birth is over. Does the umbilical cord need to be cut, or is just being outside the body (but still attached) enough?
But as I've argued in a couple other discussion here, I don't consider either foetuses or neonates to be persons (i.e. with a right to life). As such, parents should be able to decide if their newborn child lives or dies (although adoption would usually be the better option).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home