Do you agree with Mr. Obama on abortion?

Obama would be right at home in ancient Greece where unwanted babies were left exposed to die. Come to think of it he might not be so at home there since his mixed race might have made one of those unwanted babies.

I believe you've asked this question before.

Please, what was the context in which this happened?

(PS - citation to the nlrc - which is a highly partisan group - is unacceptable when you could cite the bill and the floor record itself).

I suppose you'll just say this is a partisan group too and brush it off. Which is pretty hypocritical when you're only partial to sources that suppress information about it. But this post has notations and context of Obama's support for extinguishing the lives of abortion survivors. So you might want to get busy with rationalizing your denials. http://illinoisreview.typepad...

I'm asking for a citation to a PRIMARY source.

Do you not have one?

(All news sources are secondary sources).

PS - the title of the blog is "crossroads of the conservative community." Yes, I would argue that, LITERALLY, that is partisan...as it expresses political loyalty as part of its central message.

Again - I'll ask for the context in which the above was said.

What do you define as a "PRIMARY" source? One that objectively weighs the options between keeping your feet on the ground and jumping off a cliff? And where's yours? You're only throwing up obstacles and excuses against contrary opinions to hide from debate. If you're not even going to read the post and check the validity of its links, why should anybody bother to have a conversation with you?

The primary source is the actual floor record from the senate, and the bills in question.

It's not what I define as a primary source...it's simply what is objectively defined as a primary source.

In other words, what Harry Reid and his gang define as a primary source. I get where you're coming from. Say, what's the primary source on his Senate ever passing a budget?

Nope. Dictionary definition.

This is basic research. A primary source is the original source. Here, that's the floor record and the bill.

That's what politicians decide. Not what Noah Webster had in mind. So is this the rabbit warren you always like to scurry away to when you want to shy away from debate?

Nope. Again...I'm asking you for the primary source.

Can you produce a basic, dictionary definition that is contrary to mine? If so, please do so...

I've got all the reliable sources of information you need to confirm Obama's record on abortion. It's not my problem if they don't fit your standard of a "primary source". I've yet to see you provide any primary source yourself. But if it's an official copy of Obama's voting record on SB 1082, the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill while a state senator in Illinois you're looking for, you'll find the links right here. You can blow smoke and muddy the waters to dodge the truth all you like but it'll still be there staring you in the eye. http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIP...

Here, I'll even make it easier for you.

Closer.

However, of course, that is not the floor record (which is a record of what is said on the floor) nor is it the actual text of the bill. Nor is it all the bills.

Has your mother ever told you to eat what is served in front of you?

Information and food are different things.

I've served you more than enough information on Obama's voting record and you're just being finicky. So you will just go ignorant.

No. Again, I'm asking you for the primary source.

Have you read the primary sources on it? If so, they should be easy to present.

But I have. Far beyond what you deserve. Yet you haven't provided any primary sources to affirm your claims.
But here's a document that should remove any doubt as to where Obama stands on the issues of fetuses surviving abortion. Just skip to pages 31-34. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/tr...

That actually is on point (finally).

So what is your issue with the questions he raises, as he seems to state that he believes that a doctor would, in any case, attempt to provide care for a viable fetus?

As shown in the vote tally above Obama opposed a bill that would require life saving aid to a fetus that survived an abortion.

What is your problem with, again, his argument as to why he opposed it?

On pages 84-90 of the transcript linked here http://www.ilga.gov/senate/tr... in his opposition to the 2001 Born Alive Illinois legislation Obama argues that giving life sustaining treatment to an abortion survivor as a human being entitled to protection of his civil liberties amounts to rendering the legality of abortion unconstitutional. He chose to guard the legal definition of the fetus as non-human to preserve a law.

That's the problem here...your issue is that he defines a fetus as not a person (note...not a non-human...we're talking about legal PERSONHOOD). If a fetus were to be defined as a PERSON, then all abortion would be rendered illegal constitutionally.

So...he voted against this law because he argued that it was a back-door way to make abortion unconstitutional. Such legislation would violate both (1) Supreme Court precedent, and (2) 10th Amendment issues.

Those who authorize genocide always dehumanize their victims first.

This would in no way meet the definition of genocide.

As an international lawyer, I can tell you that's a definition fail.

International lawyer? In whose court of law? What genocidal nations are among your peers?

The definition of genocide is established in the Convention Against Genocide.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/av...

Genocide has only one meaning for those it's committed against. But I don't think they have any voice in your court.

That's a convenient and non-substantive argument.

It's convenient for you to ignore the living person in the womb.

Please don't move the goalposts.

We were talking about genocide. If you're going to claim that abortion falls under the definition of genocide, you have to provide a SUBSTANTIVE reason for that to be a good argument.

If you don't, it's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Also, I would suggest that you consider that one can separate their personal from political views.

The living person in the womb is the goal post. This goal post never moves and you never come within 40 yards of it. In fact you always stay as far away from it as possible.
I don't need to provide you with any substantive reason for saying abortion is genocide. Science has already established that the fetus is a living human being and that abortion amounts to the deliberate ending of the life of this human for the crime of being inconvenient. Nothing personal or political about it on my part. Just stating the truth which you endlessly try to squirm away from for your own personal and political interests.

"Science has already established that the fetus is a living human being and that abortion amounts to the deliberate ending of the life of this human for the crime of being inconvenient."


I think we need to define our terms better. We might be closer to agreement if you are ACTUALLY arguing about a "fetus."

Fetal development begins at the 9th week...while over half of all abortions happen before this, and 88% occur before the 12th week.

So, do you really mean fetus? Or are you also arguing that a blastocyst or an embryo is a "human being."

I would also challenge your argument that science has a definition of "human being" or "person."

Finally, I again ask you to show how abortion is "genocide" Arguing that you don't have to is basically saying "because I said so."

Genocide is the wrong term. You're simply using the wrong term. If you want to make an impact statement, go for "mass killing" if that suits your moral compass. But genocide is a term that should be kept for the intentional or allowed government-supported destruction of an ethnic, religious, racial, political, or otherwise affiliated group of individuals.

53 million lives have been deliberately ended since the government denied its protection of the unborn under the politicized pretext of women's rights. Calling this genocide is appropriate.

You're missing the intent element.

53 million lives have been denied their 14th amendment rights regardless of intent. You know, the part about not denying any person of life without due process of law? We're sitting on a hidden holocaust.

A botched abortion is the universe's way of saying "Dude, not cool".

Is this as unbelievable to all of you as it is to me.........WHO ARE WE..... that we would have a senator that agreed with this let alone a President of the United States......I must be having a nightmare.......WAKE ME UP LORD..!! This evil man believes this....and we are giving the government the right to make our personal health care decisions!!!!!???

I'm pro-choice (even though abortion is something I would never do myself), but I do not believe it's okay to kill a live baby if it survives the abortion.

There is no question about life upon conception when it comes to this. A baby that is born, even one who survives a botched abortion, is a living, human being. To kill a living human being is murder and to support the killing of a living human being is accessory to murder.

This cannot be true. I am shocked