US News
Report: Anti-abortion protesters arrested in Denver
Aug 27, 2008, 7:25 GMT
Denver, Colorado - Denver police arrested 13 anti-abortion protesters Tuesday during a sit-down protest near the Pepsi Centre where Democrats are meeting to nominate Senator Barack Obama as their presidential candidate, according to a report in the Denver Post.
'A vote for Obama and Biden is a vote to sustain legalized child killing,' one of the protestors, Randall Terry, was quoted as shouting. 'The police are enforcing the laws of obstructing traffic yet they won't enforce the laws against the killing of children.'
Terry, national director of Operation Rescue in Washington, DC, led the protests by about 30 people in the street near an entrance to the Pepsi Centre grounds of the Democratic convention. Randall was among those arrested, the Post reported.
On Monday, Democrats adopted a party platform that includes support for a woman's right to choose an abortion - a right that hangs on the makeup of the US Supreme Court.
As president, Senator John McCain, an opponent of legalized abortion and the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, would have the power to appoint new judges as court vacancies occurred, and would be likely to choose a pro-life judge.
In the protest, Terry led the demonstrators to a highly secured baricade outside the Pepsi Centre, where they sat down when police denied them entrance. After asking them three times to move, police arrested them.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
is a prime case for retroactive birth control.
What honest good do these protesters ever do? Instead of ranting on the streets, they need to be active in other venues to further their cause.
Do you ever notice how wild and unkempt a lot of them look - like people who just like to cause a stir for the sake of causing a stir? Abortion is a slippery slope and one decision doesn't work for every situation. Why not preach birth control to some of these irresponsible people in the first place, and leave the sometimes heart-breaking decisions to those involved and stay out of their personal lives. I've known people who've been dead set against abortion until it involves their own family circumstances, then they change their tune.
Obama wasn't just for Abortion, he voted to allow live babies to die.
Bear in mind, that abortion started out as something that was performed in the first term. A woman was supposed to be able to get a clean, clincal abortion. Lot's of folks held their noses and let this happen.
Now, the presumptive presidential candidate has advocated, publicly, that a woman should be able to have a doctor (Mengele'?) put a scapel, through a fetus's head, as it exits from the womb, in a desparate attempt to terminate the life of a fully gestated fetus, so that the letter of the law, saying life starts at the moment the child is out of the womb, can be satisfied, calling this abortion as opposed to murder.
Good enough?
Hardly.
Not satisfied with the eventality that the doctor, if you are willing to call him that, cannot manage to kill this child by deed, is now, legally entitled to just wait, while the damaged, hidious product of the sickest f--king minds in America shield this monstrous act by destroying the now-born victim by simply letting it die before their eyes.
Whats next, throwing it in a garbage can?...killing it in the crib?...gassing them en masse...?
This is the democratic presidential candidate's idea of good law, as rationalized publicly.
Impressive, isn't it?
My, how far we've come!
'while the damaged, hidious product of the sickest f--king minds in America shield this monstrous act'
Other than misspelling hideous, EssPee has a point, if he is referring to the necon cabal in control of the Whitewhorehouse and their 8 years of aborting human and citizens' rights in the US.
if a fetus was aborted but breathing and nothing more than than, I would not agree to extreme measures to keep it breathing and no one in their right mind should agree either. We wouldn't do that to an animal.
..but, undeniably, a living, breathing child is in the world now, after an attempt to kill it failed, and now, out of the womb, another attempt to kill it is born.
What kind of mind can rationalize such a thing?
The fetus is so fricking damaged that it will not lead a full, complete, healthy, creative, productive life. In short it would most likely be a vegetable, like you. To let it continue would not be humane. That is one reason why I support euthanasia in your case.
I didn't say I would kill it, I just wouldn't allow extreme measures to keep a fetus alive that is nothing more than a vegetable and would allow it to die of it's own accord. Adults can direct that to be carried out for themselves, and we need to give fetuses that same right. Catholics don't believe in birth control, but I don't feel like that should speak for everyone, nor does it make it right or wrong. Until you walk in someone's shoes - don't discern what you would do either.
...some libnazi motherf--ker of a doctor put a goddamn scapel in his head on the way out!
Liberals...
Jesus!
Killing a fetus isn't what I proposed, dimwit. As usual, you are using your favorite word in place of something more intelligent and taking the name of the Lord in vain!
are one sick, opinionated, repressed individual, SP!
learn to use the proper 'your', and you'll sound a little more intelligent.
...that'll do it!
...I'm so concerned about impressing a person who thinks pushing a scalpel into a baby's head is perfectly O.K.
to be a dimwit - I DIDN'T propose KILLING a fetus. You only see what you want to. I don't condone killing, but wouldn't use extreme measures to keep something alive that isn't viable as a human being - and that doesn't mean KILLING! If it continues to live, so be it. And just remember, oh perfect one........ until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes....
'It's a vegetable.'
Well then, EssPee has a brother.
So, EssPee, what's your excuse for being brain damaged? Besides years of drug abuse.
...to be utterly, devoid of the concept of cause and effect! You say you do not advocate killing the child, but that is EXACTLY what you advocate by omission.
Not good enough for the abortion lobby, they now, by omission, want to kill the child by neglect, acting as god, and determining, via the totally unbiased opinion of those present, bent on the destruction of the fetus to begin with, to legally make the choice for it! What do you think, are the cards stacked against the kid, or what!?
I guess that is why it's called pro-choice, unless your the child on the floor that is....
It's bad enough that abortionists play god inside the womb, they now wish to play god outside the womb. Like the Dutch, who will not call an EMT when a person over 70 has a heart attack or stroke, you've now jumped from abortion to euthenasia.
You actually do not have a grasp of right and wrong. It's like ayn Rand:
'...PLEASE!...step into the gas chamber!'
Killing and letting something die on it's own are two different things. As usual you only see what you want to..........walk a mile in someone else's shoes..........
you have appointed yourself god, SP!
to contribute to the 'Lets Euthanize SP4' fund raising drive? It's about time somebody put him out of his misery.
SP is not God. He is a self-made man and worships his creator. Like all self-made men, he is delusional.
That's a two-sided comment!
'Killing and letting something die on it's own are two different things.'
Really? Omission of action to prevent a death, when completely preventable, is different than actually killing?
A baby killed as it exits the womb, and it's alive, then killed is now rationalized as 'dying on it's own'?
Me...God? Am I the one with scalpel in my hand?
At what point do you realize the person with the scalpel is a murderer, or the person(s) allowing the totally helpless to die, after trying to kill them to begin with?
You say: 'A baby killed as it exits the womb, and it's alive'
Things can't be dead then alive. Life works the other way around. It lives and then is dead. Period. This isn't the Schroedinger's Cat Conundrum. Also it isn't a baby until it's born and has it's ass slapped and breathing and howling like a demented religious zealot. Until then it's still a fetus. Get an education and get your biology straight. Something YOU haven't been in years.
You need to put down the bong and listen to more music.
Alice Cooper's 'Dead Babies' comes to mind.
You're flogging a dead horse, or should I say you're flogging a dead fetus.
Get over it, moron.
page: 1
Obama voted for baby killing.Aug 27th, 2008 - 07:57:56
Obama in His Own Words: There Is No Doubt He Supported Infanticide
RedState.com reported last week they had uncovered the transcript of Barack Obama’s 2002 floor speech in opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (“BAIPA”). The transcript makes clear Barack Obama opposed the BAIPA not because, as he claimed, it would encroach on abortion rights, but because the law would “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician.” It was too much of a burden, according to Obama, to ensure that a child, born alive, get medical care to sustain the child’s life.
Understanding both the timeline of Obama’s votes against the BAIPA and the language of the legislation makes it very clear that, regardless of what Obama and his defenders say, he did, in fact, support infanticide. Those are the facts, however unpleasant they may be.
Barack Obama first encountered the BAIPA in 2001. The law, pushed by Jill Stanek, a nurse who had been told to leave a live baby in a utility closet to die after an abortion, required life-sustaining treatment for a child in the event the child survived an abortion. [...]
On March 30, 2001, prior to the vote, Obama spoke against the legislation. He was the only state senator to do so. Obama’s concern, in 2001, was that by defining what a “born alive” child was and giving that child equal protection, the law would be unconstitutional and, if not unconstitutional, in Obama’s words, “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 anti-abortion statute.”
“If this is a child,” Obama pondered. Despite his concerns, instead of voting no, Obama voted present on all three pieces of legislation.
On April 4, 2002, the three pieces of legislation came back to the Senate. This time, S.B. 1661 provided the cause of action, S.B. 1662 defined life, and S.B. 1663 was the substantive legislation requiring life sustaining treatment. S.B. 1663 had been modified to not require a second doctor be present for the abortion but, if a child were born alive, to get the child to a second doctor who could administer life sustaining treatment as soon as possible.
Barack Obama did not speak out on the floor of the Senate about S.B. 1661, the legislation that created a cause of action against a doctor. This is one of the few, if only, instances in Barack Obama’s short legislative record where he opposed creating a cause of action for litigation. Barack Obama, instead, spoke out against S.B. 1663, which required life-sustaining treatment for an infant born alive after an abortion. The legislation also prohibited abortions if the desire for an abortion was based solely on the child being of an undesired gender.
Rising on the floor, Obama said, “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child -- however way you want to describe it -- is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”
In effect, Obama made clear he believed the legislature should trust the abortionist who had botched the abortion to determine whether or not the baby would survive. In 2002, unlike 2001, Barack Obama took the rare -- for him -- step of voting “no” against all three pieces of legislation instead of voting “present.”
No doubt, like in 2001, Obama still pondered the implication of what would happen “if this were a child.” So how was a “born alive” infant defined? Barack Obama, in his own words, noted the legislation would define a “born alive” child and “if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
Knowing how the legislation defined a child makes clear that Obama did support infanticide. The legislation, in 2002 pushed as S.B. 1662, defined a child as follows:
the term 'born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
In other words, a child who is breathing, has a beating heart, or shows voluntary muscle movement and who is fully outside the mother shall be considered a “born alive” child. That was too much for Barack Obama. He did not think that a child who was alive and outside the mother’s womb should be considered a child for purposes of giving the child equal protection rights if it was the mother and doctor’s intention that the child be killed.
That is not a stretch or inference of Barack Obama’s record. That is Barack Obama’s record. The facts make that uncomfortably clear.
Report this comment