August 18, 2008
Another Miracle in Galilee
Even God seems to be against Barack Obama, because in His wisdom, He highlights a living example of the candidate's most inhumane views.
The woman underwent an abortion and the baby, weighing 610 grams, was extracted from her womb without a pulse, hospital officials said.A senior doctor pronounced the baby dead and she was transferred to the cooler.
Five hours later, the woman's husband came to the hospital to take what he thought was his dead baby girl for burial.
When the baby was taken out of the cooler, she began to breathe. The premature baby was then taken to the intensive care ward, where doctors were attempting to save her life.
Luckily for the baby, Barack Obama was not there to vote against care for the abortion survivor after she was discovered alive, as he has done here in the United States.
Real Messiah: 1, ObamaMessiah: 0
Related: The moral courage of ferrets.
Update: The baby passed early Tuesday.
How high in the Israeli government did they have to go before finding someone with the proper pay grade to decide this baby's fate?
Posted by: Pardo at August 18, 2008 03:49 PMI don't suppose it's worth mentioning that the Israeli woman was having an abortion to remove what the doctors believed to be a spontaneously aborted fetus (that is, the baby just died in utero), rather than electively, or that the normal effect of providing "care" to neonates from that sort of induced labor is simply to prolong for a brief time any suffering they may experience.
Or that a "present" vote is not the same as a "no" vote, essentially or otherwise.
Posted by: Doctorb at August 18, 2008 04:07 PMYou're right, doctorb; a present vote just indicates even fewer principles and being too spineless to take a stand.
Posted by: SDN at August 18, 2008 05:01 PMhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012796.html
"A preliminary examination found that the fetus had no pulse, and the woman was rushed to the operating room to have the fetus removed."
Removing an (apparently) already dead fetus from a mother is NOT an "abortion" in any meaningful use of the word.
Removing an (apparently) already dead fetus from a mother is NOT an "abortion" in any meaningful use of the word.
The (spontaneous) abortion would have taken place upon the death of the fetus. Elective abortion is what folks take issue with. Spontaneous abortion just happens sometimes.
Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2008 09:50 PMdoctorb - If a piece of legislation takes a certain number of affirmative votes to pass, can you explain further how voting present is not the equivalent of voting "no"?
Can you also let me know your native language?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 18, 2008 10:24 PMIt's really too bad you can't frame your debate in any sort of factual context.
Illinois already has a law that requires that when a child is born alive as the result of an abortion, the physician must exercise "the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion."
Posted by: skylark at August 19, 2008 03:08 AMOr that a "present" vote is not the same as a "no" vote, essentially or otherwise.
Correct. A "present" vote - which is used in Illinois and several other states - is often a means of indicating that the legislator objects to certain parts of a bill they might otherwise be willing to support. And that's exactly what Obama said about the Illinois "born alive" bill.
Posted by: skylark at August 19, 2008 03:15 AMFrom your link skylark:
"In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action."
There is nothing hard to understand about this concept.
From your link skylark:
"In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action."
There is nothing hard to understand about this concept.
-------------------------------------------
And yet you seem to have a problem doing so.
Posted by: skylark at August 19, 2008 09:51 PMIt's really too bad you can't frame your debate in any sort of factual context.
Context like this, skylark?
Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."Posted by: Pablo at August 20, 2008 07:02 AMHis campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
Pablo, try - just try - to go back and read again, for comprehension.
