[Hoot Gibson]

Not a pre-viable fetus.
A pre-viable fetus can't live outside the womb. You might want to consult the medical community, and figure out a way to keep them alive at an earlier stage. If a 15 week old fetus could be made to be able to live outside of the womb, I'm for it.

You might want to save yourself some considerable embarrassment and do some research before you post. Viability applies to fetuses that have not legally become human babies. That first breath of life changes everything. No Supreme Court ruling has ever concluded otherwise. Doctors who botch abortions do not get a do-over by murdering a living, breathing human infant. That is why Doktor Gosnell has been charged with six murders (the seventh victim was a mother).

[nky]

Until that fetus is viable, the mother has the right to get it out of the womb.

and the child has none:Sad04:

[TheRealVille]

Now we are getting into the word twisting phase, as always.

[nky]

As some on here will argue.........abortion is legal so what's the big deal?:HitWall:

This is only one example how many more are out there? Is it a women's right issue or a money making deal on the bones of dead babies?

:eyeroll:

[TheRealVille]

You might want to save yourself some considerable embarrassment and do some research before you post. Viability applies to fetuses that have not legally become human babies. That first breath of life changes everything. No Supreme Court ruling has ever concluded otherwise. Doctors who botch abortions do not get a second chance by murdering a living, breathing human infant. That is why Doktor Gosnell has been charged with six murders (the seventh victim was a mother).

And part C of the federal born alive act, refers it back to the vitality issue with RvW and the mothers rights. The DR's murder trial is over late term pregnancies, not pre-viable.

[Hoot Gibson]

Now we are getting into the word twisting phase, as always.

Then stop twisting them. You cannot redefine a live born baby as a non-viable fetus, so stop trying. It did not work for Obama and it is a debate that you will not win either.

[Hoot Gibson]

And part C of the federal born alive act, refers it back to the vitality issue with RvW and the mothers rights. The DR's murder trial is over late term pregnancies, not 2nd term.

Fetus viability has nothing to do with the rights that a live born baby has. No intelligent person can confuse a human baby that has been born with one that has not. Very few idiots could make that mistake.

[nky]

So a "live" birth is only legal depending on the number of weeks?

Is someone trying to redefine the meaning of is is?

[TheRealThing]

Then stop twisting them. You cannot redefine a live born baby as a non-viable fetus, so stop trying. It did not work for Obama and it is a debate that you will not win either.

That to me reveals the deception with which the left operates. When one stop's to think about it, all they ever really do is repackage and relabel or spin, a particular line of thought and turn it loose. Obama couldn't run on his record for reelection so he reinvented his original strategy from 2008 and repackaged Romney's record which, as I keep saying was superlative in comparison to his own, and won in spite of the state of failure in which we were all floundering at the time. And, true to form, they are no better as we speak.

Obama merely attempted to repackage the idea of abortion.

[TheRealVille]

Fetus viability has nothing to do with the rights that a live born baby has. No intelligent person can confuse a human baby that has been born with one that has not. Very few idiots could make that mistake.

Read part c of the federal bill. Anybody with a brain can see that it points to the viability issue by referring back to the rights of the mother, which is stated in RvW. Gosnell was killing babies born alive after the 24 weeks that PA law states.

[TheRealVille]

So a "live" birth is only legal depending on the number of weeks?

Is someone trying to redefine the meaning of is is?

Right. No it is plainly stated at 22 weeks in RvW.

[TheRealVille]

Then stop twisting them. You cannot redefine a live born baby as a non-viable fetus, so stop trying. It did not work for Obama and it is a debate that you will not win either.

Federal

Quote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various adminis- trative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘per- son’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such 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.
‘‘© Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.

Clearly referring to the mother's rights, as defined in RvW.

[nky]

‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such 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.

[Hoot Gibson]

Read part c of the federal bill. Anybody with a brain can see that it points to the viability issue by referring back to the rights of the mother, which is stated in RvW. Gosnell was killing babies born alive after the 24 weeks that PA law states.

If they had been born alive at 23 weeks, once they drew their first breath and Gosnell killed them, then he would have been guilty of murder. You cannot legally "abort" a baby that has already been born alive.

FYI, a baby has been born at 21 weeks, five days, and survived. There are limited instances where the time of gestation can be determined precisely, so it is very possible that even babies born even more prematurely have survived. I don't personally know anybody who would argue that a breathing baby is a fetus - nor do I want to..

[nky]

^someone needs to read section 2 part b of the federal that they keep quoting

[Hoot Gibson]

This is the kind of demon that we are talking about. Obama argued, while he was an Illinois State Senator, that doctors and hospitals should continue to be allowed to place babies born alive following an unsuccessful abortion in a linen closet until they died. He referred to such babies as "fetuses." The only difference in what Gosnell did and the practice that Obama defended was that Gosnell ended the babies suffering more quickly murdering them, instead of allowing them to struggle for a few hours before dying of natural causes.

[INDENT]

Gosnell Trial Witness: Baby Abortion Survivor Was 'Swimming' in Toilet 'Trying to Get Out'

On the last day of testimony before the prosecution rests in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, a former worker at Gosnell's clinic testified that she saw one late-term baby who survived an abortion "swimming" in a toilet and "trying to get out."

Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant” who worked at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic for four-and-a-half years, testified in a Philadelphia court today, telling of the horrors of babies who survived abortions only to have their necks snipped with scissors.

“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.

“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.

The baby “was like swimming,” she said. “Basically, trying to get out.”

Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

If they had been born alive at 23 weeks, once they drew their first breath and Gosnell killed them, then he would have been guilty of murder. You cannot legally "abort" a baby that has already been born alive.

FYI, a baby has been born at 21 weeks, five days, and survived. There are limited instances where the time of gestation can be determined precisely, so it is very possible that even babies born even more prematurely have survived. I don't personally know anybody who would argue that a breathing baby is a fetus - nor do I want to..

I'm all for a baby getting help to live if it can. I'm all for Gosnell being tried for murder. I'm all for the federal version of the born alive bill, and Obama has stated that he is too. But, abortions are legal up until 22 weeks, and I understand that up until that point, that I have no right to tell a mother she can't have one. And, you don't either. If a child lives after being born alive, I'm all for it. Other than that, if it doesn't interfere with RvW, I'm fine with it.

[Hoot Gibson]

^someone needs to read section 2 part b of the federal that they keep quoting

Exactly - and Obama argued against treating live born babies as such. The hospitals and abortion doctors argued in favor of denying such babies any medical treatment and Obama advocated on their behalf in the Illinois Senate.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm all for a baby getting help to live if it can. I'm all for Gosnell being tried for murder. I'm all for the federal version of the born alive bill, and Obama has stated that he is too. But, abortions are legal up until 22 weeks, and I understand that up until that point, that I have no right to tell a mother she can't have one. And, you don't either. If a child lives after being born alive, I'm all for it. Other than that, if it doesn't interfere with RvW, I'm fine with it.

If you believe what you said above, then why waste so much time defending the arguments that Obama made in the Illinois Senate? Why defend his use of the term "fetus" to a live born baby?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Viability and related arguments are moot. Science has proven conclusively that, upon conception, the baby has its own individual DNA. Thus it is a separate being from the woman carrying it. Therefore, any termination of a pregnancy is the killing of a human being. If the woman carrying the baby willingly gets an abortion, she is committing premeditated murder. That, like it or not, is the truth.

Now, liberals like to cling to one of their several gods- science. Prior to the DNA determination, they played the "science card" at every opportunity to claim that the conceived child is merely a "blob" or whatever term was in vogue at the time. Now, not surprisingly, the liberals don't mention their god of science.

Abortion is legal in this country. I believe that the country passed the point of no return on its road to destruction with the outcome of the last presidential election. The last nail in the coffin will be driven in if the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year and Obama has complete control to destroy Christianity and capitalism as the two main foundations of our country. This country, as it was founded and intended, will be gone.

Nonetheless, none of that changes the fact that abortion is, in most cases, premeditated murder. We can only hope that there is a hereafter and that the Judge will right all these tragic wrongs because it won't happen in this world.

[TheRealVille]

Viability and related arguments are moot. Science has proven conclusively that, upon conception, the baby has its own individual DNA. Thus it is a separate being from the woman carrying it. Therefore, any termination of a pregnancy is the killing of a human being. If the woman carrying the baby willingly gets an abortion, she is committing premeditated murder. That, like it or not, is the truth.

Now, liberals like to cling to one of their several gods- science. Prior to the DNA determination, they played the "science card" at every opportunity to claim that the conceived child is merely a "blob" or whatever term was in vogue at the time. Now, not surprisingly, the liberals don't mention their god of science.

Abortion is legal in this country. I believe that the country passed the point of no return on its road to destruction with the outcome of the last presidential election. The last nail in the coffin will be driven in if the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year and Obama has complete control to destroy Christianity and capitalism as the two main foundations of our country. This country, as it was founded and intended, will be gone.

Nonetheless, none of that changes the fact that abortion is, in most cases, premeditated murder. We can only hope that there is a hereafter and that the Judge will right all these tragic wrongs because it won't happen in this world.

Not by law. Being a lawyer, you should know this.

[TheRealVille]

If you believe what you said above, then why waste so much time defending the arguments that Obama made in the Illinois Senate? Why defend his use of the term "fetus" to a live born baby?

I defended the fact that he said if the IL bill was the same as the federal bill he would support it. You said the IL bill was exactly the same as the federal one. It clearly is not.

[Hoot Gibson]

I defended the fact that he said if the IL bill was the same as the federal bill he would support it. You said the IL bill was exactly the same as the federal one. It clearly is not.

Throughout the debate in the Illinois Senate, Obama defended the status quo. I know that you would really, really, like to believe otherwise, but Obama is not an honest man. His problem with the bill had nothing to do with viability of the fetus.

Obama consistently argued in favor of allowing live born babies die without medical treatment. That is a fact and a matter of public record. There is something particularly sick about a politician repeatedly calling a living, breathing baby a "fetus." Obama made it clear that he believed that a woman had not only the right to an abortion, but that the survivor of a botched abortion was still a fetus, whether he or she was alive or not.

[nky]

Using the "it's the law" argument is going down a slippery slope. In Nazi Germany they were killing millions under their "Final Solution", in our country millions of Native Americans were killed because of the Law- heck a president was elected because of his fame as an Indian killer, How many heinous acts have been committed around the globe because it was the law in that country?

Just because it's the law doesn't make it morally right.

“How can one be well...when one suffers morally?”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Not by law. Being a lawyer, you should know this.

Indeed, I am an attorney at law. I have also taught the law. I have often stated that, the longer that I work in and with the law, the more I know that what is morally right and what is "legally" right are often not remotely the same.

The moral law doesn't change or waiver. Man's rules change with the times and with the whims of those, like liberal courts and liberal public officials, making the rules in those times. The moral law tells us that abortion is the killing of another human being. I will adher to that rather than to the follies of flawed beings such as Harry Blackmun, Earl Warren, and Obama.

As a participant in the judicial system and as a member of several bars, I long ago decided that when the moral law and man's rules differ, I choose the former. That credo, though offensive to some, has served me well.

[Hoot Gibson]

Using the "it's the law" argument is going down a slippery slope. In Nazi Germany they were killing millions under their "Final Solution", in our country millions of Native Americans were killed because of the Law- heck a president was elected because of his fame as an Indian killer, How many heinous acts have been committed around the globe because it was the law in that country?

Just because it's the law doesn't make it morally right.

“How can one be well...when one suffers morally?”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

I agree but when we have a president who has publicly defended an illegal such a reprehensible practice at the behest of abortionists, it should be well understood that he has no moral objections to the procedure itself. I believe that we are seeing the consequences of electing a man without a moral compass to our highest office every day. I would not be shocked to see Obama pardon or commute Gosnell's sentence.

[TheRealVille]

Indeed, I am an attorney at law. I have also taught the law. I have often stated that, the longer that I work in and with the law, the more I know that what is morally right and what is "legally" right are often not remotely the same.

The moral law doesn't change or waiver. Man's rules change with the times and with the whims of those, like liberal courts and liberal public officials, making the rules in those times. The moral law tells us that abortion is the killing of another human being. I will adher to that rather than to the follies of flawed beings such as Harry Blackmun, Earl Warren, and Obama.

As a participant in the judicial system and as a member of several bars, I long ago decided that when the moral law and man's rules differ, I choose the former. That credo, though offensive to some, has served me well.

You don't defend people that are accused of breaking "moral" law, as you apply morality according to your beliefs?

[TheRealVille]

^ You also might want to check out the politics of these guys.


Majority Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence Burger
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Stewart
Dissent White, joined by Rehnquist
Dissent Rehnquist

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ You also might want to check out the politics of these guys.


Majority Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence Burger
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Stewart
Dissent White, joined by Rehnquist
Dissent Rehnquist

Ah, TheRealVille, you refer to Roe v Wade. I suspect that my knowledge of Roe v Wade is superior to that of most. Few have actually read the decision. Have you? I have read it in its entirety- several times. I have lectured on Roe v Wade dozens of times. I am versed in the ins and outs and the politics of the decision. Legal scholars generally agree that Harry Blackmun wrote a weak decision.

The Supreme Court makes bad decisions and justices, like Harry Blackmun, write poor decisions. Check out Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's reasoning in the Dred Scott Case and Justice Henry Brown's logic in Plessy v Ferguson for two good examples. If you need a more modern example, I would recommend the obviously flawed decision of Chief Justice Roberts in the Obamacare Case.

My point, of course, is that the law of human beings are flawed because they are written by men (and women) who have their own agendas. If anyone believes that these decisions are made completely on the merits (as we like to say) and that those making the decisions do so with no personal bias, that person is naive at best and a fool at worst.

Look at our present group of nine. We have four ultra-liberals who would never vote otherwise. We have three conservatives justices who do the same from the other side. We have Roberts who, hopefully (and his history would so indicate) won't leave the reservation (so to speak) in the future. And, we have Kennedy who, in most cases, is a fifth conservative vote. Obama's greatest dream is to have one of the five conservatives die so that he can replace him with a wild-eyed liberal so that he can completely control the judiciary.

Just a bit of interesting trivia. How many Protestants are on the present Court? The answer is zero. It is made up of three Jews (all three ultra-liberal) and six Catholics 9all conservative except for Sotomayor who is, at best a Cafeteria Catholic in the mold of Biden).

Both decisions, like Roe, are immoral.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, TheRealVille, you refer to Roe v Wade. I suspect that my knowledge of Roe v Wade is superior to that of most. Few have actually read the decision. Have you? I have read it in its entirety- several times. I have lectured on Roe v Wade dozens of times. I am versed in the ins and outs and the politics of the decision. Legal scholars generally agree that Harry Blackmun wrote a weak decision.

The Supreme Court makes bad decisions and justices, like Harry Blackmun, write poor decisions. Check out Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's reasoning in the Dred Scott Case and Justice Henry Brown's logic in Plessy v Ferguson for two good examples. If you need a more modern example, I would recommend the obviously flawed decision of Chief Justice Roberts in the Obamacare Case.

My point, of course, is that the law of human beings are flawed because they are written by men (and women) who have their own agendas. If anyone believes that these decisions are made completely on the merits (as we like to say) and that those making the decisions do so with no personal bias, that person is naive at best and a fool at worst.

Look at our present group of nine. We have four ultra-liberals who would never vote otherwise. We have three conservatives justices who do the same from the other side. We have Roberts who, hopefully (and his history would so indicate) won't leave the reservation (so to speak) in the future. And, we have Kennedy who, in most cases, is a fifth conservative vote. Obama's greatest dream is to have one of the five conservatives die so that he can replace him with a wild-eyed liberal so that he can completely control the judiciary.

Just a bit of interesting trivia. How many Protestants are on the present Court? The answer is zero. It is made up of three Jews (all three ultra-liberal) and six Catholics 9all conservative except for Sotomayor who is, at best a Cafeteria Catholic in the mold of Biden).

Both decisions, like Roe, are immoral.

You nailed it Harry Rex. That has been my argument for years. Man is flawed and yet, even a loose adherence to God's law has preserved him since the dawn of time. I believe that our nation and our system of laws were based largely on precepts of Christianity as depicted in scripture. The more America turns her back on Christian principles of acceptable social behavior, the more we will lapse into chaos. It is no more complex an issue than that.

Now, can we realistically govern ourselves like a theocracy? Of course not. And yet, without the absolute of scripture to use as a basis for comparison, every issue becomes a matter for endless debate in what has become an endless argument about what is right and wrong. In other words, the clear line that marked the boundary separating right from wrong has been blurred by compromise, to become a vast gray area of endless argument, littered by the corpses of jurisprudence past. Men not willing to accept His authority have thusly gone off courting disaster, by passing laws which redefine God's clear teachings of morality.

Some lawyer will always be able to come in and dazzle the court with a cleverly worded argument. And like you said, laws, or arguments against them, are made by men, and men always have their own agendas. This idea that we conservatives are ramming our wants down the throats of others and poking our noses into their lives is a perfect example of that. The law they argue against has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Now up jumps the liberal lemmings from among us and all of a sudden, it is they, the very ones who want to make all the changes, that are crying foul in the face of those same thousands of years worth of tradition.

In short, man has no business legislating morality. But, that is what we're seeing and, I agree with you to a certain extent that the err of man's way will be settled mostly at God's judgment bar. And yet, like Israel, America is special. We founded our American ideals on Christian principles and now that we have turned our backs on Him, we will suffer in our time. I predict that death in the form of lawlessness and Jihad, will stalk our streets. I don't have any idea how serious things will be but, we see the beginnings of birth pangs even now.