The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was passed in 2002. This bill basically protects any babies that survive an abortion and are born into the world alive. Without this act, babies had been left in utility rooms to die. Imagine...a beautiful newborn baby left amidst dirty laundry to face its death all on its own. Truely imagine it...a dark, smelly room...noise coming from outside the room...a little bit of light coming from the ground...and here you are, on a table...you cannot move and you are crying. Then you stop crying...you're too tired. Then, you slowly die, alone and frightened...all the while wondering why the voice whom you have heard for the past many months isn't protecting you. It's a horrible and inhumane way to let a child die. One would even question how anyone could allow such a thing to occur in the first place. One might even question why babies need a protection act to live once they are outside of their mother's womb.
One might even conclude that anyone who could possibly oppose this act must be some kind of barbarian. Well...believe it or not, there are people who oppose this act. Obama being one of them. In all honesty, I cannot wrap my mind around how in the world anyone can say that a child, a human being, who has been born, thus becoming an American citizen under the law, does not have the same rights to medical treatment, simply because his or her mother had intended to abort said child. Really, I can't understand it. Where do we draw the line? Where does it all end? How old does someone have to be before we finally admit to him being an American citizen? We must draw the line at the beginning, at conception, otherwise, the line will be pushed farther and farther forward. For example, Princeton University employee Peter Singer claims that parents should have the right to kill their child within 28 days of his or her birth. WHERE ARE WE DRAWING THE LINE?
Back to Obama...he has voted AGAINST this bill THREE times. (It might be four, but I know for certain three times, so if anyone has a correction, please let me know). HOW can someone vote against allowing children to live THREE TIMES consecutively? He claims it is to prevent burden for the mother. That's wonderful, Mr. Obama. Next time someone's kid winds up in the hospital with a broken arm, let's just let them starve to death...after all, dealing with a broken arm sure is a burden on a mother. How can anyone justify killing someone simply to prevent burden? That's what criminals do! If someone has dirt on someone else, they're sometimes killed because having more people know about their actions would incur burden and having to face the consequences. Are we just going to kill someone every time it would BURDEN us to "deal" with them? I don't think so. RESPECT life!
Born Alive
By respectlife - Posted on October 7th, 2008
Senator Obama chose not to endorse H.R. 2175 because of one of the sub-sections of the bill as presented in the Senate.
`(c) 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.'.
He felt that certain parts of this bill would undermine a woman's right to privacy in personal decisions.
So basically he's saying that a human person has can die simply for a bit more comfort for the mother. So is it ok to kill someone else over a privacy issue? Why are such trivial issues used as excuses to allow people to die? I don't see the right in that. What about the baby's rights to live?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
...Obama simply made what he believed to be the best decision for his constituents, (as each and every elected official is bound to do) and voted accordingly. He felt this bill contained language that would undermine Roe v. Wade and would not support it.
Nevertheless, other elected officials voted as they saw fit, and the bill passed, thanks to the magic of democracy.
I agree with you . Where do we draw the line? the point of conception the baby should be considered an american citizen.
Amen! Thank you! :)
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
...that there isn't an objective legal, historical or medical argument that would permit us to rationally define a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus (in the earlier stages of its development) as a citizen.
TTFB,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
So when does someone officially become an American citizen after he or she has been born?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
Yes, citizenship is granted upon birth. That's why a birth certificate can be used to show citizenship.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
...and more specifically in the 14th Amendment, which says...
But, more to the point of this discussion, is the question of when does a developing fetus become a "person." Our Supreme Court has answered the question, thus...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Well, I understand that the federal government does not recognize a pre-born child as a human being, however, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is for babies after they have been born. So I question why they shouldn't be able to have the same rights as every other citizen once they have been born.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
That wasn't the point to which I responded. You said...
the point of conception the baby should be considered an american citizen.
I responded by pointing out that there simply is no basis for that position. I have mixed feelings about the "born alive" bill, not because I have a problem affording the same rights to a newborn that we afford to any other citizen, but rather because the legislative intent of the bill is disingenous. Your attempt to move the discussion away from what you and I actually said above, and to spin that into the suggestion that your opponents don't think that newborns should be afforded citizenship, is a perfect example of that disingenuity.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
My point in saying that one should be considered a citizen at conception is that, if you don't do that, then the point gets pushed farther and farther back. Without the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and acts similar to it, newborn babies are not protected under constitutional rights, hence, not treated as citizens. Once you take citizenship away from the newborn child, the point in which a person becomes an American citizen becomes blurred and it's difficult to draw the line. The simplist thing to do would be to consider the child a citizen from the moment of conception, although I realize that there are no constitutional papers confirming this idea.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
I'm sorry, but what you are saying just isn't true. Newborns ARE treated as citizens, with or without this act. The only instance when this is questionable (and which the bill is crafted to address) is in the very rare situation when an induced abortion "fails," and the fetus is "born alive." More specifically, it is a re-statement of a principle that existed in the Common Law, known as the "born alive rule," that makes crimes like homicide and assault inapplicable to the pre-born. Granted, there have been several court cases that overturned the general applicability of the rule in some jurisdictions, but not in the sense of whether or not a newborn is a "citizen." Approximately half of our States still utilize the "born alive rule." The issue is legally complex, because it deals with a rare confluence of circumstances.
One of the main reasons that I don't like this particular law, is that it really only addresses a truly miniscule number of cases. Only about 5% of all induced abortions take place after the fetus is in its 16th week of development, and in cases like that the chances of such a child surviving are statistically nil, anyway. I am aware of only one case (there may be others, but I couldn't find them) where a physician actually killed a post-abortion survivor in a manner that would trigger the provisions of this Act (Showery v. State (1985)...sorry, I couldn't find a link to the text of the decision online), and even in that case the Doctor had attempted to perform the abortion past 24 weeks...meaning that the abortion was already illegal under the current laws.
And, I don't buy the "its simple" argument. This isn't a "simple" issue. This law serves no practical purpose, and is only useful to the pro-life movement as a strategic attempt to inflame public opinion to influence the legislature. It is typical of the inflammatory tactics and general factual vacuity of the pro-life position.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Well, if it's something that should be agreed with as a duh, then why did Obama vote "present" and "against" when it was presented to him? Even Hilary Clinton voted in favor of this bill.
Also, I agree...this is not a simple issue. I just think that making a child a citizen at conception makes it simpler.
Also, if newborns were treated as citizens, then why would we need this act?
RESPECT LIFE
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
I must say that "simpler" is not the same thing as "justifiable under our Constitution." And, I really don't buy the honesty of claiming that you support this defintion "just" because the argument is "simpler." I would suggest that Sen. Obama's caution on the version of this bill that was proposed to the Illinois Senate was based on an accurate observation that the intent of this bill had more to do with a strategic desire to undermine Roe v. Wade than it did with actually protecting the lives of infants in the statistically negligible number of cases where this law might actually have applied.
Factcheck.org had this to say...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I have a feeling there's a reason people do not support this bill, so could you possibly provide some link to it from an unbiased source? That would be much appreciated.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-2175
Well, one that I like is Jill Stanek's article. I saw her in an interview on YouTube and she seems to be well informed:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons....
Here's Obama claiming that the National Right to Life committee lied: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/429328.aspx
He doesn't really clarify on how the Illinois bill would undermine Roe vs. Wade, but I can't seem to find him saying anything else about it.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
Well I had been working on a blog exactly pretty much like this one because I want to bust the blind folds right off Obama-lovers. I did find one interesting thing though. Senator Obama did not vote against The Born Alive Infant Protection Act any amount of time since it passed in '02 befor ehe was a senator. He did vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act which I guess makes sense. I heard other things closer to what you were saying but life distracted me before I could finish researching.
This is what I had so far before I got distracted and ran out of steam:
Well, aren’t we all born alive? As sure as you are reading this, you are in fact alive. Were you born this way? Maybe, maybe not. Most of us get a fine start in life but there are some out there, maybe even you, that might have required resuscitation or, in the very least, a little help getting started on your now near full life. I guess in this case it would be just ‘suscitation’ but that is not really a word.
Now that that is cleared up, let’s say your mother tried to abort you by a method that should have killed you but you were born not dead. Should doctors be legally responsible to help this child? Are they ethically bound to help such a near person be well? To me this is obvious.
This is where the Born Alive Infant Protection Act comes in. In 2002 two President Bush signed the bill that extended legal protection to an infant born after a failed abortion. This can be considered at least one of the smart things the president has done. “Gianna Jessen, a 23-year-old woman who was born alive during an attempted saline-injection abortion, testified for the bill.” What surprises me is that this Act “does not restrict partial-birth abortion” because the baby/fetus is not completely extracted from the womb before its manual death occurs.
Who voted for or against this bill, or was it unanimous the whole way? Well in 2002, U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session, 98 voted yea, 2 did not vote. Can you guess without looking whom those two were? For those of you that did not go look, Domenici (R-NM) and Murkowski (R-AK) are the ones, for whatever reason, did not vote for or against this bill. Senators Biden and McCain were there, Senator Obama was not.
What is the point in all of this any way? The answer is I believe I had heard of a new thing, The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, going up for vote (or that had been recently been voted on) and some corresponding rumors to a presidential candidate. I wanted to know more but since I also wanted a semi-objective view, I ignored all Google results including the candidate’s name. I still want to know how these rumors came to be and now seek out those including/accusing Senator Obama… To be continued.
I found the real, yet biased, fact here that it was the Induced Infant Liability Act that the, at that time legislator, Senator Obama voted against. I still want a fair shake at the truth.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1083&GAID=3&DocTyp...
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
That was really interesting. :) Thank you for sharing it. The whole "born alive" thing kinda confused me, too LOL Thanks for the information!
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
I think that those babies, who are born alive, in the midst of an attempted adoption, should definitley be allowed to live, and put up for adoption. There are thousands and thousands of couples in America that cannot have a child, and are looking to adopt a newborn baby. They would be very welcoming of a newborn child, even if it's biological mother did not want it.
I do not think that abortions should be allowed to begin with. It's not the baby's fault that you made a mistake and got pregnant, and it's not the baby's fault if something awful happened to you which caused you to be pregnant. At one point, each of us were at that developmental stage. I'm sure glad that my mom didn't abort me. Everyone should have a right to life!
Babies born alive in the midst of an abortion should certainly be allowed to live! There are many people who want to love on them.