Born Alive Truth

www.bornalivetruth.org

Without causing a huge fight, I’m just curious how people would stand on this one.

Would you vote for or against protections for babies born alive after botched abortions?

I brought up bigotry on another thread, but didn’t get much response.  Bob was really the only one who posted.

I admit that this is one of those things I just can’t tolerate at all.  I can’t stand the thought of someone in our highest office who would not vote for protecting these babies, but he did so four times.

Four times he voted against legislation that would eliminate loopholes in the current law and help these miracle babies born during a botched late term abortion.

I’m sure some of the BO Faithful will have lots of good reasons.  I’ll be interested to see how you can justify this.

Would you vote for or against a bill that would require medical attention to be given to babies born from botched abortions, rather than allowing them to die?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

24 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Barron X says:

    .

    Odd, me citing Roe v. Wade, but there it is.  

    Born alive, under whatever circumstances, the entity has “personhood” and is entitled to the protections in the Constitution.

    .  

  2. Middle of the Road says:

    the four times Obama voted to murder babies after they were born? That’s a new one to me. Please do make sure to cite the entire bill and the vote of every member of Congress, in the interest of full disclosure.

    Thanks much.

  3. Go Blue says:

    becuase McCain wants to send them into back alley’s with coat hangers?

    • redstateblues says:

      kill the mothers, and the lock up the ones who survive!

      • Barron X says:

        .

        I should take the “yes on 48” sticker off my car.  

        …..

        wait a minute.  

        where does it say its for killing anyone ?

        .

        • redstateblues says:

          I was exaggerating of course, but if it passed then a mother wouldn’t be able to get an abortion–even if it meant that they would die, along with the child, without one. I find that perilously close to killing.

          I’m sure you find that ironic as I am pro-choice.

          • Barron X says:

            .

            I think that, if there was a situation where a pregnant woman would be killed by carrying a baby to term,

            then I don’t think that she would be compelled to do so.  

            I don’t think 48 even mentions abortion.

            …………

            Maybe that’s why you NEED to be my Chief of Staff, to ensure I’m hearing contrary opinions,

            rather than hiding in an echo chamber.

            .  

            • ClubTwitty says:

              Maybe that’s why you NEED to be my Chief of Staff, to ensure I’m hearing contrary opinions,rather than hiding in an echo chamber.

              I appreciate your perspective Barron, and your reasonableness.

              But A48 is all about abortion.

              Here is a letter to the editor that ran in the GJ Sentinel today from the initiative proponent.

              Amendment 48 empowers people

              Amendment 48, the Personhood Amendment, is about empowering the voter. It’s about allowing the democratic process to make decisions currently made by special interest groups that use taxes for their own gain. It’s about catching our laws up to our science. It’s about restoring the intrinsic value of every human being, no matter what stage of development.

              The Personhood Amendment doesn’t change the Constitution, as its opponents claim; it merely clarifies the definition of “person” or “persons” as beginning at fertilization. This clarification is necessary because when the original Constitution was written the biological information we now have available didn’t exist. This left an ambiguity that has been seized by special interests for their own purposes. The same special interests claim they want choice, but don’t want voters to decide this issue.

              The Personhood Amendment isn’t an attack on women’s health care, as the scare tactics of its opponents would have you believe. Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being. It merely provides a common-sense foundation for making future decisions – decisions that protect the unborn, the sick, the disabled and the elderly.

              The “No on 48” crowd stresses that 75 health-care organizations (no doubt including Planned Parenthood) oppose Amendment 48. At last count, over 80 organizations and medical professionals support personhood.

              The proponents of abortion refer to newly formed persons as “fertilized eggs.” This is familiar strategy. They use the term “pro-choice” to shift the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The term “fertilized egg” robs the developing human of personhood, just as “fetus” dehumanizes developing babies.

              Republican or Democrat, we’re all responsible to protect innocent life. Colorado voters have an unprecedented opportunity to do exactly that by acknowledging what we know to be true. Vote “Yes” on 48.

              KRISTI BURTON

              Initiative Sponsor

              Peyton, Colo.

            • redstateblues says:

              You are going to run your race the way you see fit, try to get as many votes as you can, and then we get to work on 2010.

              My plan for you:

              Run as a Republican against Lamborn in the primary–Crank and Rayburn be damned. I realize that it throws all your principles into the trash regarding the two-party system, but I think that voters would be receptive to a true conservative running in CD-5. That is as long as you’re a Republican (the brand they can trust) and not some far-out radical.

              There have to be enough Ron Paul Republicans in that area who would be receptive to your message.

              We’ll single-handedly restore the Republican party in Colorado.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          If a woman takes the morning after pill that’s conspiracy to commit pre-meditated murder.

          Are you in favor of our then throwing women who take the morning after pill in prision for 5 – 10 years?

          Because that is what will happen if this passes and the courts don’t strike it down.

  4. gouko787 says:

    Are we talking about a baby that would have no chance of survival?  3 months? 4 months?

    There are limits in each state as to how far along in a pregnancy a woman can make the choice, barring medical concerns.

    My guess is that the law was regarding those that would have no chance of survival and though it is still sad, I can understand these votes.

    To me, life begins at conception, but individual rights begin at birth and the breathing of air.  I do not think we should infringe upon the rights of a woman on behalf of a dependant.  Until that dependent is born and breathing air, their rights are dependant on the mother.

    I truly wish we lived in a society that did not need abortions, but the fact is, I am not a woman and will never face that choice.

    • UsborneBeth says:

      These are babies who are born alive and, because of loopholes in the law, they are shelved until they die.

      Sometimes, caring nurses will take them out of the room where the mother is while they hold them until they die.

      Others are born alive and suffocated or otherwise put to death because the abortion didn’t work.

      That’s what I’ve heard in interviews on television.

      If you go to http://www.bornalivetruth.org, you’ll hear the story of a woman with CP who lived through a botched abortion and, because a nurse caught her while the abortionist was out of the room, the nurse sought medical care or her and she is alive today- an adult – and she is helping others to find out about this  little known issue.

  5. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    You can not make me grow cells in body if I don’t want them there. It is about the personhood of the person who already exists and has life. Period.  Me, my family, my choice.

    It’s America, I don’t have to believe in God, heaven or hell.

    If all the Righties are so concerned about children and doing God’s work, how about feeding and educating a bunch of kids in Compton, East LA, the Bronx, Southy and New Orleans.

    It is amazing we can find millions of dollars to preach saving a fetus, yet, the greatest, richest country in the world has starving kids. How about we worry about the ones that are here?

    USborneBeth, how many unwanted children have you adopted?  How many unwanted foster kids live in your house?

    This should not even be a discussion. I am alive and it is my body.  Yeah, personhood.

  6. ClubTwitty says:

    who doesn’t even think women should be able to choose abortion in the case of rape or incest, and who would push her own daughter to bear the child of such a crime.

    Furthermore, while mayor Wasilla was the town in Alaska that forced the state legislature to require that towns provide rape kits without charge to victims.  

    Wasilla, under Palin’s watch, required victims to pay for their own rape kits.

  7. Gray in the mountains says:

    on whether humans and dinosaurs occupied this planet simultaneously.

  8. Gray in the mountains says:

    how soon must they acquire a passport if pregnant mom is traveling overseas?

    Can a parent purchase life insurance?

    Would they not be required to have their own health insurance unless one has a family plan?

    A-48 is nuts and it comes from a naive, sheltered, home schooled kid who did NOT learn critical thinking. And, no Kristi Burton, this is NOT timely because “law is catching up to science”.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.