"And if were placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as as is necessary to keep that child alive, then were probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality"
Notice also how this goon doesn't even bother to think through what "viability" means. It cannot mean "live unaided on its own" because no full term infant is capable of that. It simply means that instead of being totally dependent on one person, the mother, it can be totally dependent on a variety of people. To judge whether it has a claim to life based on who can take care of it is insane or just an excuse to be able to eliminate it. "Honey, I know that I'm holding you by your hand over the cliff's edge and that if I wait just a little bit longer others can take over the job. I also know that if I were to let you drop when others could take over the job I'd be guilty of murder, but since they're not here yet, I'm fully justified in letting you take the fall, even if they're just moments away. Oh, and if you survive the fall, well, since I didn't want to keep holding on, no one else should be able to come to your rescue." This is Obama's position.
posted on 08/18/2008 3:42:43 AM PDT
boxer i’m not answering these questions
Barbara Boxer states/slips in a floor argument that the baby can be “chosen” out of life, ie, it’s not “viable” or “alive” until the “parents take it home”.
posted on 08/18/2008 6:48:23 AM PDT
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson