Active Users:797 Time:03/05/2026 05:50:39 PM
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress? Joel Send a noteboard - 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
Born Alive Infant Protection Act, an act that allows a physician to be able to nourish a viable baby that survives an abortion and is alive outside the womb? Or are you only outraged when republican's do evil?

Or can only conservative be wrong by definition?

Talk is cheap, but you cannot condemn a vote he did not cast against a law passed before he was elected. He did vote against an IL state version NOT restritect to viable fetuses, due to fears that would invalidate all abortion. On the IL Senate floor, he stated,
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

State law already requires IL doctors apply every measure to save aborted VIABLE fetuses born alive (i.e. babies.) This bill would have required the same for NON-VIABLE fetuses, on the grounds they are people. Of course, if the law says non-viable fetuses are people, then all abortion is murder, and thus illegal.

The IL and federal bills were not the same, because IL law already requires doctors make every effort to save viable fetuses born alive. The IL bill declared NON-viable fetuses people, which would have made abortion itself illegal.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
God Distances Self From Christian Right - 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM 1470 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM* - 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM 457 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization." - 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM 768 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is.... - 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM 959 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin? - 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM 797 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but... - 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM 797 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. - 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM 866 Views
That's a dangerous stance to take as a Christian - 27/10/2012 01:11:14 AM 794 Views
I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding. - 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM 796 Views
Jesus that Greek sounds weird to my ears. - 27/10/2012 03:43:40 AM 903 Views
It's really just simplified Attic. - 27/10/2012 06:11:48 AM 772 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this. - 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM 831 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect - 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM 867 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no. - 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM 773 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals - 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM 800 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive. - 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM 848 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all... - 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM 844 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal - 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM 778 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are. - 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM 905 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient." - 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM 757 Views
You're stuck. - 27/10/2012 07:07:36 AM 877 Views
not entirely - 27/10/2012 03:23:07 PM 891 Views
Give me facts, not supposition. - 27/10/2012 04:10:57 PM 810 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism - 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM 855 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative - 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM 818 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment. - 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM 752 Views
Or it could mean.... - 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM 795 Views
Re: Or it could mean.... - 27/10/2012 12:14:31 AM 767 Views
I agree - 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM 835 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend. - 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM 797 Views
Yes - 27/10/2012 02:20:46 AM 837 Views
I suppose it is splitting hairs. - 27/10/2012 04:32:43 PM 781 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. - 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM 798 Views
Re: Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. - 27/10/2012 01:17:04 AM 816 Views
Who said anything about denying them funds? - 27/10/2012 01:54:39 AM 848 Views
God intends everything. - 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM 877 Views
"Intends" is a big word. - 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM 802 Views
Re: "Intends" is a big word. - 29/10/2012 04:56:49 PM 776 Views
I am familiar with the Problem of Evil. - 29/10/2012 06:41:13 PM 793 Views
Absolutely agree. *NM* - 26/10/2012 11:47:04 PM 405 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM* - 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM 415 Views
It is sad partisanship trumps policy for so many. - 26/10/2012 10:52:34 PM 711 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM* - 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM 414 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads. - 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM 754 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the - 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM 776 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent? - 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM 754 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM 419 Views
[citation needed] - 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM 733 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM 425 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose - 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM 805 Views
It is not hard to find, really. - 27/10/2012 02:40:06 AM 730 Views
Links: - 27/10/2012 12:51:12 AM 799 Views
Double post. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:18:42 AM 400 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it. - 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM 750 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up. - 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM 950 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress? - 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM 854 Views
amazing - 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM 904 Views

Reply to Message