Obama's abortion policy.

[Bungleau]

I suspect that everyone has different rules for adoptions. My neighbors adopted twins from China so they would only have to go through the process once.

From the Nova Scotia adoption site...

How long will it take? From the submission of your application until your home study is completed and a decision is made regarding Provincial approval will take between six months to one year. The length of time for the placement of a child will vary from country to country but may be up to six years. In the majority of adoptions, you will be required to travel to the child's country of origin for placement and to finalize the adoption.

I found similar information for Michigan and other sites in the US.

The stumbling block appears to be on the other side... wherever that is.

And yes, overseas adoptions are expensive here as well. Easily $10,000 plus... and I'm not quite sure how much the plus is, nor do I really want to know. At least you can claim it on your taxes here...

[Dron_Cah]

Originally Posted by Ilander Born-Alive Infant Protection Act United States Nationality Law ...but as far as I am concerned, it's unnecessary legislation that some politicians can bandy about to tout their humanity, their ethical treatment of their political base. Yet, any human born within in the United States is entitled to citizenship and all the rights therein. Those poor children left to die? Well. That's a powerful image. I will accept no use of it for political games, though. My infant nephew was murdered two years ago, and that's quite different from aborting a child who cannot live on their own outside the mother's body, especially one that can anticipate a life of pain.

I'm kinda confused how the "born-alive infant protection act" would be "unnecessary legislation." I would think that the fact that some abortionists can legally, and do put abortive operation surviving infants into a cold chamber to die of exposure would show that the legislation is very necessary. Frankly, this seems to be the most inhumane way to achieve their goals. It seems this will go the way of what Congress said regarding partial birth abortion: "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
My 2 cents, though I realize my opnion probably isn't very popular on these forums.

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Originally Posted by Dron_Cah My 2 cents, though I realize my opnion probably isn't very popular on these forums.

really, why not?

[Ilander]

...but, Dron, the legislation doesn't make that practice illegal explicitly. It simply asserts that if a child is born alive, they are afforded the rights of any citizen of the nation...well, at least if they breathe or have a heartbeat or umbilical cord pulsation.

It's unnecessary legislation because the Nationality law already provides citizenship and the rights associated therein to children who are born.

All this law does is give a legal definition of the term "born alive," and doesn't do anything whatsoever about abortion.

Now, that said, the law may allow the police to arrest every nurse at that establishment for negligent homicide.

So...what does that gain us? What does that do to eliminate the evil of abortion? It deprives some people of jobs they clearly did not want in the first place, and possibly kills business to the clinics themselves, but it does not prevent other, more cheaply run establishments from doing horrible things to children while still in the womb solely so that the mother can be legally exonerated.

Anyway.

I think my main opposition to this youtube video is that it very clearly paints Barrack Obama as a heartless man who would not save dying babies.

Besides, the legislation ultimately passed. It's on the books today. It stands.

Mostly, though...I don't care about that law. Sure. Why not. Define born alive. Let's write more laws, defining "cheese weasels" and "Squirrel fasting."

If you want to fight abortion, there are much better ways.

[Dron_Cah]

Originally Posted by Ilander ...but, Dron, the legislation doesn't make that practice illegal explicitly. It simply asserts that if a child is born alive, they are afforded the rights of any citizen of the nation...well, at least if they breathe or have a heartbeat or umbilical cord pulsation. It's unnecessary legislation because the Nationality law already provides citizenship and the rights associated therein to children who are born. All this law does is give a legal definition of the term "born alive," and doesn't do anything whatsoever about abortion. Now, that said, the law may allow the police to arrest every nurse at that establishment for negligent homicide. So...what does that gain us? What does that do to eliminate the evil of abortion? It deprives some people of jobs they clearly did not want in the first place, and possibly kills business to the clinics themselves, but it does not prevent other, more cheaply run establishments from doing horrible things to children while still in the womb solely so that the mother can be legally exonerated. Anyway. I think my main opposition to this youtube video is that it very clearly paints Barrack Obama as a heartless man who would not save dying babies. Besides, the legislation ultimately passed. It's on the books today. It stands. Mostly, though...I don't care about that law. Sure. Why not. Define born alive. Let's write more laws, defining "cheese weasels" and "Squirrel fasting." If you want to fight abortion, there are much better ways.

I'm not asserting that the born-alive act will fight abortion. What I'm saying is that it most certainly cannot be pointless... otherwise those babies that prove more resilient than most and survive the abortion would not be taken from the womb and killed by exposure. In what way is that only "giving a legal definition to "born alive?""
Are the children carried to full term and birthed in the normal fashion? No, instead these are the fetuses that were aborted and made the mistake of continuing to live. My issue here isn't about the evil of abortion, in general, but the evil of killing the survivors in this inhumane way. This is what i'm hoping the born-alive act would accomplish.

[Dron_Cah]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood really, why not?

Just a hypothesis, Variol.

[Beaumanoir]

Originally Posted by Variol (Farseer) Elmwood Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

You do know that every time you bring this kind of stuff in to a debate, most athiests just switch off to your opinion instantly? If you want to hold sway in this kind of thing, just stick to the points that all of us can take.


That aside, I think it's a load of propaganda and bollocks. And for the record, I am strictly pro-choice.

[Firestormalpha]

I find that amusing considering one of your complaints in your "This board.." thread, was that people are all too willing to belittle the opinions of others. (unless I'm recalling that incorrectly, I may have to go back a look)

My own issue with Variol's use of the scripture is that it's relevance to the discussion is lost on me. I personally consider the one regarding murder to be more relevant. Regardless of what you choose to call an embryo in an attempt to assuage your conscience it is human, and killing a viable (though yet to be fully formed or born) human is murder.

So if you can't figure it out, I'm pro-life. If you didn't want to get pregnant you can have a little operation done that prevents it. If you later decide you want a child, there's always adoption.

Just my views though. I'm sure this goes without saying but you don't need to agree with me.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Beaumanoir You do know that every time you bring this kind of stuff in to a debate, most athiests just switch off to your opinion instantly? If you want to hold sway in this kind of thing, just stick to the points that all of us can take.

Here's an opinion on the matter from Australia's Prime Minister:

"A (truly) Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed." Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia.

[Yorick]

My personal position is this.

#1. Science proves human life begins at conception. This is scientific FACT, not religious belief, nor speculation. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, who has performed 75,000 abortions pushed through the legalisation of abortion before foetology and the ultrasound existed.

Had he known what science now knows he would not have done this, and he is now a prominent pro-life speaker. As is "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade fame. (She has actually undertaken legal moves to repeal the decision made in her name)

#2. All laws are legislated morals. Just as it is acceptable for a society to ban murder - humans taking human life - so is it acceptable to ban murder of in-utero humans.

If murder is prohibited in a society, so too should abortion or else the said society is hypocritical and/or refuses to accept scientific facts when making decisions about itself.