WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT TO <LIFE>LIBERTY AND THE PURSUTE OF HAPPINESS.THE KEY WORD IS LIFE.I COULD QUOTE ALL THE SCRIPTURES THAT PROVE THE LORD IS AGAINST ABORTION.IT DOESNT MATTER TO THOSE WHO DONT BELIEVE.BUT YOU CANT ARGUE THAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS INDUCED MURDER.IS MURDER A CRIME?WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE UNBORNE?IS IT THE RIGHT OF A MOTHER TO MURDER HER CHILD AT 5YRS OLD?A LATE TERM ABORTION CAN USUALLY LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.WHY HAS OUR SOCIETY GONE SO DESYTHISIZED THAT WE BELIEVE MOTHERHOOD AND MURDER ARE RELATED?IT WONT BE LONG WE ARE KILLING THE ELDERLY. WHAT PURPOSE DO THEY SERVE?THEY JUST HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF?WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE? IM PRO CHIOCE I CHOOSE LIFE.

Partial birth is rarely done. It's to save the life of the mother only.

there is never a medical need for partial birth abortion.if the "mothers"life is in danger the baby would be taken surgically.there is never a need to induce labor untill the baby is partially out of the womb and stab it to death.if its made it that far let him live try to save him.thats where obama showed he was ignorant on the subject in the debate.but it sounded good to most people

so letS kill every baby before it is borne because the mother mAy some day kill the baby in a state of stupidness.or because the baby might get caNCER???SO BECAUSE WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE OF SOME CAUSE LETS ALLOW ABORTION??????I DONT QUITE GET THAT ONE. THATS THE WEAKEST ARGUEMENT IVE HEARD AND MOST ARE WEAK

I read an interview with a doctor who said he can't think of a single situation in which the child is being born, but must be killed to save the mother's life. The child is already passing through the birth canal...how could it be life threatening at that point? It's illogical and there is no medical reason to do it.

did obama vote for post birth abortion?

I don't think he was present for the vote. I did find this quote of his:

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."

wasn't present for the vote?wonder what was more important than his job that we pay for?
really curious about the post birth issue

You hit the nail on the head...well said...

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall. As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done. Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/DownSyndromeCommunity/gGgFtr

...no matter when it takes place...regardless of any argument...IT'S WRONG !!!...all the time...IT'S WRONG !!!...

It’s difficult to focus only on one subject, when discussing abortion.

As one person mentioned, there are millions of children without loving care givers. These children have been left in the hands of the states and nations to which they are a part. Yet in spite of the dire need for people to commit to raising these children, we have adoptions laws that prohibit certain capable people from adopting. The same state agencies, at least in the U.S., have such strict conventions in place that many poorer families cannot live up to the ‘states’ idea of a ‘worthy’ home. Many people are not allowed to adopt though they are willing to take a child as their own and love that child and share whatever they have to share. We govern adoption to such a great extent that I would guess, at best, only 50% of all the children currently living with a natural parent would not even qualify to adopt their own children.

Then we have state intervention. In the cases where people refuse certain medical treatment for their children based of their religious beliefs. For all those who oppose abortion based on “religious” grounds, I expect you despise the fact that state has the right to intervene in cases were children seem to be suffering when they need not be. In the cases where people are kept alive by machines, how much faith is required to turn off the machine, versus who gets to make the decision? However, are those lives not in the hands of the same God you feel is so powerful? Does God or doesn’t God decide? Yet you would march in and deny a family their right to put their faith in that same God. Do you make a better judge than God? How can you know that the people making these choices were not put in that position by the same God? What self-serving purpose is there is forcing your opinion in such instances on another, for it seems to serve no purpose to God.

We are also at a point, technologically, to determine much about the health of an unborn child. We even have in utero surgical procedures that can be preformed. But when it’s discovered that a child, through malformation or genetic disorder, will have little quality of life and much suffering while in it; it amazes me how many of you would opt to have that child born. I have the greatest respect for any person that must make such a decision. I imagine, not one of them, would be willing to give less than their own life to make that baby well and whole; but they can’t. So they must decide if they have what it will take, emotionally and financially, to have that baby. To those who would deny those parents the right to decide the fate of that baby and thus their own, I would tell you – then depend on God when you are suffering and leave medicine to the Godless. I would tell you, sorry ‘bout your luck and the loss of your job and the loss of your car, you could no longer pay for, but no food stamps for you, where is your Godly provider?

Then there are those who bring up what if scenarios, what if rape, what if incest, what if, is just another kind of decision, it results in the same choices. You cannot be pro one and not the other.

For all those who are against abortion, there is also the question of the military. Who would not destroy a child coming at you and your family with a bomb in hand? How many of the abortion nay-slayers supported and continue to support the U.S. military efforts currently at hand? How many of you would look at cases of genocide and not be willing to ‘murder’ those who are committing it? For you, I would ask, when is it our decision to take a life or not to? When do YOU WANT the right to take the life of another into your own hands? When you determine that, remember that is YOUR choice, give others the right to make their own.

That is the pro-life stance. Women should not be able to kill off another life which abortion does. Abortion kills pre born babies.

How about women be more responsible about sex. It's called rights WITH responsiblity. Then maybe there would be no need for abortions. That just might cut down the dramatic numbers of abortions being done year after year.

Yes well if the abortionists had their way it wouldn't be so. they don't want any admission that preborn babies are VIABLE lives.

Correct... if a miscarriage is a trauma to a woman's mind & body, I don't think anything prepares a woman for what an abortion would do.

Not to mention that the nazies killed off many people they deemed beneath human dignity. It's an aborhant practice.