Verified answer

There is a clear choice for president since both candidates have different views. Unfortunately, there are people like obama that think that some children are mistakes.

FYI: Obama voted against BAIPA because the laws that were in place at the time already mandated that survivors of an abortion be given medical care and this bill would have done nothing to increase that protection. what it was designed to do was to assist in undermining the Roe vs Wade decision and assist in striping women of their right to chose. Nothing was lost and nothing was stolen by defeating this bill.

Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about.

Like most emotionally and religiously driven people you likely have no interest in learning anything about it either.

I will include a link to an article about it anyhow just in case you would like to educate yourself about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_e...

"[edit] Circumstances and reasons for this procedure

See also: Late-term abortion

IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortion, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions at 21 weeks or later account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[11] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of those late-term abortion cases. This is the equivalent of between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.[12]

Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once a pregnant woman has made the decision to have a late-term abortion, she or a doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:

Although a woman may experience contractions, she does not have to experience labor.[13]

IDX is an outpatient procedure; the woman does not have to be hospitalized.[13]

The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.[14]

The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[15]

Instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion, potentially reducing the risk of uterine tearing.[16]

The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe,[17] or a caesarian section may be done as soon as amniocentesis indicates lung maturity.[18] If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.[13]

Reasons a woman or physician may not choose IDX, opting instead for another abortion procedure, include:

IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E.[16]

Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.[17]

The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.[17] "

Warning: there are some words longer than two syllables in the article and parental guidance is advised.

By the way, I found three false statements and one deliberate misquote in the article you presented as a source.

If you are totally appalled by the idea of anyone who supports killing unborn children, then why aren't you appalled by anyone supporting to kill innocent children or just innocent people for that matter; such as Bush going into an unnecessary war? You can't be anti-abortion and pro-war at the same time. A killing is a killing not matter how you look at it.

"Hmmm....I wonder why everything you listed supports Repbulican Talking Points.

Do you really think you deserve a serious answer based on policy when you are CLEARLY showing how one-sided you are?"

COME ON! IT IS PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT DONT LISTEN TO ANY OF THE FACTS WITHOUT HAVING TO THROW BLAME ON SOMEONE ELSE FOR EVEN BRINGING UP A REASONABLE POINT! THE FIRST ANSWERER DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS!

As Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here: http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/ )

he wants to reduce the abortion rate, just like the rest of us. He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother, as is the case in the GOP platform (although still not McCain's platform).

Your representation of Obama's voting record is fraudulent. This misconception has been corrected dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so you really don't have an excuse.

To see this lie fully debunked, go here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808220022?f=h_top

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808150013?f=s_sea...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808020004

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear/248/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi (Barack's 40-pg debunking of Corsi's smears)

or slog through the following:

Many on this site are falsely presuming that Obama's voting against certain abortion legislation was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion. Obama correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections already, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman's rights.

The act which failed in the Illinois Senate sought to outlaw pretty much ALL abortions....for any reason including deformity, terminal illness, rape, and incest. The legislation in question threatened the standing abortion laws in the state, while other provisions were bundled in that created liability for doctors, designed to intimidate doctors and make it more difficult to perform legal procedures. So Barack Obama opposed it for that reason, not to oppose protection of babies born alive.

The act was designed as "wedge" legislation. It would have no effect on medical procedures, but was designed for just for these sorts of attacks. When a group does this, they put one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman’s right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

The media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

So instead of thinking, "Hmm, this sounds just a little too improbable, that Obama would want babies surviving abortions to be killed. I'd better research this first before I make this claim. After all, I'm a journalist and don't want to be caught out reporting on something that turns out to be easily debunked, and that most people would think sounds phony from the start. I don't want to lose my credibility as a journalist," they instead just MAKE STUFF UP, expecting their audience to be dumb enough to fail this gullibility test of a story.

It's been said that, if it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news. But this is ridiculous.

You have to consider the source. One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions. She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use. She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

Nurse Jill Stanek claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, suppo

What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these newly proposed laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this same bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them.

I give your question a star, not because I agree with it. Yet simply because I want to know more regarding it. For now it is just another lopsided report on another candidate for the oval office. Educate me. Give me more than one person's view on this. Give me some meat.

Thank you Colonel.