Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
No, in layman's terms, existing laws shouldn't be contradicted, which is exactly what would have happened if the legislation passed. It was already illegal to kill a baby after it's been born, so that issue is completely moot. Obama not supporting this legislation had no effect on existing law.
|
He was protecting abortions by the use of the word "live birth". Should a fetus seem viable, the mother might change her mind had she heard the baby cry or something that living things do. The physician performing the abortion would not have to find another doc to agree with him or disagree with him whether the child can live or not. Again, you're looking at how you feel rather than the brutal truth.
Here's the ad-hominem part: I'd suggest you look at other sources that aren't affiliated with different sides before you take what ANY politician says as truth.
Quote:
Ad hom (or ad hominem) is a logical fallacy where one addresses the person or source of an argument instead of the contents of said argument. I'll tell you what, instead of saying "Media matters is the Wikipedia of liberalism", why not demonstrate that they have a history of misstatements? I can demonstrate that Jill Stanek is likely unreliable by providing her lies, misstatements, and fundamentalism:
Dr. Ball has nothing to do with this. Why didn't you call me on Jill Stanek?
|
Because Jill Stanek is not someone I know much about outside of her being yet another woman railroaded by liberals because she caught them in something that might be "misconstrued" as evil. Really, fella... why all the backpeddling from Media Matters when Babies technically aren't alive until they're born? That's what we're told, right? Is it not? lol
Quick list of people railroaded when they disagree:
Monica Lewinsky (and all of the Clinton harem for that matter)
Stephen Ambrose (more than just Band of Brothers)
Dr. Tim Ball
Sarah Palin (how dare she be a woman and pro-life! Even Camille Paglia agrees!)