Former Nurse on Obama's Controversial Abortion Vote

Ben, I agree with you on all points. Tom is just another smear merchant, parroting the Hannity talking-points.

Anyone can play this idiotic game. With McCain, there's the Keating Five, the "I hate the gooks" comment, the "bomb bomb Iran" comment, the "mental recession" comment, the cheating on his first wife, his second wife the trust fund baby boomer, his second wife the pill-popper and thief, and the list goes on.

The issues don't matter anymore. It's all about Britney.

Slander? You are spreading non-truths. I'm glad you restored the comment. I was in the middle of putting together an email to the Newsvine staff.

Most of my comments come from reading your comments in another of your seeds. Clearly you are only interested in nailing the talking points.

None of that will change this fact: Obama opposed a bill that would have protected babies born alive after botched abortions.

No, it's not a fact, it's a talking point, conflated with the story of a nurse (which may or may not be true).

That was a position even too extreme for NARAL, Clinton, Kerry, and many others who are pro-abortion.

Oh, so Clinton and Kerry were in the Illinois Senate? Interesting. And your characterization of "pro-choice" person as "pro-abortion" is impressive. Way to nail them.

CA, again, you seem to fail to understand how Newsvine works. If you have a problem with my remarks in other seeds, then comment there and leave that discussion there. Don't carry over one discussion over to another seed.

Let me clarify. My comments were based on my general impressions of you, as someone who is more interested in pushing forward the talking points, than truly exploring the facts.

I based my comments on the couple of recent seeds, and comments, you posted. I'll reserve any further judgments for another day.

And, the point about Clinton and Kerry was that they had voted to support a Federal bill that was nearly identical to the one Obama opposed.

I understand your point exactly. But, as you yourself state, the bills were "nearly" identical. In addition, context is everything. Simply put, the notion that Obama supports infanticide is far-fetched.

And understand, I am not on the "far-left" on this issue (not that I even believe the issue can be defined in such a way). I consider myself anti-abortion and anti-unplanned-pregnancy (I'm for adoption, sex education, etc.). However, I strongly believe that banning abortions is not a solution.

As with many issues, there is a huge middle ground for people to meet and compromise. These such attacks do nothing for the debate, IMO.

Did Obama simply make an error, or is he really that extreme and cold-hearted on the issue of infanticide?

Neither. He didn't support the bill as it was written. Implying otherwise is a logical fallacy -- either he's imperfect or he's evil -- and that leaves John McCain as the winner. Or at least with Obama as the loser since you don't support McCain.

Tom has always seemed fair and polite to both sides of each conversation. Kudos TomB. !

Tom, you're very thoughtful, and I appreciate that. However, I believe you are more of an ideologue than an honest broker of the truth (not that you're outright dishonest). I look forward to future debates.

Tom, I am new here, but as far as I have read, you make every effort to be fair and courteous in stating your opinions, though at times, I wonder how you are able to be so cool given some of the extremely biased, snarky, and/or completely unfounded remarks that some folks try to pass off as merely their opinions. (Maybe you have a lot of broken stuff around your computer.) Anyway, I have found your commentary to be honest, and I especially appreciate that you research and attempt to hold others to standards of writing based on documentation from reliable sources.

Yeah, pretty much.

I hear you, the degradation is ongoing.

I honestly can't think too much on the issue as it is too painful, a failing on my part I know.

The very notion that a born human shouldn't be protected should be untenable. How anyone can shore up a defense is beyond me.

In my opinion, this country has embraced the libertine indoctrination and this is a side-effect of that ideology. So, yes, pretty much anything goes.

My own concession to the abortion epidemic is flushing the womb before implantation of the zygote.

My worry isn't only over the loss of so many babies, but also the destruction of the mental and emotional well being of the "women" who go through this procedure.

Tom, a little nervous right now. I've published a short story to Voices for the Unborn, which is relevant to this discussion . . . nervous for setting myself up for ridicule (put in the Writers group too).

I also want to share a church sign I saw yesterday with you, since I thought of you when I saw it (even commented to my husband that you may like it.)

"We are raising spiritual fruits, not religious nuts."

Thanks Doubtin. Your words are encouraging.

I am an opinionated person and rarely am shy about my views. I think what makes this different is the inherent connection between a writer and their works . . . it's a soul baring process.

Juno, I will want to read your story, and I encourage you with my whole heart. the subject of "pro choice" makes me froth at the mouth. I wish someone would define that choice. "Kill the baby or not?" Is that it? Oh, my bad, it is a "lump of cells,"or a "fetus." Let us not call it a "baby" until it is born because then one might have to face the fact that it was human, was alive , but after being dismembered and sucked out of the mother's womb, it has become a dead thing. What is the difference between murder and abortion? To me, it is only the passing of time and rhetoric. If a mother were to go to a clinic at three months and have the above dismembering done by a doctor, she is legal and society doesn't blink, but if she were to wait six more months and then hire someone to kill her baby after birth, they would both be reviled as the worst criminals ever. And for writing these words, there are probably those who are pro-choice who will jump on me as a "religious nut," the one who is wrong.

Tom, I've just spent an hour on U-Tube checking for "micro-premies", those infants born roughly between 22 and 26 weeks. This appears to be the time frame when many late-term abortions have been done, some resulting in live births.

It is miraculous, but with love and intensive medical care, some micro-premies do survive.

Sen. Obama would have me T R U S T a doctor who has tried to abort a fetus, to care for it when--against all odds--the infant is born alive. By his own words, then IL State Sen. Obama considered it an unnecessary burden to bring a second doctor in, to protect such a newborn. He preferred, instead, to T R U S T that life to the two people who just tried to destroy it; further, he considered a second physician as an intrusion on the decision of the birth-mother and abortionist.

I HAVE NO SUCH TRUST! Nor do I believe it even remotely plausible that such trust is warranted. Conflict of interest!!!!!!!

Burden or no, that defenseless infant deserves a physician advocate in the room who believes beyond a shadow of doubt that every infant born alive is deserving of reasonable medical care. At the very least, that infant is deserving of compassionate care.

Each time I see a news report of a viable, newborn infant thrown into a public trash can by its mother, I see also that a MURDER investigation is initiated if the infant dies. If the baby survives, hundreds of couples come forward, wanting to adopt the child.

Based solely on words I have heard come out of his own mouth, I can only condemn Obama's actions in the Illinois Senate. I do not believe Sen. Obama retains any moral authority to preach "protect the least among us," as he did so smoothly at the Saddleback event.

Some days I spin around the 'vine and absolutely question my sanity for staying.

But, today, as I read from the posters above, extending such wonderful support to not only me, but one another and to those who are "the least among us," I am moved. And I'm blessed.

Tom, What am I doing wrong? When I try posting links, Comment Preview shows, "LINK OMITTED." However, by title, here are a few on YouTube:

Hunter & Darcy 22 week premature twins

my micro-preemie 13 ounces!!!

Preemie Boy 25 weeker

Serena & Edwin Jr. born at 23 weeks
& followup:
Serena and Edwin eat Gerber puffs

Micro-Preemie Lily & followup:
Micro-Preemie Lily Counts to 3
-------- RE: they are taking comfort and strength from your thoughts.

Feb. 18, 1979 my husband and I lost a boy at 28 weeks. Aaron Seth weighed 2 pounds, 7 ounces, and was a giant compared to these sweeties. But premie care was not as advanced back then as now. Salt in an open wound, I know how hard it was for me to hear of infants abandoned to die back then.

My heart and prayers go out to those trying so hard to have a baby who can't, or who lose their baby due to medical complications. I know how painful this subject is for you.

Yes, time will help, but you never forget.

--Elizabeth

Ahhh... just figured out my link problem!

I'm one of the new Newsvine users. As such, I haven't earned linking rights! The general restrictions for Newbies may be found under the "Welcome New Users!" section.

I noticed! And truth be told this was a shock to me! In my neck of the woods you can get an abortion no longer then after the third months. I never looked into laws in the US, and that is just wrong. Within 3 months time a woman should have sufficient time to take note and act.

While I believe in the right to vote whether you would like to have a child or not, that takes it too far in my opinion.

The irony in this whole thing though is, here we allow babys to simply die, if not plain out kill them by inaction, yet we deny someone terminally ill the right to choose to end his misery. There are some serious flaws!

Well you got me shocked!