This law, called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, passed the US Senate by a vote of 98-0. It was supported by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and every Democrat then in the Senate. But one prominent Democrat, then a state senator, fought tooth and nail to defeat this bill. My question is, would you expect a Christian legislator to insist on the the right to neglect a child after birth?
rac (euro atheist)
If this democrat "fought tooth and nail to defeat this bill" how did it pass 98-0?
Neoboethius
No, But neither would I expect a Muslim legislator to vote in favor of such a measure.
Bitterpillbug
So Obama hates babies ? Ok.
toxicox
Not a Christian who was particularly serious about his Christianity. I can't really imagine anyone, Christian or not, with decent judgment and who valued human life in any meaningful way arguing against providing care for a living, breathing, crying baby simply because the mother wanted it dead. That strikes me as either pure ignorance or pure evil.
And I definitely can't imagine ever voting for such a person for President.
dynollis
I'm sorry - the more pertinent question is who are all these women who are having abortions so late that their baby can survive? Ugh. That's horrible. Enough of them are doing it to require new legislation? Jesus. As for the Christian legislator - I applaud him. He might not be right, but he stuck up for what he believed in even though the entire senate body was against him. We need more people like that in the senate...you know...people with minds.
Origen
No, certainly not. Because there are many people who use the name for Christian for political or commercial purposes, or who simply want to keep up appearances, Jesus gave us a test to recognize genuine Christians from Christians in name only: We look at their actions.
No Christian would ever work to remove the obligation to protect the weak and helpless when their lives are threatened. That is so completely antithetical to Christian principles that even proabortion Democrats voted unanimously in the Senate to require life-saving care.
Only one Democrat, then a state senator in Illinois, opposed this legislation. His name is Barack Obama.
MW
No only a sick disgusting freak would vote NOT to save a baby born alive after it was not aborted properly. Here is my question: isn't that murder? The baby is alive, no longer just a fetus, letting it just die isn't that murder. Sounds like it to me. But I forgot it was her choice. Pathetic!!!!!
AntiApollyon
Nowanna Obama. No, they would not - unless something else was in the law. I didn't read it, so I don't know.
Example: Suppose a bill is introduced which contains teh positive aspects of BAIPA, but also contains legislation giving abortion clinics federal funding to improve the technology of their "procedures" to make them more efficient, reducing the chances of an aborted fetus surviving. As a Christian, how whould one vote? I would vote against the bill, even though I strongly support BAIPA.
I'm a liberal weiner
This Obama controversy? If you've read about or listened to the details (discussed in the last debate) about that vote, the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act contained legislation that would extend personhood to pre-viable fetuses, which would have effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, and laws requiring medical care to babies who survived abortion already existed, which is why Obama--a state senator at the time--voted against it, not because he is opposed to care for those babies who do survive, and has said he would have supported the national version. This certainly is certainly not the same as "fighting tooth and nail" to defeat the bill.
Roman C
Would that have been Mr. Ted Kennedy? Any Christian legislator who does that is taking the separation clause too literally. Maybe to the destruction of his soul.
Orignal From: Would a Christian legislator work against a law requiring medical care for babies who survive abortion?
Post a Comment