Unlike the rightwing who will see a false story headlined by drudge, then picked up by fox, referenced by redstate to the fact that "fox are reporting that...", pushed further by other right wing sources in the media both print and tv, and then the victim of the false story has to actually answer questions on it from supposed "reputed" journolists who should know better. Is that what he is saying? 

And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling -- there's a few lies about some of the assertions. I've read some of the book, and it's pretty damn good, and it's very interesting. And there are a lot of endnotes in here that document some of his assertions.

There are lies about only some of Corsi's assertions? There are endnotes that document only some of Corsi's assertions? And Limbaugh can speak with authority on these matters although he's only read some of the book?

And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling -- there's a few lies about some of the assertions. I've read some of the book, and it's pretty damn good, and it's very interesting. And there are a lot of endnotes in here that document some of his assertions.

There are lies about only some of Corsi's assertions? There are endnotes that document only some of Corsi's assertions? And Limbaugh can speak with authority on these matters although he's only read some of the book?

There was a fellow on last night on Countdown, Eric Burns, who said he partially had time to analyse the first ten of the endnotes and reported 9 out of 10 Corsi was sourcing his own books. Now isn't that sweet and professional ? for a guy with a PhD  ( maybe a Phony Diploma ??? )

I find it amazing that Rush is so dull witted as to be taken in by the author.  Oh well, I guess Rush, with his drug-addled mind cannot think straight of late.  Of all the people I find totally unteliabe, Rush leads the list.  Remember, this is the dude who was dating a CNN newsie but went to the West Indies with a load of penis enhancers in his medicine bag.  All the while he tries to make the case that he is wso pure and Democrats who sleaze around are the scum of the earth.  LIMBAUGH AND CORSI ARE ABOUT EQUAL IN INTELLECT AND DECEPTION SO NO WONDER RUSH TRIES TO HOLD UP cORSI AS SUCH A PARAGON OF FACTS.  

What they're doing, they're investigating the background of Jerome Corsi. And they're trying to discredit Corsi and they're telling

Only pathetically ignorant 'dittoheads' would believe this one.

Mr Corsi, by simply opening his mouth discredits himself with no help from MMfA, ABC, or any other of the wrongly named 'drive-by' media!

Maybe sometime The United Snakes of Ureamia will get a for real news media. Maybe for Christmas. Unless of course our ideology demands that we destroy Christmas first.

How bout if we only destroy Christmas for only 1/30th of each second. We can compromise, as long as its only temporary.

hard to tell if this idiot is joking or serious. When K Olbermann played a clip of him claiming Edwards mistress used her mouth for something other than talk, he was laughing his head off, thinking it was a great joke.

Limbaugh is 100% correct here. Obama voted against a bill that even NARAL didn't oppose. He supports infanticide for babies that have already been born. He had no reason to vote against that bill. That bill was not a threat to abortion rights in any way. It was simply created to protect babies that have already been born. Obama can't run away from his extremist record, even with Media Matters' help.

Limbaugh couldn't be more wrong, which brings me to my next question - cherry or grape koolaid?

Limbaugh is 100% correct here.

You should really take a deep breath and reconsider anytime you start a post with those words. Abortions are very rare in most states beyond the second trimester, usually only for extreme cases involving the life of the mother. These are not babies who have "already been born".

Has Rush ever told you anything that you didn't believe?

We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about infanticide. We're talking about a bill that Obama opposed which simply stated that doctors must care for babies that have already been born. How is that a controversial bill?

If you actually read the law, the law has nothing to do about killing a baby after it's born. It's about what happens when, during an abortion, the fetus somehow survives. This has nothing to do with a natural childbirth concept that you are disengiously pushing.

Exactly. Obama believes that babies that have survived abortions should be left to die and not given medical attention. Thank you for pointing out that he does indeed support the murder of babies even after birth.

Another disengenious argument. Fetus is not automatically a viable life. And unless you are still pushing a double standard, a present vote by Obama should be treated by you the same as a not present vote by McCain.

So are babies that are born prematurely not really persons or babies but simply "fetuses" that should be left to die?

Again, can it survive without it's host? If the answer is no, it's not a baby yet.

So I guess since physically handicapped people can't survive on their own they aren't people as well? What ever happened to liberals trying to protect the most vulnerable among us? Oh I forgot, that's just a myth.

Rino, Republicans have abortions, too. The purpose of an abortion is to prematurely terminate a pregnancy...got it?

We're not talking about abortion. Democrats support abortion. Only Obama supports the murder of babies that have already been born. Even his own party doesn't take his extremist view on this issue. Even NARAL disagrees with him.

Republican girls get knocked up and their fathers pay to have their fetuses aborted...just like Democrats. If abortion is declared illegal Republican girls will still get abortions...in fact, they may very well be the most economically equipped and connceted to have the procedure done. What we are discussing here is the product of abortion so don't tell me we are not talking about abortion.

What we're talking about here is babies that have already been BORN. How can you not understand that? Abortion is not the topic of this thread.

Are you dense? It's a fetus, not a baby. It wasn't born, it was the product of an abortion. You can't go around redefining childbirth just to suit your political agenda.

Are you joking? If it's outside of the womb and alive, it has been born and has the same legal rights as you and I. We're not talking about fetusus that are in the mother's womb.

That fetus was not bought forth by birth. You are trying to redefine the definition of "born", but you picked the wrong crowd tonight. Take that redefinition to your bumper sticker crowd, they will follow you en masse.

It's alive and outside of the mother's womb, and our laws state that these babies must be protected and cared for. You and Barack Obama may want to leave these babies to die, but that's an extreme position that both Republicans and Democrats reject. Shoot, even NARAL rejected it! Your position on this issue is more extreme than NARAL's position!

Keep trying, you are arguing a straw man tonight. Never been a known case of a fetus surviving an abortion. Just a phony law to be used for political purposes by christian republicans of the low moral kind.

Here's three cases:

http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp

http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf

There's many, many more. The reason for the law is of course because babies that had survived abortions weren't being taken care of. Barack Obama was having his way and they were all allowed to die.

Why do you apparently like to lie so much.

Those are not evidence of babies surviving successful abortions. I already demolished this argument.

Of course they are. You can't argue with irrefutable facts. Those three people survived attempted abortions and are alive today and have told their story. Why don't you go up to them and tell them that they didn't survive an abortion?

I have no desire to talk to those people, and no need.

They didn't survive a successful abortion. Get that thru your thick skull!

There is no evidence of there being any need for this law, and you know it.

   No need to bother, rino. You are the only one making logical arguements with law to back them up. Also, you provide links to proof of your arguement, yet still blondie, snoopey and ironey all feel their opinion outweigh law and fact. You can argue with them till you're blue in the face and they won't change their minds.

   Realize you are going against staunch liberals. These are people who don't think for themselves, they only repeat what they are told. There is no brain functioning around them, only cells telling them what to say/when to say it. You would have better luck convincing a rock that it floats on water than convincing a liberal to think for themselves.

Look in the mirror. It is your side that ignores the fact that the existing law prohibits allowing a baby to die already.

It's you who falsely described the existing law. It's you who argues with only emotion instead of using emotion and fact. At one point in time, my job involved caring for infants and young mothers and mothers-to-be, and I base my arguments on the law and on the facts and on emotion.

"At one point in time, my job involved caring for infants and young mothers and mothers-to-be, and I base my arguments on the law "

   When did planned parenthood ever get into the CARE option of infants? You base your entire arguement on your interpretation of the law. Then whine when the law states something other than what you want it to. Claiming confusion as to why "some" states don't follow your interpretation of the law. We know why you're confused...you're a blonde.

   When you come to a 'stop' sign, does that mean stop or slow down? Gee simple laws sure confuse the simpletons of the world, don't they?

I haven't demonstrated any confusion. I have demonstrated a superior knowledge of the law, as well as the facts concerning non-viable and viable fetuses.

It's not my fault, nor my burden, that you're too ignorant to understand these simple concepts.

There is no such thing as an unborn child. In order to criminalize fetal deaths by negligence or intent, they had to classify fetuses as unborn children, since fetuses don't qualify for protection since they aren't people. Legally giving them the classification of unborn children doesn't make them unborn children. It's a skewing of the definition only. That skewing of the definition, however, specifically excludes any fetus that is involved in an abortion or other medical procedure.

There's many, many more.

And you base this on...?

The reason for the law is of course because babies that had survived abortions weren't being taken care of.

Post a link to an example of this happening in Illinois or anywhere in the U.S.

It's alive and outside of the mother's womb, and our laws state that these babies must be protected and cared for. You and Barack Obama may want to leave these babies to die, but that's an extreme position that both Republicans and Democrats reject. Shoot, even NARAL rejected it! Your position on this issue is more extreme than NARAL's position!

• - RINO Hunter / Friday August 15, 2008 11:27:25 PM EDT

I already destroyed this argument. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby.

There are already laws that protect babies. There's laws against killing babies. There's no need to protect them with additional laws since they're already protected by laws.

The law didn't protect babies. It criminalized behavior that would have impeded legal abortion of non-viable fetuses.

NARAL didn't think so. That's why even they didn't oppose it. The bill has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It's about simply protecting babies that have been born. Obama's support of infanticide might be ok with you, but it's not ok with Americans that have any compassion at all.

No, it's not about those things. You're a proven liar, and not only a proven liar, but a liar who has no shame, so that he'll push the same lies that only 2 weeks before have been disproven.

You can't even respond to my argument. That's typical. But I'm tired of making you look silly, so I'm done for the night. Have a good one!

yeah, sure, I'm the one who demolished your argument 2 weeks ago, and you're the one who's pushing those same demolished arguments tonight, and you think you have a point besides the one at the top of your head?

   You're also the one who thinks a born baby is some other type of animal. Just what type of animal is a baby after it leaves the womb?

   Is a baby with Downs syndrome viable? How about a baby born with no arms/legs and deaf/blind, is that one viable? Should all of those babies be automatically killed because you think it isn't a human?

Just what type of animal is a baby after it leaves the womb?

Whatever type of animal that baby was when it was somehow put into a womb. What a strange question.

Gosh, the arrogance of people who don't even possess rudimentary reading comprehension skills is stunning.

Non-viable means cannot survive outside a womb, even with medical attention, food, shelter, and love.

There are viable fetuses and non-viable fetuses. When a viable fetus leaves a womb, it is then a baby. When a non-viable fetus leaves the womb from an abortion or a miscarriage (called a spontaneous abortion), it's not a baby.

A baby without arms or legs can survive with enough medical attention, food, shelter, and love. Just like a person who is otherwise severely handicapped, or in a coma.

Really, you just make yourself look stupid and insincere and troll-like when you post this crapola.

"Non-viable means cannot survive outside a womb, even with medical attention, food, shelter, and love."

   Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. So, you're saying that attempted aborted babies should NOT be given medical attention after they are delivered? Hmm, that's what O'bama says, too. And Christians (90% of America) don't like murdering human beings after they are outside the womb. Laws are even present to protect their lives. YOU change the wording of the law to suit YOUR opinion. Fortunately, the law does NOT agree with YOU.

You are saying that a living human being should not be offered minimal medical assistance after a quack can't do his job right? Are you saying every baby who leaves the womb should be left unattended until it is determined they need help to live?

   I like how you get to pick and choose who is worthy of medical attention. At what level does someone NOT deserve medical attention IN YOUR OPINION?

Again, people with rudimentary reading comprehension skills shouldn't be trying to tell someone who has beaten them in every previous debate anything!

Non-viable fetuses aren't babies, even after they leave the womb. They're non-viable fetuses, and so they cannot survive, even with intensive medical treatment, and so it's a waste of finite medical resources to force doctors to provide medical treatment to them. It'd be like someone who had a traumatic brain injury as well as a broken leg. If they are brain dead, there's no reason to put a cast on their leg! But this law would require that we do that.

Non-viable fetuses aren't human beings. They aren't people. They aren't. They are not viable fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb.

The law already protects babies. I already proved that you were lying about the current law vs the proposed law. Lying! That's what you do. The current law already protects human life when it leaves the womb as a viable fetus and becomes a baby. The proposed law attempted to criminalize the non-treatment of non-viable fetuses, which are not human beings, not babies, not people. I diddn't change the wording of any law. You're the one that quoted one part of the existing law and ignored the other part of the existing law that destroyed your argument about the first part of that law! That was YOU!

I'm saying that a medical professional should not be made a criminal if he doesn't provide medical attention to a non-viable fetus. The law already prohibits the failure to provide medical attention to a human being. Living human beings, people, babies, are already protected. A non-viable fetus isn't a person, or a human being, or a baby.

Every baby that leaves the womb gets the medical attention it deserves currently. You're the one who's demanding that things change. You're the one who is demanding that non-viable fetuses get medical intervention, even though a non-viable fetus can't survive outside the womb. Viable fetuses who leave the womb already get that medical intervention! They don't need protection - the law already protects them!

Every person who wants medical attention and needs it should get it. A non-viable fetus is not a person.

If a grown adult capable of making their own medical decisions doesn't want medical intervention, they shouldn't be forced to get it. If a legal guardian of a person not capable of making their own medical decisions doesn't want medical intervention to continue life, they should be able to make that decision with medical acceptance of that decision.

We already protect the rights of babies fron those who might cause them to die or be injured. We don't need any additional laws to protect babies. That's the clearest reason that the proposed law was not intended to protect babies, but was intended to criminalize abortion.

If it's a non-viable fetus that's outside of the womb, it doesn't have any rights. It's still a fetus. It's not a person.

We've already demolished that argument two weeks ago. What is your problem that you can't acknowledge the failings of your argument just 13 days ago?

We talked about abortion 13 days ago. Our laws state that all babies OUTSIDE  that are alive must be cared for. You are the one who wants to change the law in this situation. The situation is reversed.OF

We talked about abortion 13 days ago. Our laws state that all babies OUTSIDE  that are alive must be cared for. You are the one who wants to change the law in this situation. The situation is reversed.

Meant OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB.

We're trying to change the law? Hello, it was republicans who introduced a bill to change the law you are discussing. That's gotta be the biggest lie of the night...

The CURRENT LAW is that all babies that have left the womb must be protected. And yes, you want to change the law in this situation.

Whoops. Meant to post that under Snoopy's post.

I'm the one who's been saying all along that the current law protects babies.

The change is one where non-viable fetuses would have to be provided medical attention. Non-viable fetuses, even after they leave the womb, aren't babies.

The proposed law would have changed the law. How can you not grasp that simple concept that a new law would change existing law, and it was not our side that submitted the proposed law?

Liar.

The laws already protect babies outside of the womb. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby.

 -- Not every fetus that leaves the womb is a baby. -- bottleblonde

The Illinois criminal code is clear...they state that any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth is an unborn child. 

Nope. They don't. You lie.

The proposed law said that.

The law already protects babies, and all other persons, from acts or failure to act that causes the injury or death of another person.

The new law wanted to claim that even non-viable fetuses were worthy of protection and needed medical intervention. They don't. They're non-viable. Even with all the medical intervention, food, love, and shelter, non0-viable fetuses won't survive. They should not get the same protections that a person gets. That's the difference that you guys can't comprehend or won't comprehend I should say.

You'll never beat that argument because there is no way to beat that argument. Non-viable fetuses are not people. They don't get rights like people do. Like babies do, like handicapped people do, like people in comas do, because they're not able to live, even with medical intervention, food, and love! This isn't that difficult, and all this stuff was said 2 weeks ago, so why are you recycling already debunked arguments?

The current criminal code is explicit.

Illinois Criminal Code 720:

 -- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. --

 

 

You're a deceitful scoundrel. The new law was trying to force medical intervention on any fetus that left the womb.

This is what the law says

(e) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.

  Blondie, where did you get that version of the law? I looked and could not find that version. I did find this version: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:j37--hLiq2sJ:www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/PDF/920SB1093sam001.pdf+Illinois+Criminal+Code+720:+abortion+born+alive+bill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

   Which, I'm afraid to say, does NOT agree with your version. In fact I found no version even resembling yours. Oh, BTW, your definition of viable does not agree with Ill. state law either. Also, live born (even during an abortion) babies must be attended by a physician in an attempt to save it's life.

   Sorry to break this news to you, blondie, but your ideals are ONLY that...ideals. There is NO law to back up anything you say or promote.

 

Blondie??  Have you slinked back into your hole, now that all your arguements have been demonstrated to be part of the liberal agenda and not actual reality? If you get the guts to talk about abortion LAW and how O'bama does not oppose killing babies after they are born you should rejoin the conversation. I suspect all you want to talk about is what you desire the law to be. Give me your definition of viable again...I need another good laugh!

What a jackass you are.

I got it from the link that Media Matters offered, you jerk!

The very law YOU copied from! What an imbecile.

From the Media Matters link, BOTH things are available.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720 ILCS 5/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10600000&SeqEnd=11500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

Copied directly from that link, with no spaces even between the two things, yet you couldn't find it? What a loon! You couldn't find it? That's crazy talk! How could you have not found it?

(b) For purposes of this Section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth, and (2) "person" shall not include the pregnant woman whose unborn child is killed.
    (c) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.

And it's "me" who's slinking off? What a laugh. It is you and your ilk who never come back after you've been proven wrong to admit you were proven wrong, and it's you and your ilk who came back here this week to argue the same debunked arguments from only two weeks ago!

And my definition of viable and non-viable? That's a medical definition. I already discussed elsewhere why some states have chosen to skew that definition in order to criminalize the negligent homicide of a non-viable fetus. A non-viable fetus isn't a person, and a person can't 'kill' a non-viable fetus, because killing is of a person. That's why they change it for the limited purposes of that law, and for the purposes of that law, they call a non-viable fetus an unborn child. It's not.

1. An expelled or delivered fetus which, although it is living, cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with the support of available medical therapy.

"I got it from the link that Media Matters offered, you jerk! The very law YOU copied from! What an imbecile. From the Media Matters link, BOTH things are available."

   You got a definition of homicide from the mmfa link. They provided no law regarding abortion. My link was a direct link to the 'current' law. Which plainly defines viable and non-viable. When YOU decide not to follow the law, then you are breaking the law. Another typical liberal trait.

Philbin

In the post you just replied to, I copied and pasted the current criminal statute that describes the criminal killing of a fetus, and in that same copy and paste, it includes the exclusion of abortion and medical procedures....

So how can you possibly claim that I didn't include info about abortion? What a dunce!

" it includes the exclusion of abortion and medical procedures...."

   As related to homocide. Not the viability of a fetus during an abortion. An abortion is a legal procedure, not homicide. It becomes a felony if the hack doctor uses a coat-hanger to attempt an abortion then fails to give the fetus proper medical attention in an attempt to save it's life.

Look in the mirror, Philbin.

My argument has always held up, and has never been debunked.

What we're talking about here is babies that have already been BORN.

No, we're talking about fetuses that have been ABORTED...

No, we're talking about fetuses that survived an attempted abortion and are still alive after the botched attempt. And your view and Barack Obama's view is that these babies that are outside of the womb should be left to die. The vast majority of Americans won't tolerate this kind of extremism when they find out about it.

I already demolished this argument 2 weeks ago too. There is no evidence that there has EVER been a fetus that has survived an abortion.

Why are you willing to get your argument demolished 2 weeks ago and then repeat those lies today? What character flaws you must have to be willing to debase yourself to that level.

"There is no evidence that there has EVER been a fetus that has survived an abortion. "--Bottleblonde

Gotta disagree with you there--you're arguing with one.

 

 

I proved you wrong 13 days ago. There are NUMEROUS examples of people who have survived abortions:

http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp

http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf

No, I proved you wrong again and again and again, and I have documented the fact that despite that effort by you, you're pushing the same debunked arguments less than 2 weeks later!

Most people have more shame than you have, apparently.

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/march/306abortion.asp

   You're not very smart, are you? Did you even read any of the links he provided? When a baby is outside the womb it is a HUMAN baby. I don't think your previous arguement that it isn't human yet holds up very well. I've never heard of a human giving birth to a horse or cow or dog or cat. But, like a true liberal, you are blind to facts and stick to what you are told to say and believe. I wouldn't expect anything less from a liberal. Especially one with your thought patterns.

   How's that old saying go concerning blonds? It certainly is true for you.

A non-viable fetus outside of the womb is not a baby. It's not a person either. We've already debunked this arguments a short 2 weeks ago.

I've seen and read every link ever submitted to supposedly show someone who survived an abortion. None of them demonstrate that.

There is not a single time that a baby was born alive as a result of a successful abortion. This proposed law was supposed to stop people from committing infanticide of these babies being born alive after successful abortions. But it doesn't happen, so it's a non-existing event that doesn't need any additional laws to prevent - current laws criminalize the intentional murder of a person.

"There is not a single time that a baby was born alive as a result of a successful abortion. "

   But there are some born alive after your hack doctors can't do the job correctly. I thought you abortion zealots wanted abortion legalized so that unqualified doctors wouldn't be performing them. So much for liberal logic. Heck we may as well go back to the old system for all the good it's done. You can't even get qualified doctors to perform the only medical procedure you really care about. It's obvious you don't care about saving lives of children after they are born. Why don't you just pick your favorite deformity and declare all of them non-viable and kill them after they are born, too?

1. There's no threat to those babies. There are no examples of any baby that has ever been threatened in that way. Not one.

2. If there were a threat, or if there becomes a threat, harming a baby is already illegal and sanctions against that behavior already exist. There's no reason to create a new law when existing laws cover that criminal behavior already!

"2. If there were a threat, or if there becomes a threat, harming a baby is already illegal and sanctions against that behavior already exist. "

   That's right. There are laws present. You need to read the law, because it does NOT agree with YOUR stance. I provided a link (earlier) to the law and you are wrong on every count of your arguement. You are wrong with your definition of words, your are wrong with your statement of viability and you are wrong that it doesn't happen.

  720 ILCS 510/6   Sec. 6. (2) (b);  Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.

No, you didn't provide a link to the existing law.

Liar. Media Matters provided a link to the existing law. Wesley provided one part of the law, said that the part of the law he provided covered abortion, and I proved that he was wrong about the law because in that same criminal code was another provision, the one I provided, that says that abortions don't count! They had to find a way to circumvent the fact that a non-viable fetus is not a person, and therefore someone guilty of causing that fetus to not become a viable fetus and then a baby is not guilty of a crime UNLESS they change the definition to fit an unborn baby. But that change in the definition is specifically not intended for anything to do with an abortion! The law says it!

And my definition of viable and non-viable fetuses? It's THE definition. It's not 'my' definition. It's not my fault that facts have a liberal bias. I'd be glad to have righties support the facts just like I do! It's a big tent.

Fetus - the product of conception from the time of implantation (as evidenced by any of the presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, or a medically acceptable pregnancy test), until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable.Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant.Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.

You provided a link to the proposed law, not the existing law.

Fetus - the product of conception from the time of implantation (as evidenced by any of the presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, or a medically acceptable pregnancy test), until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable. Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant. Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.

 

Viable – able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heart beat and respiration; if a fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant. 

Nonviable – a fetus ex utero which, although living, is not viable.

"They had to find a way to circumvent the fact that a non-viable fetus is not a person, and therefore someone guilty of causing that fetus to not become a viable fetus and then a baby is not guilty of a crime UNLESS they change the definition to fit an unborn baby."

   Are you crying? It looks like we brought you to tears! There's no crying into your keyboard allowed.

   Blondie (again) the law specifically states what viable is and what viable is not. You can choose to agree with the definition as per the law, but that does not change the law. A viable fetus about to be aborted IS a viable fetus. When the hack liberal doctor botches his job and the attempted aborted living baby is now sitting outside the womb, the conservative doctor (present by law) must do what is necassary to save the babies life. If the baby dies, so be it. If the baby lives so be it.

No, the existing law does not describe viable and non-viable. It's the proposed law that does that.

You're wrong, and won't admit it. No my fault.

It's you who is whining! Everyone can see that.

 -- the existing law does not describe viable and non-viable -- bottleblonde

Hey, hey...you're getting there. The law enforces the penalties for killing unborn children...other than those killed during an abortion. 

Republican girls get knocked up and their fathers pay to have their fetuses aborted...

Lots of Republican girls get knocked up BY their fathers......

You really can't offer an apples to apples comparison, can you? This silly pedantic third grade argument you want is really a waste of time.

No, it's just that your argument that those who can't take care of themselves aren't really people is ludicrous. People of all ages have the same value and worth regardless of whether they can survive on their own or not.

There you go again. See, what you are trying to do is claim a fetus that can't even think let alone eat, drink and dance the michigan waltz is somehow the same as someone who is in a coma. You are purposely pushing that idea because your real goal is to get a fetus declared "human" so you can undermine Roe Vs. Wade. You couldn't care less about abortions or you'd be first in line adopting orphans and other unwanted babies, but sad fact is less than 1% of all those kids are adopted. Your heart is clearly on your sleeve.

We're not talking about abortion. That's a topic for another thread. The topic of this thread is infanticide. I believe that all babies who have been born should be protected by law. You and Barack Obama disagree and believe that these babies should be left to die. That is the discussion we're having, not abortion.

We are talking about abortion...and the product of it. You are making stuff up about infanticide. You act as though Obama wants to shoot babies after they're burped.

No, but simply standing there and letting them die and then throwing away the remains is the same as murder.

But you think any form of abortion, at any time, is murder...

Yes, but that isn't the topic of this thread. I spoke on this topic because I thought that it was something that we could all agree on. I didn't think anybody other than Obama supported infanticide, but I was apparently wrong.

You're right. the topic of this thread is Coursey lied about Obama, and you want to rathole the discussion with your false redefinition of "born" and "fetus".

I demolished THIS argument 2 weeks ago also.

So I guess since physically handicapped people can't survive on their own they aren't people as well? What ever happened to liberals trying to protect the most vulnerable among us? Oh I forgot, that's just a myth.

• - RINO Hunter / Friday August 15, 2008 10:49:28 PM EDT

There's a difference between a handicapped person that can survive outside the womb with food, shelter and medical intervention and a non-viable fetus that cannot survive regardless of the amount of medical intervention, love, food and attention it gets from outside sources.

How can it be that your argument was totally beaten less than 2 weeks ago but you can't acknowledge that fact today?

"There's a difference between a handicapped person that can survive outside the womb with food, shelter and medical intervention and a non-viable fetus that cannot survive regardless of the amount of medical intervention, love, food and attention it gets from outside sources."

   Blondie, what's the difference between a viable handicapped fetus and a viable fetus about to be aborted? Right...NONE. When your hack liberal doctor is hungover (again) and can't do his job, that viable fetus is still viable...just nearly murdered. When he finishes the job outside the womb without attempting to save it, then it IS a felony...BY LAW.

   Which is the part of this entire thread that NOBODY is discussing. Limbaugh is wrong, O'bama didn't vote against those bills, he voted present. Which for all intended purposes means he doesn't agree/oppose them but didn't have the balls to take a stance on the matter. Some Christian he turns out to be. He doesn't oppose live-born babies being killed.

 

Right. It's already a felony. There's no reason to add a new law that forces medical treatment, and provides criminal sanctions if that treatment isn't provided, for a viable fetus.

The new law was going to force medical professiionals to provide medical intervention regardless of the viability of the fetus. Medical treatment shouldn't be forced on a non-viable fetus. That law was aimed at criminalizing abortion, not with providing medical treatment for viable fetuses. As I said, they already get that treatment, and if they don't, there's already criminal sanctions.

  Simple question for you, blondie. What is "live born" as described in the law you read? How does a 'live born' baby not deserve medical attention as described in the law? Try to leave your opinion out of it, please.

Oh I forgot, that's just a myth.

The only myth aroung here is the claim that Rino Hunter's IQ is in positive numbers.

 -- Again, can it survive without it's host? If the answer is no, it's not a baby yet. -- snoopy

C'mon snoop...I understand your point...but you're on a long reach with this survival bit as the defining principle of life.

That's why newborns are not just left on the delivery table with a cheery good morning and instructions on where to find the milk, clean clothes and directions to the bath room.

The bill in question:

Provides that a live child born as      
   a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person         
   and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice      
   shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.

The criminal code that mmfa refers to:

 -- For purposes of this Section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any
individual of the human species from fertilization until birth --

Clearly the law recognizes the unborn child as a human life...not just a fetal lump of tissue. 

Here's the tiny print that didn't post.

The proposed bill:

 -- Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recoginized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. --

The criminal code that mmfa cites:

 -- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. --

Clearly the bill and the law recognizes that the unborn life is a child...not just a fetal lump of tissue. 

Here's the tiny print that didn't post. The proposed bill: -- Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recoginized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. -- The criminal code that mmfa cites: -- For the purposes of this section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. -- Clearly the bill and the law recognizes that the unborn life is a child...not just a fetal lump of tissue. - wesley / Saturday August 16, 2008 9:49:57 AM EDT

A baby is a viable fetus that leaves the womb. Not every fetus that leaves the womb is viable. Some are non-viable, and no matter how much money is spent providing them with medical attention, they can't survive. Those are babies. Those aren't persons.

Babies are already protected by current law. This law that you're talking about would force medical intervention upon non-viable fetuses and the woman who bore that fetus.

Instead of allowing a natural demise of that non-viable fetus, those women would be forced to watch useless medical procedures be forced upon them.

Why do you want to remove the right of those women and men to allow the natural demise of that non-viable fetus? It's already the law that babies (viable fetuses that have left the womb, remember) are protected. Why do we have to force medical intervention when it's hopeless? And before viability, it's hopeless.

Why do you repeat debunked arguments?

 -- to allow the natural demise of that non-viable fetus --

It's really pretty simple...I'm not allowing or disallowing anything. The Illinois criminal code does not define the life as a fetus...they define it as an "unborn child" of the human species...not a blob of tissue. 

You deceitful scoundrel. From the criminal statutes, they exclude abortions. This new law wanted to force medical intervention onto non-viable fetuses, and push criminal penalties on those who did not! Like I said.

(e) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.

Isn't it curious how they spout their nonsense and then run away to hide when that nonsense gets exposed as nonsense?

Fight lies with the truth, and it works every time. It's sad that they can't admit their errors. Like above - the existing law does criminalize the intentional death of a fetus not because killing a fetus is a crime, but because they skew the true definitions of words to call a fetus an unborn child. But that same law Philbin quoted from also said that abortions don't count, nor do any medical procedures for the health and welfare of the mother.

That debunked his argument. Why can't he hang around and say that he was wrong? Why is admitting an error for a rightie like garlic to a vampire?

 -- because they skew the true definitions of words to call a fetus an unborn child -- bottleblonde

That's certainly an "opinion" that some have...but it is contrary to the existing statute. 

That statute is easy to understand and comprehend by most people. The life in a mother's womb is an unborn "child"...from fertility to birth.

That's from a source that many here claim as unimpeachable...mmfa.

The law covers many scenarios, including murder and abortion. But nowhere in the statute can you find language referring to a fetus, viable or non-viable. What you choose to call a fetus...is referred to as an unborn child in every application.

 

 

The statute only refers to a non-viable fetus as an unborn child when it doesn't refer to abortion! When it applies to abortion, there's no such thing as an unborn child. Why is that? Because there is no such thing as an unborn child, and it's only an invention of the lawmakers because they have to claim that fetuses are unborn children to penalize people who might criminally cause their demise and pretending that fetuses are people is the only way to do that!  That pretense doesn't change reality!

And my definition of non-viable is the medical definition. It's not 'my' definition. It is the definition. That definition doesn't change because the lawmakers skewed the definition of a child to criminalize behavior!

The statute is easy to understand, that's true. And in that statute, not all fetuses are described as unborn children. I don't understand how you can't understand that, because, as you said, the statute is easy to understand. That statute, as I said, excludes an aborted fetus from that skewed definition that calls some fetuses unborn children! I provided that link that shows that the fetuses we're talking about, fetuses involved in abortions, are not included in that statute as unborn children.

If it's such an easy statute to understand, and I provided links to the exclusions, how is it possible that you can not understand this?

 -- It is the definition. That definition doesn't change because the lawmakers skewed the definition of a child -- bottleblonde

You're incorrect again...the statute says:

 -- For purposes of this section (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertility until birth. --

In this criminal code you can find no usage of the word fetus...making "any" definition you want to trot out...moot.

   Hey blondie, show me where the proposed law or current law specified "viable". You throw that word in to change something in YOUR mind. So, by YOUR standards if a baby is born premature or has a lung problem or has a heart problem then they should be left to die without helping them or giving them medical attention??

   You're a good human being. Too bad you're not viable.

A lung or heart problem isn't what blondie is talking about.  A "non-viable" fetus is unable to survive even with heroic measures.  In other words, it cannot live even with a heart lung machine, surgeries, feeding tubes, etc.  This is what you can't seem to grasp. 

"  A "non-viable" fetus is unable to survive even with heroic measures."

   Finally, someone with some good Christian sense to talk to. Mary, viability of the fetus only applies when the fetus is unborn (there's a link to the law below). And, according to the law, as written, if the fetus could survive outside the womb before an abortion attempt then an abortion is illegal. Meaning the ONLY acceptable reason for an abortion (in Illinois) is when the life of the mother is in danger from an unviable fetus. Once (if) the baby is "born alive" whether through an abortion or not, that baby must recieve full medical assistance in an effort to save it's life. Read the law. (720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81-26) Sec. 6. (2) (a) and (b).

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B510%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975%2E

That's the proposed law, not the existing law.

Existing law, based upon the US Constitution and in particular the 4th amendment, allows a woman to abort a non-viable fetus.

Laws do discuss non-viable and viable fetuses.

The medical definition is the definition.

Fetus - the product of conception until a determination is made, following expulsion or extraction of the fetus, that it is viable.

Viable - able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and breathing; if the fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant (a baby, or a person, or a human being).

NonViable - a fetus outside of the uterus which, although living, is not viable.

This is from the Dept of Health and Human Services of the US Govt. It's the definition.

http://irb.mc.duke.edu/Fetus_preg_invitro.htm

"Viable - able to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and breathing; if the fetus is viable after delivery, it is a premature infant (a baby, or a person, or a human being).

NonViable - a fetus outside of the uterus which, although living, is not viable."

  Blondie, it's obvious you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I'll talk slowly and use small words as much as possible.

   When a viable fetus is being aborted the doctor is trying to kill it. Right? If the viable fetus then is extracted (sorry for the big word) and is determined to be alive, what part of "given the benefit of available medical therapy" confuses you? If the "born alive" baby is then able to have a continued heartbeat and breathing, why would you call it non-viable?

   I'll tell your slacker liberal brain why---because you intended to kill it, and when your inept liberal doctor can't do the job right you've got to get rid of the evidence of his inability to do his job. So you murder a live human baby that you tried to make non-viable but failed to. When the baby is extracted alive, the LAW says you must try to save it. Just because you dull liberal mind can't grasp that FACT, don't blame me.

 

The law already protects those viable fetuses that are premature babies after they leave the womb.

The new law was trying to force medical treatment onto non-viable fetuses.

It's not me who's demonstrated that they don't understand simple concepts, it's you. Talking slowly and repeating things over and over again don't work for you either, b