You would think, but no, not in the cases in question.
The issue related to failed abortions that resulted in the live
delivery of an infant. Absent intense medical care this child would
die. In most cases this child would probably die anyway. These
children were not being given any care, life saving or even palliative
care as the intent had been their death all along.
In my book that is infanticide, and the proposed law would have made
that clear. Obama and others voted against it to protect unfettered
abortion rights.
As an aside, this all relates to the legal definition of personhood.
To be a homicide the victim has to be a person. That is the principle
reason that most on the pro abortion sidesideside fight any effort to
recognize the personhood of a child in the womb. The implications are
obvious.
Matthew
On Feb 15, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Wayne Dernoncourt wrote:
Matthew Taylor
You can not ignore what is not there.
On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Chris Dunford wrote:
Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills
threatened the availability of abortion without
consequences and had to be opposed - even if this
meant tolerating infanticide
Why are you ignoring the fact that this "infanticide"
was already illegal?
Infanticide is legal? Wouldn't that come under the homicide"
label?
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
