Can we support a pro-abortion candidate

[arunangelo]

Can we support a candidate who does not recognize all human beings as human beings?

We have human rights because we have human life. In other words if we did not have life in the first place, our rights would not be an issue. Therefore, if anyone accepts or promotes laws that allow destruction of human life-especially lives of the most helpless and innocent unborn babies, any talk about any other issue related to helping human beings and protecting their rights and well being becomes a mute issue. Furthermore, abortion is the worst crime because a helpless unborn innocent human being is murdered by a physician who is supposed to a healer and the mother who is supposed to protect and nurture the baby. How can anyone support a candidate who supports and promotes such a terrible crime and is unwilling to call victims of such a crime human beings: after they survived botched abortions)? Would not supporting such a candidate be similar to supporting a Nazi candidate?

[McCulloch]

Life begins at birth because ...

This is wrong on two levels. From a biological point of view, life does not begin at birth. From an ethical point of view, it is not when life starts that is the question. The question is the more difficult one of when human personhood should be recognized. Should a small cluster of cells not any more developed than an earthworm be recognized as having the legal protection of being human? Should a living human body almost ready to emerge from the womb, be denied the legal protection of being human? I find it difficult to answer either of these questions with no. I also find it difficult to determine where the line between the two states should be.

[realthinker]

Can we support a candidate who does not recognize all human beings as human beings?

Can you show me one legitimate reason why life begins at the moment of conception? You must actually establish that this is murder. For that matter, can a pro-choice someone show me why life begins at birth? It seems so unbelievable arbitrary.

Life begins at birth because until that point the fetus does not rely upon its own physiology. Its mother is metabolizing food for its nutrients. Its mother's blood is supplying it oxygen and carrying away waste. It is not a separate, complete human being. It is not alive. Even the most generous social convention does not treat it as such. Should the mother die and the fetus with it, it is not treated separately with regard to death rituals. It has no legacy.

The fact that it is "parasitic" does not make it dead. Life is not determined by independence. There are countless animals who are clearly alive that rely entirely on another organism.

First, I did not say it was dead. It is clearly living tissue. Don't get wrapped around the axle on that point.

Beyond that, the comparison to parasitism isn't really accurate, and it was not my comparison. Those animals relying upon another animal are each metabolizing their own nutrients. They are carrying out their own respiration. Or at least they have at some point. There may be some weird examples of parasites giving up their own capabilities to rely entirely upon their host. But that is only after they have established their own independent existence. A fetus is in no capacity taking the necessary resources from the environment to support its own existence. I relies entirely upon the mother for that.

[JoeyKnothead]

Can we support a candidate who does not recognize all human beings as human beings?

Can you show me one legitimate reason why life begins at the moment of conception? You must actually establish that this is murder. For that matter, can a pro-choice someone show me why life begins at birth? It seems so unbelievable arbitrary.

Life begins at birth because until that point the fetus does not rely upon its own physiology. Its mother is metabolizing food for its nutrients. Its mother's blood is supplying it oxygen and carrying away waste. It is not a separate, complete human being. It is not alive. Even the most generous social convention does not treat it as such. Should the mother die and the fetus with it, it is not treated separately with regard to death rituals. It has no legacy.

The fact that it is "parasitic" does not make it dead. Life is not determined by independence. There are countless animals who are clearly alive that rely entirely on another organism.

First, I did not say it was dead. It is clearly living tissue. Don't get wrapped around the axle on that point.

Beyond that, the comparison to parasitism isn't really accurate, and it was not my comparison. Those animals relying upon another animal are each metabolizing their own nutrients. They are carrying out their own respiration. Or at least they have at some point. There may be some weird examples of parasites giving up their own capabilities to rely entirely upon their host. But that is only after they have established their own independent existence. A fetus is in no capacity taking the necessary resources from the environment to support its own existence. I relies entirely upon the mother for that.

Seeing as I kinda sorta maybe prolly spoke too soon, I would like to retract my previous statement, and deny all knowledge of ever having written it in the first place.

[Evales]

I put food out for ducks cause I like the watch them (the pleasure of sex) a starving dog comes up and starts eating it (unwanted pregnancy). I don't want the dog at my home so I remove the food (abortion). Is this animal cruelty (murder)?

Pretty bad analogy but I'm interested in what people think?

[catalyst]

I put food out for ducks cause I like the watch them (the pleasure of sex) a starving dog comes up and starts eating it (unwanted pregnancy). I don't want the dog at my home so I remove the food (abortion). Is this animal cruelty (murder)?

Pretty bad analogy but I'm interested in what people think?

yes, bad analogy.. But I would like to see where you are coming from....I think...or not, but i don't. When I first read it though, I thought you wrote you put food out for ducks for as you like watching them for your own sexual pleasure!

Hmm.... anyhoo



The reasoning behind some people choosing to terminate pregnancies though has zero to do with the pleasure of sex, but moreso violation. If a woman was raped, I can truly understand her wanting to remove as much of the reminder of the trauma she is able to, considering the violation was never her choice in the first place. The thing is though, it is difficult to equate your analogy with a rape pregnancy scenario or a life endangering pregnancy scenario as the emotional turmoil felt, having to make such a decision is far heavier than simply removing a plate of food from a stray dog who will pretty much eat the next thing it can wrap its chops around anyway.

To me, you are making light of what would be a traumatic time and traumatic decision to make.

[Evales]

Not trying to make light of anything. I'm not counting women who have been raped. I agree they should be allowed abortions and I don't think there is anyone here arguing that they shouldn't. I'm making a point that people can choose to have an abortion for the simple reason that they don't want a child.

Definitely not trying to make light of the situation.

However, to clear things up I do watch ducks for sexual pleasure

[McCulloch]

I'm not counting women who have been raped. I agree they should be allowed abortions and I don't think there is anyone here arguing that they shouldn't.

Why? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. It does not change if the mother was raped. If you make an exception for rape then you deny the principle that human life should have legal protection before birth.

[Fallibleone]

However, to clear things up I do watch ducks for sexual pleasure

I thought I was alone in that.

Why? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. It does not change if the mother was raped. If you make an exception for rape then you deny the principle that human life should have legal protection before birth.

Quite. But that's a big 'if'. If a foetus is not a person, then we are violating the human rights of an actual living person in favour of something which is not human, and even on occasion committing murder. Since it is clear that the mother is a person, she has human rights which should not be violated.

[McCulloch]

Why? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. It does not change if the mother was raped. If you make an exception for rape then you deny the principle that human life should have legal protection before birth.

Quite. But that's a big 'if'. If a foetus is not a person, then we are violating the human rights of an actual living person in favour of something which is not human, and even on occasion committing murder. Since it is clear that the mother is a person, she has human rights which should not be violated.

Of course it is a big if. Abortion is murder if and only if a foetus is a person. If abortion is not murder, then one can consistently argue for abortion for rape victims. On the other hand, those who claim that abortion is murder cannot consistently argue for abortion for rape victims. Yet frequently they do.

[Fisherking]

Life begins at birth because ...

This is wrong on two levels. From a biological point of view, life does not begin at birth. From an ethical point of view, it is not when life starts that is the question. The question is the more difficult one of when human personhood should be recognized. Should a small cluster of cells not any more developed than an earthworm be recognized as having the legal protection of being human? Should a living human body almost ready to emerge from the womb, be denied the legal protection of being human? I find it difficult to answer either of these questions with no. I also find it difficult to determine where the line between the two states should be.

Why not err on the safe side and leave it (the fetus) alone? In nine months it will be pretty easy to tell if it is human or not.