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?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Why not use reasoning rather than error -- and allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

I certainly disapprove of laws or religious pronouncements dictating what I can or cannot do with sperm or a tumor or a broken bone or an intestinal parasite.

[catalyst]

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

Hi Evales,

Well, apparently the OP does not see the shades of grey when it comes to this, nor Obama's pro-choice (rather than pro-abortion) stance. The OP equated abortion/termination with murder...period and suggests that Obama is morally corrupt because of his pro-choice stance and a reason not to vote for him.

I have to assume that the OP is probably a Republican and on the standard RR, pro-life stance, the irony is though I have found that many a pro-lifer is too pro-war. It seems it is ok with them to murder a human being, once it is born and is undoubtably a human being, but not OK for a woman to make a choice about her own body?

Ahh the hypocrisy.

[Fisherking]

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.

...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

By that logic, you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery?

I certainly disapprove of laws or religious pronouncements dictating what I can or cannot do with sperm or a tumor or a broken bone or an intestinal parasite.

Kindly provide evidence that these religious pronouncements exist and dictate what you can or cannot do with your sperm, tumors, broken bones, or intestinal parasites.

[catalyst]

I certainly disapprove of laws or religious pronouncements dictating what I can or cannot do with sperm or a tumor or a broken bone or an intestinal parasite.

Kindly provide evidence that these religious pronouncements exist and dictate what you can or cannot do with your sperm, tumors, broken bones, or intestinal parasites.[/quote]

In some religious belief, masterbation is a sin. Whenever I think of that particular one, I always hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song. Also, taking "the pill" could also be seen as pre-emptive abortion, hence catholicism having such a rigid stance on THAT being a no no. There is also religious outcry over the "Morning After" pill.

Also as to other things Zzyzx, some religions (Christian Science specifically in this example) do not allow its "followers" to see Dr's for any reason, so that is dictating what you can or cannot do as to tumors, fractures, et al.

With that rule, I always found it hypocritical as Mary Baker Eddy was addicted to morphine and wore glasses! lol Go figure!

[Fallibleone]

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.

...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

By that logic, you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery?

If it was your right to do so, what would you have a rape victim do with her pregnancy? What would you have a woman who is likely to die in or before childbirth do with hr pregnancy?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

By that logic, you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery?

An "abortion" three days before scheduled delivery is known as BIRTH. Sometimes that is accomplished by a medical procedure known as cesarean section ("surgical incision of the walls of the abdomen and uterus for delivery of offspring"). Are you unaware of such things?

I prefer to leave that medical and personal matter to the woman and her physician – rather than the politician and the preacher. Do you believe that the latter two are more qualified to decide medical matters than the woman and her physician?

[catalyst]

I certainly disapprove of laws or religious pronouncements dictating what I can or cannot do with sperm or a tumor or a broken bone or an intestinal parasite.

Fisherking replied: Kindly provide evidence that these religious pronouncements exist and dictate what you can or cannot do with your sperm, tumors, broken bones, or intestinal parasites.

In some religious belief, masterbation is a sin. Whenever I think of that particular one, I always hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song. Also, taking "the pill" could also be seen as pre-emptive abortion, hence catholicism having such a rigid stance on THAT being a no no. There is also religious outcry over the "Morning After" pill.

Also as to other things Fisherking, some religions (Christian Science specifically in this example) do not allow its "followers" to see Dr's for any reason, so that is dictating what you can or cannot do as to tumors, fractures, et al.

With that rule, I always found it hypocritical as Mary Baker Eddy was addicted to morphine and wore glasses! lol Go figure!

Edited to correct who i was addressing my comment to.

Apols Zzyzx.

[Fisherking]

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.

...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?

By that logic, you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery?

If it was your right to do so

You think that should be a legal right? Should women have the right to throw their child in the dumpster minutes after birth or drown the child in the bathtub also?

what would you have a rape victim do with her pregnancy?

Have her child. What does being a product of rape have to do with how an innocent human life is treated?

What would you have a woman who is likely to die in or before childbirth do with hr pregnancy?

Why is the woman's life more important that the childs life?

[Fisherking]

An "abortion" three days before scheduled delivery is known as BIRTH

Are "abortions" classified as births (especially in the context of this debate) or is there attempt here to equivocate the meaning of both terms to avoid answering the question honestly?

Sometimes that is accomplished by a medical procedure known as cesarean section ("surgical incision of the walls of the abdomen and uterus for delivery of offspring").

The abortion I refer to is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". How often are abortions conducted by c - section? I will refine the questions in case it was difficult to understand:
By that logic(Zzyzx"...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?"), you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery knowing it would cause the death of that child?

Are you unaware of such things?

I have directly assisted in over 20 c - section procedures. In every instance the goal was to save the life delivered by c - section, not to terminate the life.

I prefer to leave that medical and personal matter to the woman and her physician

What if the medical or personal matter between a woman and her physician included the termination of her live children? What if it included the termination of her husband? Would you still prefer to leave that matter to the woman and her physician?

rather than the politician

If the politicians make a law deeming abortion murder would you adhere to that law?

Do you believe that the latter two are more qualified to decide medical matters than the woman and her physician?

That would depend on the physcian, woman, politician, and preacher. Should we allow them to kill babies because they are physicians, women, politicians, or preachers?

[Zzyzx]

.

An "abortion" three days before scheduled delivery is known as BIRTH

Are "abortions" classified as births (especially in the context of this debate) or is there attempt here to equivocate the meaning of both terms to avoid answering the question honestly?

Can you cite ONE instance of an "abortion" (involving death of the fetus) being performed three days before scheduled delivery? I am not interested in hypothetical discussion of "what if" scenarios you might dream up.

Sometimes that is accomplished by a medical procedure known as cesarean section ("surgical incision of the walls of the abdomen and uterus for delivery of offspring").

The abortion I refer to is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". How often are abortions conducted by c - section? I will refine the questions in case it was difficult to understand:
By that logic(Zzyzx"...allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?"), you would then see nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have an abortion 3 days before delivery knowing it would cause the death of that child?

See answer #1 above.

Are you unaware of such things?

I have directly assisted in over 20 c - section procedures. In every instance the goal was to save the life delivered by c - section, not to terminate the life.

Were those c-sections performed on humans?

I prefer to leave that medical and personal matter to the woman and her physician

What if the medical or personal matter between a woman and her physician included the termination of her live children?

I clearly specified "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body". Do you propose that her "live children" are inside her body?

What if it included the termination of her husband? Would you still prefer to leave that matter to the woman and her physician?

The husband INSIDE her body? See answer above.

rather than the politician

If the politicians make a law deeming abortion murder would you adhere to that law?

It is extremely unlikely that I, a male, would face the necessity of having an abortion.

However, I can say that during the 1960s, when abortion was illegal in my state of residence, I was slightly involved in a woman obtaining an abortion in a jurisdiction where it was legal. I would offer the same advice (and perhaps assistance) today.

Do you believe that the latter two are more qualified to decide medical matters than the woman and her physician?

That would depend on the physcian, woman, politician, and preacher. Should we allow them to kill babies because they are physicians, women, politicians, or preachers?

I suggest that the woman with the advice of her physician is the only person qualified to decide what is to be done with everything inside her body. If the fetus is developed enough to be capable of living outside the woman's body I would favor caring for it. If the fetus is not capable of sustaining life outside the woman's body I do not favor forcing her to keep it inside her over her objections.

Zeal to defend religious dogma often appears to overcome reasoning and sincere debate.