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?

[TheoCurious]

First of all, shame on you, OP. Liberals are not "pro-abortion." I'd wager that at least 99 percent of all convicted murderers on death row are not "pro-abortion." Think about what you're suggesting: That liberals applaud and cheer while poor little Susie enters the clinic to get the fetus in her womb cut out? Is that what you really think? Or were you simply employing a blatantly dishonest framing device to skew the debate in your favor? I hope it's the latter. Liberals are not inhuman monsters, just like conservatives are not inhuman monsters.

I don't think there's any point in debating the legitimacy of legal abortion unless people on both sides can first acknowlege that the people on the other side of the debate also care about human life and believe their position promotes the greater good. Secondly, both sides need to recognize that it's a debate about laws, and not about morality. I think we can all agree that the only practical outcome to the abortion debate is a legal outcome. Either abortion will remain legal with the current restrictions (or more, or fewer restrictions), or it will go back to being illegal under all circumstances as it once was.

As for the moral debate, there isn't one. No one on the pro-choice side is arguing that abortion is morally right. And yet liberals want abortion to remain legal. Why?

I think the most fundamental difference between liberal and conservative viewpoints has to do with the relative context in which each side places the abortion issue.

The conservative context is narrow snd simplistic, rooted entirely in Christian values. That's why the conservative opinion on abortion is uniform and absolute. Here are three aspects of the Christian/conservative context, but there are probably many more:

1) Every person has a soul, even in the fetal stage. Therefore, killing a fetus means killing a soul.

2) Infants, and by extension unborn fetuses, represent humankind in its ideal state, because they have not yet sinned.

3) Women who have sex and become pregnant outside God's plan of holy matrimony and procreation are lustful, unclean and morally inferior to the unborn child.

It's no wonder conservatives believe it is morally righteous to force every abortion-seeking woman to give birth, even if it means certain death for the mother and probable death for the baby. The life of a wanton sinner is a small price to pay for the slim chance to deliver another innocent unto the earth.

Liberals consider their positions on abortion from a far more individualized perspective that can include any combination of scientific, historical, practical and other contexts. Even the conservative context plays a role in many liberals' overall view of abortion, but it's likely just one component of a broader and more conflicted perspective that can include:

1) Biology: A human fetus does not yet possess a consciousness and cannot feel, think, want, hope or dream. The fetus lacks any awareness of the potential for future consciousness and self-determination. From a functional standpoint it is incapable of independent life and thus can still be considered a part of the mother as opposed to an independent human being. This science-based rationale begins to break down as the fetus continues to develop, which is why many pro-choice liberals do oppose late-term abortions. Still, it applies to all abortions that meet current legal standards.

2) History: In past generations when abortions were illegal, many women died painful deaths at the hands of unscrupulous black-market abortionists whose methods were often crude and barbaric. History shows that outlawing abortions did not stop them from occurring. Legal abortions are far safer and more humane, and the government can set requirements such as informed consent and family planning education. Another historical phenomenon pertinent to the abortion issue is the tendency of men to subjugate women. Many liberal women see the right to choose abortion as integral to their broader right to self-determination, equality and freedom from male domination.

3) Quality of life: Liberals are also concerned about the lifelong consequences for young, unprepared mothers and their children if society was to force unwanted or unwise births. At the very least, they believe it would be society's responsibility to help prevent forced births from resulting in lives dominated by poverty, illness or abuse.

Conservatives, on the other hand, seem primarily concerned about quantity of life. While they insist it is unconscionable for society to allow a woman to choose abortion, they apparently feel little to no moral obligation to assist in the care and development of underprivileged children once they exit the womb. I'm basing that opinion on the Republican track record for cutting social assistance programs, welfare, education spending, etc.

Apparently, conservaties are far more interested in the idea of preserving life than they are in the actual lives they want to preserve.

[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?

Can you cite ONE instance of an "abortion" (involving death of the fetus) being performed three days before scheduled delivery?

It is understandable that one would refuse to answer the question if one did not want to expose an actual "position".

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.

See statement 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 am indeed aware of such things.

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?

I would be interested in why one would be indifferent as what a woman decided to do with her children inside or outside of her body if it resulted in the death of the children. Is she not responsible for their well being?

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

b]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.[/b] 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.

Zeal to defend religious dogma or political ideology have nothing to do with it. My desire is to defend innocent children like
these and hope they would get a chance at life, like these attempted abortion survivors.

[Zzyzx]

.
I leave it to readers to decide which position is more reasoned and rational.

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?

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

I prefer to leave that medical and personal matter to the woman and her physician – rather than the politician and the preacher.

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?

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?

I would be interested in why one would be indifferent as what a woman decided to do with her children inside or outside of her body if it resulted in the death of the children. Is she not responsible for their well being?

If you wish to open a different topic feel free to start another thread regarding a mother's responsibility toward her living children.

[realthinker]

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

Zeal to defend religious dogma or political ideology have nothing to do with it. My desire is to defend innocent children like
these and hope they would get a chance at life, like these attempted abortion survivors.[/quote]

If anti-abortion advocates were truly interested in the welfare of innocent children they'd expend as much effort to protect the living as the dead. They'd be looking for legislation mandating how parents deal with their living children. There are ten times more children at risk from disease, hunger, and maltreatment, conditions that could be just as legislated, than there are at risk from abortion.

And if it's so important to save very one of those unborn, why isn't anyone doing medical studies to try to find medical alternatives that satisfy both sides? It's a given that not all pregnancies are wanted. Why don't those who care so much about the unborn spend their money to find a medical way to move that fetus that's so precious to them that they'd send people to jail to another host mother? Who's being creative about finding another alternative to solve the problem instead of condemning people?

The general response to abortion by its opponents is simply not in balance with any claim to have the welfare of children as the most significant motivation.

[JoeyKnothead]

@TheoCurious: The OP says nothing about liberals.

I would be interested in why one would be indifferent as what a woman decided to do with her children inside or outside of her body if it resulted in the death of the children. Is she not responsible for their well being?

I reject in the strongest terms this poster trying to equate a different opinion as indifferent. Emotional appeals are the last thing we need in this very important issue. I also reject this poster trying to bring in 'birthed'(so to speak) children. Trying to imply that the mother would kill her 'birthed' children because she would also chose an abortion is fallacious, irrelevant, unwarranted, and scandalous. As before, emotional appeals are not what is needed.

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child. I agree that many abortions could be perceived as, or even are 'birth control' measures, and I'm not real cool with that.
I think the issue for many is the potential slippery slope that could ensue (I know that's one of them fallacy deals, but the reality is this concern exists). There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban. There is even talk now of banning birth control pills because they're considered 'pre-emptive' abortions. It is this kind of up/down thinking that concerns many.
History has shown that extremes of ideology tend to become oppressive if left unchecked. This goes for the Left and the Right.
My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen, and there will be those whose lot in life will preclude their getting a safe procedure. While the rich will be able to get a safe procedure, many of the poor will be left to their own devices finding a safe procedure.

[Fisherking]

I also reject this poster trying to bring in 'birthed'(so to speak) children. Trying to imply that the mother would kill her 'birthed' children because she would also chose an abortion is fallacious, irrelevant, unwarranted, and scandalous. As before, emotional appeals are not what is needed.

Please explain how it is an emotional appeal. What is the logical product of an unborn child? In my opinion there would be far fewer abortions if we hadn't dehumanized the unborn babies to begin with.

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child.

There are many children born into horrible conditions extremely thankful they were given a chance to be born.

I agree that many abortions could be perceived as, or even are 'birth control' measures, and I'm not real cool with that.

I agree

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support legalized murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

While the rich will be able to get a safe procedure, many of the poor will be left to their own devices finding a safe procedure.

Like the rich would be able to hire a better assassin, while the poor would be left murdering with a rock or broken wine bottle?

[Zzyzx]

.

I also reject this poster trying to bring in 'birthed'(so to speak) children. Trying to imply that the mother would kill her 'birthed' children because she would also chose an abortion is fallacious, irrelevant, unwarranted, and scandalous. As before, emotional appeals are not what is needed.

Please explain how it is an emotional appeal. What is the logical product of an unborn child? In my opinion there would be far fewer abortions if we hadn't dehumanized the unborn babies to begin with.

You have clearly made a strictly emotional appeal by attempting to include a woman killing her living children and even her husband as being somehow related to her making a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

In reality, most pregnancies are terminated very early – long before the fetus would be able to survive outside her body. The "abortion three days before birth" "argument" is a ridiculous emotional appeal. Even if you cannot recognize that, others certainly do.

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child.

There are many children born into horrible conditions extremely thankful they were given a chance to be born.

Can you cite statistics to show the relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions? Or, is the statement pure conjecture and opinion?

I agree that many abortions could be perceived as, or even are 'birth control' measures, and I'm not real cool with that.

I agree

I agree. More effective means of birth control should be available to all who ask. Preaching abstinence is not known to be effective in convincing people to avoid sexual relations (and potential reproduction). Therefore, people should learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I suggest that those who are strongly opposed to abortions should LEAD the way toward making sex education and positive birth control readily available to all who ask – thereby reducing the occurrence (or "need" for) abortions.

However, many who oppose abortion also oppose birth control. Why? Because their religious beliefs favor unlimited reproduction (in spite of the rapid growth of population and its effects upon sustainability of environmental conditions).

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

I am not surprised.

That is strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body. "Give an inch and take a mile" applies.

I might favor some limitation of late term abortions IF abortion opponents were demonstrably sincere in suggesting just that much limitation; however, suggesting beginning with a little limitation with intention of broadening that later is NOT acceptable to me.

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support legalized murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

Many or most Christians DO support legalized murder – wars and death penalty. Simply changing the name or making excuses does not alter the support of killing.

Many religions, Christianity included, approve(d) of killing "in the name of god".

Wars and murder can be shown to be detrimental to societies. Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?

]quote="joeyknuccione"] While the rich will be able to get a safe procedure, many of the poor will be left to their own devices finding a safe procedure.

Like the rich would be able to hire a better assassin, while the poor would be left murdering with a rock or broken wine bottle?[/quote]
That is close. Wire coat hangers were said to be a favored tool of illegal abortionists during the dark ages (thirty-five years ago in the US) when abortion was illegal.

The Legality of Abortion

As it stands today, American women have the legal right to obtain an abortion in all 50 states, through all nine months of pregnancy, for virtually any reason at all. This has been true since January of 1973 when the Supreme Court declared that autonomous abortion rights are built into the Constitution, and that any legal barriers which prevent mothers from aborting their children are unconstitutional.
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/II-C-legality.html

If the Constitution grants the right, do you oppose the Constitution?

What grounds other than religion, opinion and emotion favor denying all women the right to do what they will with their own body?

Do you favor limiting the right of ALL people, yourself included, to seek medical treatment for a condition that they feel threatens their physical or mental wellbeing?

BTW, the C-Sections that you claim to have assisted; were those performed on humans or on other animals?

[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

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?

No. Why do you ask? It has nothing to do with my questions to you. My question is if you had the right to decide what happens to the woman and her child, what would you do in the following circumstances.

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?

While you are looking at innocent human lives, you might perhaps like to think about the innocent human life of the woman who has been raped being forced to carry a child she never asked for and which she must deliver through no fault of her own. How do you feel about that?

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?

Thanks for not answering the question. Have another go.

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

In answer to your question, which I can now bring myself to answer, having first had to get up from my chair and pace a while, then come back and double check to make sure I had actually read that correctly, the woman's life is more important than the life of a zygote, embrio or foetus because she is ACTUALLY ALIVE. Because she is ACTUALLY ALIVE, she possesses HUMAN RIGHTS - you know, those things which you feel so vehemently that something which has not yet been born should receive, at the expense of a LIVING HUMAN BEING.

[Fisherking]

You have clearly made a strictly emotional appeal by attempting to include a woman killing her living children and even her husband as being somehow related to her making a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Its not an emotional appeal just because someone gets "emotional" about it. If one were to argue to "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?(Zzyzx)", one would have to justify why it would be ok to kill another human life within that body. If the child growing in the woman depends on the woman for survival, what is the difference between it and her toddler who both equally depend on her for survival?

The "abortion three days before birth" "argument" is a ridiculous emotional appeal. Even if you cannot recognize that, others certainly do.

Again, just because pro-abortion advocates get emotional about the issue does not make it an emotional appeal. If we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body?(Zzyzx)", wouldn't that position cover abortions 3 days before birth?

Supposing a child would be born with some really horrible condition that would make its life a 'living hell', I see a certain compassion in aborting the child.

There are many children born into horrible conditions extremely thankful they were given a chance to be born.

Can you cite statistics to show the relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions? Or, is the statement pure conjecture and opinion?

I never attempted to show a relation between thankfulness and horrible conditions. That would be a strawman fallacy, often used as an attempt to derail a debate. Would you like statistics of people alive today, born in horrible conditions, that are thankful for their lives?

There is legitimate concern among some that limiting abortions will lead to ever more limits up to a total ban.

I would support such a ban.

I am not surprised.

That is strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body. "Give an inch and take a mile" applies.

How would one supporting an abortion ban be a "strong reason for others to vigorously oppose ALL limitations upon a woman's right to decide what is best for her body"?

I might favor some limitation of late term abortions IF abortion opponents were demonstrably sincere in suggesting just that much limitation.

How could one support limitating late-term abortions when one believes we should "allow each woman to decide what is the right thing to do with everything inside her body"?

My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen

If logic and reason were the means of reaching a conclusion on the abortion issue, this position would not be a reasonable one. Using the same logic one could support [strike]legalized[/strike]legalizing murder, based on the fact that murders will happen.

Many or most Christians DO support legalized murder – wars and death penalty. Simply changing the name or making excuses does not alter the support of killing.

I must make a correction to the word we've used. Murder, by definition is not legal. The correct term I believe would be legalizing murder. So, according to the above logic ( "My support for legal abortion is based on the fact that abortions will happen"), one would also support murder based on the fact that murders will happen -- or support rape, based on the fact that rapes happen -- support wars, based on the fact that wars happen......

Can anyone demonstrate that abortions or birth control are detrimental to societies?

Should abortions be used as birth control? Even if infanticide wasn't detrimental to societies, is that justification for killing innocent babies? In my opinion it is not justified.

If the Constitution grants the right, do you oppose the Constitution?

yes

What grounds other than religion, opinion and emotion favor denying all women the right to do what they will with their own body?

I appose abortion because "the woman" carries an innocent human being in her body she is ultimately responsible for. In my opinion to willfully take the life of another innocent human being is wrong and base this assertion on, in my opinion, self- evident truths:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Fisherking]

While you are looking at innocent human lives, you might perhaps like to think about the innocent human life of the woman who has been raped being forced to carry a child she never asked for and which she must deliver through no fault of her own. How do you feel about that?

I would sympathize with a woman who had to go through such an ordeal. I would not support killing her un-born child because she may experience pain in carrying or delivering that child though.

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?

Thanks for not answering the question. Have another go.

Thats a tough one, though not a large percentage of abortions. If the pregnancy was to result in the possible death of the woman and child, if the child was not removed, I would support delivering that child (live) and doing all possible to save its life outside of the mother.

In answer to your question, which I can now bring myself to answer, having first had to get up from my chair and pace a while, then come back and double check to make sure I had actually read that correctly, the woman's life is more important than the life of a zygote, embrio or foetus because she is ACTUALLY ALIVE.

If the zygote, embryo, and fetus are not alive are they dead? If they are not human beings, what species are they? If they are human beings, should't they possess human rights also?