Certainly we can see the distinction you are making, but it is merely semantics, no?
How is it different than ‘pro choice’ actually ‘pro mother’s choice’, since most babies would likely not prefer being aborted, once they had a chance to consider and communicate such.
Okay, so you won’t answer. Is it because you don’t want to consider it, or because you genuinely don’t care?
the left has absolutely no defense for the hideous act of abortion.
And how many on the left think that abortion in the 9th month is perfectly fine? Regardless of your political affiliation anyone with a conscience should oppose such a horrid act.
You are simply wrong on this score. Pro-life is pro-life. If you wish to call yourself ‘pro-non-heinous life,’ by all means. But of course that stance brings with it a whole new set of moral issues.
Take it up with the Catholic Church (an organization not known for ‘not thinking things through’), which is in agreement with my argument. Suggest you google seamless garment of life and read what comes up.
As I do not believe a POC has an overriding, absolute claim to continued existence–that its rights never supersede those of the woman carrying the conceptus–there is nothing hypocritical about my position, raging or otherwise.
I would say those two terms would appropriately be considered equivalent. In fact, I would suggest that the first is understood to mean the second–is shorthand for it, if you will. In other words, I don’t think anyone who calls him/herself pro choice is trying to imply that it is the fetus that has/makes the choice.
For your word bother I am going to substitute ‘find morally repugnant,’ which I assume captures the meaning you meant. I say that because all abortions ‘bother’ me–no matter when, no matter why.
So, to answer your question:
How many late-term abortions performed to save the life of the mother, or spare her the risk of delivering a nonviable fetus, would I find morally repugnant? None.
How many late-term abortions performed for any other reason would I find morally repugnant? Any.
Out of curiosity, @zeb1, do you know the year abortion was first mentioned in the GOP POTUS platform?
1 Like
Ok. So why, with all you’ve said about clumps of cells and not being human beings, and not believing in human rights, does it bother you?
Without googling I have no idea, nor do I care.
I do know that there has never been a republican Presidential candidate who was for abortion on demand. Perhaps the only exceptions have been rape and the life of the mother.
EyeDentist, your wiki link about Bernardin is laughable, sad too. Please learn some truth about flawed men in miters before you bring the Catholic Church into the discussion.
and
Your seamless garment argument is moot.
I do not think the video will play at their site unless you are a member, but here is another video.
You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have never dismissed POCs as being mere clumps of cells–in fact, I have made a statement to the opposite effect.
Abortion bothers me because it means a human life will not come to pass.
You sure about that? President Eisenhower was co-chair of Planned Parenthood.
Nixon also made an exception for miscegenation:
"Tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library reveal that President Richard M. Nixon, who had been considered generally opposed to abortion, told aides on January 23, 1973 (the day after the decision was handed down) that abortion was justified in certain cases, such as interracial pregnancies.
“There are times when abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” said Nixon.
Okay, non-human things that don’t have natural rights and can be killed at the discretion of others then.
Human life begins at conception, and assuming you aren’t denying science, I’ll guess you mean a human soul that doesn’t come to pass. So, when does a human life get a soul and what evidence do you have to support this?
Can I also assume birth control bothers you? Are you against condoms?
All have only one question. Is the thing growing in a human female after a sperm fertilizes an egg en-utero a human life? If not, then what is it?
He already said yes to that. The mother’s self determination supercedes the right to life of the POC/child/fetus.
Where did you get that I was pro-death penalty? Did I say that anywhere? Or are you making assumptions?
You are losing it, dude. This does not smack with even the most minor tenets of rational thinking. Somebody was surgically attached to me?
I think the bottom line is, that you know that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life and you quite frankly do not care. The only thing that matters is the comfort of your own life.
Got ya…
He knows its a human life, he just doesn’t care.
Really if you did support the death penalty you are “pro-innocent-life”, which is what anyone really means when they say pro-life. And even then you are only “Pro-innocent-human-life” if you do things like eat animals. Also which of course everyone commonly understands when you say pro-life. Long story short, it’s semantic nonsense.
1 Like
Again to reiterate, he has previously outright rejected the idea of inalienable human rights. Everyone needs to bear that in mind.
I am not pro-death penalty. It’s just such a minor issue, I just don’t bother with it. More humans are killed in abortions in a single hour than were executed all of last year. If the abortion numbers were that low, I wouldn’t worry about it either. I would still think it’s wrong, but it wouldn’t be a major issue of protest. When your reaching numbers of 1- 1.2 million abortions a year, your are talking pandemic numbers. And numbers do matter in this case. People die all the time and we will all die someday, but the willful killing of millions of human lives cannot stand. It is a preponderance of evil that is not tolerable or defendable. It’s a cancer, much like slavery, that must be eradicated from the face of the Earth. Anybody who defends the actions and in the number they occur, I believe to be evil, no matter what kind of face they put on the rest of the time. I think it’s a contradiction to defend abortion and claim any sort of moral clarity.
If we were executing 1 million prisoners a year, I would be more moved to advocate against it. The numbers of human life taken in abortion is vastly higher, so it gets the preponderance of my attention, because it’s not only morally wrong but ridiculously frequent.
I also believe there is a level of evil that simply cannot be tolerated. If ending the person’s life is the only way to end the evil, then that is what must be. This has zero to do with an unborn human who’s only crime is existing.
IMO, the issue of ensoulment is not germane to the discussion at hand.
No, I am an enthusiastic supporter of BC.
I have already acknowledged that the human life cycle begins at conception.
I thought I recalled you saying as such. Apologies if I misrepresented your views. (I’m sparring with multiple people simultaneously, which makes it tough to keep everyone’s comments straight.)
I am tempted to infer from this that you don’t have an adequate response.
Now that you are resorting to platitudes and personal attacks, the temptation grows even stronger.
I have to say, this is a moral stance I cannot even begin to understand.
Given the fact that Ike was President from 1952 to 1960 and abortion was not legal until 1973 I would assume that he was not in favor of breaking the law. Good try though.
Other than strictly taking the low road what in the world does that have anyting to do with the topic? He was publically agaisnt abortion that is all that should matter.
They all know what it is. In 1973 we didn’t have the diagnostic tools to look inside the mothers womb and see a precious baby growing. So, I can give them a partial pass back then. But today anyone who is for the right of a mother to kill her infant is simply sticking the the left wing radical line:
“A woman has a right to do with her body whatever she wants and the governement should not interfere.”
Really?
Then how come she can’t legally whore herself out?
How come she cannot legally commit suicide?
The left is a waky bunch of radical’s who are in desparate need of a smack down.
But I have a feeling one is around the corner…