The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

More red herrings

Because I believe unborn children should have legally protected rights distinct from their mother's doesn't mean I have assumed personal responsibility for all the unborn children in America let alone those in the rest of the world

I have personal and civic responsibilities that are limited as much by what is possible as my definition of their scope.

If absolute abortion on demand was made the law of the land in the US tomorrow I would feel a certain degree of civic and personal responsibility to reverse the law that would include supporting and voting for pro-life candidates, and making my opinion known, but not somehow rescuing all of the unborn children who faced abortion.

Whatever the scope of my responsibility is, however, I can't waive it by never voicing an opinion on a given subject.

The Cain connection to this thread detour is legality of abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and keep in mind that I have already indicated that I have not adopted a clear and firm stance on this issue as yet.

You ask



To which I answer:



You seem to be suggesting that if someone supports a ban on abortions in the cases of rape or incest (in the hypothetical we have both) that they have some moral responsibility for the mother. I have no idea as to what that responsibility might be, or from where it is derived.

I believe I have a civic responsibility to support effective laws against rape and incest, and, to some extent, public assistance for the victim. To the extent that I might contribute time and money to private providers of assistance (e.g. churches, foundations etc) I would have a personal responsibility as well.

But for the specific mother who is featured in the hypothetical? I like to think that if the opportunity arose I would offer to provide her with assistance, but only as a fellow human being or member of the community, not as someone who supported the law that prevented her from aborting her unborn child.

You ask:



To which I answer:



It's not a very precise question, but if I believe the unborn child has a right to life that is independent of the mother, that obviously expresses a concern for its well being.

If you mean am I concerned about the fate of the child that I've saved from abortion, then the answer is yes, even though I wouldn't accept that I saved him or see my relationship with him in terms of his being a child saved from abortion and I being someone who supports the law that prohibited his mother from aborting him.

First of all there is no reason to assume that the child will not be wanted and properly cared for by his mother or placed with a fit and loving family through adoption. Nevertheless as with the mother, I would feel both civic and personal responsibilities for the child. They wouldn't extend to me adopting him or paying for life time care and education, but they would include support of public and private agencies that provide care for foster children.

You also ask:



To which I answer:



All life is precious irrespective of its chances to survive and thrive, and it is certainly not the fault of the unborn child that she was conceived during a period of hardship in her community.

I suspect you are getting at whether or not the more morally responsible decision wouldn't be to abort the child rather than have her and risk not only her dying of disease or starvation but her contributing to similar deaths of siblings that were born before.

No, I don't think so. There is no guarantee that the child will die or cause siblings to die and the fact that hers is a life that is as precious as all the others coming before her means she can't be sacrificed for expediency.

In this case the scope of my personal and civic responsibilities are as limited as they would be in China or Vietnam, however personal financial contributions could possibly be more effective in developing nations than at home.

Making the donations to which you refer is a way to discharge your responsibilities and there are, of course, others. Spending a day working on a Habitat for Humanities house can be of greater benefit to the cause than writing them a check.

No one can assume full or even partial responsibility for just the lives we would all agree are in need of help, but I would argue that you can't refuse to take responsibility for any life, and that by refusing to act in a way that can be perceived as imposing your moral values you can't avoid your obligations.

I don't for a second think that you do not, in any way, seek to "impose" your moral values on others. We all do to one extent or another. If you support even 50% of the laws that are in effect in this country you are doing so.

We can tell people what they can and cannot do and we do it all of the time. I, for one, certainly think we do it too much and often for wrong for very bad reasons, but, conceptually, there is not a lot of difference in passing a law that raises taxes on millionaires and one that regulates and restricts abortions. It's usually only a matter of different points of view, but very frequently its part of the Left's agenda to ruin the nation.

I am drawing an analogy between my support of anti-abortion laws and what I assume is your support of anti-murder laws. (Of course, if you do not support anti-murder statues then the analogy is shot)

You have suggested that by prohibiting a mother from aborting her child those who support anti-abortion laws are somehow responsible for the costs of caring for the unwanted child. As if the mother has suffered damages because someone prevented her from aborting her fetus and those who did need to reimburse or compensate her for these damages.

This is the same as suggesting that since you support anti-murder laws you are somehow responsible for the damages the murderer incurred as a result of your keeping him from going through with it.

For example Joe Brown would like to murder his wife for the proceeds of her insurance policy. Because busy-bodies like you have imposed your moral values on Joe and the rest of society, he's not free to murder his wife. As a result he's short the $100,000 settlement he was counting on and so you (and everyone else who supports anti-murder laws) need to pony up the $100K you owe him.

Ridiculous of course, but just as ridiculous as contending supporters of anti-abortion laws are obligated to assist the woman in caring for the unwanted child she didn't get to abort.

If I support an anti-abortion bill on the basis of my beliefs (it makes little difference whether you label the beliefs "Moral," "Philosophical," "Politcal," or "Religious") and the bill passes into law, to the extent that my support helped the bill pass, (miniscule at best) than yes it will have had something to do with my beliefs.

It would be ridiculous, however to argue that the bill was based on my beliefs, driven by my beliefs, only passed due to my beliefs, and, therefore, could be considered my anti-abortion bill.

Equally ridiculous would be the charge that as a citizen supporter of the bill, I should be held responsible for every outcome resulting from the bill.

Maybe if I was a US Senator and the bill carried my name, your argument would not be so ridiculous, but of course there is no Senator Finn (R-TX).

Actually, in that he has in the past said that he is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, his most recent statement may be seen as deceiving the public. This may not be an issue for you, but it is for a lot of voters, and he's got some 'splainin' to do . . .

Why this talk of conception by rape and incest? Those are nothing by the side of conceptions from irresponsible sex. It can be defined as irresponsible by the choice of abortion to correct its effect. As evil some will say which then makes the sex evil too. Of the nearly 50 million abortions since Roe/Wade, and what good business that is, the number by rape and incest is insignificant statistically. Those supporting abortion prove themselves bereft of argument by even mentioning those few cases. They are supporting the killing in gruesome circumstances of defenceless life on a grand scale for the purpose of the convenience, financial or cosmetic, of people who gratuitously engage in copulation with no intention of taking responsibility for their actions. How such activity is of benefit to women completely escapes me.

And the USSC or anybody else defining what life is by weeks or trimesters is too ludicrous for an intelligent person to give a moment's thought to. Biology is being set aside doing that at the same time that biology is being used for other political purposes.

What happens in Asia or Africa is neither here nor there for us.

That the pro-abortionists continually support their position with reference to rape and incest and what happens in countries we have no vote in demonstrates the utter vacuity of their argument.

As Finn rightly says, religion has nothing to do with the matter. The Catholic Church opposes bank robbing and drug abuse as well. Plenty of atheists are as appalled at 50 million abortions as I am. And Media, which shows plenty of nasty scenes, must be as well because in all this time it has never dared to show an actual abortion. There's a wall of silence around the procedures in such despicable operations. Why?

Because we are ashamed--that's why. Abortion is indefensible. Sooner restrict sexual opportunities.

I have never met anyone who admits having an abortion or assisting in the procurement and facilitation of one and with the figures as they are I must have met plenty. The shame is palpable. It's a world of secrecy and shadows and rich pickings.

It disgusts me. If Mr Cain takes that position I would vote for him no matter how barmy his economic platform.

Sure they will! Well kind of! They will try to indoctrinate with their beliefs and send it to war to battle others that disagree with their beliefs!

An insight:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2119834481831&set=p.2119834481831&type=1&theater

Finn, You are one confused dude; we're talking about abortion, not murder.

Murder affects another living person; it affects that person killed and his family and friends. It affects society at large; that's the reason murder is against the law in most civilized countries.

Abortion "should" affect only the mother and her doctor; outside intrusion is just intrusion into a private life.

And to some of us the unborn kid is a living person. So you are agreeing that abortion is murder if we are justified in that view. And thus okay by you.

You can only distinguish between murder and abortion on the assumption that the unborn kid is not a living person. So say the kid is not a living person, as you must do or be found sanctioning murder, and then explain where the line is when the unborn kid becomes a living person. From a scientific point of view.

Some things should be left to be a personal choice!
Some people will call stem cell research blasphemy in a petri dish and call a fetus a person these same people believe in things like ghost, aliens, giants, people living in whales and so on!
These people want to control their neighbors and are willing to fly planes into buildings to do so!

Because if it isn't "born," it's not human. It's just a fetus. No harm, no foul.

I gotta think those that adopt that mentality should have no problem with new mothers who leave their newborns to die in dumpsters. I mean, these are just "barely" born, after all. Why should it matter to kill those babies if it was no issue to kill it just moments prior, before it escaped the womb?

If a mother wants to kill her newborn baby, is that a personal choice? If not, why not?

It's not splitting hairs to say that there's a level of viability, after which the vast majority of babies who are born will survive, and before which, the vast majority are not. Our current restrictions do a good job of defining legality based on that level of viability.

I think that your argument is an Appeal to Extremes, but, I also think you knew that before writing it.

Cycloptichorn

You should try and be a little more logical about this! 99.99% of the population would disagree with killing unborn babies past a certain trimester!

Sure, let's be logical. Are you trying to say that appealing to the masses constitute logic?

Are you able to answer my question?

How long before this magical point of viability should one be permitted to kill their baby? 1 hour? 1 day?


The extreme position is taken by c.i., who claims abortion is purely a matter between a mother an her doctor.

There has to be a line somewhere between life and potential life.
One can't really argue that a child that is born has potential life instead of life. [edit]


Traditionally and definition wise life means
5


A child in the womb has potential life.
A sperm also has potential life.

Very good question!

That is what I would like people like you to do! " Stop appealing to the masses.

You have learned to try and control other peoples lives through a religious process. If you were born in another part of the world you would believe in a different value system depending upon the religion of that environment!

Okay. Like when the sperm fertilizes the egg? That seems like a bright line.


You're going to have to explain that one to me.


That's your position.


Okay.

Who are people "like me"?


How have I tried to control anyone through a religious process?

Or are you using the Royal "you"?


I think you have no basis to make that claim. You have no way of knowing what value system I might have, or what might shape it.

Please try to be logical, and stop making broad generalizations.

Ok I see that you have not studied the subjects well that we have talked about but who knows maybe one day you will get it!

A short video about the difference between believing and understanding might help!