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

Actually, there is a tangential relevance, and it explains how the subject came up. Cain, who has in the past said that he is opposed to all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, recently remarked that abortion is a matter for the people, the families, concerned. This has brought the subject into a discussion of Republican nominees.

In the abortion blog I have said many times I am against it and would ask a woman to take a fetus to term. But I dont think I have the right to force someone to do so.

I was reluctant to go down this road again with CI and now I know why.

You are free to support your belief that an unborn child has no rights independent of the mother with whatever arguments you prefer, but in the end it remains an unanswered question except for which answer the law, at any given time, chooses to accept.

That the law accepts one or the other answer clearly doesn't settle the question for all time.

This not a case where one side is claiming the solar system revolves around the sun and the other has it revolving around the earth.

If a law was passed tomorrow that proclaimed the solar system revolved around the earth, it wouldn't change the fact that it does not. Someone could be fined and executed for stating the truth and violating the law, but they wouldn't be magically rendered incorrect about the solar system.

The law, not science determines whether or not an unborn child has rights independent of the mother. There is no scientific truth that survives the law's determination. I know many people would like it to be otherwise, but it simply is not.

If someone believes that the unborn child has rights independent of the mother, then they are under no intellectual compulsion to change their mind if the law determines otherwise, and since the question and the law that answers it has such a fundamental impact on human beings, I would argue that you have a moral compulsion to attempt to change the law and thereby change the answer.

The same argument applies, by the way, if you believe the unborn child has no independent rights, although it's tough to argue that being forced to give birth is a more life changing event than being killed.

The debate began when CI, somewhat gratuitously, offered that the question of abortions for rape and incest was easy for him to decide. For some pro-lifers it is just as easily decided. The origin of the discussion was whether or not Herman Cain had revealed that he, like many who would otherwise classify themselves as pro-life, faced a dilemma when considering abortion and rape and incest.

The only morally consistent position (if one believes that the unborn child has independent rights) is to prohibit abortions even in the case of rape and incest. Just as the only morally consistent position (if one believes the unborn child has no independent right) is to favor the legality of partial birth abortions or for that matter a mother's right to have her fetus removed and sold for commercial gain.

If the government has the power to tell people what they can and cannot do about any aspect of their bodies and elective medical procedures, it's tough to argue that they simply can't in terms of abortion because this is one of the times you insist they can't.

Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion, which is why I always use the former rather than the latter so you've either created a straw man with which to argue or you've decided to spend some time on the pulpit.

It's utter nonsense to argue that society doesn't have the right to impose attitudes and beliefs on individuals who do not share them, and so what you and some of your fellow pro-life advocates prefer to do is focus your argument on the presumption that a single individual doesn't have that right.

While this is largely true, it disingenuously ignores the fact that whenever society exercises its right to do impose its will, the will it imposes belongs to a segment of society that is in the majority but which consists of nothing more than shared individual attitudes and beliefs.

A pro-life individual who supports the passing of laws to prohibit abortion is no more or less imposing his or her own beliefs and attitudes on anyone than is the person who supports raising taxes on the rich. You can't have it both ways.

The argument that abortions will continue even if they are outlawed is also ridiculous although not in that it is not true. All sorts of actions and behaviors are rightfully branded illegal, but which continue through aberrant individuals or black markets. That isn't a reason to make them all legal.

The best argument the pro-choice side of the argument has is that the fetus is nothing more than a lump of flesh which the mother has the right to expel from her body.

It's not a satisfactory argument for them and so they need to keep introducing red herrings. Red herrings such as if you are pro-life you have an individual responsibility to care for the unwanted child the mother was forced to bear.

The fetus as a lump of flesh argument however is not emotionally appealing and does not square off well against the argument that a fetus is an individual human being, and so Pro-choice advocates insist on introducing their own emotion laden, but largely immaterial arguments. The ones that make the most logical arguments for their position are the ones who come across the most heartless.

Calling pro-choice advocates selfish murderers is unnecessary and unfair. Calling pro-life advocates controlling religious nuts is unnecessary and unfair.

While I personally agree that there are more important problems on which we need to focus, I have no problem what-so-ever with someone believing that the preservation of unborn children is the paramount issue in our lives, and any time is the right time to discuss what is clearly such a source of strong emotion and divisiveness in our country.

Abortion is legal in this country...up to a point, and that appears to be the way most Americans prefer, but it's absurd to tell the people who strongly disagree to shut up and stop rocking the boat. If they are to ever be in the minority, they will not get to impose their will on the rest of the country. If they expand to the majority and get to change the law should the pro-choice folks just shut up and stop rocking the boat? I doubt they will.

This is just another asanine attempt to divert attention from the underlying fundamental argument.

I am under no obligation to demonstrate that I am somehow personally worthy to argue the pro-life position.

I might as easily, and foolishly, insist that you prove you have none nothing to ever impose your personal beliefs on anyone else.

Straw man; just as expected from people who can't support their morals about human life.

"Solar system?" ROFLMAO Your analogies get sillier with every post.

ITT:
Finn posts a long, well thought out, clear headed and sober statement about the argument and it's base without saying anyone is definitely wrong or right but instead taking the mature route of saying everyone has the right to believe what they want without being labeled a psycho extremist.

CI responds with a short post, clearly unfiltered by his brain. "LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS! You is stoopid because I say you is! LOLOLOL"

It's laughable really.

I see you have no sense of logic or analogies that applies to subjects under discussion. You're on my Ignore list; you're a waste of time.

Mostly in agreement with the points raised here.

I personally don't think the issue of who will be responsible for the children who are born to parents who don't want them is a red herring, but overall, I do agree with what you've posted here.



(not after brownie points by agreeing with you again. Just trying to remind myself that most posters are worth reading - and hoping to encourage others to read posts carefully before whacking at the posts/posters)

Did you read Finn's post through? seems like you missed what most of it was about.

It appears, from your posts on this subject so far, that you are referring to yourself.

Finn, First off, I must apologize, because as ehBeth has pointed out, I quit reading your post when you tried to compare science to abortion. Much of your opinions have credence, but I disagree with comparing abortion with taxation about our country's politics. Whether society or our government gets it right on every issue is a complicated one that is impossible to address in any fora.

For the most part, I agree with "free choice." It is, after all, a private matter for the woman - for whatever reasons. If we legally stop all abortion in the US, it doesn't address anything about world-wide abortions and infanticide. If the fetus or embryo is "that" important, shouldn't those who are advocating for taking away a woman's right to choose in the US take action to save those fetus/babies around the world? What is justice and not justice to humanity?

Is our arguments about abortion limited to only US women? Why?

georgeob, You need to identify what I said is strawman? That's simple courtesy.

This abortion discussion started at the end of last week with a post about some comment made by Herman Cain. Since then, the discussion has involved mostly posters expressing at length their personal opinions on the issue.
Would you agree that that is a correct analysis?
Someone made a comment about there being an abortion thread on A2K. Why isn't that thread being used?

There was an article in the Washington Post that progressed along quite predictably but had an interesting twist at the end.
Both parties have faced the situation of electability vs ideology. The party establishment focuses on the former while the activist base is more concerned with the latter. Heads vs Hearts.
In the primaries over the years, ideology prevails over electability but gradually there is a shift AS ELECTION DAY APPROACHES.
A recent Post/ABC poll showed that 73% of those question tended towards idealism vs 20% who leaned towards electability.
Here is the twist. Obama is regarded as particularly by many. Electability is not an issue - anyone amongst the Repubs can beat him. That could hurt Romney.

I left out a word. Obama is regarded as particularly VULNERABLE by many.

The law currently does not recognize a fetus as having legal rights equivalent to those of a minor child, and Constitutional protections generally are seen as starting at birth. As you point out, the laws can change, but there are significant legal problems which would ensue by granting a fetus full legal rights or considering it to have the status of a minor child.

This issue has come up repeatedly in discussions of pre-natal substance abuse--the woman's use of substances (alcohol, tobacco, as well as illegal drugs) during pregnancy which can affect, or significantly and irreversibly damage the developing fetus and impair the child for life, or even result in stillbirth. The debate on "fetal rights" includes issues of whether such substance use during pregnancy should be made criminal, or even whether pregnant women who use such substances should be civilly committed to prevent such use.

To alter the current laws affecting abortion, which do not view the fetus as having the status of a minor child, is to start going down a complex and very slippery slope in terms of the rights of the unborn vs the rights of pregnant women, including whether we are going to start criminally punishing pregnant women for any injuries or damage that a fetus might suffer as a result of their behaviors. One interesting discussion of this issue can be found here.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/1/1/5

There is also the separate issue of a fetus which is already irreversibly damaged--such as a fetus which already suffers from Tay-Sachs. If Cain, and others, oppose abortion in all instances, that would include forcing a woman carrying a fetus with Tay Sachs disease to deliver that child, only to watch the child begin to deteriorate at a few months of age and continue to deteriorate in a very horrible manner before finally dying generally before the age of 4. The termination of such a pregnancy would spare a great deal of physical suffering to that potential child since the nerve damage begins in utero and continues rather relentlessly after birth until it results in death.

I think all of these issues are interesting, and certainly worthy of discussion, but they are largely irrelevant to the office of President and I do not think they should be at all prominent in the debate among the Republican Presidential candidates. I consider the abortion issue on a par with whether Mormonism is a cult, and Romney isn't, therefore, a "real Christian", because the current arguments put forth by conservatives, regarding the restriction of abortion, generally seem considerably more religious than legal, and seem designed to ultimately break down or erode the separation of church and state.

The Republicans should offer the American people more than right-wing conservative social values and debates about who is the "real Christian". Obama is primarily vulnerable on the economy, and most voters are more concerned about the economy than any ideology. If the Republican candidate can't offer better economic solutions--particularly to stimulate job growth, or improve the housing market, or provide better and affordable health care, Obama will enjoy a second term.

Do you say this as a card-carrying Republican who is generally concerned about the current state of the Republican party, or a card-carrying Democrat who is going to vote for Obama regardless but just want to get some digs in?

Doesn't make any difference which party she belongs to. The issues she addresses are self-explanatory. Address what she says, not which party she belongs to - which has no bearing.

I don't have a card. and my vote won't count, because I live among idiots.

maybe you guys should get a secret republican group together so you won't have to listen to opinions you dislike as you select the next George Bush.