Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[DamianTV]

Good news worldwide, and hopefully regardless of which position you support, abortions have been systematically declining worldwide for the last couple of years. Id have to find the article to provide the numbers, even though the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

I do support 4th Trimester abortions. Those to be aborted need a really really valid cause to be aborted so not applicable to 99.999% of cases.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There you go, yet again, praising a murderer.

Comments like this do not help the pro-life movement, regardless of how you might feel about the morality of Roeder's actions.

I don't really think it was moral, but part of me wonders at what point, if ever, vigilante justice DOES become moral. If you don't want to discuss this in public, PM me, because I get your point about publicly discussing it but I still want to know what your thoughts are.

I would, however, absolutely have voted to acquit Roeder on the grounds that George Tiller was a massive NAP violator and whatever church he was in was sheltering a murderer.

If you want to win people over, just keep references to things like that out of your arguments and commentary.

Well, yeah, I agree. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. If I were trying to convince a pro-choice person to be pro-lif handle it differently. That said, I think a lot of the half-hearted pro-life activism is just that. If abortion really is murder, as I believe it is, than George Tiller is morally no better than someone who ran a Nazi gas chamber. Otherwise, if abortion is not murder, it should be completely legal and unregulated. But the middle ground positions just strike me as dumb, honestly.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And, in line with the above, if abortion really is murder, than we should see Scott Roeder's actions in a similar light that we would see someone who tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler or who killed a concentration camp guard. I can't sit here and tell you whether that would be right or not, but I hestiate to say its absolutely wrong.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Good news worldwide, and hopefully regardless of which position you support, abortions have been systematically declining worldwide for the last couple of years. Id have to find the article to provide the numbers, even though the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

I do support 4th Trimester abortions. Those to be aborted need a really really valid cause to be aborted so not applicable to 99.999% of cases.

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

 

[DamianTV]

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

More of a hope instead of a stat. I would really hope that people are more responsible about getting pregnant to begin with instead of turning to the next step solution of abortion. Lots of abortions result from unwanted pregnancies, but the other side is that that wanted pregnancies may put both the mothers life at risk and no chance of survival for the baby.

Perhaps it is a bit naive of me to try to find hope where none exists, but maybe it really does exist. I'd at least like to think so.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm fine with this but for all intents and purposes you're just quibbling here because you know in your heart the Catholic position is silly, so you're making up a technicality that would allow you to pretty much keep abortion to save the mother's life legal yet not technically violate the Catholic dogma that keeping it legal cannot be supported. In practice, I'm not really sure how your position differs from mine or TC's, except for the fact that ideally I want to entirely abolish the State, which has only an indirect effect on this.

How is the Catholic position that all life is sacred and must be protected "silly?"

I don't think it is ever right to kill innocent life, but there are cases, such as when there truly is a medical emergency and the only option is to abort the child in order to save the mother's life, that although morally wrong, punishing the mother with jail time is not the moral punishment. I think we should be compassionate in those awful, and extremely rare, cases. In Abortion and Liberty Ron Paul talks about how in his entire life he has never known a case where abortion is truly the only recourse to a medical emergency. Even the pro-abortion crowd acknowledges this fact.

That said, if a case that like should present itself, I think it should be treated in the same light as other homicides in self defence and that it should be investigated to make sure that the doctor acted solely as a last resort to saving the mother's life, just as all cases of homicide in self defence are investigated. (I have to add, though, that I do not believe that killing an unborn child really does qualify as self-defence)


Edit: I should add that this is what I believe when it comes to abortion in the case of a mother's life truly being a serious risk:

he very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM

 

[Brett85]

I'm not really sure how its a good point (and I agree wth the life of the mother exception based on self-defense). Why couldn't some childless couple just adopt the baby?

She was saying that if a woman was faced with a life threatening pregnancy and ended up dying because she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, then both the woman and the baby would die, and I agreed with her on that point.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm not really sure how its a good point (and I agree wth the life of the mother exception based on self-defense). Why couldn't some childless couple just adopt the baby?

...

I don't think you understand ectopic pregnancies very well.
The mother stands a chance of dying BEFORE the birth. I'm not sure how you can adopt a partially-formed baby wedged in some dead lady's fallopian tube.

There are, I think, only a handful of pregnancies where a baby survived outside of the womb within the mother's body. If you would like to risk every woman's life based purely on the fact that it has happened before, then that's kind of strange to me.

Moreover, the reason he's saying "good point" is that if the mother dies before the baby is brought to term, then the baby will die as well. What does that solve, exactly?

 

[DamianTV]

Solution: Test Tubes required for all pregnancies. Children all seem to belong to the State and not the Parents anyway...

/s

 

[eduardo89]

She was saying that if a woman was faced with a life threatening pregnancy and ended up dying because she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, then both the woman and the baby would die, and I agreed with her on that point.

I think we should listen to Ron Paul when it comes to that:

Abortion is frequently justified as a method for the mother to end or avoid various diseases. This argument is grossly exaggerated and was only a subterfuge used by the promoters of abortion to remove the legal restraints against performing abortions. In delivering nearly 4,000 babies, I personally never came across a need even to entertain the thought of therapeutic abortion for the health of the mother, nor can I imagine the story book case of the doctor being forced into a crisis and making a decision of whose life to spare—mother or baby. Such distorted medical views have come from poorly researched movies on the subject. The state of pregnancy is natural; it’s not a disease; and it is complimentary to both fetus and mother. Most of the time it’s a delightful period for the mother and she feels better than at any other time in her life.

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron Paul-Abortion and Liberty.pdf

 

[MelissaWV]

I think we should listen to Ron Paul when it comes to that:

He is talking about outright abortions, though. I'm pretty sure he is aware of ectopic pregnancies and the deaths that occur from complications.

 

[MelissaWV]

Though I'm very strong pro-life and the worst thing I can conceive of is manufacturing babies to be used for research, but as an obstetrician I've had on quite a few occasions to do a surgery on a woman with a pregnancy in the Fallopian tube. And, the fetus is small, and alive, and the heart is beating, but if you don't operate on him, the fetus dies and the patient dies, because a hemorrhage is a very very critical time for ectopic pregnancy. I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

^ Ron Paul

 

[eduardo89]

He is talking about outright abortions, though. I'm pretty sure he is aware of ectopic pregnancies and the deaths that occur from complications.

I realise that, and I would not include surgeries removing the tube where the ectopic pregnancy is accruing to be an abortion, as long as the goal of the surgery is to remove the tissue, not kill the child. Unfortunately, due to where we are in modern medicine, the child cannot be saved once removed from the woman's body and will die, but the point of the medical procedure was not to kill the child. Hopefully one day with the advancements in the medical field, that won't be the case.

That is the Catholic and pro-life position.

 

[scrosnoe]

If you don't understand the issue of life it all it's simplicity, then, you cannot understand possibly understand liberty. That is why (I believe) that Ron Paul signs things For life and liberty -- something I use often now too!

 

[I<3Liberty]

Solution: Test Tubes required for all pregnancies. Children all seem to belong to the State and not the Parents anyway...

/s

Or as Vermin Supreme once said at an abortion protest "STERILIZE ALL AMERICANS!"

How is the Catholic position that all life is sacred and must be protected "silly?"
:

It's silly because it goes toward the other extreme which is being more concerned about the unborn life than the life and liberty of the mother. It also makes little sense (see below.)

I realise that, and I would not include surgeries removing the tube where the ectopic pregnancy is accruing to be an abortion, as long as the goal of the surgery is to remove the tissue, not kill the child. Unfortunately, due to where we are in modern medicine, the child cannot be saved once removed from the woman's body and will die, but the point of the medical procedure was not to kill the child. Hopefully one day with the advancements in the medical field, that won't be the case.

That is the Catholic and pro-life position.

Either way the fetus (which at that point is less than an inch long and far from surviving on its' own) is not going to survive. It doesn't matter whether you cut out the tissue it's bound to or remove it through whatever means, it's not going to live and the intent in both cases is to save the life of the mother. There is no exact Catholic or "pro-life' position on how to do the surgery and it doesn't matter because either method has the same intentions and consequences; the methodology changes neither of these.

 

[eduardo89]

It's silly because it goes toward the other extreme which is being more concerned about the unborn life than the life and liberty of the mother. It also makes little sense (see below.)

That is absurd. The Catholic position is that the life of the mother and of the unborn child both have equal value. All human life has equal value and is deserving of the same respect. Your position values more the 'liberty' (whatever you mean by that) over the life of the child.

Either way the fetus (which at that point is less than an inch long and far from surviving on its' own) is not going to survive. It doesn't matter whether you cut out the tissue it's bound to or remove it through whatever means, it's not going to live and the intent in both cases is to save the life of the mother.

See, the difference between your way of looking at is you thing that you view deliberately killing the unborn child as the same as the unintended consequence of removing the tissue where the child is growing being the death of the child.

When modern medicine develops enough to be able to sustain the child and bring it to term outside the womb the Catholic way of doing things will not end up with a dead child. Your preferred method of directly killing the child in order to end the ectopic pregnancy will always lead to the death of the unborn child.

There is no exact Catholic or "pro-life' position on how to do the surgery and it doesn't matter because either method has the same intentions and consequences; the methodology changes neither of these.

The methodology does matter. In your view as long as the end results are the same the way you get there doesn't matter. That is not true. The path you take, regardless of whether it achieves the same results in the end, certainly matters.

And yes, there is an exact way to treat an ectopic pregnancy which is the Catholic way to do it. The other way, which is directly killing the unborn child, is fundamentally in contraction with the Catholic faith.

 

[RandallFan]

The abortion issue has outed many RINOs. Reagan made a mistake in appointing Sandra Day O'Connor.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sandra_Day_O'Connor

 

[Brett85]

See, the difference between your way of looking at is you thing that you view deliberately killing the unborn child as the same as the unintended consequence of removing the tissue where the child is growing being the death of the child.

Is there any difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve and a parent who shoots and kills his child?

 

[eduardo89]

Is there any difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve and a parent who shoots and kills his child?

Both are deliberate acts of murder.

 

[Brett85]

Both are deliberate acts of murder.

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.