WFFaithful
Well-known member
The Daily Show did a good piece on Pat a couple of days ago.
"Liberals want to kill babies" - Pat Robertson
- Thread starter BeachBumDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Pat's a loon.
But it's true that seeking and accomplishing an abortion ends the life of a woman's unborn progeny. So supporting abortion rights is supporting the right of a woman to choose to end the life of (or kill) her unborn baby.
Not sure I get the connection to "lesbians", however. :/headscratch
But it's true that seeking and accomplishing an abortion ends the life of a woman's unborn progeny. So supporting abortion rights is supporting the right of a woman to choose to end the life of (or kill) her unborn baby.
Not sure I get the connection to "lesbians", however. :/headscratch
If there is another objective, I'd like to hear it.
DeaconSig
Well-known member
The problem is using "life." I'm sure you can understand that not everyone believes a fetus in a woman's uterus is actually living, per se.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Yes, I'm aware of the rationalization.
DeaconSig
Well-known member
I thought we were having a legitimate discussion. I guess not.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Legitimate??
I think there's little that's legitimate about an assertion that an unborn child is not human or alive. Or that abortion doesn't end such a life.
Look, one doesn't have to be religious or even adamantly anti-abortion to recognize this. Example (C. Hitchens):
Quote (link):
--------------
As the evidence about early “viability” mounted, and as advances in medicine made it ever easier for even a distressingly premature fetus to survive outside its mother, the argument showed a tendency to shift. Suddenly, we were talking trimesters. And there was no longer much dispute about whether the unborn subject was alive. It certainly couldn’t be dead, since the whole battle consisted in how or whether to stop its growing and developing ( not metastasizing). Now and then there would be a tussle over whether it was a fully “human” life, but this was casuistry. What other species of life could it be?...
That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed...
...By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential [unborn] human and an actual [born] one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about.
-------------
I added the bracketed adjectives in the last paragraph above, because I think that's a better way to put it, and because I'm almost certain Hitchens' wouldn't object to those descriptors.
No, I don't fully agree with Hitchens on the topic of abortion, but I appreciate that he recognizes that an "unborn child" [a term he uses elsewhere, if not here] is a proper and meaningful term to apply to the life under consideration.
Now, Robertson's use of the term "babies" in this context is surely intended to be inflammatory. But it's a term that serves to emphasize the proper point that an "unborn child" is a human life. And one that probably ought to enjoy some right to societal protection. And, of course and naturally, unborn children do enjoy some rights to protection. Which is partly why I assert that an argument that such an entity is not a human life is likely to be a "rationalization". Or bad thinking of some other sort.
I mean, if it's an entity worthy of some protections and if it's human [though unborn] and alive, I think it's pretty difficult to make a convincing argument that a woman ought to possess the absolute right to snuff it out simply because it's "her body" and she has a right to privacy. But it's easier to accept this perspective if you can rationalize in the face of contrary evidence that the unborn human child is not human or alive.
I want to add that I have great sympathy for a woman that finds herself pregnant and not wanting to be. I won't pretend there's an easy solution for one in such a dilemma. Of course, this is partly why I think people shouldn't engage in sex until and unless they're actually prepared to deal with the potential consequences of the activity. Prudishness may lead one to this perspective, but it's not required to posses it. Prudence alone may lead one to such a conclusion, I'm pretty sure. Of course I know that people have always engaged in sex when they're unprepared for the potential consequences. But nobody has to choose to do so. And so yes, I favor "complete" sexual education for the kiddies.
[Sorry to post and leave, but I'll be incommunicado for a while.]
I think there's little that's legitimate about an assertion that an unborn child is not human or alive. Or that abortion doesn't end such a life.
Look, one doesn't have to be religious or even adamantly anti-abortion to recognize this. Example (C. Hitchens):
Quote (link):
--------------
As the evidence about early “viability” mounted, and as advances in medicine made it ever easier for even a distressingly premature fetus to survive outside its mother, the argument showed a tendency to shift. Suddenly, we were talking trimesters. And there was no longer much dispute about whether the unborn subject was alive. It certainly couldn’t be dead, since the whole battle consisted in how or whether to stop its growing and developing ( not metastasizing). Now and then there would be a tussle over whether it was a fully “human” life, but this was casuistry. What other species of life could it be?...
That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed...
...By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential [unborn] human and an actual [born] one. The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about.
-------------
I added the bracketed adjectives in the last paragraph above, because I think that's a better way to put it, and because I'm almost certain Hitchens' wouldn't object to those descriptors.
No, I don't fully agree with Hitchens on the topic of abortion, but I appreciate that he recognizes that an "unborn child" [a term he uses elsewhere, if not here] is a proper and meaningful term to apply to the life under consideration.
Now, Robertson's use of the term "babies" in this context is surely intended to be inflammatory. But it's a term that serves to emphasize the proper point that an "unborn child" is a human life. And one that probably ought to enjoy some right to societal protection. And, of course and naturally, unborn children do enjoy some rights to protection. Which is partly why I assert that an argument that such an entity is not a human life is likely to be a "rationalization". Or bad thinking of some other sort.
I mean, if it's an entity worthy of some protections and if it's human [though unborn] and alive, I think it's pretty difficult to make a convincing argument that a woman ought to possess the absolute right to snuff it out simply because it's "her body" and she has a right to privacy. But it's easier to accept this perspective if you can rationalize in the face of contrary evidence that the unborn human child is not human or alive.
I want to add that I have great sympathy for a woman that finds herself pregnant and not wanting to be. I won't pretend there's an easy solution for one in such a dilemma. Of course, this is partly why I think people shouldn't engage in sex until and unless they're actually prepared to deal with the potential consequences of the activity. Prudishness may lead one to this perspective, but it's not required to posses it. Prudence alone may lead one to such a conclusion, I'm pretty sure. Of course I know that people have always engaged in sex when they're unprepared for the potential consequences. But nobody has to choose to do so. And so yes, I favor "complete" sexual education for the kiddies.
[Sorry to post and leave, but I'll be incommunicado for a while.]
Last edited: