WN: Rudy Giuliani Tells Pro-Life Advocates: Get Over Abortion Issue -

[rtwo]

Your thinking appears to be flawed

[kat8585]

True, but on the same note, if the only pro-life candidate plans on raising taxes for a chocolate mansion, disbanding the millitary, and setting up legalized prostitution, I would have trouble voting for them

I was just going to say something similar. I'd still have to vote for a pro-choice Republican candidate in order to defeat the Democrat who would do that and much worse, especially Hillary or Obama.

[kat8585]

I can't vote for anyone that doesnt see the value of human life, even the life that is growing within the womb.

Do you also refuse to vote for those who support the death penalty?

Death penalty can be Biblically supported.

I can vote for someone who supports it.

That means you can support someone who does not see the value of all human life. You just insist that s/he sees the value in what you deem innocent human life.

Correction, what God deems innocent life. Apples and oranges. Innocent human life that can't defend itself against non-innocent life that has committed a crime.

[kat8585]

I'm not really sure how you would deem "has desires" as a requisite for protecting life. Surely, a human fetus -will- have desires, if allowed to grow. It appears to me that you are attaching an arbitrary and meaningless value to the situation in order to defend your position.

Exactly. Where did that come from?

[Guest LadyC]

i'll be blunt here. those who support abortion couldn't care less about the "desires" of the "fetus". they care only about the desires of the mother.

seriously, let's face it. even pro-choicers, when pregnant or when talking to a woman whose pregnancy is WANTED, will refer to the fetus as a BABY. it's only called a fetus when the mother wants to terminate it.

[Tubal-Cain]

You are consistently wrong..."all human beings possess inherent dignity and a right to life simply by virtue of their humanity."

First, there is no evidence that "inherit dignity" actually exists. On the other hand, desires do exist. Second, saying that a human has a right to life by virtue of their humanity does nothing to explain why that is the case and ignores morality regarding animals. On the other hand, both humans and many animals have desires and thus we know why both are deserving of moral consideration. Moreover, the murder of a human thwarts all their desires and that explains why murder is the worst of crimes.

[Tubal-Cain]

I'm not really sure how you would deem "has desires" as a requisite for protecting life. Surely, a human fetus -will- have desires, if allowed to grow.

If a fetus has desires (and at some point it will) then I oppose abortion. However, before that point I think it is permissible.

It appears to me that you are attaching an arbitrary and meaningless value to the situation in order to defend your position.

Desires create values. For example, if you desire that you stay alive then you value your life. Without desires, values cease to exist. Hence, my position is not arbitrary, but necessary seeing as value only exists alongside desires.

[Guest LadyC]

go watch the video called "silent scream" and then dare to tell me that the "infant" doesn't DESIRE to live.

you can view it at silentscream.org. be sure and watch all six parts.

[Tubal-Cain]

It may have been your contention all along that something without desires doesn't deserve legal protections, but I didn't realize that was your position. It is hard for me to believe anyone would make such an idiotic judgement when it comes to human life. You mention respecting the wishes of someone in a coma? The unborn baby doesn't have a document to tell us he or she wants to live or die. I would imagine if they could speak, they would choose life. In the film "Silent Scream," the baby was trying to get away from the tool used by the hired hit man that would dismember him or her. By the vital signs being measured, it was scared. This is first degree murder of a baby and those responsible are guilty of crimes against humanity.

I would agree that if a fetus has desires then it would desire to live. That's why I oppose abortions when the fetus has desires and would err on the side of caution. However, early in a pregnancy, the embryo/fetus has no desires and so it is nonsensical to say that it would choose to live. The fact is that it cannot choose to do anything, let alone choose to live.

You on the other hand would rather protect a murderer than an innocent baby

This statement is wrong on two counts. First, it is not that I want to protect the murderer from the death penalty. It is that I want to protect the innocent who is falsely accused of murder from the death penalty. Second, I do want to protect any fetus or baby with desires.

I guess that is awful in your mind that this man's desires to be free from his nuicense wife and child and live the bachelor life has been stopped.

You would guess wrong. It seems your emotions have gotten the better of you.

[Tubal-Cain]

i'll be blunt here. those who support abortion couldn't care less about the "desires" of the "fetus". they care only about the desires of the mother.

That might be true of some but it is not true of me. If it were true then I wouldn't oppose later term abortions, would I? I don't fit neatly into the category of pro-life or pro-choice.