• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ben Carson wants abortion outlawed in cases of rape and incest

Skwim

Veteran Member

"Rape and incest are no reasons to terminate a pregnancy, front-running Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Sunday (Oct. 25).

Buoyed by polls showing him running ahead of Donald Trump in Iowa, the retired neurosurgeon said exceptions should be considered only in rare cases involving the mother’s health, “if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Carson said he “would love” to see the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion overturned."
source



The prospects for a Democratic president look better and better every day. :D
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If one buys the pro-life premise, this is a very rational & consistent position.
I just disagree with him.

Be careful what you wish for.
Hillary is a hawk.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If one buys the pro-life premise, this is a very rational & consistent position.
I just disagree with him.

Be careful what you wish for.
Hillary is a hawk.

Only with 41% of the Pro-lifers



gallup30.gif


.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
"Rape and incest are no reasons to terminate a pregnancy, front-running Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Sunday (Oct. 25).

Buoyed by polls showing him running ahead of Donald Trump in Iowa, the retired neurosurgeon said exceptions should be considered only in rare cases involving the mother’s health, “if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Carson said he “would love” to see the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion overturned."
source



The prospects for a Democratic president look better and better every day. :D
At first I thought, 'finally, someone who speaks with integrity.' But then I read ahead. There should be no exceptions to integrity, for either the mother or the potential infant.
 

Logikal

Member
The republican part has little or nothing to offer those outside of the rich class and wealthy class. All I ever hear about from the republican party is they cut taxes. Is that all you can do? Changing abortion laws is not at the top of the priorities for a president in any country. Abortion continues to be about the legal definition of a person or human being. Until some one can define the term human being or person definitively then people should really not be too concerned. The Bible indicates indirectly that God wants human beings to live but there are lots of things that get in the way in reality. The person may grow to be all kinds of things --not just a good Christian. Everyone will not be like Moses or other great people in the bible. The ideal would be for that to be so but evil still exists. So this is a tug of war battle that goes back and forth in reality. As a Christian I would like to think all humans would find their purpose in God but this may not be so: some vessels are made for destruction objectively. Christians should NOT be condoning life here as the end all. Christians are only passing through here and expecting LIFE on the spiritual side. Who wants to compare here to heaven? I do not see the big fuss. Heaven is a JUST place whereas Earth has plenty of EVIL and unfair people in charge of millions of other people. Those aborted are close to God; for God knows they are innocent and is a JUST judge. Objectively speaking who cares if the potential human being lives HERE? Those aborted will be in the presence of GOD before US. They already ARE where I desire to BE when I die. Who has the better cards in this hand here? How is it we --the living in the flesh--have the advantage in this situation?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree with Revoltingest. This is a necessary corollary of the " human life is sacred from conception" premise underlying the right-to-life position. it's the only morally consistent position.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
" the retired neurosurgeon said exceptions should be considered only in rare cases involving the mother’s health, “if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby.”



So, if the mother was raped she then has the ordeal of carrying this child for 9-months. What will be the mother's state of mind after that?
Does that meet Carson's criteria for an abortion?

Cruel, cruel man.

I'm glad I live in the UK where these sort of issues are largely ignored by politicians​
 

Draka

Wonder Woman

So, if the mother was raped she then has the ordeal of carrying this child for 9-months. What will be the mother's state of mind after that?
Does that meet Carson's criteria for an abortion?

Cruel, cruel man.

I'm glad I live in the UK where these sort of issues are largely ignored by politicians​
I find it strange myself that mental health is rarely, if ever, taken into consideration when speaking of "the mother's health". A woman goes into a deep suicidal depression that could easily result in self-harm or suicide, that's okay...her body is still healthy right? She becomes highly disturbed and paranoid over the fact she is now carrying a constant physical living reminder of something so traumatic and violent that happened to her matters not....her body is a-okay.
 
Though it would never pass I'd say that the idea of forcing any woman to go full term with a baby that was a result of rape or incest to be another rape by the legal system, another reminder every day of her abuse. I'd imagine where it would get really sticky is when the abuser is found not guilty and seeks parental rights securing their place in their victims life for years.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic

So, if the mother was raped she then has the ordeal of carrying this child for 9-months. What will be the mother's state of mind after that?
Does that meet Carson's criteria for an abortion?

Cruel, cruel man.

I'm glad I live in the UK where these sort of issues are largely ignored by politicians​
They were not ignored in the Uk there are still a few skirmishes.
However the legality of abortion is no longer in doubt except in northern ireland where the act of parliament does not cover and abortion is totally illegal. Even southern Ireland has relaxed the law to some extent.
Northern Ireland is influenced by some of the same extreme protestantism as found in american republicans.
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
What is it about Carson? Forgetting his backwards ideas about abortion and gay marriage for a moment, because a lot of Republicans have the same ideas. He's just...is it arrogant? Smarmy? I see him speak and I want to reach through the screen and slap the 'better than you' grin off his face.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I agree with Revoltingest. This is a necessary corollary of the " human life is sacred from conception" premise underlying the right-to-life position. it's the only morally consistent position.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson-
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson-
I suppose one can argue that consistent logical reasoning from premises is "foolish".
But would you say that scientists are fools for consistent aspiration to objectivity, reason, challenge, & peer review?
No, I suspect not.
But Carson starts with (I presume) a premise that the fetus is a human being entitled to protection against being killed.
If so, why would the fetus lose this right because its mother was the victim of a crime or incest?
We shouldn't dis logic just because the conclusions are uncomfortable.
Instead, it's his premises which are problematic to us.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
What is it about Carson? Forgetting his backwards ideas about abortion and gay marriage for a moment, because a lot of Republicans have the same ideas. He's just...is it arrogant? Smarmy? I see him speak and I want to reach through the screen and slap the 'better than you' grin off his face.
What I can't figure out is his appeal. He comes across as a no-body who happens to be a doctor that has never held a political office. Of course, I can't figure out Trump's wide appeal either, another non-politico. So, so much for my political acumen.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
I suppose one can argue that consistent logical reasoning from premises is "foolish".
But would you say that scientists are fools for consistent aspiration to objectivity, reason, challenge, & peer review?
No, I suspect not.
The "foolish" applies to the nature of the issue or subject, not to "logical reasoning from premises." Consistency is foolish where it involves issues that don't deserve it, as where exceptions are reasonable.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
The government legally kills human beings all the time. War, the death penalty. Corporations do so indirectly as well. Medications that cost too much to acquire, refusal of necessary medical services or medications. Why does the right to kill human beings seem to extend to the government and businesses but not to citizens? If someone is truly "pro-life" on the basis that all human life has a right to live then shouldn't they then also be anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-free and comprehensive health care?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What I can't figure out is his appeal. He comes across as a no-body who happens to be a doctor and has never held a political office or. Of course I can't figure out Trump's appeal either, another non-politico, so so much for my political acumen.
Everyone starts from politically humble beginnings.....unless one is a Kennedy.
But aside from that affiliation.....
- Hillary was just the wife of a governor.
- Obama was an inexperienced community organizer (aka "gadfly").
- Biden was a rodeo clown. (I don't know this, but it seems a good guess.)
 
Last edited:
Top