Ben Carson wants abortion outlawed in cases of rape and incest

[Revoltingest]

You're arguing from two points, scientific and legal. The scientific argument is irrefutable. Life begins at conception.

You haven't presented the scientific argument yet.
But the legal definition is also up for grabs.

Note that in both cases, I don't say when "human life" begins.
It's a matter of definition, & I don't see a consensus for a single one in either case.

 

[columbus]

No, I see the same facts which you do.
And I note that you used the qualifier of "probably" regarding my error.
So you really don't have The Truth....just an opinion (as do I).

I do have the science though.

Btw, my opinion is......
I don't know when "human life" begins.

Here, let me help you understand the basic concepts here:

Human life began several hundred generations ago in Africa.

Human beings begin when two haploid cells merge to form a new one.

Personhood is a vague abstraction that varies greatly with opinions, despite people often being very confident that their opinion is factual.
Tom

 

[metis]

Once the child was outside the mother's womb, I certainly believe in (s)he having basic human rights, and I am personally opposed to abortion, but what I won't do is to try and force my opinion on a woman who is pregnant. I'm old enough to remember so many horror stories of young girls using coat hangers or having their boyfriend punch them in the abdomen to try and force a miscarriage. I remember the illegal abortions that often threatened the woman's life or health. I remember that women with more money could travel to another country to get their abortions, leaving only the very young and the poor to be forced to having a child they don't want.

Sorry, but those "good old days" really weren't so good after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do have the science though.

Be careful about wielding the "science" card.
Is your background in it really stronger than mine?
Is your argument cromulent?
I've yet to see a reasoned argument using science to establish the beginning of a "human life".
And there's still the question of the legal definition.

Here, let me help you understand the basic concepts here:
Human life began several hundred generations ago in Africa.

Only several hundred generations?
Let's examine this claim using arithmetic so basic that even I can follow.
Assume.....
"Several hundred" = 300
One generation = 20 years
20 x 300 = 6000

This means human life began 6000 years ago.
(Weird coincidence....this is in the YEC range.)
I'm skeptical that we're that recent an evolutionary development.
I'd say we're 2 orders of magnitude (100 times) older based upon this time line.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#First_living_beings
Homo heidelbergensis was 6' tall with a brain 93% the size of homo sapiens.
Looks human to me.
But then I don't know much science.

Human beings begin when two haploid cells merge to form a new one.
Personhood is a vague abstraction that varies greatly with opinions, despite people often being very confident that their opinion is factual.
Tom

This leaves the definition of a "human life" still up in the air.
I don't know when it begins....& you're not convincing me.

 

[averageJOE]

Yes

So you've already adopted a child? If so, I applaude you.

 

[katiemygirl]

Per RF Rule #37.2, you must state the definition & cite the source.
(Btw, I don't make the rules.)

I'll see what I can do. I need to go out for awhile, but I hope to get back later.

 

[Skwim]

And thank you for yours. I see you put a lot of thought into it.

All that it deserved.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll see what I can do. I need to go out for awhile, but I hope to get back later.

No worries.
No hurry.

 

[Underhill]

I'm glad you said Roe V Wade needs better implementation. That would be a good start.

As for the day after pill, how about using birth control before getting pregnant? Wouldn't that have a HUGE effect on the number of abortions performed in this country?

Are we really so self centered that we can't be bothered to use birth control? Just think how things could change if people weren't so into self. Don't you think that would be a much better route? If a woman can have the wherewithal to take a morning after pill, how much more effort would it take to use birth control?

I'm not arguing with you, but we already advocate for birth control, obviously it isn't working. I would say that from what I remember with my wife, that birth control is a bit trickier (I'm a man and this is old information) as there were multiple pills taken on a specific schedule. But I see no reason not to advocate for both. The day after pill is not abortion as it usually destroys the egg before it is fertilized so even those 100% pro-life should not take issue with it.

I don't know anyone who is against reducing the number of abortions. And most people I know would prefer them done early in the pregnancy rather than later. So if people weren't so obstinate, I bet the number of abortions could be reduced dramatically.

 

[Skwim]

No. It is not. Neither the sperm nor egg is a human being, and on is own does not have the potential of becoming one. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, only then does the fertilized egg becomes a human being.

Please meet the newest member of our family, our daughter/son, Cameron Zygote Kerplunk. Conceived just last night.

​

We think Cameron looks just like his/her mother. What do you think?

Were getting him/her a Social Security number tomorrow. Just in time to list him/her as a tax deduction for the year---boy, this was a close one.

We'll be having a fertilization shower in a few weeks so keep your Saturdays open---as usual, chitlins and orange juice will be served.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You're arguing from two points, scientific and legal. The scientific argument is irrefutable. Life begins at conception.

Yes, as a couple of cells, but how can we give it rights over an already born person? Bad precedent. Abortion until quickening was never frowned upon until the fundamentalist movement in the late 1800s.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Please meet the newest member of our family, our daughter/son, Cameron Zygote Kerplunk. Conceived just last night.

​

We think Cameron looks just like his/her mother. What do you think?

Were getting him/her a Social Security number tomorrow. Just in time to list him/her as a tax deduction for the year---boy, this was a close one.

We'll be having a fertilization shower in a few weeks so keep your Saturdays open---as usual, chitlins and orange juice will be served.

I agree. That little dimple is just adorable.

 

[esmith]

I would like to make one, maybe two don't know yet, about Dr Carson's stance. You do realize that he spent the majority of his adult life saving and attempting to save babies and children. Do you really think that someone in his position that has fought to save everyone of his patients would have an opinion that goes against the Hippocratic Oath that he took? You do realize that he might consider his patient to be the baby in the womb? If the mother's life is not in jeopardy he might have an aversion to taking a life? I would have to assume that he believes that life starts at conception and an abortion kills that life. Now you may or may not agree with his opinion, but you have to respect his right to that opinion.

 

[Skwim]

I would like to make one, maybe two don't know yet, about Dr Carson's stance. You do realize that he spent the majority of his adult life saving and attempting to save babies and children. Do you really think that someone in his position that has fought to save everyone of his patients would have an opinion that goes against the Hippocratic Oath that he took? You do realize that he might consider his patient to be the baby in the womb? If the mother's life is not in jeopardy he might have an aversion to taking a life? I would have to assume that he believes that life starts at conception and an abortion kills that life. Now you may or may not agree with his opinion, but you have to respect his right to that opinion.

Not saying he doesn't have his reasons or that they shouldn't be respected, but they do not coincide with the determination of the courts. Want to butt your head against a wall, go right ahead, but it doesn't look so good when running as a candidate for political office. That said, we all know why he's doing it; to curry votes from the anti-abortion people who think that as president he would have the power to overturn the court ruling.

 

[esmith]

Not saying he doesn't have his reasons or that they shouldn't be respected, but they do not coincide with the determination of the courts. Want to butt your head against a wall, go right ahead, but it doesn't look so good when running as a candidate for political office. That said, we all know why he's doing it; to curry votes from the anti-abortion people who think that as president he would have the power to overturn the court ruling.

I don't think you have read or heard that Dr Carson wants to repeal Roe Vs Wade; what I am fairly positive is that he basically said was he would like to see it repealed. Totally different from what you are putting forth.
This seems to be the problem on both sides of the political spectrum.......reading something into something that wasn't said. On another point your assertion that his stance doesn't look good running for political office. Maybe you should think twice before making a comment. The US is still split 47% for and 46% against. Yeah as a flaming progressive liberal he wouldn't have much of a chance
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

 

[Skwim]

I don't think you have read or heard that Dr Carson wants to repeal Roe Vs Wade; what I am fairly positive is that he basically said was he would like to see it repealed.

You're absolutely right, and why the issue was even raised is a mystery---other than to spice up the interview . And looking at the video of the interview from which the quote was taken it's clear Carson did not raise the issue. So . . . I take back what I said about his motive for speaking about it.

My bad.

 

[Logikal]

Easy.
A zygote is one stage in a well known process that human beings all go through. This is extremely elementary science.
Tom

Because all humans go through the stage of being a cell, then a zygote, etc. does NOT make the form of life a HUMAN BEING!! Other animals have the same process. Sure you can confirm the life cells are HUMAN LIFE but all cells in your body are HUMAN LIFE. You need to address the BEING part. This NO ONE has done ever and looks like no one even cares to address the BEING (HUMAN BEING) part in law, medicine, religion, etc. The whole topic of abortion will immediately go away once we nail down WHAT CONSTITUES A HUMAN BEING. Once we lay out the criteria we should NOT FIND any existing person without the said requirements or else we have to start over. There should be no exceptions to a rule EVER logically. Authorities do it to save time in explanation or just because they can get away with it. People at the bottom can't use exceptions as freely simply because a contradiction frequently occurs. People in power can get away with it because they have physical power literally over the subordinates.

 

[Quetzal]

Ben Carson is disproving the positive stereotype that neurosurgeons are intelligent.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You're arguing from two points, scientific and legal. The scientific argument is irrefutable. Life begins at conception.

Life isn't the issue. When to give legal personhood status is.

 

[Deidre]

I wonder why abortion is a political platform in Presidential campaigns...it's just not something the government should be involved with, my opinion. Because it is a medical and often ethics issue, it would be like the government getting involved with every other medical decision. I have my own personal views about abortion, but to me, it is a topic that turns me off to a Presidential front runner who thinks this is going to gain him votes.