Ben Carson wants abortion outlawed in cases of rape and incest

[Revoltingest]

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.

That seems just glib.
Your idea of reasonable isn't based upon his premises though.
Since he's a smart (more so than the Dems) fellow, I'd expect him to be logically consistent.
We should disagree with the premises, not criticize something as airy fairy as "consistency".

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

That doesn't fit the way the term, "pro-life", is used.
It's not about preserving all life.
Killing enemies in war & executing convicted violent criminals is a reasonable agenda,
even if one considers the unborn always deserving of life. They're quite different.

 

[Draka]

That doesn't fit the way the term, "pro-life", is used.
It's not about preserving all life.
Killing enemies in war & executing convicted violent criminals is a reasonable agenda,
even if one considers the unborn always deserving of life. They're quite different.

Nope. Human life is human life. And not just soldiers get killed in war. Civilians and children included. Chalked up to "collateral damage". Death penalty is proven to not be a deterrent and there's always some innocent that get killed as well. I also note you didn't address the other points as well. Flat out, if the position is "human beings have a right to live" to justify opposing all abortion then those who use that argument should be anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-free and comprehensive health care. Otherwise it's not really pro-life or "human beings have a right to live", it's "these particular unborn human lives have the right to live regardless of any extenuating circumstances". Which simply begs the question...why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. Human life is human life.

But we make distinctions between treatment afforded different human lives.
Example:
If someone attacks me, I may legally kill them.
But if someone serves me a burrito, I may not legally kill them.

Of course, some disagree with the above, but it's generally accepted.

And not just soldiers get killed in war. Civilians and children included. Chalked up to "collateral damage".

Ideally, collateral damage is to be avoided.
But where intentional or irresponsible, it becomes even criminal.

Death penalty is proven to not be a deterrent and there's always some innocent that get killed as well.

FYI, I oppose the death penalty because of the faulty convictions you mention.

I also note you didn't address the other points as well.

There are so many points.
So I address the ones which call to me.
I'm open to requests.

Flat out, if the position is "human beings have a right to live"......

Their position is not as simplistic as this characterization.

Otherwise it's not really pro-life or "human beings have a right to live", it's "these particular unborn human lives have the right to live regardless of any extenuating circumstances". Which simply begs the question...why?

The unborn differ from other humans who might be killed....
- The unborn have committed no crime.
- Typically, the unborn aren't collateral damage during a war.
- The unborn aren't assaulting me, so killing in self defense isn't necessary.

 

[Underhill]

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.)

Biden is a rodeo clown. The president being the cowboy and congress the bull. After all, 7 seconds of congress working with the president sounds about right for this term...

 

[Underhill]

I just don't buy the notion that a fetus is a human being. Certainly not early in a pregnancy. The tricky part, from a legal perspective, is determining when it becomes a person. I think the supreme court had the right idea in Roe v Wade. It should be progressively more difficult to get an abortion the longer you wait. This makes sense to me.

The worst part is, there has been a solution on the table for a while now. The day after pill. If people truly believed abortion is murder they should be handing these pills out on street corners. But for some reason what they believe is murder is not worth stopping if it means they might be seen as empowering premarital sex. Of course this kind of logic is absurd. If people were empowered by contraception, they wouldn't need abortions.

 

[columbus]

Everyone starts from politically humble beginnings.....unless one is a Kennedy.

Do you know what "Bush" means?
In the USA political arena?
Tom

 

[Draka]

The unborn differ from other humans who might be killed....
- The unborn have committed no crime.
- Typically, the unborn aren't collateral damage during a war.
- The unborn aren't assaulting me, so killing in self defense isn't necessary.

The unborn have committed no crime (even though committing a crime isn't an argument for killing someone)

The unborn may well be collateral damage as pregnant women are collateral damage.

The last one is the catcher though...The assault. If a woman's health or life is endangered by carrying the pregnancy then the mere fact of the fetus being in the uterus could be considered an unintended assault upon the woman. So just because one doesn't assault you, doesn't mean it doesn't do the equivalent to the woman it is inside of.

Now, all this, of course, also hinges on certain descriptions. What, exactly, is a human being and what makes it so? What constitutes human life and why those indicators?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know what "Bush" means?
In the USA political arena?
Tom

If Hillary wins, there'll be another bush in the White House?

 

[Revoltingest]

....though committing a crime isn't an argument for killing someone)

Actually, committing a heinous crime is a good reason to kill (execute) someone (my opposition notwithstanding).

The unborn may well be collateral damage as pregnant women are collateral damage.

But that's a red herring.
That unborn babies might die in collateral damage in war isn't justification for their purposeful killing in other circumstances.

The last one is the catcher though...The assault. If a woman's health or life is endangered by carrying the pregnancy then the mere fact of the fetus being in the uterus could be considered an unintended assault upon the woman. So just because one doesn't assault you, doesn't mean it doesn't do the equivalent to the woman it is inside of.

Abortion to preserve the life of the mother hasn't yet come up in this thread (that I've seen).
Does Carson oppose abortion in this thornier case?l

Now, all this, of course, also hinges on certain descriptions. What, exactly, is a human being and what makes it so? What constitutes human life and why those indicators?

Of course, Carson's definition of a "human being", & his criteria for when one acquires the rights of a delivered baby would differ from mine.
I can't defend his premises....only conclusions drawn therefrom.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I think it's reasonable for someone to want abortion banned pretty much always if they truly believe a fetus is an actual person immediately upon conception. If you view every abortion as murdering a baby, I don't think it's too far fetched to also say rape victims should be denied the right to murder another human being. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I can understand that this fits with his other views on abortion. I would be worried if he said that "abortion is murder" and then said "rape victims can go ahead and murder their children though." It would be inconstant.

 

[whereismynotecard]

If Hillary wins, there'll be another bush in the White House?

Not if she shaves/waxes.

 

[columbus]

Not if she shaves/waxes.

I hope the mods ban you for putting that image in my head!

Tom

 

[whereismynotecard]

I hope the mods ban you for putting that image in my head!

Tom

Sorry, Tom. Though I have been banned for less in the past.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not if she shaves/waxes.

Hmmm....I don't know what her agenda regarding that is.
Fortunately, I've enuf other reasons to vote for someone else to avoid investigating that issue.

Ew.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I'm going to miss Obama no matter what. I've never had a birthday buddy president before, and probably never will again. :'(

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

I agree that it's a consistent position TO A POINT, but I'd be interested in what his policies or thoughts are on (for example) sex education in schools, or access to contraception.

 

[katiemygirl]

"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.

Do you think that Roe V Wade should stand as it is? Do you realize how many unborn children are aborted for the sake of convenience? Because the mother couldn't be bothered raising a child? Millions!! You're okay with that? You think we should just keep aborting babies?

People talk about a mother's rights. How about the little baby's rights? Who represents him/her? Who even cares?

Yes, if Hillary becomes our next President, things will stay the same. Millions more unborn children will be aborted.

Your ugly little green smiley face says it all. You think that's okay. I think it's terribly sad.

 

[Underhill]

Do you think that Roe V Wade should stand as it is? Do you realize how many unborn children are aborted for the sake of convenience? Because the mother couldn't be bothered raising a child? Millions!! You're okay with that? You think we should just keep aborting babies?

People talk about a mother's rights. How about the little baby's rights? Who represents him/her? Who even cares?

Yes, if Hillary becomes our next President, things will stay the same. Millions more unborn children will be aborted.

Your ugly little green smiley face says it all. You think that's okay. I think it's terribly sad.

It doesn't matter who is elected, abortion policy isn't going to change.

Early in Bushes term republicans controlled the house, senate and white house. It wasn't even on the agenda. Nobody wants to touch the issue with a ten foot pole.

 

[Valjean]

Do you think that Roe V Wade should stand as it is? Do you realize how many unborn children are aborted for the sake of convenience? Because the mother couldn't be bothered raising a child? Millions!! You're okay with that? You think we should just keep aborting babies?

People talk about a mother's rights. How about the little baby's rights? Who represents him/her? Who even cares?

Yes, if Hillary becomes our next President, things will stay the same. Millions more unborn children will be aborted.

Your ugly little green smiley face says it all. You think that's okay. I think it's terribly sad.

Are we aborting babies, or are we aborting foetuses? What qualities justify moral consideration?
Are foetuses self-aware? Are they sentient? Do they have self-interest? Do they anticipate futurity?
How are they different from a tumor or tapeworm? "Potential?" -- are we protecting an abstract?