Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > talk.abortion > #74927
| From | Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | talk.abortion, sci.med.cardiology, alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.israel, uk.legal, talk.politics.misc |
| Subject | More Election Ad Deceit in NH |
| Date | 2024-09-01 18:25 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vb3466$1mjnl$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/09/01/more-election-ad-deceit-in-nh/ More Election Ad Deceit in NH September 1, 2024 / Jack Marshall Former Senator Kelly Ayotte is the GOP candidate for Governor of New Hampshire. She is also one of the long-time Roe v. Wade opponents who is being targeted by pro-abortion groups in attack ads. If you listen closely, some of the ads reveal the dark and ominous heart of the ‘We Love Abortion!’ movement. I have had to watch one such ad repeatedly while following the Boston Red Sox as they are just-barely contending for a wild card berth. A sad-eyed mother reveals that when she was pregnant, a doctor who checked out the embryo (that was well past the usual legal abortion period in many states including New Hampshire) told the mother that “my baby would not survive.” She goes on to say that Ayotte is so cruel that she would make a mother like me “carry” a baby for months knowing that “it would not survive.” Ayotte supports the current 24 week limit on abortions. There is so much that is intellectually dishonest about the ad and its implied argument. Because of this mother’s unusual dilemma with an unhealthy unborn child, mothers should be allowed to abort healthy, even viable unborn children if they awake one morning and decide, “Eh, this is too much trouble. Time to kill the thing. Thank goodness I hadn’t named her yet!” Is this part of what Ayotte is “cruel” for opposing? More ethically suspicious is the ad’s careful use of the word “survive.” What did the doctor say, exactly? That the baby wouldn’t survive birth? That it wouldn’t survive a month? That it wouldn’t survive childhood, or adolescence? None of us “survive” eventually. What is the difference ethically from aborting a living unborn child because it won’t survive some minimum period of time after it is born, and wanting to kill a child who is diagnosed after birth with a fatal condition? I don’t see any. The mother, meanwhile, frames the issue with her inconvenience and misfortune, as if the life of the unborn child is irrelevant. The doctor might be wrong. I believe that a shot at life, however short, is preferable to no life at all. The anti-Ayotte ad confuses and obscures the real issues in the abortion controversy rather than clarifying them.
Back to talk.abortion | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
More Election Ad Deceit in NH Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> - 2024-09-01 18:25 -0700
Re: More Election Ad Deceit in NH Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> - 2024-09-02 09:01 -0700
Re: More Election Ad Deceit in NH Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> - 2024-09-02 18:28 -0700
Re: More Election Ad Deceit in NH Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> - 2024-09-07 08:28 -0700
Re: More Election Ad Deceit in NH Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@HotMail.com> - 2024-09-07 10:30 -0700
csiph-web