Michael Ejercito
2024-09-02 01:25:24 UTC
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.
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.