Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

[Cow Poke]

In another thread, a case is alleged that pro-life is relatively new to conservatives.

This article posits that pro-abortion is relatively new to liberals.

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.

Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

The classic version of the Hippocratic Oath contains the words... "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

And here... From the US Department of Health and Human Services / National Library of Medicine: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

[KingsGambit]

It's been on the right longer than gay marriage has on the left.

[rogue06]

It's been on the right longer than gay marriage has on the left.

And that has been very recently (at least here in the U.S.) which makes it odd how fast it became a litmus test for the left.

[Sparko]

Yet when it suits them, the left will cry "but what about the children!!?"

[demi-conservative]

[firstfloor]

In another thread, a case is alleged that pro-life is relatively new to conservatives.

This article posits that pro-abortion is relatively new to liberals.

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.

Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

The classic version of the Hippocratic Oath contains the words... "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

And here... From the US Department of Health and Human Services / National Library of Medicine: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

because of the risk of injury to the woman.

[Cow Poke]

because of the risk of injury to the woman.

So, the left no longer cares about risk of injury to the woman? You're making no sense here, FF.

[firstfloor]

So, the left no longer cares about risk of injury to the woman? You're making no sense here, FF.

Hippocrates is concerned about the woman and her child as a man’s property. That is why the physician needs to be careful about administering anything that might be harmful. There is nothing in this oath about protecting the fetus for its own sake but only because the father’s rights to an heir would be affected.

[Cow Poke]

Hippocrates is concerned about the woman and her child as a man’s property.

You and he were drinking buddies?

That is why the physician needs to be careful about administering anything that might be harmful.

So, you're saying that he would not give a pessary because it might harm the woman? The oldest surviving copy actually explains it's about causing the abortion.

Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

There is nothing in this oath about protecting the fetus for its own sake but only because the father’s rights to an heir would be affected.

A) Where is that in the text?
2) That was only part of the argument, FF. There's also this part....

Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."