Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[fated]

Human rights, are set of "norms" the humans need to peacefully coexist.

 

[WatersMoon110]

No, unnatural procedures need not be legislated in the same way, you are comparing apples and oranges. Blood and organs don't naturally transfer themselves between individuals.

Diseases naturally transfer themselves between individuals. Because something is "natural" that means we have to allow it to happen?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Human rights, are set of "norms" the humans need to peacefully coexist.

You mean, like Social Contract theory?

 

[fated]

No. It is "ok" because the unborn human is inside of the woman's body. It is not ethical "to kill things because they are inconvenient" but it is also unethical to take away the right to bodily integrity from anyone.

And I view it as my responsibility to do my best to debate about everyone's right to have control of their own body.

And yet you have chosen a side: to protect the life of the unborn human by taking away the rights of the pregnant woman.

Because the other option is to take away control of their own bodies from pregnant women. As soon as there is a way to immediately remove a non-viable unborn human from a pregnant woman's body without killing it, there will no longer be a need for elective abortion.

Actually, when it comes to an unintentional pregnancy, it is just as likely that an adult woman will suffer mental trauma from giving birth as it would be if she got an abortion.
Source

Not being an abortion doctor, I don't know. But I do know someone who used to counsel women choosing to abort (the day before the procedure), and it was her job to make sure that the abortion was her choice, and make sure the woman was certain about her choice.

The "body integrity" philosophy is insufficient to justify killing people.

 

[fated]

Diseases naturally transfer themselves between individuals. Because something is "natural" that means we have to allow it to happen?

Actually, you'll have to make you comment relevant, I'm not sure how this comment is anything but an evasion.

1)Killing people isn't natural.
Are you saying that killing is OK?

 

[WatersMoon110]

The "body integrity" philosophy is insufficient to justify killing people.

Taking rights away from people is not justifiable! Not even to prevent death!

 

[fated]

You mean, like Social Contract theory?

Something more like applied human experience.

 

[fated]

Taking rights away from people is not justifiable! Not even to prevent death!

What are human rights?

Like the right to not be killed?

To what can you compare pregnancy?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Actually, you'll have to make you comment relevant, I'm not sure how this comment is anything but an evasion.

What am I evading? You implied that, because pregnancy is natural, it should be treated differently than other forms of organ donation. I disagree, because whether something is "natural" or not shouldn't matter.

After all, diseases are natural, but that isn't a reason not to treat them. Likewise, I feel that the very fact of pregnancy being "natural" is not a reason to prevent abortion.

(Also, since humans are a part of nature, so everything we do is by definition "natural".)

Besides, killing people isn't natural.

Killing people is completely natural! Humans are a naturally violent species.

 

[fated]

What am I evading? You implied that, because pregnancy is natural, it should be treated differently than other forms of organ donation. I disagree, because whether something is "natural" or not shouldn't matter.

After all, diseases are natural, but that isn't a reason not to treat them. Likewise, I feel that the very fact of pregnancy being "natural" is not a reason to prevent abortion.

(Also, since humans are a part of nature, so everything we do is by definition "natural".)
Killing people is completely natural! Humans are a naturally violent species.

I'm not sure I can have a discussion involving socially reasonable subject matter with someone who argues in a way that presents murder as something that need not be avoided, or at least the effort made.

 

[jcook922]

And pyschiatrists have a name for that.

Most sane folks would call that cross-referencing instead of relying on biased sources. Say, if I decided CNN was a biased news channel that spreads lies... I would have to compare it to a majority of news channels that say otherwise.

What do I compare the bible to? Well.. Perhaps the fact that there are boatloads of other religions out there, many with holy books of their own, who have the same claim that they are correct while everybody else is wrong.

 

[WatersMoon110]

What are human rights?

Like the right to not be killed?

The right to have control over one's body.

On a side note, I think that the right to life derives from the right to control one's body. That is, that because everyone has the right to control their own body and to kill someone you have to take away this right (usually by forcing foreign objects into someone's body).

I think that abortion is different since the human that dies is simply being removed from the body of another human. If there were a way to immediately remove the unborn human without killing it, I would agree that elective abortion isn't necessary, but there is no such method at this point in time.

To what can you compare pregnancy?

I don't think you can really compare pregnancy to anything else. There really isn't any other case where one human is living inside and off of another human. It has to be viewed as a separate case from almost everything else.

I mean, I think that pregnancy is a bit like organ donation, because one human's organs are keeping another human alive. But organ donations are voluntary, while pregnancy can happen unintentionally.

I think that pregnancy is a little bit like the relationship between a parasite and its host, because only one human is benefiting and the other human often has negative effects. But a parasite is a different species from its host, and usually isn't contracted through something the host willingly participated in (while most pregnancies happen through consensual sex).

Pregnancy is a bit like the relationship a dependent has on its guardian I feel, because one human is responsible for the well being of the other human. But in a dependent/guardian relationship, the dependent can be properly cared for by other adults; while only the body of the pregnant woman can care for an unborn human.

Beyond that, I don't really see too many things that are like pregnancy, and even those three examples don't really come all that close.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I'm not sure I can have a discussion involving socially reasonable subject matter with someone who argues in a way that presents murder as something that need not be avoided, or at least the effort made.

I didn't say that. I will try to refrain from putting words in your mouth if you attempt to refrain from doing the same. Deal?

Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean anyone should do it. Killing people is naturally, but I think that humans should refrain from doing it whenever possible.

 

[fated]

The right to have control over one's body.

On a side note, I think that the right to life derives from the right to control one's body. That is, that because everyone has the right to control their own body and to kill someone you have to take away this right (usually by forcing foreign objects into someone's body).

I think that abortion is different since the human that dies is simply being removed from the body of another human. If there were a way to immediately remove the unborn human without killing it, I would agree that elective abortion isn't necessary, but there is no such method at this point in time.
I don't think you can really compare pregnancy to anything else. There really isn't any other case where one human is living inside and off of another human. It has to be viewed as a separate case from almost everything else.

I mean, I think that pregnancy is a bit like organ donation, because one human's organs are keeping another human alive. But organ donations are voluntary, while pregnancy can happen unintentionally.

I think that pregnancy is a little bit like the relationship between a parasite and its host, because only one human is benefiting and the other human often has negative effects. But a parasite is a different species from its host, and usually isn't contracted through something the host willingly participated in (while most pregnancies happen through consensual sex).

Pregnancy is a bit like the relationship a dependent has on its guardian I feel, because one human is responsible for the well being of the other human. But in a dependent/guardian relationship, the dependent can be properly cared for by other adults; while only the body of the pregnant woman can care for an unborn human.

Beyond that, I don't really see too many things that are like pregnancy, and even those three examples don't really come all that close.

So human life is valuable, unless its not, but only if the human death is desired by the mother.

Still, I don't understand how being pregnant gives one the right to kill, in order to control ones body (although the word "control" here is a bit misplaced... more like influence), that is, in an unnatural way, and end the life of another.

The similarity you use is that of an object being stuck into someone, but of course you admit that pregnancy is different.

So, the problem here seems to be that, I don't think there is sufficient reason for homicide behind the unique state of pregnancy.

 

[PastorJim]

Most sane folks would call that cross-referencing instead of relying on biased sources.

And they would be wrong.

Cross referencing something is merely examining it in comparison to other sources, not the belief that it is unreliable without any evidence that it is unreliable.

Say, if I decided CNN was a biased news channel that spreads lies... I would have to compare it to a majority of news channels that say otherwise.

But first you would have to show evidence that CNN is a biased news channel that spreads lies.

What do I compare the bible to? Well.. Perhaps the fact that there are boatloads of other religions out there, many with holy books of their own, who have the same claim that they are correct while everybody else is wrong.

You understand that we're talking about evidence that the Bible is unreliable, not whether or not the Bible is true, right?

 

[KarateCowboy]

If preserving life were the primary or overriding value in our society, the state would have the right to force a compatible donor to give blood, tissue, or redundant organs to a person with a life-threatening medical condition, even against the donor's will. Fortunately, our society also values the right of an individual to determine what happens to his own body, so this does not happen, and abortion remains an option for women who do not wish to sustain another human with her own body.

Right, except that the right to do what you want with your body stops short of harming another's body. In this case the fetal person.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I didn't say that. I will try to refrain from putting words in your mouth if you attempt to refrain from doing the same. Deal?

Not really. that's basically your argument. Seriously the whole "choice" thing is the most suitable vehicle for deluding oneself into accepting murder.

 

[Soul_Golem]

In regards to the death penalty compared to abortion, the fetus has done nothing to deserve death. Killing the fetus is the same as murder from the pro-life view, and so it is a crime punishable by the death penalty to many (not all) pro-lifers. In regards to the abortion debate I will say only this, if the new, redefined liberals of today were debating the abortion of an endangered animal, would they be so full of debate? It is the abortion industry that politicians really seek to protect, not the welfare or rights of women.

Women suffer mentally and physically for abortions. Most women who get abortions never make the same mistake again, and they don't know what they are getting into when they do. They can be forgiven, but take a woman who gets abortion after abortion and there you have someone who doesn't seem to likely to ever know remorse or repentance. Abortion is a tragedy that most people do not know enough about to make the decision to be pro-life, but that too is changing. Abortion is less common today than when first introduced, and I should add it has ALWAYS been a problem. Abortions have been committed throughout history, the difference today than in the past was that the medical community viewed it as a problem. Today the abortion industry is inappropriately considered part of the medical community.

 

[BlackSabb]

"Aborted" also means "stopped". As in: "The mission was aborted." And it isn't nice to make fun of non-English speakers.

I wasn't making fun on any "non-English speaker" as I didn't know that the OP was non-English.

And secondly, to "abort" something means to stop something that is in progress or development. You "abort" a fetus as it is still developing, you don't "abort" a criminal, that makes no sense whatsoever. Even your own example of "aborting" a mission means something is in progress (a mission) and then you stop it. If a serial killer hunts around for a victim, makes his plans, begins to stalk his prey and then for whatever reason stops his hunt, he has "aborted" his plan. If that serial killer has been caught and is executed, he has not been "aborted". He has been executed. However, if plans are made for his execution and they are then stopped, ironically, it has been "aborted", in this case signifying something has been spared.

You cannot "abort" something not in progress or development. There are plenty of other words to describe the cease of existance, nullification, termination etc of something that is not in progress but an entity in itself, but "abort" is not correct.

Today's good grammar lesson was brought to you by the letter A.

 

[cantata]

Evidently, that's not the case because very few witnesses are disqualified.

In the same way that we presume a witness is reliable until he is shown to be unreliable, we presume that scripture is reliable until it is shown to be unreliable.

You might be interested to learn that eye witness testimony, despite being so popular with jurors, is one of the least reliable forms of evidence that is used in courts of law.

You may be interested to read, for example, this excellent article about the problems with eyewitness testimony. Or this section of the Wikipedia article about witnesses. Each cite several studies which show that witnesses are not nearly as useful as you'd like to think.

Human memory is, unfortunately, painfully flawed.

Human rights, are set of "norms" the humans need to peacefully coexist.

Clearly we do not need a no-abortion norm to peacefully exist.

Right, except that the right to do what you want with your body stops short of harming another's body. In this case the fetal person.

Does the foetus' right to do what it wants with its body stop short of harming its mother's body?

Giving birth always causes physical harm to a mother's body. Really. Tearing, alteration of the figure, infection, stretch marks, scarring, not to mention the excruciating pain involved with giving birth (or dealing with the aftermath of a c-section)... I can't help but feel that a woman is entitled to act in self-defence. She is able to feel these agonies. A first trimester foetus is not.