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

[KarateCowboy]

I am saying that no human has the right to live inside another human, and consume that human's bodily resources, without her consent.

I see you've decided to try and justify murder.

Murder is specifically the unlawful killing of another person. If abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.

I knew this crap would come up. And this is why abortionists and their supporters are, morally speaking, in the same league as SS troopers. During the Third Reich it was legal to gas Jews. Therefore, it wasn't murder! And I am sure someone like yourself would have no problem watching people brutally murdered just because it is legal under that authority.

Why would I, and for what reason should society, allow legislation that would force a woman to surrender the right to determine what happens to her own body?

She can do whatever she wants with her body so long as she doesn't use it to harm someone else. Since it's a scientific fact that a new person exists after conception, that would be harming them.

 

[Belk]

I see you've decided to try and justify murder.


I knew this crap would come up. And this is why abortionists and their supporters are, morally speaking, in the same league as SS troopers. During the Third Reich it was legal to gas Jews. Therefore, it wasn't murder! And I am sure someone like yourself would have no problem watching people brutally murdered just because it is legal under that authority.



She can do whatever she wants with her body so long as she doesn't use it to harm someone else. Since it's a scientific fact that a new person exists after conception, that would be harming them.

What is a "scientific fact" and how does it differ from a normal fact?

 

[fated]

Let's see where you're at...

On Abortion:
It is a human.
------------->You can't prove otherwise.
Person-hood is arbitrary (opinion).
If your opinion differs from my position note that mine errs on the side of not killing people.
Being pregnant does not justify homocide.
Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

-Being pregnant is not sexist.-

The part with the big "------------->" is what he's trying to point out.

 

[jcook922]

I see you've decided to try and justify murder.


I knew this crap would come up. And this is why abortionists and their supporters are, morally speaking, in the same league as SS troopers. During the Third Reich it was legal to gas Jews. Therefore, it wasn't murder! And I am sure someone like yourself would have no problem watching people brutally murdered just because it is legal under that authority.



She can do whatever she wants with her body so long as she doesn't use it to harm someone else. Since it's a scientific fact that a new person exists after conception, that would be harming them.

I hate how everyone throws the word Justify around. When did people have to justify things to you?

 

[fated]

Certain actions, like killing a human, require that a person have a valid reason for resorting to violence. That could be called the "justification" for the action.

On Abortion:
It is a human.
You can't prove otherwise.
Person-hood is arbitrary (opinion).
------------->Being pregnant does not justify homocide.
If your opinion differs from my position note that mine errs on the side of not killing people.
Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

 

[STevensSA]

I will go on record as saying that I am equally opposed to both.

 

[jcook922]

Certain actions, like killing a human, require that a person have a valid reason for resorting to violence. That could be called the "justification" for the action.

For an issue that isn't as split down the middle as this one, sure. But I would have to say that neither pro-life nor pro-choice holds the majority on this subject, thus they don't need to justify it.

 

[fated]

For an issue that isn't as split down the middle as this one, sure. But I would have to say that neither pro-life nor pro-choice holds the majority on this subject, thus they don't need to justify it.

In the clearinghouse of public idea the point of justification is necessary for people to answer, not simply avoid it and use safety in numbers as a defense. ESPECIALLY at times when the people are divided "down the middle."

 

[fated]

Often times in these discussions, people hold their opinions on abortion so dearly because they are suffering from the after effects of one. While it may seem barbaric, it might help to bring them back to that moment, when they chose to have an abortion, generally for the purposes of removing from themselves the responsibility to a baby, and thus, killing the baby to rid themselves of that responsibility. I think at least, it would be better to also, remind them that God loves them and their life is still valuable.

 

[Belk]

Often times in these discussions, people hold their opinions on abortion so dearly because they are suffering from the after effects of one. While it may seem barbaric, it might help to bring them back to that moment, when they chose to have an abortion, generally for the purposes of removing from themselves the responsibility to a baby, and thus, killing the baby to rid themselves of that responsibility. I think at least, it would be better to also, remind them that God loves them and their life is still valuable.

I can guarantee you that none of the men arguing with you are suffering the after affects of an abortion.

 

[TooCurious]

I see you've decided to try and justify murder.

What I'm more interested in is seeing you try to justify emotionally-charged hyperbole in what could otherwise be a reasonable discussion.

I knew this crap would come up. And this is why abortionists and their supporters are, morally speaking, in the same league as SS troopers. During the Third Reich it was legal to gas Jews. Therefore, it wasn't murder! And I am sure someone like yourself would have no problem watching people brutally murdered just because it is legal under that authority.

First, I have very specific standards as to what constitutes a legitimate authority. I don't just accept the rule of the stronger over the weaker.

Second, you have just falsely accused me of supporting genocide. You owe me an apology.

Third, I'm pretty sure that under one of the corollaries of Godwin's Law, you've just lost this argument.

She can do whatever she wants with her body so long as she doesn't use it to harm someone else. Since it's a scientific fact that a new person exists after conception, that would be harming them.

And if she perceives the presence of this intruder in her body as harming her? This is a valid stance, as pregnancy enacts significant, and in some cases, permanent changes on a woman's physiology and biochemistry.

No person has the right to occupy another person's body without her consent. You have not responded to this point in a meaningful way (meaning without hyperbole and cries of "murder!").

 

[TooCurious]

Often times in these discussions, people hold their opinions on abortion so dearly because they are suffering from the after effects of one. While it may seem barbaric, it might help to bring them back to that moment, when they chose to have an abortion, generally for the purposes of removing from themselves the responsibility to a baby, and thus, killing the baby to rid themselves of that responsibility. I think at least, it would be better to also, remind them that God loves them and their life is still valuable.

I've never had an abortion. Please stop poisoning the well with your circumstantial ad hominem.

 

[cantata]

What is the justification for this belief?

What value does a life have, independent of its quality (or its owner's desire for its continuation)?

I'd just love an answer to this.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Ah, now you have switched to a different argument. This one relies on medical science for a viability date, and my trust in personal opinions as to at what arbitrary point an unborn can be killed. Who was appointed life or death arbiter over these unborn humans?

I just meant that unborn humans don't really avoid anything for most of the pregnancy. Born humans have the ability to avoid things, unborn humans mainly don't. You claimed that, because born humans avoid death more than they avoid discomfort, elective abortion should be illegal. But you are taking a trait of born humans and applying it to unborn humans who do not have this trait, then using that trait to make a judgment call about unborn humans. I think that we should look at the traits unborn humans actually have at the period where they are in danger of abortion, rather than the traits that born (usually adult) humans have.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original argument. I thought you were saying that, because humans avoid death more than they avoid discomfort, we should not allow elective abortion. Am I missing a part of your point, or wrong about anything?

 

[WatersMoon110]

You're entitled to have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your opinion is that murder is wrong. WatersMoon's opinion is that murder is OK. The fact is that 'person' and 'human' are synonymous. However some people insist on making up their own definitions, IE, making up their own facts, so they can justify things like murder. Normal people call that lying.

I don't feel that legal murder is acceptable. Legally, murder is the killing of one legal person by another legal person, with malice aforethought (in the US born humans, and corporations, are legal "people"). However, in the USA, elective abortion is not currently illegal (and unborn humans aren't currently legal persons), so abortion is not "murder" in a legal sense.

I understand that you want to use the term "murder" because you feel that abortion is something very bad (in the slang definition of murder, as is "The traffic is murder out there."). However, I feel that it might further the discussion if you could agree to just say "abortion" or even just say "killing". "Killing" is accurate, since abortion kills an unborn human. And it even conveys the idea that you don't personally agree with abortion. Wouldn't that suite you as a proper term?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Pro-choice politicians ignore the fact that abortion can cause anything from infertility to death, and all the while they say that they want to decrease the number of abortions even while the government provides funding to the abortion industry. They SAY what people want to hear, but what they DO is hypocritical.

There are interesting claims:
1. Politicians ignore the fact that abortion can cause anything from infertility to death.
2. The government provides funding to the abortion industry.

However, you neglect to mention that the risks of infertility and death from abortion are very small. The Guttmacher Institute has this to say:

SAFETY OF ABORTION

• The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[12]
• Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.[13]
• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.[13]
• In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women’s mental health.[14]
• The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.[15]
• Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.[16]
• Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher.[17 ]

And you fail to mention that, while some organizations that offer elective abortion do get government funding, they are legally restricted in how they can spend this funding. No Federal funding can go to pay for the majority of elective abortions (abortions for rape pregnancies and life saving abortion can get funding), and most States also prohibit funding from going to abortions. From the ACLU Website:

Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.

 

[WatersMoon110]

And, by the way, I yielded that we had opposite opinions, so that we could further the discussion. With two opinions, we need to choose the one that minimize the wrong possible, and clearly results in minimizing the possibility of [death]. The person hood argument can be similarly distilled.

If you don't wish to discuss the issue of legal personhood, I'm certainly willing to leave the topic alone. I don't consider it really relevant to the discussion, since no legal person has the right to use another legal person's body against that person's will.

So, I feel that we have reached an impasse. It is my opinion that the right to control one's body trumps another human's right to live using that body. It is your opinion that one human's right to live trumps another human's right to control their body.

Typically liberal feminist philosophy then sings a "whoa is me song, about the oppression of motherhood." I'm ready for the song.

I don't know what sort of liberal feminist philosophers you hang out with, but modern feminism (and all the modern feminists I know) embraces motherhood, but emphasizes that parenting should be a choice, not forced upon anyone.

 

[The Princess Bride]

I hate how everyone throws the word Justify around. When did people have to justify things to you?

Pardon me friend, but I do believe when a person engages themself in an online debate, does that not mean they state their stance and then justify it when questioned? It would appear that if someone did not WANT to justify, they would simply leave the thread, no?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Firstly, that whimsical definition of your own imagination of "abortion" is nonsense. It exists only in your mind, it is not real. An adult criminal is not "aborted" as all his/her body and organs are fully grown. Sure, you can go to magic land where an adult is still like a baby that is growing, learning, playing etc and unicorns are roaming around freely. But here in the real world, an adult is fully formed, fully grown and developed. So please, no fantasy land.

And I don't care whether the OP was not native English. It was and is a dumb question. To ask what's the difference between abortion of fetuses inutero and the execution of criminals is ridiculous.

I suppose you think that the other question on this same forum asking what is wrong with incestual relations is a good question too? I suppose if I criticise that unbelievably ridiculous question, you'll have a go at me for that too? I can't believe some of the dumb questions people are putting up around here.

Some people need stern words spoken about their posts around here. Like that other thread, "If God is against incest, why did he create people that want to have relations with their family members?" If more people wrote sternly, the OP would soon get the message that "hey, I'm obviously out of whack", and maybe he would do something about it.

I am helping this poster to come back to reality. You are just feeding his ridiculousness by pandering to him, and not giving any rebuke for asking such a stupid question. Stop being so politically correct. Call a spade a spade, and a stupid question a stupid question.

I don't think that it is a stupid question to ask, "Why are some people who are against abortion for the death penalty?" which is basically what the OP said. And I understand that, because the OP is a non-native English speaker, he used the word "abort" to refer to the termination of the life of a born human. Personally, I can see his confusion, since there are many English words that can be used to mean "killed" and how was he to know that in English "abort" is generally only used to refer to the killing of unborn human if he isn't fluent in the language?

This isn't the thread to talk about incest, but I also feel that the laws against it are a bit pointless and based on religious belief instead of any ethical argument. I don't think that it is stupid to discuss that either (talking about the "ick" thread, not the "God made..." thread).

If you feel that the discussions in certain threads are "dumb" why don't you not reply in those threads and not contribute to the discussion going on within them? How does name calling and complaining help to make this forum more mature?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Pardon me friend, but I do believe when a person engages themself in an online debate, does that not mean they state their stance and then justify it when questioned? It would appear that if someone did not WANT to justify, they would simply leave the thread, no?

I believe this was a response to the comment that people in this thread who happen to be Pro-Choice are trying to "justify murder". I believe the poster was saying that they feel that people who are Pro-Choice are not trying to justify anything, because there is nothing they feel guilty about.

I feel that an online debate calls for stating one's opinion and then backing it up. I wouldn't use the word "justify" because I feel it implies that the person feels guilty for feeling that way, and is trying to avoid dealing with the reason for that guilt. As in, "The young boy tried to justify why he had hit his sister." I feel that "justify" is a somewhat loaded term, and should be avoided in a civil discussion.