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

[fated]

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 was furthering the discussion, rather than stonewalling.

 

[KarateCowboy]

What you are doing is trying to get people to reason down to why the unborn are different. Typically they'll then choose an arbitrary fetal age after which abortion should be illegal. First, most of the things they quote as facts, aren't really facts, but guesses, often ignoring any contrary evidence, and second, they are beside the point, if killing humans is wrong, even if the person is unwanted, as in the case of the homeless man.

Tell me about it. Like Nazi's, slaveholders, and other groups, they try to come up with reasons why they are less than human. "Oh, they're different". See those Jews there? Their heads aren't as big as ours!", or "Those negroes, they look like monkeys!". Same thing. Same algorithm, different variables.

 

[fated]

Tell me about it. Like Nazi's, slaveholders, and other groups, they try to come up with reasons why they are less than human. "Oh, they're different". See those Jews there? Their heads aren't as big as ours!", or "Those negroes, they look like monkeys!". Same thing. Same algorithm, different variables.

True true:


For anyone interested: You get used to the discussion by doing it, and listening to others do it, sometimes you learn something.

Defend your right and the correct nature of choosing an "opinion" or "truth" that selects the option of minimizing evil, that is, murder of the innocent, and the right of society to do likewise. Well done, even if a disagreement still exists, your position should seem at least logical.

Anything else, cowboy?

 

[TooCurious]

Forcing a medical procedure is very different than not allowing one.

The "medical procedure" question is irrelevant; you have claimed that we, as a society, deem it more important to avoid death ("murder," by your terminology) than to avoid forcing someone to undergo an unwanted physical experience ("discomfort," as you put it) -- and sufficiently more important that we should legally remove the second person's ability to choose. If that were the case, then the state would be able to force a person to donate blood, tissue, or redundant organs to a patient who would die without them, regardless of the donor's wishes. Carrying a child to term involves a great deal more in the way of short-term and long-term consequences than does giving blood. Pregnancy can wreak permanent changes on a woman's physiology and body chemistry, and even though the risk of serious injury or death in childbirth is greatly reduced in modern first-world countries, it does not completely disappear.

If the state cannot force a person to undergo fifteen minutes' pain and discomfort to donate a pint of blood to save a person's life, how can it reasonably force a person to undergo a months-long and painful process culminating in hours of agony and leaving permanent physical changes in its wake, to save a person's life?

 

[TooCurious]

You need to come back with more than one sentence and inject more than personal comments in order to receive my formal reply. You have not supported anything you've mentioned. You are only dealing with your own opinions.

I will not retract anything with regards to politicians and women's rights. Their actions speak for themselves. If this were a debate class, you would have gotten an F. But, don't feel bad, most politicians wouldn't pass a debate class either. But, you get an A for sound biting each piece of what I said and reconstructing it outside of any semblance of its original context.

I find it unfortunate that you deemed my reply objectionably succinct. I shall endeavor to be more loquacious in my future correspondence with you. I am, however, somewhat confusedby your claim that I "reconstructed [your post] outside of any semblance of its original context." Did I fail to quote your post in its entirety? If so, it was entirely inadvertent on my part. I responded point-by-point to what I perceived as problematic statements. I answered your question about endangered animals completely, if succinctly (or was that query not, in fact, a genuine request for information, but mere hyperbole?), and I endeavored to provide explanations for some of your "observations," since you seemed to be using them to arrive at unsubstantiated conclusions. I requested support for your allegation of the insincerity of those politicians who work to protect women's reproductive rights (ironic, in fact, since you accuse me in this post of not supporting my statements, when one of those statements was a request that you support yours).

With which, specifically, of my statements did you take issue? Was it the suggestion that unplanned pregnancies can cause physical and psychological trauma to women? Or perhaps my observation that effective contraception successfully prevents unplanned pregnancies? Maybe it was my assertion that a woman who finds herself in the unenviable position of having an unplanned pregnancy might, after the situation has been resolved, take measures to help avoid a repeat of that state of affairs? I am at a loss to determine which of these are unsupported opinions. Perhaps you can shed some light on my confusion? Surely this post has been verbose enough not to offend your sensibilities.

 

[cantata]

You can't ask a fetus. That may seem like the point to you, but the problem is you can't just kill people because they can't defend themselves and aren't valued, and call that a peaceful society.

Suppose a homeless man is killed painlessly in a forest reserve. He never has a chance to say he doesn't want to die, and no one desired him. This situation is very similar.

No, assume he was terminated by a hiker.

The bum was in sleeping on the path or something. He blew him away with an RPG so he wouldn't have to move him. No other damage was done.

Can you actually explain to me why this would be wrong?

The only problem that I can see is that other homeless men who like to hang out in forest reserves will consequently fear for their lives. That's the main reason that I wouldn't advocate such behaviour, and that I would also support attempts to catch the perpetrator and incarcerate him/her (especially as I suspect that someone who behaves like this is probably mentally unstable and poses an ongoing danger to themselves and others).

No such similar problems exist in the case of the termination of pregnancy.

 

[Soul_Golem]

I find it unfortunate that you deemed my reply objectionably succinct. I shall endeavor to be more loquacious in my future correspondence with you. I am, however, somewhat confusedby your claim that I "reconstructed [your post] outside of any semblance of its original context." Did I fail to quote your post in its entirety? If so, it was entirely inadvertent on my part. I responded point-by-point to what I perceived as problematic statements. I answered your question about endangered animals completely, if succinctly (or was that query not, in fact, a genuine request for information, but mere hyperbole?), and I endeavored to provide explanations for some of your "observations," since you seemed to be using them to arrive at unsubstantiated conclusions. I requested support for your allegation of the insincerity of those politicians who work to protect women's reproductive rights (ironic, in fact, since you accuse me in this post of not supporting my statements, when one of those statements was a request that you support yours).

With which, specifically, of my statements did you take issue? Was it the suggestion that unplanned pregnancies can cause physical and psychological trauma to women? Or perhaps my observation that effective contraception successfully prevents unplanned pregnancies? Maybe it was my assertion that a woman who finds herself in the unenviable position of having an unplanned pregnancy might, after the situation has been resolved, take measures to help avoid a repeat of that state of affairs? I am at a loss to determine which of these are unsupported opinions. Perhaps you can shed some light on my confusion? Surely this post has been verbose enough not to offend your sensibilities.

I don't mean to be rude, but I want to be honest. I am very confused how you cannot interpret my original post to simply be a brief assertion of what abortion is. I am also confused by the above two paragraphs as to what exactly you expect. My original post was to explain what abortion is to the person who started this thread. I did not deem anything in my original post to need any additional information other than what I put forth. Maybe I assume that other people know too much, but this entire thread is all a very common exchange on this issue. Your responses to my post are only your opinions. I cannot argue against your opinions. Those are yours to have, and I cannot debate whether or not your opinions are your opinions.

I notice that you seem to be defending the pro-choice position by continually bringing up unwanted pregnancy. My position on this firstly is that there are far too many unwanted pregnancies for that to be justification for abortion. Secondly, pregnancy is entirely voluntary. Thirdly, the truth of the matter is that when people have unprotected sex and do not take into account the would-be child they are only doing it for selfish enjoyment. Fourthly, I do not even begin to comprehend how sex can be enjoyable if you are thinking in the back of your mind that abortion will bail you out if a pregnancy will occur. Fifthly, it is inevitable that the woman is going to get pregnant during unprotected sex.

Anyway, I don't think you seem too impressed with my arguments, but at the same time I fail to see where you have made any real counterpoints or arguments.

Additionally, what would it take to make the pro-choicers happy? They already have most of the choices they want to be allowed to make available to them.

I got to slide out of here for an hour. I have to attend an online chat for one of my online classes. I too will try to appeal to you more adequately in the future of this thread. I guess what seems easily said to me may seem vague to others.

 

[TooCurious]

I don't mean to be rude, but I want to be honest. I am very confused how you cannot interpret my original post to simply be a brief assertion of what abortion is.

That's precisely what it was: an assertion. Or, to be more accurate, a series of assertions, not supported by evidence. In other words, opinions.

I am also confused by the above two paragraphs as to what exactly you expect. My original post was to explain what abortion is to the person who started this thread.

Now I'm confused. You did not appear to be defining what abortion is; I would imagine if you had, your post would have been much shorter. "Abortion is a medical procedure in which a pregnancy is terminated."

I did not deem anything in my original post to need any additional information other than what I put forth.

You claimed, among other things, that politicians who work to protect women's reproductive rights are insincere in their motivations. I think that requires additional support, if you expect the reader to accept your claim.

Maybe I assume that other people know too much, but this entire thread is all a very common exchange on this issue. Your responses to my post are only your opinions. I cannot argue against your opinions. Those are yours to have, and I cannot debate whether or not your opinions are your opinions.

Just as your posts have contained your opinions. However, one can discuss the premises on which opinions are based, and whether those premises accurately reflect reality. People do that all the time here in Ethics & Morality.

I notice that you seem to be defending the pro-choice position by continually bringing up unwanted pregnancy. My position on this firstly is that there are far too many unwanted pregnancies for that to be justification for abortion.

If I was confused before, I'm completely baffled now. How can the fact that there are many unwanted pregnancies be taken as an argument against the legality of abortion?

Secondly, pregnancy is entirely voluntary.

This is completely and absolutely false. Consenting to sexual intercourse is not equivalent to consenting to pregnancy. Even if you were going to try to claim that it were, women can and do become pregnant as a result of rape.

Thirdly, the truth of the matter is that when people have unprotected sex and do not take into account the would-be child they are only doing it for selfish enjoyment.

Even if we take this statement to be the case, how does this lead to the conclusion that a woman who does this should be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will?

Fourthly, I do not even begin to comprehend how sex can be enjoyable if you are thinking in the back of your mind that abortion will bail you out if a pregnancy will occur.

This is unlikely to be foremost in anyone's mind during the sexual act.

Fifthly, it is inevitable that the woman is going to get pregnant during unprotected sex.

I don't know that I would say it's "inevitable," but I would agree that it's a major risk -- which is why it is so important to ensure that affordable, effective birth control, and accurate information about birth control, are and remain available to all women.

Anyway, I don't think you seem too impressed with my arguments, but at the same time I fail to see where you have made any real counterpoints or arguments.

I approach law from the following perspective: It is only legitimate to pass a law restricting or removing a personal freedom if there is a sufficiently compelling reason to do so. In the United States, the preservation of one person's life is not legally considered a sufficiently compelling reason to force another person to surrender control over what happens to his or her body and its parts.

Additionally, what would it take to make the pro-choicers happy? They already have most of the choices they want to be allowed to make available to them.

For one thing, we'd like it if certain groups would stop trying to take away those choices and those rights. Many of us would also like to ensure that young people are provided with accurate information about and affordable access to birth control, in order to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus make fewer abortions necessary. Unfortunately, many (though certainly not all) people and groups who wish to remove the legal right to abortion also wish to impede access to birth control and education about birth control.

 

[fated]

The "medical procedure" question is irrelevant; you have claimed that we, as a society, deem it more important to avoid death ("murder," by your terminology) than to avoid forcing someone to undergo an unwanted physical experience ("discomfort," as you put it) -- and sufficiently more important that we should legally remove the second person's ability to choose. If that were the case, then the state would be able to force a person to donate blood, tissue, or redundant organs to a patient who would die without them, regardless of the donor's wishes. Carrying a child to term involves a great deal more in the way of short-term and long-term consequences than does giving blood. Pregnancy can wreak permanent changes on a woman's physiology and body chemistry, and even though the risk of serious injury or death in childbirth is greatly reduced in modern first-world countries, it does not completely disappear.

If the state cannot force a person to undergo fifteen minutes' pain and discomfort to donate a pint of blood to save a person's life, how can it reasonably force a person to undergo a months-long and painful process culminating in hours of agony and leaving permanent physical changes in its wake, to save a person's life?

Well, you are still comparing apples and oranges.

In one case you are discussing an edict to force a procedure.

And in the other you are discussing efforts to abolish a procedure.

The state of "being pregnant" is unique, and trying to make an equivalence the way you are trying to disregards the existence of another human whose life is at stake.

 

[fated]

Can you actually explain to me why this would be wrong?

The only problem that I can see is that other homeless men who like to hang out in forest reserves will consequently fear for their lives. That's the main reason that I wouldn't advocate such behaviour, and that I would also support attempts to catch the perpetrator and incarcerate him/her (especially as I suspect that someone who behaves like this is probably mentally unstable and poses an ongoing danger to themselves and others).

No such similar problems exist in the case of the termination of pregnancy.

Many people believe a life, especially a human life, has value.

 

[Soul_Golem]

For one thing, we'd like it if certain groups would stop trying to take away those choices and those rights.

They have never been called rights before the modern era of abortion's industrialization. Pro-lifers will never stop finding ways to end abortion, and if you read the news you would know we are winning. In the end, the child will be the only legal recourse a woman has. I think a woman who gets an abortion is a coward, because she isn't brave enough to raise her child and be a parent. And that is not just an opinion. How many millions of fetuses must be thrown away into landfills to prove that is a fact? At least someone who chooses life can look at a photo of their baby, but someone who does not choose life might be offended by such a photo. I don't have to write a book to defend life, all I have to say is show me how you treat a baby and I can look and see who is on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[TooCurious]

Well, you are still comparing apples and oranges.

I really don't see how.

In one case you are discussing an edict to force a procedure.

And in the other you are discussing efforts to abolish a procedure.

In both cases, you're discussing the removal of a mentally-competent person's right to make medical decisions about his or her own body.

The state of "being pregnant" is unique, and trying to make an equivalence the way you are trying to disregards the existence of another human whose life is at stake.

If we treat pregnancy as a special case, my argument gets even stronger, because in the case of forced blood or organ donation, the person receiving the blood and tissues is not living inside the donor's body without his/her consent. That is an even greater violation of the woman's rights than simply having a part of her removed and given to another person.

They have never been called rights before the modern era of abortion's industrialization.

There are plenty of rights that were not recognized as such in the past. And do you really believe that women weren't seeking and having abortions before "the modern era of abortion's industrialization," as you put it? Because they were -- but the only options they had were unsterile, unprofessional, and potentially life-threatening.

Pro-lifers will never stop finding ways to end abortion, and if you read the news you would know we are winning.

Oh, I'm well aware of the recent incursions against a woman's reproductive choice, and they terrify and sicken me.

In the end, the child will be the only legal recourse a woman has.

I certainly hope our society never again reaches a point where women can be legally forced to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will.

I think a woman who gets an abortion is a coward,

That's your opinion; you don't have the right to enshrine it into law.

because she isn't brave enough to raise her child and be a parent.

Some people aren't ready to handle being parents. It's a simple fact.

And that is not just an opinion.

Explain how it is more than exactly that.

How many millions of fetuses must be thrown away into landfills to prove that is a fact? At least someone who chooses life can look at a photo of their baby, but someone who does not choose life might be offended by such a photo. I don't have to write a book to defend life, all I have to say is show me how you treat a baby and I can look and see who is on the wrong side of the issue.

Appeals to emotion are insufficient reason to take a way a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. I'm sorry you feel the need to make such harsh judgments about women who find themselves in a terrifying situation.

I want to explain one thing to you. You know how wrong you feel it is to remove a fetus from a pregnant woman, killing it in the process? I feel every bit as strongly that it is wrong to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy and undergo labor and childbirth. The thought frankly horrifies me.

Instead of judging women who are in such straits, can't we agree to focus on preventing women from finding themselves in a situation where they see abortion as a necessary option? Comprehensive sex education and effective, readily-available birth control go a long way toward reducing the number of abortions; let's work to make sure these are available to all women.

 

[fated]

I really don't see how.



In both cases, you're discussing the removal of a mentally-competent person's right to make medical decisions about his or her own body.



If we treat pregnancy as a special case, my argument gets even stronger, because in the case of forced blood or organ donation, the person receiving the blood and tissues is not living inside the donor's body without his/her consent. That is an even greater violation of the woman's rights than simply having a part of her removed and given to another person.

In order for your argument to work, I have to accept that being pregnant is justification for homicide.

You can't prove that abortion isn't killing a human, and I have every reason to believe that it homicide.

You are saying that it is justifiable because the human is trespassing, though it had no choice in the matter, and pregnancy is a unique circumstance.

So, between us, we have two choices, your position, which might be murder, and mine, which cannot result in murder.

Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

 

[Soul_Golem]

http://yaz-us.com/home.jsp

 

[TooCurious]

In order for your argument to work, I have to accept that being pregnant is justification for homicide.

Only if you've got a really unique definition of "homicide."

You can't prove that abortion isn't killing a human,

I didn't say it wasn't.

and I have every reason to believe that it homicide.

What reason is that?

You are saying that it is justifiable because the human is trespassing, though it had no choice in the matter, and pregnancy is a unique circumstance.

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

So, between us, we have two choices, your position, which might be murder, and mine, which cannot result in murder.

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

To be somewhat less pedantic, you're begging the question: your argument assumes that abortion is wrong ("murder"), and then goes on to use that assumption to prove that abortion is wrong.

Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

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?

 

[The Princess Bride]

Isn´t that bigot to demonstrate against abortion and at the same time to support death penalty?

It's bigotted to not allow someone to victimize more people?

 

[fated]

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?

We wish to create a homicide averse society, that doesn't engage in the possibility of murder based purely on opinion*.

Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

*Opinion in this case is free to be what you consider justification for homicide.

 

[TooCurious]

We wish to create a homicide averse society, that doesn't engage in the possibility of murder based purely on opinion*.

Why would I and for what reason should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder?

*Opinion in this case is free to be what you consider justification for homicide.

I already explained why suggesting that abortion might be "murder" is a circular argument.

Don't we also want to live in an denial-of-freedoms-averse society? That's a bit awkward phrasing, but I'm trying to avoid the sort of hyperbolic language that could be suggested by depriving someone of control over their own bodies, and forcing someone to accept the presence of another person in her reproductive organs without her consent.

None of my "opinions" have anything to do with "justification for homicide." You're comparing apples and oranges. After all, pregnancy is a unique case, and can't be compared to killing a person living independently of anyone else's body.

 

[BlackSabb]

All living humans are developing mentally, because all humans have the ability to learn and change. So the criminal's life is "aborted" since they were in the process of still living. Or maybe they were making progress at becoming a better person? *wink*

Seriously, though, just because you didn't bother to look and see the OP was not a native English speaker, that makes it OK for you to make fun of them? Regardless of your intent, that is what you did. And it still isn't nice.

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.

 

[cantata]

Many people believe a life, especially a human life, has value.

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)?