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

[WatersMoon110]

I don't find the bodily control opinion compelling (first), and it certainly doesn't err on the side of not killing humans.

I don't find the argument "but we must always err on the side of life" to be very compelling either, obviously.

I think the that government has a vested interest in preventing murders and a fundamental and intrinsic responsibility to protecting the right to life.

Whether or not other people agree is beside the point, if the law breaks a human right, it is no law at all, as a government doesn't have the ability to determine if an innocent person has a certain right, especially the right to life, or not.

I believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens. As the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Unborn humans are not born. They are certainly not "naturalized" as the process is very specific and takes longer than nine months. Thus, they are not granted the legal rights given to US citizens.

 

[fated]

I don't find the argument "but we must always err on the side of life" to be very compelling either, obviously.

I believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens. As the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Unborn humans are not born. They are certainly not "naturalized" as the process is very specific and takes longer than nine months. Thus, they are not granted the legal rights given to US citizens.

Their right to be alive isn't given by nor can it be removed by the state.

 

[WatersMoon110]

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

I don't feel that anyone is being "forced to allow" abortion, since the average person doesn't have control over what medical procedures are or are not done. I mean, are Christian Scientists being "forced to allow" heart surgery to happen?

It is legal for parents to spank their children, but I don't approve of such activity. Am I being "forced to allow" it to happen? No. It is just something that goes on, whether I approve of it or not. In fact, I often have to go out of my way just to be aware that such things are going on, because legally disciplining children is something that really is a private matter.

Likewise, abortion is legal because it is considered a private matter between a woman (or couple) and her doctor. Unless one lives or works at/near an abortion clinic, it really isn't happening in their every-day field of perception. To find out about abortion, one has to choose to look for information on it.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Their right to be alive isn't given by nor can it be removed by the state.

What is capital punishment then?

 

[KarateCowboy]

But no one is "shrugging at murder". We don't believe that abortion is "murder". We believe that abortion is sometimes a necessary thing that is legal because there is no immediate option that allows a pregnant women control over her body but doesn't result in the death of an unborn human.

That's like saying that stabbing someone to death isn't murder because the knifeman should be allowed to have control over his own body.

I do not believe that "reasonable" has a specific legal definition, unlike "murder" which is a specific type of crime.

This is emblematic of the inability of your side to acknowledge basic facts and logic. "reasonable" does have a legal definition, and I just gave it to you. Either that, or all my college law profs were lying to me and giving me test questions about made up material. Again we see the heart of the problem: being at odds at the facts. Whether willful or unwitting, it is ignorance that causes these types of conclusions.

This is so frustrating . . .

But if you want to quibble over the meaning of words, so be it. I prefer to use the legal definition of "person" which in the US means "a born human or a corporation".

It's not quibbling because if you want to think critically you must have useful, clear terms with which to communicate.

However, I feel that "innocent" implies that something/someone be capable of guilt but has chosen not to commit any crimes. I would not call a rock "innocent" because it can't be guilty. Likewise, I would not call an unborn human "innocent" because it is also incapable of being guilty.

Well, the word 'innocent' means. 'free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil'. But either way your point it a non sequitur because they have done nothing wrong, and are people. So killing them is wrong. That is murder.

Like I said, you are relying upon the emotionally charged term "murder" and imply that anyone who disagrees with you has no heart, but you are still detracting from any logical points that have been made by the Pro-Life side. Your way of arguing really makes it seem that you don't have any logical points, but are appealing to emotion and resorting to insults instead.

My argument is perfectly logical.

If murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person
and a fetus is a person
then killing a fetus is murder

It's very simple, really. Conditional statements are logical operators. Thus, they are logical.
What's logical about saying "I don't know if an embryo minds being murdered so therefore its OK". Or "a woman has a right to control her body so she can murder her own young". That I do not see. It reminds me of this one episode of the Simpsons where Bart and Lisa are arguing. Bart says "Well, I'm just going to swing my arms like this", and starts swing his arms "and if you get in the way, it's your fault". Having the right to control you body does not extend to using it to cause premeditated, deliberate harm to someone.

 

[fated]

What is capital punishment then?

Capital punishment when used properly is self-defense by the state, in our country it is completely or near completely unnecessary.

 

[WatersMoon110]

That's like saying that stabbing someone to death isn't murder because the knifeman should be allowed to have control over his own body.

No. The ability to control one's own body ends outside of one's body.

This is emblematic of the inability of your side to acknowledge basic facts and logic. "reasonable" does have a legal definition, and I just gave it to you. Either that, or all my college law profs were lying to me and giving me test questions about made up material. Again we see the heart of the problem: being at odds at the facts. Whether willful or unwitting, it is ignorance that causes these types of conclusions.

I haven't taken any law classes, but I'll take your word for it. However, if you have taken law classes, you should know that abortion is not legally "murder".

My argument is perfectly logical.

If murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person
and a fetus is a person
then killing a fetus is murder

It's very simple, really. Conditional statements are logical operators. Thus, they are logical.

But an unborn human isn't a legal person, and murder is a legal crime. Since unborn humans don't meet the legal requirements of "person" and since abortion is legal, abortion is thus not murder by the legal definition.

What's logical about saying ... "a woman has a right to control her body so she can [choose to abort her pregnancy]". That I do not see.

I took the emotionally charged bit out, to pretend like we are having a mature discussion.

Logically, I believe that all humans have the ethical right to control their own bodies. I see this right being used to decide legal battles (like McFall v. Shimp). I would make the argument that it would then be unethical to deny control of one's body to any human. Thus, I feel that pregnant women retain their right to control their own bodies.

If this is so, if pregnant women do have the right to control their own bodies, then I feel that this includes the right to deny use of one's body to any other human. I feel that this right, to control one's body, is not conditional upon why the other human needs use of one's body or what would happen to the other human if they did not get use of one's body.

So, to recap, I feel it is logical to say that pregnant women have the right to control their own bodies, and this includes the ability to deny use of one's body to any other human, regardless of what would happen to said human without use of one's body. Thus, I feel that elective abortion needs to be legal because it is the only immediate method availible to remove a non-viable unborn human from a pregnant woman's body. That abortion results in the death of the unborn human is sad, but there are no immediate alternatives that allow for immidiate removal of an unborn human but don't result in its death.

And, I would love to read a logical, not emotionally charged, counter to this.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Capital punishment when used properly is self-defense by the state, in our country it is completely or near completely unnecessary.

While I agree that capital punishment is unnecessary in our country, I still feel that you have to concede that it is a case where the government takes away the right to live from a human.

 

[fated]

While I agree that capital punishment is unnecessary in our country, I still feel that you have to concede that it is a case where the government takes away the right to live from a human.

Technically they give up their right when they commit a grave offense.

 

[cantata]

No, because millions of people die.

Can you explain why that's worse than one "person" dying?

It's a non sequitur. Murder is wrong. What about that don't you understand?

You can't define something as murder and then have an argument about whether it's wrong, because, as you clearly understand, most people regard murder as being wrong. That's called the fallacy of begging the question: assuming your conclusion as part of your argument. It's also known as circular reasoning.

Here is my question, which you have not yet managed to answer: on what grounds can you describe abortion as morally wrong (or "murder", if you prefer), given that the beings who are being killed do not have any knowledge that this is happening to them, and have no opinion about whether or not they would like it to happen?

 

[cantata]

Technically they give up their right when they commit a grave offense.

So much for "natural" human rights, then. I'm glad you agree that they're nothing but a social construct.

 

[fated]

So much for "natural" human rights, then. I'm glad you agree that they're nothing but a social construct.

That would still constitute natural rights, I think.

 

[cantata]

That would still constitute natural rights, I think.

What about "inherent" rights?

 

[fated]

What about "inherent" rights?

Terminology open to some interpretation, utilizing the fact that many or most people naturally avoid murder, but accept killing in self defense.

 

[cantata]

Terminology open to some interpretation, utilizing the fact that many or most people naturally avoid murder, but accept killing in self defense.

The question you seem to be avoiding is what rights actually are.

Are they merely social conventions?

 

[fated]

The question you seem to be avoiding is what rights actually are.

Are they merely social conventions?

I'll start with:

They are, at least, part of the experience of man regarding law and legal systems. They exist throughout religious traditions. Many people believe they are given by God, and not from the government.

As this isn't our first conversation, I'm guessing that you understand but disagree.

 

[fated]

Delete this post!

 

[fated]

Delete this post!

 

[Belk]

Delete this post!

Is that like "Steal this Book"?

 

[cantata]

I'll start with:

They are, at least, part of the experience of man regarding law and legal systems. They exist throughout religious traditions. Many people believe they are given by God, and not from the government.

As this isn't our first conversation, I'm guessing that you understand but disagree.

I disagree with the people who believe that they are given by God. I remain confused about what rights possibly could consist of, other than social conventions and legal privileges.