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

[fated]

No. If society wants to admit that all humans own their bodies, then it cannot ethically force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes. Taking away control of someone's body, in my opinion, is about the worst thing that can be done to someone. Likewise, euthanizing someone against their will is ethically unacceptable, as is not allowing someone who is terminally ill to painlessly end their life.

However, pregnancy (and abortion) are different from euthanasia, because one human is living inside and off of another human. Until there is an alternative method to immediately remove an unborn human without resulting in its death, elective abortion must remain legal.

So taking control of a child's body and dismembering it, or poisoning it is OK, because the child is inconvenient, even if the mental health reason behind allowing abortion often pans out the opposite way.

It may be my opinion that people shouldn't be murdered, and I view it as my responsibility to ensure that as few murders occur as possible... within my reasonable capacity.

It is a matter of stopping the killing of innocent humans, without taking sides. You take the side of the mother, probably even in the questionable circumstance of mental health (many women suffer emotionally from abortion), but probably not simply for convenience (perfectly legal right now!).

I disagree that one can justify killing an innocent in a perfectly natural setting, for whatever reason. I'm not going to kill someone because they're retarded or embarassing, why kill them in-utero? Why allow it?

You said:

then it cannot ethically force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes.

I can't ethically allow her to kill someone. With the current state of medicine in the US pregnancy and giving birth is not particularly dangerous (in fact serious life threatening complications are rare - but good statistics aren't immediately available for a comparison), and motherhood and giving birth are actually protective, even of a woman's mental health.

How many abortionists, who make a living selling abortions, do you think tell their patients things like this?

 

[cantata]

I do really wonder in what sense it can be bad, from a first trimester foetus' point of view, to be aborted. I think this is the most important question.

 

[fated]

I do really wonder in what sense it can be bad, from a first trimester foetus' point of view, to be aborted. I think this is the most important question.

I don't approach human rights from the standpoint of suffering or not suffering, nor do I see human rights as an abstract philosophical construct.

 

[TooCurious]

But, abortion doesn't have to be discussed using a religious platform, because abortion is used to terminate a human so that it won't be born. It kills a human, and if a society believe that it exists to prevent killing those under its protection, then they won't accept abortion. On the other hand, if you put a relativistic value on a person's life, typically, whether the life is desired, then you can justify abortion, and then euthanasia, war, and so forth.

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.

 

[WatersMoon110]

So taking control of a child's body and dismembering it, or poisoning it is OK, because the child is inconvenient, even if the mental health reason behind allowing abortion often pans out the opposite way.

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.

It may be my opinion that people shouldn't be murdered, and I view it as my responsibility to ensure that as few murders occur as possible... within my reasonable capacity.

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

It is a matter of stopping the killing of innocent humans, without taking sides. You take the side of the mother, probably even in the questionable circumstance of mental health (many women suffer emotionally from abortion), but probably not simply for convenience (perfectly legal right now!).

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

I disagree that one can justify killing an innocent in a perfectly natural setting, for whatever reason. I'm not going to kill someone because they're retarded or embarassing, why kill them in-utero? Why allow it?

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.

I can't ethically allow her to kill someone. With the current state of medicine in the US pregnancy and giving birth is not particularly dangerous (in fact serious life threatening complications are rare - but good statistics aren't immediately available for a comparison), and motherhood and giving birth are actually protective, even of a woman's mental health.

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.

“The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective, first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy...”

Source

How many abortionists, who make a living selling abortions, do you think tell their patients things like this?

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.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I don't approach human rights from the standpoint of suffering or not suffering, nor do I see human rights as an abstract philosophical construct.

Out of curiosity, what do you see human rights as?

 

[cantata]

I don't approach human rights from the standpoint of suffering or not suffering, nor do I see human rights as an abstract philosophical construct.

Then what, pray tell, do you see human rights as?

 

[PastorJim]

You can't use a source to back up itself. If I told you that I owned the London Bridge, would you just take my word for it?

No, because we know who does own the London Bridge.

However, if you said that the London Bridge was designed and built in London in the 19th century and then moved to Arizona, I would have no reason to doubt it, unless I had evidence that your story was not true.

Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the Bible is not reliable unless there is evidence to show that it is unreliable.

Of course you are going to believe the Bible, you have personal evidence in your life that backs up the validity of its statements. That is, things have happened in your life to prove to you that God exists, Jesus is Lord, and all of that.

No. That's no reason to believe that the Bible is true. Those things are subjective and must be judged in light of the Bible, not the other way around. I've already explained why I believe the Bible and it was the result of studying the Bible and the claims in it.

I have personal evidence in my life that proves my religious beliefs (obviously, or I wouldn't believe in it). But you haven't had the same experiences that I have, and I wouldn't expect you to believe in the validity of my beliefs. Not without you having gone through something with me, and come to the same conclusion I have.

And that's the difference. You say that you have "personal" (ie. subjective) evidence for your beliefs. I'm talking about examining the Bible based on objective evidence.

But there are people who have not had any experiences that confirm the existence of a deity, people who have personal evidence that shows to them that no deities exist. Why would you expect such people to just take your word that your God exists? Faith is a very personal matter, and it makes no sense to me to try and convince others of the validity of one's personal beliefs. Either they haven't had the same sort of experiences that one has had, or they have come to different conclusions.

We're not talking about whether or not God exists, but whether or not the Bible is true.

Here it is necessary to provide multiple, independent sources for one's statements...

I agree. I've asked him to give a source for his statement and he has not.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Likewise, there is no reason to assume that the Bible is not reliable unless there is evidence to show that it is unreliable.

But there is no way to prove it to be reliable or unreliable without comparing it to other sources. If you had no other information, you might believe I own the London Bridge, but you can only judge the validity of my claim by comparing it to all other evidence.

No. That's no reason to believe that the Bible is true. Those things are subjective and must be judged in light of the Bible, not the other way around. I've already explained why I believe the Bible and it was the result of studying the Bible and the claims in it.

I don't believe you. *wink*

And that's the difference. You say that you have "personal" (ie. subjective) evidence for your beliefs. I'm talking about examining the Bible based on objective evidence.

We're not talking about whether or not God exists, but whether or not the Bible is true.

But, the majority of Christians I know, propose that the Bible is true because God exists. (Or, at least, of the Christians I know that believe the Bible to be literally true.)

 

[PastorJim]

But there is no way to prove it to be reliable or unreliable without comparing it to other sources.

I disagree.

I don't believe you. *wink*

I'm afraid that's burden I'll just have to learn to live with.

But, the majority of Christians I know, propose that the Bible is true because God exists. (Or, at least, of the Christians I know that believe the Bible to be literally true.)

I've never heard a Christian say that but if that's what they believe, then that's a terrible reason to believe that the Bible is true.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I've never heard a Christian say that but if that's what they believe, then that's a terrible reason to believe that the Bible is true.

Okay, the only reasons I've ever been told that the Bible should be taken as literally true boil down to: "Because God is perfect and He is powerful enough to make sure that His Holy Book is also perfect."

So, I would really be interested to know what your reason for believing the Bible to be literally true? Is it really just that you can't find any reason not to believe it is true?

Because, maybe this is just me, but I basically start with the idea that nothing is true until it has been proven to me (usually multiple times by multiple different sources). So to me, it seems odd to start out trying to do the opposite (believe something is true until it is proven false). I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn outside my room, but I don't believe there to be one.

 

[PastorJim]

So, I would really be interested to know what your reason for believing the Bible to be literally true? Is it really just that you can't find any reason not to believe it is true?

Same reasons I gave before.

Because, maybe this is just me, but I basically start with the idea that nothing is true until it has been proven to me (usually multiple times by multiple different sources). So to me, it seems odd to start out trying to do the opposite (believe something is true until it is proven false). I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn outside my room, but I don't believe there to be one.

I didn't say that we should believe that something is true until it is proven false. I said that there is no reason to believe that something is unreliable until it is proven false.

We see this in court all the time. If all a lawyer had to do is say, "this witness is unreliable", then cases would be thrown out left and right. But he actually has to make a case to demonstrate why the witness is reliable. Otherwise, it's assumed that the witness is reliable.

 

[cantata]

I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn outside my room, but I don't believe there to be one.

Aren't "invisible" and "pink" mutually exclusive?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Aren't "invisible" and "pink" mutually exclusive?

No. If it were visible, it would be pink. But it is currently invisible. *grin*

 

[cantata]

We see this in court all the time. If all a lawyer had to do is say, "this witness is unreliable", then cases would be thrown out left and right. But he actually has to make a case to demonstrate why the witness is reliable. Otherwise, it's assumed that the witness is reliable.

Unfortunately, the fact is that most witnesses aren't reliable.

The same goes for a lot of ancient texts.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Same reasons I gave before.

I'm sorry, I either missed this post or I didn't understand it. Would you mind restating your reasons?

I didn't say that we should believe that something is true until it is proven false. I said that there is no reason to believe that something is unreliable until it is proven false.

We see this in court all the time. If all a lawyer had to do is say, "this witness is unreliable", then cases would be thrown out left and right. But he actually has to make a case to demonstrate why the witness is reliable. Otherwise, it's assumed that the witness is reliable.

Actually, I also tend to assume that stories/books/people are unreliable until they have been verified through independent sources.

 

[PastorJim]

Unfortunately, the fact is that most witnesses aren't reliable.

The same goes for a lot of ancient texts.

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.

 

[PastorJim]

Actually, I also tend to assume that stories/books/people are unreliable until they have been verified through independent sources.

And pyschiatrists have a name for that.

 

[WatersMoon110]

And pyschiatrists have a name for that.

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't all out to get you." *wink*

No, I am just cautious about whom I put my trust in. I don't assume that someone is reliable until they have proven themself to be reliable, and that goes double for news stories and information from books. And if a given person or other source proves to be unreliable in a given case, I am less likely to trust them.

Could you, at the very least, point out where you stated your reasons? I understand that I am asking a lot, for you to repeat yourself, but I really would like to know what reasons are. Especially since you said the only reason I've ever been given by others isn't a good reason.

 

[fated]

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.

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.