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

[WatersMoon110]

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.

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.

 

[WatersMoon110]

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

Last time I checked, giving birth was still a medical procedure, usually done in a hospital.

 

[fated]

Is the homeless man living inside of another human?

Your argument degrades the value of motherhood and pregnancy. There is no equivalence, and killing innocent humans is always wrong. To pretend that you can "convict" an person of a crime they didn't choose to commit and had no power over, is in any case, insufficient to warrant the penalty of death.

 

[fated]

Last time I checked, giving birth was still a medical procedure, usually done in a hospital.

Giving birth is not a "medical procedure." One gives birth in a hospital so that there's a person there that can cut an endangered baby out of a womb in five or so minutes, without endangering the mother, and so that crash carts and so forth are on hand if necessary.

 

[WatersMoon110]

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.

This isn't a formal debate. It is an informal discussion.

You say that you can ascertain Pro-Choice politicians' motives from their actions. However, I look at many of the same politicians actions and words, and still believe that they are Pro-Choice out of concern for women's rights. What politicians' actions lead you to believe they are only out to support abortion doctors/abortion clinics?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Giving birth is not a "medical procedure." One gives birth in a hospital so that there's a person there that can cut an endangered baby out of a womb in five or so minutes, without endangering the mother, and so that crash carts and so forth are on hand if necessary.

"A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the care of patients, used by medical or paramedical personnel."

Assisting the woman giving birth is a medical procedure. C-Sections certainly are. And Pre-Natal care is too, by that definition. Anyway, by making elective abortion illegal, you are forcing quite a number of "medical procedures" onto pregnant women who desire not to be pregnant.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Your argument degrades the value of motherhood and pregnancy. There is no equivalence, and killing innocent humans is always wrong. To pretend that you can "convict" an person of a crime they didn't choose to commit and had no power over, is in any case, insufficient to warrant the penalty of death.

Motherhood can only be valuable if women don't have the option to electively abort? Since when? I think that choosing to keep a pregnancy and raise the resulting infant is still quite valuable, personally.

You made up the hypothetical situation. I simply asserted that it couldn't be compared to pregnancy, because unborn humans exist inside an other human. There is basically no other situation where that happens (other than absorbed twins - and they certainly remove those without any worry).

Hypothetical parallels don't really exist when it comes to the issue of pregnancy/abortion. Pregnancy is a very unique situation. I feel it benefits the discussion to just focus on the issues at hand: pregnancy and abortion (and the death penalty, in this thread).

 

[fated]

"A medical procedure is a course of action intended to achieve a result in the care of patients, used by medical or paramedical personnel."

Assisting the woman giving birth is a medical procedure. C-Sections certainly are. And Pre-Natal care is too, by that definition. Anyway, by making elective abortion illegal, you are forcing quite a number of "medical procedures" onto pregnant women who desire not to be pregnant.

There is no requirement to give birth in a hospital, though I would certainly recommend it.

 

[WatersMoon110]

There is no requirement to give birth in a hospital, though I would certainly recommend it.

I believe that Midwives still count as medical personnel.

Or are you just suggesting that pregnant women who want to abort (but would be forced to remain pregnant if abortion were illegal) should just give birth dangerously with no trained medical personnel around?

 

[fated]

Motherhood can only be valuable if women don't have the option to electively abort? Since when? I think that choosing to keep a pregnancy and raise the resulting infant is still quite valuable, personally.

You made up the hypothetical situation. I simply asserted that it couldn't be compared to pregnancy, because unborn humans exist inside an other human. There is basically no other situation where that happens (other than absorbed twins - and they certainly remove those without any worry).

Hypothetical parallels don't really exist when it comes to the issue of pregnancy/abortion. Pregnancy is a very unique situation. I feel it benefits the discussion to just focus on the issues at hand: pregnancy and abortion (and the death penalty, in this thread).

No, by allowing people to kill the unborn puts the value of these humans in a different category, and makes motherhood only valuable if its desired. Sometimes this leads to a slippery slope argument, wherein it can be seen how this links to situations like the one in China, were women are sterilized, abortions are forced, and sex is selected. In any case, abortion devalues pregnancy and motherhood because it doesn't treat it as an elevated state. We don't need to discuss this point further, I doubt its all that important to you.

So, we agree that the state of pregnancy is valuable and unique, and your position is that killing is justified, because science allows the woman to control her body in this way, and this is desirable. Well, I disagree. I believe that killing the baby is wrong, and that any sort of trespassing which is inherent in this unique state is however uncomfortable, is part of the value of the state, and in no way does this it offer sufficient reason to kill.

Now, I will remind you that we agree that the state of pregnancy is unique, and because of this, we won't try to equivocate the situation to something else.

The simplification of this situation yields that, an error in judgment in favor of your position results in murder.

 

[fated]

I believe that Midwives still count as medical personnel.

Or are you just suggesting that pregnant women who want to abort (but would be forced to remain pregnant if abortion were illegal) should just give birth dangerously with no trained medical personnel around?

This is a fairly useless thread of thought, as it begins with the assumption that giving birth is a medical procedure that can be equivocated to other procedures. Which is absurd, even if its normally treated as a medical procedure in the "developed world."

 

[WatersMoon110]

No, by allowing people to kill the unborn puts the value of these humans in a different category, and makes motherhood only valuable if its desired. Sometimes this leads to a slippery slope argument, wherein it can be seen how this links to situations like the one in China, were women are sterilized, abortions are forced, and sex is selected. In any case, abortion devalues pregnancy and motherhood because it doesn't treat it as an elevated state. We don't need to discuss this point further, I doubt its all that important to you.

China started off trying to control their population, their position on this (while I feel it is wrong) really has nothing to do with their opinion of motherhood.

Personally, I feel that forcing people into being parents degrades parenting more than abortion. Obviously we disagree. But I feel that choosing to be parent is what makes someone worthy of praise, not just getting (someone) pregnant.

This is a fairly useless thread of thought, as it begins with the assumption that giving birth is a medical procedure that can be equivocated to other procedures. Which is absurd, even if its normally treated as a medical procedure in the "developed world."

Can you disagree with someone's statement without insulting it?

You claimed that there was a difference between forced organ donation and illegal abortion; because one was forcing a medical procedure on someone, and the other was denying a medical procedure from someone. I feel that illegal abortion still forces medical procedures on someone, because prenatal care and giving birth are still medical procedures. That is it. Fin.

So, we agree that the state of pregnancy is valuable and unique, and your position is that killing is justified, because science allows the woman to control her body in this way, and this is desirable. Well, I disagree. I believe that killing the baby is wrong, and that any sort of trespassing which is inherent in this unique state is however uncomfortable, is part of the value of the state, and in no way does this it offer sufficient reason to kill.

Now, I will remind you that we agree that the state of pregnancy is unique, and because of this, we won't try to equivocate the situation to something else.

The simplification of this situation yields that, an error in judgment in favor of your position results in murder.

I disagree. Even though trespassing upon the pregnant woman's body (and her right to control it) are a natural part of pregnancy, I do not feel this should allow unborn human the special right of using another human's body without that human's permission.

 

[fated]

I disagree. Even though trespassing upon the pregnant woman's body (and her right to control it) are a natural part of pregnancy, I do not feel this should allow unborn human the special right of using another human's body without that human's permission.

I believe I said that the line of thought was useless, not that your statement was without thought. You are more interested in bodily control position, and any attempt to equivocate is not going to be compelling for you. Which is fine, so, I thought we'd more forward.

The problem is that your position is an opinion. If you conclude that mine is also, then we come down to a judgment problem, with a simple solution, because we avoid murder with a higher priority than we avoid discomfort.

 

[WatersMoon110]

The problem is that your position is an opinion. If you conclude that mine is also, then we come down to a judgment problem, with a simple solution, because we avoid murder with a higher priority than we avoid discomfort.

Your opinion isn't an opinion?

You say "we avoid [death] with a higher priority than we avoid discomfort". But neither of these are true of unborn humans before 12 weeks of development, because they are unable to do either (or much else other than grow). I feel it is unfair to look at the behaviors of born adult humans as a basis for giving rights to developing unborn humans.

 

[fated]

Your opinion isn't an opinion?

You say "we avoid [death] with a higher priority than we avoid discomfort". But neither of these are true of unborn humans before 12 weeks of development, because they are unable to do either (or much else other than grow). I feel it is unfair to look at the behaviors of born adult humans as a basis for giving rights to developing unborn humans.

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?

 

[fated]

Your opinion isn't an opinion?

You say "we avoid [death] with a higher priority than we avoid discomfort". But neither of these are true of unborn humans before 12 weeks of development, because they are unable to do either (or much else other than grow). I feel it is unfair to look at the behaviors of born adult humans as a basis for giving rights to developing unborn humans.

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 murder. The person hood argument can be similarly distilled. Typically liberal feminist philosophy then sings a "whoa is me song, about the oppression of motherhood." I'm ready for the song.

 

[KarateCowboy]

There are many differences between genocide and abortion, such as the fact people who belong to a group who have been victims of genocide will have legitimate fears for their own life, where as a foetus can not fear for it's own life.

Of course, you know this, but that doesn't stop you spouting the same tired arguments time and time again.

So what? A sedated man can't fear for his life either. Why does this matter? A human is a human.

 

[KarateCowboy]

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 murder. The person hood argument can be similarly distilled. Typically liberal feminist philosophy then sings a "whoa is me song, about the oppression of motherhood." I'm ready for the song.

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.

 

[fated]

So what? A sedated man can't fear for his life either. Why does this matter? A human is a human.

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.

 

[Soul_Golem]

This isn't a formal debate. It is an informal discussion.

You say that you can ascertain Pro-Choice politicians' motives from their actions. However, I look at many of the same politicians actions and words, and still believe that they are Pro-Choice out of concern for women's rights. What politicians' actions lead you to believe they are only out to support abortion doctors/abortion clinics?

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.

Even an informal discussion requires supportive facts in order for it to really be a discussion. I wish this was a formal debate, because it would clean up a lot of the empty arguments that have been made. I am not out to press TooCurious' hot buttons. In fact, I only want to convince and persuade. In so doing I would like to share a very informative link to an Internet talk show that is far more experienced at addressing the abortion issue than I. I hope everyone who takes a glance at this post checks it out:

http://prolifeamerica.com/Pro-life-Abortion-Controversy/

The mp3 can be downloaded from the upper right hand corner of the page.