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

[PastorJim]

You might be interested to learn that eye witness testimony, despite being so popular with jurors, is one of the least reliable forms of evidence that is used in courts of law.

You may be interested to read, for example, this excellent article about the problems with eyewitness testimony. Or this section of the Wikipedia article about witnesses. Each cite several studies which show that witnesses are not nearly as useful as you'd like to think.

Human memory is, unfortunately, painfully flawed.

You're missing the point. The point wasn't that court witnesses are always reliable, but that, in the absence of evidence that they're unreliable, we presume that they are reliable.

 

[stan1980]

Just a quick question, PastorJim, if I wrote a book, about life on a universe that God told me was named 'Stan' (a separate universe from the one we live on), where people called Stanians live, you would think this book was reliable (and true) until someone proved otherwise?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

with abortion of adult americans? Thats something i don´t understand.
Isn´t that bigot to demonstrate against abortion and at the same time to support death penalty?

Death penalty is for someone who have commited a terrible crime against someone else and is guilty

Abortion is execution of someone who hasn't commited any crime, has had no due process(unlike the criminal who at least had one) and is innocent.

 

[PastorJim]

Just a quick question, PastorJim, if I wrote a book, about life on a universe that God told me was named 'Stan' (a separate universe from the one we live on), where people called Stanians live, you would think this book was reliable (and true) until someone proved otherwise?

Again, I wasn't talking about whether or not the Bible is true. In any event, I've said what I have to say so it looks like you're going to get the last word.

 

[stan1980]

You're missing the point. The point wasn't that court witnesses are always reliable, but that, in the absence of evidence that they're unreliable, we presume that they are reliable.

Which after reading cantata's article, is a poor premise.

 

[fated]

Clearly we do not need a no-abortion norm to peacefully exist.

You can peacefully exist with some of the people who A)you don't kill with abortion and B)people who accept abortion as legitimate practice.

 

[jcook922]

You can peacefully exist with some of the people who A)you don't kill with abortion and B)people who accept abortion as legitimate practice.

Well if you think it's impossible to peacefully co-exist and write it off as a lost cause because you don't tolerate the practices of others, perhaps all the hardcore intolerant pro-lifers should just hop on a rocket and make a colony on the moon?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Well if you think it's impossible to peacefully co-exist and write it off as a lost cause because you don't tolerate the practices of others, perhaps all the hardcore intolerant pro-lifers should just hop on a rocket and make a colony on the moon?

Abortion is about as legitimate a practice as gassing Jews. If you read an embryology textbook we see that is objective, scientific fact that an embryo is a new life and a distinct individual of our species. To kill it is murder. The only question that remains is: are you going try to justify that murder or not?

 

[stan1980]

Abortion is about as legitimate a practice as gassing Jews. If you read an embryology textbook we see that is objective, scientific fact that an embryo is a new life and a distinct individual of our species. To kill it is murder. The only question that remains is: are you going try to justify that murder or not?

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.

 

[cantata]

Death penalty is for someone who have commited a terrible crime against someone else and is guilty

Abortion is execution of someone who hasn't commited any crime, has had no due process(unlike the criminal who at least had one) and is innocent.

Does the foetus mind?

 

[jcook922]

Abortion is about as legitimate a practice as gassing Jews. If you read an embryology textbook we see that is objective, scientific fact that an embryo is a new life and a distinct individual of our species. To kill it is murder. The only question that remains is: are you going try to justify that murder or not?

What's with Christians and justification? When does anybody have to justify their actions to you unless they make the conscious decision that they wish to?

 

[fated]

Well if you think it's impossible to peacefully co-exist and write it off as a lost cause because you don't tolerate the practices of others, perhaps all the hardcore intolerant pro-lifers should just hop on a rocket and make a colony on the moon?

Does the foetus mind?

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.

 

[jcook922]

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.

People die, such is life. The homeless man in the forest really isn't a terribly good example since that would imply some sort of accident without control, at least the way I read it.

 

[fated]

People die, such is life. The homeless man in the forest really isn't a terribly good example since that would imply some sort of accident without control, at least the way I read it.

No, assume he was terminated by a hiker.

 

[TooCurious]

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.

Whether a process is "natural" or artificial has no bearing on its normative value; you can't derive an "ought" from an "is." The fact that organ transplants and blood transfusions are "artificial" processes and pregnancy is a "natural" one is irrelevant to this discussion. Should the state have a right to force compatible donors to undergo medical procedures to provide blood, tissue, or organs to patients who would die without them?

Right, except that the right to do what you want with your body stops short of harming another's body. In this case the fetal person.

In the US, this is false; there was a Supreme Court case (which I really should've saved -- I can look it up for you, if you really want) wherein a person with a fatal medical condition required bone marrow to survive, and the only compatible donor that was able to be located was unwilling to donate. The patient took him to court to try to force him to give up his bone marrow, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the donor's right to determine what happened to his own body.

In regards to the death penalty compared to abortion, the fetus has done nothing to deserve death. Killing the fetus is the same as murder from the pro-life view, and so it is a crime punishable by the death penalty to many (not all) pro-lifers. In regards to the abortion debate I will say only this, if the new, redefined liberals of today were debating the abortion of an endangered animal, would they be so full of debate?

Sure -- if the pregnant endangered animal were sapient, and capable of articulating that it did not wish to be pregnant.

It is the abortion industry that politicians really seek to protect, not the welfare or rights of women.

Support this statement with evidence, or retract it.

Women suffer mentally and physically for abortions.

And from unplanned pregnancies.

Most women who get abortions never make the same mistake again,

Presumably because they have learned how important it is to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy.

and they don't know what they are getting into when they do. They can be forgiven, but take a woman who gets abortion after abortion and there you have someone who doesn't seem to likely to ever know remorse or repentance. Abortion is a tragedy that most people do not know enough about to make the decision to be pro-life, but that too is changing. Abortion is less common today than when first introduced,

Thanks, in large part, to increased availability of and information about effective contraception.

and I should add it has ALWAYS been a problem. Abortions have been committed throughout history, the difference today than in the past was that the medical community viewed it as a problem. Today the abortion industry is inappropriately considered part of the medical community.

How else would one categorize the practice of licensed medical professionals who perform medical procedures?

 

[jcook922]

No, assume he was terminated by a hiker.

Motives?

 

[fated]

Motives?

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.

 

[fated]

Whether a process is "natural" or artificial has no bearing on its normative value; you can't derive an "ought" from an "is." The fact that organ transplants and blood transfusions are "artificial" processes and pregnancy is a "natural" one is irrelevant to this discussion. Should the state have a right to force compatible donors to undergo medical procedures to provide blood, tissue, or organs to patients who would die without them?

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

 

[Soul_Golem]

Sure -- if the pregnant endangered animal were sapient, and capable of articulating that it did not wish to be pregnant.



Support this statement with evidence, or retract it.



And from unplanned pregnancies.



Presumably because they have learned how important it is to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy.



Thanks, in large part, to increased availability of and information about effective contraception.



How else would one categorize the practice of licensed medical professionals who perform medical procedures?

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.

 

[WatersMoon110]

No, assume he was terminated by a hiker.

Is the homeless man living inside of another human?