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

[stan1980]

What value does a life have, independent of its quality (or its owner's desire for its continuation)?

I'd just love an answer to this.

Don't hold your breath waiting.

It's a good question though I'm looking forward to seeing what guff someone comes up with to answer that.

 

[fated]

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)?

Most people seem to believe that human life has intrinsic value, and most societies... actually I don't know of any societies that normally don't... protect all people from homicide. In our time, there are a few countries that practice euthanasia, and several that have legal abortion.

 

[fated]

I just meant that unborn humans don't really avoid anything for most of the pregnancy. Born humans have the ability to avoid things, unborn humans mainly don't. You claimed that, because born humans avoid death more than they avoid discomfort, elective abortion should be illegal. But you are taking a trait of born humans and applying it to unborn humans who do not have this trait, then using that trait to make a judgment call about unborn humans. I think that we should look at the traits unborn humans actually have at the period where they are in danger of abortion, rather than the traits that born (usually adult) humans have.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original argument. I thought you were saying that, because humans avoid death more than they avoid discomfort, we should not allow elective abortion. Am I missing a part of your point, or wrong about anything?

No, my argument is that one should not kill humans, and killing a human is not justified simply because of pregnancy.

 

[fated]

If you don't wish to discuss the issue of legal personhood, I'm certainly willing to leave the topic alone. I don't consider it really relevant to the discussion, since no legal person has the right to use another legal person's body against that person's will.

So, I feel that we have reached an impasse. It is my opinion that the right to control one's body trumps another human's right to live using that body. It is your opinion that one human's right to live trumps another human's right to control their body.
I don't know what sort of liberal feminist philosophers you hang out with, but modern feminism (and all the modern feminists I know) embraces motherhood, but emphasizes that parenting should be a choice, not forced upon anyone.

Our positions do indeed differ, you'll note that if I err, I do so on the side of not killing someone (by not using an arbitrary ruling to justify killing a human).
Why should I or why should society be forced to allow a practice that "might" be murder (defined as unjust taking of another's life).

 

[fated]

I can guarantee you that none of the men arguing with you are suffering the after affects of an abortion.

Some men do, in fact, regret the part they played in abortion(s).

 

[quatona]

Some men do, in fact, regret the part they played in abortion(s).

Which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever for the validity (or lack thereof) of their arguments.

 

[cantata]

Most people seem to believe that human life has intrinsic value

What on earth is intrinsic value? I know what the words "intrinsic" and "value" mean, but I find their juxtaposition to be an oxymoron. What value can something have besides people's desire for it? And why should I take your appeal to the majority seriously anyway? The mere fact that lots of people think it has intrinsic value doesn't mean it actually has it.

and most societies... actually I don't know of any societies that normally don't... protect all people from homicide.

But protecting people from homicide does not indicate a belief in the intrinsic value of life.

In our time, there are a few countries that practice euthanasia

But the number is increasing, and many countries only continue to ban it because of concerns about abuse of legal euthanasia, rather than objection to the concept.

and several that have legal abortion.

Yes, several do. So it seems quite clear that, even if people do think life is intrinsically valuable, many do not feel that that value is extended to foetuses.

 

[Soul_Golem]

There are interesting claims:
1. Politicians ignore the fact that abortion can cause anything from infertility to death.
2. The government provides funding to the abortion industry.

However, you neglect to mention that the risks of infertility and death from abortion are very small.

And you fail to mention that, while some organizations that offer elective abortion do get government funding, they are legally restricted in how they can spend this funding. No Federal funding can go to pay for the majority of elective abortions (abortions for rape pregnancies and life saving abortion can get funding), and most States also prohibit funding from going to abortions.

So, are politicians neglecting to mention that percentage is actually a percentage of many millions of women? Is it okay that some women are hospitalized so that all women can get abortion?

And, with regards to the funding, you are right, but that is only because state governments are holding federal funding in check. Left alone that federal funding would be spent in any way the abortionists deem necessary.

 

[cantata]

All medical procedures (including giving birth, by the way) have inherent risks. Women are warned of the risks before they have abortions. So yes, it's fine that some women are hospitalised so that any women can have an abortion, just like it's fine that some people are hospitalised having endoscopies so that anyone can have an endoscopy. Most people accept that there are some risks involved when you are given medical treatment.

 

[KarateCowboy]

What I'm more interested in is seeing you try to justify emotionally-charged hyperbole in what could otherwise be a reasonable discussion.

How can anyone with a heart not be angry when people support mass murder?

Second, you have just falsely accused me of supporting genocide. You owe me an apology.

Well, It's the logical end of your reasoning.
If Murder is the unlawful killing another person with malice, etc
And killing Jews is not unlawful
Then Killing Jews is not murder

If you have no problem supporting the mass murder of over 30 million Americans then I don't see how a 'mere' six million Jews and five million others would offend you

Third, I'm pretty sure that under one of the corollaries of Godwin's Law, you've just lost this argument.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure those corollaries are completely irrational and thus Epic Fail.

And if she perceives the presence of this intruder in her body as harming her? This is a valid stance, as pregnancy enacts significant, and in some cases, permanent changes on a woman's physiology and biochemistry.

Tell me about it! All those ninja babies just sneaking through the bushes! They jump into a woman's pants and then crawl into her vagina! The Shredder and the Foot have fallen to a new low: recruiting the unborn! Where are the Turtles when you need them?

No person has the right to occupy another person's body without her consent. You have not responded to this point in a meaningful way (meaning without hyperbole and cries of "murder!").

It is a fact that intentionally killing an innocent person is murder. In the context of this discussion that is a meaningful response, since the action is question is murder.

I believe this was a response to the comment that people in this thread who happen to be Pro-Choice are trying to "justify murder". I believe the poster was saying that they feel that people who are Pro-Choice are not trying to justify anything, because there is nothing they feel guilty about.

So you see nothing wrong with murder?

I feel that an online debate calls for stating one's opinion and then backing it up. I wouldn't use the word "justify" because I feel it implies that the person feels guilty for feeling that way, and is trying to avoid dealing with the reason for that guilt. As in, "The young boy tried to justify why he had hit his sister." I feel that "justify" is a somewhat loaded term, and should be avoided in a civil discussion.

Another, more pertinent example would be "The young woman tried to justify why she murdered her offspring"

 

[cantata]

Why is the number of people who die a relevant factor in determining whether or not their extermination was ethical?

And, incidentally, I'd still like to know in what way being aborted is bad from a foetus' point of view.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Why is the number of people who die a relevant factor in determining whether or not their extermination was ethical?

It's not.

And, incidentally, I'd still like to know in what way being aborted is bad from a foetus' point of view.

Maybe they really want to watch reruns of ER?
Seriously, how is this not a red herring?

 

[cantata]

It's not.

Good. Then perhaps the ZOMG 30 MILLION BABIES thing can be put to rest.

Maybe they really want to watch reruns of ER?
Seriously, how is this not a red herring?

It's an important question.

Do foetuses mind being aborted? If they don't, why shouldn't you abort them?

 

[WatersMoon110]

So, are politicians neglecting to mention that percentage is actually a percentage of many millions of women? Is it okay that some women are hospitalized so that all women can get abortion?

A percentage of the people who go through radiation therapy for cancer will die. They will get too much radiation in their vital organs, and die because of it. Should we stop giving radiation therapy for cancer, because we know some people will die from it? (No.)

With any medical procedure, there is a risk. It is up to the people who choose to get that procedure to weigh that risk against the risks associated with not getting it. We don't outlaw medical procedures just because they have a slight risk to them.

And, with regards to the funding, you are right, but that is only because state governments are holding federal funding in check. Left alone that federal funding would be spent in any way the abortionists deem necessary.

You didn't read the site I linked, did you? There is a Federal Law that prohibits Federal Funding from going to pay for elective abortion except for life saving abortion or the abortion of rape pregnancies for low income women!

 

[WatersMoon110]

How can anyone with a heart not be angry when people support mass murder?

Nice of you to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you "has no heart".

Well, It's the logical end of your reasoning.
If Murder is the unlawful killing another person with malice, etc
And killing Jews is not unlawful
Then Killing Jews is not murder

If you have no problem supporting the mass murder of over 30 million Americans then I don't see how a 'mere' six million Jews and five million others would offend you

Actually, the Holocaust wasn't "murder" it was "genocide".

Again, I would like to ask you to use the word "killing" instead of "murder" so as to be more accurate (since abortion is not legally "murder"). You can still make your emotionally charged posts, but without the legal inaccuracy. Thanks.

Another, more pertinent example would be "The young woman tried to justify why she murdered her offspring"

People only justify things they feel guilty about.

Do you really think that your emotional appeals are working in any way? Personally, I find that emotional appeals detract from the logical arguments made by other people on one's side of this issue.

 

[WatersMoon110]

No, my argument is that one should not kill humans, and killing a human is not justified simply because of pregnancy.

Okay. Do you extend this belief into whether or not elective abortion should be legal? Or do you just feel that your personal beliefs are enough, and stop at just not agreeing with abortion and never getting one or advocating that anyone else get one? Because you are free to not kill humans for whatever reasons you like. I fully support your choice to not kill humans. Glad we agree on this.

But, more on topic, I feel that a pregnant woman's right to control her own body includes the right to deny use of her body to any other human, for whatever reason. Until viability, there is no chance of an unborn human surviving outside of her body. Since there is no method (currently) that allows for immediate removal of the unborn human without resulting in its death, I feel that she ethically must have access to elective abortion if she decides to call for the removal of the unborn human from her body. If there was an immediate alternative to abortion (like fetal transplant surgery and/or artificial wombs), that allowed for removal of the unborn human but didn't result in its death, I would advocate for that instead.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Nice of you to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you "has no heart".

I think anyone who has a heart would never shrug at murder.

Actually, the Holocaust wasn't "murder" it was "genocide".

According to the national Holocaust museum:
The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Human rights, as laid out in the U.S. Bill of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concern the rights of individuals.
In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of the European Jews.

So we see that the term is used to describe the systematic murder of people. So the words are interchangeable on the basis of scope.

Again, I would like to ask you to use the word "killing" instead of "murder" so as to be more accurate (since abortion is not legally "murder"). You can still make your emotionally charged posts, but without the legal inaccuracy. Thanks.

The legal definition is different from the colloquial meaning. For example, in law, "reasonable" means "What a reasonable person would do given the situation". So since murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person, and an embryo is a person, killing him is murder.

People only justify things they feel guilty about.

Do you really think that your emotional appeals are working in any way? Personally, I find that emotional appeals detract from the logical arguments made by other people on one's side of this issue.

Like I said, anyone with a heart. And they're not emotional appeals. They're moral appeals. Everyone knows murder is wrong. Well, everyone except you guys.

Good. Then perhaps the ZOMG 30 MILLION BABIES thing can be put to rest.

No, because millions of people die.

It's an important question.

Do foetuses mind being aborted? If they don't, why shouldn't you abort them?

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

 

[fated]

Okay. Do you extend this belief into whether or not elective abortion should be legal? Or do you just feel that your personal beliefs are enough, and stop at just not agreeing with abortion and never getting one or advocating that anyone else get one? Because you are free to not kill humans for whatever reasons you like. I fully support your choice to not kill humans. Glad we agree on this.

But, more on topic, I feel that a pregnant woman's right to control her own body includes the right to deny use of her body to any other human, for whatever reason. Until viability, there is no chance of an unborn human surviving outside of her body. Since there is no method (currently) that allows for immediate removal of the unborn human without resulting in its death, I feel that she ethically must have access to elective abortion if she decides to call for the removal of the unborn human from her body. If there was an immediate alternative to abortion (like fetal transplant surgery and/or artificial wombs), that allowed for removal of the unborn human but didn't result in its death, I would advocate for that instead.

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

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

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.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I think anyone who has a heart would never shrug at murder.

Like I said, anyone with a heart. And they're not emotional appeals. They're moral appeals. Everyone knows murder is wrong. Well, everyone except you guys.

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.

The legal definition is different from the colloquial meaning. For example, in law, "reasonable" means "What a reasonable person would do given the situation". So since murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person, and an embryo is a person, killing him is murder.

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

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". 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.

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.

 

[fated]

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.

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

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". 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.

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.

Whether or not you believe that abortion is murder is beside the point, because you cannot -prove- that it is not, thus, if we use your perspective if we err, we err on the side of murder, which is a far more grave consequence.

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