It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The dichotomy of "choice" and the right of privacy over self

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
If a woman miscarries her body decides to abort, if she has an abortion, her brain decides.

Nobody finds this concept weird?

The anti-abortionists think their own feelings should matter more than the mothers logic or assessment of her capability to raise said baby.

They think their own feeling are more important than the women's logic.

Lol...idiots



Can't the same be said for someone who decides to commit suicide?

"Those anti-suicide people think their own values should matter more than the logic of the guy about to jump off the bridge and his assessment of his capability to continue living in this world.

They think their own feelings and values are more important than the man's logic.

Lol... idiots"

Same damn thing, man.




posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right of personal privacy over choices that impact the self. en.wikipedia.org...

This judgement has become so interwoven with American politics that the whole abortion debate is almost as fruitless as arguing with a brick wall, in either direction. But, time after time, the courts have upheld the ideology used to set the precedent from the bench in cases involving even the hint of inconvenience where obtaining an abortion is concerned.

As with all things in America, enter the hypocrisy. Why, oh why, is it that in a country which considers "abortion on demand, no questions asked, holy hell we'll even find someone to pay for the procedure for you" to be a fundamental right of private choicemaking:
1. we're fighting a war on drugs because people are overdosing?
2. we have people using "self harm" as a reason for stricter gun control?
3. we waste billions of dollars on emergency care of those who have clearly made the choice to kill themselves, either via drugs, suicide, or other?
4. we consider any self destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness SO LONG AS AN UNBORN BABY ISN'T PART OF THAT CHOICE?

What a load of hypocritical SNIP. Unless and until we revisit Roe v Wade, I honestly don't understand why suicide or the opiod epidemic are even a talking point where our lawmakers are concerned. In the same way as we are expected to at the very least show deference toward a woman who has an abortion, if not celebrate her choice in some twisted ritual of group validation, shouldn't we be indifferent to anyone who makes the choice to end their own life or chooses to poison themselves with whatever drug they select? Why in the hell is this even a factor in our national policy matrix?



People who compare abortion to drugs and suicide need to head back and learn some basic biology and maybe learn a bit of about humans in general.

I swear American's are proud of their ignorance of some of the most fundamental things.

Until being able to talk to Americans on this website I used to think the rampant stupidity of people there was exaggerated l...now I'm really starting to believe the opposite...


Ok let me ask you this:

How is it alright to have an abortion, but is a double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman? How can a premature baby of 20 weeks gestation be considered a person and receive medical treatment with it's own rights?
I worked in a Level III NICU for almost 8 years, and the hypocrisy of abortions is dumb founding. There is NO logical argument for it. Period. 99% of all abortions are done as retroactive birth control. Unless in the case of rape, incest, or for the survival of the mother - otherwise it is being done as a way to avoid the responsibilities for ones actions o having sex, plain and simple. In fact they have begun proving that woman that have abortions do suffer from hormonal imbalances, depression, and other health related issues. Prove me wrong, you can't.

After working in various facets of healthcare for over 20 years, almost everything on that list boils down to the government stepping in to protect you from yourself, that is not it's job. Also it is not the job to protect society with laws, because society can not be a victim, only a person can be a victim. There are no valid excuses for most of the laws that are out there, most are passed based on emotional responses and knee jerk reactions, and this is where the hypocrasy stems from.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I like the title. It could apply to a great many things.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



In the context of this discussion, if an abortive procedure removes the fetus and i is still alive, "cut off access to medical care" seems to be a fairly mundane way of describing what the practitioners actually do (though they are breaking the law in doing so, it seems to be commonplace practice.) savethestorks.com... consistency matters.


Good point, but I do not think consistency is what matters in cases such as this. What matters is that we allow people to make choices for themselves, even when their choices are inconsistent, or the part we are to play as society in general contradicts the choices we have to make in other areas.



OK, I'll give you the hyperbole on that one in part. I over reached on my wording. That said, there is an element of mental health professionals who believe any known self destructive choices are signs of mental instability, even to the point of someone smoking or not wearing a seat belt.


Sure. Since we know that, it is up to us, the people, to decide how we apply certain standards to specific issues.

People can have their opinions, professional or otherwise, but it is our job to decide what we find to be applicable in our laws/regulations.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

My adopted husband would beg to differ. His mother couldn't raise him ... so she gave him up to those who could.

I am thankful every day she did that because he and my son are the two best things in my life.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dug88

Which part of science?

The part where a zygote at fertilization is genetically distinct from it's mother making it not exactly comparable to just another lump of her own tissue?

The problem most of us have with the idea is that abortion is the only procedure where the termination of the life of another human being can be completely left up to the arbitrary discretion of another, and there is even legal precedent recognizing that human being as such if someone else arbitrarily terminates that same human being (i.e. murderers receiving two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman).


Hmmm cancer cells are genetically distinct from their host too, same with viruses, bacteria, some of your own cells. Calling it genetically distinct tissue does not make it the.same as.killing a human being. Sorry again not comparable to dugs or suicide....maybe closer to having a tumour removed or taking antibiotics.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We need to legalize all drugs, suicide, prostitution, etc.

It will solve a ton of problems.


This could not be more true. Free commerce between consenting adults isn’t any damn business of the Government.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The only reason I agree with you (painful as that may be for me) is that we need to allow others to make their own choices even if they make poor decisions.

The other side of that is society does have a vested interest in preventing murders. It is confusing to be sure.


edit on 2018/4/24 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

And at which point is it a human being then? What magically occurs that makes it human?

If a mother has a premature baby, what makes it different from the one still in utero that is at exactly the same stage of development?

Please explain this.

There really isn't any difference except location, and that's why a murderer can get charged for two homicides. The only rationale for an abortion is that the mother doesn't want it, pure and simple, and people like yourself are willing to make pleasant lies to ignore the truth.

There are very, very rare circumstances where an abortion should even be considered as an option, and "Oops!" isn't one of them.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




And at which point is it a human being then?


Um, it was a human female's egg that got fertilized by a human man's sperm.



If a mother has a premature baby, what makes it different from the one still in utero that is at exactly the same stage of development?


Separation from the mother's life sustaining body?



There really isn't any difference except location


You know what they say, "Location, location, location!"



edit on 24-4-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So if separation is all it takes, then you can separate the child without killing it in the example I provided.

And to parrot a real estate slogan is simply being crass. I guess we should pass laws making murder perfectly legal based on where you are standing at the time.
edit on 24-4-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So if separation is all it takes, then you can separate the child without killing it in the example I provided.


Forced breeding!?



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

The only reason I agree with you (painful as that may be for me) is that we need to allow others to make their own choices even if they make poor decisions.

The other side of that is society does have a vested interest in preventing murders. It is confusing to be sure.



It's not confusing where you come to terms with the fact that nothing is or can be perfect. The best thing we can do is let people choose for themselves and help them as a society where and when we can, despite the obvious contradictions.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dug88

And at which point is it a human being then? What magically occurs that makes it human?

If a mother has a premature baby, what makes it different from the one still in utero that is at exactly the same stage of development?

Please explain this.

There really isn't any difference except location, and that's why a murderer can get charged for two homicides. The only rationale for an abortion is that the mother doesn't want it, pure and simple, and people like yourself are willing to make pleasant lies to ignore the truth.

There are very, very rare circumstances where an abortion should even be considered as an option, and "Oops!" isn't one of them.


Like I said brush up on basic biology then let's talk.

blogs.plos.org...

Here's a good start.

open.umn.edu...

Then maybe try some of this.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

And yet no response to my question to you.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimmley
a reply to: dug88

And yet no response to my question to you.


Because if someone wants to kill their baby they probably would've been #ty parents anyway. Drugs you # your own life up, suicide you kill yourself, bringing a child into the world you don't want and aren't willing to look after #s up a whole new life as well as your own. If someone's willing to avoid their responsibilities by killing their child, they really shouldn't have one honestly.

I dont think drugs or suicide are the government's responsibility but those things have fairly different consequences to bringing a life into the world or not. It's not about the death the abortions cause, there's a lot of life in the world, if people aren't willing to nurture it properly and turn it into a decent human being then it's probably the better solution. Things die everyday, an unborn bundle of gestating cells really takes a back seat to all that life currently living right now.

I've seen what happens to kids that aren't wanted and to people's lives that have kids that aren't wanted. It really doesn't usually end well. Having a child isn't magic and fairy dust it won't suddenly solve whatever problems or failings or poor decisions in life that would make that person consider an abortion. It just adds a child to that #ed up mess. A child that never asked to be brought into that #ed up mess. Life really doesnt need to exist just for the sake of it.

If people want to take the risk of having unprotected sex they regret and they don't understand the damage they could do to themselves that's their fault. As far as I know, sex education is taught in school. I remember learning the consequences of both abortions and having a #ing baby. This why personally im really careful about that #. If people are too stupid to understand how their own bodies work, maybe they honestly shouldn't be having kids. It's really easy to make a human being. It's really hard to make a decent human being. There's enough #ty people in the world. We really don't need more.
edit on 24/4/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/4/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, I don't know. I could go on and on about the science of DNA versus viability, or the debate "fundamental right" versus collective morality in a society (and how it should advance and not regress), but the bottom line is that too many people bow down to SCOTUS rulings when they legislate from the bench.

Personally, I believe that life is an inalienable right, as noted in our Declaration of Independence, and that once a female egg is fertilized, that is a life separate from the mother, therefore there is no "fundamental right" to take said life unless medically necessary.

Point being, I get your question--how can a society be wiling to be so "moral" about the lives of people who really don't want to continue that life anymore, and be so flippant when it comes to protecting defenseless life from mothers who don't want the life that they knowingly engaged in activity that created it.

If you ask me, it's bass ackwards. If a human being of a certain age wants to end their life, as sad as that is, that's a personal choice with one's own body--if a woman wants to terminate (kill) their developing child, that is a personal choice that affects someone else's body, even if that body is biologically dependent on them through birth.

I just don't get the logic behind it, at all, and being libertarian-minded, I certainly don't see why the official party platform defends a woman's right to choose when one of the party's biggest mantras revolves around "do no harm" to others.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, I don't know. I could go on and on about the science of DNA versus viability, or the debate "fundamental right" versus collective morality in a society (and how it should advance and not regress), but the bottom line is that too many people bow down to SCOTUS rulings when they legislate from the bench.

Personally, I believe that life is an inalienable right, as noted in our Declaration of Independence, and that once a female egg is fertilized, that is a life separate from the mother, therefore there is no "fundamental right" to take said life unless medically necessary.

Point being, I get your question--how can a society be wiling to be so "moral" about the lives of people who really don't want to continue that life anymore, and be so flippant when it comes to protecting defenseless life from mothers who don't want the life that they knowingly engaged in activity that created it.

If you ask me, it's bass ackwards. If a human being of a certain age wants to end their life, as sad as that is, that's a personal choice with one's own body--if a woman wants to terminate (kill) their developing child, that is a personal choice that affects someone else's body, even if that body is biologically dependent on them through birth.

I just don't get the logic behind it, at all, and being libertarian-minded, I certainly don't see why the official party platform defends a woman's right to choose when one of the party's biggest mantras revolves around "do no harm" to others.



Your personal beliefs are not science those are feelings. It doesn't matter when you believe life exists because it's based on some arbitrary feelings and no biological backing.

Your argument presumes that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone. A child is not only biologically dependent on their mother, a child is biologically emotionally, physically, financially and literally in every single way dependent on that mother for at least a good 18 years if not longer.

If a mother can't provide every single one of those things for that time, they have no business bringing yet another life into the world.

The problem with your arguments and the ones like yours is that they assume life needs to exist even if there's no means to nurture and look after that life properly. There's already enough people who don't get the proper care they need in the world. How is killing a bundle of cells before it even has a nervous system, the thing that makes it aware that it's actually alive, worse than a life that someone who is unable or unwilling to care for you properly could provide?

These arguments all seem to assume that if some child is born instead of aborted then everything will be magically ok and a good thing will have been done.

In my short life, i've known people who got abortions and ones who ended up not and had children they couldn't really look after or didn't want. In these cases i've known of people who just abandoned their children, there was 2 people that had a child, didn't know eachother, now the mother works 7 days a week, the dad sits around doing drugs not looking after the child and the mother's parents have to come.over to watch their.daughter because he's incabable. In that situation at least 4 peoples lives have been #ed because of it and that child will not have a good life.

Bringing a life you cant look after into the world is far more irresponsible and harmful to more people than ending the life of something that's not even aware it's alive.

You people really don't seem to understand what having a child really entails. Again it's really easy to make humans, it happens thousands of times a day. Making decent humans requires effort a lot of people aren't willing to put in.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

I will say I agree with most of what you said, however there are a few things I do disagree with you on.

Firstly, they not just a clump of cells, just because they did not asked to be brought into the world, does not give anyone the right to actually out right murder them, and that is what it is. It is people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. As much as I dislike 98% of all social and welfare programs, there are large group of governmental and non governmental programs and groups that help in these situations.

Secondly, the health effects on the mother are adverse to their physical and mental well being.

So the problem lies in society telling kids, young adults that they can do whatever they want, without repercussions. Society screams that all these other things are bad (almost all of which are choices as well), demand repercussions (prison, mental health treatment, detox etc), but out right killing of a child because they do not want to take responsibility for a choice they made is alright and it's their right. - So again how is this different than any of these other choices?

Society, since they seem to think they are the ones who can dictate morality, needs to teach personal accountability, responsibility, and that actions have consequences.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimmley
a reply to: dug88

I will say I agree with most of what you said, however there are a few things I do disagree with you on.

Firstly, they not just a clump of cells, just because they did not asked to be brought into the world, does not give anyone the right to actually out right murder them, and that is what it is. It is people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. As much as I dislike 98% of all social and welfare programs, there are large group of governmental and non governmental programs and groups that help in these situations.

Secondly, the health effects on the mother are adverse to their physical and mental well being.

So the problem lies in society telling kids, young adults that they can do whatever they want, without repercussions. Society screams that all these other things are bad (almost all of which are choices as well), demand repercussions (prison, mental health treatment, detox etc), but out right killing of a child because they do not want to take responsibility for a choice they made is alright and it's their right. - So again how is this different than any of these other choices?

Society, since they seem to think they are the ones who can dictate morality, needs to teach personal accountability, responsibility, and that actions have consequences.



Yes they really are just a clump of cells look it the # up. I posted a link earlier that explains exactly when said clump of cells develops the nervous system needed to be anything more than that. You can sit here and put your feelings into it all you want but we've studied the gestation process fairly thoroughly, not just in humans. This isn't some philosophical debate, we know when a life develops of enough to be capable of.independent awareness and until that point it's really not anything other than some growth of cells that happens to share DNA with it's environment.

I agree it is about people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions definitely. There's no reason someone should have to a suffer a lifetime because of that though. If they won't take responsibility for their actions before having a kid, having one sure won't change that. All the social programs in the world won't help that.

You seem to focus on the immediate consequences of an unborn child's.life is.being taken away before it's born while ignoring the real world consequences of what happens to abandoned unwanted children. Honestly there's a lot of things put there worse than death before your even aware of the concept of being alive.

Abortion being legal while drugs and suicide are not has nothing to do with death it has to do with the problems of dealing with an unwanted or unneeded life that will put too much strain on an otherwise already strained life and Society.

You mention the damaging health effects to the mother while completely ignoring the long term lifetime negative effects to both the child and unprepared mother should the mother have the child.

In nature if animals have babies they don't have the strength to look after, they eat that # or leave it to die and try again next year. In tribal villages and #, babies that can't be looked after are left to die. Like it or not Humans are mammals, ending that life there means you can preserve your resources and increase the chances of survival of the next one. It's worked well for millions of years.

There are a lot of things that go into raising a child more than just carrying it for 9 and a half months and popping it out. That is not where the resource requirements end. Children do not just become adults on their own.

edit on 25/4/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/4/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/4/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join