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.

 

Questions that Pro-Abortionists Can Never Explain

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Ok, I get the argument why the government shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies because of their Constitutional right to privacy, etc.

But here is question #1 that I have never seen a reasonable explanation for:

Why can't the government make the medical procedure of performing an abortion illegal?

There is no Constitutional right to have access to ANY medical procedure. So if a law was passed making it illegal for doctor's to perform abortions it would not be violating a woman's right to choose. She would just have to choose to have an abortion in a different jurisdiction that didn't outlaw the procedure.

And FYI, doctor's are highly regulated. They do NOT have a right to privacy in terms of the medical procedures they perform.

QUESTION #2

Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they cause a 1-day old baby to die. They can be prosecuted for murder if they intentionally kill a one day old baby. Parents have no right to privacy in matters of putting a child into danger.

However, a woman can have a needle driven into the skull of a baby that is 1-day away from being born, and claim that she has some sort of Constitutional right to do so.

What happens to a woman's right to privacy in terms of caring for a child the day after the child is born vs. the day before the child is born?




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


I like some of the arguments made by the pro-abortionist crowd when they equate the fetus as a mere "parasite".

By that same logic then, isn't a one year old, hell even a two year old a parasite since it cannot feed, change, and take care of itself. Why only have abortions on fetuses, when clearly these little buggers are also parasites outside the womb as well?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway
reply to post by jamie83
 


I like some of the arguments made by the pro-abortionist crowd when they equate the fetus as a mere "parasite".

By that same logic then, isn't a one year old, hell even a two year old a parasite since it cannot feed, change, and take care of itself.


Heck, using that argument my ex-wife was a parasite!

And does this logic apply to the elderly as well?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   


Heck, using that argument my ex-wife was a parasite! And does this logic apply to the elderly as well? a parasite!


Your thinking is too narrow, why not apply this globally? There are Nations that are living off Aid, aren't they parasites? Maybe we should abort these nations off the planet, since they can't provide for themselves, we could start by nuking them.



[edit on 30-8-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83


However, a woman can have a needle driven into the skull of a baby that is 1-day away from being born, and claim that she has some sort of Constitutional right to do so.


In what part of America is a third trimester abortion legal?

Iirc anything later than 6months is illegal, and frankly, if you couldn't make up your mind by then, then its too bad.


[edit on 8/30/2008 by eNumbra]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

In what part of America is a third trimester abortion legal?

Iirc anything later than 6months is illegal, and frankly, if you couldn't make up your mind by then, then its too bad.


[edit on 8/30/2008 by eNumbra]



I'm not sure what the actual laws are. I am sure that many abortion rights supporters believe that partial birth abortions are Constitutionally protected. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Obama himself voted against a bill that would ban partial birth abortion.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This article Wikipedia seems to suggest the partial-birth abortion procedure makes up for 15% of the 1.4% of all abortions that are late second or early third trimester.

The articles claims it's 2500 to 3000 a year, but the numbers themselves look to be from a 1998 study.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
This article Wikipedia seems to suggest the partial-birth abortion procedure makes up for 15% of the 1.4% of all abortions that are late second or early third trimester.

The articles claims it's 2500 to 3000 a year, but the numbers themselves look to be from a 1998 study.


Thanks for the source!

I'm still waiting to hear the logical explanation to the questions I posed. Like I said in the title of this thread, I have never heard pro-abortion supporters answer these questions.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
1. They could ban the procedure. Whether they should or not is another issue.

2. Birth rights.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
1. They could ban the procedure. Whether they should or not is another issue.

2. Birth rights.



I'm not sure I understand what birth rights means?

You mean once a person is born their rights begin?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Precisely. That is the underlying concept of BIRTH rights.


Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


Almost all of the women that I have ever known to have an abortion have all been on some sort of government assistance, whether that be welfare or foodstamps, ect. Using your logic they are also parasites, and I agree we should "abort" them as well.


Eye for an eye.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by jamie83
 


Precisely. That is the underlying concept of BIRTH rights.


Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.




Thanks for clarifying!

Ok, now this is where it gets interesting... at least to me, from a legal standpoint.

How can a person, whether a newborn child or adult, have a "right" to be taken care of by another person?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


a big part of your answer is the fact that making things illegal is not the solution to the problem. look at what making drugs illegal has done. gotten them off the streets? gotten them out of the hands of kids? made them safer to deal with? no. no. no.

when abortion was illegal, it did not stop abortions, it just forced them into back alleys where they were unsafe and people died. then instead of a dead fetus, you have a dead fetus, a dead mother, and a guilty 'doctor.'

why are you concerned with making abortion illegal???????

shouldnt the goal be to make a society that has no desire or need for abortion instead?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Because if you check that excerpt I quoted before, you can see that once a child is born, it has a right to safety and the pursuit of happiness.

Additionally, because a parent has taken an active choice to bring that child into the world, they have a responsibility and duty of care to that child.

Thus if a woman has gotten pregnant unwittingly (eg while drunk, or raped etc) and is forced to have the baby- ie if abortion were illegal, then that element of choice is taken away. I would suggest that in such a scenario, the parent who has been forced to bear the child has no duty of care to it.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I hate this pro-life and pro-abortion arguement.

Why cant people be neutral on the subject and let people decide for themselves what they want to do?

If it doesnt affect you on a personal level, why should it matter to you?

Just butt out of other peoples business I say.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
I hate this pro-life and pro-abortion arguement.

Why cant people be neutral on the subject and let people decide for themselves what they want to do?

If it doesnt affect you on a personal level, why should it matter to you?

Just butt out of other peoples business I say.


amen!

that and i am kind of sick of seening abortion being debated by old MEN!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azrael75

Originally posted by Wotan
I hate this pro-life and pro-abortion arguement.

Why cant people be neutral on the subject and let people decide for themselves what they want to do?

If it doesnt affect you on a personal level, why should it matter to you?

Just butt out of other peoples business I say.


amen!

that and i am kind of sick of seening abortion being debated by old MEN!


If the world was run by women, abortion would not even be a subject for conversation, period.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by jamie83
 


Because if you check that excerpt I quoted before, you can see that once a child is born, it has a right to safety and the pursuit of happiness.


No, the Constitution does NOT provide a "right" of safety. And read the wording carefully.

A right to pursue happiness does not obligate others to accommodate that pursuit.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
I hate this pro-life and pro-abortion arguement.

Why cant people be neutral on the subject and let people decide for themselves what they want to do?

If it doesnt affect you on a personal level, why should it matter to you?

Just butt out of other peoples business I say.



Yes, but it does affect me and everybody else on a personal level when the Constitutional basis for governance is applied to set precedents.

I.e., stating that a perceived right to privacy of a woman protects her from aborting a pregnancy has ramifications beyond abortion.

And how about this for personal.

As a man, if I and my wife choose to have a child together, according the the precedent established by Roe v. Wade, she alone has the right to abort the child without my consent due to her perceived right to privacy.

However, if she gives birth to the child and decides to divorce me, I will be forced at gun point to pay for the upkeep of the child until the child is 18.

Don't you see some double-standard in there?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join