Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by beezzer

We just need to grow a little more as a society, a culture, a species.

Cant argue this point, and with that,

Good nite sir.

Work is swamping me, but I will check back in this thread.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Just for an off the wall question. It's inspired by this cartoon:


What if they choose not to be born. Would you allow them that right?

Or do they have to be born?

That choice is made countless times.

It's called spontaneous abortion.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Alright... wasn't aware of that one... although I sort of was, I guess... no less cringeworthy... lol

What do you think about state enforced child support?

I think it's a good thing to make sure a child is taken care of once it's born. I guess you are asking if a woman decides to keep the child against the father's wishes, should the father be legally responsible for supporting said child? Hmmm, good question.

It would be easy for a woman to take advantage of a man by purposefully getting pregnant for child support money, but if it wasn't enforced, a man could get out of paying child support whenever he felt like it. My unmarried step-daughter just had a baby, but is not going for any kind of financial child support from the uninterested father, so it really depends on the woman and her situation.

reply to post by kaylaluv

It's a philosophical definition, not a scientific definition. Saying that once a human is in the life cycle, you shouldn't ever kill them, is not a true statement in our society - agreed? There are times when we justify it as necessary, or acceptable. We DID justify abortion in Roe v Wade, when it was decided that it was a woman's right not to carry a child in HER body to full term. That was a philosophical decision, whether you agreed with it or not. Just like it's a philosophical decision to decide it's okay to kill a guilty person.

Once a human is in the life cycle and someone else kills it without justifiable cause, I consider it murder. I am well aware that current law does not agree with me...I do not care...current law is not always correct.

My position is simple...abortion is killing another human life...a human life that has done nothing to justify that killing...a human life that is among the most vulnerable in our life cycle...and I view that as morally wrong.

Pro-choice people usually will not admit that abortion is killing a human unborn child...they want to call it something else, a clump of cells, a parasite, a potential human...just call it what it is...you are killing a human being.

I would prefer to live in a society where we don't allow the killing of our youngest humans because they are viewed as a inconvenience or a financial burden.

If it helps to clarify my position...I'm against the death penalty and I am against taking viable humans off of life support. I don't have a problem with hypocrisy in my views...but pro-choice people do.

reply to post by beezzer


With which you wouldn't allow because you want to make abortion illegal in favor of giving the unborn the right to be born.

Hmmmm.... tricky, that.

Not to mention, the other screwy problems it brings up.

Because if the unborn have rights, then that means they have the right to speak up for themselves.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I don't get your point.

It's not illegal to die...that is what a spontaneous abortion is...a human dying of natural causes at a very very young age.

The unborn wouldn't have any other rights than newborns have...do you think it is illegal for a newborn to die? Do you think "problems" arise because newborns have "rights"???

Again...I don't get your point.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


It is important to put even more energy into protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

"We" take of others beings all the time that cannot take care of themselves, why are unborn babies less important?

At 6 weeks an unborn child has functioning heart...stopping a heart is murder.

reply to post by kaylaluv

but if it wasn't enforced, a man could get out of paying child support whenever he felt like it.

You mean like a woman can get out of pregnancy, and the burden of raising a child by shoving a coat hanger through it's head?

Well, at the very least..... it would be fair for BOTH parents to have a choice in whether they raise the child.

Don't you agree?

Or is it:


"My Body, My Choice, His Financial Responsibility?"

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Actually it is bad news if you commit suicide.

All i was doing was pointing out the illogical in saying that they are the spokesman for the unborn.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

With which you wouldn't allow because you want to make abortion illegal in favor of giving the unborn the right to be born.

Hmmmm.... tricky, that.

Not to mention, the other screwy problems it brings up.

Because if the unborn have rights, then that means they have the right to speak up for themselves.

I wouldn't "allow" spontaneous abortion?

The unborn do communicate. They have heart beats, a pulse, ECG activity, they suck their thumbs and kick, they register to painful stimuli, and make facial expressions.

They communicate that they are alive.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Have you never heard of an attorney/guardian ad litem?

They speak on behalf of someone who cannot or is incapable of speaking for themselves. I think an unborn fetus would fit the bill here.

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by kaylaluv
But the living cell is in HER body, and she has the right to get that cell out of her body if she wants to. She should not be forced to keep that cell in her body against her will.

and in doing so that woman is killing a life.
let's say in a circus act a man as to balance himself on a rope hung 5 stores high, at this height, falling would mean death for sure. Now the twist is that a second man has to balance on top of the first man.
the second man is on top of the first mans "body", not only that, the first man has to work twice as much because he has to carry the second man.
The question is, should the first man be allowed legally to throw the man on top of him because its his body?
even if both men agreed to perform the stunt?

Not a great analogy. On top of your body is not the same thing as inside your body. But let's say this: If a panicked crowd of people started trampling each other, and one man who is being trampled throws off the man on top of him in order to save his own life, but by doing so causes the other man to be trampled to death - is the man who saved his own life considered a murderer? No, he's just protecting himself in a bad situation. Think of the baby as "trampling" the mother - she has a right to throw him off of her.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

It is important to put even more energy into protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

"We" take of others beings all the time that cannot take care of themselves, why are unborn babies less important?

At 6 weeks an unborn child has functioning heart...stopping a heart is murder.

Society goes out of it's way daily to insure that the rights of gays, blacks, hispanics rights are protected. I agree.

Why would protecting the rights of the unborn be any different?

reply to post by queenofswords


No, I haven't.

But that would still override the mother's rights.

Why should they get representation when the mother wouldn't?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Actually it is bad news if you commit suicide.

All i was doing was pointing out the illogical in saying that they are the spokesman for the unborn.

edit on 23-8-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

Spontaneous abortion isn't suicide...it is death by natural causes.

Who is the spokesperson for the newborn baby??? Does that cause anything illogical???


You sir, are not using logic...please stop claiming you are.

reply to post by beezzer


Because you'd be protecting and giving it special rights that nobody has. While born children are protected to a degree, they still are not protected to this extreme. Born children do not even have the special rights you want to give the unborn.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Not a great analogy. On top of your body is not the same thing as inside your body. But let's say this: If a panicked crowd of people started trampling each other, and one man who is being trampled throws off the man on top of him in order to save his own life, but by doing so causes the other man to be trampled to death - is the man who saved his own life considered a murderer? No, he's just protecting himself in a bad situation. Think of the baby as "trampling" the mother - she has a right to throw him off of her.

Are you saying a baby by default is "trampling" the mother...what a disgusting point of view.

I hope you are talking about cases where the mothers life is in physical danger...or else I just think you it is useless to have a conversation with you, if you honestly think a pregnancy is "trampling" the mother and justifies killing the baby.

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

Because you'd be protecting and giving it special rights that nobody has. While born children are protected to a degree, they still are not protected to this extreme. Born children do not even have the special rights you want to give the unborn.

Born children don't have the oppourtunity to life, liberty?

???

I don't see where you're going with this.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Have you ever seen how many people are trying to adopt, I have close friends, more than one couple...that had to go to Russia to adopt.

They came home with 2 children each and with disabilities to boot.

But let's not even go that far...1st of all, let me clarify:

I am a woman
I got pregnant by accident with no husband
I now have 2 teenage girls.

I have every right to judge on this thread.

I have been dirt poor and never took entitlements.

I am not saying I am better than anyone else, just saying hard choices can be made and life can be good without government assistance and without abortion.

Back to my point.

There is an option everyone forgets about because we are so brainwashed to think abortion is good and easy and a form of birth control.

Take the darn day after pill....no murder, no pregnancy...it's over.

How hard is it to go to cvs or Planned Parenthood and get a darn pill the day after you have unprotected sex??

And how hard is it to put on a condom and take your pill everyday? Or get the every three month shot, or get sterilized or get an IUD or don't have sex.

Why is killing a baby the easiest way out??

It is not a black or white problem with only 2 solutions.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Keep it civil.

And yes, I was not using using logic. To say I was is a strawman, I was being off the wall to point out how illogical he was being.