Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

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.

Just in case you don't know...you can't kill a newborn baby.

I really hope you already know this information...but just in case you didn't....there you go.

What exactly do you think Beezer wants to grant an unborn baby???

Folks, duty calls.

I will be back. Thank you all for the contributions to this thread. I will be back.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
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.

If you are trying to prove how illogical someone is being...you best be using logic.

reply to post by beezzer


Why have parents at all if the children are going to be given their own representative that overrides the parents rights?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And we wonder why there are so many sociopaths and psychopaths in our society!? People have become calloused and numb when they consider a woman carrying a new life as someone being "trampled" on by that same life! Sheeesh! (shakes head in astonishment)

another great post by one of my favorite posters here. stars for you, wish i could give more.


i will never understand the people who support any and all abortions no matter the circumstances. and i especially dont understand when it comes from the same side that seems to always want to end executions of convicted criminals and other low lifes.

it just doesnt make sense how recognizing the rights of an unborn child somehow automatically takes away the rights of the mother. did giving women the right to vote take away the right of men to vote? no? you mean both can happen? how odd.

and heres a crazy concept, if you arent ready to have a baby, close your legs and keep it in your pants. you have the right to not sleep around you know. thats how those crazy religious types justify pro life and birth control. people who arent sleeping around dont NEED birth control. and when you are married, in the eyes of the church/god it is OK to have sex and have children. that is the purpose after all.


if i go to a bar and get drunk and decide to kill somebody, is it fine because "its my right to do whatever i want regardless of others, and by them not dieing it is totally stamping my rights out"?

moral of the story, if you dont want a baby, dont have sex. pretty simple right? of course rape or incest or a danger to the mothers life can bring up special circumstances, but just use common sense there.

you guys realize that the abortion debate doesn't make any sense except within the context of child support, right?

(Second Line is Best Line, because Second Line don't quit)

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


In the United States your rights end when the impede the rights of another...that makes Roe vs Wade and abortion unconstitutional. One is not more important than the other but equal.

reply to post by beezzer


Coming at this subject from a Civil Rights issue point of view is just another way of pushing the "Personhood" agenda.

In some southern state, I can't remember which, they attempted to draft a "personhood" bill but came across a problem. If life begins at conception and therefore must be considered a person, when do these rights begin to apply?

This was important because these lawmakers were hoping to also outlaw the "morning after pill," which many woman take when they "think" they may be pregnant, but actually may not be yet, as it make take up to 5 days for the ovum to attach in the uterus.

So these "lawmakers, in their zeal to outlaw the "morning after pill.""determined that a woman should to be considered "pregnant" at the end of her last period, because of the 5 day window! This would mean that, by law, a woman could be considered pregnant before even having intercourse! They presented the legislation this way, and the bill failed.

Also problematic with the "personhood" agenda is the idea of hormonal based birth control and IUD's, as they make the womb an hostile environment, that will reject the sacred fertilized ovum. There is a movement to ban these items among the pro-personhood movement.

What about anchor babies and foreigners? If a female tourist becomes pregnant on American soil, is that ovum now an American citizen because it was conceived on American Soil? What a boon!

I've read many posts by people who would like to see the outlaw of abortion with the exception of rape of incest. Why? If a fertilized ovum is a person, would an incest or rape victims child have less rights, or do you want the law to apply a double standard of value of life?

Women are no longer just vessels to bring in the new generation. Biology doesn't trump self determinism. Women should not be relegated to reproductive slaves, because of biology, especially since we have such economic, environmental and social issues as it is.

We've been fighting against nature since the beginning of time, there is nothing sacred about it. We need to stop being so sanctimonious and let a woman make her own decisions for her own Constitutional right of self determination

reply to post by queenofswords


Yeah, I just can't wrap my head around it.

And honestly, neither can pro-choice people...that is why the desperately try to call it anything other than killing a human life...they call it a clump of cells, a parasite, a tumor, a part of the women's body...anything except calling it what it is...a human life.

It's hard to go to sleep at night when in the back of your head you are thinking "I support killing human children"...it's easier to create a justification and call it something else.

reply to post by timetothink

In the United States your rights end when the impede the rights of another...that makes Roe vs Wade and abortion unconstitutional. One is not more important than the other but equal.

Why does a mother have the right to the income of her baby daddy?

(Second Line, still truckin')

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by timetothink

 

In the United States your rights end when the impede the rights of another...that makes Roe vs Wade and abortion unconstitutional. One is not more important than the other but equal.

Why does a mother have the right to the income of her baby daddy?

(Second Line, still truckin')

What you are saying is true...our current system creates unequal rights among women and men.

Women have the "right" to decide to abort the baby and absolve themselves from any responsibility...men do not have this right.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


It happens all the time, the courts take over if parents are endangering their children....seriously, you must know that. Children get appointed guardians and taken from their parents all the time. Child Protective Services etc?

Hello?

reply to post by queenofswords


Reading threads like this makes my skin crawl...

I really fear for this world. Is this really what a civilized society looks like? Right back to Nazi Germany?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.

A woman may view it as her life being trampled, yes. Trampled because she doesn't have the support, the money, the maturity, the emotional stability, etc. to handle carrying the baby to term. And there is ALWAYS risk involved in any pregnancy - doesn't matter how healthy you are to start with. I knew a woman who was a healthy young woman who hemorrhaged to death immediately after delivery. If for no other reason than those risks, any woman has the right to opt out of her pregnancy.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

What you are saying is true...our current system creates unequal rights among women and men.

Women have the "right" to decide to abort the baby and absolve themselves from any responsibility...men do not have this right.

Precisely... and this is the only context that the abortion debate makes any logical sense within....

The Rights of the PARENT (Gender Neutral Term Used on Purpose)

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I don't think I was saying that? Was I?

But it takes 2 to tango now that you mention it, she didn't get prego alone.

Either don't have sex, sign a contract before or show each other medical records that you were fixed....otherwise...do the crime, do the time.

reply to post by timetothink


Roe vs Wade supports the rights of the mother.

reply to post by timetothink

Either don't have sex, sign a contract before or show each other medical records that you were fixed....otherwise...do the crime, do the time.

So, you are against abortion then?

(Second line is apt.)

reply to post by kaylaluv

A woman may view it as her life being trampled, yes. Trampled because she doesn't have the support, the money, the maturity, the emotional stability, etc. to handle carrying the baby to term. And there is ALWAYS risk involved in any pregnancy - doesn't matter how healthy you are to start with. I knew a woman who was a healthy young woman who hemorrhaged to death immediately after delivery. If for no other reason than those risks, any woman has the right to opt out of her pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but those are both pathetic excuses. Maybe a husband feels like his life is being trampled on because his wife has turned into a shopaholic and a big time naggin witch...if he divorces her, it's a huge financial burden on him...according to your logic, he should be able to kill her. Of course you will say this is different and ridiculous...and my only question is WHY?

Both scenarios involve a human killing another human because of an inconvenience...so why is one acceptable and the other is not?

And potential risk does not justify killing another human either. Driving in my car is a potential danger...the other drivers are all potential drivers. I knew a guy who went out driving, and sitting at a stop light...BAM...hit by another car and killed. I guess he should have had the right to kill any other driver he sees because of the "potential risk" they pose to him.

So no, neither of your arguments are logical or valid...the only way they are is by declaring that an unborn child is unhuman...and you have already admitted that they are.

A women has the same option to opt out of pregnancy as every man does...before they decide to have sex. Pregnancy isn't a spontaneous reaction...a women has to take specific steps to become pregnant. If she isn't "ready" for it...then she shouldn't participate in the act that leads to pregnancy.