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.

 

Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Exactly, it ignores the rights of the baby which makes it unconstitutional....no ones rights or more important than another's.




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzerParenthood.
It's a responsibility many have abdicated, to be sure. But it is not a situation where government is adding more laws. It is a situation where government is removing it's denial of rights to an underclass of human beings.


What we have is a situation when two (or more if you count the taxpayers) people’s justifiable civil rights are in conflict.

The decision whose rights are more important? The mother, the child, societies?

Bottom line is there is no easy answer – it’s one of those “someone goes screwed regardless” questions.
I know you are familiar with such things having spent 25+ years in the military you have to be fairly senior. In these instances do the least harm to the fewest people or spend the least amount of resources IMO.

The mother gets her right to chose – the child loses out.

The child is required to be carried to term by law – the mother (if she has to keep it) loses her right to self determination and pursuit of happiness because of the legal requirements of parenthood. Likely in this situation she and the child become a burden to the taxpayer through the receipt of “aid”.

If she gives it up and no family wants to adopt it the state and therefore the rest of the people who were not involved have their quality of life and right to seek happiness limited through increased taxation.

The child if carried to term (under force of law) gains the right to life. However, if forced to stay with a parent who resents it – the happiness factor of the child is questionable at best. Even if supported by the state a life in foster care is a crap shoot at best with heavy odds against a happy one.

The option that limits the rights of the fewest people and costs society the least is the one in which the mother can choose. She can chose abortion which limits the child’s rights and saves society the burden. I guess she can also chose life which limits the rights of the rest of us with her burden.


Personally – I’d allow this choice on the public dime as a one-time option any other such choices would not be entertained.

We who make good choices in life can’t afford (and shouldn’t be forced) to support a nations worth of babies so that people can have a clear conscience when they meet their imaginary friend in heaven (or wherever).


Originally posted by beezzer
When are we going to evolve to a point where we stop looking at the unborn as tissue to be discarded, as second class citizens to be ignored, as an inconvenience to be swept away with a visit to a clinic?


That is a good question – perhaps when all wars end and there is fee food for everyone and no one resents being forced to do things against their will.

Personally, just look to the places we have been in the third world – why would people procreate under those conditions? To create a life in such circumstances is beyond cruel but they out procreate their resources every day and we step in with aid – for the sake of the children.

Do the least harm is the best answer in this situation.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Yes.



Don't forget, fathers can sign away their parental rights.....but I am no expert on that.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



Yes.


Well then, at least you are being logically self consistent.

And that is quite rare in this debate, I assure you.


Don't forget, fathers can sign away their parental rights.....but I am no expert on that.


Unless the mother pursues them for child support, and then they have no rights.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   


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.
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Bravo!!!

Quit having sex if your so worried about the after effects!!

Too much to ask for a little personal responsibility???

Murder as a solution??? Gimme a break.


(OutKast...we are usually at each other on opposite sides...I think I like a little right now)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
HA ah HA ah HA

Oh look, Beezer is calling for a nanny state government. I thought you wanted less gov, not more? Less regulation, not more? Oh, I see, only when it suits your agenda.

Go join a commune, it'll suit you.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Respectfully...using the "society's burden" argument is unfair....what is the actual percentage of society's burden?

I was in this situation and neither I nor my child became society's burden.....never took a dime, not a food stamp, nada.

And right now nobody seems concerned about society's burden of welfare cheats...the ones that have kid after kid on purpose and don't get married so the checks keep coming.

Putting the whole above the individual is what leads to the worst of governments and societies, where no one is worth anything.
edit on 23-8-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


But they did partake in the "goodies"...so it's not unfair.



To tell you the truth though, that was the last thing on my mind when it happened to me...it depends on the individuals. I wanted to run home to my family (I live far away) but he wanted to do the right thing. I never thought about going to court etc...I just got daycare and went back to work.
edit on 23-8-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Why do half of the people that are pro-life, want to repeal the civil rights act because of "property rights"? Like Ron Paul.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Great post.

My thoughts: "You didn't make that baby, God did."

Women, you are not the only one with a body. The preborn child has a body as well. So I speak for the innocent ones whose rights are ignored, back at you: "It's my body and it's my right to live as much as it is yours."

sad eyed lady



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





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.


This has to be the most ridiculous logic I've heard yet!

First, men can't become pregnant.

Second, ovulation is a spontaneous reaction.

Lastly, a woman has to take steps to AVOID becoming pregnant, and those steps don't always work!

The readiness for sex is not the same readiness for childbearing.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Why do people keep calling a fetus human life?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



But they did partake in the "goodies"...so it's not unfair.


So did the woman who wants to kill the consequences of her decision to partake in those very same goodies...

So it *IS* fair.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Emotional investment.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



This has to be the most ridiculous logic I've heard yet!

First, men can't become pregnant.

Second, ovulation is a spontaneous reaction.

Lastly, a woman has to take steps to AVOID becoming pregnant, and those steps don't always work!


Are you saying that in our society men aren't burdened when they get a women pregnant??? Many courts will disagree with you.

And ovulation can be fairly accurately timed if you know what signs to look for...and ovulation is only one part of the equation. The only step women have to take to avoid becoming pregnant is to not have sex...it works 100% of the time (99.99999% of the time if you are a Christian).



The readiness for sex is not the same readiness for childbearing.


I had to give this one it's own quote...because THIS is the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard.

Seriously...WTF???



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Welcome back Beez. You have started a fine and civil thread here. Well it kinda did break down there for a bit but whattcha gonna do?

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the constitutional foundation of our civil liberties. In the case of choice/pro life, the argument breaks to either side of the ambiguities inherent in opposing belief systems. One side is wrong and the other is not, while one side is right and the other is not. Stalemate. We have Aristotle to thank for this "yes or no" mentality.

Here is a thought though. This same argument can be extended beyond the yes or no of choice/pro life. Liberty.
Can a pro life defender defend a young Childs liberty with the same zeal? The same staunch absolute intractability? I think not. Would a pro choice advocate?

Better yet, how about pursuit of happiness? Would any one demand for the peevish child the right to be happy all the time? Left, right, lib or con, a think most will agree that no, a child may not be granted the right to pursue happiness without numerous limitations. Yet in the absolutist positions demanded by the choice/life discussion we are asked to make our decisions based on equally ambiguous parameters. I cannot see how the life liberty happiness right can be used as an argument to either defend or promote either side of this issue.

One last thing. A decade ago, as was mentioned several times farther up in the thread, the unborn victims of violence act was passed. It has been used to argue here for the legality of unborn personage, hence the rights of the unborn. For the most part itt is liberals who champion pro choice, yes? And conservatives who support pro life, right? Mostly? Liberals worked to have pro choice laws enacted and conservatives work to have them overturned.

The UVVA was promoted by conservatives and signed into law specifically to undermine the more liberal pro choice laws. SO, as pointed out up thread, the absolute stature of unborn personhood is now legally dependent on situations and interpretation. The conservative authors of this bill wanted vagueness in the law, and this is what they got. Republicans controlled the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch and many Democrats voted in favor of the bill simply because we were still deeply in the throws of our 9-11 swing to the right and thought that that was not the time or issue to wave their liberal flag. Many liberals fought the bill, but moderate and conservative Democrats did not.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people keep calling a fetus human life?



Because of the biological life cycle of any living organism.

It's basic biology...humans aren't special...the life cycle for animals begins at conception, you can find this in any biology book.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.


Once the child is alive and outside the woman's body, the woman no longer has the right to do with it whatever she wants. The nagging wife is alive and not part of the husband's body - he doesn't have the right to do with her whatever he wants. The other drivers are alive and not part of the driver's body, so on and so forth.

Mistakes are going to happen - by both the man and the woman. Education is key - and we should have a lot more of it in schools - on that I think we can both agree. Look, I'm not crazy about abortion either, but I'm not going to be in favor of any law that says a woman can't have privacy or rights in the decisions she makes with her own body.

Hey, I'm all in favor of giving incentives to certain women to get sterilized to prevent multiple abortions. And I'm in favor of giving out free birth control to anyone and everyone - pass it out like candy! I do think it's unrealistic to expect people to never have sex.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Then all she has to do is go to CVS and pop that little pill...no waiting and wondering what to do.

If 2 people decide to have sex they should be ready for the outcome. Murder should not be the way out.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



Once the child is alive and outside the woman's body, the woman no longer has the right to do with it whatever she wants.


So you support late term, even partial birth abortions???


The nagging wife is alive and not part of the husband's body - he doesn't have the right to do with her whatever he wants. The other drivers are alive and not part of the driver's body, so on and so forth.


Oh, so now you put in the qualifier that because it is insider her body, the baby has no rights. But then, like I said in my first point...in order to use this argument, you have to support the hideous practice of late term and partial birth abortions.

You are just digging yourself a really nasty hole in order to justify your beliefs...believe me, I've gone down this path with many pro-choice people...right now you are desperately trying to avoid admitting you support killing human children...so you are trying to make justifications. Those justifications are bringing you down a dark dark path...which as lead to your support of late term and partial birth abortions...because the baby is "still inside the mother".


I honestly don't blame you, you have been taught that abortion rights are principle to women's freedom...so you will defend it without even having a logical argument as to why you support it. You have to discount a human life to be able to support it...and that is very very sad.
edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join