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: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


That just brings the argument right back to anyone who is not self sufficient, not being human or having rights.

Just because a being cannot survive on it's own, does not make it ok to kill it.

Windword:

This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with valuing life....where do you draw the line? What makes one life more important than another?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



This isn't about me, or you being able to control sexual urges. Are you ready to regulate teenage sex? Do you think that you can impose your religious morals on everybody.


Is there a reason you keep bringing up religion???

I have no religous morals in regards to sex...unless there is some kinky religion out there that I'm not aware of. I had pre-marital sex...but I was prepared to accept the consequences of having sex.

The reason you are trying to bring up religion, is because you think that is a winning argument for you. That is your fallback it seems...bash religion...except I'm not coming from a religous viewpoint...just biology and logic.

Tell me something, do you think the murder rate would go up or down if murder was made legal???



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Yes.

Or give it to a family who will.


But don't kill it.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Again, this argument isn't about you, what you would do, what you have done, or what you think other should do.

Please address the information and opinion that I have posted, instead of trying to illicit emotional responses by repeating "innocent" and "murder."



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by snusfanatic
 


I'd say give it 50 years and viability outside the womb will be down to 5-10 weeks gestation.

Hopefully, since pro-choice legislation has hung their hat on viability, technology will end the debate.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I still can't figure out your view on abortion?



Not the money aspects, but the morality of the act.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



I still can't figure out your view on abortion?



Not the money aspects, but the morality of the act.


That's not all that surprising, since I have not actually elucidated my personal views on the subject.

And I'm not going to either, because it is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


You're exactly the type of pro-choice person I like to debate with. I could see us actually having a productive, non-insane discussion on this. I need to ask, though, about how you see viability in light of ever increasing technology. Based on your understanding of medicine (not asking you to be a doctor or expert here, I have a limited understanding myself, obviously) when is the earliest at this stage in history that a fetus can be considered viable?


I believe Roe v Wade says viability is no earlier than 24 weeks (6th month). I don't really know of new technology, so can't comment on that.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Again, this argument isn't about you, what you would do, what you have done, or what you think other should do.

Please address the information and opinion that I have posted, instead of trying to illicit emotional responses by repeating "innocent" and "murder."


I did address the informaiton you posted...you keep asking me about religion when I have not brought up religion one single time.

Have sex...have lots of sex...have sex in any way you want...but be responsible for your actions and the potential consequences.

We legislate responsibility all the time...negligence, child endangerment, even seatbelts...but for some reason, it is allowed to kill a human life because it might infringe on your lifestyle.

And you should have an emotional response...we are talking about the murder of a very young human being...if you aren't emotional about it, there is something wrong. I understand you don't want to think of it as a human...it really sucks to lay in bed and think about how you support killing children...but I'm sorry...biology defines it...not me.
edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


It's the purpose of the thread.

Do you believe the unborn are due civil rights?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I agree with this in spirit. Science and technology will end the debate, in my view. Pregnancy will only become safer, the trend of the unborn being increasingly treated like patients will continue, viability outside of the womb will seem like a strange ancient concept, when medical technologies that allows even cells to grow independent of the mother are taken as everyday facts, etc.

I'm not pro-life because I like beating down people's choices, I'm pro-life because the pro-choice movement is untenable as it currently exists and is likely to not exist at all in the future. Technology and economics often has a way of settling our great moral debates for us.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



It's the purpose of the thread.

Do you believe the unborn are due civil rights?


Correct me if I am wrong, but the purpose of this thread is discussion on the topic of:

"Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights."

And that is precisely what I am talking about. The issue of abortion as seen through the perspective of civil rights, as opposed to emotional based morality.


the civil rights of the mother, the civil rights of the child.... but never the civil rights of the father.

at least you all are DISCUSSING the civil rights of the child....
edit on 24-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Beezer is looking at it from a civil rights standpoint for the unborn...do the unborn have civil rights?

It's a simple question.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



Beezer is looking at it from a civil rights standpoint for the unborn...do the unborn have civil rights?

It's a simple question.


It's honestly not my place to decide that.

This is a decision for all of society to make of, and for itself.

I am merely highlighting the civil rights that are being trampled in this debate, by the polarizing nature of it.

The Civil rights of the Father, the ones that NO-ONE wants to talk about.

And, consequently, the reason that this "Abortion Issue" is even as hot buttoned as it is, is BECAUSE fathers are seen as having NO civil rights when it comes to their child.
edit on 24-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



No, I believe Roe v Wade talks about the "viability" of the fetus. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb. I didn't think abortions were allowed if the fetus was considered viable. I agree with that ruling. If it's viable, that is the same thing as the baby being outside the body - then you can't do with it whatever you want.


And why that arbitrary point?

What is special about viability outside the womb?

I'm asking you, not Roe vs Wade...what do you think is special about viability outside the womb...why does killing life before that seem ok to you?


Because being able to live outside the womb is virtually the same as living outside the womb. When the fetus is not able to live outside the womb (when it has not fully developed the primary organs), it is just a part of the woman's body - and a woman should be able to do with her body as she pleases. When the fetus is fully developed, and is just growing in size, it is no longer just a part of the host's body. It is now it's own fully separate entity that can survive without the host. Once it becomes it's own separate entity, civil and human rights begin.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

edit on 24-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Again, this argument isn't about you, what you would do, what you have done, or what you think other should do.

Please address the information and opinion that I have posted, instead of trying to illicit emotional responses by repeating "innocent" and "murder."


I did address the informaiton you posted...


No you didn't.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

^^^This is my opinion, and my answer to you questions


you keep asking me about religion when I have not brought up religion one single time.


Yes you did.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


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).



Have sex...have lots of sex...have sex in any way you want...but be responsible for your actions and the potential consequences.


Are you trying to giving me advice?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Beezer said:


A woman has a right, but her right should end where the rights of the unborn baby begins. Currently the law favours the rights of the woman and ignores the rights of the unborn.
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

It is for you to decide and for each of us to think about and decide....that's how legislation is made.

edit on 24-8-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Because the thread is about the civil rights of the unborn, not the father....but as I said earlier...everyone's are equal...one does not outway the other.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



It is for you to decide and for each of us to think about and decide....that's how legislation is made.


Whether or not abortion is legal is of no concern to me.

Whether or not father have rights, IS.

You keep talking about civil rights, and yet you leave out the father.... Why?




top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join