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: 15
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


No you are getting way off topic....

This thread is about the civil rights of the unborn....

You need to start another thread.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Technology and economics often has a way of settling our great moral debates for us.



I would say that technology has a way of creating a lot more moral debates for us. Stem cells anyone?

How about cloning? Wait, I got it. We should sterilize all humans. Then, if you want a baby, just purchase the DNA you want and clone somebody from a test tube! Want a Brad Pitt baby? Purchase the DNA and clone it!! We'd have better control over when, where and what kind of kids we have - and there would be no mistakes or accidents!!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Did you read Brave New World?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



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


No, it is not part of the women's body, this is just fundamentally wrong based on biology of living things.

It is never "part" of the women's body...it is always it's own organism. It doesn't matter if it has organs yet or not...it is it's own organism.

Viability is only limited by technology...to me, it is a poor measure to determine when you are going to allow murder. Technology shouldn't tell us when something is murder and when it is not...logical humans should be able to make that determination ourselves.

If you only use logic and biology...then you don't have the problems of arbitrary points to pick from...some say viability, some say a heartbeat, some say brain function, some even say breathing...they are all arbitrary points in the life cycle to allow murder.


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.


It is always a seperate entity...it is never a part of the women's body.

A basic biology class will teach you this.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



No you are getting way off topic....

This thread is about the civil rights of the unborn....

You need to start another thread.


give someone power over another person, without the responsibility that should go along with it.... and you see what happens.....

This society gives women carte blanch to enslave men for 18 years through sex, while simultaneously giving her all of the power over weather or not the child is even considered human, or alive, or deserving of civil rights.

The Abortion issue is a symptom of this perspective that men merely exist to give women money, and that women can choose what is human, and what is not.

Imagine how women's behaviour would change, if they couldn't enslave a man for 18 years...
edit on 24-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I remember debating this exact same topic a few years back with a person who had exactly the same views as you... something rabbity if I recall.

The flaw with your argument is that you are not debating from a position of compromise or true social equality. You are playing the all or nothing card. You feel that women have all the power currently and you wish to have that inequity reversed - NOT resolved.

Thus, in essence, you are semantically rendering your own point moot without even realizing it.

My .02 cents.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.


Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.


Not interested in the law annie? From the link posted


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]



The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).


The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.


Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...


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

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



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Ok...let me make this clear...the reference to Christianity was a joke...the 99.99999% effectiveness of abstinence was in reference to Mary...who allegedly didn't have sex, yet got pregnant. Let me repeat...it was a JOKE. Stop trying to play ignorant in order to try to bring religion into this debate...I know you desperately want to...because I think that is your only angle.

As to your copy paste:

The sex drive is involuntary.




Sex drive is not the act of having sex. I guess fat people can say it isn't their fault...because hunger is involuntary


Your logic on this topic isn't great...your desperation to find a justification to murder is forcing you to abandon logic and science.



Pregnancy looms over a woman, daily, for as much as 40 years. It can kill




For real...it loooms over a women daily???

It's not a random disease a women gets...good lord, you act like women are idiots and don't know how they get pregnant...and they are also uncontrolled sex addicts and it's not their fault because the sex drive is involuntary.

How about you give some women some credit instead of making them out to be morons who don't know how they get pregnant and can't control instincts.

And hey...I guess you can forgive that rapist too...because you know...his sex drive is involuntary.


Ridiculous arguments.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I don't see how you think he is advocating for inequality.

From what I understand, his position is pretty simple...right now women have the right to absolve their responsibility and men don't.

He is just saying that men should have that right as well...and I agree.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



The flaw with your argument is that you are not debating from a position of compromise or true social equality.


This statement is false, actually.

I am the only one here that is debating from a position of true social equality.

As it has been said, it takes two to tango.... and yet, one of the tango partners that help to create the child whose life we are discussing, is conveniently forgotten.


You are playing the all or nothing card. You feel that women have all the power currently and you wish to have that inequity reversed - NOT resolved.


And this statement is also false.

I am playing the "Hey, let's look at reality, instead of barking out our emotions at eachother, so that nothing is ever resolved, no-one learns anything, and we all just get more and more angry"


Thus, in essence, you are semantically rendering your own point moot without even realizing it.


And third, and not least.... this statement is false also.

You have yet to explain why any of the things that you claim are true, you have merely implied them without even a cursory explanation.

Please try again, and provide logical arguments so that you may be seen as reasonable, and consistant, as opposed to merely using large words that you do not understand.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


 


Actually I've been down this path before and the argument on the other side might seem rational at first but it isn't - the argument is a thinly veiled red herring for the following:

If she can get an abortion without my consent - then I should not have to pay child support - ever.

It's not about equity to either party, nor to the child(ren)

It's creating a false dichotomy. The actual issue is this... if people choose to have sex then they choose to place themselves in a certain position, with full foreknowledge of the consequences. To argue that women use this as a weapon is superfluous - as every guy knows the risks beforehand.

ETA - emotional? I'm just talking... who is emotional here.


~Heff
edit on 8/24/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/24/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You are claiming it is wrong, because you have discussed it before...but you are not providing any logical argument as to why it's wrong.

And yes...it is currently unequal...it's more than just child support...it's all responsibility of that child.

And it's not about using it as a weapon, it's simple inequality.

Answer two simple questions.

Can a women absolve herself of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

Can a man absolve himself of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

If the answer to those questions are different, you have an equality issue.




The actual issue is this... if people choose to have sex then they choose to place themselves in a certain position, with full foreknowledge of the consequences. To argue that women use this as a weapon is superfluous - as every guy knows the risks beforehand.


I have to address this point specifically.

You make it a point to say every guy knows the risks beforehand...why don't you hold women to the same standard???
edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Only if you look at it as a male/female problem. In a pregnancy there are three interested parties. All three have to be considered. To ignore the child in the situation is unsound.

Social compacts are contracts. Engage in sex and you accept the current terms of said contract as implied by the current laws and standards of practice. I have never once said - anywhere - that I personally agree with abortion. I've always said that I don't have a womb and will not state an opinion.

But, as I've said. Been down this road before... and not going back down it. It's a circular nightmare with bitter folk. Not the makings of a good night.

Find a solution that equalizes things for all three concerned parties and I'll happily vote to change the laws to reflect that. But as things currently exist - I stand by my opinions. Guys should take care of their kids or they should keep their pants zipped up. Equating abortion and child support is disingenuous to the extreme IMO. It's not a black and white comparison to me.

Done talking about this now!


~Heff



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Actually I've been down this path before and the argument on the other side might seem rational at first but it isn't - the argument is a thinly veiled red herring for the following:


Oh, this should be good....


If she can get an abortion without my consent - then I should not have to pay child support - ever.

It's not about equity to either party, nor to the child(ren)


Actually, it is about equality.... between the man and the woman.

How exactly is enslaving the man to the woman's decision equal?


It's creating a false dichotomy.


And you didn't explain how it's a false dichotomy.... you just SAID that it was, without offering an explanation as to why that particular word that you chose to use fits the context of your statement.

Do you know what these words mean?


The actual issue is this... if people choose to have sex then they choose to place themselves in a certain position, with full foreknowledge of the consequences. To argue that women use this as a weapon is superfluous - as every guy knows the risks beforehand.


If she chose to have sex, then why can she get an abortion?

She knew the risks as well as he did.... why can she get out of it?

If he chose to have sex, why is he committed to whatever she decides?

Why does he not have a say in the matter?

You are bringing a red herring into this discussion, and I think it's because you don't want to talk about the fact that in western society, men are seen as having absolutely no rights once the woman becomes pregnant.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The biggest problem with abortions is that it's really the same arguments over and over again and everybody is so emotionally invested in their pov that they can't be objective and will never change their mind but always expect people to agree with their opinion.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


There would be equity if the risk of pregnancy involved both parties equally. But it doesn't. Only women can get pregnant and therefore they bear the brunt of the risk of sex.

So since you love to couch your statements in ad homs and patronization: have at this one. Explain how this is absolute and equal? Men get to engage in sex without personal risk here. Go ahead. Tear this up line by line - without actually saying anything. Have fun with it. I am.

Empathy works much better than bitterness and hate. Just sayin'.



~Heff



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



There would be equity if the risk of pregnancy involved both parties equally. But it doesn't. Only women can get pregnant and therefore they bear the brunt of the risk of sex.


And how does that entitle her to his money?


Explain how this is absolute and equal? Men get to engage in sex without personal risk here.


Well, let's start from the beginning, shall we?

Sexually transmitted diseases, alimony, child support, bitter family members seeking revenge, social scorn....

Which one of these things is not a personal risk to the man?

And, as an addendum, explain to me why the female gets to decide whether the child lives or dies, and the male gets no decision, and must bear the financial burden of the pregnancy that he never got to choose?
edit on 24-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Hefficide
 



There would be equity if the risk of pregnancy involved both parties equally. But it doesn't. Only women can get pregnant and therefore they bear the brunt of the risk of sex.


And how does that entitle her to his money?


I rest my case.

Life > money. Even yours.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Only if you look at it as a male/female problem. In a pregnancy there are three interested parties. All three have to be considered. To ignore the child in the situation is unsound.


Current law has already ignored the child...so the only parties left are the man and the woman.


And you didn't answer my two very simple questions. If you did, you would see that your position is illogical.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



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


No, it is not part of the women's body, this is just fundamentally wrong based on biology of living things.

It is never "part" of the women's body...it is always it's own organism. It doesn't matter if it has organs yet or not...it is it's own organism.

Viability is only limited by technology...to me, it is a poor measure to determine when you are going to allow murder. Technology shouldn't tell us when something is murder and when it is not...logical humans should be able to make that determination ourselves.

If you only use logic and biology...then you don't have the problems of arbitrary points to pick from...some say viability, some say a heartbeat, some say brain function, some even say breathing...they are all arbitrary points in the life cycle to allow murder.


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.


It is always a seperate entity...it is never a part of the women's body.

A basic biology class will teach you this.


Ok, I'm too tired to fight you anymore. You win. All babies should be born to be hated, resented, abused, starved, abandoned, tortured, taken from the only mother they've ever known (who didn't want them in the first place) to be put in the foster care system to be most probably mistreated by strangers who don't give a crap about them, so that they end up criminals or drug addicts. Or, the woman decides to take matters into her own hands (because that's what women did before abortion was legal) and kills herself and the baby with back-alley butchers and coat hangers. Because God knows that's better for them.

Oh, and it's a pet peeve of mine: it's separate, not seperate.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join