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: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I rest my case.

Life > money. Even yours.


So then why can she KILL IT?




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
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.



I don't expect people to agree with my opinion.

I'm fine with pointing out how illogical they are being and having them leave the discussion.

After I counter all their various justifications for supporting the murder of a human child...usually someone suggests exactly what you do...that it is pointless to talk about and people start to dissapear from the conversation.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Unborn children do not.


That's because for the most part they are not. There are far larger and different circumstances that face fertilized eggs for example as opposed to children, babies. Putting the "child" label on a fertilized egg doesn't magically make it a human being, it doesn't afford it the same circumstances faced by human beings.


Men have no say, it's no-ones business but the womans.


Well this is just a fact you have to accept, mother nature has made it so. It is the woman who has to take on the pregnancy, she has to take on the pain and suffering through her body, mother nature has given this responsibility to her, mother nature has given the control to her. You can't change this reality, and trying to legislate your own morals and views will not change this fact either.

If men magically took on part of the pregnancy, this would be a very different case.


A woman has a right, but her right should end where the rights of the unborn baby begins.


You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either way you go you'll either end up compromising the right of the women, or that of a fertilized egg. You can't have both rights afforded in the same way. Essentially your position is that the rights of a fertilized egg trumps that of the rights of a women, and given that fertilized eggs are not actual human beings, given their circumstances (fertilized eggs only have potential to become human beings), you cannot realistically regulate and enforce their rights above those of a woman. Neither is it justified.

If pro-lifers are so passionate about their cause for the lives of children, they'd be better spent rallying their support around pregnant women, single mothers. They'd be better spent supporting adoptions (financially and legally), they'd be better spent supporting young couples, teenages in this situation. By insisting that rights should be stripped from women to favour the unborn, and then in another case keep largely silent about the many single mothers, teen pregnancies, orphaned children out there with little support, you're not changing the cycle of abortions out there at all, just creating more opposition against your movement, your ideals.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



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 no...the child might not live a perfect life...I guess the only solution is to kill it.



Hey, at least you got me on spelling.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Because she currently has that legal right. Equating this to child support is irrational. Why not start a thread called "Repeal abortion" and argue for fetal rights? Lobby for a repeal. Build a grass roots movement. Garner support - should be easy to do most religious people and the entire GOP would side with you.

Or you could sit here and talk about what really irks you... that women got a legal leg up on men. Misogyny, even the subtle kind, still speaks volumes.

Apples and oranges and totally irrational.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Guys should take care of their kids or they should keep their pants zipped up.


exactly, and now apply that to woman too! that's equality my friend

:]



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Or you could sit here and talk about what really irks you... that women got a legal leg up on men. Misogyny, even the subtle kind, still speaks volumes.


You just admitted there is inequality.

And then you say it is misogyny to point it out.


I speak out for what I believe is right...you can call all the names you want...I don't hate women...but throwing that out there is easier than trying to prove a point that you can't. There IS inequality...you can't even argue that there isn't.

You started out saying there is no inequality...now you admit it...but call us misoginist....nice logic there.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Because she currently has that legal right. Equating this to child support is irrational.


Is the womb not a child support system?


Why not start a thread called "Repeal abortion" and argue for fetal rights?


Because that is not my perspective.


Lobby for a repeal. Build a grass roots movement. Garner support - should be easy to do most religious people and the entire GOP would side with you.


That's not my purpose here in this thread, as I have already made clear.


Or you could sit here and talk about what really irks you...




that women got a legal leg up on men



So, you admit that women have more rights that men?

Thanks.


Misogyny, even the subtle kind, still speaks volumes.


You mean misandry, right?

Are you implying that I hate women because I disagree with you?


Apples and oranges and totally irrational.


Just because you are being irrational, does not mean that I am going to stop sharing my perspective.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



Originally posted by Hefficide

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.


I believe you are mistaken. I explicitly stated that this argument is superfluous because it seeks to reverse an inequality. Not rectify it.

IE - if you free slaves then they should become the masters and the former masters should be slaves... this is how I see this entire debate. Neither position is honest or fair.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I believe you are mistaken. I explicitly stated that this argument is superfluous because it seeks to reverse an inequality. Not rectify it.


And you have failed to demonstrate how it would reverse an inequality.

Answer these 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?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


And again OKS you are removing one party from a three party contract. You cannot do this and remain genuine in argument. There are three distinct parties involved. The entire argument dissolves into rhetoric and semantics without that consideration.

And to preemptively reply ( again ) "She can because it is the law as voted for by the people and upheld by the SCOTUS." And, again, if you think of a more equitable variant - which covers all three parties in the contract, then by all means table it and I'll support it if it is rational.

~Heff
edit on 8/24/12 by Hefficide because: missed a quotation mark



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


why is "on top" not the same thing as "inside" ? At any given time both scenarios are true, location is not important
also, I'm guessing that in your analogy, the man being trampled first did not willingly start the panic?
in pregnancy the mother did start the pregnancy
the mother is not an innocent bystander who happened to be at the wrong place

I would like to present another scenario and I'm curious how you will respond
in the case of conjoined twins, should one twin be legally allowed to kill the other twin?
how do you choose which one has the right to kill the other one
now lets say the conjoined twins share internal organs, they are both dependent on each other
so they are not "viable" on their own
should conjoined twins be killed?
clearly they wont have a normal life, they will suffer, and they are not "viable"



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



And again OKS you are removing one party from a three party contract. You cannot do this and remain genuine in argument. There are three distinct parties involved. The entire argument dissolves into rhetoric and semantics without that consideration.


Then why do you keep removing men from the consideration of rights?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Hello ErtaiNaGia, I just thought I'd address this pointer you made to Hefficide

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 




So, you admit that women have more rights that men?


In terms of pregnancy do women have more rights than men? Yes they do. They have more rights than men in this case because naturally they have the last call in the decision making of the pregnancy. The pregnancy is carried by the woman herself, she takes on the pain, she takes on the control and the responsibility. Just because she's pregnant and half of that genetic material came from the man doesn't mean she loses "control" over her body, she still has that control, this is what mother nature has given her. I understand your position, that the man who contributed his genetic material in your view should have equal rights, but it is just a reality that he doesn't have that control during the pregnancy, he doesn't magically gain half the control of the woman's body with pregnancy, this is something pro-lifers cannot seem to understand, or don't want to.

So long as mother nature requires, the woman will continue to be the one in natural control of the pregnancy, enforcing moral laws won't change this, it won't change the cycle especially with technology ever changing. What you call unfair, I call mother nature. In a perfect world the man takes the equal responsibility when it comes to natural pregnancy, but we don't live in that world. Mother nature has not made it so, you've got to live with this as do the others.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


And again...current law removes one of those parties from the equation...but only for the woman.

We are talking about pregnancy...it's a two party contract. The child has no responsibility in the "contract"...only the man and the woman. Current state gives the women the option to absolve herself from the responsibility of her own actions....men do not have this option.

I know you just don't want to offend women...but ignoring an inequality to do so isn't logical.


Also, I know you are intentionally ignoring the two questions I am presenting, because you know it will 100% prove you wrong.



ETA: I'm going to bed, I'll pick this up tomorrow.
edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



What you call unfair, I call mother nature.


Family courts awarding child support to mothers, from the wallet of the father is... natural to you?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I believe you are mistaken. I explicitly stated that this argument is superfluous because it seeks to reverse an inequality. Not rectify it.


And you have failed to demonstrate how it would reverse an inequality.

Answer these 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?


Can the child absolve itself of the consequences of an unwanted life?

The child has the least voice in the situation. Again life > money. People have rights - paramount of which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Life trumps money.

~Heff

ETA: I avoided addressing these two questions deliberately because they lead to irrational conclusions. They are baiting questions that ignore the plurality of the issue.
edit on 8/24/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Can the child absolve itself of the consequences of an unwanted life?


WTF?

Sure, they can commit suicide when they grow up...I don't care...that is their choice.


The child has the least voice in the situation. Again life > money. People have rights - paramount of which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Life trumps money.


I agree...which is why I am pro-life.

Are you???



ETA: I avoided addressing these two questions deliberately because they lead to irrational conclusions. They are baiting questions that ignore the plurality of the issue.


They aren't baiting questions...they are very simple and logical quesitons. You are avoiding them because they prove you wrong and you don't want to deal with that.

If they lead to irrational conclusions...again...prove it. You keep making these types of claims without any proof whatsoever. You deem it to lead to irrational conclusions without any proof...now THAT is illogical.

Please, tell all of us what the "irrational conclusion" these questions lead to.


Now I'm really going to bed.
edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


In terms of pregnancy do women have more rights than men? Yes they do. They have more rights than men in this case because naturally they have the last call in the decision making of the pregnancy. The pregnancy is carried by the woman herself, she takes on the pain, she takes on the control and the responsibility. Just because she's pregnant and half of that genetic material came from the man doesn't mean she loses "control" over her body, she still has that control, this is what mother nature has given her. I understand your position, that the man who contributed his genetic material in your view should have equal rights, but it is just a reality that he doesn't have that control during the pregnancy, he doesn't magically gain half the control of the woman's body with pregnancy, this is something pro-lifers cannot seem to understand, or don't want to.

So long as mother nature requires, the woman will continue to be the one in natural control of the pregnancy, enforcing moral laws won't change this, it won't change the cycle especially with technology ever changing. What you call unfair, I call mother nature. In a perfect world the man takes the equal responsibility when it comes to natural pregnancy, but we don't live in that world. Mother nature has not made it so, you've got to live with this as do the others.


you like to speak of mother nature a lot, mother nature can be thought as biology
what you don't seem to understand is that biology says
that once a zygote is formed, it is not longer "the woman's" body
the zygote is a living separate organism

I'm sure mother nature has not planned for abortions either
the natural thing would be to have the kid, unless there is a natural miscarriage
bringing mother nature won't help pro-choice arguments
it actually helps the pro-life point of view



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Family courts awarding child support to mothers, from the wallet of the father is... natural to you?


No it's not natural, because it's a legal view, mother nature is not concerned with what legalities humans hold or enforce because well, it's mother nature. Politicians enforcing child support laws do not contradict the cycle of pregnancies and the control women naturally gain through that process, why would it? They have little to nothing in relation to each other.

Alittle advice to men, keep it in your pants, because life isn't fair. Being a good boy does not change your risk when getting together with the opposite (or same) sex.




top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join