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: 17
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Why has this thread been allowed to spiral so far out of control??

Poor beez...

It just shows the selfishness that has allowed us to think killing unborn children is OK.....


MY rights, her rights, his rights.....unborn...nothing nada zip

"Who cares about the kid..I'm keeping my money!!"

Sickening.


And waaaaay off topic.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Politicians enforcing child support laws do not contradict the cycle of pregnancies and the control women naturally gain through that process, why would it?


Because women won't develop a judge of character in determining a mate that will actually support her offspring, and will instead rely on the state to force any potential sutor into compliance, With respect to financial aid only.

Thus, women's behaviour has changed to reflect this unnatural situation.


Alittle advice to men, keep it in your pants, because life isn't fair.


Are you going to tell the women to keep it in their pants also?

Or are you going to scream that it is their right to have as much unprotected sex as possible, while expecting the state to force someone else to take care of the responsibility for them?
edit on 24-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
How about outlawing abortion.

How about the death penalty for rapist and child molesters.

How about adoption for a first "unwanted" child and then sterilization for the woman, or the woman who doesn't want to support herself, let alone the "unwanted" child.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.


I really don't see what is so difficult here. THREE parties are involved in this situation - Your questions don't reflect that.

You asked if women can get out of it. Yes.
Can men? Sure. They can avoid entanglement in the first place - otherwise they implicitly forgo a say in the next stage of the process because the woman is effected, in this stage, more adversely and directly than the male.

This baits the screaming reaction ( in a larger font because when one lacks articulation then one resorts to showmanship ) HA THEN IT IS INEQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And high fives and stars for all who played on the guys team.

Only the third party in this is never addressed, considered, or given voice.

That is why it is an irrational argument. It only addressed part of the issue. And in my opinion, the least important part and the most selfish.

Dear God I've got two ex wives and two kids that grew up away from me. I paid child support for what seemed like an eternity. And I'm not bitter. I can't imagine anybody in this thread calling their own kids and saying "Screw you, Daddy wants his money back."

Sad.

edit on 8/24/12 by Hefficide because: same bb error



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Only the third party in this is never addressed, considered, or given voice.


yes the third party(the baby) is not addressed
is the third party addressed in abortion? no its not
so you must be pro-life
with the current law only the woman is taken in consideration
the second party (the man) and the third party (the baby) are ignored
so then we agree the current system in wrong



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



Originally posted by quietlearner
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


Can a zygote survive outside a womans body for it's entire duration and formation?
Is there a consensus in the scientific community that a zygote (or a fertilized egg) is a human being?


I'm sure mother nature has not planned for abortions either.


30-60% of zygotes naturally abort:
publish.uwo.ca...

Mother nature is complex, we humans are yet to fully understand and comprehend it. To claim that mother nature doesn't plan for abortions is a big assumption, natural occurences are more than often intended for a reason.


the zygote is a living separate organism


Then you're of the conclusion that a zygote can survive during it's full duration and changes outside of a womans body? Can a fertilized egg develop outside of a womans body? How about pregnancy as a whole, does a require a womans body in order to occur? Take a moment and think about your position here.


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


If your only concern with the matter of abortion is your view and whether you're right, then you are lying to yourself when you claim your personal concern is of the unborns wellbeing. If you genuinely cared about saving as many fertilized eggs possible, if you cared about the unborn so much, about the lives of children, you would not be putting so much focus into the legislative and political aspect of this debate. Making abortions illegal will not necessarily change the cycle of abortion, it will not necessarily make the future of potential children any easier or better. This is a problem with most pro-lifers, they don't appear to be concerned with the life involved, but rather whether or not they are morally and legally "right", and whether or not they can win a political battle. Do you know what a true pro-lifer would be doing right now? They would investing most of their time and effort into supporting their communities, supporting pregnant women, orphanages, promoting young couples to go forward with their pregnancies, supporting financial assistance programmes to single mother. Instead most spend their time on forums, in political theaters, arguing, insisting they are on the moral high ground, attacking those who are in these complicated situations trying to make decisions, all the while ignoring the many cuts to programmes that support single mothers, children, with little support financially and morally to individuals in their communities.

It's time to get your head out of the sand and well and truly reassess your position, or atleast how you go about promoting that position.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Because women won't develop a judge of character in determining a mate


That's an unfair generalization don't you think? Your sexism is showing.

Both women and men, in particular, young men and women, more than often fail in judging character when it comes to mating. We don't full develop until the age of 25 you know? But it is a fact that for the vast majority of young people, puberty starts in their tweens, more than 10 years before they reach that age, as nature insisted. It is also a fact that women, as I've stated before, gain the control and full responsibility when they full pregnant, this is just how nature has deemed it, it's a reality. What laws have been employed to enforce responsibility of men is irrelevent, it doesn't change those natural roles between men and women, why can you not understand this?

You continue to complain about legal this, legal that, women this, it sounds to me like you're more disguntled about the fact men are legally bound to take equal responsibility when women actually decide to go ahead with the pregnancy, than that of real and true concern for the unborn and their future. If anything, I think laws requiring men to own up to pregnancies lessens the rate of abortions out there. It shows that there is legal support for women who choose to go forward with pregnancy, something you should support if you personally consider yourself pro-life. The more I talk to self proclaimed pro-lifers, the more I figure this has more to do with pushing political agendas and moral high grounds than the future of the unborn and the born.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Beezer,
I am not religious, and I lean towards being liberal, but I also think it is messed-up to kill unborn babies. That's just common sense to me. I like how you made it a civil rights issue - these are kids who could grow up to be functioning adults in our society.

However, I think there is a certain point where the child becomes self-aware somewhere near the start of the third trimester. So I am in complete support of birth control (especially condoms, they promote safe sex) and the morning after pill.

I am also not in support of abstinence based education - in fact, I think sex education needs to go a step farther and discuss issues such as gays, lesbians, dangers of sexual diseases and especially go into detail about the woman's sexual experience - this is so complex that it needs to be learned if the woman is going to have good sex. This might not be a good class for high-school, but I had a class like that in college that completely changed my life and my relationship with women.

If someone is raped, they should be given the morning after pill if they so desire. There should be easy access to the morning after pill for everyone.

I don't like third trimester abortions at all.

I'll stay out of the legality debate for now, but those are my personal opinions on the matter.
edit on 24-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Maybe it's time for God to come into your heart and get some real wisdom.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
not all living things have rights, plants dont have rights fungi dont have rights bacteria dont have rights......... i suppose theres a point were we should draw a line and say that everything on one side of the line has rights and everything on the other does not. but how do you decide were to draw the line, and who gets to make that desicion.
i think that abortion does have its place, but not as it exists today, more needs to be done to stop irresponsible people using it as a form of contraception.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Maybe it's time for God to come into your heart and get some real wisdom.


I already have God in my heart, why don't you mind your own business and tend to your own flock mmk? God doesn't need you throwing his name around in a political thread.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


It's God's universe and we're just spending a short time in this world.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I'm trying to frame this in a way that focuses on the rights of the unborn. Not to discuss the politics. The governmental issues, except to say that the unborn have no rights and should have the same rights as anyone else.



But you forget, the unborn child has no rights. They are a parasite in the womb, without the womb they die, who do you think is dictating terms here? A woman is responsible for her body, and if she's pregnant she is solely responsible for the health of the unborn in terms of her lifestyle (Eating, smoking, drinking)

So yeah, its a woman choice, and whether abortion is legal or not, a woman will always seek one and i believe she has every right to.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do half of the people that are pro-life, want to repeal the civil rights act because of "property rights"? Like Ron Paul.



Why do all the pro-choice people want to kill children?

Do you read what you write, dude?

/TOA



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.


Actually I have a good answer for your question. I highly reccomend reading "On Killing" by Colonel John Grossman. [url=http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345811208&sr=8-3&keywords=on+combat+grossma n]http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345811208&sr=8-3&keywords=on+combat+grossman[/ url]

It is about the psychological aspects of killing on the battlefield, but the the underlying psychological issue is the same in that one of the ways one can motivate a regular person to kill someone is to "dehumanize" the enemy. It is a lot easier for a Nebraska fram boy to kill a "gook" than a real person for example.

This is why, I think, there is such an extreme desire to avoid the discussion of the origins of human life and personhood on one side of the issue.



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


beezer, beezer
you are making the bunny cry

how can the rights of someone who does not exist, trump the rights of someone who does?

also, nothing is stopping xtians from popping out babies by the dozen

nothing

well, except they'd wind up killing the mothers

a line has to be drawn when they by lies and stealth
seek to force others, via the governments "monopoly on violence" to do the same

and thats the bottom line beez instead of practicing what they preach, they employ violence to impose their beliefs


the soul does not enter the fetus until its 7 month anyway
and a human beings soul does not fully integrate with the body untill its 30th year
soooo...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Golf66
 


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


The percentage is irrelevant...

If that burden is 0.0000001 percent over what the cost would be to society with the child fully supported by the parents who created it then the burden is too much.

No person should be forced to financially underwrite the poor choices of another so that they or their child can have a more comfortable life.


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


You were forced to carry a child to term against your will and then raise it? That is currently against the law you need a lawyer. If you mean you chose life then raised the child without the child or yourself managing to become a burden to society - clearly you put the child’s needs above your own.

However, in the case in which a woman would have some sort of problem choosing abortion but also decided that she wasn't ready to be a parent then we the taxpayer pay the full cost of her decision. We are burdened so she can feel good when she meets her imaginary friends in the afterlife. She has limited our right to pursue happiness through increased tax burden.


Originally posted by timetothink
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.


Now you am making my argument - the majority of unplanned/unwanted children grow up on assistance, very poor, not likely to finish school, likely to be involved with the law and most likely to create their own unwanted/unplanned offspring thus perpetuating the cycle of irresponsibility. Having children you can't support is not the problem of the state or the taxpayers. Sucks to be them. Problem is as a society we take pity on the child and fire up the government teat upon which the poor and stupid suckle. Then they create many and varied offspring who will also suckle at that teat. I bet if we turned off the spigot of money and aid to people on assistance - they’d have fewer children for sure.


Originally posted by timetothink
Putting the whole above the individual is what leads to the worst of governments and societies, where no one is worth anything.


I agree which is why the parent should either choose abortion or support the child 100% without any burden on the taxpayer. Abortion affects the individual making the choice and the child. 2 People. Choosing life but not keeping it effects the other 310 million Americans.

The option that harms the fewest people and burdens society the least is abortion.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
How about outlawing abortion.

How about the death penalty for rapist and child molesters.

How about adoption for a first "unwanted" child and then sterilization for the woman, or the woman who doesn't want to support herself, let alone the "unwanted" child.


I'm fine with outlawing abortion in cases where the mother's life isn't in danger. Possibly in cases of rape and incest...but I'm not a big fan of two wrongs making a right, so I'm not even sure on those cases. Yes, it's an extreme view...but it is my view.

I'm against the death penalty.

In time, I'm hoping technology comes up with a safe way for reversible sterilization...make it mandatory for males when they are pre-pubescent...reverse it when they choose to as an adult.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Let me ask the pro lifers this:


Are you so adamant about your cause, that would you be willing to pay for prenatal care for every pregnant woman, and for the medical,food, and education for every child that is brought into this country?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by beezzer
 


beezer, beezer
you are making the bunny cry

how can the rights of someone who does not exist, trump the rights of someone who does?

also, nothing is stopping xtians from popping out babies by the dozen

nothing

well, except they'd wind up killing the mothers

a line has to be drawn when they by lies and stealth
seek to force others, via the governments "monopoly on violence" to do the same

and thats the bottom line beez instead of practicing what they preach, they employ violence to impose their beliefs


the soul does not enter the fetus until its 7 month anyway
and a human beings soul does not fully integrate with the body untill its 30th year
soooo...


Really? Please provide some evidence for those last two dates. As far as I know, we have no way to measure the soul.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join