Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by beezzer


If you, and your cohorts, were able to prove your point the Personhood" bills that are being introduced from state to state, wouldn't be failing, from state to state.

Personhood, and therefore, human rights guaranteed under the constitution apply to "persons." You have yet to prove that a fertilized ovum is a person.

reply to post by windword

So, you can't argue the science, so you argue that the hosting company that provided the band width makes the science incredible.

This is one man's opinion...he even states it on his blog...and yes...it is a blog.

Him having a degree does not make his opinion correct. He contradicts all modern biology...but you are ok with that because you agree with him. It's called confirmation bias...it's a very very bad thing. Kind of like how Fox News viewers agree with Hannity...what is your opinion of them???

There's reason why they call it the "bird and the bees."

It's just sad that it has to be brought down to such a juvenile level for your comprehension.

Who calls it the "birds and the bees"

Yes...I remember that chapter in Biology...the birds and the bees....holy crap. Since you dodged the point about plant and animal biology being two distinct things...am I too assume you think they are the same???

If you think I don't comprehend Biology...the offer is open to you as well. We can go to the debate forum and debate when biological life begins.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


What's there to prove? Rights exist. It's the interpretation that differs. We can only grow if we learn.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by blackpeppper

 

Fetus is not a foreign entity, a sperm is however, the body fight it to eliminate the invading sperm, but its also a test to refine the best sperms fro reach the egg.

Body only rejects a fertilized egg if the body thinks its not ready for pregnancy. Abortion is overriding it and getting rid of it manually.

If the female body did find the fertilized egg to be bad, it would absorb the fertilized egg into nutrients and chuck the other parts down the toilet.

actually, the zygote is a foreign object, it's made from the woman's and the MAN's dna...I thought that would be clear enough for everyone.

"As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

galerouth.blogspot.com...


"If the female body did find the fertilized egg to be bad, it would absorb the fertilized egg into nutrients and chuck the other parts down the toilet"

I find that to be flawed, there are so many bad eggs with birth defects surviving pregnancy, already.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I do care about life, i think abortion as a birth control is disgusting, i'm not gonna say im 100% pro-life because of the fact, a baby resulting froma rap eis going to live a horrible life unless the mother is rich enough and want to take care of it.

i was mainly referring to consensual sex, if you read my post, i mentioned that world a lot. Abortion from consensual sex is disgusting because you don't feel like it. If you shoot someone in the head, they are going to die. you can't be like "i want to shoot him but i don;t want him to die", Sex was for procreation before its a hobby.

Rape and incest is the same as pedophilia in my book.

Abortion in form of birth control IS disgusting, but what normal sane woman enjoys having to go through the trauma of abortion?? Its not just a knitting needle, a pop, and a "That's the end of that you can go now" A baby from rape can have a normal life without rich parents, what makes the difference to anyone's childhood is love. Sex was always about more than just procreation. Its not a fad, people didnt just one day decide that its fun and there going to have alot more of it.

it was Her body before pregnancy, now what ever is inside is caused by the man and her, and the man have no say?

Yup, thats exactly what im saying. No one has the right to someone else's body. You cannot force someone to carry a baby to term, you dont own them or their body.

what if he was from rich background and keep the baby?

Money matters not if she doesn't want to have a child.

i mean you had sex? sex is mainly for procreation.

Sex is more than a few thrusts of the hips and a pat on the back (It should be anyway, speak to your doctor if this is a regular occurance) To insinuate such a fact is a crime against human nature. Sex is also a physical act of love, it helps partners bond emotionally, release's stress, promotes good mental health etc. What are you? Religious!?

if you do not want babies, get it tied or have the guy you like to sleep with vasectomy. No need to sacrifice potential lives for you enjoyment.

No need for physical surgery, the pill and other forms of protection are usually enough.

Hopefully it will change in the future and the rights would be both the dad and the mom.

It wont change because its a case of rights and no human being has the right to own another, that's called slavery.

Hey even the opposite sometimes have the agree on something!

Nice when that happens eh?

I'm sorry, i can't love a adopted child as much as my own. it would probably be true for 90% of the population.
There are lot of reasons why i don't want to adopt, my genes my genes my genes, and i can have more kids!
Those others kids would not be there if they parents did not want prepare them(ties/vasectomy) before enjoying themselves.

Fair enough, but if you stop abortions expect unwanted children to go on the rise. I dont think the state will go out of their way raise them.

i'm not a life lover like the pro-life crew, but i do hate when a potential life is destroyed because of inconvenience and especially calling it a lump of cell before birth(my scientist side hates that).

Potential life is destroyed every day by stupid parents who shouldn't be raising children in the first place. I will always pick the lesser of two evils than have people grow up without a proper home and proper care. Be like breeding psychopaths.

Hey i have no problem with contraception(pills, w/e flots your boat!), as long the contraception is not abortion.

But i still think abortions should be available.

I'm sorry, nature is not controlled by me. You are calling something that is natural and calling it inconvenience because of the modern standards.

Childbirth might be natural but its bloody dangerous. Pregnancy turns a woman's life upside down, its not a stroll through the park yano. Perhaps you should read up on exactly what a woman has to go through both physically and mentally to get a better picture before you start promoting men's rights to women's bodies.

I just don;t want to hear excuses from abortionist... just say your are killing a potential living being that is more than a lump of cells and i'm happy. You can go ahead and do you abortions and i wont interfere. Just don't do it in denial calling it a parasite

But it is a parasite, it lives off of another human being, without which it could not survive. It fits the definition snugly. And i want to reiterate the point that abortions are traumatic for most women, there is usually bleeding and pain for weeks afterwards. But they're needed. Women need that option.

reply to post by beezzer


That the fetus is a baby that deserves special protections that nobody else has, is what you're trying to prove.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by beezzer

 

At most, read God's word - you hurt a child and you will have to deal with the wrath of God.

Everyone has their own opinion - but when it involves the murder of a innocent, I stand fast.

*** WARNING VIDEO BELOW IS NOT FOR CHILDREN BUT SHOWS THE TRUTH

REALLY?


"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

galerouth.blogspot.com...


Can you prove that this god off yours is real? NO, so you are you using it as an appeal to authority?
And if your god is the judeo-chrisitan one, that mythical tyrant has no problem with abortion.




FYI-- Everyone knows that the silent scream is PRO -LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC- FASCIST PROPAGANDA.

prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

That the fetus is a baby that deserves special protections that nobody else has, is what you're trying to prove.

Not special protections. Just the ones everyone else has.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The pro-life sites that are run by right wing religious nuts are also chalk full of just opinions.

You are promoting that life begins at conception. That means that you believe that a single cell is a human life. A sperm is also a carbon based, living thing, with a mission and a life span.

A chemical reaction between the biological data stored within the sperm and ovum is not the magical beginning of life, it's a transformation of life.

Science nor religion can definitively identify the beginning of life.

reply to post by beezzer


Your arguments echo mine very closely. I'm against the performing of abortions simply because it is philosophically backwards and it is a very medieval practice. I'm actually surprised sometimes when I think about how liberals are for it and conservative Christians are not.

If things would have played out as expected:
- Liberals would be against abortion because of their track record of defending the civil liberties of all humanity.
- Conservative Christians would support abortion because it would follow their track record of eliminating undesirables from their congregation. I'm actually very surprised that the church ended up being the entity that defends the unborn when it was mandated to kill the unborn on various occasions as a tool to kill God's future enemies.

It makes me believe even more that the polarization is carefully orchestrated to ensure cross-platform bickering. Just like gay marriage... why does the party of "small government" want moral micromanagement from government? Because it keeps us arguing.

So yes, from a purely civic-minded point of view, abortion is not something that should be viewed as an acceptable solution. It shouldn't be illegal because that would make it worse just like the war on drugs (you would just have dangerous abortions). And also like the "war on drugs", the better solution would be to legalize it completely and then provide support that promotes better options. Take that pregnant woman who does not want her child and offer her an easy path and financial support to give her baby as a blessing to another couple.

reply to post by beezzer


No, special protections.

They aren't a baby or a person until they are born, according to the elgal definition.

I have nothing more to say on this matter.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Golf66

 

If we're going to resort to just going by what the law says, then we're all doomed.

The law had a very clear idea about women voting a while back.
The law endorsed Jim Crow laws.

Through the work, sacrifice and patience of many people these laws were changed.

I respect your right to work to change it - I think you know that. I'd die for it. I think a good many of our laws are outright wrong.

Anyway, until you can get a society to agree 100% on the exact point at which human life begins and to make good choices regarding their reproductive rights the law is the best solution available.

I think you know where I am coming from when I say human life - so does OKS I believe he's just being argumentative.

Laws are not always right - or even just. However, the alternative is lawlessness and I think you and I have been enough places without law to know that doesn't work.

In the absence of moral consensus law is all we have. I've never (to my knowledge) created unwanted offspring nor have I been party to the decision to abort a child. Would I abort a child. Yes - if my wife got pregnant now say by some mistake of nature. She's 42, not likely (we are responsible) but still possible and say the kid had downs or something (you can bet we'd get the test at this age) worse - something painful or debilitating. Would I choose abortion - yeah. Just my choice. I couldn't deal with it. War , I can deal with - watching my child suffer every day I can't. I accept that it's my choice and some would consider it murder and immoral - fine. Still my choice. I accept whatever karmic or afterlife consequences that I earned.

Just for OKS sake - yes I would kill my own child. I will say that plainly. If I thought my child was going to live a life of struggle, pain and be a social pariah I'd do it out of compassion and love.

I don't expect anyone to agree or even understand. Nor do I expect anyone to interfere, the government or anyone else. I also don't expect anyone (or the government) to support my offspring for the next 40+ years, 20 of which I most likely will not be around. I'd rather know the fate than wonder what # hole institution it'd end up in.

I would not want to live in a society that required women to give birth to children they didn't want. One in which they had no options other than birth.

I think eventually - maybe two generations or so, it would be much like every other third world county. Unwanted, unplanned and forced pregnancy are the reason these countries are the way they are - broke, in conflict and with platoons of child Soldiers seeking the approval of a father they never had. The men in these countries bear no consequence for procreation.

We are on the brink of that now in most of the urban core of the US. Not because we make women have babies but because we reward them for doing so. Our laws allow men to walk from their obligations and let the government step in. The government is a poor substitute for a parent and a stable home life.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The pro-life sites that are run by right wing religious nuts are also chalk full of just opinions.

Well it's a damn good thing I didn't use any pro-life sites. I used the online biology website and I used encyclopedia britanica....you used a blog.

Why in the hell are you being so dishonest???

You are promoting that life begins at conception. That means that you believe that a single cell is a human life. A sperm is also a carbon based, living thing, with a mission and a life span.

It means that all life BEGINS with a single cell...this is basic Biology.

Science nor religion can definitively identify the beginning of life.

Biology already has...stop being obtuse.

And you haven't stated when you believe biological life begins...I'm curious???




Again...the offer stands...we can go to the debate forum and you can argue against modern day biology and claim biological life doesn't begin at conception.

reply to post by Cuervo


If you take religion out of the equation then I think most people would find abortion abhorent.

A humble star my liberal friend.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by luciddream

 

It's not different, it is all intrinsic to the biological process. You can't have one without the other. It's all part of the cycle. There's no definite point that one can claim this is life, but this is not.

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

So, by that definition, why would you consider it wrong to kill a very small child but not a child just before birth. There is no magic that happens at the birth canal that makes some one go from non-person to person. Where do you think a person, between conception and age 80 years, reaches the ability to be considered a person?

Definition of Civil Rights:

Civil and political rights are a class of rights based upon birthright into a polity or designation otherwise of human rights.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since a fetus has not been born, they are not yet a citizen, so I don't think civil rights apply. Now, you can talk about human rights, or natural rights, but even that is up for debate on applying to unborn fetuses.

Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights," also sometimes called "our God-given rights." Civil Rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

reply to post by Golf66


Every child deserves a chance. If not, then it speaks poorly of our society in general. Insuring rights provides for the oppourtunity to achieve. Not a guarantee. But a chance. If my wife (at 43) found herself pregnant, we'd welcome the challenge.

reply to post by kaylaluv


The definition was made before abortions became legal.

Just a point to ponder.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

With what?

All you have is just a claim, and argumentation. You really haven't proven anything, although you may have to people who already agree with you.

Just so you know, my own opinion is that i'm undecided on abortion. I can't see anything good about it, regardless of what decision is made. And there is a real problem with it, if you give the unborn the "right" to be born, then it overrides the mother's right to choose to be a parent or not. This in turns makes the woman a slave to her biology and forces her to give birth. not even men are forced to go this far.

To coin a Godwin, Nazi Germany pretty much did this with its women, forced them to become a vessel to carry the baby for der master race.

And i'm sorry, to me, to force a woman to give birth is just as deplorable as getting an abortion. Or as deplorable as China forcing women to have an abortion ebcause of their one child per family law.

And not even born children have full rights that adults do. Full rights don't really take into effect until a person becomes a legal adult. Children don't really have the right to free speech. A school is not a democracy. They don't really have the right to freedom of religion because their parents often force them to go to schools. They can get a job but the parent can take up to twenty five percent of their salary. They can't drive until they're sixteen. They can't vote or join the military (at least without the parents consent) until they're eighteen, and they can't drink until they're 21. They can be tried as an adult in some circumstances, but usually aren't.

They do have some special protections, especially with society's attitude towards them. You can't use violence against them under any circumstances, not even to protect yourself if one is wielding a knife or pointing a pistol at your head.. Because the reasoning is they aren't fully capable of understanding the ramifications because their brains aren't fully developed like an adult's is and therefore they can't consent. That's why adults can't have sex with them, even if it's consensual the adult is still put in jail, even if they're a week older.

But the special protections are there because there are special responsibilities because they can't consent to certain things like an adult can.

So really, you are proposing to give a special right to an unborn, which can't really use reason or give any kind of consent at all because it has no brain to a very undeveloped one. Not even born children have this kind of right.

However, the inverse was also true. The Nazis also aborted and euthenized people because they were "parasites" "burdens on society" and "unwanted." The exact same reasons we have heard in this very thread.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Golf66

 

Every child deserves a chance. If not, then it speaks poorly of our society in general. Insuring rights provides for the opportunity to achieve. Not a guarantee. But a chance. If my wife (at 43) found herself pregnant, we'd welcome the challenge.

Then I'd be happy for you sincerely.

Thankfully for me neither you nor the government get make choices for our family.

If we take away one persons reproductive choices by law we can just as easily force the opposite a choice on another. No right to abortion would likely as not end up with the government telling people when, where and how many offspring they can have. Would it ever be with whom...who knows. Mission creep…