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: 27
38
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The question before us is of determining if an unborn child should be covered under the US constitution, as per the 14th Amendment, and gain Civil Rights. I say no. A person has to be born to be a citizen.


AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


You call it killing, I call it terminating a biological process. I don't see ending something that is not a viable life as murder.

But, I'm not here to argue when and where the line on abortion rights should be drawn. I am here to debate the "personhood" status of the unborn.

This campaign to redefine a person to extend to the unborn, is quite the rabbit hole. In so doing many forms of birth control become tools of murder and woman loose autonomy and becomes a second class citizen.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The definition was made before abortions became legal.

Just a point to ponder.


The definition was made before birth control was legal. Do you think the founding father would have banned birth control in the Constitution?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
You call it killing, I call it terminating a biological process. I don't see ending something that is not a viable life as murder.


I don't like to toss around empty anecdotes but... what if you were to unplug somebody's life support? That person is not "viable and able to live outside a womb on its own" yet they are protected. Why don't people lose their rights when they become invalid? How is a comatose person on life support any more valuable than an unborn person? One clearly has more potential as a human and it's not the person on the hospital bed.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


There is never going to be a law that's going to include a fetus, best bet is a 3rd trimester Fetus would be included, it is already protected in most places i believe.

It is up to the people to determine when it is enough. Also this been on my mind ever since start of this thread,
i mean heck, why the fruitcake is cloning still illegal and abortion is legal?




You call it killing, I call it terminating a biological process. I don't see ending something that is not a viable life as murder.


Since you are discussing a organism, do you know what a viable life mean in microbiology? I agree its not murder but its a disgusting act.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The definition was made before abortions became legal.

Just a point to ponder.


The definition was made before birth control was legal. Do you think the founding father would have banned birth control in the Constitution?


Actually, the mindset they had at that time, pre-marital sex, and multiple sex partners looked down upon, so it would have been banned.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Apples and oranges.

If it was up to nature, the person on life support would be dead already. Abortion is usurping nature. Personally, I don't worship nature, per say. Nature is what we fight.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Pffft.

Ben Franklin was a womanizer, and had plenty of adulterous relationships. Thomas Jefferson fathered many children from his slaves.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Back in the 70's we put them in pickle jars.

With my second son, I almost lost him.

Before they knocked me out to do a C section, the doctor said, "Now when you wake up you may not have a live birth."

I said, "Then if my baby is dead you damn well better hope you don't wake me back up. This is my baby and will be named either B or K........and if given a choice you damn well better choose to save the baby over me".

Then I kept screaming "I want my baby, I want my baby" until they could find the anesthesiologist to knock me out. Almost lost B, we came so close.

Right before they knocked me out I told my husband that if B or K died, we would bury him/her with a proper name..........................I loved each of my babies from the moment I knew I was pregnant.

They were never ever "fetuses" to me - they were my precious babies.

Sad you allowed them to put your baby into a bag.

I was lucky and woke up to have my second son placed in my arms. My precious B who is now in less than a week going to be 34 years old.

I get emotional around B's birthdate because I almost lost him.

We like to give misnomers to things that we don't want to face up to.

We call cows, hamburger, steak, rump roast, etc
We call chickens, poultry.
We call pigs, bacon or ham.
and we call our babies, fetuses.

We don't like calling a spade a spade.

That way we can have a "clear conscience" and not have to deal with the real reality.............. games.

It makes it easier too to deal with the tragic loss of a child. I don't know if I could have survived that. Thankfully I never had to go through a miscarriage.

I wouldn't let the doctors pull that on me. My doctor knew from my first visit that each of my three sons was my baby and not some "birth material" or "fetus".

Mine had names when they were all about four weeks old (inside of me).

My girlfriend had a baby that weighed a little over 2 pounds, (made the paper) and he lived and went onto college.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Apples and oranges.

If it was up to nature, the person on life support would be dead already. Abortion is usurping nature. Personally, I don't worship nature, per say. Nature is what we fight.


Stop breathing, best way to fight nature.

I can't you believe you said we suppose to fight nature...i guess you look at a future where trees are cut-down and smog guzzling plants are opened for people's convenience.

This generation suffering from the abuse they did to the planet/humans in the early 1900s.
edit on 8/24/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Apples and oranges.

If it was up to nature, the person on life support would be dead already. Abortion is usurping nature. Personally, I don't worship nature, per say. Nature is what we fight.


We don't fight nature, we improve it. We are nature and our constant evolving is nature. We have evolved beyond killing people who are invalid because we evolved past that as a societal norm. The same will happen with abortion; we will evolve past it to where it is considered a medieval and barbaric practice.

Eventually, we will have a social infrastructure and advanced science to make abortion obsolete. It is part of the old world, not part of the new.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Cuervo because: Coffee...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 



reply to post by Cuervo
 


We fight nature when we kill or be killed, when we hunt for food. We fight nature when we cut don trees to shelter ourselves from sun and rain.

We fight nature when we build dams, sea walls and aquafers.

We fight nature to find ways to trick viruses, cure cancer and stop a pregnancy.

We fight nature when we build cars, planes, trains rockets and bombs.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by luciddream
 



reply to post by Cuervo
 


We fight nature when we kill or be killed, when we hunt for food. We fight nature when we cut don trees to shelter ourselves from sun and rain.

We fight nature when we build dams, sea walls and aquafers.

We fight nature to find ways to trick viruses, cure cancer and stop a pregnancy.

We fight nature when we build cars, planes, trains rockets and bombs.


We are nature! Whatever we do is nature. Can nature fight nature? Beavers build dams, too. Is that "unnatural"?

I don't understand what that has to do with the topic anyway. There are examples of humans interfering with "nature" to save lives and to kill lives. I think it's irrelevant to abortion discussions.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think in the future technology will allow for synthetic "eggs" where the zygote can be placed and developed to a full grown infant. Then pro-choice people won't be able to use the "woman's body" argument any longer.
And hopefully the mother wont be able to decide by herself to kill the baby

even in this situation I think pro-abortion people will still want abortion to be legal because of the many (though fallacious) reasons given before



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I brought it up because someone compared an abortion to cutting of life support to a comatose person.

Keeping that person alive is fighting nature. So is birth control. Why is that a hard subject to understand?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


The pill, patch, shot, diaphram, sponge, several different IUDs, condoms, adoption, These are the choices that women have but ignore when they have an elective abortion. No one is holding a gun to these women's heads and making them get pregnant, there are CHOICES for not getting pregnant in the first place and CHOICES after pregnancy occurs besides abortion. I'm not telling anyone to be irresponsible and get pregnant, and don't come up with the fact that birth control is not 100%, Would you go into a burning building knowing you could get burned, with only shorts and flip flops on? No, you would use SEVERAL different forms of protection, why should birth control be any different?


You forgot abstinence.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This issue is unresolvable (is that a word?).

In 1973 (some of you may be too young to remember) the social environment was in an upheaval. The music had changed. Morals had changed. The Vietnam war had turned us into an anti-establishment culture. The general tone was one of rebelliousness and a lashing back at previous generations with their steadfast morals and neat little sexual boxes. The so-called hippy generation was "the thing".

The motto became: "If it feels good, do it!." We had Woodstock in 1969 and love-peace-and free sex became the counter culture's mantra. It was all about the superfluousness of freedom to do as you please. Few looked beyond the ethics and consequences of rebelliousness run amok. Other favorite mottoes: "Turn on~~Tune out".... Drugs, Sex, and Rock 'n Roll!! Yeah, baby! You dig it?! Groovy. (Believe me....that was the general air of the time.) Even the previously straight-laced types were wearing long hair and guru jackets, love beads, and flowers in their hair.

In the late 60's and early 70's, women were pushing hard for equal recognition. The cultural environment was in a perfect storm for Roe vs. Wade. Women were burning their bras in protest and demanding a voice of their own. It was called the Women's Movement and it was huge. It influenced the way women began to think about who and what they are as a "group" and as individuals. They felt empowered to be something beyond a baby machine.

Abortion seemed perfectly acceptable then.

It became law.

Some have now stepped beyond the "feel-good-do-as-you-please" surface philosophy and have begun to look at what it really means to snuff out a beginning life. Rather than looking at it as a Woman's Rights issue, many have begun to look at it as an issue about a unique lifestream event. The blueprint was laid out when the man's sperm penetrated the woman's egg....a beautiful miracle. This miracle will evolve into a unique individual and will face the challenges and enjoy the rewards of the life ahead. It is his/her destiny to follow.

All the female has to do is allow it to continue. She can choose to give it to another after the life emerges from the warmth of the womb if she doesn't want to nurture it. But, once the blueprint has been imprinted, it has a right to life, imo.

Education --- real education --- will change things. Till then? Some women will opt for the easy way out until the environment changes and we recognize that, "YES", that new lifestream is a LIFE and deserves birth.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I would also like to bring two examples where I think pro-choice arguments are thrown out the window.

the first one I already mentioned before but I got no response, hopefully I will get a response this time
in the case of conjoined twins were they are both dependent on each other, it would be semantically correct to call each twin individually not "viable" or a "parasite" of the other twin
does this mean one twin should be legally allowed to kill the other twin?

the second example is in surrogate mothers. If the surrogate mother decides after the zygote was already implanted to not follow through with the pregnancy
even if the surrogate mother returned all forms of payment
will the decision lie only on the surrogate mother?
after all it's her body



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
You may not remember,
but let me tell you this.
someone in some future time,
will think of us,
Sappho



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 



Because im a pro-choicer and i eat dead babies for breakfast.


Because you have run out of arguments and justifications, so now you attempt to offend.

You are sooooo cool...I'm sure all the other pro-choice people think you are the coolest...eating babies...sooo funny.

At least you aren't trying illogical justifications anymore.



Actually im trolling because as per usual the "pro-lifers" are trying to tug on heart strings. To quick to save something that isn't here yet but not a care in the world for the kids that have already been forgotten about. Your kinda people want to have your cake and eat it. Your entire pro life argument is contradicted from the bottom up. The truth is, you just like having domain over other peoples lives without a care in the world for their needs so don't give me this crap about not having an argument when your entire way of thinking fracked and illogical.

Go protest a graveyard. Go sue doctors for being careless. Stop masturbating because a sperm cell counts as life. Stop cleaning your work surfaces in the kitchen because yano, bacteria = life.
edit on 24-8-2012 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
All the eggs a woman will ever carry form in her ovaries while she is a four month old fetus in the womb of her mother,

This means our cellular life as an egg begins in the womb of our grandmother,

Each of us spent five months in our grandmothers womb, and she in turn formed in the womb of her grandmother

We vibrate to the rhythm of our mothers blood before she herself is born, and this pulse is the thread of blood that runs all the way back through the grandmothers to the first mother.

When The Drummers Were Women.



edit on 043131p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join