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: 28
38
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I don't oppose the prospect of an unborn child having rights, but how can you ask an unborn child if it wants to live?

How would you get informed consent from a being that is hardly even aware of its own existence? How would you ask that infant if it would like to be born to live for a few hours/days/weeks/months or years before it dies of some incurable disease or genetic condition? Or if the child would want to live to learn that its mother never wanted it and its father was a coke-frenzied rapist?

I am the son of a loving but absent mother and a somewhat-loving but highly overbearing father, so I know well enough the pain of not feeling loved or wanted. I can faintly imagine how excruciating it must be to be regarded as a life-ruining mistake.

I would consider it merciful for my life to have been ended before I could feel the pain this world has to offer.

I find it morally repugnant to force a life of such suffering, whether inflicted by illness, disability, or uncaring parents, on any child. This does not mean that every fetus with a disability should be terminated, but I would not deprive the parents of that option if the disability was of a sufficient severity.

I find it equally repugnant for anyone to not practise due dilligence to ensure that an unborn child would not have to be terminated. Women should use contraception if they choose to be promiscuous, they should not be able to casually abort children as a method of contraception.

Also, any doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion if it conflicts with their own morality.

I have moral issues with killing a spider. The topic of abortion is stomach churning to me because of all the conflicting moral issues. I'm a bit nauseous as I'm writing this. But just because it is an unpleasant topic does not mean that we should outlaw abortion in every case; there are situations where abortion would be a more moral and compassionate action than the alternative. I believe it is a matter which should be settled between doctor and patient, without the intrusion of government.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
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"


The difference between a dependent human being, a baby, or somebody on lifesupport, is that they do not require a host, a woman's body, to live on and survive through out. While Fertilized eggs can technically be taken out of a woman's body and maintained through means of scientific support, they can't develop, and they can't survive throughout their entire cycle continiously.

You can't have a pregnancy without the woman's body as the host, inorder for that fertilized egg to have the potential to develop into a fetus and so forth, it requires a host female body. This is the fundamental difference here.

Apples to oranges, you can't compare the two. The circumstances facing a fertilized egg is not the same as that facing the man on life support, or the baby in need of care.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Cuervo
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"


The difference between a dependent human being, a baby, or somebody on lifesupport, is that they do not require a host, a woman's body, to live on and survive through out. While Fertilized eggs can technically be taken out of a woman's body and maintained through means of scientific support, they can't develop, and they can't survive throughout their entire cycle continiously.

You can't have a pregnancy without the woman's body as the host, inorder for that fertilized egg to have the potential to develop into a fetus and so forth, it requires a host female body. This is the fundamental difference here.

Apples to oranges, you can't compare the two. The circumstances facing a fertilized egg is not the same as that facing the man on life support, or the baby in need of care.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


That's the most intelligent rebuttal I've heard to that comparison. I could be petty and say that the "host" in the life-support patient's case is society since that patient is a drain on resources but it's a totally weak argument.

The "host" aspect certainly separates the two. Again, it's a tough issue but it is one we should resolve by supporting less ugly alternatives instead of making the procedure dangerous by making it illegal.

The fact I am not a woman makes it difficult for me to assert my opinion because, in reality, I will never (barring any medical breakthroughs!) in this incarnation, know what it's like to carry a child.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EndlessFire
 


yes, yes, yes....
except, I was the one with the moving tummy!!

had three kids in less than three years, the birth control isn't 100% effective.. during my third pregnancy, I had problems in my legs that made walking a tad bit difficult, still though, I had two little ones that needed my attention, wanted to be picked up and cuddled, needed me to lift them in the tub for baths, ect. I came very close to being put on bed rest......
if I had gotten pregnant a fourth time, I probably would have aborted it!! there was no support there for me during my third pregnancy, it was mainly just me tending to the kids, if I had failed, they would have suffered.
and three living in this world kids trumps one not quite born yet...sorry!!!

people have no idea of the circumstances another may be living in, they shouldn't be too quick to judge, and they shouldn't be cutting options off without clear understanding of the repercussions that might result, and if they do, then they better danged well make sure that they are there to pick up the pieces when those repercussons pop up!! they won't be though, will they??? na, if I had failed, some judgemental neighbor would have just called the cops, who would have brought in social services, who would have tried to demand more from me along with threaten to take the children to the foster home...which, in many cases would be just as detrimental just about as leaving them with a bedridden mother all day!! at least the mother would more than likely do everything in her power to take care of them!



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



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?


At this point it sounds as though you're splitting hairs.

You mean born conjoined twins right? Yes they are dependent on assistance, they are dependent on eachother, but they do not require a host body of an independent female to survive and develop. While they are dependent on eachother for survival, there is a mutual agreement that they need each other in this circumstance in order to function in life.

The pregnant woman in question is not dependent for her survival on a fertilized egg, in contrast a fertlized egg requires a willing host body in order to fully develop and become a human being, it requires that woman to voluntarily go into pain through the entire process of pregnancy. There is no mutual dependence on survival between the two. 30-60% of fertilized eggs naturally abort, many do so without the woman having any knowledge that she was even pregnant.


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


Yes it does. She still has natural control over her body, her control over her body during pregnancy does not change with the nature of that pregnancy. Now you're posing a legal question, whether she would be going against her contract or agreement of some sort, and the answer is obvious, yes she would. But that being said, the decision to go forward with the pregnancy is still ultimately hers, naturally it's still her body, unless you somehow force her to go forward with the pregnancy against her will (physically) she's still ultimately the drive and the decision maker in all this. This is as mother nature had intended, so why can you not deal with this? Do you want mother nature to give all men or interested parties magical switches to force vote woman into having their pregnancies?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackpeppper

Originally posted by NavyDoc
[

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.



The nazis thought those people were sociopolitical parasites, but again:

"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...


I can't believe some people have a problem with science.


It is obvious you do not comprehend science as you cannot even use schizophrenic in context.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackpeppper

Originally posted by NavyDoc


BUt that does not make sense biologically. Are you suggesting that something magical happens in the few inches the child travels down the birth canal? Why is someone not human but suddenly is human a few moments later when the only thing that has really changed is location?



DO YOU KNOW, THAT A PERSON DOESN'T EXIST IN SCIENCE?

personhood, is a philosophical and legal concept... so it's not magical, either.


"THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


en.wikipedia.org...

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent."

galerouth.blogspot.com...


Again, by your definition, no one has rights. Where do rights begin and end? Please show us the "science" that make a person and a non-person.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

yes, yes, yes....
except, I was the one with the moving tummy!!

had three kids in less than three years, the birth control isn't 100% effective.. during my third pregnancy, I had problems in my legs that made walking a tad bit difficult, still though, I had two little ones that needed my attention, wanted to be picked up and cuddled, needed me to lift them in the tub for baths, ect. I came very close to being put on bed rest......
if I had gotten pregnant a fourth time, I probably would have aborted it!! there was no support there for me during my third pregnancy, it was mainly just me tending to the kids, if I had failed, they would have suffered.
and three living in this world kids trumps one not quite born yet...sorry!!!

people have no idea of the circumstances another may be living in, they shouldn't be too quick to judge, and they shouldn't be cutting options off without clear understanding of the repercussions that might result, and if they do, then they better danged well make sure that they are there to pick up the pieces when those repercussons pop up!! they won't be though, will they??? na, if I had failed, some judgemental neighbor would have just called the cops, who would have brought in social services, who would have tried to demand more from me along with threaten to take the children to the foster home...which, in many cases would be just as detrimental just about as leaving them with a bedridden mother all day!! at least the mother would more than likely do everything in her power to take care of them!



Sorry to sound harsh but you would think that after 3 pregnancies any woman would have learned about the morning after pill, or abstinence



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
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.


Where does life begin then? Why is a newborn different than what it was a day before?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


morning after pill didn't exist.....

as for the abstinance???

I was married,....now, go and look at what the relgions are teaching women as far as their position in contrast to their husbands!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Wow...you guys still don't get the difference between a cell and an organism?

A cell from your hair or skin will never ever ever ever ever ever EVER become a human being. A HUMAN zygote will.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
It's a shame how many millions of beautiful babies have died because of selfishness.
Maybe they enjoy knowing their babys' brains were scraped out with a scalpel.
As a sterile human, i would give anything to have the chance to reproduce with a beloved mate

edit:anything except my soul
edit on 24-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


Just to further your "conjoint twins" argument, here's some interesting cases:


Doctors in Italy have revealed details of Siamese twins born sharing the same heart - one of whom will have to die in order to save the other.
The girls, Rebecca and Lucia, were born three weeks ago at the Sant Orsola Hospital in Bologna and are joined at the chest and abdomen.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


The babies are now six weeks old. Joined at the abdomen, Jodie is the stronger of the two and has the only functioning heart and lungs. Doctors argue her sister Mary is “essentially a parasite” growing at Jodie’s expense.

Doctors originally gave the joined babies only six months to live if not separated. A second medical opinion gives them a little longer — perhaps a few years — but no long-term survival if not separated.

abcnews.go.com...


Isbac Pacunda has the body of his twin inside his stomach – bones, eyes and even hair on the cranium. Dr. Carlos Astocondor, a plastic surgeon at the Las Mercedes Hospital in Chiclayo, told the Associated Press that the partially formed fetus weighs about a pound and a half and is 9 inches long. He and a team of 12 doctors will surgically remove the tissue from the boy’s stomach today.

abcnews.go.com...

How far do you want to split those hairs? Do we force those parents to not do anything and just let it be for the sake of our own personal morals on life and the "right" to life? If they die or suffer because of inaction, do we tell them that this is Gods plan? Shall we give them a bible?

The problem with people like yourself here is that only you want to draw the lines of morality when it comes to matters like this, and you want to do so through government, you want to force down your personal views on the lives of others, on very personal situations like this, without consideration for the actual parties involved. The fact is, there's a big grey area when it comes to the right to life.

Are you going to tell me that the government should just leave those conjoint twins who share a heart as is? Let them both die due to complications, without medicare help?Let them suffer because that's just the "moral" thing to do? Who do you think you are?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

You mean born conjoined twins right? Yes they are dependent on assistance, they are dependent on eachother, but they do not require a host body of an independent female to survive and develop. While they are dependent on eachother for survival, there is a mutual agreement that they need each other in this circumstance in order to function in life.

nope, there are cases were one twin would live a medically and socially "healthier" life if the other twin were "removed"
in any case I don't see why if you are not dependent on the other you should be able to kill
let's say one twin has a heart and the other doesn't and requires the other twin's heart for blood flow
should the twin without the heart be killed?


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The pregnant woman in question is not dependent for her survival on a fertilized egg, in contrast a fertlized egg requires a willing host body in order to fully develop and become a human being, it requires that woman to voluntarily go into pain through the entire process of pregnancy. There is no mutual dependence on survival between the two.

so if someone is dependent on me yet I don't depend on he/she then I should kill him/her?



Originally posted by Southern Guardian
30-60% of fertilized eggs naturally abort, many do so without the woman having any knowledge that she was even pregnant.

I don't know why you have included this statement
old people die all the time of natural deaths, should just kill all old people?


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yes it does. She still has natural control over her body, her control over her body during pregnancy does not change with the nature of that pregnancy. Now you're posing a legal question, whether she would be going against her contract or agreement of some sort, and the answer is obvious, yes she would. But that being said, the decision to go forward with the pregnancy is still ultimately hers, naturally it's still her body, unless you somehow force her to go forward with the pregnancy against her will (physically) she's still ultimately the drive and the decision maker in all this.

At least you agree that legally the father in this case has a say in pregnancy
now just relate the surrogate mother contract with an oral contract between a husband and a wife
why does in one case the father has legal right to pursue reparations
and in the other the father does not?


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is as mother nature had intended, so why can you not deal with this? Do you want mother nature to give all men or interested parties magical switches to force vote woman into having their pregnancies?

so you chat with mother nature often? can I have mother natures email?
just because the baby grows in the woman body does not mean mother nature intended for the woman to have 100% of the decision making.
newsflash, mother nature does not create things with intention of something, unless you think mother nature is a sentient and logical being.
Is this a type of religion?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   


so if someone is dependent on me yet I don't depend on he/she then I should kill him/her?


or......you could just walk away??? couldn't you????

you can't walk away from your foot, your heart, your liver, or a baby that is growing inside you, can you???



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

morning after pill didn't exist.....


but it does exist now, why should current laws be tuned to the realities of the past and not the present


Originally posted by dawnstar
as for the abstinance???

I was married,....now, go and look at what the relgions are teaching women as far as their position in contrast to their husbands!!!

I don't really know what religion you are talking about. I'm not religious



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
Sorry to sound harsh but you would think that after 3 pregnancies any woman would have learned about the morning after pill, or abstinence


So in order to prevent further abortions of the unborn, you just intend to continue generalizing and lecturing women who find themselves in these situations? Do you really believe that this is going to change the cycle of abortions out there? Because from what I understand it, this tactic from pro-lifers hasn't changed anything over the last few decades, abortions continue to go up.

Why don't you spend more of your time supporting young teens, pregnant women, supporting their decisions, rallying moral and financial support for single mothers? Promoting motherhood and promoting community support for those single mothers so that you can make sure they do go forward with their pregnancies? Why not do this instead of attacking, generalizing and lecturing people you don't know personally? What you're doing now does not do a service to your movement, unless your intention here is just to force your own personal standards and morals on others and not that of real concern for the unborn. I happen to think it is the latter by the way.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 

you judged me kind of indicating that I could just take a morning after pill, I pointed out....there was no such thing back in the 80's.....

as far a religion goes.....
most of the religions teach women to be obedient.......so, well, abstinance would only be an option for the wife if the husband wanted it that way....
and, I think that many, many marriages would end quite quickly if the wife came home one day and proclaimed that she was gonna abstain from sex till menopause.....



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

How far do you want to split those hairs?


why do you keep telling me I'm splitting hairs
I am bringing analogies so that we can discuss this in a logical way



Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Do we force those parents to not do anything and just let it be for the sake of our own personal morals on life and the "right" to life? If they die or suffer because of inaction, do we tell them that this is Gods plan? Shall we give them a bible?

The problem with people like yourself here is that only you want to draw the lines of morality when it comes to matters like this, and you want to do so through government, you want to force down your personal views on the lives of others, on very personal situations like this, without consideration for the actual parties involved. The fact is, there's a big grey area when it comes to the right to life.

Are you going to tell me that the government should just leave those conjoint twins who share a heart as is? Let them both die due to complications, without medicare help?Let them suffer because that's just the "moral" thing to do? Who do you think you are?


I never said abortion should be illegal if the mothers life is at stake
you wrote all that but it doesn't really apply to me



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

or......you could just walk away??? couldn't you????

you can't walk away from your foot, your heart, your liver, or a baby that is growing inside you, can you???



so if one can't walk away from a dependent then kill it?
still does not make sense
edit on 24-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join