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: 29
38
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


no, but more than likely, many would just sit there and bicker, claim the doctors are lying, and the she should carry the baby, because well, there's a chance that she might live!!! they'd bicker long enough that the option would be gone, and well....might find out a bit too late, just how wrong they were...
and one thing is for sure, that little baby isn't gonna lose it's dependency if the mother dies.....are you gonna take care of it???




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
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.....


I'm sorry that you thought I was passing judgement on you
it was more a commentary on women at present

and if a man in a marriage wants to have sex all the time then he should be aware that sex can bring a baby and fully plan accordingly, it's called responsibility
something every good husband should have regarding his family



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

no, but more than likely, many would just sit there and bicker, claim the doctors are lying, and the she should carry the baby, because well, there's a chance that she might live!!! they'd bicker long enough that the option would be gone, and well....might find out a bit too late, just how wrong they were...
and one thing is for sure, that little baby isn't gonna lose it's dependency if the mother dies.....are you gonna take care of it???



what???? why would it be my fault if incompetent doctors and bickering patients make a wrong call
I hope no mother dies during pregnancy, c-sections are relatively simple procedures now days



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.


yes abortion continue to go up and making it a routine procedure is not helping
will the pro-choice stand bring down abortion?
I hope we all agree the act itself of killing a human life is bad
it should be only reserved from extreme cases
casual birth control is not an extreme case



Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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.


why don't you do that instead of advocating killing of babies
and I don't have a movement
I'm just voicing my opinion



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Well, one difference is that it is born. Once it's born it fits a legal criteria for Civil Rights protection.

I've ready stated in this thread, a few times, that life is a cycle.

The chemical reaction that occurs during the unity of a living cell, the ovum, and the living cell, the sperm, isn't any more magical a moment as when it attaches to the uterus or moves through the birth canal and into it's "own life."

If you want to know when the "soul" enters a body, ask a priest. It's all a matter of opinion.

I'm here to defend the rights and autonomy of the woman who is alive, and without her body acting as a host, the zygote would not be in question. Her rights supercede any rights that people might want to bestow on the unborn.

Do you also oppose hormonal birth control, IUD's and the morning after pill?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



Originally posted by quietlearner
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


You're using a broad brush to paint a picture of why women generally abort. For some women it has little to do with whether or not they need a baby. You can't label the circumstances of all women in the same light in order to establish your point, this just isn't reality. And whether or not you think it's silly for those women who decide to abort because of convenience is just your opinion, you can't force those women to go through with their pregnancies, they are naturally the drivers, whether you think it to personally be right or wrong.


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?


Regarding the scenario you posed to me above, I'm not a parent in such an unfortunate situation to make such a decision so I cannot relate, but if the decision meant that one twin would live on a normal life, and fully grow through and into adulthood, then yes, I would probably make that decision to let the other twin go. You would not, I take it? Would you call those parents who would make that decision killers, murders? Would you have the gut to lecture them there as you try to do to me here with your personal moral standards? Would you let those twins live on in their short life span, and suffer and die into childhood?

It depends on the future circumstances.



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


That's a pretty silly question don't you think? You haven't been reading my responses have you?

No you shouldn't kill him or her, because
a) We're talking about a human being here, a fertilized egg is not a human being.
b) Why would you need to kill them when you have the choice of putting them in the care of somebody else. We're talking about someone, a born human being, who does not require to be in the body of a host female inorder to liveout it's life.



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?


Old people are human beings not fertlized eggs.

You can't put a fertlized egg in an orphanage.
You can't put a fertilized egg under the care of somebody else, unless that somebody else is a willing female host and they are willing to take on the pain of pregnancy.
You can't treat the death or end of a fertilized egg in the same manner as the death or end of that of an actual human being. You can't put a crime scene around a woman's body, the natural circumstances are vastly different.
There's no evidence to suggest that a fertilized egg is aware of it's existence, or holds any awareness at all.

Calling a fertilized egg a human being does not make it a human being. It does make the circumstances a fertilized egg faces the same as those of human beings.



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?


Why? Because those are just our laws. What legal requirements there are out there has little bearing or the fact that it is the women that has to ultimately carry out the pain and suffering of the pregnancy. Life isn't "fair". Naturally, reproduction isn't "fair" to the woman because she is the one that has to take on the pain and hassel of pregnancy, she is the vulnerable one in this case, the man can just pack up and leave when he wants. Legally, in some circumstances men are disadvantaged, what I see as just facts of life, you see as "unfair".

Men are well aware of what they are getting themselves into when they make that decision to go with a woman, they know the legal repercussions. Women understand the natural repercussions.



so you chat with mother nature often?


Yes I do actually. She told me that women are naturally the drivers of the pregnancy, they control the destiny of the pregnancy. Of course mother nature didn't have to tell me this because I already knew this was a fact. The woman naturally have the last say. What's there not to understand?


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.


Then why does the women still drive the pregnancy herself? Why does she still have full control of her body even during pregnancy? Seems like nature did what it intended.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


Easy for you to say because you are sitting at a PC keyboarding.

Have you ever looked up and marveled at a blue sky?

Ate a warm yummy blueberry muffin.

Listened to rain falling

Been kissed and hugged

I could name a million other wonder things we all take for granted.

Every organism desires to survive.

Have you ever held your first born in your arms, your first child, a 50% of you, a mini me?????

Are you glad your mother gave you life?

Now when you answer this, I mean, is there not at least one moment in time when you looked up at a brilliant blue sky, a beautiful swaying tree, the grass blowing in the wind, a good basket ball game or a really good movie or video game that just made you feel all happy to be alive?

In our arrogance, with our modern technology, we are playing God and personally IMHO we do not have that right.

The one angel that did try to play God got thrown out of Heaven.

The day I held my first born son in my arms was the happiest day of my life. It was on that day I realized what real unconditional love was all about. We have no words in English to describe the feeling of a monumental moment like that.

Maybe some people don't have the maternal instinct I have, maybe some people don't realize that while yes this being is sharing another's body, gathering nourishment from her - he/she (not a it) is still in their own right, their own little person that deserves legal sanctuary - life, liberty and justice for all, not just whoever we choose but for all.




Uploaded by Abort73 on Feb 13, 2012 Whether the criteria is age, ability, or ethnicity, it is unjust and inaccurate to classify a group of human beings as "non-persons."



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
I hope we all agree the act itself of killing a human life is bad


Human life does not necessarily mean human being. Sperm contains human "life", females eggs contain part of human life. There are many things that contain "human life", that doesn't make those things human beings.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
I never said abortion should be illegal if the mothers life is at stake


So you do support killing a life in order to save another life? Is this where you draw your personal morality on this matter? To me, either you support abortions or you don't, there's no grey area in between. In the end you are either supporting killing another life to suit circumstances or not. Once you take the position of abortion even in the case of the mothers life, you've thrown all your arguments against abortion outside.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
LOTS of ill-informed posters in this thread.

How many of you "pro-life" folks have ever read Roe v. Wade?

Since I suspect that the answer to this would be....

ZERO

Let me highlight some of what I feel are the important aspects of the majority decision in a sec.

I have already shown that the OP wanted to discuss civil rights without obviously understanding what civil rights are.
And I received no reply.

I have already explained that it matters not what personal opinion one might have on this issue, because civil rights by definition are applicable only through the enforcement of law.
And I received no reply.

The vast majority of.... opinions... that dominate this thread are just that.
They are opinions with no bearing on the legal foundation of the practice of abortive medicine.
For all of the hoo-hah get angry and scream at one another, I find it fascinating that no one has yet to quote the ruling that set the abortion precedent in motion.

Yes... This ruling was 100% judicial activism.

But so was the citizens united ruling that elates the exact same people who criticize abortion.
The judicial blade is two sided for a reason.

Divide and conquer folks.
Whatever. No one understands that. Let's just look at the ruling.
(all links from the ruling found here)


...the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.

I couldn't help but chuckle when I read that.
Oh, too funny.



On the merits, the District Court held that the fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment...


Hmmmm.... The Ninth Amendment?!?!?!?!
No one ever talks about that one.
What does it say?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

link to source

Maybe it's just me, but I would swear to God that after reading that...
That it would almost seem like the fouding fathers wanted a bit of judicial activism.
You see, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued against a bill of rights because they believed that it would limit the central government with respect to only those powers enumerated in Article 1 section 8 and the Bill of Rights.
So, in response to this argument, James Madison wrote this basic framework into the Viriginia state constitution and it was later used in the US Constitution as the Ninth Amendment.
It basically states that the federal government is limited in its violation of all personal rights, not just those found in the Bill of Rights.
And the 14th Amendment, whether you like it or not, was later written to apply the first ten amendments to the states, thus becoming the foundation for civil rights.

The court found in Roe v Wade that a woman's right to medical privacy was one of those rights implied by the 9th Amendment.
A womans right to medical privacy is at the heart of this debate.

And it doesn't matter what you think.

Because in case you haven't noticed, the Federal Government is in the business of thinking for you.

This is decided and it is case law.

Get over it if you don't like it.

If you really want to change things, then start at the foundation of the problem, which is the concept of civil rights.
You pro-life people are arguing this wrongly and that is why you lose and will continue to lose.

The point at which a fetus goes from being a parasite to a human has already been decided by the court as well.
So, you can save your lame appeals to emotion and pictures of tadpoles... errr I mean...

feti (the plural of fetus).

The court later reviewed its Roe decision in 1980 and decided upon the viability of a fetus.

The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."


link to source

Here's the answer.

You can't win with your current argument pro-lifers.

Go to the source of the problem and educate yourself and then try to make real change rather than shoving your opinion down someone's throat, but remember...

Abortion is a 9th Amendment right. It is protected medical privacy.

Ciao.
edit on 24/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
The laws are in direct conflict. One says it's OK because it's just a lifeless mass of tissue that can't live outside its host's womb, the other says that its not OK because it's still a human being killed by someone other than itself. As a matter of fact, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a mother that attempted suicide has been charged in the death of her child.

I'm not arguing whether abortion is moral or ethical. My argument stems from the bad laws created around it. One of them has to go, but I don't see the Roe vs. Wade crowd lining up to repeal UVVA anywhere, so they must be OK with it, right? Thus the hypocrisy.

BTW: Did you notice how I didn't rise to the bait of your backhanded comment against me? That's because I'm better than you.

/TOA
I misread your comment, my mistake. Now that I actually understand what you're saying, I have to agree.
edit on 24-8-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Thank you Mr. Hefficide.

That was much appreciated for the recognition.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

Have you ever looked up and marveled at a blue sky?

Ate a warm yummy blueberry muffin.

Listened to rain falling

Been kissed and hugged



Are you serious?

Have you ever dealt with a both emotionally and food starved street child?

Is this Fantasyland?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

You're using a broad brush to paint a picture of why women generally abort. For some women it has little to do with whether or not they need a baby. You can't label the circumstances of all women in the same light in order to establish your point, this just isn't reality. And whether or not you think it's silly for those women who decide to abort because of convenience is just your opinion, you can't force those women to go through with their pregnancies, they are naturally the drivers, whether you think it to personally be right or wrong.

yes it's my opinion and all you wrote is your opinion
why state the obvious
"naturally the drivers" this I'm not sure what it means, I will have to talk to mother nature I guess

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Regarding the scenario you posed to me above, I'm not a parent in such an unfortunate situation to make such a decision so I cannot relate, but if the decision meant that one twin would live on a normal life, and fully grow through and into adulthood, then yes, I would probably make that decision to let the other twin go. You would not, I take it? Would you call those parents who would make that decision killers, murders? Would you have the gut to lecture them there as you try to do to me here with your personal moral standards? Would you let those twins live on in their short life span, and suffer and die into childhood?

It depends on the future circumstances.

we are talking about a pregnancy were the mothers life is not at risk per the doctors
yes the pregnancy will take the 9 month of the mother life
after that then send the baby for adoption and continue your life
its not like the baby will be physically attached to the mom for the rest of her life
why kill the baby?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
That's a pretty silly question don't you think? You haven't been reading my responses have you?

No you shouldn't kill him or her, because
a) We're talking about a human being here, a fertilized egg is not a human being.
b) Why would you need to kill them when you have the choice of putting them in the care of somebody else. We're talking about someone, a born human being, who does not require to be in the body of a host female inorder to liveout it's life.

maybe not a human being but a human life
and what if you don't have the choice of putting them in the care of somebody else? kill them right?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Old people are human beings not fertlized eggs.

You can't put a fertlized egg in an orphanage.
You can't put a fertilized egg under the care of somebody else, unless that somebody else is a willing female host and they are willing to take on the pain of pregnancy.
You can't treat the death or end of a fertilized egg in the same manner as the death or end of that of an actual human being. You can't put a crime scene around a woman's body, the natural circumstances are vastly different.
There's no evidence to suggest that a fertilized egg is aware of it's existence, or holds any awareness at all.

Calling a fertilized egg a human being does not make it a human being. It does make the circumstances a fertilized egg faces the same as those of human beings.

still a human life
you could call all "human beings" overgrown fertilized eggs

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Why? Because those are just our laws. What legal requirements there are out there has little bearing or the fact that it is the women that has to ultimately carry out the pain and suffering of the pregnancy. Life isn't "fair". Naturally, reproduction isn't "fair" to the woman because she is the one that has to take on the pain and hassel of pregnancy, she is the vulnerable one in this case, the man can just pack up and leave when he wants. Legally, in some circumstances men are disadvantaged, what I see as just facts of life, you see as "unfair".

so because women got the short stick then they should have all the say?
is this your way to "balance" right and wrong? since men do not carry have it easier than women they should not have a say on their future offspring's life?

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



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Men are well aware of what they are getting themselves into when they make that decision to go with a woman, they know the legal repercussions. Women understand the natural repercussions.

women are also well aware of what they are getting into


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yes I do actually. She told me that women are naturally the drivers of the pregnancy, they control the destiny of the pregnancy. Of course mother nature didn't have to tell me this because I already knew this was a fact. The woman naturally have the last say. What's there not to understand?

hmmmm when will you give me mothers nature email



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Human life does not necessarily mean human being. Sperm contains human "life", females eggs contain part of human life. There are many things that contain "human life", that doesn't make those things human beings.

no there are not many things that contain a human life
a fertilized egg and a human body are the only two



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

So you do support killing a life in order to save another life? Is this where you draw your personal morality on this matter? To me, either you support abortions or you don't, there's no grey area in between. In the end you are either supporting killing another life to suit circumstances or not. Once you take the position of abortion even in the case of the mothers life, you've thrown all your arguments against abortion outside.

why does it have to be either or? why think in binary?
I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, I don't support killing innocent people



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I think some other poster already replied saying that laws are changed
and he/she quoted past laws that were changed about blacks in america and women rights to vote
so there



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I think some other poster already replied saying that laws are changed
and he/she quoted past laws that were changed about blacks in america and women rights to vote...


I must have missed that. Would you be so kind as to point this out to me yourself.

Instead of saying this-

so there


Seriously.
I have no idea how laws about blacks or a woman's right to vote is applicable to the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution with regards to abortion, but I would certainly.... LURVE... to see you explain it to me.
edit on 24/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Men have rights.
Women have rights.
Blacks have rights.
Asians have rights.
Hispanics have rights.
Gays have rights.
Transgender people have rights.Christians have rights.
Islamists have rights.
Hebraic followers have rights.
Animals have rights.



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

edit on Fri Aug 24 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed tags



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join