Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
It's way past my bedtime folks. Still recovering from a major illness. Work tomorrow. But I will address any questions.
Thanks.
beez




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

That is your interpretation. You can't have life, liberty if you aren't born. Those rights are denied by the act of abortion.


The fact you believe a bunch of cells is a child - - is your interpretation.

Science has another interpretation.

If my "belief" is science based. I see you as interpreting from emotions of a personal belief.

I am not in anyway interested in your personal belief or interpretation.


I'm a bit curious--what science based belief are we talking about?
edit on 23-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
It is a social affair and if you really want to end most abortions, all you have to do is address the socioeconomic issues that make it so prevalent.


I'm trying to do just that, by framing it in a civil rights approach.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Everytime I hear that word inalienable human rights I think of the Klingon reaction in Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country:

""Human rights." Even the name is racist. The Federation is basically a "homo sapiens" only club..."

Rights may be inalienable, but they are open to interpretation.

The UN believes that everybody has a right to work.

Many Liberals believe that the second amendment means you have to join a militia in order to own a firearm when the evidence clearly suggests it doesn't.

I only throw those in as examples of how rights can be interpreted differently by other people.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
The unborn do not have rights period. Historical fact already proves that abortion and infanticide have been with us for quite sometime. This means mothers have been making the decision for themselves whether or not their offspring will be a drain on the families resources and acting accordingly. That determination is a natural right and has been a part of our survival as a species. Pregnancy is not a solitary affair, ask any woman who has had her baby bump randomly patted by complete strangers that just couldn't help themselves. It is a social affair and if you really want to end most abortions, all you have to do is address the socioeconomic issues that make it so prevalent.


Infanticide a natural right? Interesting. So, with this natural right, you would agree that parents can kill or neglect children if they find it necessary? Do you agree with those fundimentalist types who deny their chldren lifesaving care? At what age does killing one's own children evolve from a natural right to murder?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM
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.


the unborn have no rights,,,,, in order to have rights, one must exist,.,.. in many cases abortion is doing the unborn a favor,.,.,.,. you probably have in your life brought up the danger of over population,,, you probably are against the welfare state,,, most of the time, when a women decides to have an abortion, it is for a good reason,,, and if its not,, thats her and her genetic legacies problem,,.,

Why do you care so much what a another human wants/needs to do?

why do you think you,, or a multiple number of yous ( people with the same opinion as you, might as well be a bunch of yous) should tell any other person what they can or cant do with their free expression of life?

do you not respect a womens intelligence and choice enough for her to make an honest decision with what she wants to do with her life? or you just dont think they should have a choice? or you think their choice is blasphemous in the face of the conservative natured god?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


One has to ask if the unborn are actually deserving of having rights. It's a strange concept to me honestly.



Do black people deserve rights?
Do gay people deserve rights?

All I'm asking is that the same consideration be given to those human individuals that have yet to be born.


Those are straw man arguments beezer.

The two groups you mention are not comparable to unborn children. I'm sorry but they are not equal.

One is life, the other is potential life.

Which is why I do not have an answer.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
One day, probably soon, science will prove exactly how much more a [collection of cells][fetus][baby] is aware and living than we believe now. How we react to that will define us as both a people and a species.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Marid Audran because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
For the one thousandth time.
Abortion is legal because most people want it legal.

If you don't like abortion:
a) don't have one
b) work to change the law to make it illegal again.

You will fail.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
edit on 23-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   


but her right should end where the rights of the unborn baby begins.
reply to post by beezzer
 


so, just where in your opinion, does the rights of one start, and the rights of the other end???

let's say a women had severe migraines. it is her right to take a drug that a doctor has perscribed for her.....
but, if she is pregnant, and the drug that has been perscribed posed a threat to the baby, according to what you have posted, she should just accept the pain of the migraine and give up her right to have a pain free workday, and the rights of the unborn is accepted as being the primary right. this isn't a strawman arugument, you go through the list of prescribed drugs that shouldn't be taken while pregnant, ya there may be something that may be substituted, maybe there isn't, maybe there is a substitute, but it's just not as effective.

to me, what you are saying is that for nine months, the women should just give up any and all rights that might interfer with the right of the unborn to a healthy development, and just lay her own right aside, which sounds good till you start thinking about it, and our fine gov't and their lunacy...
should the women be forced to eat three balanced meals a day, for the sake of the baby???? who should be monitoring her to make sure she does?? her husband, or maybe was can just institutionalize the women till she gives birth....
and let's not forget exercise!!! oh yes, maybe we should just give all the pregnant moms memberships, or heck, now that the govt can mandate us all to get healthcare, it should be no problem to mandate that all pregnant moms get a membership to the y or some other health spa so they can be required to show up three days a week for an excercise routine..... and, since documentation will be necessary.....heck, just think of all the jobs that we can create!!!
there are many drugs that are being perscribed, some of which are vital to the person if they are gonna live a normal live.....but they are not too healthy for the child, so, should we just take the drug from them?? there are many small things that women enjoy doing, eating that extra doughnut, going without a meal, whatever, should women be required to just lay everything aside? listen to a bunch of nutritionist who are now claiming that many of the things that were healthy in their opinion a few years ago, now, just aren't! should husband's have the right to file charges if their wife isn't following the doctor's advice on every point and decides instead to pop one of those codeine filled tablets to ease a debiliating migraine??
no, the pregnant women's rights do not end at the point where the rights of the unborn baby's begins!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If your against abortion,,, why arent you against guns and cigerettes? ,, acts and items which have no benefit other then killing and destroying the lives of the born and living,.,. what about war,,,, if you care so much about the unborn surely you care about every single one of the living,,,, why not uphold the rights of the living to a T before advancing your jurisdicktion to the womb?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For the one thousandth time.
Abortion is legal because most people want it legal.

If you don't like abortion:
a) don't have one
b) work to change the law to make it illegal again.

You will fail.


Interesting. So it is legality that defines morality? What about slavery. It was quite legal at one time. Would you have said "don't like slavery, don't own one" in 1860?

I'm not equating abortion to slavery, just delving a little deeper into the concept that what is legal and what is right are often two very different things.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For the one thousandth time.
Abortion is legal because most people want it legal.

If you don't like abortion:
a) don't have one
b) work to change the law to make it illegal again.

You will fail.


Interesting. So it is legality that defines morality? What about slavery. It was quite legal at one time. Would you have said "don't like slavery, don't own one" in 1860?

I'm not equating abortion to slavery, just delving a little deeper into the concept that what is legal and what is right are often two very different things.


it is people that define legality,, and people that define morality...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Infanticide a natural right? Interesting. So, with this natural right, you would agree that parents can kill or neglect children if they find it necessary?


Not really. I was attempting to put infanticide as an alternative to abortion in a historical context. We have evidence of it in the fossil record, early people people would not have necessarily grasped how the plumbing worked. So a determination would have been made shortly after birth before the bonding began. Given the state of medicine today it would not be acceptable. Having clarified myself I see no further need to address the other two questions.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For the one thousandth time.
Abortion is legal because most people want it legal.

If you don't like abortion:
a) don't have one
b) work to change the law to make it illegal again.

You will fail.


Interesting. So it is legality that defines morality? What about slavery. It was quite legal at one time. Would you have said "don't like slavery, don't own one" in 1860?

I'm not equating abortion to slavery, just delving a little deeper into the concept that what is legal and what is right are often two very different things.


it is people that define legality,, and people that define morality...


Fair enough. Then, to you, same question: is slavery moral where it is legal?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Blue Shift
For the one thousandth time.
Abortion is legal because most people want it legal.

If you don't like abortion:
a) don't have one
b) work to change the law to make it illegal again.

You will fail.


Interesting. So it is legality that defines morality? What about slavery. It was quite legal at one time. Would you have said "don't like slavery, don't own one" in 1860?

I'm not equating abortion to slavery, just delving a little deeper into the concept that what is legal and what is right are often two very different things.


it is people that define legality,, and people that define morality...


Fair enough. Then, to you, same question: is slavery moral where it is legal?


I dont think slavery should be legal,,.,., I have a hard time comprehending true/absolute morals and if they exist,,, but my opinion is that slavery is and should never be considered moral..., unless you have a maid and are paying her minimum wage,,, or a society of slave wage debt servants,,, or in other countries to make our sneakers,, or animals to do our work and be our food... ( sarcasm)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Not really. I was attempting to put infanticide as an alternative to abortion in a historical context. We have evidence of it in the fossil record, early people people would not have necessarily grasped how the plumbing worked. So a determination would have been made shortly after birth before the bonding began. Given the state of medicine today it would not be acceptable. Having clarified myself I see no further need to address the other two questions.


Okay, fair enough. Then lets go to your first sentence. "The unborn have no rights period." Why would a newborn infant have rights that he would not have had a day before? It would be essentially the exact same being, would it not?
edit on 23-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
about abortion,,, i believe if there is a medical procedure to abort a very early staged pregnancy,..,., people who oppose should not be allowed to physically or legally stop a free citizen of this world from having an abortion,,,
there are people who think its wrong,, those people dont have to get abortions!!! there are people who do not mind so much,,, when the time comes and they need or want,, they will get an abortion!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


I dont think slavery should be legal,,.,., I have a hard time comprehending true/absolute morals and if they exist,,, but my opinion is that slavery is and should never be considered moral..., unless you have a maid and are paying her minimum wage,,, or a society of slave wage debt servants,,, or in other countries to make our sneakers,, or animals to do our work and be our food... ( sarcasm)


But you said that earlier people determine morality and legality. Why would you want to force your belief system on others if the entire society wanted slavery and society determines what is moral and what is not? If the entire society wanted slavery and thought it was moral, would that not make your objection to slavery the immoral stance?





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join