Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by beezzer

 

It is astounding to see the crassness of some of the people in this thread.

The bottom line is that some people have no dignity, no sense of responsibility and are completely self involved. They do not care about anything but themselves.

It's the way our society is heading. The nobility of the civil rights movement in the 50's has been replaced by the "what's in it for me?" era.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by timetothink

 

So you can use Roe V Wade and laws as your justification fro murder to absolve you of your guilt...meanwhile some of us will be working to repeal them.

You cannot legislate a civil right after it is incorporated by the US Supreme Court.

IT CAN NOT BE DONE.

Go ahead and keep on trying and you will get the same result as you have seen for the past 40 years.

Nada. Zilch.

Nothing.

There you are wrong. Because definitions do change. Interpretations do change.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by beezzer

 

You are making the assumption that life begins at conception. I don't believe that. I believe that a child in the womb is not alive until it is born. So....what do you say to people that believe as I do? Get over it?

I tried to look at this issue from a "civil rights" perspective but I have found that I cannot. Comparing the collective struggles of the races(or the other things you mentioned) to the individual struggle of a woman having an abortion does not make sense to me. Personally, I think it is insulting to all the people that were involved. These groups of people have had to suffer through much to even begin to get the wheels of change turning. A fetus in a womb cannot understand such concepts. Some people say they fight for those that cannot fight for themselves. I don't buy that. I see it merely as a tool some people use to improve their own self worth.

This abortion issue is not related in any way, whatsoever, to the examples you provided. I see on one side self-righteous tyrants attempting to force their will on those that disagree with them. On the other side I see a woman that, for whatever reason, wants to terminate her pregnancy because she feels that is the best course of action. I support the woman. No one has the right to tell people what to do with their bodies. Even if some people believe that women are committing murder. It is merely a belief that is ultimately irrelevant.

You mock my assumption, yet state your assumption as fact.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by timetothink

 

So you can use Roe V Wade and laws as your justification fro murder to absolve you of your guilt...meanwhile some of us will be working to repeal them.

You cannot legislate a civil right after it is incorporated by the US Supreme Court.

IT CAN NOT BE DONE.

Go ahead and keep on trying and you will get the same result as you have seen for the past 40 years.

Nada. Zilch.

Nothing.

There you are wrong. Because definitions do change. Interpretations do change.

The Supreme Court ruled that "medical" abortion is Constitutionally protected. You can't take the constitutional rights away from one group, say, Native Americans and give them to say, African Americans.

You can't away the civil rights of a woman and give them to her unborn child. Civil rights are Equal Rights!

reply to post by beezzer


Great post. Makes total sense. This issue really seems to reveal a persons intellegence as well as thier humanity. You seem to have an ample supply of both.

Arguement One

How can a little glob of goo that simply pulsates a little in a womb have civil rights? Does a jellyfish have civil rights? Wait thats a messed up question because Im sure theres someone out there who would rather a jellyfish live than a human. Whatever. Its not a human til the all powerful woman says it is. Or until the President says it is. So ...no rights till it is sufficiently indoctrinated by its controller. Then it only gets the rights that suit will aid in feathering the nest of the tax collector.

Arguement Two

Its an individual life at conception and deserves the human rights that every other human deserves. Doesnt matter how difficult pregnancy is, nothing matters except protecting the rights of ALL humans. That is of course until they prove to be non human..for example, murdering unborn children, definitely a loss of humanity there. ONLY choice the host has is if her life is in unusual danger. Then she may choose to kill it. (any human worth a penny would sacrifice themself to save a baby, I know I would) "well mam, looks like you will die if we deliver this baby, but the child will be fine, what would you like to do?" My answer- "Save my child, because maybe someday he/she may save many."

Too bad those kinds of values are almost nonexistent, replaced by self service and the lack of concern for "Civil Rights"

Laters

Question for the legal experts out there.

Why cant we just vote on this issue? Is it because of an an out dated court case? If perceptions change, as they do...lets vote.

33 Pages?? The abortion threads are quite active lately.... So the question is, does a fetus have the same rights as a human already born. Or, at what point does a fetus become "human". I think this is a very important distinction; because conception does not equate to a human. But at some point it does become a human being. I personally think that point is at the lower bounds of sentience (brain developing & brainwaves detectable)/stage of fetal viability.

I've talked to some women who don't see a fetus at any stage, as anything other than a lump of cells --- compared to a tumor and one woman even said late-term abortion is the same as shedding toe skin. Women with minds like that are demented and irrational. At the same time, the fundamentalist who think the day-after pill is an abomination.... they're just as ridiculous.

Originally posted by windword


The Supreme Court ruled that "medical" abortion is Constitutionally protected. You can't take the constitutional rights away from one group, say, Native Americans and give them to say, African Americans.

You can't away the civil rights of a woman and give them to her unborn child. Civil rights are Equal Rights!

Civil rights are equal rights. Probably the first we've ever agreed. Once the definition of the status of the unborn has changed, I can only hope that they too, will also have equal rights.

Affording rights to a child is not taking away from the rights of the mother.

Affording rights to slaves, did not take away the rights of a slave owner, because, in reality, the slave owner had no authoritative rights to begin with.

A mother is a caretaker for life. She is a vessel. If anything, the role of the mother, the role of women should be raised because only they have this unique ability to bring forth life.

reply to post by beezzer

There you are wrong. Because definitions do change. Interpretations do change.

You will find the one thing that I am not wrong about is law.

It could be because I have one heck of an education.
Or it could be because maybe I have a reason for posting here.

But whatever it is, discussions on matters dealing with the law, the constitution and the legal evolution of rights in the United States do, in fact, have correct and incorrect perceptions.

Like I have said, you will find my perspective to be the correct one.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments.

Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights...

link to source

As was recognized by the Roe decision, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is what applies the 9th Amendment's recognition of substantive rights outside the constitution to civil rights, namely the right to medical privacy.

What you seem to have trouble understanding is that abortion was not legitimized under the Roe ruling, what was legitimized is the civil right of medical privacy.
The Roe decision also placed abortion under the protection of a medical procedure.

This has been upheld numerous times by the court.

No state can outlaw abortion.

They can minimize access to it through the licensing of certain doctors, but you will never find a state able to change the Roe ruling, because case law has been seen to back this up time and time again.

Here is a flow chart that will accurately show you the process of incorporation regarding civil rights.

You wanted to make this thread about civil rights, but yet when you are confronted with someone who obviously understands this issue, that would be me, you simply make a general statement declaring that I am wrong and then you run away.

Let's see some research beezzer.

Exercise those mental research muscles and prove me wrong.
You can't by the way, but it will be fun to watch you try.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
In order to give the unborn rights you have to take away the mothers.

Which also conflicts with parental rights.

If you believe in parental rights, you can not give the unborn rights, because parental rights also gives the parents the right to choose to not be a parent.

We are talking about the right to TERMINATE not what the child will have for dinner. Not even parents have that right. There is no such right. Its called murder.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
33 Pages?? The abortion threads are quite active lately.... So the question is, does a fetus have the same rights as a human already born. Or, at what point does a fetus become "human". I think this is a very important distinction; because conception does not equate to a human. But at some point it does become a human being. I personally think that point is at the lower bounds of sentience (brain developing & brainwaves detectable)/stage of fetal viability.

I've talked to some women who don't see a fetus at any stage, as anything other than a lump of cells --- compared to a tumor and one woman even said late-term abortion is the same as shedding toe skin. Women with minds like that are demented and irrational. At the same time, the fundamentalist who think the day-after pill is an abomination.... they're just as ridiculous.

The "fetus" is human at any and every stge of development.

Is a teenager human?
It is different than an adult. Does it still qualify as human because it appears different at a certain developmental stage?

Just trying to put it in perspective.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

You wanted to make this thread about civil rights, but yet when you are confronted with someone who obviously understands this issue, that would be me, you simply make a general statement declaring that I am wrong and then you run away.

Let's see some research

Thank you for your reality and facts.

Me? I've actually had an abortion and am ignored.

reply to post by kyviecaldges
Nice try. But by changing the foundation of the debate to support your argument will not work.

The fact that you claim it to be a medical issue and not a civil rights issue illustrates that.

reply to post by beezzer

Civil rights are equal rights.

You are wrong there my friend.

Civil rights are rights granted by law.
They are most definitely NOT equal.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by beezzer

 

Civil rights are equal rights.

You are wrong there my friend.

Civil rights are rights granted by law.
They are most definitely NOT equal.

Civil rights are protected FROM law. Equality is just a goal.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Nice try. But by changing the foundation of the debate to support your argument will not work.

The fact that you claim it to be a medical issue and not a civil rights issue illustrates that.

Where exactly are you coming from on this?

You made an OP trying to make a point about civil rights.

This is a topic of which I could be considered somewhat of an expert.

I have shown you 25 bajillion different ways that abortive medicine is a medical procedure and the Roe decision incorporated medical privacy into our civil rights.

I have shown you flow charts.
I have shown you court rulings.

What more do you want?

Do you have anything of substance to support whatever your stance is, because it is apparently no longer about civil rights.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by beezzer

 

Civil rights are equal rights.

You are wrong there my friend.

Civil rights are rights granted by law.
They are most definitely NOT equal.

Civil rights are protected FROM law. Equality is just a goal.

Look... I will give you another link.

This is from an online legal dictionary.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution.

link to source

Just out of curiosity... Do you research topics or do you just spout whatever makes sense to you?

Originally posted by Raelsatu

because conception does not equate to a human.

Can you prove this please? Provide sources.

reply to post by kyviecaldges
Like minorities in the past, like people with different sexual preferences in the past, the unborn are a class of human beings with no rights.
I am illustrating the similarities to the past in an attempt to show that while it was legal and socially acceptable at the time, it didn''t make it right.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by beezzer

 

Civil rights are equal rights.

You are wrong there my friend.

Civil rights are rights granted by law.
They are most definitely NOT equal.

Civil rights are protected FROM law. Equality is just a goal.

Look... I will give you another link.

This is from an online legal dictionary.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution.

link to source

Just out of curiosity... Do you research topics or do you just spout whatever makes sense to you?

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

Would you have defended Jim Crow laws the same way?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Like minorities in the past, like people with different sexual preferences in the past, the unborn are a class of human beings with no rights.
I am illustrating the similarities to the past in an attempt to show that while it was legal and socially acceptable at the time, it didn''t make it right.

But the unborn do have rights according to the Roe decision.

This has already been decided.

Their rights begin at around 24 weeks gestation.

The fetus is not considered viable until then.

The only thing that you could compare this to is the topics of slavery, involuntary servitude, and voluntary servitude and it took a war, 3 amendments, and martial law to sort of settle and it's still an ongoing battle.

Are you saying that you would be willing to go to war for this supposed "right of the unborn".

Because this has been settled and the only thing historically significant to compare it to is a civil war.

Is that what you are insinuating?