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: 34
38
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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.


So by your standard of human, using the day-after pill is on the same level as murdering a teenager?? I understand what you're trying to "put into perspective", but that doesn't make it a sound basis for defining what form of life deserves equal human rights. The argument here has to be balanced out with facts & rationality. I find it rational to say that a woman who has an abortion before the fetus'/embryo's brain develops is not as morally liable as one who kills a human/fetus with a [developed] brain. Are you trying to say that an an embryo without a brain is [even close to] as "human" as me or you?
edit on 24-8-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


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 is the topics of slavery, involuntary servitude, and voluntary servitude and it took a war, 3 amendments, and martial law and it's 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?
edit on 24/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)
I'd be willing to fight for their rights. Others have. Just because the Supreme Court has declared something means that no decision has ever been reversed?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko4570
 





Whatever. Its not a human til the all powerful woman says it is. Or until the President says it is.


HAHA! I think you're confusing the President for the Pope!


It was only in 1530 CE that the Pope declared that the Indians were human.
freetruth.50webs.org...



Originally posted by beezzer

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.


Yes it is. 2 objects/people can't occupy the same space. It's a law of physics.



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.


What you are suggesting is freeing the slave, (fetus) and enslaving the master (mother)



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.


Oh boy! Here we go, GENDER ROLES!

So because women have this unique ability, then, when the "rabbit dies", she HAS to accept this as a biological duty, because "She's a Vessel!" Motherhood, tra lala......


Let me ask you a question.

If abortion were banned, would you be okay with you for gay couples marrying and adopting unwanted children?
edit on 24-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu

Originally posted by beezzer

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.


So by your standard of human, using the day-after pill is on the same level as murdering a teenager?? I understand what you're trying to "put into perspective", but that doesn't make it a sound basis for defining what form of life deserves equal human rights. The argument here has to be balanced out with facts & rationality. I find it rational to say that a woman who has an abortion before the fetus'/embryo's brain develops is not as morally liable as one who kills a human/fetus with a [developed] brain. Are you trying to say that an an embryo without a brain is [even close to] as "human" as me or you?
edit on 24-8-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)

The brain is just an organ. It doesn't finish development until @ 20 years post partum.

I may be wrong, but I see you searching for justifications for aortion.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


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 is the topics of slavery, involuntary servitude, and voluntary servitude and it took a war, 3 amendments, and martial law and it's 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?
edit on 24/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)
I'd be willing to fight for their rights. Others have. Just because the Supreme Court has declared something means that no decision has ever been reversed?


You are walking a slippery slope here my friend.

With that comment from you....
I relieve myself from this conversation.

I would tread lightly because these are dangerous waters.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword


Let me ask you a question.

If abortion were banned, would you be okay with you for gay couples marrying and adopting unwanted children?


Sure.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 



You stated that ALL humans have poor judgement,


Yes I did say that all humans are capable of poor judgement, I did not restrict that to men. In contrast you wasted no time stating that women are incapable of good judgement for m8s, you didn't mention men in the same breath. You did generalize all women in the same way and it's sexist.



Humans are crappy judges of character...


Yes we are, it's not just women. Initially you only labelled women as being incapable of judgement of a mate, and now you're stepping back from that comment and insisting you implied something else. You're welcome to continue lying about what you really said or implied, I'm moving on.


Talk about taking responsibility for ones Sexual Actions..... and try not to ignore the woman's *RESPONSIBILITY* in this matter.


Responsibility you say? It's the rape victims responsibility to go through 9 months of pain and labour right? What about that child who was molested by her relatives? Should she take responsibility? Again, who are you? You don't know all these women, you're not personally involved in their lives, so who are you to tell them what they *MUST* do? The answer is that you are nobody, it's none of your business.



Sure, maybe you have some outliers, but the vast majority have that state enforced safety net.


Yes, many of these same pro-lifers are supporting the politicians who intend to remove or cut into these safety nets. Governor Rick Perry made cuts to food stamp programmes and other social support programmes in Texas last year while mounting support toward anti-abortion intiatives. Women can't always rely on their governments, least of all their state governments, to support them in their time of need. This is delusional, especially if you're a person who supports individuals like Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson.


I was talking about when the government


You were talking about how unfair it is that woman have all the power on the matter of pregnancy. Tough, men understand full well what they're getting into with another women. Whether you personally oppose abortions, or whether you just don't want a kid, don't make that choice. The government will not always regulate "fairness" in these situations, and those women who do go forward with these pregnancies often end up on the short end of the stick themselves.


*MY RESPONSIBILITY?*


Yes, take some responsibility. If you don't like abortions, don't have one, if you don't want to end up in a situation of child support, don't take those risks. Stop whining and don't take those risks yourself, tend to your own flock.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I have to go to work (on the weekend, I know!) But will be back.

Thanks for all the contributions.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   



If abortion were banned, would you be okay with you for gay couples marrying and adopting unwanted children?




What an interesting proposal. If worms had machine guns would birds still try to eat them?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by windword


Let me ask you a question.

If abortion were banned, would you be okay with you for gay couples marrying and adopting unwanted children?


Sure.


"But! But! Prolifers can't possibly support gay marriage! It's against the right-wing oath. Or something!"

I love it when people are surprised that I don't follow my liberal stereo type in total lock-step. Thinking for yourself always trips people up.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

The brain is just an organ. It doesn't finish development until @ 20 years post partum.

I may be wrong, but I see you searching for justifications for aortion.


For Christ' sake, are you understanding what I'm saying here?? This isn't about justification, this is about logically assessing the issue. If the brain is just an organ, then should we be giving human rights to computers? We could say that the hardware of a computer is an artificial set of organs; but until it becomes an object that exhibits/scientifically displays sentience, it cannot be equated to a conscious entity.

An embryo without a brain is not even as "conscious" as the lowest developed life-form. So should we begin protecting insects & bacteria with equal rights? This is ALL taking into consideration than you're not coming from a superstitious/religious point of view --- which I presumed you were not.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I wonder how many pro-lifers here actually took the time to support somebody going through a tough decision of whether to abort or not, my guess is there are very little. I live in a very liberal city, there is plenty of support for women here, abortions are accessable here. Yet, in all my years, I've come across teenagers who have had kids, some who have had two kids, young pregnant women and those male partners involved, they've all gone through with their pregnancies. I've found myself giving moral support during those times those women actually found themselves in those situations, I've contributed assistance in those situations, and in those cases where support was strong for those women deciding to abort or not, they all opted to go forward with pregnancy.

I'm sorry but none of the so called pro-lifers here appear to me to give a damn about the circumstances these women face, or even the future of their pregnancies and potential children. All many of you care about is criticizing and attacking those women who find themselves in these situations, once the child is born you couldn't give a damn. Many of these members who posted here were the same members I encountered in other threads supporting cuts to social programmes, those programmes that many of these single mothers rely on.

Good luck in continuing to rally your own moral and religious standards into government, you're not doing yourselves or anybody else a favour, abortions will continue to climb while you squabble, and the cycle will continue. Next year will mark 40 years of Roe V. Wade, it's not going away.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
What about an unborn child's right to be mercifully euthanized as opposed to suffering the living hell of being born to parents who don't want them?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


If they were to allow cloning, cells that you shed have the dna to clone a whole person.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The subject of abortion is touchy and can be unpleasant for some people, but either way, we as a species need to find some definitive solutions that the majority can agree on. I'll start by saying why I think abortion should be legal (In certain cases). I personally find it agreeable to abort a fetus that was conceived through rape. An extremely close friend of mine told me that she would rather kill herself than be forced to carry her rapists child inside her for 9 months. She was raped at 14 and it devastated her life in ways only a rape victim could know. It was hard for her when she told me about it and the hardest thing for her to say was that she got an abortion afterwards. It's not a basket of sunshine and unless you fall under the category of an impregnated rape victim then please shut up about what those people do with their bodies.

If a woman gets pregnant through consensual sex then they should absolutely birth that child. Birth control is so easily available to everyone and it is free in many cases. On top of that, anybody who uses a condom or any other form of birth control should already know that no birth control is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. The most fool-proof way to remain unseeded is to abstain from sexual intercourse, but really who wants to do that?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I think we should go the logical step forward with this....

Every single sperm cell has the potential to be a life, also every single egg.

So masturbation should be illegal (unless its into a cup for future use). And every woman should be forced into unprotected sex (or artificial insemination) every time she ovulates.

I mean, it's obvious right? We need millions more people running around the world, children being mistreated in foster homes, more children starving to death in Africa...

We don't have enough children running around who need to be loved, fed, educated and clothed.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



At this point you are floundering so bad you are making up statements for me. I never said a baby will turn into a fish.


No, you claimed that a human zygote and a fish zygote are the same thing...yeah...that is so much better.



Since your the one who can't understand embryonic and dna development


I understand it just fine...enough to know that a human zygote can't be confused with a fish zygote by a biologist.

But you go ahead and keep the standard of science to only what the eyeball can see...you will fit right in back in the 1500's.


I am still waiting for an apology to me, and at this point to all women, for my point of saying that women suffer at the hands of abuse. Because millions of incidents of domestic violence and rape is just a hyperbole to you.


I'm not going to apologize just because you don't understand what hyperbole and anecdotal mean.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Why doesn't a person who is willing to live that kind of life for herself, or himself, just get sterilized beforehand?

Because, like in the Chicago intercity, they live on welfare, and union teachers, and psychiatric diagnosis and drugs with the continued gov't handout of SS disability payments.

This is what Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood is all about.

As a nation, we shouldn't be doing a ritualistic blood sacrifice for the Illumanati.

Sounds crazy, but that is really what it is all about.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


Using the birth control pill is tantamount to pre-meditated abortion. The pill tells your body it is all ready pregnant, not allowing the conceived fetus to implant, then when you stop taking the hormone pill, you have your period.

That's why the Catholic Church is against the birth control pill.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


This is the new liberal, progressive, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, enlightened college professors key to making "after birth" abortion, or killing defeftive humans, legal.

You think this is crazy? Read the headlines.

Obamacare - infantacid, euthanasia = communist policy.

If you can't work like a slave, you are no use to us.




top topics



 
38
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join