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: 37
38
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


Thanks for your interpretation of my intent but that was not, in fact, my intent. I was more interested in the characterization of the fetus as a "potential human". I do believe people get hung up on whether or not a fetus can be considered a human. Just thought it was interesting that god doesn't think a fetus is a human, but a potential human.

In addition I found the information surprising as I did not realize that was Jewish Law, and thought others might find the information interesting too. I am not trying to use it to argue that abortion should be made legal. Otherwise I would have stated as such.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

This is relatively new, and I can only hope that the supreme Court will one day reverse Roe v Wade to support the rights to the unborn.



Nothing is going to stop abortion. Ever.

Making it illegal will only push it back to the "alley butchers".

Even in some countries where it is illegal - - - women have access to abortion ships. This helps demonstrate the extreme women are willing to go to terminate a pregnancy.

Living life is about making decisions. RIGHT OF CHOICE is about the right to make a decision that will have a significant affect on the rest of your life.

Legal abortion protects women from doing something drastic that could be very dangerous - - even life threatening.

Your personal belief can stay right where it is - - with you.



Living life is also about respecting life. Something some are missing.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 





the truth is even right now if you wan't an abortion you have to qualify for it
it's not as simple as others make it out to be


This is not true. Having an abortion in a medical setting may have restrictions but there are other ways to have an abortion and these methods have been practiced for centuries. Take away legalized abortion - women will still have abortions. You will never get rid of abortion by making it illegal. You will just increase the chances of woman dying from it. So now two "sacred" lives are lost. How is that better?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Yep, sorry Beezer, you're just gonna have to give up the civil rights angle of this argument. The civil rights of women are going to trump the unborn child. Women have been given the right to take something out of their body that they don't want in there. That right isn't going to be taken away from them now.

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.
edit on 25-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


While I admit that it isn't a popular opinion among the "kill the unborn" crowd. It's an opnion I won't be changing any time soon.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Living life is also about respecting life. Something some are missing.


You would have to include yourself in that statement you know. You're not respecting my life or the life of any woman who makes the choice to have an abortion at all. Don't try to take the moral high ground when you don't have any claim to it.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by beezzer
 





Living life is also about respecting life. Something some are missing.


You would have to include yourself in that statement you know. You're not respecting my life or the life of any woman who makes the choice to have an abortion at all. Don't try to take the moral high ground when you don't have any claim to it.
I find it amusing that I'm being condemned because I don't feel for the murderer as much as I feel for the victim.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Living life is also about respecting life. Something some are missing.


Not true.

According to the Roe decision, a fetus becomes a viable individual around 24 weeks.

This has been decided.

Until that point it is a part of the woman and at the discretion of her choosing.

You want to believe that this time frame is wrong.

That is your prerogative.
You can believe whatever you wish.
You can hope whatever you wish.
But it unfortunately does not stop you from being wrong.

You are simply incorrect about this matter.

Politicians will make a big deal about this and they will try to convince people, like yourself, that they can do something about the Roe decision, but they cannot.
That decision is one of many that our entire framework of medical privacy is built upon.

Are you familiar with the Health Insurance Portability and Acountability Act of 1996?
(aka HIPAA)

This act was has statutory viability because case law has established the idea of medical privacy.
And one of the decisions that established medical privacy is the Roe decision.

This is much bigger than your opinion.

This is the way the law works in the US.

We don't learn civics any longer.
We are not taught how government and law truly interact with one another.
In my opinion, this is done for a reason.
It allows for more division amongst the people because we argue about meaningless situations that cannot and will not be changed.

Like abortion.

And while we argue about these things, the federal government seeks more and more power.

This situation is a non-issue and the sooner that folks wake up to the truth and start to focus on the real problem, the better.
edit on 25/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


A woman who is forced to bear a child she cannot care for is not a victim? But I suppose you have already detailed your feelings about the rights of women so there's no point in asking.

It being murder is your opinion. Not an established fact. You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine. And before you try to ask about the opinion of the unborn, an unborn child doesn't have an opinion because it is not a person until it is viable. So only my opinion and yours matter in this discussion.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Yep, sorry Beezer, you're just gonna have to give up the civil rights angle of this argument. The civil rights of women are going to trump the unborn child. Women have been given the right to take something out of their body that they don't want in there. That right isn't going to be taken away from them now.

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.
edit on 25-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


however if the unborn child is given civil rights then everything changes
this is the first time in history that abortion is fought in the law system so it's unprecedented in many ways
also did you know many states only allow abortions in case of mortal danger or rape?
most states won't allow an abortion after 24 weeks
if it is truly a civil right and everyone accepts it as so then why the restrictions?
the truth is even right now if you wan't an abortion you have to qualify for it
it's not as simple as others make it out to be
edit on 25-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)


You cannot be given civil rights unless you are a citizen. You have to be a naturalized or born citizen. An unborn child cannot be naturalized, and obviously is not born yet, therefore cannot be a citizen. The reason for the restrictions is not because of civil rights for the unborn. It is because of a right to life of someone who is able to live outside the womb. What states only allow abortions in case of mortal danger or rape? This is unconstitutional. Are you talking about late term/partial birth abortions?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

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.



Sorry, I'm not seeing that. I mean, what if the person in question is stranded in the middle of a desolate place with no abortion clinic nearby? Should she bash her kid's head in with a rock after it's been born because she doesn't want to have a kid?

If an unborn child is, in fact, a human life (and I think it is-it's got human DNA, and it is alive, after all) then killing it is on par with murder, and cheapens human life.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by beezzer
 



Living life is also about respecting life. Something some are missing.


Not true.

According to the Roe decision, a fetus becomes a viable individual around 24 weeks.

This has been decided.

Until that point it is a part of the woman and at the discretion of her choosing.

You want to believe that this time frame is wrong.

That is your prerogative.
You can believe whatever you wish.
You can hope whatever you wish.
But is unfortunately does not stop you from being wrong.

You are simply incorrect about this matter.

Politicians will make a big deal about this and they will try to convince people, like yourself, that they can do something about the Roe decision, but they cannot.
That decision is one of many that our entire framework of medical privacy is built upon.

Are you familiar with the Health Insurance Portability and Acountability Act of 1996?
(aka HIPAA)

This act was has statutory viability because case law has established the idea of medical privacy.
And one of the decisions that established medical privacy is the Roe decision.

This is much bigger than your opinion.

This is the way the law works in the US.

We don't learn civics any longer.
We are not taught how government and law truly interacts with one another.
In my opinion, this is done for a reason.
It allows for more division amongst the people because we argue about meaningless situations that cannot and will not be changed.

Like abortion.

And while we argue about these things, the federal government seeks more and more power.

This situation is a non-issue and the sooner that folks wake up to the truth and start to focus on the real problem, the better.


If and/or when they (SCOTUS) determines that life begins at conception I hope you'll stand by the ruling then.

We don't know everything. You don't know everything. Obviously I don't know everything. Rulings change as knowledge grows.

I'm not buying what you're selling. No matter how condescending you get.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato

This is not true. Having an abortion in a medical setting may have restrictions but there are other ways to have an abortion and these methods have been practiced for centuries. Take away legalized abortion - women will still have abortions. You will never get rid of abortion by making it illegal. You will just increase the chances of woman dying from it. So now two "sacred" lives are lost. How is that better?


this argument is invalid
stealing will always happen even if its made illegal
by making stealing illegal you increase the chances of violent death
why not make it legal? because it's wrong
just like killing babies is wrong



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





I find it amusing that I'm being condemned because I don't feel for the murderer as much as I feel for the victim.


What a nice thing to say, you should run for office.

I disagree with you assessment of who the victim is. I recall a story about a young, good Christian young man who signed up of the Army. He was in Iraq, and in the difficult position of of strategizing a path for his troops to move forward to take control of a war zone.

He determined to shell the side of a building, and when he and the troops stormed through, they were confronted with the aftermath of the dead children and weeping women, that were hiding in a room, that just happened to be behind the wall they shelled.

This man told the story of how he broke down and wept, and couldn't go on, because of the shock of the grief and horror his decision had immediately inflicted. His PTSD sent him home, where he learned the sorted details of the reasons for war in the first place. He talked of his betrayal and how he had abandoned his Christian beliefs, just to turn moral authority over to the gov't, who were only serving the interests of corporations, who are people.

There is a lot of murder in this world, and lots of excuses to justify it. But to call women who are fighting for the right to have a say over their bodies and their self determination, murderers and the unwanted unaware, zygote/fetus, are the victims.

Backwards, messed up world.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



If and/or when they (SCOTUS) determines that life begins at conception I hope you'll stand by the ruling then.

We don't know everything. You don't know everything. Obviously I don't know everything. Rulings change as knowledge grows.

I'm not buying what you're selling. No matter how condescending you get.


Can I count the number of ways that every argument you present is built upon a logical fallacy?

I am not being condesceding, so please, don't buy what I am selling.

It matters not to me, because what I am stating to you is the day to day reality called life.
This is what happens in the real world.

This argument is not about when life begins, this argument rests with the Supreme Court's determination of when a fetus becomes viable.
Huge difference.

How do you even know that I agree or disagree with the supreme court's decision anyway?

I do believe a ways back I said that I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice that is also pro-abortion.
My only belief is that I do not like the government telling me what to do, or anyone for that matter.

Only a woman can truly understand what this is like.
When woman has a baby, a man has a choice on whether or not he is present for this event.
A woman does not have a choice in this matter.
What a man thinks about the birth of this child is irrelevant, because he has a choice on whether or not he wishes to participate.
What the Roe decision did was establish equality between men and women regarding this issue.

You seem to want to equate this with "civil rights", which according to you, are all about equality.

This ruling built a foundation of equality.

I don't understand your logic.

On one hand, the Supreme Court is wrong, but on the other hand you hope that they decide to be right.
How can they decide to be right if they are wrong?

And then you say that you want equality, which the Roe decision gave, but then you don't respect the Roe decision.
No congruence exists in your reasoning process.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



just like killing babies is wrong.


Abortive medicine does not kill babies.
It terminates fetal development, while the fetus is a part of the woman.

This is a woman's medical decision to allow a process to occur or not occur within her body.

This is not murder.

If it were murder, then these folks would be in jail.

You can frame it however you wish, but it does not stop you from being wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

You cannot be given civil rights unless you are a citizen. You have to be a naturalized or born citizen. An unborn child cannot be naturalized, and obviously is not born yet, therefore cannot be a citizen. The reason for the restrictions is not because of civil rights for the unborn. It is because of a right to life of someone who is able to live outside the womb. What states only allow abortions in case of mortal danger or rape? This is unconstitutional. Are you talking about late term/partial birth abortions?


well then give citizenship to unborns
you are using a circular argument here
we are trying to discuss what the current law lacks or not
yet you say we can't do that because the current law is like so and so

about the states, some states only allow abortions if there is a life or health danger after 20 weeks
and in some states public funding is only provided when there is life danger, rape or incest
sorry for not clarifying
my whole point was that abortion is being controlled
which means there are means to keep abortion to the absolutely necessary ones



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


I didn't realize we were talking about killing babies, I thought we were talking about abortion. A fetus is not the same thing as a baby.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
I like to keep it real simple, alive is alive and dead is dead, you either killed it or you didnt, doesnt matter if it was one cell or a bunch of cells.
One often wonders what ever happen to right and wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Abortive medicine does not kill babies.
It terminates fetal development, while the fetus is a part of the woman.

This is a woman's medical decision to allow a process to occur or not occur within her body.

This is not murder.

If it were murder, then these folks would be in jail.

You can frame it however you wish, but it does not stop you from being wrong.


so I guess you missed biology class for civil rights class
I see the extend of mind bending you have done to justify yourself about killing babies
the fetus is never "part" of the woman, they are never one body
the fetus has different DNA than the mother and different blood
the only thing that connect the fetus and the mother is the umbilical cord
which is just a tube to pass nutrients



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Actually he has a valid point. If you take the position that a situation is moral and acceptable because the SCOTUS has upheld it, then you also, logically, accept other situations that were upheld by SCOTUS. If a SCOTUS decision on abortion is your yardstick for the legality and morality of abortion then, therefore, it would also apply to SCOTUS decisions that upheld Jim Crow or Slavery. After all, the SCOTUS once ruled that owning slaves was a right.


This argument is so two years ago man.

Give it a rest.

This is like comparing apples and oranges.

First and foremost, you should probably have done some research into this topic.
Jim Crow laws were the segregation laws that were overturned by the Supreme Court in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
I am assuming that you guys are talking about the Dred Scot decision.
Once again, it seems as if you folks just type stuff that appears to be true according to your own personal sensibilities without doing any actual research.

Your argument eventually results in yet another logical fallacy, the reductio ad absurdum.

On one hand, Beezzer states that he hopes that the supreme court reverses itself.

And then on the other hand, he is asking me to state what I believe about, let's say Dred Scot, because as I noted the Supreme Court overturned Jim Crow laws.

The Supreme Court can't be both valid and invalid at the same time.

This is the heart of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy.

Look man. You guys cannot win this argument with me.

You can't.

I would give it up. If you want to keep on, then do as you feel, but how can you not see that you have done absolutely zero research into your position?

Not at all (and you should look up what reducto ad absurdum actually means). You keep stating that SCOTUS determines viability at 24 weeks, yet that SCOTUS also upheld that African Americans were 3/5 of a person. Thus, in orger to be logically consistent, you have to say that African Americans were 3/5 of a person until the SCOTUS reversed that decision.

You say that SCOTUS cannot be right and wrong at the same time. So was SCOTUS wrong when it upheld slavery or right when it did so? Did something magically change when slavery was overturned or was the Supreme Court actually wrong all along?

As for "winning" the arguement, you are not close because all you do is repeat the same logical fallacy over and over again.

Was SCOTUS right or wrong when it upheld slavery? It is a simple question.


edit on 25-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join