Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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.

But that is circular reasoning. By your definition, the holocaust was not murder because it was all done quite legally.

Originally posted by quietlearner

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

What citizenship do you give them? What if it is a Mexican or Canadian mother who is in America visiting when she finds out she is pregnant? What if she doesn't know if she conceived in Mexico or the U.S?. Is the fetus a Mexican citizen or a U.S. citizen? Do you see how this doesn't work with an unborn child?

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

It is being controlled within the constraints of Roe vs Wade.

Originally posted by otherpotato

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.

just type in google "fetus at 20 weeks" and read the information
if you still deny a fetus is not a baby until it is born then you are in serious denial

here is one from www.baby2see.com...

Week Twenty: The halfway point

Congratulations!
You are halfway through your pregnancy, 20 weeks marks the midpoint. Remember, pregnancy is counted as 40 weeks from the beginning of your last period if you go full term.

You are 20 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 18 weeks)
Baby now weighes about 11 ounces and is roughly 7 inches long.
Baby is 17cm long crown to rump, and weighs about 310 grams.
The baby can hear and recognize the mother's voice.
The mother will probably start feeling the first fetal movements.
The toenails and fingernails are growing.
The growth of hair on the rest of the body has started.
The skin is getting thicker.
The heart can now be heard with a stethoscope.
Your baby may react to loud sounds. Baby can actually hear noises outside of the womb. Familiar voices, music, and sounds that baby becomes accustomed to during their development stages often are calming after birth. This is an important time for sensory development since nerve cells serving each of the senses; taste, smell, hearing, sight, and touch are now developing into their specialized area of the brain.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
What citizenship do you give them? What if it is a Mexican or Canadian mother who is in America visiting when she finds out she is pregnant? What if she doesn't know if she conceived in Mexico or the U.S?. Is the fetus a Mexican citizen or a U.S. citizen? Do you see how this doesn't work with an unborn child?

you are saying that because of logistic problems we should just kill the babies
maybe give dual citizenship? maybe a temporal residency? I don't know
but that problem is insignificant when dealing with the problem of killing or saving a baby

Originally posted by kaylaluv
It is being controlled within the constraints of Roe vs Wade.

right now yes it is
but even then there is some variability throughout the states
like me and other posters said before you can't argue
that a law is correct because it is a law at present

reply to post by beezzer


You are mostly correct when you say that in regard to this issue that men have no rights. My best friend committed suicide about 6 years ago from major depression when his former girlfriend had an abortion and gave no consideration to his desire to keep the child. I am a firm believer that real life starts AT CONCEPTION. We live in a crazy world when a 26 year old is considered child-enough to stay on a parent's insurance policy but the unborn are NOT considered a child. God save us all...

Originally posted by lr7gmx
reply to post by beezzer

 

You are mostly correct when you say that in regard to this issue that men have no rights. My best friend committed suicide about 6 years ago from major depression when his former girlfriend had an abortion and gave no consideration to his desire to keep the child. I am a firm believer that real life starts AT CONCEPTION. We live in a crazy world when a 26 year old is considered child-enough to stay on a parent's insurance policy but the unborn are NOT considered a child. God save us all...

That's really a great point. The law provides for a child at 26. Yet, ignores one prior to birth.



ETA, welcome to ATS.

reply to post by quietlearner


It's a baby once it can live outside of the mother's body. That's why they use the term "viable." The law is correct. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

A pregnancy website is supposed to change my opinion? Reaching there... I personally would not have an abortion at 20 weeks unless it endangered my life. But it's none of my business if someone else has an abortion. Just like it's none of yours.

Like I've said before I have had an abortion. I have had a child. And I have been the fetus that should have been aborted but wasn't. I have lived the issue in all its complexity. Have you?

for those of you calling fetuses a parasite
I think science is about to prove you wrong

from www.telegraph.co.uk...

Many women feel healthier than ever when they are expecting – and research is under way to find out why, reports Christine Doyle

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by kaylaluv
What citizenship do you give them? What if it is a Mexican or Canadian mother who is in America visiting when she finds out she is pregnant? What if she doesn't know if she conceived in Mexico or the U.S?. Is the fetus a Mexican citizen or a U.S. citizen? Do you see how this doesn't work with an unborn child?

you are saying that because of logistic problems we should just kill the babies
maybe give dual citizenship? maybe a temporal residency? I don't know
but that problem is insignificant when dealing with the problem of killing or saving a baby

I'm saying you can't use the civil rights argument.

Originally posted by kaylaluv


I'm saying you can't use the civil rights argument.

They are a class of human that has no rights.

Of bloody course we can use civil rights! Now, you're more than welcome to disagree with it, but it can be used.

Originally posted by otherpotato
It's a baby once it can live outside of the mother's body. That's why they use the term "viable." The law is correct. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

that's your definition of "baby"
and again circular argument

Originally posted by otherpotato
A pregnancy website is supposed to change my opinion? Reaching there...

Why not a pregnancy website? they just explain the level of development of a fetus at 20 weeks

Originally posted by otherpotato
I personally would not have an abortion at 20 weeks unless it endangered my life. But it's none of my business if someone else has an abortion. Just like it's none of yours.

at least we agree that abortions at 20 weeks is bad
if you say you wouldn't have one then it must mean you don't think its good
if I see someone doing something I deem bad then it's natural that I would think it's bad

Originally posted by otherpotato
Like I've said before I have had an abortion. I have had a child. And I have been the fetus that should have been aborted but wasn't. I have lived the issue in all its complexity. Have you?

I'm sorry you went through an abortion, I'm not trying to demonize or blame you
or any other woman that wen't through an abortion
but I don't think readily providing abortions is the answer

I don't have do have gone through abortion to argue if I'm for or against it
it's called Ad hominem

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I'm saying you can't use the civil rights argument.

because laws right now say so?
circular argument

I would like to add that you don't have to have citizenship status from being protected of being killed
you can't just go around killing immigrants and tourists can you

reply to post by NavyDoc

Not at all (and you should look up what reducto ad absurdum actually means).

Aristotle formalized the notion of contradiction in his principle of non-contradiction. This states that a statement cannot be both true and false. Therefore if the contradiction of an assertion (not-p) can be derived logically from the assertion (p) it can be concluded that a false assumption has been used.

This principle has seemed absolutely undeniable to most philosophers, and has formed the basis of reductio ad absurdam arguments in formal fields like mathematics.

link to source

You can't hold two contradicting beliefs simultaneously.
This is the foundation of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Like believing this...

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?

You just showed yourself that you are holding contradicting opinions of the supreme court.
And to top it all off, beliefs that are found only in fantasy land.

IF you understood history, then you would know that the Supreme Court was fully in constitutional compliance when they decided the Dred Scot case, not the Missouri Compormise, which once again you are showing a gross lack of research.
The Supreme Court did not uphold this ruling. It did, in fact, find parts of it unconstitutional.

Here is a link.

Do yourself a favor and start doing some research before you post.

reply to post by beezzer


No you can't use the civil rights argument"

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

Born. To be naturalized you must also be born. You can't use the constitution as the basis for your argument when the constitution contradicts your argument. Civil rights are covered under the 14th amendment and apply to those who are BORN.

14th Amendment

Fight to change the constitution if you want but don't try to use it to support your argument because it doesn't.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


you are missing the point
a law can can exist (be true) but at the same time it can be morally wrong (be bad)
were are not discussing the validity of a statement here

therefore your claim of ad absurdum is incorrect

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by beezzer

 

No you can't use the civil rights argument"

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

Born. To be naturalized you must also be born. You can't use the constitution as the basis for your argument when the constitution contradicts your argument. Civil rights are covered under the 14th amendment and apply to those who are BORN.

14th Amendment

Fight to change the constitution if you want but don't try to use it to support your argument because it doesn't.

The 1th amendment was written in 1868. So your apply a straightforward 19th century document to argue a 21st century relavency?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Not at all (and you should look up what reducto ad absurdum actually means).

Aristotle formalized the notion of contradiction in his principle of non-contradiction. This states that a statement cannot be both true and false. Therefore if the contradiction of an assertion (not-p) can be derived logically from the assertion (p) it can be concluded that a false assumption has been used.

This principle has seemed absolutely undeniable to most philosophers, and has formed the basis of reductio ad absurdam arguments in formal fields like mathematics.

link to source

You can't hold two contradicting beliefs simultaneously.
This is the foundation of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Like believing this...

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?

You just showed yourself that you are holding contradicting opinions of the supreme court.
And to top it all off, beliefs that are found only in fantasy land.

IF you understood history, then you would know that the Supreme Court was fully in constitutional compliance when they decided the Dred Scot case, not the Missouri Compormise, which once again you are showing a gross lack of research.
The Supreme Court did not uphold this ruling. It did, in fact, find parts of it unconstitutional.

Here is a link.

Do yourself a favor and start doing some research before you post.

Do youself a favor and don't concentrate on a single ruling that you (and no one else) brought up--probably because that is the limit of your googling. Slavery was the law of the land for the first 80+ years of the country. Upheld by every court in the land for those 80+ years. See Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Groves v. Slaughter (1841), Strader v. Graham (1851). I know that you haven't heard of these decisions because those with a superficial knowlege of the subject think that Dred Scott was the first and only SCOTUS decision on slavery, but I'll let you look them up. The point being, that, if you think that SCOTUS is infallible, were they infallible when they upheld slavery as well and would you agree with slavery if SCOTUS still determined that African Americans were not people?

Now, quit trying to avoid the question. You said that something that is legal cannot be murder, yet history is rife with examples of murder that were also legal. So, do you agree that the holocaust was not murder because it was very legal. Yes or no? It is quite simple.

reply to post by quietlearner


Where is the circular argument?

I wouldn't have an abortion at 20 weeks not because I think it's wrong but because I would have made the decision well before that point. I have a history of recognizing pregnancy very quickly after becoming pregnant. There would be no reason to wait until 20 weeks to make the decision. Not all women realize they are pregnant as soon as I do. Every body is different.

Of course you can have an opinion even if you haven't experienced a given situation. I never said you couldn't. Have any opinion you want. Opinions are free.

reply to post by otherpotato


from www1.umn.edu...

There are certain inalienable rights (outlined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948) to which all humans, regardless of citizenship or nationality, are entitled in principal.

I believe if fetuses are ever classified as humans then killing them is murder

reply to post by beezzer


Huh? Your post is about CIVIL rights. Civil rights are covered under the 14th amendment, not the first.

Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights
Later Amendments
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
Amendment 27 Congressional pay raises