Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by otherpotato
Sorry. Read it wrong. Doing two things at once here.

Apologies for that.

Originally posted by otherpotato
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.

the circular arguments comes from saying that you can't change the law because the law says so
or in other words it's like saying someone who is arguing against a law that he is wrong because the law says so

so why would you have an abortion as soon as you know you are pregnant as opposed to after 20 weeks
what's the diference

reply to post by kaylaluv


I think its a bit of a fallacy to insinuate that rights are given by law. Its more of an indication of the sad state of affairs that we must actually put innate, inalienable rights in writing.

Now, we simply do not know when life actually begins or when consciousness enters into the picture (or if it even exists, which would bring us to a completely different discussion). We dont even have a definition of "life" that is pertinent to the argument. That is something that is extremely relevant to this discussion, and it is meaningless what the law has to say about it.

I am personally pro-choice in very specific circumstances (rape, incest, health complications). However, my opinion of that would change if we discovered that life and consciousness truly does begin at conception, as the child is not responsible for how they were created and should not be punished by death for it. The only situation that I would accept if that is the case, is when the mothers life is in unquestionable danger. Because, at that point, we have a situation where the outcome is one life surviving (the mothers) or none. I certainly do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control, including if the mother/father do not feel they can properly take care of the child.

The idea of not being able to give the child a "proper" life, or having to endure the discomforts of pregnancy seem to be excuses to me. There are many couples who would LOVE to give a child a wonderful life, regardless of if that couple created the child in the first place. Many of them completely incapable of child-bearing themselves. And if life begins at conception, which is certainly possible, then simply wanting to avoid temporary discomfort and pain at the expense of terminating anothers life isnt acceptable to me.

tl;dr It is my opinion that we do not know where life or consciousness truly begin. That is the most relevant discussion point, and one that we do not have an answer for, yet.

In writing this, it may even be prudent to err on the side of caution in case we are indiscriminately murdering other people for something which they had no responsibility.

Originally posted by otherpotato
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

What? All of the rights under the Bill of Rights are considered civil rights. Are you stating that the right to free speech is not a civil right?

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The confusion reached critical mass after the passage of the 14th Amendment. It is interesting to note that Webster's felt compelled to point to the 13th Amendment as well in defining civil rights. To declare the 14th Amendment as legislation granting rights to to United States citizens would be accurate as it does appear that this is exactly what the 14th Amendment does but the 13th Amendment does no such thing. The 13th Amendment is a prohibition Amendment and what it does is prohibit slavery. Sometimes called the emancipation clause, it does no such thing. The 13th Amendment did not grant freedom to slaves with in the United States, as those slaves all ready had the right to freedom. Their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been denied by the people who "owned" them as property. The tolerance of the slave trade ended with the passage of the 13th Amendment but has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. Since the right to be free is a natural right, the 13th Amendment is quite clearly addressing a natural right.

wiki.answers.com...

Civil rights existed long before the 13th and 14th Amendments made sure that everyone had them.

reply to post by quietlearner


When did I say you can't change the law? If I implied that I am sorry. I am saying I agree with the law as it now stands. I am offering arguments for why the law is sound and just. You do not agree with the law. I have not found your arguments compelling to dissuade me from my opinion, nor have mine been compelling for you to change yours. So we disagree.

What possible reason would I have to continue to allow a fetus to develop inside of me once I've decided to terminate the pregnancy? Being pregnant is hard on the body. There would no reason for me to wait that long.

Originally posted by beezzer


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

Yes - - I respected my 2 living daughters.

Potential to mature is not life.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You are confusing civil rights and civil liberties.

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
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.

"IT"?

A bunch of cells is now an "IT"?

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You are confusing civil rights and civil liberties.

Nope. And I think you are making a disctinction without a diference. It was outlined quite clearly in the link I provided.

reply to post by dawnstar


I had a tubal the morning after my 2nd daughter was born....been fine ever since.

I know many women who had hyterectomies including my stepmother who had one in her 30's...they are all fine and dandy.

Just more selfish scare tactics to justify murder.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I think we are wasting our time arguing with a first year wanna be law student here,

That's why I stopped....these circular nonsense arguments and "flowcharts" go nowhere.

Giving the unborn the same rights as the born does not take away rights from anyone else.

Enjoying your posts, Navydoc!!

Originally posted by timetothink


I know many women who had hyterectomies including my stepmother who had one in her 30's...they are all fine and dandy.

Just more selfish scare tactics to justify murder.

Yep. I had a partial hysterectomy in my mid 30s. Separated lining.

Greatest thing ever.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I agree with you on every thing you said with a caveat
"health complications" is a very general term
if you meant danger of death or a seriously debilitating handicap
then I agree with you 100%
if you include depression in the category of "health complications"
like many doctors like to do
then I don't agree with you at all

imo the only way an abortion should be legal is if
- its before the 6 weeks of pregnancy (when the heart start to beat) AND be in a situation where
rape or incest or the mothers life is in danger

should definitely not be used as a form of casual birth control for two willing partners

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I agree with you on every thing you said with a caveat
"health complications" is a very general term
if you meant danger of death or a seriously debilitating handicap
then I agree with you 100%
if you include depression in the category of "health complications"
like many doctors like to do
then I don't agree with you at all

I absolutely do NOT include depression. To the extent that I didnt even consider clarifying it, but you are right, some would definitely throw that in there. Thanks for that

By health complications, I mean an imminent threat of death. Even something like a debilitating handicap I have trouble reconciling, personally. Though I suppose it might depend on the nature of the handicap we are discussing.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
There are many couples who would LOVE to give a child a wonderful life, regardless of if that couple created the child in the first place.

But this is not something I could ever do.

Be all self-righteous and guilt free for creating a life - - - then hand it off to someone else to be responsible for.

It's "potluck" parents. You only assume your child goes to Loving parents.

I don't need that.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Now, we simply do not know when life actually begins or when consciousness enters into the picture (or if it even exists, which would bring us to a completely different discussion).

True. And this fits me.

But as you say - - - whole 'nother discussion.

Originally posted by Annee
But this is not something I could ever do.

Be all self-righteous and guilt free for creating a life - - - then hand it off to someone else to be responsible for.

It's "potluck" parents. You only assume your child goes to Loving parents.

I don't need that.

When the options are:

A) Certain death

B) The possibility of living and being raised in a loving home, but also the chance that I wont

I would pick option B for my own life, every single time. For a child, I would be more concerned about their individual well-being, and opportunities to experience life, rather than my own worries about the situation anyway. Nothing like that, in life, is certain regardless. There is also the chance that you as the mother, could experience neuro-chemical changes due to pregnancy and be rendered incapable of being a loving parent. Which could also lead to murder of the child by the parent.

I would rather be given the possibility of life, for better or worse, than be killed to satiate someones elses worries about what might happen. That sounds harsh, I know.. I am just speaking as someone who was given the opportunity to live, and it turned out for the worst (dont have much time left, as it were ). I am grateful every single day for that opportunity and appreciate it with every fiber of my being despite the suffering.

Sure a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. Which is why if a woman does not want a child growing within it she should CHOOSE not to have sex, or at least use a condom. A child is the consequence of a choice... except in cases of rape of course.

An unborn baby is not a woman's body, it's someone else's. Ending it because it's presence is an inconvenience disturbs me. It's legalized murder in my opinion.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by quietlearner

 

When did I say you can't change the law? If I implied that I am sorry. I am saying I agree with the law as it now stands. I am offering arguments for why the law is sound and just. You do not agree with the law. I have not found your arguments compelling to dissuade me from my opinion, nor have mine been compelling for you to change yours. So we disagree.

What possible reason would I have to continue to allow a fetus to develop inside of me once I've decided to terminate the pregnancy? Being pregnant is hard on the body. There would no reason for me to wait that long.

your only argument of why the law is sound and just was to say that the law is sound and just

so if the only reason for early abortion if body discomfort then you are ok with women waiting till week 24 if they are busy and can withstand the body discomfort?

reply to post by beezzer


You are 100% correct Beezzer. If we Americans are going to portray ourselves as even slightly decent human beings we should all be fighting for the rights of those that cannot defend themselves.

I think it's been said, but I wish someone would explain to me why it is only a lump of tissue when the "mother" wants to kill it, but it is a human child when it's done by someone else?