Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by Serdgiam


When the options are:

A) Certain death

You mean physical cells not allowed to mature. Potential to become.

I had a 4th month spontaneous abortion. I had no emotional attachment to the physical fetus. It was not a living being.

I do not believe in God. I do believe our natural state is energy consciousness. (which I am not going to elaborate on - - because as you said - - different discussion)

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.

Well CHANCE and POSSIBILITY do not sit well with me in the welfare of a living child. Just so I can feel guilt free about giving it life.

I am just speaking as someone who was given the opportunity to live.

My kids father is adopted. His turned out to be a good experience.

I am grateful every single day for that opportunity and appreciate it with every fiber of my being despite the suffering.

Great. But if you never were - - it wouldn't matter.

Originally posted by timetothink
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!!

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

Thank you for your kindness. I think one issue is that people do not want to come to grips with the fundimental issues involved because those issues are a bit unpleasant.

reply to post by quietlearner


You haven't read any of my other arguments. You are just reading one post.

The OP framed his argument in terms of civil rights. So I responded to that. Inalienable rights is a whole other discussion. Start a thread about that if you want to debate on those terms.

At any rate I'm done talking about abortion for today and the foreseeable future. It's the same arguments from each side over and over and over again and they go nowhere but to prove that there is no one unified opinion about it.

Originally posted by Annee
You mean physical cells not allowed to mature. Potential to become.

I had a 4th month spontaneous abortion. I had no emotional attachment to the physical fetus. It was not a living being.

I do not believe in God. I do believe our natural state is energy consciousness. (which I am not going to elaborate on - - because as you said - - different discussion)

No, I most certainly meant what I said. You could apply the "physical cells not allowed to mature" to any one, at any stage in life. You say it was not a living being, but there is no empirical and quantifiable evidence for or against this. As I said before, we simply do not know. Lack, or presence, of emotional attachment doesnt mean much, in this regard.

Im not sure what God has to do with this.. I can see why a theist would bring it into the discussion with no prompting, but find it odd coming from a self-proclaimed atheist.

Well CHANCE and POSSIBILITY do not sit well with me in the welfare of a living child. Just so I can feel guilt free about giving it life.

Well, you do realize chance and possibility are at play no matter what your feelings are on the matter, right? If you could clarify, are you saying you would kill a child off to make things "certain?"

Great. But if you never were - - it wouldn't matter.

Or would it? That goes into a realm that we do not know, and though I would tend to agree, I couldnt make absolute statements about it with any degree of honesty. Unless, of course, you have access to information I am missing?

It misses my point regardless. Ill clarify. You said that you do not like the possibility that things could turn out for the worse for the child, and (please correct me if I am wrong) insinuated that it would be better for the group of cells to be terminated because of this so you could appease your own worry. I responded by saying, as someone who it HAS turned out quite badly, that I am thankful I had the chance to experience it at all. Are you getting what I am saying here? Because I think I am misunderstanding you greatly. You seem to be suggesting that a pre-emptive strike against what might happen, to avoid your own worry, trumps all else. I am responding by saying that I experience, as someones child, a mothers worst fears (what you seem to be suggesting would be your reason and justification) and we are all grateful every day for the time we have together, because it is just amazingly beautiful. It isnt relevant whether or not it would "matter" if I had been aborted, because that isnt reality. That part is getting off topic though, IMO, and delving more into philosophy anyway.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes I did say that all humans are capable of poor judgement, I did not restrict that to men.

Yes you did... you just stated that saying that women were capable of poor judgements was a "sexist Generalization"

Are you feeling alright?

Yes we are, it's not just women. Initially you only labelled women as being incapable of judgement of a mate

So?

I was only talking about women.... Are you feeling ok?

and now you're stepping back from that comment and insisting you implied something else.

I implied nothing, I stated what I meant.

Women are poor judges of character.... You already agreed with this statement... what exactly is the problem?

Responsibility you say? It's the rape.....

Full Stop.... ALL BABIES ARE RAPE BABIES!!!!

Please... red herring some more!

so who are you to tell them what they *MUST* do?

Would you like to quote where I said what they must do?

Since you seem to be implying (or outright stating that I'm telling them what to do), then you MUST be able to go back to my posts, and actually CITE where I said what you THINK I did.

Go ahead... I'll wait.

The thing about discussing the rights of a fetus is that you have to assume it is a human BEING (which i different than saying is a human, of course it is).. To believe it is is only an assumption.

The rights of a fetus with a highly debatable status as a human being should never trump those of a woman with established, undeniable rights because of a personal, subjective belief.

Originally posted by timetothink
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.

my sister in law had a hysterectomy and had many many problems a long time afterward....maybe not everyone has the same results???
and tubals aren't 100% effective.....

and.....why do I get the impression that some preaching abstinance here would rather a female go through such an invasive surgery as a hysterectomy than allow her to chose abstinance??? since well, that was my point, when one partner decides that they don't want any more babies, the other partner should be willing to accept the only100% solution to the problem...abstinence...regardless of marital status, or anything else!!! the people are preaching it!! they should danged well be willing to live with it themselves if their partner doesn't want more kids!!!

reply to post by beezzer


Personally I believe that if abortion is made totally legal, it would occur less than it is at the moment. But in regards to what you post, I think that what you're contemplating as a civil rights issue, is actually to the living. The civil rights do not apply to the unborn, because technically, they're still embryonic. Alternatively, are you saying that you support the right for an embryonic cell to exist even when the host does not want it there, or that abortion shouldn't be allowed past a certain point in the stage of the cell's process into becoming a fetus.

That brings us to the better question which is, at what point is a life actually human? Is it after the 3rd week or after the 4th week, after when it's developed arms or after it is capable of having dreams?

All in all, I believe that the host has the right to choose what tenets it wants inside of her body. If the mother does not wish to conceive a child, then the mother does not wish to conceive the child. You cannot force someone to give birth just like you cannot force someone to get pregnant. It is the decision of the mother herself.

I personally believe that abortion shouldn't be allowed to happen if the fetus is past embryonic stage, specifically at the stage after the 5 month mark, but then again, I'm not the one carrying the baby. But before that, if taken care of quickly, I believe that abortion is a viable option for the mother that carries the fetus in her womb.

reply to post by GodricNV

Embryonic Stage (2 to 7 weeks)

www.livestrong.com...

Want to rethink your stance?

A 5 month old fetus could survive born premature.

When the rights of more than one party come into conflict, it becomes necessary to weigh the harm being inflicted by the curtailing or deprivation of one party's rights versus the others. In essence, the question becomes whose rights and liberty are most being subjugated or destroyed should the other parties' rights be upheld? This is why a majority of Americans cannot vote for slavery to be reinstated, and why the issue of same sex marriage is being waged in courts rather than local votes simply being upheld. A majority cannot take away the rights of a minority, and one party cannot take away the rights of another party if the latter would suffer greater harm and loss of liberty than the former as a result.

It is true that the biological father of a child is genetically and probably psychologically bound to his unborn child. However the mother is both genetically, psychologically, and physically bound to the unborn child. It is, literally, part and parcel of her body, of her own person. Giving the father paternal rights that extend to the right to prevent or stop an abortion would inflict physical, as well as emotional harm on the mother who wishes to terminate the pregnancy. She is suffering the greater harm of the two. Further, there is the issue of privacy. Does the father have an absolute right to know what a mother does with her body, which includes the fetus? According to the law, he does not, because the deprivation of her medical privacy would cause her greater harm (place upon her undue burden) than the concealment of the abortion from the father.

Of course, that only addresses the rights of the mother and father. What of the rights of the unborn child? Well, what stage of pregnancy are we talking about? At fertilization/conception there is no human consciousness yet. Women lose thousands of fertilized eggs every time they menstruate, if they're sexually active and don't use protection that is. At implantation in the uterus there is no human consciousness yet as there is no brain or nervous system. So at all of these points, I would argue that the mother's rights still outstrip that of the fetus for the same reasons they outstrip those of the father: greater harm would be inflicted to the mother than to the unconscious, unaware fetus.

Where it becomes philosophically more trying is when there is brain activity. But is brain activity proof of consciousness? No, and in fact we do not know when precisely consciousness manifests in a developing fetus to my knowledge. This is particularly trying philosophically and ethically, as our current knowledge tells us that this point is different to some degree for every fetus, and we literally cannot know when consciousness has developed with certainty. However, even with that said, and no matter how ethically problematic it may be, the mother still has rights. Forcing her to continue to carry the unborn child to term against her wishes still violates those rights, and she is a viable, adult, freethinking, fully aware, fully developed human being, whereas the unborn fetus is still at this stage aware of its existence only in the most fundamental of contexts. Some would argue that it is not even consciousness or awareness at all, but that is a semantic debate I will leave for others. The point I am making is that it can still be argued that forcing the mother to undergo pregnancy and labor beyond this largely arbitrary point in her pregnancy is still a violation of her rights, and her rights still arguably outstrip those of the unborn child... and those of the father, which are still superseded by the aforementioned factors.

So then we come to the stage of fetal development beyond which the child can survive on its own outside of the womb. In the United States, the right to abortion and to privacy only extends to this point. Beyond this point, states are permitted to level increasing restrictions on the right to abortion. So beyond this point, there is legal recourse for interested parties opposed to abortion and the picture becomes increasingly less clear, both legally and ethically or philosophically.

With that said it raises a question: does forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy to term, even beyond this point, still violate her rights? In my opinion it does, and in my opinion the rights of a fully formed, fully realized, freethinking human being with what is essentially a parasitic life form living inside her body, still outstrip the rights of the unborn child until and unless it has been born and exists outside of her. It would pain me greatly if I were a father and my significant other did this, and even more so if she kept it from me. I have strong ethical and philosophical qualms about it. But I would still be bound by my beliefs to uphold her right to make this choice for herself, because the potential harm and burden I would be placing upon her by depriving her of that right would exceed my pain and burden.

Just my personal opinion. Peace.

Originally posted by AceWombat04

With that said it raises a question: does forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy to term, even beyond this point, still violate her rights? In my opinion it does, and in my opinion the rights of a fully formed, fully realized, freethinking human being with what is essentially a parasitic life form living inside her body, still outstrip the rights of the unborn child until and unless it has been born and exists outside of her.

even if the baby could survive as a premature baby?
even if the due date is in only few days?

reply to post by timetothink


Then if the mother wishes to undergo the procedure, she shall. In the end, my stance is that it depends on the mother. We have enough kids anyways, in my opinion, and I would rather on focus on the live ones.

it's is true that you cannot force a mother to continue with a pregnancy
but it's is also true that we should stop a mother from killing her baby
so which one takes precedence?
the mom knew what she was getting into when she had sex
the baby had nothing to do with casual unprotected sex

rape, mortal danger are exceptions so let's not even go there

Originally posted by quietlearner
it's is true that you cannot force a mother to continue with a pregnancy
but it's is also true that we should stop a mother from killing her baby
so which one takes precedence?
the mom knew what she was getting into when she had sex
the baby had nothing to do with casual unprotected sex

rape, mortal danger are exceptions so let's not even go there

Why is it that so many are still shocked that babies come about by having sex? People give more "rights" to the act than they do the result.

reply to post by beezzer


Well Beezzer, that's because seeking to control the act that causes babies is directly in violation of the very definition of freedom and is something that few countries, outside of Nazi Germany, North Korea, and China are willing to attempt. It's dehumanizing and a red flag for Eugenics and population control..

It's sad that there is not a win/win/win situation to be had in this issue, yet. I don't like any result that I see. But the fact remains that the law is what it is and, in my opinion, it is currently the least problematic solution available.

~Heff

Originally posted by beezzer

Why is it that so many are still shocked that babies come about by having sex? People give more "rights" to the act than they do the result.

because reality is harsh
they would rather call a fetus a parasite
like if this little bug somehow got into the woman's uterus while she was camping
damn those parasite fetuses how dare they get into a woman's body
if they are true parasites we should just abort all pregnancies to get rid of those pesky parasites

anyone see the absurdity?
a woman had sex, she got pregnant and they act like a bad thing happened to her

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer

 

Well Beezer, that's because seeking to control the act that causes babies is directly in violation of the very definition of freedom and is something that few countries, outside of Nazi Germany, North Korea, and China are willing to attempt. It's dehumanizing and a red flag for Eugenics and population control..

It's sad that there is not a win/win/win situation to be had in this issue, yet. I don't like any result that I see. But the fact remains that the law is what it is and, in my opinion, it is currently the least problematic solution available.

~Heff

If only people took responsibility for the act, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this.

everyone wants a win/win/win situation
if its like woman/baby/man
abortion is currently
win/die/random
but don't forget by who's mistake these whole scenario arose
the woman and the man
so why put preference in
win/die/random
when the more just way would be
lose/live/random

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by beezzer

Why is it that so many are still shocked that babies come about by having sex? People give more "rights" to the act than they do the result.

because reality is harsh
they would rather call a fetus a parasite
like if this little bug somehow got into the woman's uterus while she was camping
damn those parasite fetuses how dare they get into a woman's body
if they are true parasites we should just abort all pregnancies to get rid of those pesky parasites

anyone see the absurdity?
a woman had sex, she got pregnant and they act like a bad thing happened to her

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

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

Parasites happen without a persons knowledge. I think is disingenuous to call it that. But they will coin it in any term just to justify abortion.

Originally posted by beezzer
Parasites happen without a persons knowledge. I think is disingenuous to call it that. But they will coin it in any term just to justify abortion.

yes and another member said fetuses are not alive
if you can distinguish a live tree from a dead tree then
its quite clear a fetus is alive from conception
of course it's alive, it's not dead is it