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: 41
38
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by quietlearner

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


That's the whole jist of my thread. Animals have more rights than the unborn.

Sad.

Will be back later, more issues at work.

beez




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Birth control and being careful is not controling the act and being Nazis.....these are ridiculous statements to justify murder. Actually, murdering the innocent is what real Nazis and the Chinese do.


And pregnancy is not a disease or a condition that women have to be relieved of for their health and safety. Where did all this nonsense come from?
edit on 25-8-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

edit on 8/25/12 by Hefficide because: Freaky double post edit nightmare thing



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


Well as I said, by that point there is legal recourse and most states don't allow abortion beyond that point anyway. But in my personal, non-universally applicable opinion, yes. Even then. We're still talking about a comparatively unaware entity that is living inside the body of a fully realized, fully developed, freethinking human being who is not inside another person's body. To me the latter's rights take precedence over the former.

But with that said, as I also said in my post, it would not be my preference and it is not something I am comfortable with or happy with ethically. I would do everything I could to dissuade someone from taking that action if I could. And I would not personally assist in or agree with it. Nevertheless, I would uphold what I believe should ultimately be their right to do it (or to have it done, rather.)

Again, this is just one person's personal, subjective, non-universally applicable opinion.
edit on 8/25/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Your visceral reaction doesn't change the truth that Nazi Germany created procreation mills where chosen people were sent specifically to breed. They also engaged in deciding who else could and could not procreate.

China has what they call their family planning policy that directly controlled who could and who could not procreate in urban areas.

Facts are facts... and any US policy that would legislate procreational rights would be exactly the same as these - tyrannical measures and unworthy of a civilized, free nation. You can't ban or criminalize sex. Doing so crosses every line that this nation was built upon.

~Heff

ETA: I never said that birth control and being careful was = Nazism. Nor did I call pregnancy a disease.


ETA: Weird.. never had an edit show up as a separate post before... There's a Glitch in the Matrix???
edit on 8/25/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


no one is talking about procreation mills or trying to force women into human farms
what a huge straw man argument
this is about people having willing sex and then not wanting to have any responsibility
it's called holding people accountable
specially important if the end result is a dead baby



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


No. Not a straw man - a clarification of an earlier statement which was somehow misunderstood by another member.

The original point was, if you'll read back ( this is always a good thing to do ) and find the context...

1) The subject of controlling procreation was tabled, either directly or indirectly. I can't recall off hand.
2) I replied that the only societies that do such things aren't very admirable - such as the third Reich and China.
3) Other member came along, took my words out of context, added a few made up ones, and did a drive by "I attack for stars" post.
4) Now here we are.

Context... Context... Context...

Oh... and logical fallacies are wonder things in structured debate. In conversational or relaxed debate? Not so applicable. Sorely overused concept in my book... Not everybody on ATS is hell bent upon an agenda. Many people just want to express themselves without being dissected on rhetorical standards.

At any rate... No straw man at all.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by Hefficide
 


no one is talking about procreation mills or trying to force women into human farms
what a huge straw man argument
this is about people having willing sex and then not wanting to have any responsibility
it's called holding people accountable
specially important if the end result is a dead baby


I am accountable.

And I do not agree with you.

You do your thing. Stay away from me.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 



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


I addressed your initial claim that women make poor judgements of their mates. I called it sexist because you implied all women did this, and you only mentioned women. You decided to generalize all of them for the sake of backing your postion, and it was in bad taste.

Now you claim that you meant both men and women are capable of poor judgement, which is clearly a lie given your initial statement in this thread. It doesn't matter though, you changed your tune from that initial statement which is good enough for me.



I was only talking about women....


Exactly, you were only talking about women when you made that statement that they are incapable of choosing the right mate. No where in that statement did you mention men, it was only directed to women, and you directed it to all women, it was a sexist remark. What's more to say? It's not a nice thing to generalize all women for the sake of pushing your own position.



I implied nothing,

Women are poor judges of character.... You already agreed with this statement...


You implied that all women were the same, that statement was only directed at women. That was a sexist statement regardless of how you try to twist it.

Both men and women are capable of making poor judgements of their mates, this isn't restricted to women, not all women are the same. Given that you've denied what you initially clearly said, I'm confident you got the message.



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


You directed that statement to all women seeking abortions, which includes some who are victims of unspeakable crimes. You insisted to me that all those women must take "responsibility". Your position back then was loud and clear.

Do you want to rephrase that statement? I'm all ears.



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,


Look at your posts yourself. You've tried so hard to avoid giving out the fact that you don't like the choices women have available to them, yet it shows up in your responses rather clearly. Women have these choices available to them and rightfully so, it's none of your business. Maybe you should learn to get over it? If you think it's unfair that a man has to pay child support, then maybe you can advise other men to avoid getting themselves into those situations in the first place.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I did read the previous posts

here is a quote from you


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..

here you imply that trying to make abortion illegal is akin to degrading to the level of nazi germani
and you also manage to trow in there eugenics and population control
how is that not a straw man
you are taking the pro-life view and twisting it and comparing it to nazi germany and the eugenics folks



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


You didn't pay attention to context! I asked you to three times! I was replying to this...


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.


Not speaking about abortion at all - we were speaking about people giving more "rights to the act than they do the result". IE sex - procreation - gettin' jiggy wit it.

See?

Context is really important.


~Heff



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I am accountable.

And I do not agree with you.

You do your thing. Stay away from me.


I'm not trying to make your business my business
I don't care what you decide to do with your body and it's really not my place

what I would like is for doctors to have more responsible restrictions on when to perform an abortion
have clear guidelines of when an abortion is acceptable and when not
send a clear message that abortion as a birth control method is not acceptable

you as an individual can do whatever you want, it is really not my place
edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by quietlearner
 


You didn't pay attention to context! I asked you to three times! I was replying to this...


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.


Not speaking about abortion at all - we were speaking about people giving more "rights to the act than they do the result". IE sex - procreation - gettin' jiggy wit it.

See?

Context is really important.


~Heff


ok fair enough, you were talking about the act (sex) and its result (pregnancy)
that's my bad
but beezzer never asks why we don't control the act of sex
he asked why is sex given more importance than the result of it
no one implies that we should control sex
you respond that controlling sex is what nazi germani and eugenics would do
which is true, it would be ridiculous if the government dictated people when and where to have sex
but no one said anything remotely close to that
so yes context is very important


edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
I'm not trying to make your business my business
I don't care what you decide to do with your body and it's really not my place.


Do you believe that fertilized eggs should be afforded the same civil rights as human beings? Do you support them being granted "personhood"? Because if you do, then you are trying to make her body somebody elses business, and you do obviously care what she decides to do with her own body. So is this you? Or are you only a pro-lifer by personal opinion?

There are many pro-choicers that I know of who personally oppose abortions in all cases aside from threat to life, they would not go through abortions themselves, yet they support the legalization of abortions because they believe it's none of their business.

You're either one or the other quietlearner, there's nothing in between those positions. The OP focuses on civil rights and legal rights that women have over their bodies during pregnancy.


what I would like is for doctors to have more responsible restrictions on when to perform an abortion
have clear guidelines of when an abortion is acceptable and when not
send a clear message that abortion as a birth control method is not acceptable


Do you personally believe doctors should do this? Or do you believe they should be legally required? And this includes private practices.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


If it makes you feel any better, I can assure you that Beezzer wasn't offended. This is debate! We explore ideas and challenge each others belief systems to try and find compromise and middle ground.

That's not always easy... and abortion is probably the #1 most difficult subject that we, as Americans face today. It's tough and touchy.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Do you believe that fertilized eggs should be afforded the same civil rights as human beings? Do you support them being granted "personhood"? Because if you do, then you are trying to make her body somebody elses business, and you do obviously care what she decides to do with her own body. So is this you? Or are you only a pro-lifer by personal opinion?

I would not say the same civil rights, since some of them like freedom of speech would not make sense of a unborn child. But definitely have the right to live, I don't know about "personhood"
but have the right to live
also I'm not trying to make anyones body somebody elses business
when a woman have willing unprotected sex, and start growing a human baby in their belly, they themselves made their body the babies business. Not me, they did
care to explain what you mean by pro-lifer by personal opinion? these are my personal opinions so I guess I am?


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Do you personally believe doctors should do this? Or do you believe they should be legally required? And this includes private practices.

I think there should be legal guidelines
just like there are legal guidelines for euthanasia and assisted suicide

edit:
there already are legal guidelines
I just want to make them a little more selective
edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)


edit 2:
even right not there are abortion guidelines that say (in most states) that abortion should only be done before 24 weeks or in the case of life danger or serious health danger
so the legal system has already made the women body (after 24 weeks of pregnancy) somebody elses business by your way of thinking
care to guess who's business?
the babys business
edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I wasn't trying to defend anyone
I just saw what I thought a fallacy and called on it
I'm not usually like that in real life but when I read posts
in threads like this one I go into debate mode
no feelings were hurt and I wasn't trying to



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



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.


Do you mean the Roe v. Wade ruling that decided incorporating the civil right of medical privacy?
The very ruling that is the focus of this debate?

Is that the single ruling that I should "do myself a favor" and not concentrate on?

I am really laughing right now by the way.
Seriously.
I had a hard night at work and I came home to this reply and it gave me quite the belly laugh.
Thank you.


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.


I am sorry but I can't stop laughing.
Hold on a sec...


(laughing to self)


Okay now... where were we?
Oh yeah.
You trying to force me to tie two points together that are completely unrelated.

Look man. You are the one who wanted to tell me that the Supreme Court decided that a black slave was only 3/5 of a person.
The only thing that I did was point out your glaring mistake.
The only reason that I mentioned the Dred Scot case is because both you and Beezzer have tried to get me to paint myself in a corner about the Supreme Court. First you used Jim Crow laws.
And I simply pointed out to you that the SCOTUS actually found them unconstitutional.
Then you tried to tell me the 3/5 of a person thing, which parts of it the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.

I don't mean to keep laughing, but do you not see how ridiculous this argument is?
You keep trying to get me to admit to some moral issue concerning the Supreme Court, but you can't even get the issue correct.
And now you want me to believe that you just happen to know these three Supreme Court cases off the top of your head that supposedly deal with slavery, other than the most famous one that I have been trying to tell you that you were meaning, but yet you also apparently believe that the Supreme Court upheld the Missouri Compromise and Jim Crow Laws?

Really.

Are you for real?

The cases that you referenced, and I have not looked them up but by the dates I can pretty much tell, they probably dealt with personal liberty laws that were enacted by abolitionist states.
You can ask SouthernGuardian. I do know what I am talking about when we discuss this issue.
Although he and I are on the same team tonite, we have opposed one another before.


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.


That is a logical fallacy.
What you are doing is a logical fallacy.

You are committing a logical fallacy.

Sharpen up your debate skills son.
Thanks for the laugh.
I am out.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


wow
all that wall of text
100% ego stroking
0% useful or on topic information



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I've looked over your post.

When is it that you feel the unborn child gains these rights?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join