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: 42
38
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Beez,

Have you ever imagined what it would be like to be pregnant? To wake up one morning, pee on a stick, see 2 pink lines and suddenly your whole world is turned upside down? Now imagine the girl who got you pregnant, the girl who said she wanted to marry you, the one you had been dating for years, the one you share an apartment with, walks out the door and you do not know if you will never hear from her again. Imagine you tell your parents and they are so furious they want nothing to do with you, imagine your friends getting freaked out and avoiding your phone calls, suddenly you are all alone. You become depressed, you get sick, you miss work, you fail classes, you have to quit your job, you have to move to another country to go live with your crazy aunt cause she is the only one who will take you in. Suddenly your future dreams melt in front of your eyes. Just imagine how lonely you would feel, how desperate you might become to "have your old life back"?

I am not justifying abortion, I am not saying this is the case with every woman, but I know a lot of really good people who had abortions out of fear....fear that they could not provide for the baby,and fear that if they carried the baby to term they could not walk away from it, hand it over to a stranger, and then the fear of knowing that if they kept it, their life would forever change and they would be solely responsible for it cause baby daddy took a hike and mom and dad aren't interested in being grandparents?

It is a life and death decision both ways, save the babies life, and destroy the life you dreamed of for yourself, or destroy the babies life and save your own but live with that guilt forever. At least that was how I felt at that time.

This is where a logical person would say, what about adoption? Many women know they cannot live with the thought of another woman raising their child, they have to live with the guilt of knowing they let something so precious, something that is their responsibility go. at some point a mothering instinct kicks in, I personally think around the time of quickening, maybe now with technology, it is when you get your first ultrasound or hear the heart beat, but either way, once a woman really senses she is a mom, it becomes so difficult to walk away from that.

a woman knows she only has a small time frame to make that decision, imagine being told you must make one of the most important decisions in your life, one that will fundamentally rearrange your entire existence, and you only are given 2 months or less to think it over. Imagine the pressure, imagine the fear, the shame, the disappointment, the loneliness, the feelings of failure that go along with this.

This is what happened to me and I was so depressed that I could not eat, my baby was not thriving, the doctors were worried, I measured 4 months when I was 6 months along, I lost 20 lbs my second trimester, they thought the baby wouldn't make it. She did, she is a very healthy, very smart 13 year old and I have never once regretted my decision. I gave up my dreams, my future ambitions, my homeland, my relationships, my education, pretty much everything I valued most for her. She is worth it all. Every tear I ever shed, every lonely night, every shameful look I received in the welfare line, the months of silence from my father, I endured for her. The only friend to visit me in the hospital was a 83 year old woman from the catholic charity at the hospital, she gave me a used infant car seat and a blanket to take my daughter home in. I am not catholic, but to this day, all my kids stuff is donated to them.

I can honestly say based on what I went through, I could never tell another woman what choice she should make. I encourage adoption if at all possible, but I know how hard it is to ask a woman to let go of a baby once she has felt it kick, or seen it suck it's thumb, and I also know how devasting it is to entirely rearrange your life based on one single decision that you will be responsible for in one way or another until the day you die.

I am not trying to change your stance on this one, just trying to give you a different perspective. And for the record, in my heart i do think life should be given the chance to develop, but that is so much easier said than done for many women. Perhaps you have thought of all of this already, and if so, I apologize for the long, soul bearing post, I just have been following the thread, and finally felt I had to put my two cents in, for what it's worth......btw, still living it up in landstuhl? I miss it over there so much!

Mija




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
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"


The essentially you are making their bodies your business. Essentially you're saying once that woman is pregnant, once there is a fertilized egg, she no longer has full rights and protections afforded over her own body. This to me means that you do care about what she does with her body in that case, because you want the state to care, and you want the state to enforce rules over what she can and cannot do because that fertilized egg would in that case legally "have the right to live".


when a woman have willing unprotected sex, and start growing a human baby in their belly, they themselves made their body the babies business.


How would they make it yours or the governments business? The only people trying to make a pregnant womens body their business are the ones restricting that womans rights on the count that they consider that fertilized egg a human being. That womans body is no longer her personal property once you enforce laws requiring her what to do and what not to do. Those laws could go so far to extent to prosecuting women over a miscarriage or a failed pregnancy on the basis of that woman eating unhealthy food and beverages, endangering that fertilized egg's "right to live".

Once you start putting legal restraints on women, once you start guaranteeing that fertilized egg rights to life, you're restricting that womans legal rights over her own body, you're making it the governments business, and you're distributing further tax payer money to enforce those laws over that womans womb. There are wider implications in the case of rights once you go down that road of "personhood". There's no grey area.


care to explain what you mean by pro-lifer by personal opinion? these are my personal opinions so I guess I am?


Well you already stated that you support laws enforcing the "right to live" for fertilized eggs, so this isn't just a personal position of yours. When I say personal opinions I am implying that you just hold personal and moral views on the issue, but in the same way you fully support the rights of women to decide for themselves, you support their rights because you may feel it's a personal issue and it's none of the governments to get involved, not as to whether you personally agree or not. I hope you understand my point here.



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


But if a fertilized egg has the "right to live" like any human being, you wouldn't merely be enforcing "legal guidelines" over abortions anymore, you would outlaw it. This would then become a law prohibiting private practices from carrying out abortion procedures because it would directly contradict with that fertilized eggs right to live. If your position then is to make an exception in the case of the mothers life, then you're drawing your own line over when it is exceptable to bypass that "right to life".



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The essentially you are making their bodies your business. Essentially you're saying once that woman is pregnant, once there is a fertilized egg, she no longer has full rights and protections afforded over her own body. This to me means that you do care about what she does with her body in that case, because you want the state to care, and you want the state to enforce rules over what she can and cannot do because that fertilized egg would in that case legally "have the right to live".

I think there is a slight difference with me directly caring about women and what they do with their bodies
and me caring about what the government deems legal or not about abortion
It's like I don't personally try to control people who commit suicide
but I want the government to have a stand were suicide is not legal
you could say its more about principles and ideals than control itself


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
How would they make it yours or the governments business? The only people trying to make a pregnant womens body their business are the ones restricting that womans rights on the count that they consider that fertilized egg a human being. That womans body is no longer her personal property once you enforce laws requiring her what to do and what not to do. Those laws could go so far to extent to prosecuting women over a miscarriage or a failed pregnancy on the basis of that woman eating unhealthy food and beverages, endangering that fertilized egg's "right to live".

Once you start putting legal restraints on women, once you start guaranteeing that fertilized egg rights to life, you're restricting that womans legal rights over her own body, you're making it the governments business, and you're distributing further tax payer money to enforce those laws over that womans womb. There are wider implications in the case of rights once you go down that road of "personhood". There's no grey area.

current law already restricts abortion after 24 weeks, it is not an idea I cam up with
it's her body but the right to life of a fetus after 24 weeks is already recognized
hence abortion is illegal in most states after 24 weeks
with your though process then anyone would be free to strap themselves with some tnt and walk over the subway and light it up, its their body
only that it is no allowed because their actions lead to people dying, just like abortion lead to babies dying
no one is saying that the government has to actively check if the fetus is properly being cared for, just don't participate in the active killing of them


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Well you already stated that you support laws enforcing the "right to live" for fertilized eggs, so this isn't just a personal position of yours. When I say personal opinions I am implying that you just hold personal and moral views on the issue, but in the same way you fully support the rights of women to decide for themselves, you support their rights because you may feel it's a personal issue and it's none of the governments to get involved, not as to whether you personally agree or not. I hope you understand my point here.

yes I support women personal right, but when their use of personal rights lead to death of others then there should be a limit
just like the tnt example before

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
But if a fertilized egg has the "right to live" like any human being, you wouldn't merely be enforcing "legal guidelines" over abortions anymore, you would outlaw it. This would then become a law prohibiting private practices from carrying out abortion procedures because it would directly contradict with that fertilized eggs right to live. If your position then is to make an exception in the case of the mothers life, then you're drawing your own line over when it is exceptable to bypass that "right to life".

yes I believe the case of abortion cannot be dealt with a black and white mentality
just like there are legal guidelines for euthanasia, assisted suicide and the dead penalty
they all deal with killing lives, yet they don't operate in a black and white mode



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
yes I support women personal right,


No you don't, because you believe that the fertilized egg has the "right to life" and you believe that right alone overrules the womans legal rights over her own body. Either you believe that this is a personal matter concerning the woman and her body, or you don't and you think the government needs to overrule that right in favour of the fertilized egg. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

No you don't, because you believe that the fertilized egg has the "right to life" and you believe that right alone overrules the womans legal rights over her own body. Either you believe that this is a personal matter concerning the woman and her body, or you don't and you think the government needs to overrule that right in favour of the fertilized egg. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


as I clearly said, the pregnant women rights would end where the babies right to live begins
just like in any other situation were the practice of one individual rights cause harm of another individual
doesn't apply to women only, it applies to everyone. you, me your neighbor

I think the one who wants to have the cake and eat is you
you are trying to say that pro-life arguments are the same as being against women rights
that's not true

what I'm against is the killing of babies with the excuse of women rights to do whatever with their body
and it doesn't even have to be related to abortion
I'm against the killing of anyone with the excuse of anyone's rights to do whatever with anyone's body

see is not about me trying to be a women right denier, like many pro-choice would like to paint me
I think my position should be applied to everyone

hence I don't believe pregnancy is only about a woman and her body
there is a living fetus in her, who's life is in directly related to the decision of abortion

the government already overrules any right the women have with their body if the pregnancy is more than 24 weeks, the only exemption is in the case of life danger or serious health danger

it's already a given, at some point the women right to do whatever they want with their body is overwritten by the fetus right to live. Though I don't agree with the random date of 24 weeks
why is it not clear to you that your personal rights are no excuse for killing human lives?

edit:
why have you decided to focus on just half of one sentence and omit the rest
I was hoping for a more involved reply
you forced to me to rewrite half of what I already said because it seems you just ignored the rest
edit on 26-8-2012 by quietlearner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
pro-life arguments are the same as being against women rights
that's not true


There are many pro-lifers who understand the Right of Choice for women.

You don't.



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

Originally posted by quietlearner

see is not about me trying to be a women right denier, like many pro-choice would like to paint me
I think my position should be applied to everyone


Wrong.

It should only be applied to you and those who think like you.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
There are many pro-lifers who understand the Right of Choice for women.
You don't.

I understand
I just don't agree with the definition pro-choice people use about women right of choice
or why the women right overwrites the right of a baby to live
like I said, the current USA system already deems abortion illegal after 24 month under normal circumstances
everyone understands the right of choice for women
people just don't agree on how much it should reach into others right to live (like the babies right to live)



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

Originally posted by Annee

Wrong.

It should only be applied to you and those who think like you.



I sure hope it is applied to me
or anyone claiming their right o happiness could just kill me if I do something to bother him/her



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I come from an era where women had far fewer rights then women have today.

I do not need some self-righteous holier-then-thou - - - shoving women back into the dark ages.

Basically - - - mind your own womb.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee

Wrong.

It should only be applied to you and those who think like you.



I sure hope it is applied to me
or anyone claiming their right o happiness could just kill me if I do something to bother him/her


You take care of you.

I'll take care of me.

Women today do not need your self-righteous crap dictating to them anything.

They can make up their own minds.

We do not need you.
edit on 26-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I come from an era where women had far fewer rights then women have today.

I do not need some self-righteous holier-then-thou - - - shoving women back into the dark ages.

Basically - - - mind your own womb.



protecting babies right to live will not put us in the dark ages any more
than criminalizing attempted suicide has



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

You take care of you.

I'll take care of me.

Women today do not need your self-righteous crap dictating to them anything.

They can make up their own minds.

We do not need you.
edit on 26-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

if you just respond by telling me what to do
then I can't really respond with a counter argument
other than saying, yes I will do what I want



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee
I come from an era where women had far fewer rights then women have today.

I do not need some self-righteous holier-then-thou - - - shoving women back into the dark ages.

Basically - - - mind your own womb.



protecting babies right to live will not put us in the dark ages any more
than criminalizing attempted suicide has


You self-righteous holier-then-thou waste of my time.

How dare you think you have any place taking away Rights women of past generations have fought hard for.

Who the hell do you think you are?

I have no use for you.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

You self-righteous holier-then-thou waste of my time.

How dare you think you have any place taking away Rights women of past generations have fought hard for.

Who the hell do you think you are?

I have no use for you.


women in past generations fought hard for the right to kill their babies?

anyways I have tried debating you before, gay marriage I think? I know enough that
at this point it's pretty much over for real discussion

so bye
I might come back later



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


you seem upset
debating like this is not longer fun
I don't take pleasure in upsetting people
specially if it's such a touchy topic and the one I'm upsetting
has had to experience the bad part of it
calm down Annee no one is going to put into law what I type here anyways
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 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by Annee
 


you seem upset


I am not upset. Strong words tend to have more of an impact in small doses.

You mind your womb - - - I'll mind mine.

OR - - do you not have a womb?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   


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?
reply to post by quietlearner
 


until the religious institutions give the women that choice, because at the moment THEY DON'T, and appearantly, some on these boards don't feel that they should have it either since one brought up hysterectomy as a more practical option than chosing abstinence for themselves once their wives, significant others, girlfriends whatever decides they don't want a child at this point, well..

your statement is pretty much null and void!!! once you partner in a marriage decides she/he doesn't want any kids, are you willing to go till menopause hits and there is a 100% chance that she/you will not get pregnant????



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So if you have an underage child living with you and suddenly find yourself homeless and starving would you kill that child? Oh, it's better to kill the kid than live a hard life.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by Annee
 


So if you have an underage child living with you and suddenly find yourself homeless and starving would you kill that child? Oh, it's better to kill the kid than live a hard life.


A fully developed child that is living and has developed self determination and personality is not the same thing as a fertilized egg.

However in answer to your question about killing a child under duress, there have been cases when women have killed their children to save them from a slow torturous death, or savage rape and slavery at the hands of their captors.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join