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: 43
38
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Did you only ever use one form of birth control knowing that no 1 is 100%? Didn't think a combination of at least 2 forms might have helped? Or was there a reason you couldn't use a diaphram and condoms?




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.


I support any human's rights as long as it doesn't infringe on another human's rights.

You would agree with me in all other cases, but it is YOU, not me or others that are making a special exception in the case of aboration.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
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)


However, since we are on teh subject of the Nazis, they also killed undesirebles, people that were too much of a burden, or would cost too much...very similar to many arguements expressed here.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 




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


Do you know why the gov't has suicide laws? Hint, it's not because the gov't cares whether one lives or dies. No one can stop a self determined person from ending their own life. It's a right that "GOD" gave us, and no one can take away or bestow.

The suicide laws are in place to give "permission" or legal mandate for EMT's, police and doctors to intervene so care can be provided to the person, giving them another chance to see things in a different light, and maybe turn their situation around. Suicide is permanent and often done rashly, in haste after some trauma that the victim perceives as insurmountable.

These laws represent the altruism in our society.




yes I support women personal right, but when their use of personal rights lead to death of others then there should be a limit


Then you don't support women's rights. Throwing emotionally charged words around like, kill, murder and death, it shows just how much you place the rights of the fertilized egg above those of the woman's.

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person and deserves the same rights as a living child, then you don't support the use of the Pill, IUD's or the "Morning After" pill. This line of thinking takes away a woman's self determination to have sex, yet not conceive a child. It places her in a position of slavery to biology and forces her into a role of "baby maker."

All Hail the Holy Fertilized Ovum!



I'm against the killing of anyone with the excuse of anyone's rights to do whatever with anyone's body


So you would be against a woman using deadly force to fend off a rapist. And then you think that the pregnancy, as a result of said rape, should be protected, because an abortion would be killing a baby under the excuse of "doing what one wants with their body.





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



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.


That's cool. It is a very libertarian stance. I would also assume that you would be against welfare and gun control then? Certainly those stances would fit quite well with a "you do your thing, stay away from me" philosophy.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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.



MAn, I can't stop laughing here. THe lack of any logic or deductive reasoning is absent with this one. THe fact of the matter is that SCOTUS upheld slavery, just as it upholds abortion (well, technically it does not, it upholds medical privacy, of which abortion is part of).

The fact is, that the court has reversed itself, multiple times. So was the court right when it was right or wrong when it was right before it was wrong? See your circular reasoning?

I notice that you continue to obfuscate and divert on a continual basis. There is no logically fallicy with my question, but rather logical consistencey and your sidestepping the question only shows that you understand that your attempts at logical are flawed.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I don't understand what you mean. I'm going to use myself as an example, after I had my second child I knew that I couldn't afford to have anymore children so I got my tubes tied, then later I started taking the DepoPrevera shot as well and anytime I have sex with a man I make sure he is using a condom. I know that no one form of birth control is 100% so, I use more than one form. How is this hard to understand?
Another example, my sixteen year old cousin didn't want to take birth control of any kind because she didn't want to get fat, so she got pregnant.
I think alot of you only see women in the light you want to see them in and not reality.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

I am accountable.

And I do not agree with you.

You do your thing. Stay away from me.


That's cool. It is a very libertarian stance. I would also assume that you would be against welfare and gun control then? Certainly those stances would fit quite well with a "you do your thing, stay away from me" philosophy.


Do you just pull stuff out of left field to have something to type?

This is about woman's body an her Right of Choice.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

I am accountable.

And I do not agree with you.

You do your thing. Stay away from me.


That's cool. It is a very libertarian stance. I would also assume that you would be against welfare and gun control then? Certainly those stances would fit quite well with a "you do your thing, stay away from me" philosophy.


Do you just pull stuff out of left field to have something to type?

This is about woman's body an her Right of Choice.



No, it is perfectly consistent. If you state that people have the right to choose thier lives as they see fit, or do you only believe in choice in one particular instance. If everything, you are consistent, if you pick and choose what choice you allow, you are not. It is all very logical.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EndlessFire
 


this is kind of getting hilariously odd!!!

birth control pills worked great, but well, many women will find themselves being advised against using them around the age of 30....

the other options I tried didn't work...

okay, I am gonna try to sum up this from the start of this discussion....
the thread's op seems to be trying to give rights to the unborn that superscedes the right of the mother....

so, I brought up the point that many of the drugs are perscribed to people aren't actually too healthy for a developing babies....NY State is known to have ordered abortions in cases where mentally ill patients have become pregnant on some drugs because of the effects! so, if the rights of the newborn trump the right to someone to have a medication that would allow them to life outside of an intitutional environment???

and I gave part of my personal story. I have given birth to and raised three sons..who were less than three years apart. my third pregancy was very demanding on my legs, which if you have read through these threads enough, you will find that they aren't, never have been that good. I was having trouble walking and at one point the doctor was considering just confining me to bed for the most part. I had two kids that were depending on me for most of the day while my husband worked....no matter what, those kids were gonna be taking care of. and well, if I had gotten pregnant, well, yes, I would have considered an abortion, the rights of my children to be cared for would trump that the unborn. sorry, just the way it is...
then someone brought up the birthcontrol issue. which is kind of weird since in my experience, short of surgery, which back then there was no laser surgery or it was just beginning to be put into practice, well....the bill was the most effective!!

there was never an answer to the actually question I was asking, do we take away medicines from women when she becomes pregnant, or before that even, for the sake of the baby of course, since her rights end upon the conception, or wait a minute, when it comes to some of these drugs, by the time we know there is conception it may be too late, maybe we should just withhold them from all women, just in case.....and well, she can just live the best she can without them???
and what of those who actually don't have a choice but to continue doing what they are doing, regardless, if the pregnancy happens to prevent this, do we just take the kids and through them a foster home, cause the family to live in proverty because she cannot work?? and well, that unborn superscedes the rights of the whole family??

and of course, the answer is, when all else fails, abstinance...

but, well,

1...the religious institutions have not, and probably never will tell women that yes, god has given them the right to say no to their husbands regarding anything, let alone sexual advances!!

2..and, obviously, neither do some on these boards, since they would prefer hysterectomies appearantly over just not having sex!!

the logic doesn't seem to adding up, does it??

by the way, these laws that have been put into place to make causing the death of an fetus by an attacker, well....
it seems that in at least one state, it has been used to put more expectant mothers into jails after they miscarry than it has anyone attacking the expectant mother!!

so, considering you are asking all women, married, single, teen or nearing menopause, healthy or not so healthy to accept that the fetus is so deserving, that they might lose their right to take medicines that they are finding helpful, or suffer even temporary disability, if not permanent disability, or maybe even give up their freedom if she happens to miscarry, ya think that maybe, just possibly, we can acknowledge that the wife actually has the right to refuse her husband's sexual advances??? think maybe it's time for the church's to recognize such rights??? or maybe at least the ones on these boards that are preaching abstinance???
because the message I am getting from this is that hey, go have a surgeon hack out your uterus, but by god, I am gonna have the sex when I want is, I can't get pregnant, so why should I worry about it!!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:28 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.


I value children very very much. I am very dedicated to the welfare of children.

I support public schools provide both breakfast and lunch to any child who wants it.

I support public schools provide free after school care and tutoring.

Physically and mentally healthy children are the future.

It is a major fallacy that because someone supports abortion they don't care about the child.

I support FREE government birth control and abortion - - - - because we do not need anymore unwanted or uncared for children.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

I am accountable.

And I do not agree with you.

You do your thing. Stay away from me.


That's cool. It is a very libertarian stance. I would also assume that you would be against welfare and gun control then? Certainly those stances would fit quite well with a "you do your thing, stay away from me" philosophy.


Do you just pull stuff out of left field to have something to type?

This is about woman's body an her Right of Choice.



No, it is perfectly consistent. If you state that people have the right to choose thier lives as they see fit, or do you only believe in choice in one particular instance. If everything, you are consistent, if you pick and choose what choice you allow, you are not. It is all very logical.


This is about the Right of Choice for women.

It is not about gun control or welfare.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
. . . the rights of my children to be cared for would trump that the unborn. sorry, just the way it is...



Absolutely!

I personally think it is selfish to bring a child into this world - - - just to claim you did the right thing. To feel good about yourself by giving it life.

There is not one unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

However - - - there are many unselfish reasons not to.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by beezzer
 


I've looked over your post.

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


40+ pages and the first time this question comes up.

My personal opinion? Within the first month. A heart beat is refistered by then, huge developmental changes are occurring then. Then again, genetically, it is human at conception.

I'll expand after I've given it more thought.

Good question.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by blackpeppper

Originally posted by NavyDoc
[

However, the inverse was also true. The Nazis also aborted and euthenized people because they were "parasites" "burdens on society" and "unwanted." The exact same reasons we have heard in this very thread.



The nazis thought those people were sociopolitical parasites, but again:

"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

galerouth.blogspot.com...


I can't believe some people have a problem with science.


It is obvious you do not comprehend science as you cannot even use schizophrenic in context.



"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

galerouth.blogspot.com...

THANK FOR THE COP-OUT, YOU DIDN'T PROVE THIS WRONG -- JUST GAVE ME AN USELESS FALLACY.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by blackpeppper

Originally posted by NavyDoc


BUt that does not make sense biologically. Are you suggesting that something magical happens in the few inches the child travels down the birth canal? Why is someone not human but suddenly is human a few moments later when the only thing that has really changed is location?



DO YOU KNOW, THAT A PERSON DOESN'T EXIST IN SCIENCE?

personhood, is a philosophical and legal concept... so it's not magical, either.


"THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


en.wikipedia.org...

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent."

galerouth.blogspot.com...


Again, by your definition, no one has rights. Where do rights begin and end? Please show us the "science" that make a person and a non-person.



WELCOME TO REALITY, WHERE ALL RIGHTS AND LAWS ARE MAN-MADE AND THEY ARE ARBITRARY-- I SAY BECAUSE REALITY SHOW US THIS THROUGH NATURE: FORCE. THOSE WITH THE FORCE MAKES THE RULES.

I already told you that personhood is not scientific concept --- so logically, the word "person" would not be in a science text book.... so stop grasping at straws to make yourself feel better because you have no logical argument against me.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by beezzer
 


I've looked over your post.

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


40+ pages and the first time this question comes up.

My personal opinion? Within the first month. A heart beat is refistered by then, huge developmental changes are occurring then. Then again, genetically, it is human at conception.

I'll expand after I've given it more thought.

Good question.


Do you understand that many women don't find out that they are pregnant until AFTER they miss their first, sometimes their second period? There isn't a signal that goes off, a sign on the forehead, that tells a women when she conceived. Usually the signs of swelling breasts and morning sickness don't appear until later.

For me personally, the doctor's pregnancy tests, they didn't have home tests back then, gave me a false negative and even blood test didn't show my pregnancy, for sure until well into my 4th month.

Making an arbitrary cut off point at 1 month betrays an agenda to purposely usurp the women's right to have the final say about her pregnancy.

pregnancy.about.com...

Your baby's heart will begin to beat in the first trimester. Typically this cannot be heard with even a Doppler until the 9-10th week of pregnancy at the earliest, sometimes not until the 12-14th weeks of pregnancy.


What makes a heart beat so special. Why do use the conception point as an afterthought?

24 weeks is the cut off for abortion under normal circumstances, because delivery at that point, through science and medicine can sometimes be saved in neo natal hospitals. Why is this cut off point a problem for you?
edit on 26-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
40+ pages and the first time this question comes up.


I brought it up too, since I feel that is the most pertinent point of the whole discussion. I dont feel that we are able to empirically define this yet, at least beyond an emotionally founded bias. When are these innate rights given?

Perhaps the middle ground is to say it is when the baby can survive outside of the mothers body. But then, that would mean before this happens (around 22 weeks, if I am not mistaken), the baby is not considered human. At that point, what would it be? If it is simply the potential to become human, then it would be classified in much the same way as sperm and ovaries. But, it seems distinctly different to me.

If a 50 year old being were to only carry the genes of a human, but no other typical human traits (in whatever hypothetical and metaphorical fashion you wish), are they equivalent to a 10 week old fetus in rights?

What does it truly mean to be human?

Just thinking out loud here


Originally posted by blackpeppper
WELCOME TO REALITY, WHERE ALL RIGHTS AND LAWS ARE MAN-MADE AND THEY ARE ARBITRARY-- I SAY BECAUSE REALITY SHOW US THIS THROUGH NATURE: FORCE. THOSE WITH THE FORCE MAKES THE RULES.


So, you would freely submit if say.. all women were to be rendered slaves and confined to the kitchen and bedroom, by law? If not, then what "right" would you be fighting for, since it wouldnt be an arbitrary man-made law?

The laws can uphold or deny rights, but I remain unconvinced it defines them.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


reply to post by windword
 


When would we consider the unborn child "human"?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


What do you mean by human?




top topics



 
38
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join