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: 44
38
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by beezzer
 


What do you mean by human?


When is an appropriate time frame to considerthe growing child "human"?

When does he/she become "human"?




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Do you mean "human" enough to be eligible for Civil Rights as accorded by the Constitution of the United States? Upon birth.

Say a pregnant woman is in a car accident and dies. Can the fetus be saved before the 24 weeks mark? Probably not. After 24 weeks can the fetus be saved? Probably! Intervention through pre natal surgery, pre-mature and spontaneous birth, incubators, etal, are medically considered viable and efforts can be made to "save" the baby. .

It (the fetus) can't be denied medical intervention by HMO's, because the law says they must. Insurance companies aren't going to pay to save a 4 week old embryo that doesn't have a snowball of a chance.


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



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Its a good question, and like I said, very important to the discussion at hand. I am not so sure it is one that can be answered fully, which is why I said previously that it might be prudent to err on the side of caution.

You could ask it in another way too; What does it mean to be human? What is the actual item that defines our humanity?

Is it sentience? Then that would make dogs human.

Is it self-awareness? Then that would preclude infants and perhaps even some toddlers from being defined as human. And some even older..

Is it the ability to consciously think, breathe, and take care of ourselves? Then where does that leave coma patients on life support?

Is it when we have certain definable physical characteristics? Then what about the deformed or even amputees?

Is it the presence of a soul or spirit? Then we would have to prove that exists, and beyond that, when it actually attaches to the physical form.

The occams razor approach, to me, would be from the beginning to the end, the offspring of humans are considered human. And it seems that we all "began" at conception.

With that being said, it might seem odd that I still remain mostly pro-choice. But I do not use that term in a topic specific fashion. I believe people are sovereign individuals, and I can not control what another will do. I fully realize I can not stop people from doing what people will do, but I do make my own decisions for my own life and freely discuss the "why." Making laws against anything never, ever stops it from happening.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


How about genetically?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That would likely lead me to the same conclusion that being "human" (or, a human being) begins at conception. The manifestation of those genes is constantly changing from the moment of conception, even after birth and to death. So, from beginning to end again.

That also brings up how "human" one is that has severe genetic abnormalities, and what would be considered an abnormality. That obviously starts to delve into eugenics though.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 
We could go with mitochondrial DNA.

That's pretty uniform.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I don't think abortion will ever be against the law again, no matter what we determine. All we can hope for is that the majority of females will begin to comprehend the deeper implications for snuffing out the beginning of a life force. But, there will always be those that won't or can't comprehend it for whatever reason.

So, I am pretty sure "rights" will not be extended to the unborn fetus, nor to the father.

When I was a young teen, I remember my mother telling my sister and me about things in her generation and how abortions were performed clandestinely by people in the seedy part of town. Getting pregnant out of wedlock was considered appalling and was a terrible blow to a family's reputation. So, in order to rid the family of embarrassment for this lack of moral judgement, the girl was sent away to "visit a distant relative", otherwise known as a home for unwed mothers. Then others chose to rid themselves of the potential embarrassment by secretly getting rid of the soon-to-be obvious pregnancy by visiting the woman in the upstairs garage apartment behind the old vine-covered house.

Today, most young women are not embarrassed by an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Hollywood glorifies it and society accepts it. Single motherhood is sometimes seen as a badge of courage to be bragged about and a reason to expect pats on the back for. So, the fear of being judged immoral and irresponsible is not there.

Promiscuous sex will therefore continue and women will continue to get impregnated casually and without worry of the consequences. If they choose to keep it, no sweat. If they can't afford it, Uncle Sam is their "new sugar daddy". If they choose not to keep it, well.....the law says it is perfectly okay to get rid of it. And they can convince themselves using scientific jargon that it's nothing more than a group of developing cells at this point and not much more than having an unsightly mole removed.

I ask those that abort pregnancies to try a little harder to understand the other side. For us, it's like watching someone tear the wings off a butterfly just because they can. Cut us some slack just as you expect us to not judge you. It cuts both ways.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackpeppper

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.


Gale. Please don't use the word "science" because you haven't the foggiest. Look at any biological textbook--or even take a class. All biology will tell you that meosis is the beginning of a human life cycle. You don't even understand what trophoblasts do and totally misunderstand developmental immunology.

By definition, a fetus is not a parasite because, also by defintion a parasite is another species. A parasite harms the host. A parasite is an external organism. A parasite invades the host tissue--if you understoon the placental realtionship, you would see how this does not fit. A parasite is detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the host--a fetus is part of the reproductive capacity of the mother. A parasite has a lifelong relationship with the host--the fetus, by definition, has a temporary relationship with the mother.

All of the scientific definitions of "parasite" as an organism are not in the fetus. "Symbiote" is a better and more scientifically accurate description.

You use a lot of pseudoscience and throw things out there that you obviously do not understand yourself.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackpeppper

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.


I've thrown a lot of logic and fact out there. You are the one with this "schizophrenic" nonsense. You can't even apply that term in correct scientific context, so it is obvious you do not know what you are talking about.

You are right that laws are arbitrary--that has been my point the whole time. A law does not, in any way shape or form, indicate either scientific truth nor morality. The law in the US for a long time was that Africans were inferior, but we all know that this was wrong, both morally and scientifically.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.


Yes it is, ultimately. It is about people having the right to decide for themselves how to live. If you hold that people have a "choice" but only to do things that you approve of, then you do not really beleive in "choice" do you? Whenever I hear people say that they believe in "choice" it only takes a few moments of conversation to bring out that there are plenty of choices they would use the coercive power of government to ban. So I ask you: are you for choice in everything, or just choice in abortion?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam



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.


by law? I don't DO what-ifs ....and that doesn't negate my personal feelings about me being a slave.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think that could definitely be a strong indicator of a human, but in and of itself, it doesnt seem to define the whole package in a satisfactory way. One could use such a thing to define a single human hair as itself being a "human." Some might equate the human form at conception as being the same significance and ability as a human hair, but again, I see a distinct difference.

That difference could be defined as the human hair lacking the ability to "become" larger than itself. Of course, the hair can grow longer, but I hope the point is understandable.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

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????


are you saying religious institutions force women to have sex?
hysterectomy is a more practical option to abstinence if you must have sex
I'm willing not to have sex if I can't risk having more babies
better than risk killing my would be babies
but there are good news, there are a plethora of birth control methods out there
and they just become more effective and safe every day



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by blackpeppper
 


Right..

Ill reword it for you, in the vein of navydoc above.

In the idea of civil rights, where segregation was law in many places, how could anyone justify fighting for rights that did not exist, by law?



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

Originally posted by queenofswords
I don't think abortion will ever be against the law again, no matter what we determine. All we can hope for is that the majority of females will begin to comprehend the deeper implications for snuffing out the beginning of a life force. But, there will always be those that won't or can't comprehend it for whatever reason.


I ask those that abort pregnancies to try a little harder to understand the other side. For us, it's like watching someone tear the wings off a butterfly just because they can. Cut us some slack just as you expect us to not judge you. It cuts both ways.


you said it all that was what i was thanking, just makeing a law wont help.
the law makers dont care.
the government is allways looking for population control.
.we dont need any more laws.
so legal murder...or control our every move tell use what to eat next there trying thet now if your kid is fat your a bad parent and DCFS steps in ...
please no more laws



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
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???

Yes dawnstar no one said a husband has the right to rape his wife
If the woman doesn't want to have sex then she shouldn't
no one here is in favor of rape
I actually said many times that rape is a valid reason for abortion



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Text Blackreply to post by beezzer
 

You definitely have a right to your opinion, but you forget about my rights. I have a right to disagree and live my life the way I want it. You fail to realize that women have an abortion not for fun. It is one hardest choices they have ever made it their lives. I had an abortion. I did not want to have it, but if I had that baby I would be in much worse situation than I am at now. You want women to stop having abortions then please help women to raise children. Do you even have children? Do you know what it means to raise a child? If you do not, please do not talk about fetus' rights then. And please stop comparing African-Americans and homosexual people to fetuses. It is offensive. I am a white woman, but even for me it is offensive to read it. So, men have rights. Black have right. Thus, blacks are not men? Why did you put them in a different category?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I don't think that was his attempt. I think what his point is that many, many other groups have civil rights, even some that were denied rights in the past. His question is why other groups of individuals but not this one?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by blackpeppper


"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.


Gale. Please don't use the word "science" because you haven't the foggiest. Look at any biological textbook--or even take a class. All biology will tell you that meosis is the beginning of a human life cycle. You don't even understand what trophoblasts do and totally misunderstand developmental immunology.

By definition, a fetus is not a parasite because, also by defintion a parasite is another species. A parasite harms the host. A parasite is an external organism. A parasite invades the host tissue--if you understoon the placental realtionship, you would see how this does not fit. A parasite is detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the host--a fetus is part of the reproductive capacity of the mother. A parasite has a lifelong relationship with the host--the fetus, by definition, has a temporary relationship with the mother.

All of the scientific definitions of "parasite" as an organism are not in the fetus. "Symbiote" is a better and more scientifically accurate description.

You use a lot of pseudoscience and throw things out there that you obviously do not understand yourself.





REALLY? The fact that I posted a blog using peer-viewed science proving how the HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE with links, and you still can't even prove science wrong and you are still using is fallacies against me, so what gives?

this is a straw-man fallacy:

I say, "the human fetus is a parasite" and YOU SAY, "All biology will tell you that meosis is the beginning of a human life cycle," ...that has nothing to do with what I said, since I wrote: HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE!!


"You don't even understand what trophoblasts do and totally misunderstand developmental immunology. "

Since that is your claim, It's up to you to prove it; but in context of how the HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE, I provided a link to a blog to support my claim...since you have the problem with the blog, it's up to you to prove blog wrong.


THE HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE BY DEFINITION:

"an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it".
www.thefreedictionary.com...

“When individuals of the same species parasitize individuals of the same species, they are referred to as intraspecific parasites.”
krohde.wordpress.com...

YOU DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PARASITIC TWINS IN OUR UNIVERSE? So your claim about a parasite can't be the same species is wrong.






PREGNANCY CAUSES HARM TO WOMEN, WOMEN CAN BECOME INFERTILE BECAUSE OF IT: www.thelizlibrary.org...


" A parasite is an external organism. A parasite invades the host tissue"

WHAT DO YOU THINK A ZYGOTE IS, IT NO LONG AN OVUM... IT'S A FOREIGN OBJECT. WHAT DO YOU THINK TROPHOBLAST CELLS ARE FOR?


You haven't debunked the scientific truths that proves the human fetus is a parasite: NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE.


"A parasite has a lifelong relationship with the host--the fetus, by definition, has a temporary relationship with the mother."

WRONG, "temporary parasite one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle.”
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parasite


WHY USED THE WORD SYMBIOTE? IT DOESN'T CLARIFY WHAT TYPE OF SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP IT IS.

"sym·bi·ont (smb-nt, -b-)
n.
An organism in a symbiotic relationship. Also called symbiote."
www.thefreedictionary.com...


ALL OF THIS CAN BEEN SEEN ON galerouth.blogspot.com...


AND GALE ALREADY PROVED "Libertarians for Life - Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite" is WRONG, so stop pirating it.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LanaDan
Text Blackreply to post by beezzer
 

You definitely have a right to your opinion, but you forget about my rights. I have a right to disagree and live my life the way I want it. You fail to realize that women have an abortion not for fun. It is one hardest choices they have ever made it their lives. I had an abortion. I did not want to have it, but if I had that baby I would be in much worse situation than I am at now. You want women to stop having abortions then please help women to raise children. Do you even have children? Do you know what it means to raise a child? If you do not, please do not talk about fetus' rights then. And please stop comparing African-Americans and homosexual people to fetuses. It is offensive. I am a white woman, but even for me it is offensive to read it. So, men have rights. Black have right. Thus, blacks are not men? Why did you put them in a different category?


Why is there so much focus on responsiblity AFTER a child has been made? I don't know your particular circumstance, but much of this could be solved if people didn't have sex to begin with. I mean, I know it's a freedom thing, but peple taking responsibility for their actions BEFORE a child is made would save alot of headaches.




top topics



 
38
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join