Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

reply to post by NavyDoc


From the perspective that a fetus is not human, or even a living being (mentioned earlier in the thread), the idea of correlating the topic to equal rights, in general, could definitely be seen as offensive.

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

As far as the issue the poster has with beezzer separately stating mens rights and blacks rights... *shrug* Maybe misunderstood the idea behind doing what the OP did. If one is looking to be offended, they most certainly will find it.

Originally posted by LanaDan
Thus, blacks are not men?

Some are indeed women.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
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?

I guess you can justify anything that you want based on your feelings about it, but it doesn't negate the truth that all laws are man-made and only can be exercised by force.

Originally posted by blackpeppper
I guess you can justify anything that you want based on your feelings about it

Oh how correct you are!

but it doesn't negate the truth that all laws are man-made and only can be exercised by force.

That wasnt what we were discussing. You left the "rights" part out this time. That is not only the specific topic we were speaking about, but is the very topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

From the perspective that a fetus is not human, or even a living being (mentioned earlier in the thread), the idea of correlating the topic to equal rights, in general, could definitely be seen as offensive.

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

As far as the issue the poster has with beezzer separately stating mens rights and blacks rights... *shrug* Maybe misunderstood the idea behind doing what the OP did. If one is looking to be offended, they most certainly will find it.

Originally posted by LanaDan
Thus, blacks are not men?

Some are indeed women.

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

How is the suggestion that the fetus is a living being offensive? An issue of debate and disagreement for certain, but I do not understand how one could be offended. (Not you, specifically, but people in general.)


Edited to quote you:

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

I think you may actually have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by blackpeppper
I guess you can justify anything that you want based on your feelings about it

Oh how correct you are!

but it doesn't negate the truth that all laws are man-made and only can be exercised by force.

That wasnt what we were discussing. You left the "rights" part out this time. That is not only the specific topic we were speaking about, but is the very topic of this thread.

Interesting, but "it doesn't negate the truth that all laws are man-made and only can be exercised by force"
is not the first time I wrote that on this thread, so what do you want?

so I was always talking about abortion rights within the constitution along with biology, but as written above all laws are man-made and are arbitrary:

"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...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

From the perspective that a fetus is not human, or even a living being (mentioned earlier in the thread), the idea of correlating the topic to equal rights, in general, could definitely be seen as offensive.

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

As far as the issue the poster has with beezzer separately stating mens rights and blacks rights... *shrug* Maybe misunderstood the idea behind doing what the OP did. If one is looking to be offended, they most certainly will find it.

Originally posted by LanaDan
Thus, blacks are not men?

Some are indeed women.

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

How is the suggestion that the fetus is a living being offensive? An issue of debate and disagreement for certain, but I do not understand how one could be offended. (Not you, specifically, but people in general.)

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

Edited to quote you:

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

I think you may actually have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

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

The distinction that indigenous people of the Americas came from the Pope in 1530, when he declared the indigenous populations are human!

Right now, civil rights are extended to those who are "born." To compare the real discrimination, imprisonment and slavery, the life lost defending their culture, land and right to a self determined life struggling thought the most of dehumanizing ways, to a fertilized human egg is insulting.

reply to post by beezzer

Exactly, you do not know my circumstances. I am married and had sex with my husband using birth control. It failed, unfortunately. Yes, I had sex and I paid for it. And I made a decision myself and I am the one living with it. You want fetuses to have rights and I want my only son to be taken care of. Right now I cannot support two children. I barely support my son now. You might say it is my fault because I had a baby and did not get means to support him. But you do not know my situation again. I do have a higher education and a job, but I am very underpaid and I work a job that a high school drop out could do. It is my life circumstances. Some of them I cause myself for making some poor choices in the past. Do I feel sad when I think about my unborn child? I do/ Do I regret it? No. Because at that time it was the right choice. I understand your position, but fetuses will never have the same rights because their rights deny women' rights.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I am sure it was not his attempt, but you need to use words carefully when you talk about sensitive subjects. I do not think it is right and moral to compare struggles of already born people to fetuses.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

From the perspective that a fetus is not human, or even a living being (mentioned earlier in the thread), the idea of correlating the topic to equal rights, in general, could definitely be seen as offensive.

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

As far as the issue the poster has with beezzer separately stating mens rights and blacks rights... *shrug* Maybe misunderstood the idea behind doing what the OP did. If one is looking to be offended, they most certainly will find it.

Originally posted by LanaDan
Thus, blacks are not men?

Some are indeed women.

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

How is the suggestion that the fetus is a living being offensive? An issue of debate and disagreement for certain, but I do not understand how one could be offended. (Not you, specifically, but people in general.)

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

Edited to quote you:

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

I think you may actually have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

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

The distinction that indigenous people of the Americas came from the Pope in 1530, when he declared the indigenous populations are human!

Right now, civil rights are extended to those who are "born." To compare the real discrimination, imprisonment and slavery, the life lost defending their culture, land and right to a self determined life struggling thought the most of dehumanizing ways, to a fertilized human egg is insulting.

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

No it isn't. THroughout history there have been groups of people who have been offcially considered less than human. To point that out is not insulting at all. To say that African Americans deserve civil rights does not take away from the abuses of the Native Americans one iota.

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I am sure it was not his attempt, but you need to use words carefully when you talk about sensitive subjects. I do not think it is right and moral to compare struggles of already born people to fetuses.

Why not? The law once held one group of people as less than human, now the law says similar things bout another group. If they are human, then what makes it immoral to point that out? Was it immoral for Civil Rights activists to point out the wrongness of Jim Crow? One can debate the humanity of the fetus, that is a logical and reasonable place for the subject, but to imply that posing the question is immoral? How?

Originally posted by blackpeppper
Interesting, but "it doesn't negate the truth that all laws are man-made and only can be exercised by force"
is not the first time I wrote that on this thread, so what do you want?

I am going to try to make this as clear as possible, because we are misunderstanding each other.

You said:

Originally posted by blackpeppper
WELCOME TO REALITY, WHERE ALL RIGHTS AND LAWS ARE MAN-MADE AND THEY ARE ARBITRARY

"All rights" bolded for emphasis by me. But then you left it out. I dont have an issue stating laws are man made and arbitrary. I even agreed. Its the rights part that we were talking about. There is definitely some miscommunication going on here.

Hopefully we can start with some new understanding.

Originally posted by windword
Right now, civil rights are extended to those who are "born." To compare the real discrimination, imprisonment and slavery, the life lost defending their culture, land and right to a self determined life struggling thought the most of dehumanizing ways, to a fertilized human egg is insulting.

Do you at least understand why that comparison is made though? Even if you disagree with it?

I bolded the one part specifically, because that is exactly how some see a fetus. That the fetus is being completely dehumanized and humans are losing their lives over the dehumanization. It is equated to civil rights, in general, because most would agree that those general human rights are innate. The point of contention is when those rights actually apply.

And coming up with an empirical way to define that point is giving way to emotional arguments and bias. So, lets try to make progress and better understand each other?

So, if those human rights are given at the moment of birth, do you also extend that to the babies that could be born? Meaning, do you define the gaining of those rights because of the act of birth itself, or the stage of development?

reply to post by NavyDoc


Do you seriously consider fetuses and born human beings equal? To me it is two different things. As long as fetuses cannot survive without a womb, they cannot have equal rights.

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Do you seriously consider fetuses and born human beings equal? To me it is two different things. As long as fetuses cannot survive without a womb, they cannot have equal rights.

Hang in there Lana - - I'm supporting you.

I had to make that decision once myself. I chose the Rights of my 2 living daughters.

When it comes to something like this - - people should mind their own business.

reply to post by Annee


Thank you, Annee.

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by Annee

 

Thank you, Annee.

I have no regrets and would do the exact same thing again - - in the same circumstances.

I value living children. There are way too many starving and abused children - - - for this to even be worth a debate.

reply to post by Annee


I agree. Abortion is a hard choice, but sometimes it is the only choice.

reply to post by beezzer


Well, to be fair all those things that have rights can be proven to be alive in the first place. The last one, a zygote, cannot...in fact you would just about die if you knew how many pet abortions take place without consent of the parent at all (dogs and cats, bunnies etc) Can't have rights if you haven't lived outside a"HOST" body. A good example of this is parasites and the flu.

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by Annee

 

I agree. Abortion is a hard choice, but sometimes it is the only choice.

Yes. It was the only choice for me.

I didn't give it time to think about it - - because I couldn't.

I think its hard because of a judgmental society. The decision itself was not.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by Annee

 

Thank you, Annee.

I have no regrets and would do the exact same thing again - - in the same circumstances.

I value living children. There are way too many starving and abused children - - - for this to even be worth a debate.

I'm glad you value living children. You made your own decision and you seem to live with it just fine. That's good....wouldn't want your conscience to bother you. That kind of thing can drive someone nuts.

But, I want you to know that there are plenty of women that were in your exact same position....and even worse. They sucked it up, trusted their ability to get through whatever was ahead, and lived (her and her baby) to bless the day they didn't go through with it. Not judging you....just sayin'.