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: 49
38
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



pulling the plug from a comatose person in critical condition is not the same as
abortion (mind you we are still with the hypothetical scenario)
first, it's is not clear if the power of attorney is granted to women at conception
second, "pulling the plug" is only legal in situations were the patient is in critical condition
and the doctors think the chances of survival is very low
in a developing fetus, as long as the fetus can develop then
the chances of survival are high


Okay... Let me see if I understand this.

If a viable person can only live through the aid of a machine then their chance of survival is low?
But if a fetus can only develop through the aid of a machine then their chance of survival is high?!?!?!

Can you explain this to me a bit more because this idea sounds patently absurd if I can be totally honest with you.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


please reread this as many times as you can



we are just debating what we think the laws should be like
your only arguments are:
1) the law is like this right now so you are wrong (which is a circular argument).
2) you can't change the law because it's already like this and that.
the ability or inability to change the laws is not the main topic of this thread
we are trying to discuss what should be, not how to do it


I even fixed my punctuation so that it's easier to understand


I have read it several times, but I have also read the OP several times and it says that the three main points being discussed are:
1. Men have no say.
2. Women have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their body.
3. It's the law.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe it is YOU who have not read the OP and maybe it's YOU who have no idea what we are discussing.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Okay... Let me see if I understand this.

If a viable person can only live through the aid of a machine then their chance of survival is low?
But if a fetus can only develop through the aid of a machine then their chance of survival is high?!?!?!

Can you explain this to me a bit more because this idea sounds patently absurd if I can be totally honest with you.


the only instance when you can pull the plug of a machine on which a human live depends on is when the chances of survival are near zero, mostly comatose persons with seriously degraded health
these are cases were doctors have usually given up hope

a developing fetus is not sick, if the fetus grows properly then it is generally accepted that the baby will live on
you can't go around killing prenatal babies in incubators can you?
in the scenario I gave you, the fetus in a high tech incubator would be virtually the same thing as
a prenatal baby in an incubator



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Since we are doing major "WHAT IF'S"

How about we snip all boys at birth. Then when a person is ready to have a child - - they harvest the sperm - - fertilize an egg - - and grow it in an artificial womb.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So far, we have learned through discussion that the unborn cannot have rights because;
a) they are not viable prior to a certain time
-So what if science extends that time?
b) they aren't human (they are parasites)
-When does an unborn child become human?
c) the womans rights will be violated or infringed
-Yet they agree to the possibility and responsibility everytime they have sex.
d) it is the law
-Laws change, don't they?

Just recapping here.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

I have read it several times, but I have also read the OP several times and it says that the three main points being discussed are:
1. Men have no say.
2. Women have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their body.
3. It's the law.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe it is YOU who have not read the OP and maybe it's YOU who have no idea what we are discussing.


those tree points were said to describe common pro-choice arguments
this thread is about discussing pro-choice and pro-live arguments and how they relate
to civil rights

this thread is NOT about the legal method that pro-life advocated should use to change the laws
if you want to be in topic then you should be discussing the validity of those three points you have listed
point 3 is obviously invalid because it is a circular argument

not only are you off topic but your main argument (point 3) is one of the arguments we are trying to discuss
what we are trying to discuss is the validity of the argument you are using to say other are wrong

let me make it as clear as I can

person 1: lets discuss A, A is right/wrong because of this and that
person 2: you are wrong because A
person 1: I'm trying to discuss the validity of A
person 2: you are wrong because A

you are person 2

if you still don't understand I'm sorry but there is not much I can do



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



the only instance when you can pull the plug of a machine on which a human live depends on is when the chances of survival are near zero,


Just so ya know. You are wrong.
A person with legit power of attorney can request that a machine be turned off if the person on the machine can only live through the machine.
We never know what will happen tomorrow.
Said person in a coma is alive and can survive indefinitely while the machine is keeping them alive.
If they were to be alive one more day then they could wake up and invent a tree that grows money and then everybody could be bajillionaires.



a developing fetus is not sick, if the fetus grows properly then it is generally accepted that the baby will live on


But what if it doesn't grow properly.
The only thing developing it is a machine, just like the person in a coma who YOU wanted to kill earlier.

You murderer.

Maybe we should wait until we invent a time machine so that we can look into the future to see if people will be worth life in order to decide who we should abort and who should be allowed access to the fetal development machine.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
So far, we have learned through discussion that the unborn cannot have rights because;
a) they are not viable prior to a certain time
-So what if science extends that time?
b) they aren't human (they are parasites)
-When does an unborn child become human?
c) the womans rights will be violated or infringed
-Yet they agree to the possibility and responsibility everytime they have sex.
d) it is the law
-Laws change, don't they?

Just recapping here.


Thank you beezzer.

I don't think that quietlearner even realizes that you are the OP.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Since we are doing major "WHAT IF'S"

How about we snip all boys at birth. Then when a person is ready to have a child - - they harvest the sperm - - fertilize an egg - - and grow it in an artificial womb.


I think in the future we will have this option
but why only snip boys?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



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.


Well, the younger they are, the crappier their judgements...

The older and more experienced one gets, the wiser they become in this regard.

Would you disagree with the statement that all people make poor judgements when they are young?

And yes, I only mentioned women, because I was only talking about women.

I seem to recall addressing this before...


You decided to generalize all of them for the sake of backing your postion, and it was in bad taste.


Pshaw..... YOU think that *ALL* generalizations are in bad taste.... Which is a Generalization in bad taste.

I am talking about the majority, the VAST MAJORITY of women, and their lack of good judgement.

YOU, on the other hand, seem to think that women are above scrutiny, and are beings of impeccable judgement, which is a generalization that is in poor taste.


Now you claim that you meant both men and women are capable of poor judgement


No, that is not what I said, implied, or meant.

Again, for like the 4th time, I was only referring to women.

I do not disagree that men make poor judgements also... but that was not what I was addressing.

If you are going to keep putting words into my mouth, so that you can vilify me to make yourself feel better about hating my position without even understanding, or making a cursory attempt at READING my position, then I don't see what we have left to talk about.... as you have basically turned this argument into a repeating circle where you make the same baseless accusations for the sake of salvaging your ego, and I keep enlightening you as to how, and why you are wrong.....

Then we have nothing further to discuss, as you seem to keep wanting to get your tires stuck in the mud.... slinging it all about the place.


which is clearly a lie given your initial statement in this thread.


You see what I mean about you not understanding my position, and yet continuing to sling mud?


It doesn't matter though, you changed your tune from that initial statement which is good enough for me.


No, I never changed my position, I merely spelled it out in small enough words that would slip past your emotional blockade, and somehow make it into your rational mind.


Exactly, you were only talking about women when you made that statement that they are incapable of choosing the right mate.


This is correct.


No where in that statement did you mention men


This is also correct.


it was only directed to women


This is also correct.


and you directed it to all women


Generally speaking, yes.


it was a sexist remark.


And this is incorrect.

Making a statement about one gender, while not mentioning the other gender is not sexist... and it is foolish to assume that it is.


What's more to say?


Plenty, apparently.... There's still all this mud flying out from your tires....


It's not a nice thing to generalize all women for the sake of pushing your own position.


Why not? If the Generalization applies, and is correct.... then you must *WEAR THE SHOE* Cinderella.


You implied that all women were the same


In regards to judging character, yes... generally.


that statement was only directed at women.


Yes, so?

I don't see why I should direct a generalization about women towards men.... it would be silly.


That was a sexist statement regardless of how you try to twist it.


And this is just false... patently, absurdly, false.

"Women have breasts."

This is a generalization about women.... it is not true for ALL women, mind you.... but generally it is true of women....

Is this sexist?

"Women are capable of bearing children."

This is a generalization about women... it is not true of ALL women, mind you.... but generally it is true of women....

Is this sexist?

"Women are shorter than men."

This is a generalization about women... it is not true of ALL women (and men, for that matter)... but it is generally true of women (and men)...

Is this sexist?



People like you like to pretend that any truth that doesn't place women in the best possible light is Sexist.

People like you believe that Reality, and Mother Nature itself is Sexist.

People like you should Read, before you Emote with your keyboard.

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



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




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


You directed that statement to all women seeking abortions


No, I directed that statement at *YOU*, because you brought up rape babies as a red herring to attempt to defend your insecurities and inability to carry on a rational conversation with another human being.


which includes some who are victims of unspeakable crimes.


Are they the majority?

Are all babies Rape Babies?

Is every single child that is conceived, the product of *HORRIBLE MAN ON WOMAN RAPE*?

Because if it is not, then you should really reconsider inserting this minuscule portion of all human conception in a discussion that is in regards to GENERAL human behaviour.

Generally speaking, of course.




You insisted to me that all those women must take "responsibility". Your position back then was loud and clear.


I remember stating that the responsibility was a caveat to the DECISION to have a child, of which RAPE is clearly not included....

Unless, of course, they are raped, and then decide to keep the baby, in which case it would also apply.

The Responsibility for the child is implied by the CHOICE of having the child... which is, was, and has always been my position on the matter.

And if you were capable of understanding a rational argument without your ovaries overriding your brain, you would already understand this.



Would you like to quote where I said what they must do?

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, and actually CITE where I said what you THINK I did.

Go ahead... I'll wait.


Look at your posts yourself.


You couldn't find it, could you?

lol


You've tried so hard to avoid giving out the fact that you don't like the choices women have available to them


>implying, again.

Go find where I said anything remotely like that.....

I know you won't be able to, because I HAVE been reading both MY and YOUR posts, and I happen to be aware of what we both said, and especially, what I DID and DID NOT say.

So, if you want to keep implying that I said things, for the sole purpose of "Justifying the Anger" that you hold for me (An anger that only exists, because you don't know how to argue, hold a rational conversation, or hold in memory what has actually been said within the context of our posts) by attempting to straw man me into a position that I DO NOT HOLD.....

Then you are revealed for the emotional child that you are.....

One who is, by the way, incapable of Good Judgement.


Women have these choices available to them and rightfully so, it's none of your business.


I never stated that their reproductive choices were my concern....

For the fifth time, I clearly remember stating something about the legal issues involved in reproduction, specifically, the financial theft from men in regards to child support.

That is, mind you.... MONEY, that *IS* my business.


Maybe you should learn to get over it?


And here we are again.... You clearly must have missed the part where I stated:


I don't consider myself pro-choice, or pro-life....

I am merely arguing this from the standpoint of equality in regards to RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES of parents.

Frankly, I don't give a good [snip] [snip] that women have abortions.... I just think that if THAT is their right, then a man should be free to choose to terminate his connection to that child.

because that would be equitable.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never had an "Emotional Attachment" to the subject of abortion.... contrary to your pathetic straw man attempts to CLAIM that I did.

My argument, has ALWAYS been, about the forced financial attachment that a man has to what is essentially "A Woman's Responsibility", that being, HER DECISION.


How are you still not understanding this?


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.


And maybe instead of getting abortions, the ladies can simply keep their legs together, and not have so much irresponsible unprotected sex.



The door, you see.... she swings both ways.


Learn to comprehend, argue, and logic.


You have very poor judgement.

Are you a woman?
edit on 26-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: A *SHAMAN*



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 



those tree points were said to describe common pro-choice arguments
this thread is about discussing pro-choice and pro-live arguments and how they relate
to civil rights

this thread is NOT about the legal method that pro-life advocated should use to change the laws
if you want to be in topic then you should be discussing the validity of those three points you have listed
point 3 is obviously invalid because it is a circular argument

not only are you off topic but your main argument (point 3) is one of the arguments we are trying to discuss
what we are trying to discuss is the validity of the argument you are using to say other are wrong

let me make it as clear as I can

person 1: lets discuss A, A is right/wrong because of this and that
person 2: you are wrong because A
person 1: I'm trying to discuss the validity of A
person 2: you are wrong because A

you are person 2

if you still don't understand I'm sorry but there is not much I can do


I don't even know how to respond to this,
I am not dumbfounded and lack a response.
I just honestly don't know how to respond to it.

I don't understand it.

However I gotta say that I did find it entertaining enough to repost.
edit on 26/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Actually that was more for your benefit. I enjoy the direction that the discussion has gone. There are many ways to look at the rights of the unborn.

I never make the mistake of thinking that I'm smart enough to dictate what or how other people should think. I trust and rely on the fact that there are smarter people on this site than I. So if another poster goes on a line of thought that I haven't thought of, it should be encouraged.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Actually that was more for your benefit.


I am pretty up to date on the discussion mate.

I would be more worried about your debate partner there beezzer.

I am not accusing anyone of straying off topic.
(I am also not accusing anyone of posting disorganized and incoherent thought fragments)

I suppose that I could, but that would take the fun out of this fine thread.

Now wouldn't it?
edit on 26/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You have not argued against my ACTUAL position ONCE.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You have not argued against my ACTUAL position ONCE.



You stay classy ErtainaGia.

Quality addition there chief.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


No worries.

For a debate to go 49 pages must mean that there is something substantive to talk about.

As for my debate partners?
*applause*

Again, I trust that they are smarter than I and so far, they've shown more insight into the topic and have proven me right.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee
Since we are doing major "WHAT IF'S"

How about we snip all boys at birth. Then when a person is ready to have a child - - they harvest the sperm - - fertilize an egg - - and grow it in an artificial womb.


I think in the future we will have this option
but why only snip boys?


It's easier.

Well I'm happy we agree on something.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


No worries.

For a debate to go 49 pages must mean that there is something substantive to talk about.

As for my debate partners?
*applause*

Again, I trust that they are smarter than I and so far, they've shown more insight into the topic and have proven me right.


And how exactly have they proven you right, especially in the context of civil rights?

Isn't that the topic of this debate?
Didn't it say something about civil rights in the title?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



It's easier.


I wouldn't say that.

Wire clothes hangers are as easy and effective as a rubber band.




top topics



 
38
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join