Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

The education they are refering to is called BIOLOGY.

Human life cycle...look it up.

I love your politics, but I am not going to debate you on this issue.

"never the twain shall meet" - - and I'm leaving it right there.

reply to post by Annee


Fair enough, I know this is a topic that doesn't align with my other stances...and it's a hot topic.

But as with everything else...I tend to be outspoken about what I believe.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I see what you mean but that is another topic in itself, I'm only making reference to the man's right in terms of the mother choosing abortion.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

But as with everything else...I tend to be outspoken about what I believe.

I respect that.

I do have specific beliefs - but they are not mainstream - and they would derail the thread.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher



There is no other time in the life cycle that brutal murder to an innocent human being is acceptable, why should we make an exception for the humans amongh us that are most vulnerable and innocent???

But we DO make those decisions at other times of the life cycle. The death penalty, during war, when protecting ourselves against an attacker, taking someone off life support in the hospital. All considered legal and acceptable in our society.

I obviously can't disagree that the human life cycle begins at fertilization, biologically speaking. But, you can't just use biology in your argument. Just like you can't use biology when discussing war, or a "kill or be killed" situation, or someone in a coma. You must be philosophical about it at some point. Sometimes we make a decision on ending someone's life. And while it is never a happy decision, sometimes, and for some people, the decision is the right one. The philosophical question here is, where do we draw the line at an "acceptable murder"?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So an unborn rights overrides a mother's rights.

Which means of course that if complications happens in pregnancy that threatens the mother's life, she should die rather than to threaten the unborn life. She has no rights, after all, she is just a vessel to carry the unborn.

Because the unborn rights overrides the mother rights'.

Which of course means that the unborn is more important than the mother and the mother should be reduced to a second class citizen.

At least until the unborn is born. Then they can both have equal rights.

You definitely explained it the best out of everyone here. Good on you.

Originally posted by The Old American
What really shows the hypocrisy of the "it's just a mass of tissue until its born" argument is that if a pregnant woman is murdered, it can be tried as a double murder because, magically, the "mass of tissue" becomes an "unborn child".

But then we can't treat the murderer like they should be treated because...TA DA...they have rights.

/TOA

This argument makes a lot of sense.............until you actually think about it. It's considered double murder because
A. The woman was killed against her own will
B. The woman's fetus was killed against her own will, being that the fetus is living off of the woman's body, and is as such a part of it meaning that any decision regarding it's life can't be done without the consent of the woman being that it's in her body.

Basically, if you understand the difference between sex and rape, murder and suicide, you should be able to understand the difference between abortion and double homicide.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

But we DO make those decisions at other times of the life cycle. The death penalty, during war, when protecting ourselves against an attacker, taking someone off life support in the hospital. All considered legal and acceptable in our society.

Yes.

Someone had to make that decision on my grandson's daddy - - - less then a month after my grandson's birth.

When disease hits the brain - - do you choose artificial life - - or quality of life?

Originally posted by Annee

What would you do? You really do not know until you face it.

I chose the welfare of my 2 living daughters. I had living - breathing "babies" to feed - clothe - educate - love and protect. I chose their Civil Rights.

It was one of the most difficult things I have ever done in my life.

Do I have any regrets? NONE

Would I make the same decision in the same circumstances again? ABSOLUTELY!

If I had been in your exact same shoes, I don't know what I would have done - maybe the exact same thing you did, maybe not. Like you said, you don't know until you face it.

I know in my shoes, I had/have a great support system with parents who would have helped me any way I needed it. They would have taken care of me until I had the baby, then I could have either given it up or kept it.

My step-daughter accidentally got pregnant last year, when she was a year away from graduating college. She did not have a relationship with the father, and he wasn't interested in the baby at all. She has a great support system with her mom and step-dad, and her dad and me, along with other relatives who were eager to help her. She had the baby, and is now living with her mom and step-dad. We were talking about this a little while back, and she said that if she hadn't had such a great support system , she probably would have decided to abort it, because that is what the father wanted her to do. She decided to have it, and not ask for any help from the father.

It is a personal choice - - that sometimes unexpectedly has to be made. And EVERY woman deserves the right to make that choice.

Yep, no argument from me there.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
We were talking about this a little while back, and she said that if she hadn't had such a great support system , she probably would have decided to abort it, . . . .

Absolutely!

My 18 year old grandson was a "question mark". What to do?

My daughter was with his dad for 7 or 8 years. They met through a Christian summer camp.

My daughter was told it was physically impossible for her to get pregnant. She broke up with his dad - - - but after a few months they got together for a last "Ha Rah!". SURPRISE!

She never had regular periods. Maybe once a year. She thought she had the flu - - as many people at her work were out with the flu.

She finally went to the doctor because of pain. She thought she had an Appendicitis.

She had 24 hours to make the decision to abort or do a Cervical cerclage to save her baby. With family support she chose the Cervical cerclage. She was put on immediate emergency bed rest. Family took care of all her needs. One month later - 6 months - at 3 pounds her son was born. Totally amazing kid.

Me posting here - - on this subject - - is from real life experience.

Not some idealistic belief.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

You are a clump of cells. I am a clump of cells. The carrot I had for lunch is a clump of cells. At what point is said clump of cells deserving the title "life?"

Personal belief seems to have a lot to do with that answer.

I've decided not to bring any personal belief into this discussion.

Well, that's the point isn't it? You stance on the matter is just as much a matter of belief as the other posters. You say that yours is science based and his isn't but, when you get down to brass tacks, neither side can claim scientific basis as we really do no not have a solid, objective, science based yardstick to determine exactly when a group of cells becomes an individual human life. It just comes down to belief actually.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher



There is no other time in the life cycle that brutal murder to an innocent human being is acceptable, why should we make an exception for the humans amongh us that are most vulnerable and innocent???

But we DO make those decisions at other times of the life cycle. The death penalty, during war, when protecting ourselves against an attacker, taking someone off life support in the hospital. All considered legal and acceptable in our society.

I obviously can't disagree that the human life cycle begins at fertilization, biologically speaking. But, you can't just use biology in your argument. Just like you can't use biology when discussing war, or a "kill or be killed" situation, or someone in a coma. You must be philosophical about it at some point. Sometimes we make a decision on ending someone's life. And while it is never a happy decision, sometimes, and for some people, the decision is the right one. The philosophical question here is, where do we draw the line at an "acceptable murder"?

That is very, very well put. If we suggest that taking a life in self defense is proper, then one could argue that an abortion to save the life of the mother is an act of self defense.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by queenofswords
With education, perhaps we will learn differently, as well, that it's not just a bunch of cells. Science has already learned more than we knew in 1973 about this "bunch of cells" as you call it. Education education education.

NO.

It is a bunch of cells.

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

/TOA

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So an unborn rights overrides a mother's rights.

Which means of course that if complications happens in pregnancy that threatens the mother's life, she should die rather than to threaten the unborn life. She has no rights, after all, she is just a vessel to carry the unborn.

Because the unborn rights overrides the mother rights'.

Which of course means that the unborn is more important than the mother and the mother should be reduced to a second class citizen.

At least until the unborn is born. Then they can both have equal rights.

You definitely explained it the best out of everyone here. Good on you.

Originally posted by The Old American
What really shows the hypocrisy of the "it's just a mass of tissue until its born" argument is that if a pregnant woman is murdered, it can be tried as a double murder because, magically, the "mass of tissue" becomes an "unborn child".

But then we can't treat the murderer like they should be treated because...TA DA...they have rights.

/TOA

This argument makes a lot of sense.............until you actually think about it. It's considered double murder because
A. The woman was killed against her own will
B. The woman's fetus was killed against her own will, being that the fetus is living off of the woman's body, and is as such a part of it meaning that any decision regarding it's life can't be done without the consent of the woman being that it's in her body.

Basically, if you understand the difference between sex and rape, murder and suicide, you should be able to understand the difference between abortion and double homicide.

edit on 23-8-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

OTOH, in both cases the fetus is killed against its will, assuming it has a will. Both the murder and the abortion would therefore have the same moral characteristics as the fetus (assuming we consider it human) died against its will. If killing it in one case is just disposing of a group of cells, then it should be considered disposing of a group of cells in the other to be consistent.

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kaylaluv
We were talking about this a little while back, and she said that if she hadn't had such a great support system , she probably would have decided to abort it, . . . .

Absolutely!

My 18 year old grandson was a "question mark". What to do?

My daughter was with his dad for 7 or 8 years. They met through a Christian summer camp.

My daughter was told it was physically impossible for her to get pregnant. She broke up with his dad - - - but after a few months they got together for a last "Ha Rah!". SURPRISE!

She never had regular periods. Maybe once a year. She thought she had the flu - - as many people at her work were out with the flu.

She finally went to the doctor because of pain. She thought she had an Appendicitis.

She had 24 hours to make the decision to abort or do a Cervical cerclage to save her baby. With family support she chose the Cervical cerclage. She was put on immediate emergency bed rest. Family took care of all her needs. One month later - 6 months - at 3 pounds her son was born. Totally amazing kid.

Me posting here - - on this subject - - is from real life experience.

Not some idealistic belief.

Interesting. Yet at that exact same gestational age, many children are aborted because they are just a bunch of cells. What is the difference?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

See, there you go with the term "science." What scientific evidence can you use to demonstrate that we do not have destruction of a human life at that stage? What yardstick is the measure? I'm curious because in 4 years of undergraduate biology and 4 years of medical school and 4 years of residency, I've yet to see any sort of definate scientific test to determine exactly when "human" life starts.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Interesting. Yet at that exact same gestational age, many children are aborted because they are just a bunch of cells. What is the difference?

Yes they are.

No life should be brought into this world - - just because.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Old American

Not according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Looks like they aren't "just a bunch of cells" in the eyes of the law. Unless, of course, one is committing filicide at the time.

Victims of Violence?

Is there science in there somewhere?

Not interested.

See, there you go with the term "science." .

NO! You're kidding me - - - right"

OH! The "self-righteous" just piss me off.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Interesting. Yet at that exact same gestational age, many children are aborted because they are just a bunch of cells. What is the difference?

Yes they are.

No life should be brought into this world - - just because.

And how many lives should be ended "just because?" If one can justify one person's killing, just because, then when, how, and why should we not kill other people "just because." Shall we euthanize the mentally ill or the developmentally challenge just because it is easier to do so? When does life begin and when does it become immoral to end life just because?

Originally posted by technical difficulties
This argument makes a lot of sense.............until you actually think about it. It's considered double murder because
A. The woman was killed against her own will
B. The woman's fetus was killed against her own will, being that the fetus is living off of the woman's body, and is as such a part of it meaning that any decision regarding it's life can't be done without the consent of the woman being that it's in her body.

Basically, if you understand the difference between sex and rape, murder and suicide, you should be able to understand the difference between abortion and double homicide.

The laws are in direct conflict. One says it's OK because it's just a lifeless mass of tissue that can't live outside its host's womb, the other says that its not OK because it's still a human being killed by someone other than itself. As a matter of fact, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a mother that attempted suicide has been charged in the death of her child.

I'm not arguing whether abortion is moral or ethical. My argument stems from the bad laws created around it. One of them has to go, but I don't see the Roe vs. Wade crowd lining up to repeal UVVA anywhere, so they must be OK with it, right? Thus the hypocrisy.

BTW: Did you notice how I didn't rise to the bait of your backhanded comment against me? That's because I'm better than you.

/TOA