Struggling with the abortion issue.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
You want to know the paradox I do not understand?

In many places in the US, a suspect can be charged with homicide/manslaughter for the death of an unborn child.

Say a drunk driver plows into a car. The driver of the hit vehicle is a pregnant woman. Her and her fetus both perish in the accident. Naturally the drunk driver is at fault, but he can be charged in the death of the fetus, as well as the woman.

So is the fetus a human being? One would suppose that charges of murder/reckless homicide would only be leveled when someone has perished. The mother perished in the accident, yes. Why bring charges for the unborn child? They aren't people, are they?

Or are they only people when someone wants them to be?

I have no dog in this fight either way, as a male. If a woman wants to have an abortion, more power to her. I just don't understand the person/not a person paradox.
edit on 17-8-2013 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was signed into law by Goerge W Bush in 2004. It was pushed by the pro-life community to create a precedent for "fetal personhood" as a way to challenge Roe V Wade, in which:

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is, as is what it was always meant to be, a contradiction and a double standard in the law vs women's reproductive rights, masquerading as concern for the loss of an unborn child and a need to punish the criminal. The law is an attempt to pave a way to criminalize abortion.

edit on 17-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was signed into law by Goerge W Bush in 2004. It was pushed by the pro-life community to create a precedent for "fetal personhood" as a way to challenge Roe V Wade, in which:

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is, as is what it was always meant to be, a contradiction and a double standard in the law vs women's reproductive rights, masquerading as concern for the loss of an unborn child and a need to punish the criminal. The law is an attempt to pave a way to criminalize abortion.

edit on 17-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the link. It did clear things up a bit.
edit on 17-8-2013 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
Struggling with the abortion issue.

Does anyone have the right to a woman's body and to dictate what she does with it but the woman herself? Should rape be legal?

/abortion 'issue'



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 



Seems like you might have an issue with freedom or your perception of freedom any way... It boils down to being that simple. You are contemplating the ethics of it but not looking at the reality of it. Are we free or not? It is really that simple really or are we just slave to a government that will allow or disallow certain things? Say good bye to the free world as you allow your freedom to be legislated away


Wake Up USA before its too late...



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
reply to post by Openeye
 


My greatest worry about abortion is a modern day Lillith (I don't agree with this perspective on Lillith) child murderer. A woman who gains satisfaction from aborting babies and equating their own actions as murder would be the landmark case to establish an ultimatum..

Imagine a woman who has had over 100 abortions in their lifetime, all done just for the satisfaction of knowing they could do it.

Imagine a woman who loved you then that love turned to hate, she's pregnant with your offspring and decides to hurt you by aborting your baby and even saying "I killed your baby because I hate you."

edit on 16-8-2013 by Knives4eyes because: BANANAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 16-8-2013 by Knives4eyes because: TOMATOES!!!!!


I just wanted to read this thread.

Almost responded to the 2nd post - controled myself.

But this is a ludicrous (adjective: so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous).

What kind of sick mind would think of such a thing except to upset and inflame others. The idea that any person would do such a thing is well....

Suppose there were, throughout history, one maybe two - evil women who would act in such a way (and this assumes that a women could get pregnant 100 times and forcibly abort 100 times) ...

...does not in any SANE (adjective: (of a person) of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill) justify denying a RIGHT to Sovereignty over one's body and effects to any person.

This cult of 'life' is so twisted and sick that I can barely stomach it.

If the "pro-life" were serious about the 'sanctity of life' they would be forming groups to care for unwanted children, sick and deformed children, childred of color so as to set an example.

They would be out educating about birth control of all kinds and providing free instruction in it's use without regard to their moral beliefs but dealing with the reality of ignorance about contraception (not these regilious and shaming 'pregnancy counseling centers).

They would be against wars that kill millions - they would be in the streets about capital punishment, and on and on...

All they have the courage to do - is harras and taunt - women (mostly poor and of color) at a most vulnerable time in their lives. They are just self-righteous bullies. Having no courage or conviction to DO anything - they yell, tell horror stories and foam at the mouth.

May your God forgive you.
edit on 18-8-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Life is precious. Handle it with care.
55 million lives have been cut short since Roe V.Wade.

When society disrespects life at any stage just watch society decline.



What about the billions killed in wars - do you honestly think that was consenual? What society ever (I can think of maybe some aboriginal tribes perhaps) respected human or any life?

What planet do you come from - I'd like to visit.

Geez



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boomer1951
reply to post by Openeye
 


I am kind of an old timer. In the 1950's my mother tried aborting 3 of her pregnancies. One she succeeded at by having her drunken husband beat her stomach, at 8 months, til she lost the boy in the toilet. With the other two, she drank drano and lye. Both babies lived, but had problems their whole lives, and mother ultimately died of cancer and guilt. Sometimes, the answers are just not one way or the other. I have concluded at 62, gave life to three babies, that I would rather have a life surgically removed than tortured. Women will ALWAYS find a way to rid their bodies of an unwanted baby.


I truly wish I could star this post a hundred times - still I don't think some would hear - or maybe I should say, care.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 



personally-i believe this topic is VERY private & intimate,& should have NEVER become a "social" decision in the first place..what someone ELSE does,(unless it involves myself),is THEIR own business...period....if it IS a sin-it is THEIR sin.i believe when this subject became social--it started a slow,deliberate,form of "control" over the "unsuspecting" people..just as so MANY other things,that slowly have become the states or the governments "business"...,& our society has let it happen.,& is not irreverseable..remember-we reap what we sow



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterMahound

Originally posted by Openeye
Struggling with the abortion issue.

Does anyone have the right to a woman's body and to dictate what she does with it but the woman herself? Should rape be legal?

/abortion 'issue'



It boils down to definitions predicated upon a set of human values and their resulting perspectives. Is the woman controlling her own body or something that grows inside it? Another question; is there really a connection between the mode of conception and the sovereignty of life? Which do you value more?





edit on 18-8-2013 by g2v12 because: grammar



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aries58
reply to post by Openeye
 



personally-i believe this topic is VERY private & intimate,& should have NEVER become a "social" decision in the first place..what someone ELSE does,(unless it involves myself),is THEIR own business...period....if it IS a sin-it is THEIR sin.i believe when this subject became social--it started a slow,deliberate,form of "control" over the "unsuspecting" people..just as so MANY other things,that slowly have become the states or the governments "business"...,& our society has let it happen.,& is not irreverseable..remember-we reap what we sow



Thank you. A very poignant statement rooted in movements by small groups which create division through the conflict of defiance and conformity. Loise Day Hicks was a baby hating lesbian who got uneducated house wives to burn their bras in public.


edit on 18-8-2013 by g2v12 because: grammar



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
You either respect life or you don't. That includes forcing your will on others!



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Do we not have laws against murder? We do, and that's what abortion is. it's not rocket science



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lindarm
 



Do we not have laws against murder? We do, and that's what abortion is. it's not rocket science


In that same vein, all antibiotics should be classified as weapons of mass destruction.

A fetus is a parasite till it can live outside the woman's body without her support. It's up to the woman whether or not that parasite should live or die. Cold, but it's the truth.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lindarm
reply to post by Openeye
 


Do we not have laws against murder? We do, and that's what abortion is. it's not rocket science


America is a subversively idiosyncratic mesh of moral societies that has managed to both incorporate and supersede all cultural traditions that have historically assured a uniform cohesion of behavior and expectation. In practice, a nation of nations expressed in rules that simultaneously allow and prohibit the same acts of life and death depending upon circumstances and exceptions.
edit on 18-8-2013 by g2v12 because: grammar



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   



Irrelevant. The cells that are dividing are still human, thus the organism is human.



Which sentence sounds more accurate to you;

1. I am my cells.
2. I have cells.

The same could be said with a brain, I have a brain, or I am a brain. Obviously it sounds better to say that you have these things, not that you are them.

I am an ego.
I have an ego.

I am a soul.
I have a soul.

You are not the things that you have, the "you" of you, is separate from all of these things. Therefore just because you have human cells does not mean that you are human cells, and if you are not human cells, then human cells are also not you, logically. So I fail to see how having human cells proves that your consciousness is present.



Well I'm an atheist and a skeptic so I do not truly believe in a "soul".


Do you believe in consciousness?

How can you equate consciousness with cells from a strictly scientific viewpoint?
edit on 19-8-2013 by Kody27 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Kody27
 



You are not the things that you have, the "you" of you, is separate from all of these things. Therefore just because you have human cells does not mean that you are human cells, and if you are not human cells, then human cells are also not you, logically. So I fail to see how having human cells proves that your consciousness is present.


I never said that cells prove consciousness is present.

My whole point was that at the most primitive state of the gestation period the cells that are diving are still" human" and the result of the reproductive process is the production of a "human being". So despite consciousness arguably not being present at this early age in the end consciousness will inevitably emerge.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 



In that same vein, all antibiotics should be classified as weapons of mass destruction.


Antibiotics actually save human lives.


A fetus is a parasite till it can live outside the woman's body without her support.


Call it what you will it is still a human being. And the child's dependence on its mother is equally as great once its outside the womb.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Why don't the sperm donators take birth control? They make viagra why can't they make a pill for men birth control? That would make it so much easier because men will never have to make a decision about carrying a life or not.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 





So despite consciousness arguably not being present at this early age in the end consciousness will inevitably emerge.


I dont think preventing a consciousness from emerging is in any way wrong or immoral. Contraception does it, too, is it evil? Heck, even refusing sex may prevent a human being from even existing that would otherwise exist. This argument about potential humans is totaly absurd if you think about it.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join