Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Abortion sits at the cross roads between the constitutional right to privacy (and therefore to purchase and use contraception) and the state's interest in protecting human life and well being. "Both interests become compelling at a point." (paraphrasing Roe v. Wade).

Anybody who says a woman has an unequivocal right to an abortion under all circumstances, no matter what, and that any state action to infringe on that right is unconstitutional is not a friend of Roe v. Wade - they, instead, believe in a very perverted extra-constitutional right to an abortion specifically (as opposed to privacy).

Abortion is a rights issue and I am not in favor of a complete ban. But, because I embrace a balanced view I must call myself pro-life as I can never be 'pro-choice' by the current meaning of the word in today's politics.

Mainstream pro-choice organizations (NOW for instance) are even against laws that punish murderers double for ending a fetus's life as well. Even though these criminal laws have nothing to do with the right to contraception, they are radically opposed because they see any attempt to confer humanity on a developing human being as a step in the wrong direction. That is not consistent with the constitution, it is not consistent with current law, it is not consistent with science, it is not consistent with justice, and it is not consistent with the values of this country.

The fact that they hide behind a simplified view of the constitution to justify their oppositions to laws like that or to the barbaric practice of late-term abortions just makes the entire situation more disgusting. I have very close friends who have had abortions. I don't judge them, in fact they wouldn't have told me if they didn't know that I would counsel them and give them an open ear and a should to lean on. The demonization of those that seek to maximize the value of life is the TRUE TRAVESTY and organizations like NOW and politicians like Obama are the TRUE EXTREMISTS.

reply to post by timetothink

If 2 people decide to have sex they should be ready for the outcome. Murder should not be the way out.

Well, I suppose that is fair to say... but I was really not trying to get into the moral argument about abortion.

I was only focussing on the logical contradiction, of giving all rights to the female, and all responsibilities to the male.


In the name of Equality, no less.

If you have sex then you are accepting the possibility of having a child; why should they be able to kill it when they knew the consequences?

Sure, it is their body and they have "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but that should not be an excuse to kill.


Now, as for rape victims the situation is a bit more complicated...

I have to admit, I don't know much about this subject, but this is what I think about it for now.

So force a woman to have a baby to punish her for having unmarried(irresponsible) sex.

Got it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by windword

 

This has to be the most ridiculous logic I've heard yet!

First, men can't become pregnant.

Second, ovulation is a spontaneous reaction.

Lastly, a woman has to take steps to AVOID becoming pregnant, and those steps don't always work!

Are you saying that in our society men aren't burdened when they get a women pregnant??? Many courts will disagree with you.

Not id the woman chooses to abort. This thread isn't about child support payments and their inequity.

And ovulation can be fairly accurately timed if you know what signs to look for...and ovulation is only one part of the equation.

Ovulation can happen spontaneously, due to sexual arousal, often hours after the act. Spermicide could have been washed away in a shower, it might have missed "one" that was still on the prowl, hours later, when the egg drops. Sperm swims, spermicide doesn't. Sperm stays "alive" and keeps up the mission.

Messy condoms are often the blame to an unwanted pregnancy as well. There is no 100% safe birth control, save abstinence.

The only step women have to take to avoid becoming pregnant is to not have sex...it works 100% of the time (99.99999% of the time if you are a Christian).

If you think that's going to happen, I have a bridge.......

Are you seeking to legislate your religious, Christian, ideals into law?

The readiness for sex is not the same readiness for childbearing.

I had to give this one it's own quote...because THIS is the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard.

Seriously...WTF???

It's the sad truth my friend, wake up and smell the hormones!

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Now I understand what you are saying and you are right...it isn't fair when you put it that way.

It should be 50/50 no matter what decision is made. If abortion stays legal a woman should have to get the permission of the father to protect his rights.

It shouldn't be such an easy decision, it should be hard.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

Then all she has to do is go to CVS and pop that little pill...no waiting and wondering what to do.

If 2 people decide to have sex they should be ready for the outcome. Murder should not be the way out.

Sometimes she doesn't even realize there's a problem until that missed period, 3 weeks later. Sometimes the condom breaks and she didn't know it. Sometimes the diaphragm wasn't on right unbeknownst to her. Maybe she thought in her head she took her BC pill that day, but actually forgot. Sometimes mistakes happen due to no fault of either party.

reply to post by timetothink

If abortion stays legal a woman should have to get the permission of the father to protect his rights, if he doesn't want abortion she should have to sign away rights or vice versa...it's just so much easier to say "no".

Technically, that's not quite correct..... let me alter that perspective just a little bit:

If abortion is legal, then men have no legal obligation to support their offspring.

Because a woman has no legal obligation to support her offspring either.

And that is called "Equality"

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So force a woman to have a baby to punish her for having unmarried(irresponsible) sex.

Got it.

It's not a punishment...it's holding her to be a responsible human being.

In no other situation do we allow murder because of inconvenience...why should abortion be any different.

reply to post by kaylaluv


That's a chance you take to have sex....again I say, murder should not be the solution.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


OK now I'm confused....abortion being legal doesn't change what happens if the baby is kept. One doesn't effect the other.

Then you are saying that a man should never be financially responsible for sex because the babies should have been aborted. That's twisted.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It is not "forcing her to be responsible" or "punishing her for having sex"... it is allowing the child's right to life to overcome the woman's right to contraception (which she willfully neglected to exercise pre-pregnancy). The state's interest in protecting the child grows with each day that the child grows, and the woman's interest in contraception shrinks each day after having consensual sex. It is not a great infringement on one person's rights to simply recognize that another's has grown greater.

reply to post by windword

If you think that's going to happen, I have a bridge.......

Are you seeking to legislate your religious, Christian, ideals into law?

I think you missed the point of the Christian reference...it was a joke.

It's the sad truth my friend, wake up and smell the hormones!

The solution isn't legalized murder because people are horny and can't control themselves.

You act like if it is impossible to wait to have sex until you are ready to accept the responsibility of a possible pregnancy.

But you know this is just more justification.

Is it hard for you to admit that you support killing innocent humans??? Is that why you have all these justifications???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher



Not, it's not.

Sorry. It's punishing her for doing something you don't want her to do, based on how you define responsibility.

Not everyone agrees with your definition.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Once the child is alive and outside the woman's body, the woman no longer has the right to do with it whatever she wants.

So you support late term, even partial birth abortions???

The nagging wife is alive and not part of the husband's body - he doesn't have the right to do with her whatever he wants. The other drivers are alive and not part of the driver's body, so on and so forth.

Oh, so now you put in the qualifier that because it is insider her body, the baby has no rights. But then, like I said in my first point...in order to use this argument, you have to support the hideous practice of late term and partial birth abortions.

You are just digging yourself a really nasty hole in order to justify your beliefs...believe me, I've gone down this path with many pro-choice people...right now you are desperately trying to avoid admitting you support killing human children...so you are trying to make justifications. Those justifications are bringing you down a dark dark path...which as lead to your support of late term and partial birth abortions...because the baby is "still inside the mother".


I honestly don't blame you, you have been taught that abortion rights are principle to women's freedom...so you will defend it without even having a logical argument as to why you support it. You have to discount a human life to be able to support it...and that is very very sad.

edit on 24-8-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

No, I believe Roe v Wade talks about the "viability" of the fetus. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb. I didn't think abortions were allowed if the fetus was considered viable. I agree with that ruling. If it's viable, that is the same thing as the baby being outside the body - then you can't do with it whatever you want.
Of course, abortions are sad - I never claimed they were happy.

reply to post by timetothink

OK now I'm confused....abortion being legal doesn't change what happens if the baby is kept. One doesn't effect the other.

Then you are saying that a man should never be financially responsible for sex because the babies should have been aborted. That's twisted.

You can't think of this subject from a perspective of gender....


"Should a Parent be Responsible for the Child?"

That is the question, and the only way to answer it is YES or NO.

Even "Roe" tried to get the decision overturned.

-Norma McCorvey, the woman whose 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case helped make abortion legal in the United States, today petitioned to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade decision. Known for years as just Jane Roe, McCorvey (pictured right) filed the below affidavit in support of a motion in U.S. District Court in Dallas.

McCorvey, 55, stated that the landmark case "was built upon false assumptions" and had "caused great harm to the women and children of our nation."

McCorvey, who has been stridently pro-life for nearly 10 years, noted that when she filed her original lawsuit 30 years ago, she was unsure of what the term "abortion" even meant. "I had heard the word 'abort' when John Wayne was flying his plane and ordered the others to 'Abort the mission,'" she writes

www.thesmokinggun.com...

This woman, I believe, was used to push a feminist agenda.

Miss McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who regret their abortions, in re-evaluating the Supreme Court's decision, according to the AP.

www.nysun.com...

reply to post by kaylaluv


You're exactly the type of pro-choice person I like to debate with. I could see us actually having a productive, non-insane discussion on this. I need to ask, though, about how you see viability in light of ever increasing technology. Based on your understanding of medicine (not asking you to be a doctor or expert here, I have a limited understanding myself, obviously) when is the earliest at this stage in history that a fetus can be considered viable?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


This isn't about me, or you being able to control sexual urges. Are you ready to regulate teenage sex? Do you think that you can impose your religious morals on everybody.

I wrote this in another thread on the same subject here today: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The sex drive is involuntary. Ovulation and pregnancy are involuntary.

For millions of years of biological programming and thousands of years of social programming, nature has been tricking us to fulfill it's agenda of mindless replenishing of the planet. It tricks birds into carrying seeds across long distances for the purpose of replenishing. It tricks bees in to pollination.

We are designed to crave physical comfort and relief. Nature has hidden it's agenda in our very psyche. There is nothing holy or sacred about it, and we have been fighting with nature since the beginning of time. We cloth ourselves, build shelter and find cures to natures imperfect diseases.

We find ways to trick nature into being our slaves as well, with dams, mining for natural resources and harnessing electricity. But, alas we have to deal with the natural backlash of doing so. Building a dam causes death to ecosystems below, mining often poison the environment and electric wires cause fires.

Birth control is new, but, abortion has been practiced since the dawn of time. Birth control still has problems. The pill can cause deadly blood clots, high blood pressure and can lead to cancer. An IUD can dislodge causing harm, even death to the mother, and if it fails birth defects to the child. Spermicide doesn't always work, and often causes rashes and infections. Condoms break and come with complaints from our lovers.

Plato talked about abortion, it was preformed by priests in the Old Testament and was practiced in ancient China.

We have to stop looking at a fertilized egg as being sacred, and gain some control and sanity over our self determination. Pregnancy looms over a woman, daily, for as much as 40 years. It can kill, and so can birth control. For the first time in our known history, woman have the right to say no to motherhood. And, they've only had that right for less than 100 years.

If these new scientific methods of birth control can't be used for one reason or another, or if they fail, for the sake of equity in society and self determination of the female population, abortion must remain legal, safe and accessible to all!

Look a the bad science that Todd Akin's doctor source is selling us, and how this same doctor has worked with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. How many other people believed this guy? Is it any wonder that teen ages girls and boys could be confused about the "birds and bees?" I'm just glad that his line of thinking has been exposed, by Akin's stupid blurt, so that it can be dispelled.

What kind of myths and wives tales are teens learning from nuts?

"You can't get pregnant if it's a rape."
"You can't get pregnant on your first time."
"You can't get pregnant right after your period."
"You can't get pregnant if you're nursing."
"Doucing with Coca Cola before sex will prevent pregnancy."

Those are just of few that I know of. They are all false and can lead to an unwanted pregnancy.

Sorry if this post is somewhat disjointed. I was trying to hit on a number to ideas and points, coherently.

reply to post by kaylaluv

No, I believe Roe v Wade talks about the "viability" of the fetus. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb. I didn't think abortions were allowed if the fetus was considered viable. I agree with that ruling. If it's viable, that is the same thing as the baby being outside the body - then you can't do with it whatever you want.

And why that arbitrary point?

What is special about viability outside the womb?

I'm asking you, not Roe vs Wade...what do you think is special about viability outside the womb...why does killing life before that seem ok to you?