Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
In order to give the unborn rights you have to take away the mothers.

Which also conflicts with parental rights.

If you believe in parental rights, you can not give the unborn rights, because parental rights also gives the parents the right to choose to not be a parent.

However, our society limits parental rights in that the parent cannot kill or abuse the child. In some societies, the parent own the child and can kill the child at will. Consider "honor killings" of girls in some societies.

"No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

The issue is not exactly telling someone what do do with their own body as a fundimental question is, what defines personhood.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yes, you did.

I just stated it plainly.

Because if the unborn have the right to be born, it takes away the mother's right to choose. You can't have it both ways. It has to be either or.

And if you take away her right to choose, then that reduces her to a second class citizen.

Rights are conferred at birth for this reason, because of this conflict of rights.

And if you take her right away to choose, then you will also take away parental rights, and therefore enable the government to be able to choose who gets to be a parent or not, and will allow parents to be regulated, much in the same way marriage is regulated.

Do you really want that? Those are the ramifications of giving the unborn rights o be born.

Personally, I want the government out of our lives. it's too intrusive as it is.

The unborn have just as much right to live as the mother.

Thaere is a built-in responsibility to having a child. A mother loses the right to party, drink, dance the night away after the child is born. Does that give the mother the right to kill her child after it is born because she's lost the right to party?
If a man cheats on his wife (even though he has a right to do whatever he wants) he is punished because of the inherent responsibility when marriage is at stake.

reply to post by NavyDoc

However, our society limits parental rights in that the parent cannot kill or abuse the child. In some societies, the parent own the child and can kill the child at will. Consider "honor killings" of girls in some societies.

You have to prove abortion does that first. Not just argue, but prove.

And that's an exceptionally hard thing to do.

Choosing to be a parent or not is also not considered abuse nor murder.

But if you want to go that route, you'd vastly increase the prison population by over forty million people, at least.

reply to post by beezzer


Actually, there is no such right to be born or to live. At all.

Edit,

And the mother does not lose the right to party and drink and such. That is a lie. There are no laws against that.

They can still go out and do those things.

And if she can't, why should the father be able to but not the mother?

Because it is the woman who has to carry the child. It is the woman who has her body forever changed, it is the woman who is risking her life. And it is risking her life.

And it is the woman who has to take care of the child.

Men like to cry about parental rights but the fact is that 75% of single parents are single mothers. So most women making these decisions have to decide if they can support a child by themselves or not.

I don't think forcing women with little means, education, abusive or neglectful husbands or boyfriends, is the answer.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

Actually, there is no such right to be born or to live. At all.

You are incorrect. There is a right to life.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Because it is the woman who has to carry the child. It is the woman who has her body forever changed, it is the woman who is risking her life. And it is risking her life.

And it is the woman who has to take care of the child.

Men like to cry about parental rights but the fact is that 75% of single parents are single mothers. So most women making these decisions have to decide if they can support a child by themselves or not.

I don't think forcing women with little means, education, abusive or neglectful husbands or boyfriends, is the answer.

All valid points.

But are they strong enough to deny inaliable rights to an unborn child?

I don't think so. Hence, my thoughts in this thread.

reply to post by beezzer


No there isn't.

It does say right to life liberty, and pursuit of hippyness, but it means something entirely different than what you're trying to imply it means.

It means that we have the right to make our own decisions and live life as we deem fit.

Not to be born.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

No there isn't.

It does say right to life liberty, and pursuit of hippyness, but it means something entirely different than what you're trying to imply it means.

It means that we have the right to make our own decisions and live life as we deem fit.

Not to be born.

That is your interpretation. You can't have life, liberty if you aren't born. Those rights are denied by the act of abortion.

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

reply to post by beezzer


No they are not. Rights are granted upon birth so they cannot be denied an entity that does not have them.


And you're interpreting it too.

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

A murderer has more rights than an unborn child.

great point!

Let's keep emotions out of this.

And keep it civil.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by beezzer

 

No they are not. Rights are granted upon birth so they cannot be denied an entity that does not have them.


And you're interpreting it too.

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

Rights are inaliable.
They are granted (if you believe) by god to every human being. Rights aren't something allowed, by the state.

Rights are denied by the state. But never granted.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Let's keep emotions out of this.

And keep it civil.

I'm certainly trying. I'm just putting this in the perspective of civil rights.

I'm sure similar debates went on when determining if blacks should be "allowed" the same rights as whites.

Originally posted by beezzer

That is your interpretation. You can't have life, liberty if you aren't born. Those rights are denied by the act of abortion.

The fact you believe a bunch of cells is a child - - is your interpretation.

Science has another interpretation.

If my "belief" is science based. I see you as interpreting from emotions of a personal belief.

I am not in anyway interested in your personal belief or interpretation.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

However, our society limits parental rights in that the parent cannot kill or abuse the child. In some societies, the parent own the child and can kill the child at will. Consider "honor killings" of girls in some societies.

You have to prove abortion does that first. Not just argue, but prove.

And that's an exceptionally hard thing to do.

Choosing to be a parent or not is also not considered abuse nor murder.

But if you want to go that route, you'd vastly increase the prison population by over forty million people, at least.

I'm not saying that I'd want "to go that route" but rather that the issue is not as simple as someone doing what they want with their own body. If the fetus represents an individual life, then that life deserves the same protection as any other citizen of the nation. There is no real developmental difference between a baby just before birth and just after birth. Since nothing magical happens at birth to suddenly make a non-person into a person, then the development must have happened earlier in a continuum.

I can prove that our current legal definitions of human life are existent in the early second trimester: EEG, EKG, brain stem reflexes--the exact same yardsticks we use to determine if a person is "brain dead" or not in the ICU. The issue is consistency.

Redrum

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

That is your interpretation. You can't have life, liberty if you aren't born. Those rights are denied by the act of abortion.

The fact you believe a bunch of cells is a child - - is your interpretation.

Science has another interpretation.

If my "belief" is science based. I see you as interpreting from emotions of a personal belief.

I am not in anyway interested in your personal belief or interpretation.

We are all a "bunch of cells". We are just more developed. The difference between a teen and an sdult are as great as a child and a teen and are as great as an infant and a child and are as great as a neonate and an infant.

The unborn do not have rights period. Historical fact already proves that abortion and infanticide have been with us for quite sometime. This means mothers have been making the decision for themselves whether or not their offspring will be a drain on the families resources and acting accordingly. That determination is a natural right and has been a part of our survival as a species. Pregnancy is not a solitary affair, ask any woman who has had her baby bump randomly patted by complete strangers that just couldn't help themselves. It is a social affair and if you really want to end most abortions, all you have to do is address the socioeconomic issues that make it so prevalent.