Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

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.

I swear only a lawyer would think of something like that. Keep it simple. The unborn child should have the right to live up to the point where the mother's life is in danger. It does not take away the right of the mother to choose to have a child or not. Her choice to have a child is when she decides to have protected sex or unprotected sex, whether to use contraceptives or not, and the many other ways she can has available in today's world to prevent pregnancy.

The mother's rights to choose abortion over rides the father's rights to the unborn child making him the second class citizen. An unborn child's life does not make the mother a second class citizen. After pregnancy, the choice becomes whether or not to keep the child.The parental rights stay in tact until the child is officially put up for adoption. There are plenty of families that want to adopt.

Adoption should have to be with the consent of both the mother and father. In today's world the father does not always live with the mother. Just because they are not married or living together does not mean that the father gave up his parental right. If the mother does not want the child, but the father does. Yes, the child should be given to the father.

Just because the child has the right to live, does not over ride the parental rights. My daughters have rights. If those rights are violated, they will be taken away. They have the right to be able to live in a decent place with running utilities, have clothes, food, and live in a healthy environment without abuse. If those are not provided, child services will step in. Giving the unborn child the right to live does not over ride parental rights. It does not give the government any further rights.

reply to post by nixie_nox

And denying that there isn't abuse?

You look worse with every post. To think I used to like you.

Other then myself personally seeing these women come into work everyday:

First of all, I never denied there is abuse, I never denied there is rape...you are just having emotional responses now, you are ignoring what I say and creating your own version of what I am saying in your head.

You claimed that the women "usually running from county to county, collecting welfare benefits, to survive, and not get killed by an enraged male who is the father."...I asked for proof of that...and you don't have any. You have anecdotal evidence...but I shouldn't have to tell you that this isn't proof.

I don't care how emotional you try to make your arguments...I will ask for proof if you make a statement that I don't believe can be proven.

I said nothing about rape, your emotions are distorting your logical thinking.


It's fine if you "don't like me" anymore...this is a discussion forum where we are free to discuss our opinions. If you are of the character that you can only like people that agree with you, that is a character flaw in yourself, not in mine.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do half of the people that are pro-life, want to repeal the civil rights act because of "property rights"? Like Ron Paul.

It's not repeal.

We want to "include" a group that has been denied.

reply to post by windword


I promote Biology and nothing more.

The human life cycle is no different than any other animals life cycle.

Let me ask you a question...according to Biology, when does the human life cycle begin???

reply to post by timetothink



a fetus is not a baby, babies are born and killing them is called INFANTICIDE....not abortion.

IF YOU PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISTS WOULD START USING SCIENCE, INSTEAD OF APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACIES AND BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO EVERYONE WITHOUT A BRAIN, SOCIETY WOULDN'T BE SUFFERING NOW WITH ALL THESE WELFARE BABIES AND CRIMES SPREES.


galerouth.blogspot.com...

reply to post by nixie_nox

When differentiation occurs, then it starts taking on human like qualities.

Please define "human like qualities".

The lack of scientific thinking in this thread is alarming.

I'm a lawyer now?

Who'd a thunk eet.

Sorry, I just do not agree.

But, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Originally posted by blackpeppper
reply to post by timetothink

 

a fetus is not a baby, babies are born and killing them is called INFANTICIDE....not abortion.

IF YOU PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISTS WOULD START USING SCIENCE, INSTEAD OF APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACIES AND BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO EVERYONE WITHOUT A BRAIN, SOCIETY WOULDN'T BE SUFFERING NOW WITH ALL THESE WELFARE BABIES AND CRIMES SPREES.


galerouth.blogspot.com...

You may want to look up the definition of schizophrenia.

reply to post by blackpeppper

IF YOU PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISTS WOULD START USING SCIENCE, INSTEAD OF APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACIES AND BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO EVERYONE WITHOUT A BRAIN

Yes, let's use science instead of appeals to emotion...I think biology is a good one to use.

SOCIETY WOULDN'T BE SUFFERING NOW WITH ALL THESE WELFARE BABIES AND CRIMES SPREES.

Oh, nevermind...it looks like you decided to go with appeal to emotions fallacy afterall.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I don't think anyone can answer that.

A female is born with all her eggs, already ripe for fertilization. The eggs are human cells that aren't inert. They are alive. Male sperm is also alive.

When the two meet, a chemical reaction occurs that changes the quality of the single celled ovum. It isn't the beginning of life, it is the transformation of life and the beginning of a potential human being.

The fertilized cell is no more biologically alive that the sperm or the ovum. Life is a circle, that doesn't have a definitive beginning.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady


I swear only a lawyer would think of something like that. Keep it simple. The unborn child should have the right to live up to the point where the mother's life is in danger. It does not take away the right of the mother to choose to have a child or not. Her choice to have a child is when she decides to have protected sex or unprotected sex, whether to use contraceptives or not, and the many other ways she can has available in today's world to prevent pregnancy.

The mother's rights to choose abortion over rides the father's rights to the unborn child making him the second class citizen. An unborn child's life does not make the mother a second class citizen. After pregnancy, the choice becomes whether or not to keep the child.The parental rights stay in tact until the child is officially put up for adoption. There are plenty of families that want to adopt.

Adoption should have to be with the consent of both the mother and father. In today's world the father does not always live with the mother. Just because they are not married or living together does not mean that the father gave up his parental right. If the mother does not want the child, but the father does. Yes, the child should be given to the father.

Just because the child has the right to live, does not over ride the parental rights. My daughters have rights. If those rights are violated, they will be taken away. They have the right to be able to live in a decent place with running utilities, have clothes, food, and live in a healthy environment without abuse. If those are not provided, child services will step in. Giving the unborn child the right to live does not over ride parental rights. It does not give the government any further rights.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOW OUR LAWS WORKS?

"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death.


THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


en.wikipedia.org...

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent. "

galerouth.blogspot.com...

THE MAN HAS NO RIGHTS TO A WOMAN'S BODY TO FORCE HER NOT TO ABORT...DEAL WITH IT.

THE HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE BY SCIENCE, AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT FORCES WOMEN TO 2ND CLASS-CITIZENS TO KEEP A UNWANTED FETUS ALIVE AGAINST HER WILL AND LEGAL RIGHTS NOT TO BE FORCED INTO REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY.

VIABILITY LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Alright Genius,

Pick which one of these is the human:

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I don't think anyone can answer that.

Um...yeah...they sure can. Biology has answered that quite clearly.

www.biology-online.org...

The whole life history of an organism, usually depicted through a series of developmental stages (e.g. from zygote into a mature form where another zygote can be produced) in which an organism goes through.
...
Life cycle entails the course of development of an organism, i.e. from the time of inception to growth to finally maturity when an organism can viably produce another of its kind.

Are you denying biology???

Why the wilful ignorance with something so basic as the life cycle???

A female is born with all her eggs, already ripe for fertilization. The eggs are human cells that aren't inert. They are alive. Male sperm is also alive.

It's as alive as any human cell...but it is not a living organism. Again...science...it's our friend.

When the two meet, a chemical reaction occurs that changes the quality of the single celled ovum. It isn't the beginning of life, it is the transformation of life and the beginning of a potential human being.

Nothing potential about it...that is a new human being. Again...this is basic biology, nothing magical happens during the life cycle where it all of a sudden becomes a human being. It is a new human being at inception.

The fertilized cell is no more biologically alive that the sperm or the ovum. Life is a circle, that doesn't have a definitive beginning.

Incorrect...a refresher biology course wouldn't harm you.

Life is not a circle...it is a cycle...big difference.

Legalizing abortion wasn't about addressing the rights of men/embryos. At the time women's health was the much bigger picture.

Whether you agree with abortion or not allowing a portion of society to die from third world medical practices isn't in line with world power status. I'm not saying it's moral or right but legalizing it was seen as the lesser of two evils by the people/courts.

If you give embryos civil rights/outlaw abortion how would courts handle miscarriage? Would a criminal investigation ensue? A woman could've done something to initiate the miscarriage, unless a doctor could testify with 100% certainty that the miscarriage was natural a woman could be charged with murder. Is that really what a civilized society wants? Do we want crying women in court defending miscarriage to save their life? It could easily turn into a witch hunt depending on witness testimony etc. That doesn't sit well with me...Sharia law immediately comes to mind.

Women's health issues are a concern for modern society. Outlawing abortion will turn women who have them into criminals or victims. If an embryo has civil rights a woman who fears her miscarriage won't be proven natural might forgo medical attention. The same could be said about "legitimate rape," If a woman can't prove her innocence, not the way our system works by the way, she might not go through the stress of reporting/filing charges.

Civil rights for the unborn sounds good it's when it gets played out in court that things could get messy/complicated. Good innocent women could easily fall through the cracks.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Alright Genius,

Pick which one of these is the human:

What don't you get that "looks" are not everything in science.

My god...how ignorant.

Do you really believe biologist go purely on the looks of things??? I hope you never go to a doctor that only goes by the looks of things...you may have cancer and never know it.


There is a very easy way to tell which one of those are human...which one was taken from a human...and there you have it...you have identified the human. Not to mention, I'm sure a trained biologist could absolutely identify the human just by the looks. This is really a pathetic argument...childlike almost.

Please don't tell me that you can take a fish zygote, implant it into a human uterus, and it will turn into a human.


Please nixie, for your own good...just stop...it's painful to watch you display ignorance like this.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by blackpeppper

 

IF YOU PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISTS WOULD START USING SCIENCE, INSTEAD OF APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACIES AND BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO EVERYONE WITHOUT A BRAIN

Yes, let's use science instead of appeals to emotion...I think biology is a good one to use.

SOCIETY WOULDN'T BE SUFFERING NOW WITH ALL THESE WELFARE BABIES AND CRIMES SPREES.

Oh, nevermind...it looks like you decided to go with appeal to emotions fallacy afterall.

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

REALLY? You called a fetus, a baby... that's a misnomer and an oxymoron to the human development chart, thus you wasn't using science, but an appeal to emotion. check mate.


and abortion lowers CRIME. It's from Freakonomics.

unloved people from unwanted families, are far more likely to do crimes --- and people who are more likely to be a burden to society by the needing social services paid by the tax payers are: THE POOR.

Stop lying to these people about the science of reproduction, love and using myths like Christianity to force them not to abort --- you will save tax payer money and make a better society in the future, duh.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Please quote me where I claim that I want to protect human cells. I am talking about human organisms, as a whole, not single human cells.

Easy there John Wayne I never intimated that you supported protecting human cells. I only pointed out that your argument that the zygote contains human DNA and therefore a human is not a very good one. I only pointed out all our cells contain human DNA.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I love the depths of pro-choice people will go to in order to deny they support killing human life. You want to feign ignorance, just like others, in order to justify your beliefs.

Negative - I just go with logic. A cell, or organism even a human one that cannot provide the basic life support functions for itself is not alive. A fetus is not alive until it takes its first breath. It is a dependant organism the potential for life not life.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Just say it out loud one time...you support killing babies.

I don't have a problem with a woman choosing to have a medical procedure to remove an unwanted organism from her womb.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You know they do offer courses in biology for free on the internet, I suggest many of you go take advantage of that.

Ok, Professor, help me out please provide any link to any document that is generally medically accepted as the definitive conclusion on when human life begins. Accepted by the medical profession and scientists as an undisputable fact. Until that time comes I suggest you must realize the issue is very much the subject of debate even among people who study biology. There is no one universally accepted point at which a developing organism is "alive" other than when it takes its first breath.

If one carries a child to term and it never takes a breath is it issued a death certificate?

Nope - it is issued registered as a stillborn since it never was "alive". Even if it had a heartbeat while in the womb, even if it had 10 fingers and toes and could remember its mother’s voice looked like a baby or whatever other emotional issues you want to put on there. It was never considered “alive”.

Who will support the legions and legions of unwanted babies BTW? You are free to give to all the charities you want but as a taxpayer I want none of the burden of the unwanted masses of children.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And again, money trumps life. What a sick mindset.

Yes, the ability to support a life is sort of a requirement and if one doesn't have that means making a life is an infringement upon the rights of all of the others in society should the government now require of me the obligation to support it. It is saying that the rights of the child (and the person who chose to keep it) are more important than the rights of the other 310 million people in America to be secure in their own financial enterprise. Hardly protection of rights.

If you don't believe money trumps life give all of yours away and see how long you can live. Life requires resources and they are limited and finite. The world simply will not support infinite population. As neat as that might be if everyone could all live - it’s not possible.

You may term it "sick". I call it simply practical. You are free to reduce your quality of life by donating to charities that provide for unwanted children. Me, I don't like having my money taken by force so others can make poor choices and face no consequences. It's like feeding stray cats it will make you feel good for a while (helping the needy); however, eventually they will breed out of control and you will either go broke or watch them starve.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Back to the "human cell" irrationality that you were talking about.

One question...do you believe a single human cell is a human???

I don't think that's what I was saying if you got that out of my post I failed to make my point - it happens. I apologize for the confusion.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If not, why are you trying to argue that...because it definitely isn't something I'm arguing...but you are trying to say I am....how dishonest of you. :shk:

Again, you stated the presence of human DNA in the zygote is what made it human.

I simply wanted to point out all cells in the human body contain human DNA and like those cells - the organism that is forming inside the womb is dependent upon the human body (in this case another human body) to provide its basic needs oxygen, nutrients etc.

Therefore, it is no more alive than any other cell or organ in the body that contains human DNA - it is not "alive".

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

What don't you get that "looks" are not everything in science.

My god...how ignorant.

Do you really believe biologist go purely on the looks of things??? I hope you never go to a doctor that only goes by the looks of things...you may have cancer and never know it.


There is a very easy way to tell which one of those are human...which one was taken from a human...and there you have it...you have identified the human. Not to mention, I'm sure a trained biologist could absolutely identify the human just by the looks. This is really a pathetic argument...childlike almost.

Please don't tell me that you can take a fish zygote, implant it into a human uterus, and it will turn into a human.


Please nixie, for your own good...just stop...it's painful to watch you display ignorance like this.

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

"THIS IS SCIENCE:
HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death.


THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


en.wikipedia.org...

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent. "

galerouth.blogspot.com...

THE MAN HAS NO RIGHTS TO A WOMAN'S BODY TO FORCE HER NOT TO ABORT...DEAL WITH IT.

THE HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE BY SCIENCE, AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT FORCES WOMEN TO 2ND CLASS-CITIZENS TO KEEP A UNWANTED FETUS ALIVE AGAINST HER WILL AND LEGAL RIGHTS NOT TO BE FORCED INTO REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY.

VIABILITY LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


BIOLOGICALLY IS MOOT.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

It isn't a fetus until cell diferentiation occurrs. First it is a zygote, then an embryo.When differentiation occurs, then it starts taking on human like qualities.

Genitals don't even develop until 8 weeks. They can't even feel pain till the 28th week of pregnancy.

Cell differnetiation takes at 1 weeks, initial meiosis, then you have 2 weeks where a blastocyst that assign different cell to different location. "this cell goes to brain" "this cell goes to heart" etc etc...

Now, they can't feel pain does not make them any less alive.... i'm not sure when pain receptors connect to the brain, but brain activity start at 6th week, when spinal cord is attached to the brain central.

reply to post by NavyDoc

As far as I know, we have no way to measure the soul.

loooooooooool
is that all you're going to focus on!
and ignore what i said on the stealth takeover by dominionists of the US?

As far as I know, we have no way to measure the soul.

what you mean is that the ministers and priesthood of materialist-positivist science cannot,
and so refuse to acknowledge its existence
so much for "science"

the list of religious and mystic belief systems that have taught the above,
since antiquity,
would take up too much, space and derail my friend beezers thread
you'll have to google

As far as I know...

indeed

since when is that a standard?