Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by Annee

 

I think the way a woman views the zygote depends on the state of mind of the woman.

A happy woman who wanted to get pregnant and wants a family will talk to it, give it a name and buy clothes for it. But a depressed woman or one who faces financial burdens or who got pregnant as a result of rape will not look at the situation the same way.

That's why I think it's subjective.

OK.

But I've had this experience. Have you?

EDIT: I'm only one woman - - but I never had any animosity toward the potential life in me. As a matter-of-fact - - - I still believed in God at the time and prayed for that being to be given to a barren couple who would love it.

It was the circumstances that I had animosity towards.

Originally posted by Annee
Since we are doing major "WHAT IF'S"

How about we snip all boys at birth. Then when a person is ready to have a child - - they harvest the sperm - - fertilize an egg - - and grow it in an artificial womb.

This is a FANTASTIC solution. This way, one has to go through a more arduous process in order to have a child. They have to be really ready to bare the responsibility of the child in order to go through the necessary process of having one. When it's not so easy to have one, you take the responsibility more seriously. I love it!

reply to post by kaylaluv


ya, it's a great solution, till the solar flare hits, or some other major catastrophy, and we end up with a population that can't reproduce!!

heck, we could go even farther with it...
the eggs can be taken from the best of the gene pool, the incubators can be hand picked so they can be the healthiest among us, the mothers and fathers can be the ones most nuturing and caring, we can pick the best to be their teachers....we can have a perfect generation in no time at all.. sized to order, perfect gene pool, perfect indoctrination, just perfect in every way!!!
then..humanity can fade out of existence when we are sent back to the stone age, because, well, nothing is perfect in the world.....

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

ya, it's a great solution, till the solar flare hits, or some other major catastrophy, and we end up with a population that can't reproduce!!

heck, we could go even farther with it...
the eggs can be taken from the best of the gene pool, the incubators can be hand picked so they can be the healthiest among us, the mothers and fathers can be the ones most nuturing and caring, we can pick the best to be their teachers....we can have a perfect generation in no time at all.. sized to order, perfect gene pool, perfect indoctrination, just perfect in every way!!!
then..humanity can fade out of existence when we are sent back to the stone age, because, well, nothing is perfect in the world.....

If we have a major catastrophe, we just stop snipping the boys born at that time - easy peasy.

I am one of those "fringe" people who think everyone should pass a test before being allowed to have children. Why allow crappy parents that raise more crappy people, when you can ensure only the best parents have kids?

You think making all abortions illegal will give us a perfect world? Think again.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Wouldn't it be better to just save the eggs? Because Eggs are the same thru out the lifetime of a female.

Male sperm gets updated every hour.


Edit: I more interested in cloning, i mean if its just bunch of cells, then cloning should be legal. Throw the "morality/ethic" down the drain.

reply to post by kaylaluv


umm....I tend to be a tad bit outspoken on my beliefs about abortion.....
obviously, you've never ran across anything that I've posted....

countries that have strict abortion policies often end up having some pretty sad stories of moms being denied much needed medical care, ending up permanently disabled, risking death, while the judges and lawyers debate weather not they should believe the doctors who are predicting such outcomes if something isn't done....

what I outlined in my previous post, where the gov't decides just how many babies are needed, the egg and sperm are choses from the gene pool to produce the best possible offspring, the person is chosen to carry the baby for the nine months is carefully choses based on her health, the parents and teachers are chosen because the are the best, ect....
well it could be a very effective system, outside of the fact that it's humans doing all the choosing, and well, that's where greed, corruption, ect would come into play.....maybe we should just come up with a tamper proof computer program to do the chosing....
of course we would lose alot of our freedom, but hey, we can all screw like little bunnies and not have to worry about a thing!!! no parenting, no baby carrying, no child support payments, although taxes would be used to run the whole operation from conception to adulthood.... totally responsibility free fun!!! with no more abortions!!!
those "pro-lifers" should really consider this, because if I start seeing those horrible stories that I find coming from those countries that have the strict abortion laws coming from this country, well, I will be trying to my to collect all those horrible stories, and posting them on a website that will be encouraging every women out there to abstain from sex, married or not, young or old, whatever....
they say they want abstinence, I say, let's give it to them...if you don't want a baby, refuse to have sex!! if you are beyond childbearing age and don't want to be saddled with a half a dozen kids or so while the mommies and daddies work their arses off to support the little tykes, refuse to have sex!!!
ten to one, most of those who are doing the preaching, really don't want to be living the life....
so, well, it might be the easiest way to shut them up!!!
don't want kids, don't have sex!! otherwise, the guys just might make life a living hell for your daughters or grand daughters!

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Wouldn't it be better to just save the eggs? Because Eggs are the same thru out the lifetime of a female.

Male sperm gets updated every hour.


Edit: I more interested in cloning, i mean if its just bunch of cells, then cloning should be legal. Throw the "morality/ethic" down the drain.

edit on 8/27/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

I don't have a problem with cloning. You know exactly what you're getting with a clone. The whole "catastrophic event" thing might put a damper on cloning though.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I am one of those "fringe" people who think everyone should pass a test before being allowed to have children. Why allow crappy parents that raise more crappy people, when you can ensure only the best parents have kids?

You think making all abortions illegal will give us a perfect world? Think again.

I'm with ya.

My Pro Active is Healthy Planet. Definitely not saving every accidental fetus.

I support selective reproduction. I think everyone should have the opportunity to reproduce - - but that there should be some criteria - test - licensing - health screening - etc.

I also support free birth control - vasectomy - tubectomy - abortion - etc. Anything to curb the irresponsible free-for-all.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Wouldn't it be better to just save the eggs? Because Eggs are the same thru out the lifetime of a female.

Male sperm gets updated every hour.

Are you a man? Would you take male birth control pills?

Frozen sperm has been quite successful.

Paul Ryan would be a heartbeat away from POTUS, and he signs off on personhood (along with Akin). Romney would be, as Norquist said, a pen in hand to sign whatever is put before him, so choosing Supreme Court judges who would overturn RvW would assure almost half of the United States criminalizing abortion.

Considering that the goal of the Republican base (to overturn RvW) is now a voter away from becoming a reality after a forty year campaign, what will happen to girls and women who become criminals by self-inducing an abortion? What will be the punishment for this crime?

When certain forms of birth control are outlawed, because they are abortifacients, what forms of birth control will the state allow? What will be the punishment for girls/women caught using such methods illegally?

The debate on overturning RvW is over. It is time to discuss the crime and punishment.

reply to post by Annee

Are you a man? Would you take male birth control pills?

Yes, i'm a man. I would take the pills if its safer for me and my sperms. Like i said, Males produce sperm until they die, every hour, fresh sperm is better than old stale sperm, frozen or not..

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Annee

 

Are you a man? Would you take male birth control pills?

Yes, i'm a man. I would take the pills if its safer for me and my sperms. Like i said, Males produce sperm until they die, every hour, fresh sperm is better than old stale sperm, frozen or not..

That's great. Because male birth control has been available for quite a while. Sitting on a shelf - - because it couldn't be marketed - - from lack of interest/cooperation.

Oddly enough - - frozen sperm has proved to be healthier then fresh sperm - - - according to some reports (of course it depends on who did the reports and why).

reply to post by Annee

frozen sperm has proved to be healthier then fresh sperm

Logically that absolutely does not make a single sense....One is old frozen sperm(while it was new), other is new new...out of the factory..

Who knows what problem a frozen sperm might have that is just latent.

A rule i learned in microbiology, a less human intervention, the best the results would be.(bleached, enriched, modified food would be good relation)

Only case i could think of, the guy gave his sperm when he was healthy, then turned into a smoker/drug user/alcoholic which made the new sperm bad.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Annee

 

frozen sperm has proved to be healthier then fresh sperm

Logically that absolutely does not make a single sense....One is old frozen sperm(while it was new), other is new new...out of the factory..

Didn't make sense to me either.

But that's the report I read.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Annee

 

frozen sperm has proved to be healthier then fresh sperm

Logically that absolutely does not make a single sense....One is old frozen sperm(while it was new), other is new new...out of the factory..

Didn't make sense to me either.

But that's the report I read.

Ya'll made me curious, so ....

"Without these data, we were concerned that frozen sperm might reduce the birth rate," says Alan Thornhill, Ph.D., senior author of the study and director of the Mayo Clinic in vitro fertilization laboratory. "Now, we believe that concern is unwarranted."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Here's something about frozen eggs too.

www.inciid.org...

Ain't technology grand?

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Yes, the father helped as well. But he could not provide for us because he could not find a job after graduating. So all of it mostly laid on my shoulders.
Affordable and quality child care would be nice. I spend a lot of money on childcare just to be able work. Thus, every month after paying all bills I pretty much have nothing to spend on my son. Free education: it is a hard subject for me. I have two degrees, one from my native country and one from an American college. It has not helped me so far in getting a well paid job. Of course, I do not regret getting an education, but in this economy, unfortunately, education is not a guarantee of a good income. We already have some programs like WIC to help, but I do not think it is enough. For instance, if you are unemployed and have an infant, it won't help you much.

Well, the idea of education wasnt pertaining to gaining occupation. It was more for being better prepared to deal with a child. To instill confidence about the matter, if nothing else, as well as being a preventative measure of sorts. This can be done, to an extent, through reading books and the internet. But, those being available would only compliment a real education on the matter. The tests of learning through a book and the internet are carried out when one tries them on their child, whereas in a classroom environment, they can be carried out on paper then refined in the "real world."

I think programs like WIC do good things, but agree that it isnt enough. Its why I brought up the topic in the first place!

I think that last sentence there is pretty telling... It is my belief that a healthy family unit would be one that spends quality time together. This can be reduced as the child grows older, but in the time after birth, I feel it is extremely important to spend as much time as possible. Of course, we need to balance it because there are just stressful things about being with someone, anyone, 24/7 (especially an infant!). The idea that someone isnt actively working with an infant shouldnt be a negative thing, since I think that is exactly how it should be.

In the grand scheme, and in the general population though, one who isnt working is not assisting society. It doesnt seem to matter at what cost this idea is implemented. A healthy family unit is considerably more productive overall, and has a significantly more positive impact on the "whole" than simply working for some faceless business at the cost of something much greater. This starts to go into a whole 'nother topic though.

I dont think it will necessarily solve anything by determining when a fetus attains human rights. It doesnt matter if science or logic eventually proves it one way or the other, and we certainly do not have any empirical and quantitative evidence currently. I think part of the real solution is to encourage a society and world that empowers individuals to be able to properly care for their children. Because as long as the environment and reasons exist for getting an abortion, women will be getting them. The decision will be justified by any means necessary to be able to live with the decision whether or not that justification is based in truth, just like anything else in life.

Personally I would never have an abortion and think it is wrong. BUT I think the government should not be able to make laws regarding morality based on religion and that is what this is. RVW was passed to protect women from back alley abortions among other things. You should research some of the stories from before it was legal, women hiding pregnancies and giving birth at home only to kill the baby and hide it. Self induced abortions gone wrong killing the woman. Then you have the woman that does not want the child give birth and not care for it, or resent it. Abuse the child, and make its short life a hell. These are things you really need to think about when trying to limit a womans options.

If you want to stop abortion, then maybe we should work on making it easier for women to make better choices in regards to birth control. The same people yelling for no abortion also want to take away cheap family planning services that would prevent women who would consider abortion from becoming pregnant. The key is better education. Better support for those who would use birth control, and support with any option they use should they become pregnant be that abortion, adoption, or keeping child. Humans are humans and they will have sex. Abstinence only education leads to higher pregnancy rates. I went to a school with abstinence only education and we had almost double the pregnancy rate of bigger city schools who helped the kids make safe choices, as well as many kids with HIV and other STDs. I believe in my graduating class 15 out of 90 had contracted HIV and nearly 20 out of 90 were either pregnant or had at least one child. These are real problems that I feel should be dealt with before we try and take on something as abstract as trying to legislate morality.

Originally posted by redneckprincess
Personally I would never have an abortion and think it is wrong.

I said that exact same thing until . . .

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

From the perspective that a fetus is not human, or even a living being (mentioned earlier in the thread), the idea of correlating the topic to equal rights, in general, could definitely be seen as offensive.

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

As far as the issue the poster has with beezzer separately stating mens rights and blacks rights... *shrug* Maybe misunderstood the idea behind doing what the OP did. If one is looking to be offended, they most certainly will find it.

Originally posted by LanaDan
Thus, blacks are not men?

Some are indeed women.

edit on 26-8-2012 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

How is the suggestion that the fetus is a living being offensive? An issue of debate and disagreement for certain, but I do not understand how one could be offended. (Not you, specifically, but people in general.)

edit on 26-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Edited to quote you:

Of course, getting offended and confused by it also displays the distinct possibility that said perspective never considered others might actually consider the fetus a human from the moment of conception.

I think you may actually have hit the nail on the proverbial head.

edit on 26-8-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

The distinction that indigenous people of the Americas came from the Pope in 1530, when he declared the indigenous populations are human!

Right now, civil rights are extended to those who are "born." To compare the real discrimination, imprisonment and slavery, the life lost defending their culture, land and right to a self determined life struggling thought the most of dehumanizing ways, to a fertilized human egg is insulting.

edit on 26-8-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

No it isn't. THroughout history there have been groups of people who have been offcially considered less than human. To point that out is not insulting at all. To say that African Americans deserve civil rights does not take away from the abuses of the Native Americans one iota.

I never said that. You're being obtuse.

I repeat.

To compare the real discrimination, imprisonment and slavery, the life lost defending their culture, land and right to a self determined life, struggling thought the most of dehumanizing assaults against their spirit, to a fertilized human egg is insulting.