We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Views: 1545

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"
-Declaration of the Rights of the Child

The UN is mostly silent on abortion because they cover many countries with varying stances. The US used to allow slavery as a compromise just to get everyone to come together.

But the UN isn't infallible. I'm sure we all agree free speech is a human right, and they almost banned criticism of religion!

To apply human rights to the unborn, we must repeal the "right" of the woman, or anyone, to violate their rights. Just like feminism repealed the right of men to rape their wives and abolition repealed the right of whites to own slaves.
I left a while back, when it became obvious that his identification of a person (has a human genetic code) differed markedly from my own ( a sentient being ), and that it was unlikely to change.
And yet the UN supports this proclamation about the rights of the child. These two (human rights and childrens rights) are obviously at odds with each other IF the latter declaration of the rights of the child was meant to prohibit a woman's choice to abort.

One would have to then ask what take precedence? The rights of the woman or the rights of the unborn?

Which came first, the declaration of human rights or the declaration of the rights of the child? Human rights is the answer to that and can be found in statement just prior to the one you quoted: "Whereas the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,"
Well, you've totally ignored the points I made in my earlier posts (I suspect it's because I'm awesome and you acknowledge that creating a system of laws that gives fetuses the rights of people would be impossible in a just society), but answer me this. You stated on the last page:

"And this is killing. Just like removing a tumor kills it. There was life and now there isn't."

You were referring to the use of the birth control pill. But earlier, you said you were all for contraception. So have you changed your mind? Are you now against use of the birth control pill?

I've got some new material I'd like you to address, so I thought I'd pop back in.
Under your argument that all fertilized eggs are human. (and for those that had questions on his birth-control stance, he said those that could possibly cause spontaneous, early abortion should be illegal; i.e the pill when I brought that up earlier on,) You've said that from conception onwards, this is a human being with all human rights, correct?
So what, may I ask do you think of parasitic twins and fetus in fetu cases?
For those that aren't familiar, do a quick search on google. If you are really feeling brave, hit the 'search images' button.
In a nutshell these are cases that one fetus has absorbed another and become an asymmetrical conjoined twin (so with out any brain function, or in some cases with low level brain function. So like a vegetable, not a mentally challenged person.) or causes some babies to be born basically pregnant. (but the fetus' fetus won't develop)
Now, not all of these are deadly to the twin, but they are horribly disfiguring and cause grave physical handicaps.
Under your argument that awareness does not equal humanity, and "only if the mother is in danger, and said to be so by a jury" can you actively kill a fetus. Removing this fetus from it's host is no different than abortion (in some cases, with fetus in fetu is done with the same or almost the same procedure.)
So.. under your code of ethics, do you remove these things?
Are they still human to you? They've got all the DNA. They've got identifying features. They come up as human on a blood test or genetic test. They are essentially eternal fetuses.
They will not, however be self aware or develop into an even partially functioning human.
Tumors are human too, surgeons should stop killing them.
He's just going to say that a tumor was never conceived, and isn't made from two distinct individuals, therefore it is a mass of meat, not a human.

...makes you wonder about clones, eh?
After a very long debate, I've really come to the conclusion that I have been wrong. The woman's body is her own. I surrender to the great will of logic I have been readin' since this forum was started. Reason, however, is still on my mind. Let's just say I'm against stupid people breeding and then getting an abortion because they didn't take any precaution. Not like an accident but a complete lack of thinking to prevent it in the first place. These people bug the shit out of me still. It was even mentioned on the site once that someone would have abortion after abortion after abortion if needed be because it was her right. I found this morbid & disturbing that such an attitude toward procreation can be viewed so hastily & without a care, as if getting pregnant was no big deal.

I'm Anti-Stupid or Pro-Responsible, I guess. I'll leave all other scenarios of rape & whatever to be done as seen fit by the mother/host (whatever they wish to be called). I like Dave's view on how they should be rare & this is how I will view it for now on. But I need conformation. Am I viewing this right? Do I still seem fundie-ish with this view of despising people that just are careless with their bodies (both man & woman)? The whole "I'm not ready", "It's a burden" (to both man & woman or one or the other), "It was just a one time thing". Get my meaning? Am I shallow with this?
I was more or less wanting to know if my view was a valid one. I'm all for birth control. And I really never saw the point of marriage unless it was to create a family. A living will can solve every other aspect when it comes to beneficiaries and such. It was a religious creation & turned into a state run franchise. All for the civil unions too. If they want to suffer marriage then so be it. I know it's like a promise more than a legal or religious binding contract but that is all it is anymore.
I dunno.. I'd say the best reasons NOT to have a kid are the "I'm not ready." or "I'm not in a good situation" ones.
Poverty produces more poverty. There are people out there that are unfit to have kids, and the most emotionally mature decision they can ever make is to not have one. I don't even think adoption is the right answer, because if you aren't invested in this fetus as a baby (and there is a difference) then are you going to give it the best start possible, or are you going to put it at a disadvantage by doing drugs and risky behavior that will create a child with learning or other difficulties later on down the road? The adoption system is a mess already. Sure, blue chip babies are in high demand, but what about the six month old with fetal alcohol syndrome? What about the baby born addicted to crack, or whose mother tested positive for meth? These kids are going to potentially have huge issues down the road, be further unwanted and an even bigger burden on aln already broken system. :(
Now, on the other hand, if you have a woman that learns she's pregnant and honestly wants the best for her baby (and knows that chance is higher with another family) then by all means. Wow. What a wonderful thing to do! Fulfill the dream of someone else!
But we can't decide who those women are. Only they can. Only they know.
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that if they are too uneducated to use birth control if they don't want kids, they probably are too uneducated to be raising any. If we had a more adoption friendly system with support for intent to adopt mothers, that would be great.
But we don't. So we live by what we are stuck with.
I guess I'm letting my feelings get in the way a bit here. I can't prevent either the conception or abortion by the ignorant so it's like chasing my own fetal tail. I read into things too deeply sometimes & wish a case by case could be done but then human rights would be violated if I had my way, sterilization of the ignorant, which is wrong. How about a good kick in the balls for each unwanted, preventable pregnancy?
Oh.. I'm all for that. In fact, I don't think a kick in the balls (or ovaries) could be hard enough!
It's a tricky, nasty situation. I'm not FOR nonchalant abortions, but I know that there is no one on this earth that can weigh every factor except for the mother. There is nothing to be done for it, and that's sad. You limit one, you limit those with legit reasons, and that is unacceptable. The only thing I guess you can really do is fight to get all forms of highest quality contraceptives easily accessible to all people in all walks of life.
When I was in Thailand, the number one client of illegal abortions were Muslim women, both young women and married women that simply couldn't keep birth control in their house for fear of their husbands finding out.....it's just a horrible, horrible thing.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service