Is Abortion a Violation of Human Rights?[W:948]

[Kindness]

Anti-choicers often claim that abortion is a violation of human rights, on par with slavery, Jim Crow, torture, and even the Holocaust. In their mind, a fetus is a human being, and so to terminate it is a clear violation of its' rights. Obviously, this viewpoint is disputed by most, including many in the pro-life movement, as most feel that abortion -- whatever its' moral merit -- is not a violation of human rights.

What do you think? Is abortion a violation of human rights? Why or why not?

 

[captainawesome]

Anti-choicers often claim that abortion is a violation of human rights, on par with slavery, Jim Crow, torture, and even the Holocaust. In their mind, a fetus is a human being, and so to terminate it is a clear violation of its' rights. Obviously, this viewpoint is disputed by most, including many in the pro-life movement, as most feel that abortion -- whatever its' moral merit -- is not a violation of human rights.

What do you think? Is abortion a violation of human rights? Why or why not?

Well a fetus is a human being. That is an established biologic fact. What it isn't is a legal person with rights in our form of government. In that way it analogous to slavery. However it isn't analogous to slavery in that the human exists only in a parasitic fashion inside another human, and at physical risk to that human that it is inside of. Women having ownership and control of their body is a larger human rights issue than a developing clump of human cells that isn't born. So no I don't think it's a human rights violation to view women as owning their very body.

 

[X Factor]

I quit reading at "anti-choicers".

 

[AmericanWoman76]

To admit that a human is a human with the right to life, then say "that right doesn't apply this month" is to say "that right doesn't apply at age 25" and "that right doesn't apply at age 50" as well. an abortion doesn't cause the tiny human to skip the pre-born phase of their life, it takes away all of the average of 81 years of the person's life. Also, you are quite incorrect in describing a tiny human being as a parasite and a lump of tissue. no fetus has ever turned into a malignant cancer, they all stay human beings. they are no more lumps of tissue than their mothers are. nor are they parasites. a parasite is of no value to it's host species and causes harm by it's presence. the value of a human being is well understood incalculably high, and healthy newborn humans have been well established to have a monetary value above $50,000 on the adoption market. Therefore, unborn humans are of value to their host species. A normal pregnancy does not in any way harm a pregnant woman. an unborn human simply does not qualify as a parasite. nor do they qualify as a part of the mother's body by any stretch of the imagination. Even though many amputees have given birth, not one of the babies has been a replacement limb. Every baby had it's own set of body parts and didn't remove, misappropriate or destroy any of it's mother's body parts to exist. The baby has origins in it's mother, but for that matter, the baby has it's origins in it's father too. You didn't claim that the baby is a lump of it's father's tissue. Why not, because it would be absurd? No less absurd than to suppose that the baby is a lump of the mother's tissue! scientists once believed that the origin of frogs was that mud transformed into tadpoles. you know now how silly that was. tadpoles came from frog eggs and frog sperm. just because their orriginal location was mud, didn't make their original nature mud, too. you know better than that. and by extension, you know better than that a baby is a lump of it's mother's tissue, too. you know that humans begin in a very similar way to frogs, an egg and a sperm have a chance encounter in a wet environment compatible with life. I do believe that it is as obvious to you that the baby is not, and never was, a part of the mother's body, as it is that the frog is not, and was never, river mud.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

To admit that a human is a human with the right to life, then say "that right doesn't apply this month" is to say "that right doesn't apply at age 25" and "that right doesn't apply at age 50" as well. an abortion doesn't cause the tiny human to skip the pre-born phase of their life, it takes away all of the average of 81 years of the person's life. Also, you are quite incorrect in describing a tiny human being as a parasite and a lump of tissue. no fetus has ever turned into a malignant cancer, they all stay human beings. they are no more lumps of tissue than their mothers are. nor are they parasites. a parasite is of no value to it's host species and causes harm by it's presence. the value of a human being is well understood incalculably high, and healthy newborn humans have been well established to have a monetary value above $50,000 on the adoption market. Therefore, unborn humans are of value to their host species. A normal pregnancy does not in any way harm a pregnant woman. an unborn human simply does not qualify as a parasite. nor do they qualify as a part of the mother's body by any stretch of the imagination. Even though many amputees have given birth, not one of the babies has been a replacement limb. Every baby had it's own set of body parts and didn't remove, misappropriate or destroy any of it's mother's body parts to exist. The baby has origins in it's mother, but for that matter, the baby has it's origins in it's father too. You didn't claim that the baby is a lump of it's father's tissue. Why not, because it would be absurd? No less absurd than to suppose that the baby is a lump of the mother's tissue! scientists once believed that the origin of frogs was that mud transformed into tadpoles. you know now how silly that was. tadpoles came from frog eggs and frog sperm. just because their orriginal location was mud, didn't make their original nature mud, too. you know better than that. and by extension, you know better than that a baby is a lump of it's mother's tissue, too. you know that humans begin in a very similar way to frogs, an egg and a sperm have a chance encounter in a wet environment compatible with life. I do believe that it is as obvious to you that the baby is not, and never was, a part of the mother's body, as it is that the frog is not, and was never, river mud.

So do you have any sort of reasoning or evidence for this dump of completely baseless assertions you just cobbled together?

1. Step 1.
2. Step 2.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!

That's how it seems like all of you present yourselves.

 

[captainawesome]

Well it's a parasite in that it lives off the body of it's host aka the mother. It does pose the risk of death and permanent physical damage. Pregnancy has always carried the risk of death, diabetes, stroke, and other injury. These risks are less in well developed countries, but they are still there. Also, we do get rights at specific times. A two year old can't own a gun. A 16 year old can't run for office.

 

[X Factor]

I never knew, until I joined DP, just what mean and evil things fetuses were. And, you know, their very existence is by their own evil design to subjugate the planet.

 

[captainawesome]

I never knew, until I joined DP, just what mean and evil things fetuses were. And, you know, their very existence is by their own evil design to subjugate the planet.

Well knowing is half the battle.

Anyway. It isn't about them being evil. It is about a balance of liberty. Where it falls. Can the state force a woman to give birth? Can it investigate what is inside her body? Does a woman have any right to her own body or is she through the ability to gestate only a vessel? That she is subjugate to let the state investigate whether she is, and or was pregnant, and how that pregnancy ended. That's the point.

 

[AmericanWoman76]

to use the word correctly, an Anti-choicer is a person who supports a woman's right to choose that abortion is right (agree with them) but flips out at a woman's choice that abortion is wrong (disagree with them). There is nothing more anti-choice than to say "you have the right to choose to agree with me and I have the authority to force you to exercise that right against your will!!" got raped? the rape ain't over yet, because the Anti-Choice crowd is in town, and you have the right to abort the baby. don't want to abort? Anti-Choice crowd says, you have to give your rapist visiting rights because you failed to exercise your right to choose abortion (the only way for the choice to have been a failure to exercise a right, would be for the "right" to have been a mandate not to make a choice). need prenatal health care because there's a complication with the pregnancy? think you have the right to choose health care for your baby? hell no, the Anti-Choice crowd can't let you choose that! You have the "right" to a mandated abortion to end the medical problems with your pregnancy, and if you cannot afford the healthcare you'd like to choose, you don't have aright to choose that healthcare. "family planning" will not help you, they have chosen that your pregnancy is a medical problem and you don't have the right to choose that your baby is a human being and the complications with the pregnancy are a human being's medical problem. medicaid and other charity care won't help you, if you turn down the cheapest "solution" of abortion, you will be denied all the more expensive options incurred by your UNAUTHORISED CHOICE of rejecting the cheapest "solution". millions of Americans can't afford to pay with cash for the expenses of treating complications of pregnancies. they can't turn to tax-funded "family planning" for help, even though they wouldn't be a tax burden. complications with pregnancies are much more rare, and therefore much less expensive. than pregnant prostitutes who want to abort and keep working, and family planning CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT to spend our taxes keeping prostitutes working, and CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT not to spend our taxes on providing prenatal care to women who can't afford prenatal care. And that, X Factor, is why Anti-Choice is a valid word.

 

[X Factor]

Well knowing is half the battle.

Anyway. It isn't about them being evil. It is about a balance of liberty. Where it falls. Can the state force a woman to give birth? Can it investigate what is inside her body? Does a woman have any right to her own body or is she through the ability to gestate only a vessel? That she is subjugate to let the state investigate whether she is, and or was pregnant, and how that pregnancy ended. That's the point.

Let's be real, terms like "parasite" and "cancer" are used to equate a developing baby with those two generally bad things.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Let's be real, terms like "parasite" and "cancer" are used to equate a developing baby with those two generally bad things.

Yes. Unwanted pregnancies are also bad things.

 

[captainawesome]

Let's be real, terms like "parasite" and "cancer" are used to equate a developing baby with those two generally bad things.

I didn't use the word cancer. I used the word parasite because that is the scientific description of the relationship. That is why I use the word human. Cause that's what the unborn is. I am aware of the words I use. They are what they are. Some get all emotionally hung up on human some get all emotionally hung up on parasite. I can't nor am I trying to make anyone feel happy. I am just breaking it down.

The debate is about liberty. Do women have any? What can the state force them to do? When can it force her? How will it know if she was pregnant? How will it know if and how that pregnancy ended? Does a woman with 4 kids and a severe history of gestational diabetes have to try and risk her life to carry to term? how about a rape victim? How about a woman who know the kid will be severely retarded? There are many issues, and while it's easy for everyone to spout emotional clichés I find trying to think about what the actual issues are help to clarify.

 

[X Factor]

Yes. Unwanted pregnancies are also bad things.

I know, all those roaming gangs of parasitic fetuses going around forcing themselves into women's stomachs is really getting out of control.

 

[Kindness]

to use the word correctly, an Anti-choicer is a person who supports a woman's right to choose that abortion is right (agree with them) but flips out at a woman's choice that abortion is wrong (disagree with them). There is nothing more anti-choice than to say "you have the right to choose to agree with me and I have the authority to force you to exercise that right against your will!!" got raped? the rape ain't over yet, because the Anti-Choice crowd is in town, and you have the right to abort the baby. don't want to abort? Anti-Choice crowd says, you have to give your rapist visiting rights because you failed to exercise your right to choose abortion (the only way for the choice to have been a failure to exercise a right, would be for the "right" to have been a mandate not to make a choice). need prenatal health care because there's a complication with the pregnancy? think you have the right to choose health care for your baby? hell no, the Anti-Choice crowd can't let you choose that! You have the "right" to a mandated abortion to end the medical problems with your pregnancy, and if you cannot afford the healthcare you'd like to choose, you don't have aright to choose that healthcare. "family planning" will not help you, they have chosen that your pregnancy is a medical problem and you don't have the right to choose that your baby is a human being and the complications with the pregnancy are a human being's medical problem. medicaid and other charity care won't help you, if you turn down the cheapest "solution" of abortion, you will be denied all the more expensive options incurred by your UNAUTHORISED CHOICE of rejecting the cheapest "solution". millions of Americans can't afford to pay with cash for the expenses of treating complications of pregnancies. they can't turn to tax-funded "family planning" for help, even though they wouldn't be a tax burden. complications with pregnancies are much more rare, and therefore much less expensive. than pregnant prostitutes who want to abort and keep working, and family planning CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT to spend our taxes keeping prostitutes working, and CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT not to spend our taxes on providing prenatal care to women who can't afford prenatal care. And that, X Factor, is why Anti-Choice is a valid word.

No one is forcing women to have abortions. A woman, in the United States and any other society that has abortion rights, allows women to choose to keep their babies. The reason we're pro-choice is that we support your decision: whether that is to abort or give birth.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I know, all those roaming gangs of parasitic fetuses going around forcing themselves into women's stomachs is really getting out of control.

X, I and others have gone to pains to try to explain this concept to you. And since it's pretty obvious, your only recourse seems to be slinking off the thread or just continuing to act as though the point was never made.

Why do you bother?

 

[AmericanWoman76]

yes, we do get rights at specific times. but no one says , you can't own agun, you used to be two. you can't run for office, you used to be 16. but you think it's fair to say, you can't vote at 18 because you were a mild inconvenience to your mother (posing less "risk of stoke, diabetes, death and other injury" than is posed by eating a cookie after every meal) and so you are dead?

 

[AmericanWoman76]

you keep trying to think up issues, but none of them are truthfully issues. What about a rape victim? no woman has ever been raped by a fetus. a woman is raped by a man, and then raped again by the pro-choice family planning people who are unwilling to provide legal aid to help her keep her choice to carry to term separate from her choice to have no contact with her rapist. What about gestational diabetes? Diabetes is caused by genetics and diet, not by pregnancy. a woman with gestational diabetes quite able to carry a child to term and already had diabetes before she was pregnant. The symptoms show up more when she's pregnant and she needs to more carefully monitor her diet when she's pregnant. Recommending an abortion, )which will leave her still diabetic and no longer pregnant), instead of a diet, would be like recommending sawing off her left leg, instead of putting a band-aid on her right toe, for a stubbed right toe. What about a woman who actually has a life-threatening medical condition caused by pregnancy, which will go away if she has an abortion? There are no such diseases. There are life-threatening blood disorders caused by pregnancy, but they can't be cured by an abortion, they would cause the mother to bleed to death if she had an abortion. How about a woman who knows her child will be mentally retarded? She doesn't need your help, she has awesome psychic powers. There are tests, but sometimes the tests show retardation and the child is born normal, and sometimes the tests show a normal child and the child is born retarded. There is no accurate prenatal test for retardation. So, a woman who actually knows whether her child will be retarded, clearly doesn't need your help.

 

[AmericanWoman76]

All of myself believe that your reading skills are poor and that we presented ourself just fine. We just don't understand why you refer to us as plural, we aren't royaly. Do you mean "everyone who disagrees with you" as plural? As in, "Everyone who disagrees with me magically becomes incoherent and pointless, despite using the English language correctly and having valid points"? All of our assertions have already been proven by science, thank you for your display of ignorance. We are not your royal remedial high-school science teacher.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Since a human in utereo is not a person, it has no rights

You necessary don't need to a member of the species homo sapien to be a person anyways and basing personhood on species membership will be invalid in the future and it actually is now

The government got caught up with the science after Bush's re-election and signed the unborn victims act. Lifers say when government catches up to the science and abortion will be made illegal think again. It's been I believe 8 years since Bush jr signed that act and abortion is still legal in the USA and various other countries in the world as well

 

[JayDubya]

Anti-choicers

New poll.

Is this opening post Derp, Herp-Derp, or HURRR DURRRRR.

My vote, based on "anti-choicers," is easily, instantly HURR DURRRRR.

Everyone loves freedom of choice. Everyone wants some laws against some actions, too.

 

[nota bene]

You necessary don't need to a member of the species homo sapien to be a person anyways and basing personhood on species membership will be invalid in the future and it actually is now

So what other species are considered to be persons?

 

[choiceone]

to use the word correctly, an Anti-choicer is a person who supports a woman's right to choose that abortion is right (agree with them) but flips out at a woman's choice that abortion is wrong (disagree with them). There is nothing more anti-choice than to say "you have the right to choose to agree with me and I have the authority to force you to exercise that right against your will!!" got raped? the rape ain't over yet, because the Anti-Choice crowd is in town, and you have the right to abort the baby. don't want to abort? Anti-Choice crowd says, you have to give your rapist visiting rights because you failed to exercise your right to choose abortion (the only way for the choice to have been a failure to exercise a right, would be for the "right" to have been a mandate not to make a choice). need prenatal health care because there's a complication with the pregnancy? think you have the right to choose health care for your baby? hell no, the Anti-Choice crowd can't let you choose that! You have the "right" to a mandated abortion to end the medical problems with your pregnancy, and if you cannot afford the healthcare you'd like to choose, you don't have aright to choose that healthcare. "family planning" will not help you, they have chosen that your pregnancy is a medical problem and you don't have the right to choose that your baby is a human being and the complications with the pregnancy are a human being's medical problem. medicaid and other charity care won't help you, if you turn down the cheapest "solution" of abortion, you will be denied all the more expensive options incurred by your UNAUTHORISED CHOICE of rejecting the cheapest "solution". millions of Americans can't afford to pay with cash for the expenses of treating complications of pregnancies. they can't turn to tax-funded "family planning" for help, even though they wouldn't be a tax burden. complications with pregnancies are much more rare, and therefore much less expensive. than pregnant prostitutes who want to abort and keep working, and family planning CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT to spend our taxes keeping prostitutes working, and CHOOSES WITHOUT TAXPAYERS' CONSENT not to spend our taxes on providing prenatal care to women who can't afford prenatal care. And that, X Factor, is why Anti-Choice is a valid word.

You are seriously in need of education and socialization. In American language for the last 40 years, "anti-choicer" has been a colloquial shorthand expression to refer to those people who oppose legally allowing an individual woman or girl to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or terminate it by abortion. You may not like that expression, but that is what it means by the general agreement of the majority of native English speakers who speak American English.

Let me clarify for you what that means. On one hand, that can mean you oppose a woman's right to choose abortion. On the other hand, it can also mean you oppose a 14 year old girl's right to choose to continue a pregnancy when her parents or guardians want her to have an abortion. That is what it is all about - opposing the choice of the individual pregnant person regarding continuation or termination of her pregnancy. I for one have never personally met a pro-choice person who demands that anyone abort a pregnancy.

And yes, the anti-choice crowd is generally of a rapist-like mentality - it demands that a woman's pregnancy be continued, in some cases even if her own life is threatened, asserts that you should be prosecuted for murder if you have an abortion even though you never believed a human embryo was a human person, and wants the law to punish you, typically with prison time, for having an abortion.

This is, in fact, the crowd that is most likely to support laws giving a rapist visitation rights vis-a-vis the offspring that his rape victim gave birth to as a result of getting pregnant after being raped.

But it is wrong to overgeneralize about this crowd and say all anti-choicers want rapists to have visitation rights or want to take medicaid away from a pregnant woman, etc., because all those sorts of issues are separate from the issue of whether or not a woman or girl has a right to continue a pregnancy and a right to terminate a pregnancy.

And please paragraph so that what you write is easier to read.

 

[choiceone]

New poll.

Is this opening post Derp, Herp-Derp, or HURRR DURRRRR.

My vote, based on "anti-choicers," is easily, instantly HURR DURRRRR.

Everyone loves freedom of choice. Everyone wants some laws against some actions, too.

Read my post above. For about 40 years, "anti-choicers" has been used as a colloquial expression in American English to refer to people who oppose having the law allow an individual pregnant woman or girl to choose to continue or terminate her own pregnancy. You do not have to like the usage to understand that probably at least 50% of the people in the native English speaking US population use the term to mean that.

 

[nota bene]

You are seriously in need of education and socialization. In American language for the last 40 years, "anti-choicer" has been a colloquial shorthand expression to refer to those people who oppose legally allowing an individual woman or girl to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or terminate it by abortion. You may not like that expression, but that is what it means by the general agreement of the majority of native English speakers who speak American English.

You are in serious need of some manners. Lotta nerve you have telling another that he or she needs more "socialization."

 

[sweet]

Let's be real, terms like "parasite" and "cancer" are used to equate a developing baby with those two generally bad things.

It's not so much equating a ZEF to a parasite and/or a cancer, as it is more recognizing the similarities of the behavior and effects
The ZEF behaves like a parasite, the effects of the ZEF living inside the body can have similar effects as those of a cancer