No right to infringe on rights of others

Jzyehoshua · 02-27-2008, 09:28 AM

Shouldn’t a woman have the right to her own body, to do with it what she pleases? If she wants to have an abortion, is it not her own body? God gave us all free will, who are we to take it away from her?

If she wants to have an abortion, or walk around town nude, or punch someone in the face, who are we to stop her? And all 3 cases are indeed equivalent, because the right made use of is the right to infringe upon the rights of others. Shouldn’t a person’s right to throw a punch stop where another’s nose begins?

Is a person’s right over his or her own body so absolute that it takes precedence over the right to life, or the right to not be visually or physically assaulted in public? Of course our society recognizes that once a person’s ‘rights’ take away from the rights of others, there should be limits placed.

A society that condones murder, adultery, rape, and pornography publicly accessible to children is providing all the wrong rights to all the wrong people. What about the rights of the children, the spouses, the rape victims?

America has a long history of treating classes of its citizens as subhuman, from the Native American ‘savages’ whose lands were stolen, to African-American slaves whose value was determined by the ‘Three-Fifths Rule’; from Hispanic-American citizens forcibly deported during the Great Depression to free up jobs for Caucasians, to Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WWII.

Today’s leading abortionists do not understand these principles, as evidenced by their support for Partial Birth Abortion, which presidential candidate Barack Obama has consistently supported both with his words and his voting record. Under the law prior to 2007, children could be born alive after such late-term abortions and left to starve to death on hospital beds.

Abortion is not just about the ‘right’ to kill unborn children, but to kill ones outside the womb as well! Although a bill outlawing this horrible practice was passed in 2003, the courts refused to uphold it while abortionists fought furiously against it. Why? Why promote the killing of newly born children? Their priorities are ones of selfishness, and not the moral ones they claim.

Some will ask, “But what about cases of rape or the mother’s life being in danger? Shouldn’t abortion be allowed then?” However, such cases are rare and even before Roe v. Wade abortions were permitted under such circumstances. When the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, it is her right to life that is at stake also; so in such an instance, she should be given the option to abort.

waitingtables · 02-29-2008, 11:56 AM

An "other" is defined as a seperate person, an embryo doesn't fit that description. And patrial birth abortions are not done on a whim, they are restricted to being done when the mother's life is threatened. And should not be restricted in that case.

Jzyehoshua · 02-29-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

An "other" is defined as a seperate person, an embryo doesn't fit that description. And patrial birth abortions are not done on a whim, they are restricted to being done when the mother's life is threatened. And should not be restricted in that case.

Again, native americans were once defined as subhuman savages and slaves were once defined as only 3/5 of a person for voting purposes, and it was their masters who got the voting rights.

As for the claim that partial birth abortions are done only when the mother's life is threatened, wasn't that debunked in 1997?

Partial Birth Abortion

Quote:

The Journal has informed its readers that partial birth abortion is a "rare" procedure, "typically performed when the life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is determined to have severe abnormalities" ("Drive to Ban Abortion Procedure Slows," April 27.) But those claims, fabricated by pro-abortion advocacy groups in 1995, had been thoroughly discredited by early 1997.

The Journal said that "critics . . . contend the procedure sometimes is used in less dire circumstances." Actually, it was abortionists and their paid spokespersons who admitted that partial birth abortion is routinely used for purely elective abortions, usually in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. For example, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus" (Feb. 26, 1997).

Mr. Fitzsimmons elsewhere estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial birth method. He expressed regret for his own role in previously propagating what he called a "party line," stating, "I lied through my teeth." The claim that partialbirth abortions are used only or mostly in unusual medical circumstances was also disproved by reporters for the Hackensack (N.J.) Record and the Washington Post, among others. These reporters interviewed numerous abortionists, who readily acknowledged that they routinely use the method for purely elective abortions.

In January 1997, the PBS media criticism program "Media Matters" treated as a case study in bad reporting the news media's earlier, uncritical dissemination of the abortion lobby's lies about partial birth abortion.

For a respected national newspaper to resurrect such blatant misinformation four years later may demonstrate how attached some journalists are to comforting myths about abortion.

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington

OKgrannie · 03-01-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua

Again, native americans were once defined as subhuman savages and slaves were once defined as only 3/5 of a person for voting purposes, and it was their masters who got the voting rights.

As for the claim that partial birth abortions are done only when the mother's life is threatened, wasn't that debunked in 1997?

Partial Birth Abortion

[/color][/size]

There is some confusion about partial birth abortion, and that's not surprising since it is a "made-up" term. Most people are uncomfortable with PBA because it has been presented as a late-term procedure occurring perhaps just minutes before birth (of a healthy baby, of course). Late-term abortions are done only for medical reasons, i.e. to save the mother's life or health, the fetus is severely deformed, etc. But SOME PBSs have been done in the second trimester, i.e. electively.

D&X procedure (a.k.a.Partial Birth Abortion) - All sides

This is a topic that is almost never discussed during public debates or on pro-life information sources:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed by suction from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:

She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.

There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.

The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect, like Down's Syndrome. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

(Here's a clue: Don't look for the truth about abortion on a pro-life site.)

waitingtables · 03-03-2008, 10:39 AM

pensacola_niceman · 03-03-2008, 10:41 AM

Fuck the rights of others. Get out of my way scum!

waitingtables · 03-03-2008, 10:41 AM

pensacola_niceman · 03-03-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Eh?

Fuck people's "rights." Nobody cares about you unless you have money to give them. It's a global philosophy really. All these people in America that think they have "equal rights" to everybody else just makes me laugh. Like it or not, Joe Ballcap who makes $35,000 a year does NOT have the same rights as Chester Countryclub who make over $500,000 a year. That's the way it is and I KNOW nobody can come close to proving me wrong on this one.

waitingtables · 03-03-2008, 11:05 AM

That's true. We think we have rights because God gave them to us, but what would happen to our "God given rights", if we were taken over by another country? I don't think that God would be assuring us our rights then.

pensacola_niceman · 03-03-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

That's true. We think we have rights because God gave them to us, but what would happen to our "God given rights", if we were taken over by another country? I don't think that God would be assuring us our rights then.

One-dimensional thinking prevalent. Do you view God as some old man in the sky looking down upon us?