9 reasons abortion MUST remain legal.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1087 Apr 20, 2013
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once more, for the alien life form:
Not all human females are women.
Words have meanings on Earth.
Laws recognize rights, restrict rights, and define/ provide punishment for crimes.
Abortion is legal in the United States, and will remain so.
If human rights were universal, they would be universally recognized.
They are not.
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. Inalienable because people’s rights can never be taken away. Indivisible and interdependent because all rights – political, civil, social, cultural and economic – are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others. They apply to all equally, and all have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. They are upheld by the rule of law and strengthened through legitimate claims for duty-bearers to be accountable to international standards.
...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, age, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
All female humans are women, your vile ageist bigotry will never alter that fact.
Ocean56

AOL

#1088 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
No. Abortion is only legal for jews. Which is besides the point. Since preventing someone from killing a baby with abortion isn't forcing the mother to gestate.
If abortion ever became illegal in the U.S. again, women WOULD be forced to gestate if they couldn't go to countries where abortion was legal. That kind of nightmare scenario for women is exactly why the right to have an abortion remains legal.

You and the rest of the anti-choice crowd are just pissed because women can still choose NOT to stay pregnant and give birth. As Shovel said, too bad for you. Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required. Live with it.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1089 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. Inalienable because people’s rights can never be taken away. Indivisible and interdependent because all rights – political, civil, social, cultural and economic – are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others. They apply to all equally, and all have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. They are upheld by the rule of law and strengthened through legitimate claims for duty-bearers to be accountable to international standards.
...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, age, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
All female humans are women, your vile ageist bigotry will never alter that fact.
Even if we could all agree on a universal definition of human rights it would not eliminate the conflict between the woman's right to control over her own body and the (arguable) right to life of the fetus. Most pregnancies end naturally before birth (miscarriage). Why don't you nutjobs obsess over women whose health habits risk miscarriage? You are hypocrites. You recognize a woman has a right to control over her own body in all cases except your fundamentalist (and incorrect) belief that something magical happens at conception. Conception isn't magic. It happens hundreds of billions of times a day to members of millions of different species.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1090 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you nutjobs obsess over women whose health habits risk miscarriage?
They do. In fact, all personhood legislation so far proposed, has included language which would authorize the criminal investigation of every miscarriage reported, in an effort to charge women who miscarry with murder.

The so-called 'pro-life' movement is peopled with those who worship the fetus, resent women's procreative and sexual independence, and would prefer a return to the moral climate of 1654, when a good cow was considered more valuable than an infertile woman.

It has little if anything to do with 'life'.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1091 Apr 21, 2013
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>They do. In fact, all personhood legislation so far proposed, has included language which would authorize the criminal investigation of every miscarriage reported, in an effort to charge women who miscarry with murder.
The so-called 'pro-life' movement is peopled with those who worship the fetus, resent women's procreative and sexual independence, and would prefer a return to the moral climate of 1654, when a good cow was considered more valuable than an infertile woman.
It has little if anything to do with 'life'.
You are right; I remember seeing legislation to that effect. Scary. American taliban.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1092 Apr 21, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
If abortion ever became illegal in the U.S. again, women WOULD be forced to gestate if they couldn't go to countries where abortion was legal. That kind of nightmare scenario for women is exactly why the right to have an abortion remains legal.
You and the rest of the anti-choice crowd are just pissed because women can still choose NOT to stay pregnant and give birth. As Shovel said, too bad for you. Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required. Live with it.
No one can be forced to gestate, once a woman is pregnant gestation occurs spontaneously, and requires no action on anyone part. Killing anyone is optional and not required. You are insane.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1093 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we could all agree on a universal definition of human rights it would not eliminate the conflict between the woman's right to control over her own body and the (arguable) right to life of the fetus. Most pregnancies end naturally before birth (miscarriage). Why don't you nutjobs obsess over women whose health habits risk miscarriage? You are hypocrites. You recognize a woman has a right to control over her own body in all cases except your fundamentalist (and incorrect) belief that something magical happens at conception. Conception isn't magic. It happens hundreds of billions of times a day to members of millions of different species.
The right to life is not arguable. The universal principle of the right to life was established centuries ago, and is acknowledged by all enlightened societies.
I never said something magical happens at conception. Something biological happens at conception, a new life begains. You are insane.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.
International non-governmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights and FIDH monitor what they see as human rights issues around the world and promote their views on the subject. Human rights organizations have been said to "translate complex international issues into activities to be undertaken by concerned citizens in their own community". Human rights organizations frequently engage in lobbying and advocacy in an effort to convince the United Nations, supranational bodies and national governments to adopt their policies on human rights. Many human-rights organizations have observer status at the various UN bodies tasked with protecting human rights.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The right to life is the essential right that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1094 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>The right to life is not arguable..
Obviously it is, since in war, self defense and capital punishment we allow it.
zef wrote:
< The universal principle of the right to life was established centuries ago, and is acknowledged by all enlightened societies..
Then there are no enlightened societies because all societies allow for some circumstances where it is permitted to take a life.
zef wrote:
< .
I never said something magical happens at conception. Something biological happens at conception, a new life begains..
A new life does not begin; life is an ongoing process with various stages of development. What happens at conception is the formation of a clump of cells that, absent a serious genetic defect or other problem, is likely to mature into a distinct member of a particular species. So the only reason to treat conception as a special moment is implied religious beliefs about a unique 'soul'.
zef wrote:
< .
Every human being has the inherent right to life..
You may as well argue that every virus has an inherent right to life. Until born there are no rights conferred to the fetus.
zef wrote:
< . This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Key word is arbitrary.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1095 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously it is, since in war, self defense and capital punishment we allow it.
<quoted text>
Then there are no enlightened societies because all societies allow for some circumstances where it is permitted to take a life.
<quoted text>
A new life does not begin; life is an ongoing process with various stages of development. What happens at conception is the formation of a clump of cells that, absent a serious genetic defect or other problem, is likely to mature into a distinct member of a particular species. So the only reason to treat conception as a special moment is implied religious beliefs about a unique 'soul'.
<quoted text>
You may as well argue that every virus has an inherent right to life. Until born there are no rights conferred to the fetus.
<quoted text>
Key word is arbitrary.
You are a blithering idiot, and a vile ageist bigot. Nothing you say has any truth to it.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1096 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>You are a blithering idiot, and a vile ageist bigot. Nothing you say has any truth to it.
What a devastating rebuttal! How will I ever get over it........?

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#1097 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>You are a blithering idiot, and a vile ageist bigot. Nothing you say has any truth to it.
That is a vile lie, and nothing you've ever said has any truth to it.

(This assertion is every iota as valid as yours.)
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1098 Apr 21, 2013
Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/van-nostrands ...

Essentials of Human Embryology

http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Human-Embryo ...

Before we are born : essentials of embryology and birth defects

http://library.uthscsa.edu/2012/04/new-to-the ...

Human Embryology & Teratology

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/prod ...

Patten's Foundations of Embryology

http://www.abebooks.com/9780070099401/Pattens ...

Human Life Begins at Fertilization
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1099 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)........."Alt hough life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed....... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.".........
And there, embedded in your cut and paste, is repeated reference to life as an ongoing process with fertilization a simple point in the endless cycle of life and death. You just see what you want to see,
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1100 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
And there, embedded in your cut and paste, is repeated reference to life as an ongoing process with fertilization a simple point in the endless cycle of life and death. You just see what you want to see,
Life is an ongoing process, and fertilization is a simple point in the cycle of life and death. Fertilization being the beginning point of each cycle. Death being the ending point of each cycle. Endless cycles of life.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1101 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>Life is an ongoing process, and fertilization is a simple point in the cycle of life and death. Fertilization being the beginning point of each cycle. Death being the ending point of each cycle. Endless cycles of life.
Um, brain trust, if it is an ongoing cycle there isn't a beginning and end .......
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1102 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, brain trust, if it is an ongoing cycle there isn't a beginning and end .......
The Beginning and End of the Life Cycle
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 277, 2005
Abstract:
Medical decisions matter most when they concern the life and death of an individual patient. This is where disagreements between doctors, patients and patient's family are likely to come before the court. These issues are often deeply personal in nature, yet they also go beyond the personal to familial, societal, moral, ethical, legal and human rights concerns. This paper highlights some of the controversial recent English cases addressing the principle of sanctity of life versus autonomy, the right to life verse the right to die in three groups of individual: children, competent and vulnerable adults. It concludes that society and the law will continue to struggle with these problems, probably in greater intensity as advances in medical science and technology push its frontier.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1103 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
The Beginning and End of the Life Cycle
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 277, 2005
Abstract:
Medical decisions matter most when they concern the life and death of an individual patient. This is where disagreements between doctors, patients and patient's family are likely to come before the court. These issues are often deeply personal in nature, yet they also go beyond the personal to familial, societal, moral, ethical, legal and human rights concerns. This paper highlights some of the controversial recent English cases addressing the principle of sanctity of life versus autonomy, the right to life verse the right to die in three groups of individual: children, competent and vulnerable adults. It concludes that society and the law will continue to struggle with these problems, probably in greater intensity as advances in medical science and technology push its frontier.
Ummm, a title for a published opinion by retired british judge isn't a professional biological claim. How friggin dense are you?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1104 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, a title for a published opinion by retired british judge isn't a professional biological claim. How friggin dense are you?
Shouldn't you be asking, how dense is Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law. Since its her claim not mine.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#1105 Apr 21, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Shouldn't you be asking, how dense is Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law. Since its her claim not mine.
It isn't a biological claim you stupid f**k. It is the title of a legal article.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#1106 Apr 21, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't a biological claim you stupid f**k. It is the title of a legal article.
It a philosophical treatise, with regards to biological events, written by a university professor of law. It not a claim of any type.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 min John-K 313,996
News Columbus abortion clinic scrambling to stay open 4 hr BIzzyBee 85
News After setback, abortion foes keep pressing Cong... 10 hr Wall Street Lawsuit 103
News Marking Roe anniversary, abortion foes pin hope... 15 hr Choicerocks 34
I think my girlfriend had an abortion (Mar '08) 15 hr Choicerocks 42
News David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt charged in filmi... Apr 21 ffj 16
News Boehner: Shutdown will hurt anti-abortion right... (Sep '15) Apr 9 Love washington 18
More from around the web