It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Conversation About Abortion you need to read!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
A Coversation About Abortion

John Hawkins had a discussion with Dawn Olsen .......


John Hawkins: If you can convince me that life doesn't begin at conception -- then you have a good chance of changing my view on abortion.

Dawn: Conception is scientific - life is when an entity can support itself that is about 24 weeks after conception. That is a fact.


I would think it was a bit earlier myself, I mean the heart is beating is it not?


John Hawkins: A newborn baby can't support itself.

Dawn: Sorry, but its body can function without the mother's body. Nice try - got another?


So why did I get up in the middle of the night so many times?



John Hawkins: It has to be cared for constantly or it will die.

Dawn: So do plants - I kill them all the time.


Surprised?



John Hawkins: Try again on what? I just refuted what you said -- 'Life is when an entity can support itself' -- Babies can't support themselves.'

Dawn: Their bodies can live outside the womb. Prior to that they are a host, a parasite.


Well I would like to call them that sometimes
but WHAT? A parsite? What a bitch!




John Hawkins: Even if the baby can't live outside the womb -- why does that mean they are not alive? All humans go through that exact same phase.

Dawn: So what if all human go through the same phase, it is biological. I love children but that doesn't mean all pregnancies should be foisted on society. You have to look at the greater good - well loved and cared for children who are afforded every opportunity to grow and are nurtured help society - that is the strongest case for abortion I can think of.


So who makes the choice? Those that can afford to do these things, this is margaret sangerism at its best.

John Hawkins: Could you not make the same case for letting Andrea Yates go then? Obviously those kids were not going to be 'loved and cared' for as they should have been?

Dawn: That is entirely different - and a pointless argument. You are opening yourself up for a major smackdown.


Oh really? I see the logic in his question.



John Hawkins: "Well loved and cared for children who are afforded every opportunity to grow and are nurtured help society." That would not apply to Andrea Yates' or Susan Smith's kids and you used that as a reason to have an abortion. So why wouldn't it be a reason just to kill them?

Dawn: Those children were sentient beings long out side the womb, as soon as they were born they had rights and protection of the law to not be murdered. Biology was not a factor.


So why can a mother not abort her child at 13 years if she can no longer make her boat payments and therefore afford her child?



John Hawkins: Well I think inside or outside the womb is an arbitrary distinction -- all children have to go through a phase inside the womb.

Dawn: No, no - I said abortion should be legal and an option for individuals who society would be better off not having had as parents. It is far less painful for a non-entity that knows nothing of love and nurture to be discarded and wait for his or her "soul" to be presented again at a later time, than to be mistreated and forced to adapt in a world that is ill-equipped to deal with their life of maltreatment.


And how many Great Human Beings have been born under those exact circumstances?

John Hawkins: I can't say that I agree with that argument because you could use that same argument for countless people who are alive today -- prisoners -- orphans -- etc.

Dawn: Until men can bear children, they understand nothing of the complexities of the phases of pregnancy or the emotions of it.


See I saw that one comming!




John Hawkins: I understand that pregnancy is complex and emotional -- but when there is a human life at stake I don't think we can use that as an excuse to kill a child either -- I'm sure Andrea Yates was complex and emotional when she killed her kids.

Dawn: John - your Andrea Yates analogy is completely erroneous and you are aware of it - you should know better than to have an emotional debate on matters of legality.


He has her now! She just doesnt see it!



John Hawkins: I don't think so -- I don't see a lot of difference between Andrea Yates and the average woman who aborts her kids -- the kids would have been just as dead if she aborted them right?

Dawn: Our laws uphold the right to have an abortion - I feel that is the right thing to do up to the point where a fetus is viable outside the womb - anything beyond that - I am with you in spirit and belief. Andrea Yates does not have the right legally to hunt down her children methodically and murder them with her bare hands - everyone would agree that is legally wrong.


Legally wrong? what about morally?



John Hawkins: Right -- we've declared it legal for a mother to abort her baby -- but illegal to kill the baby after it's born -- the end result is the same however -- dead children.

Dawn: It is not a baby, use the right terminology.


Its not? Tell that to the mother and father who FEEL the kicking and the excitement that a baby in the womb feels!



John Hawkins: I would say it is, after conception -- it is a baby IMO.

Dawn: Not according to medical experts. You are talking about emotions and religion not fact and law.


Well I guess the law needs changed then doesnt it?



John Hawkins: There certainly is a legal difference between someone who has an abortion and Andrea Yates -- absolutely. But I'm arguing that morally -- there is no difference.

Spot on!


A Conversation About Abortion



[edit on 24-11-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If it really was as easy as all that, why would Republicans try to hide anti-abortion laws in budget bills?



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
If it really was as easy as all that, why would Republicans try to hide anti-abortion laws in budget bills?


Well because so many see nothing wrong with it!

It stops a human heartbeat ...period.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   


It stops a human heartbeat ...period.

If that is your argument you must also be against the death penalty and war, right?



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sterling46


It stops a human heartbeat ...period.

If that is your argument you must also be against the death penalty and war, right?


Well in a sense, why would a baby deserve the death penalty? As for war, I guess no war would be good but that is unrealistic with humans.

No I am Pro-Death Penalty (Note: Penalty)



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sterling46


It stops a human heartbeat ...period.

If that is your argument you must also be against the death penalty and war, right?


How awesomely said Sterling46.
dfh out.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   


I guess no war would be good but that is unrealistic with humans.

As is the situation with abortion.


How awesomely said Sterling46.


Thank you.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sterling46
If that is your argument you must also be against the death penalty and war, right?


LMAO!!
Too bad I already spent all my votes this month.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
New born babies do not employe cognition untill 6-9 months after birth, nor are they self-aware prior to birth; they are, in essence, just parasites attached to a host body.

There are currently 34-36 million Americans living in poverty; 1-8, and 1-4 for children. Why are the republicans not worried about them? 3 billion plus peoples live on this planet on a meager budget of 1 dollar a day, why are the republicans not worried about them?

Deep



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
So just what is your definition of poverty? In the US? In the world?

Now, the United States gives more money and food to the world than any other country..........what about that?


So because the child is born into poverty in the US means that it should be murdered?

I would argue that the poor in the United States has a totally different meaning that say the poor in India? Brazil? China? African nations?

See it is how you and I would define poverty. The poverty line in the US would be considered very rich in some countries.

But that is not what we are discussing here Deep, so you say that to kill the child is best for the child in the long run?

Here in the US many a rich person has started VERY poor. It is called opportunity, and it gets not better than the US.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So just what is your definition of poverty? In the US? In the world?

Now, the United States gives more money and food to the world than any other country..........what about that?



While technically true, the US donates a relatively small amount of foreign aid as a percentage of its GDP, when compared with countries.

In a nutshell, the US is the richest, so it gives more, but take a country like France for instance. It can't give as much as the US, but it gives more from it's GDP than the US does.

If someone has 100 bucks, and they give 20 to a charity, whereas I have 20 bucks and give ten, yes, technically the other person gave more. But which one is the most altruistic?

Plus, most of our foreign aid goes to US companies in foreign countries, so, the argument isn't as black and white or simplistic as 'we give the most'.

Just trying to be fair and balanced.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Well that is Government spending, privately I wonder how the US ranks?
But like Christ himself said, it is importance of what you give, not how much.

But as for what I can find.....Well yes I did,

go here and look at Norway!

www.foreignpolicy.com...








Seems France is lower than the US??



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
First off, are you sure the U.S. is the "leader in humanintarian" aid, or is it military aid ? Let's take a look at the sort of "AID"the United States Governments gives to it's woefull receivers. I hope, for both our sakes, that this is not the only type of aid serviced to poorer countries.

I never stated that those born into poverty should be killed, nor those babies "not" born should be either; poverished people should be given the "opportunity" afforded by others, through means of social welfare, and other programs.

The poverty line in America may be considered RICH on other countries, but, alas, it's not in America, hence it being called "poverty". These people still cannot afford thier basic needs, healthcare --45 million for that-- etc etc etc.

They are still poverished.

*for the record, I'am pro-choice*

Deep



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep


They are still poverished.

*for the record, I'am pro-choice*

Deep


I am not surprised at all..........For the record, I am pro-Life



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It is not the responsibility of the US Federal Government to concern itself every person to make sure they are getting their 3 squares a day outside of providing the opportunity to succeed.

Since they do not allow for a thriving economy, or at least a reasonable one, abortion is legal.

States decide the legality of people's actions (outside of a few), so it really should be a state issue.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The number one cause of death in the U.S. is Abortion. Does this say anything to you?

For a life to be labeled as parasitic is disgusting.

When I look at hard stats, I am amazed- "In 2001 1.31 Million abortions took place" (US)...

And, seems (to me) that about 95% of the reasons(stated below) for having an abortion are wrong, certainly not the babies fault.

stats from site quoted follow-


*25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
*21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
*14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
*12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
*10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
*7.9% of women want no (more) children.
*3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
*2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.


Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
-88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
-60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
-47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
-43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

Source womensissues.about.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Great Post lets look at the data,



Originally posted by Journey*25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.


334,050 Children killed because it just inst the right time to raise kids


Originally posted by Journey*21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.


279,030 Children killed because they can not afford kids and the other things that they want, which takes preference?


Originally posted by Journey*14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.


184,710 Children killed because they just are not convenient



Originally posted by Journey*12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)


159,820 Children killed because teens could keep their legs closed and wait to have sex or not smart enough to use protection


Originally posted by Journey*10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.


141,480 Children killed because the legs were open when the books should books should have been or the job is more important to make the payments and for what are these payments for?


Originally posted by Journey*7.9% of women want no (more) children.


103,490 Children killed because the kids they have now just don't need a brother or sister


Originally posted by Journey*3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.


43,230 (Now this one could be a legit reason maybe)


Originally posted by Journey*2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.


36,680 (Again maybe legit)

But as you can see, the reasons mainly are money (Boat or car payments etc , new house, vacation.......greed??

disgusting isnt it? Says wonders for our great society doesnt it?



[edit on 25-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sterling46


It stops a human heartbeat ...period.

If that is your argument you must also be against the death penalty and war, right?


Sorry, just had to jump in real quick. My computer's still broken, and I'm using my brothers so I can't get into a long debate. This argument that sterling made is completely irrelevant. Somebody is for the death penalty because somebody did something to deserve being put to death. DESERVE. When would an unborn baby deserve to be put to death!? That was an empty comment that was getting too much gratitude.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Nevermind.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by curme]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
i absolutely LOVE all the talk about murderers. i would love to see YOU in a situation with 2 children and a ZYGOTE inside you that was 88% positive going to kill you AND the fetus,leaving behind a family. walk in someone elses shoes and THEN judge!




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join