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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
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!


There's really no reason to take things personally. Your situation, or your proposed situation, is not quite the same.

But, also using your situation does not build a case to keep it across the board.




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
doesn't keep? read,really read what people are saying,not just this thread. there are many people on here grouping everyone into the "murderer" class,without fact,cases,anything to back it up. i put my case out there to show that there REALLY are people who need this service when it is medically necessary. i am very good at putting myself in others shoes and i am disgusted when someone makes an egotistical statement about an issue that affects more than themselves.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Journey

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



psychosgirl, there was a mention of medical situations, the position you defend. Of course, if it was a medical issue the situation is different.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
doesn't keep? read,really read what people are saying,not just this thread. there are many people on here grouping everyone into the "murderer" class,without fact,cases,anything to back it up. i put my case out there to show that there REALLY are people who need this service when it is medically necessary. i am very good at putting myself in others shoes and i am disgusted when someone makes an egotistical statement about an issue that affects more than themselves.


Nature of the beast really. The left classifies pro-rights advocates as Christians, conservatives, bigots, etc.

It really is the way it is around America. I have read almost my fill of things people say about abortion around here.

Trust me that us pro-life guys get beat around pretty good around here, numarically.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I'm just glad I'm a guy, and there isn't all of this fuss over my appendix!



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I'm just glad I'm a guy, and there isn't all of this fuss over my appendix!


(I'm glad too), but I don't think it really changes much in the abortion debate. I certainly think the removal of men's rights in abortion was either a result of men's disinterest in responcibilty, or, more likely, a cause of men's disinterest in responcibility.

Absent fathers are a serious problem too.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
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!


Well that is only ~20% of the cases,


what about the birth control cases? Are they then justified?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
What's with calling an unborn child a parasite?

A woman's body is DESIGNED to carry an unborn child. The child is SUPPOSED to be there. An unborn child rightfully making use of the mother's womb can't be compared to a parasite. The child is not an intruder.

A dog's body really isn't designed to cater to fleas. A woman's body is designed to be a place where a child can safely grow until he/she is ready for life outside the womb. The uterus isn't there for kicks and giggles--it has a purpose.

I an anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I believe that killing the INNOCENT is wrong.

I am a mother myself. My first child was miscarried. My second child will be 3 very soon. I considered neither one to be a parasite.

Personally I think of a parasite as someone who lives in his mother's basement instead of going out and getting a job--a freeloader.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
In the free world, I thought it was a persons right to do what they want with their bodies.

If you want to go and get a tattoo, or get some piercings or scarification or whatever, it's you're own personal choice. Really, if you wanted to cut you're right hand off who would stop you? Well abortion is the same thing.

Pro-Life want to sit around calling people murderers if they choose to abort. You can just picture them now, these evil women sitting and conspiring to kill the life that grows within them. Evil satanic bitches! Do you see how stupid that sounds?

If a person doesn't feel that they can provide the love or nurture or give their child 100%, let them abort. How many times have I heard people say, "Look at the way they are raising those children! Some people just shouldn't have kids."

Abortion is a personal choice, because while that child is attached by the umbilical chord it is a part of the mothers body. Without that connection the fetous will not survive, just as when you cut your hand off it would not survive. Women realise that these actions are irreversible and given the choice, most would cut off their hand.

What about the responsible ones? The people who have used contraception and still gotten pregnant. Should every person who doesn't want to fall pregnant take a vow of celibacy?

What about this then. A young woman seeks to terminate her pregnancy but is not permitted to do so. As she feels she can not give the child a proper upbringing she decides to terminate her own life. She fails in her attempt, so should she be now charged with attempted murder of a fetous?

There are enough unwaanted children in the world already. If the Pro-Life movement want to make a difference they should go and adopt some of these children. Guaranteed, they will say "Well it's not my problem. Why should I have to look after them!"



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
A child is not part of the mother's body. It has its own DNA, sometimes even a different blood type.

So while I was pregnant with my son, I was part male? I think not.

Does a car at the gas station with the nozzle in the gas tank make it part of the pump? Nope.

You can choose to do what you want with your body--so long as you don't harm someone else's body.

Yes, abortion is a choice, but it's a POOR CHOICE. Just because something is a "choice" doesn't automatically make it right or viable. There is a such thing as a bad choice, and abortion falls into that category. You have a choice whether to do right or wrong--but there are rewards/consequences to consider.

If abortion is so great, why do women who abort suffer afterwards? Why do they feel guilty? Because they KNOW they killed their children! And what's worse, the pro-abortion groups, who are supposed to be pro-woman (yeah RIGHT!), tell them they're not supposed to feel guilt or depressed! If it doesn't fit their agenda, they ain't listening!

Pro-woman. Yeah right. In that case, there's this bridge I'd like to sell....



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsychosesThere are enough unwaanted children in the world already. If the Pro-Life movement want to make a difference they should go and adopt some of these children. Guaranteed, they will say "Well it's not my problem. Why should I have to look after them!"


And here is where the argument falls apart, MANY people WANT to adopt children and cant becuase of the laws and the cost, so we IMPORT children.....



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Posted by Amethyst
A child is not part of the mother's body.


Thats like saying your intestines have nothing to do with your stomach!


Posted by Amethyst
Does a car at the gas station with the nozzle in the gas tank make it part of the pump? Nope.


When a man puts his nozzle in the womans tank and fills it with juice does he play a part in conception? Yep!!


Posted by Amethyst
It has its own DNA, sometimes even a different blood type.


I noticed you couldn't come up with a link to support your theory. Fetous with it's own DNA? Give me a break.

As far as "IT" goes, that individual lives with the Adams Family.


Posted by Amethyst
Just because something is a "choice" doesn't automatically make it right or viable.


Exactly. Better to have people forced into something without being able to make a choice, isn't it? Better to say that no matter what the circumstances, abortion is wrong. Nowhere did I say that abortion is great. If you read my post you would have understood that I feel women who make this desision don't take it lightly. Of course they feel bad about it, but what is better, the child to suffer a childhood and possible lifetime of misery, or nothing at all?

Amethyst, as a mother I know that you would never want your child to suffer. If the only way you could guarantee that your child would not suffer because of the circumstances you were in was to abort, what would your decision be?


Posted by Edsinger
And here is where the argument falls apart, MANY people WANT to adopt children and cant becuase of the laws and the cost, so we IMPORT children.....


Edsinger, I know that lots of people try to adopt children and they are caught up in the red tape that goes with it. They should be commended for what they are doing.

I was referring more to the vocal righteous mobs who condemn women without ever considering why these women are forced to even consider having to make this decision. To those people I say that sometimes it's easy to pass judgement on others, but if you want to start judging people, judge yourself. When you are perfect, only then interfere with what other people are doing.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Here's what we should do:

1. Make it earier to adopt. In mean, any two fertile idiots can legally create a child, so why should non-idiots have to jump through hoops to adopt one? Anyone (or two, or three, whatever) people of whatever sexual persuasion who are financially able and can demonstrate their committment should be allowed to adopt. Surely any loving home is better than any institution or being passed around to different foster carers.

2. Wipe out child poverty and abuse. Perhaps this could never be done 100%, but if we spent a tenth of what we're spending on Iraq, we could go a long way towards it.

3. When - and only when - the vast majority of existing children have loving homes and are free from poverty, hunger and abuse, we should readdress the issue of abortion.

4. In the meantime, we could compromise by reducing the legal abortion cutoff by several weeks

The final goal would be to do away with abortion except for serious medical situations. But first things first!



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Psychoses, at what point did my son stop "being part of my body"?

Answer: conception. I think you need to brush up on your biology. Children always have their own DNA at conception. At conception, it was determined that my child was a boy, with brown hair and brown eyes.

My mother-in-law has blood type O. My husband has A. So you're saying that while she was carrying him, she had two different blood types? You know how dangerous it is to mix O and A?

Besides, that's not a theory, it's a proven fact. And then you talk about choice, then start talking out of the other side of your mouth (or keyboard--haha) about how women are COERCED into making such a choice. Oxymoron anyone? If abortion isn't the greatest, then why be for it?

AbortionTV

[edit on 11/26/2004 by Amethyst]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Psychoses, at what point did my son stop "being part of my body"?

Answer: conception.

So I take it at this point you consider an adult woman's autonomy/life/health [mental and physical] expedable? At what point does an embryo become more valuable than a womans?

[edit on 26-11-2004 by riley]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Here is my position, plain, simple and clear.

I am opposed to all government policies that eventuate in death.

That includes death dealing so called laws, things away from common law, court decisions that grant a license to kill to anyone outside of immediate self defense, court decisions that deny the right of people to immediate self defense.

In this light you can conclude I am also against gun control, since it denies people self defense.

Outside of the death penalty, my positions are basically conservative.

Government is raw force, and far too often. If you think human rights consist of the right to kill people, you have the entire basis of any social structure upside down. If you think the natural order of things is confined to one moment in time, naming what is or is not human a criteria of decision, you are wrong. Babies are not just babies, they inevitably grow up to be "actual humans." They are "potential people," if your nihilism says they are not now people.

If you think torture is good anywhere, at any time, you are worse than the worst nihilist.

So there you go, the positions are clear, oppose laws eventuating in death.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
The final goal would be to do away with abortion except for serious medical situations. But first things first!


This would be a very good start. Right now over 75% of the abortions are done for birth control reasons and killing the child for these reasons is just plain wrong and we all know it.


Originally posted by AmethystPsychoses, at what point did my son stop "being part of my body"?

Answer: conception. I think you need to brush up on your biology. Children always have their own DNA at conception. At conception, it was determined that my child was a boy, with brown hair and brown eyes.


Correct, it is a separate entity at that point. A life of its own, true one that needs the mother to sustain this life, but separate nonetheless.



As a side note, lets grant that in cases of mothers life, the question becomes more difficult, but lets just address the "birth-control' reasons, but those that are pro-choice can not seperate this as then they know what the outcome will be.

If abortion for these reasons should be legal, then at what age should the law change? 12 years? 4 years? oh ok just the first 9 months? See, it makes no sense.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Amethyst
Psychoses, at what point did my son stop "being part of my body"?

Answer: conception.

So I take it at this point you consider an adult woman's autonomy/life/health [mental and physical] expedable? At what point does an embryo become more valuable than a womans?

[edit on 26-11-2004 by riley]


Autonomy. Riiggght. If a woman gets pregnant by screwing around, hey, you play, you pay.

The definition of "health" is pretty broad. Should I have aborted my son because I might get a gray hair (which I got a year later)? You know, I was tired my whole pregnancy and was diagnosed with gestational diabetes. But you know what? He is more than worth it!

Basically the reasons you state are SELFISH ones. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should keep her legs closed, 'cause contraceptives are not 100% effective!

The woman and the unborn child are equally valuable. It's a woman's choice whether or not to have sex. But if sex results in the conception of another human, it's a different ballgame. She has the moral obligation to carry that child to term. Considering that a woman's body was DESIGNED to carry an unborn child, I find it hard to believe that there are all these cases of pregnancy endangering the mother's life. The only one I can think of is ectopic pregnancy--the child has to come out. He or she will die, yes, but he or she would die if the tube burst and the mother died as a result.

Other than that, a good doctor would try to save both mother AND baby. Pregnancy complications in second/third trimester? You don't have to kill the child--just induce labor or do a C-section. The baby has to come out, but there's no good reason to kill him or her!



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This is what I do not understand about those who are pro-life...
They claim that the baby/zygote, is dependent on the mother to survive, so it is not actually a life. In fact it is not a life until it is born. What about a child that is 2 months from birth or two months removed from birth? Is there any difference present there? Well, the child is now outside of the mother's womb, but is it any less dependent on the mother? The answer is no. A child that is 7 months old is just as dependent on the mother as one that is 11 months old, but it is illegal to "kill" a born child and legal to kill an unborn one...
it just doesn't make sense to me. If abortion should be legal, than it should be legal to "abort" a child until it is no longer able to fully sustain itself away from the parents.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
"Destruction is never a Blessing; Life is not the problem." --Anonymous






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join