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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
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!


What about women who shouldn't have children--like women who are severely diabetic who will die because of the stress that child bearing will but on their kidneys? Even if married, do you believe that they should never have sex even using contraception for fear of getting accidentally pregnant? Do you honestly believe that these women should live their entire lives without having sex? And if these women should accidently get pregnant because the contraception fails, do you think that they should carry to term, even though it will most definitely kill them in the process (and potentially the fetus also)..or is that just her punishment for not "keeping her legs closed"?

Sorry to set your bible on fire, but you are in the small minority of the world that only has sex for procreative purposes. And I'm not saying that it isn't your right--go live your life as you wish, but the majority of the world, thank goodness, doesn't only have sex for the purpose of making babies. I couldn't even imagine how bad the overpopulation problem would be if that was the case.

But rigid morals aside, there are valid reasons for keeping abortion legal. There are too many exceptions--medical reasons, rape, incest, severe birth defects--that make the need to terminate a pregnancy necessary. Yes, there are people that opt to terminate pregnancies for reasons that some may not deem valid, but it is not our place to dictate how another person should live their life. I'm sure that you would strongly object to rules that restricted your freedoms, like being told that you weren't allowed to have more than one child or weren't allowed to go to church. Being forced to bear children is the same deal--your solution to live your life without sex doesn't really cut it for most people.

But this aside, abortions need to be legal to everyone because otherwise, someone like a judge would decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't, and that just isn't a good idea. A woman shouldn't have to file a motion to determine whether or not she is worthy of terminating her pregnancy, especially in such a time-sensitive situation. It should be left up to the woman to decide what to do with her body.




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
... what should be done with or for the Soul who is affected?

... If the pregnancy COULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL, where does that Souls GO NOW, for experience and knowledge of cause-and-effect?

... The Soul sure as Hell doesn't GET THAT in the Subjective [Heaven]. And even in Middle Earth, so many miracles intervene, it's difficult to KNOW what a person can be responsible FOR.

... Legislation is not the answer. That is clear. And the churches [in and of Christianity] have defaulted and flee the decision, what to do when.

... Can you SEE, this is a problem that TRANSCENDS Dimensions?

... Maybe.




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc


But rigid morals aside, there are valid reasons for keeping abortion legal. There are too many exceptions--medical reasons, rape, incest, severe birth defects--that make the need to terminate a pregnancy necessary. Yes, there are people that opt to terminate pregnancies for reasons that some may not deem valid, but it is not our place to dictate how another person should live their life. I'm sure that you would strongly object to rules that restricted your freedoms, like being told that you weren't allowed to have more than one child or weren't allowed to go to church. Being forced to bear children is the same deal--your solution to live your life without sex doesn't really cut it for most people.




Well the reasons you state as being 'right' are only 20% of the cases, the rest are inconvenience and that does not justify murder.

We are humans and life deserves better than selfish behavior killing a child. Children are precious and many that can not have them would love to adopt them.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc

What about women who shouldn't have children--like women who are severely diabetic who will die because of the stress that child bearing will but on their kidneys? Even if married, do you believe that they should never have sex even using contraception for fear of getting accidentally pregnant? Do you honestly believe that these women should live their entire lives without having sex? And if these women should accidently get pregnant because the contraception fails, do you think that they should carry to term, even though it will most definitely kill them in the process (and potentially the fetus also)..or is that just her punishment for not "keeping her legs closed"?

Sorry to set your bible on fire, but you are in the small minority of the world that only has sex for procreative purposes. And I'm not saying that it isn't your right--go live your life as you wish, but the majority of the world, thank goodness, doesn't only have sex for the purpose of making babies. I couldn't even imagine how bad the overpopulation problem would be if that was the case.

But rigid morals aside, there are valid reasons for keeping abortion legal. There are too many exceptions--medical reasons, rape, incest, severe birth defects--that make the need to terminate a pregnancy necessary. Yes, there are people that opt to terminate pregnancies for reasons that some may not deem valid, but it is not our place to dictate how another person should live their life. I'm sure that you would strongly object to rules that restricted your freedoms, like being told that you weren't allowed to have more than one child or weren't allowed to go to church. Being forced to bear children is the same deal--your solution to live your life without sex doesn't really cut it for most people.

But this aside, abortions need to be legal to everyone because otherwise, someone like a judge would decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't, and that just isn't a good idea. A woman shouldn't have to file a motion to determine whether or not she is worthy of terminating her pregnancy, especially in such a time-sensitive situation. It should be left up to the woman to decide what to do with her body.


That was a good post. I too think abortion should be legal, for all of the bad situations you suggested. I cannot imagine the pain having a child concieved by rape would cause.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
My Granddaughter is pregnant right now and the baby is due Feb. 24th. Funny thing is we all think she is carrying a "baby" in her womb.

We have admired the ultra sound pictures of this little one. Because my granddaughter had some medical problems an ultrasound was done very early on in the pregnancy. The first ultrasound did not look much like a baby. That didn't fool us though we knew this was little Keegan Saunders.

The "baby" is healthy and the whole family has admired the second ultrasound picture of the "baby" in my granddaughters womb. Some of us even have the need to put our hand on her belly to feel the "baby" kicking and moving around.

Why are we all so sure we will soon have a "baby" in our family?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

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 responsibility, or, more likely, a cause of men's disinterest in responsibility.

Absent fathers are a serious problem too.


This is definitely a problem for men also. The man is the father of this child and should have a say in whether the child lives or dies. Men cannot ignore the responsibility just because the baby is not inside their body.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
]This is definitely a problem for men also. The man is the father of this child and should have a say in whether the child lives or dies. Men cannot ignore the responsibility just because the baby is not inside their body.


Should? Yes but the pro choisers would say that the father has NO opinion because it isn't his body in question. What a conundrum.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Mahree
]This is definitely a problem for men also. The man is the father of this child and should have a say in whether the child lives or dies. Men cannot ignore the responsibility just because the baby is not inside their body.


Should? Yes but the pro choisers would say that the father has NO opinion because it isn't his body in question. What a conundrum.


It isn't the mother's body that will die from an abortion, but it is the baby's body that will be destroyed.

Intrepid: Unfortunately at this time I am sorry to say you are right. It does create heartache for a man who has to stand by and see his baby aborted.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses

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



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?


I don't believe that you are looking at reality here. There is no way that one can guarantee that their child will not suffer during their lifetime.

We learn from living. We learn to love, to have responsibility and respect for others. We learn to be unselfish and to care for those in need. We grow in wisdom as we live.

It should not be my job to decide who lives or dies. A baby is a who.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
... And so, what would you like to say to the SEVENTY MILLION Americans who would have lived but have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade in the 1970s?

... Would you like to apologize to them, for the fact their experiences were truncated before they began?

... And you WONDER WHY America imports labor that the younger generation could and would have done--but no--it's Mexicans and Vietnamese and East Europeans who will inherit America from the older Generation--not Americans.

... That was another NWO gambit--to rob the middle class of their inheritances so the upper classes remain supreme? Oh.




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
If a man killed or threatened to kill anybody who took the mother of his unborn child to an abortion clinic, would he be successful in using the defence that he was defending his child?

(assuming that if the mother went alone he would just physically stop/restrain her)

If a man killed the doctor about to abort the man's unborn child, would he also be successful in using the defence that he was defending his child?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Amethyst,

In an attempt to deny my own ignorance I have found that the American Bioethics Advisory Commision has stated that,



scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is NOT a "potential" or a "possible" human being.

Source


so I offer you my humble apologies.


As to whether abortion is right or wrong, I feel we will just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

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

I see.. it's not really morality of abortion.. it's about punnisment based on the morality of women having sex. The term 'screwing aound' infers these women are doing it with everything that moves. Are they all sluts?

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!

Grey hair isn't serious.. and being tired is bearable and worth it as you say.. but there is a multitude of things that can go wrong. I'm glad that you and your son got through it okay. I'm pro-choice not pro-abotion. If a woman is advised to terminate she should be able to choose not to follow that advice without question.

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!

Considering I don't know the women in question I wouldn't be so judgemental as to call them selfish- judge not lest ye be judged.. you seem to be god fearing so I'm surprised you don't at least try and have some compassion and empathy rather than just condemning them. The things I'm talking about are things like mental illness.. which is not a minor thing.. and I believe couldn't be properly treated while she is pregnant with medication or shock therapy [however late term is a different situation].. and when I speak of autonomy I'm talking about a women [for example] trapped in domestic violence/poverty or rape pregnancies.. and before you say "BUT THATS RARE" I have to point out that that is a pro-life myth.. that happens to call all rape victims who get pregnant liars which I find deplorable. There is no way to know that statistic as only 15% [estimate] of rapes actually get reported.. and there is no biological reason for a woman not to concieve because of trauma.. otherwise any woman under huge amounts of stress wouldn't be able to get pregnant. An ovulating egg wouldn't just run away or shut down because 'that sperm is from a rapist'.. and the uterus lining wouldn't change. The only thing that would do that is her natural cycle and things like the pill.

The woman and the unborn child are equally valuable.

Except she is fully developed adult and it might be the size of a peanut with the same awareness.

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.

I know of two people in my RL who have twisted uteruses and their babies would be crushed if they were to be carried full term. I know another one that almost died because the pregnacy caused her blood pressure to get too high. Not everyone is perfect. A 12 yo for intance is not designed to give birth. In poorer countries there a huge problems with child brides who end up only giving birth to still born babies because their pelvises are too small. The stay in labour for about four days.. and end up being confined to live in tents because they smell bad because their rectums have been torn to shreds. I'm not a doctor but I'm positive there are many pregnancy related disorders and diseases.

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!

I am not comfortable with the idea of late term abortions either but they sometimes need to be done. An ultra-sound can't poick up some problems.. but I saw one case where the babies head had not developed a skull and had grown to the size of a basket ball.. too big for a C section [and obviously it was not going to live] ..and another where the baby's intestines and other major organs were forming on the exterior of it's 'stomach'. These types of things can't be fixed.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
And I know of a man whose daughter was born with a brain stem problem, was not supposed to live for 7 days let alone 3 years that she has. She does not have any conscience and yet the baby knows when the mother holds it. The Baby can not see, can not #, can not piss, can not cry, can not hear.............should have been aborted?

The parents would highly disagree, and they love their child and I presume that the child loves them in a roundabout way. How the child can 'know' the parent holds it is truly amazing.

Lets let God decide who lives and who dies and for what reason death is warranted. Look I could go along with the 3 main reasons for abortions, if we could stop the blatant birth control deaths, but it is all or nothing with the pro-death crowd. Margret Sangerism at its best.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
This is definitely a problem for men also. The man is the father of this child and should have a say in whether the child lives or dies. Men cannot ignore the responsibility just because the baby is not inside their body.


Problem is there are many women who are told to get abortions from would be fathers.. the very fact that the role of fathers is usually left out of this debate shows women are left with sole responsibilty. How many women are coerced? Alot. I rarely see anyone mention these 'evil' men that do the coersion that results in abortion though.. are they excempt from moral judgement?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:10 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?


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.


You plan to support all those starving babies, ed? You gonna support them and their moms from your paycheck? you gonna take care of em?

Thought so.

To correct your most incorrect "arguement" against abortion, plants can live without human care, so can animals, they can live independantly of us. Look outside your window. (provided you are not a total conservative, and havent poisoned your land to where nothing will grow).

You support death penalty and war, both stop human heartbeats. This is very hypocritical.

Take the death penalty. Its funny how conservatives support the state sanctioned death of a fully grown human. Yet reject a measure to prevent their birth in the first place. Shows what a bunch of control freak sadists conservatives are.

You are yet to make any logical sustainable argument against abortion. You have no working knowldge of the female body, do you? if you did, youd know a fetus is just that: a fetus. It is a collection of tissue that is a potential human, but not a human. Many times, a womans body will abort the fetus itself, and reabsorp the tissue for nutrients. because at that stage, its little mroe than a growth. Its not a life. Not by scientific standards.

And being a male, as far as Im concerned, abortion is none of your business, period. Since its not your body that has to carry the fetus for 9 months. Unless youre volunteering your body as a surrogate for aborted fetuses, I strongly suggest to you and your conservative pals to get into a cause that is your business.

A womans body is not.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You plan to support all those starving babies, ed? You gonna support them and their moms from your paycheck? you gonna take care of em?


I would think that with all the food we have in this nation and with the blessings that God has granted the United States we could afford to raise these children. If the parents do not want them, then let them be adopted and YES I would take some into my home and my wife and I have discussed it by we do not have the 30,000 dollars it takes. Not an incentive to take these children is it? So what the hell, they are a pain, even a parasite as someone called them, they deserve death right?


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfTo correct your most incorrect "arguement" against abortion, plants can live without human care, so can animals, they can live independantly of us. Look outside your window. (provided you are not a total conservative, and havent poisoned your land to where nothing will grow).


So when the baby is in your wifes womb and you feel the child jump at the sound of music....it is not a child or a human right?





Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfYou support death penalty and war, both stop human heartbeats. This is very hypocritical.



Oh hell no it is not. The death penalty is a RESULT of a crime and war is sometimes the necessity need to saves ones life and country and the possibility of raising children in the first place. 30 million Americans killed since Roe V Wade.....getting near Stalin numbers there aren't we?


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfTake the death penalty. Its funny how conservatives support the state sanctioned death of a fully grown human. Yet reject a measure to prevent their birth in the first place. Shows what a bunch of control freak sadists conservatives are.



Well you don't get the Death Penalty for just 'being' there. It is not the baby's fault that a sperm and an egg decided to hook up.


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfYou are yet to make any logical sustainable argument against abortion. You have no working knowldge of the female body, do you? if you did, youd know a fetus is just that: a fetus. It is a collection of tissue that is a potential human, but not a human. Many times, a womans body will abort the fetus itself, and reabsorp the tissue for nutrients. because at that stage, its little mroe than a growth. Its not a life. Not by scientific standards.



I have made plenty but can not register to one who does not value life. It is a fundamental difference in how some think of the world. I think there is a creator and that life begins at conception. You on the other hand do not and no one seems to answer my question as to why a mother can not kill her 3 year old if given the choice between boat payment and the child. I mean they can be so burdensome and why should the age make any difference. It is cold to kill an unborn child, and especially so because of irresponsibility for ones actions.


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfAnd being a male, as far as Im concerned, abortion is none of your business, period. Since its not your body that has to carry the fetus for 9 months. Unless youre volunteering your body as a surrogate for aborted fetuses, I strongly suggest to you and your conservative pals to get into a cause that is your business. A womans body is not.


Oh yes it is, it is not my business to get involved with a 7-11 robber when someone is going to get shot and killed. It is murder and legalized and sanctioned murder at that. You seemed filled with hate, how would you see it 20 years down the road if you finally realized that it is wrong and that as parents, you have deliberately killed your child. It is a MORAL issue and that is a fact.




Originally posted by riley
Problem is there are many women who are told to get abortions from would be fathers.. the very fact that the role of fathers is usually left out of this debate shows women are left with sole responsibilty. How many women are coerced? Alot. I rarely see anyone mention these 'evil' men that do the coersion that results in abortion though.. are they excempt from moral judgement?


Oh I will agree, these men are no different and yet they mainly do it for financial and public positioning reasons but it still does not make the killing right.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You plan to support all those starving babies, ed? You gonna support them and their moms from your paycheck? you gonna take care of em?


Evidentially we will. Welfare seems alive to me, my wife's mom lived on it for 20 years to raise those kids alone. It's certainly not easy, but I don't think it is no matter which way you go.

Thing is, is we are still required to pay the costs of the child for 18 years, even though they are "independent" and don't need us. We all know they can live with someone else, and sometimes they do. This isn't a hot and cold issue.


And being a male, as far as Im concerned, abortion is none of your business, period. Since its not your body that has to carry the fetus for 9 months. Unless youre volunteering your body as a surrogate for aborted fetuses, I strongly suggest to you and your conservative pals to get into a cause that is your business.

A womans body is not.


True, but by saying this you are releasing every man from financial obligation; unless by his own choice. If he is unable to make any choice in the matter, then he can not be responsible for the repercussions, because right now, there are options.

Science is a funny thing, it really only looks at thing from one perspective. Since we don't live as emotionless drones, I don't think science is the end all be all of discussion. The conditions of what is considered life will always change, but something else always tempers that logic.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Now this is something to ponder and Western nations wonder why they will soon be in the minority? This is sad as we are killing ourselves out deliberately.




Terminated preborns outnumber live births by 2-to-1

Abortion in Russia: No Big Deal
Created: 25.11.2004 17:46 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:46 MSK
Anna Arutunyan
The Moscow News


There may be no sex in Russia, so goes a Soviet urban legend. And somehow, with abortions outnumbering live births nearly 2 to 1, if youre a Russian woman and never had one, youre a statistical non-entity.

The women I spoke to stoic, intelligent matrons obviously with other things on their minds besides talking their husbands into using condoms took it for granted that they had friends whod chide them with Ive had thirty abortions already, whats the big deal? when they had to make that trip to the clinic.

And, according to one gynecologist who has been practicing for 45 years, there was certainly no reason to blanche when a girl told you that Id rather just have abortions than not have satisfying sex.

Western media like the Washington Post put Russia at number three for its abortion rate, just after Cuba and Romania. Conservative think tanks like the Rand Corporation are more blatant: Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world.




Abortion in Russia: No Big Deal



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Now this is something to ponder and Western nations wonder why they will soon be in the minority? This is sad as we are killing ourselves out deliberately.




What do you mean when you say Western Nations...? Do you mean people of European descent?

Regardless, population in the 'west' doesn't compare to population in the 'non'west', nor does European population to non-European population.

Both are already minorities.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join