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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
For starters?

A police report isn't enough?

Does she also have to prove that she wasn't in some way asking for it?


What is that supposed to mean? No means no, there is no "asking for it"...let me guess, you're a guy?




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gop627

Originally posted by parrhesia
For starters?

A police report isn't enough?

Does she also have to prove that she wasn't in some way asking for it?


What is that supposed to mean? No means no, there is no "asking for it"...let me guess, you're a guy?


I think Parrhesia was being sarcastic.

I think the main point being made is only 15% of rapes get reported.. and 15%/20% of those cases are convicted.. as there is so much trauma that goes with it as well.. there is not much insentive for a woman to bother reporting unless she gets hospitalised and encouraged to. Of course we have the drug rapes too.. where the woman's drink is spiked and she forgets the entire night.. well it might take a couple of days for her to recover and then it's too late to take the day after pill..
It'd be "I was raped.. I want an abortion."
"Who raped you?"
"I have no idea.. my drink was spiked"
.. yep. As soon as she says she was drinking it'd be assumed she got drunk and had a one night stand.
And as all women know.. if they get on the stand in a courtroom their sexual history is dragged up and they get to here about how slutty they are. A prolife judge.. whether she was raped or not would cast judgement on her sexual history and deny her an abortion purely to punnish her for being sexually active.

Oh and the old myth "But you couldn't be pregnant.. rape pregnancies are rare anyway" would immediately have her branded a liar anyway. This suggestion that abortion should only be available for women who can PROVE they've been raped is cruel and sadistic.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by gop627
What is that supposed to mean? No means no, there is no "asking for it"...let me guess, you're a guy?


No, I'm not a guy, and I was being sarcastic. Look at my signature.

What I was getting at was how hard it's made for a woman in court to prove that she was raped; as riley mentioned.. sexual history was brought up... It seems that if you're promiscuous that you can't have been raped, you must have asked for it
If you were dressing 'suggestively' is brought into it all.

As if she's not gone through enough already, she has to make her case that she didn't ask for it, that she was not somehow sexually inviting... As if no doesn't mean no, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

In so many cases the blame seems to lie on the woman, as if she deserved what she got.

What I'm also trying to get at are the standards for claiming rape as a means to abort a pregnancy, especially in court systems that still have sexist leanings.

It's Bullsh*t.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Look rape is one thing, but you still haven't answered why the 80% of the others are OK to kill kids.

If one is raped, then maybe it should be an option, but far and away abortion is performed as a means of convenience.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
here's a comment about what i read in this thread. someone mentioned that "they"(the unborn) are God's children. hmmmm....i was under the assumption that here,in america,we are free to not believe in God. therefore,why should those that don't believe in the christian God be subject to the rules of the christian bible?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
here's a comment about what i read in this thread. someone mentioned that "they"(the unborn) are God's children. hmmmm....i was under the assumption that here,in america,we are free to not believe in God. therefore,why should those that don't believe in the christian God be subject to the rules of the christian bible?


So why is murder illegal then? It is because we are all born with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong (certain exceptions et sociopaths)

Gods laws are the same when applied to non believers. It is still wrong to steal and to kill etc etc.

If you think it is OK to kill a fetus because it is not human....


members.aol.com...

One of the most amazing photographs that you'll ever see -- is this picture of Samuel, a 21 week old baby boy, whose tiny hand reaches out of the womb and grabs the finger of the surgeon who was operating on him, as if to say, "thanks doc, you did a wonderful job." It should be seen by the WHOLE WORLD.

It happened when Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, director of fetal diagnosis and treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performing a cutting edge procedure on a 21 week old fetus.Bruner and Samuel's parents hope the surgery will alleviate the effects of spina bifida, a disabling birth defect in one or two of every 1,000 babies born.



Nope spina bifida is bad stuff, lets kill it instead.............

Wrong, next we will abort retarded, downs, etc etc and keep building that perfect race wont we....


[edit on 30-11-2004 by Banshee]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ed, how many children have you had the priveledge of adopting? I'm curious since you seem to judge virtue so well.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamuhnEd, how many children have you had the priveledge of adopting? I'm curious since you seem to judge virtue so well.


If you would have read, I cant as of yet, I don't have the 30k it takes. But the wife and I intend to and will probably have to import a child as we can not afford all the 'native' ones.

Better question is who do I know that has? many and it keeps getting harder and harder to adopt kids. The ones that you can get are usually 'problem' children and that is what the wife and I might try to get. There is a shortage of adoptable children in the United States because we keep killing our own.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by JamuhnEd, how many children have you had the priveledge of adopting? I'm curious since you seem to judge virtue so well.

[none]


Interesting ed....Easy to say, much harder to do. Glad to see you practice what you preach so well. Jerry Falwell anyone?


Nox

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The only thing consistent I've noticed about people's definitions of "human" is that they were inconsistent.

The distinction between what is human and what isn't becomes extremely blurry once hypothetical discussions on human sentience are brought into the question.

I'm curious to know what some of you think about human sentience and whether it is or should be a requirement for being human?

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Nox]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Abortion and Breast Cancer?

Abortion and Breast Cancer Statistics

Dr. Janet Daling is a cancer researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington. Dr. Daling is self-described as 'pro-choice'. On 2 November 1994 Dr. Daling and fellow researchers published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (pp. 1584-1592) concerning induced abortion and breast cancer risk for premenopausal women. Some key findings:

1. Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
2. Women of age 30 and above who aborted a first pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
3. Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%.

The Journal of the National Medical Association is a publication by black medical professionals concerned with black health problems. In the December 1993 issue JNMA published the results of a Howard University study. Key finding:

Black women of age 50 and above who had at least 1 induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 370%.

Comment: I was worried when a few years ago a family member contracted breast cancer, some years after an abortion. Perhaps no one can really know for sure when it comes to statistics, and studies. Sometimes they are out to prove a point, and when well funded enough anything they want will fit a round peg in a square hole.

Nonetheless abortion is a national tragedy since it is actually a war the unborn, whether we want to think about it or not. The entire medical establishment is geared towards it, at least in the gynecology specialty. On another score there is the necessary abortion, when the life of the mother is actually in danger. That is a matter of self defense, but convenience due to economics is also in a curious way not necessarily an equal form of self defense, but there is a tinge of it. An economically successful country, where everyone really prospers, where people who want to work in what they like to do, is the real possibility. Self imagined power deprives others by way of some fixation that goes with illusory gains.

All of this abortion discussion amounts to another stage of a social structure whose emotional fuse is blown. There is no circuit breaker to turn some powers of the people back into service. Hard bought gains of workers were effectively overturned piece by piece. It used to be honorable for a woman to be a housewife, but now a man is weakened so it takes two working to achieve sometimes a lower standard of living than was the case with one person working.

I am sad to say but abortion goes with the greed of a few, just as wars go with the greed of a few. Why do we let these people have so much "power," you cannot even call it that. Real political power is making a better world, not making it worse by destroying "the common good," by lining fewer and fewer pockets with a power by now having only a bitter metal taste to it.

I think the family member I had who passed away, may still be alive with her child now, maybe that child would be in college by now. Maybe it is the courage to simply let things be whether anyone was responsible or not. Her guy was not responsible also, but what can anyone do after so many years. You can only hope that people have courage to have their children, regardless of whether society puts a quick fix of abortion in your face.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Interesting ed....Easy to say, much harder to do. Glad to see you practice what you preach so well. Jerry Falwell anyone?


What's with the judgment? I was under the impression your side thought we were the judgmental ones.

Hmm...


Anyway, I have adopted my son, and I am pro-life. One does not have to be in each individual situation in order to have an opinion about it.

Otherwise, you would have opinions on very little. So let's lay off each other.

Adoption is a great thing, and getting better. Why demonize a good thing to make a point? Perhaps you do not, but there are enough that say "adoption" with seeming contempt or distain as an unsuitable option.

In any case, having a pro-life (by law) America is not making Christian values apply to the whole. It can be, but it likewise does not make it unavoidable.

There is no legislation saying that opinions that are influenced by religion is bad, and should be stricken from law. Rather that religion does not attempt to influence legal opinion.

Religion being the church, not its teachings. If the former was true, then we would have allowed quite a number of things that are illegal today. Not to mention that it's an absurd idea in the first place.

There are many influences people have that help form their view of the world. Should we disallow liberal thinking because Johnny No Name picked up those ideas in college?

No, and that's a ridiculous argument.

Also, please do NOT use Jerry as an example of the whole. Blanket statements (especially when used contemptuously) are the bane of denying ignorance.

The point around here.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
What's with the judgment? I was under the impression your side thought we were the judgmental ones.

Hmm...


Anyway, I have adopted my son, and I am pro-life. One does not have to be in each individual situation in order to have an opinion about it.


First, Ironic inst it?


Second, I read what you posted yesterday and what you have done is awesome, and not easy but I bet once you made that commitment you would die for that child. It is part of being a parent with a sense of morality no matter the religion. How a parent can kill a child no matter the age is hard for me to comprehend.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
EDIT: I guess what you are trying to get at is that hard-core Christians/Jews are the only ones able to judge people.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Falwell's a hypocrite and I don't associate myself with him or any of his ilk.

Still, there is a such thing as absolute truth. Either something is wrong or it isn't. No gray area.

Abortion is murder and therefore wrong.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

First, Ironic inst it?


Yes, it is honestly.



Second, I read what you posted yesterday and what you have done is awesome, and not easy but I bet once you made that commitment you would die for that child. It is part of being a parent with a sense of morality no matter the religion. How a parent can kill a child no matter the age is hard for me to comprehend.


Well, I appreciate that. There isn't a lot of "thank you's" in what I, and others, have done.

I would die for my son, and I told my wife that his biological father was nothing but a sperm donor, because that's how I see him. I'm daddy now.



[edit on 29-11-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
It's easy for hard-core christians to say that morality isn't relative. But, to many in the world, it is in part. It may be easy for you to declare those who practice abortion to be sinners, as well as others who take condemning abortion-practitioners so lightly. But, with an issue such as abortion, there are many issues to be thought over.

While it's taken our current law system over 2000 years to evolve, many believe the quick fix is to legislate morality through their own interpretation of religious documents. We see where this has led right on through Falwell himself.

Though I usually don't feel the need to explain myself, at times I do when I perceive that people, such as you in the instance, are blatantly wrong.

I was driving at ed's ease at declaring people sinners through an almost blind reflex, nothing to do with his opinion at all. He certainly acts very authoritative about this issue while not ever practicing his opinions. This is also why I alluded to a televangelist (a scandolous one at that) instead of a modest priest.

But, glad to see you have already picked a side for me.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
It's easy for hard-core Christians to say that morality isn't relative. But, to many in the world, it is in part. It may be easy for you to declare those who practice abortion to be sinners, as well as others who take condemning abortion-practitioners so lightly. But, with an issue such as abortion, there are many issues to be thought over.


I agree, there are many issues that need be thought over. But I am not what anyone would call a "hard-core Christian". Morality certainly has a set of variants, which are taken into account, but we should exhibit diligence to prevent those things that are wrong (even war) unless we are unable.

As for condemning the abortion practice is no light matter, for you or for us. We condemn the practice though (although admittedly, some condemn the people, and that is wrong as well).


While it's taken our current law system over 2000 years to evolve, many believe the quick fix is to legislate morality through their own interpretation of religious documents. We see where this has led right on through Falwell himself.


1) Arent you doing the same thing? You believe the solution is to maintain the status quo, by allowing something (that through your own interpretation of the universe and rights) think we should legislate (or keep legislated).
2) Pro-Life and Christianity are not the same group, although they do share quite a few members. There are many who are either Christian, or mild Christians that maintain objectivity in US Policy.


Though I usually don't feel the need to explain myself, at times I do when I perceive that people, such as you in the instance, are blatantly wrong.


Blatant is a rather strong word. Being that you are just as unsure as to what lies beyond death as we are, so let's try not to be so smug about what you think you know.


I was driving at ed's ease at declaring people sinners through an almost blind reflex, nothing to do with his opinion at all. He certainly acts very authoritative about this issue while not ever practicing his opinions. This is also why I alluded to a televangelist (a scandalous one at that) instead of a modest priest.


No one says that men are not evil. It's the entire point we make. The strength comes with what you do with that repercussion. Mistakes are not always moral or immoral.



But, glad to see you have already picked a side for me.


[edit on 29-11-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamuhnI was driving at ed's ease at declaring people sinners through an almost blind reflex, nothing to do with his opinion at all. He certainly acts very authoritative about this issue while not ever practicing his opinions. This is also why I alluded to a televangelist (a scandolous one at that) instead of a modest priest.
But, glad to see you have already picked a side for me.


We are all sinners and I don't have to prove it, even little ole me is.

Opinion? Well you can take it that way but in no way do I make myself seem to be better than anyone, I am just wiling to call sin sin.

What about Falwell? Are y'all sure you are not talking about Swaggart or Baker?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

As for condemning the abortion practice is no light matter, for you or for us. We condemn the practice though (although admittedly, some condemn the people, and that is wrong as well).


Once again, what side do you think I am on? The only reason I ever responded to this thread is because of all the judgement going on. Ed calling people murderers and such...


1) Arent you doing the same thing? You believe the solution is to maintain the status quo, by allowing something (that through your own interpretation of the universe and rights) think we should legislate (or keep legislated).
2) Pro-Life and Christianity are not the same group, although they do share quite a few members. There are many who are either Christian, or mild Christians that maintain objectivity in US Policy.


And...again...I'm not on any side Krazy
, that's my entire point. The question of whether abortion should be legal is purely philosophical, and I doubt there will ever be a solid answer to this question.

How do you define life? Does a fetus know it is alive, does ignorance count? Is the potential or actuality for life a definition? I'll spare the other questions to prevent the obvious answers.



Blatant is a rather strong word. Being that you are just as unsure as to what lies beyond death as we are, so let's try not to be so smug about what you think you know.


No, I was writing in reference to your poor judge of my intentions.


No one says that men are not evil. It's the entire point we make. The strength comes with what you do with that repercussion. Mistakes are not always moral or immoral.


Obviously, but hinting at abortioners being murderers is not the way to make a point IMO.


[edit on 29-11-2004 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join