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.

 

Abortion and why it's wrong

page: 28
45
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I've said my piece earlier in this thread. But I've read every post since. Clearly, no matter how logical, the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers. So to the latter group I pose this:

Let's say you get your way and abortions are outright banned. What do you have to say about the inevitable increase in crime, poverty, suicides, abused children, abused spouses, increased natal and maternal deaths, strain on the already over-capacity world population, increased amount of unpaid child support, increase in teenage pregnancies resulting in births, increase in single struggling mothers without support systems, increase in illegal and much more dangerous abortions, additional strain on the healthcare and welfare systems, increase in children born severely deformed/defective, increase in infant and child mortality? There would probably be even more negative long term results, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Do you have any thoughts on any of this? Or do you think is God going to magically prevent all that from happening because you 'saved the babies'?


......still waiting. Come on Pro-"Life"ers don't get all shy now. Lets see your side of the debate all the way through.


I would like to point out that I've read this entire thread, and HARDLY ANYONE is advocating a ban on abortion completely, and anyone that is, is being unreasonable.

Secondly, if I hear ONE MORE WOMAN SAY THAT MEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, I MAY GO POSTAL. We're all humans, we're talking about human life, anyone (man or woman) with any type of empathy and common sense understands EXACTLY what this issue is about and what the consequences are. It's simply one more example of sexism to think a man couldn't grasp exactly what is at stake. I value my life, just as I'm sure you value yours, and I'm not sure what I would do if I were in a woman's shoes, having to decide. That is why I'm Pro-Choice, but I will ALWAYS be Anti-Abortion, because of one simple fact, over 1.3 billion worldwide since 1980. That is a scary number, and shows a SCARY amount of irresponsibility. Birth control and counseling should be available to ANYONE that wants or needs it in this day and age, we should be better than that number.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xizd1
a reply to: ForteanOrg

You need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. I guess your convoluted thinking is holding you back. If you should care to read again I stated that this is my opinion and everyone is welcome to their own. I am free to define murder as I wish and your attempt to demean my opinions is revealing of how little thought you put into your posts. I take pride in the fact you find it ridiculous, that means I am on the right track. I laugh at your pitiful thoughts and the direction in which you attempt to guide them. lol


This post speaks for itself.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: EverydayInVAI'm Pro-Choice, but I will ALWAYS be Anti-Abortion


As long as you are not denying others the right to abortion - I will defend your rights too.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How about enabling a woman to have a hysterectomy at any age she chooses so some abortions would not be necessary? I was told by a doctor when I was 18, that I could not have any right to whether or not I wanted to have a child or not. Maybe this is a more peaceful resolution and everyone would be happy. And do not preach the pill. That did not work for me. Nor abstain from sex. (Don't want to elaborate further on why. )



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: EverydayInVAI'm Pro-Choice, but I will ALWAYS be Anti-Abortion


As long as you are not denying others the right to abortion - I will defend your rights too.


"Anti-abortion" usually refers to movement to criminilize it.

Rarely does someone refer to being anti abortion, "but only for themselves".


originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Secondly, if I hear ONE MORE WOMAN SAY THAT MEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, I MAY GO POSTAL. We're all humans, we're talking about human life, anyone (man or woman) with any type of empathy and common sense understands EXACTLY what this issue is about and what the consequences are.


"Having an opinion on the issue" probably isn't what they're talking about.

What they're talking about is probably "men (husband/boyfriend/father should have a (legal) say and be able to veto a womans decision".
edit on 12-7-2015 by igor_ats because: added



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I've said my piece earlier in this thread. But I've read every post since. Clearly, no matter how logical, the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers. So to the latter group I pose this:

Let's say you get your way and abortions are outright banned. What do you have to say about the inevitable increase in crime, poverty, suicides, abused children, abused spouses, increased natal and maternal deaths, strain on the already over-capacity world population, increased amount of unpaid child support, increase in teenage pregnancies resulting in births, increase in single struggling mothers without support systems, increase in illegal and much more dangerous abortions, additional strain on the healthcare and welfare systems, increase in children born severely deformed/defective, increase in infant and child mortality? There would probably be even more negative long term results, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Do you have any thoughts on any of this? Or do you think is God going to magically prevent all that from happening because you 'saved the babies'?


......still waiting. Come on Pro-"Life"ers don't get all shy now. Lets see your side of the debate all the way through.




Um, there was an entire thread devoted to this. Thanks.





the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers



Nice straw-man, but the only one framing an argument this way is you. I could easily say 'clearly, no matter how logical, the pro-murder crowd is never going to sway the 'human life is more important than fat ankles crowd.'

See how that works?

The argument presented is that every human life has a right to life.

Your rational stands for itself, and in my opinion it incredibly immoral, and frankly, evil.

Have a pleasant day.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats
Rarely does someone refer to being anti abortion, "but only for themselves".


Yep, that's exactly the problem.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

remember this:





No person is expected to follow an unloving, immoral demand of another. It sounds like you chose badly when you picked a husband and a church. Not much I can do about that.


if a women is gonna have to be in bed rest for the majority of the time that she is carrying the child and has other little ones that she knows no one else will take care of, wouldn't you be making and unloving, immoral demand on her if you forced to carry the baby?

if she was afraid that the pregnancy would pose an abnormal risk to herself, or an extreme amount of pain, wouldn't it also be?

if she had already found that the income that her husband earns doesn't provide the funds necessary to provide the additional costs for the medication her child needs to survive and knows that social service will say tough luck and has therefor taken a job, wouldn't it be if carrying the child full term would mean that the income she was earning would be lost and the money for the medication woudn't be there?

no, without a bunch of easy answers like gee ya mean she can't find someone to take care of the kids or she has no friends or gee that must be one crappy husband for spending time away from home earning a living!!!
who is in the best position to decide just when carrying the child is demanding too much from the child?
The mother and her doctors?
The legal system and courts?
The father?
or public opinion?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I believe Seamrog is of the Monty Python persuation. Every Sperm is Sacred!




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: fabledgoddess
How about enabling a woman to have a hysterectomy at any age she chooses so some abortions would not be necessary? I was told by a doctor when I was 18, that I could not have any right to whether or not I wanted to have a child or not. Maybe this is a more peaceful resolution and everyone would be happy. And do not preach the pill. That did not work for me. Nor abstain from sex. (Don't want to elaborate further on why. )


In my country both men and women may decide they don't want (any more) children and request sterilization. Mostly men do, as the procedure is less dangerous and simpler than it is for women. But in practice, most men that are sterilized are in a marriage or other enduring relationship, and they mostly do it because a) they like sex a lot b) their wives like sex a lot and c) they already have (the desired number of) children. It hence does not solve the problem of getting pregnant due to rape, one night stands etc.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
The argument presented is that every human life has a right to life.


Your definition of human life differs from mine. You seem to think that seamen and eggs are already human life. I don't. To me, human life at best starts after the 3rd month. Before that, we have merely potential, not human life.

If I decide not to sleep with a woman I deny potential to human life. You would not label that murder, would you? But had I slept with her, she might have gotten pregnant. She might have carried my child, which might have grown up to be a new Einstein (indeed, not a new Stalin, of course..).

So, by your definitions, do I commit a murder when I don't sleep with that woman?

If not, we seem to agree that it is merely the definition of "human life" that we don't agree on. You feel that a foetus already is a human being - I don't. So, WHY do you think a foetus is already a human being, regardless it has no sex yet, its brain is not working yet and it can't even breathe?

How do you define "human life" - what guides you?

edit on 12-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he breathes - not breaths.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
Nice straw-man, but the only one framing an argument this way is you.


Actually the position is quite accurate.

Pro-lifers want to make z/e/f's more important than women by granting them rights no born person has. The right to usurp bodily resources against anothers wishes. The idea behind this is simple. . . no born person has such rights despite being "human and alive", therefore z/e/f shouldn't either. Until pro-lifers understand this they will not understand why Roe has withstood 42+ years being legal despite legal efforts to undermine the provision of abortion.

So it's quite an accurate summation of the result of criminilizing abortion.

Pro-lifers try and skirt this in several ways:

1 - Responsibility argument. The woman had sex so tough luck, she's responsible.

The consequences of intercourse only benefited the fertilized egg by bringing it into existence, and fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no obligations of the actors can be derived from it. For example in IVF, do you think creating a dozen "innocent little babies" just so one could (maybe) eventually be born is justifiable?

Most abortions are early term, way before any "squatter rights" (viability) becomes an issue.

2 - The z/e/f is innocent.

The innocence of the third party does not make much difference. Courts have even upheld a person's right to defend via force or killing against the advances of an attacking somnabulist (sleepwalker).

You have the right to guard the integrity of your bodies using whatever means necessary even when that integrity is threatened by a non-sentient organism such as a fetus. Born humans have this right, pregnant women shouldn't be held to a double standard. Again, most abortions are early term, way before any "squatter rights" (viability) becomes an issue.

A pro-lifer may argue "why do you kill an unborn whose "crime" is to place in the womb of a woman by the woman’s herself??? That would be like me pushing you into the street to make you jaywalk and then shoot you b/c you broke the law."

Abortion is not per se the right to kill; it is the right to use the force necessary to prevent the infringement of a fundamental right. It is not that the fetus has committed some crime which deserves punishment. It is the justifiable use of force.

A person may come into my house under the mistaken belief, say due to mental illness, that my house is actually his. This person has not committed a crime, because he lacks the necessary mens rea. But that does not mean that I am not justified in using the force necessary to eject him from my house, because he is there without my consent. If this is the case with mere property rights, how much more is it the case when a more fundamental right - the right to one's own body - is involved. Our criminal law draws a further distinction: somnambules (to whom the attack/harm cannot even be imputed) vs. people with mental illness (to whom it is imputed, but excused). Yet self-defense is allowed against both.

---

In addition to above, when someone is responsible for creating a situation where another needs bodily resources to live, they cannot be required to give their own bodily resources to save a life.

People have no responsibility to another person to donate their organs or blood much less be their life support for nine months even if they caused the person the damage to the organ(s) or predicament. They might be thrown in jail or pay with their wallet, they don't "pay" for it by being forced to give up their organs or blood. A historical precedent that dates to 1900 in this country.

What responsibility do you attribute to IVF clinics which deliberately kill tens of thousands of "babies" no longer needed for fertilization? What have pro-lifers done to stop the "IVF holocaust"? - nothing (fact).



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

congratualtions, you've introduced me to monty python,
think this is the first time I've seen.
yep, every one is sacred,
until of course it's born in a country the US is mad at and it bombed to oblivion!



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: igor_ats

Excellent points, methinks.

What I dislike most about 'pro-life' folks is how they project a woman that has an abortion as at best "irresponsible" and at worst "a murderer". Now, of course, there are women that like to have sex with many men. But they are the least likely candidates for having an abortion.

In many cases, she was either raped, or her husband demanded his rights and she did not want or dared to say no. In other cases the anticonception did not work. Sometimes a young child, in love with a young boy, neither fully grown up yet nor aware of the consequences. In all cases, the woman has to face nine months of (more or less grave) misery and then at least 18 years of being responsible for the resulting child. A child that, in case of rape, has a small chance of being loved at all, not by his mother, not by itself.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Nothing else matter but this:


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Abortion is a personal choice between the woman who is pregnant and her god of choice. It may or may not include the father (I believe it should). Deciding on if it is wrong or not has no baring on whether or not the woman should legally be able to make the choice though. One can easily be pro-choice and anti-abortion, that's the whole appeal of CHOOSING.


We can all have opinions, but when a woman gets pregnant, it's her business and NO ONE else's. Period.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I'm honored that I could introduce you to something so classic for the first time! If you liked that one, you're going to love this one too!




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I wasn't in any relationship. I also had no children. There certainly was no want or even a thought in my mind of ever having a child. So to some who don't know....not every woman wants to give birth. I had to threaten a surgeon so that I could even get any kind of sterilization done. They tell you, that you CAN'T, be sterile until you have 3 kids. Are you kidding me? That doesn't leave many options. I have to laugh at the "just don't have sex comment", please...!

I do know of a young lady who shot herself in the stomach so that she wouldn't have her father's baby. I certainly cannot condemn her actions, she was only 12. I just have always had issue with this very topic due to events like this. And it happens more than most people know. Morals? What about justice?
Sometimes abortion is better than shooting yourself.
Women, just got some of those inalienable rights in the area of equality and choice or free will, men have had those rights forever.

edit on 12-7-2015 by fabledgoddess because: Added another comment



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: fabledgoddess

I have to laugh at the "just don't have sex comment", please...!



Of course, why not?

If a woman cannot be expected not to murder a child for convenience, why could one expect her to control her sexual urges either? Look around - it is EVERYWHERE. Women and men behave like rutting animals. Fornicate, conceive, abort, repeat! What fun!!!





Morals? What about justice?



Justice is, unfortunately - tragically - being cried out for.

And it will come.

We will receive exactly what we have demanded.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Nothing else matter but this:


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Abortion is a personal choice between the woman who is pregnant and her god of choice. It may or may not include the father (I believe it should). Deciding on if it is wrong or not has no baring on whether or not the woman should legally be able to make the choice though. One can easily be pro-choice and anti-abortion, that's the whole appeal of CHOOSING.


We can all have opinions, but when a woman gets pregnant, it's her business and NO ONE else's. Period.



HELL YEAH!!!

Especially not the child's!

Hey kid, STFU and take the scissors!

Your opinion doesn't F___G matter!!!



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

It's a shame the compassionate conservatives can't hear the cry of the living children who have actual mouths to cry out with, but can hear the cries of unborn fetuses who's mouths have not even formed yet.

and tell me, just how will you accomplish this "justice"?
and still keep injustices from happening to those women like I described in my previous post?




Look around - it is EVERYWHERE. Women and men behave like rutting animals. Fornicate, conceive, abort, repeat! What fun!!!


oh yes, all those women, aborting their babies, all are whores!!!

There once was a women who was betrothed to a man who was the son of a judge. The judge refused to allow the marriage between the two and the women found out that the man she was betrothed to was planning on marrying another. Now, keep in mind at this time in history, she could not marry another as long as she was betrothed to this man and although the judge was unwilling to allow the marriage to go forth, he was also unwillng to release her from betrothal! so well the women went to him, hiding her identity and he laid with her. She became pregnant and the news of her pregnancy reached the judge. The judge called her to his court, intent on having her stoned for adultery. The lady laid the staff she had stolen the night the baby was concieved and well all charges were dropped when many of the men recognized that the staff as the one who the judge proclaimed was lost!

This is really a pretty good illustration of the "justice" women have endured for centuries and still do today!
so well you could at least answer that one question, how do you propose that we ensure that some women aren't unduly burdened by an abortion ban and ensue their safety, the safety of the children that they care for?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join