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.

 

Adoption/Foster Care better than Abortion?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Only you can decide if your life was something worth spending time on and say if your mother made the right choice.

But for me if I was in a womb right now with what I know, I would want to be aborted.

A world population that is growing and sooner or later a habitat failure and mass starvation among humans will happen. Current World Population 7,363,370,

With perfected birth control number of abortions would reach zero and the 150000 would not need to be aborted but still not born.

Is quantity of number of human souls more important than the quality of life the human souls can experience?
Everyone will have to answer that question for themselves. The more human souls on the planet in contained area the more problems and competition for resources.

Is it a good thing to push number of human souls up while pushing number of animal souls down?

If humanity ever become a stable society that can live in co habitation with nature with a nice quality of life then I would not mind coming back in a couple of thousand years.
edit on 29-8-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique




Where does the child stand in this situation?


What child? A fertilized egg is not a child. An embryo is not a child and fetus is not a child. But never mind, "the child" never had a choice is being conceived and will never have a choice in whether or not to die.



That is a LOT of aborted babies.


Don't all aborted "babies" go to heaven? Aren't many, if not most, living human beings slated for Hell and eternal torture?

Anyway.....that number, a LOT of aborted babies, grows exponentially if you figure in the 50% of embryos that naturally and spontaneously aborted and all babies that will never be due to birth control like the IUD and The Pill!



edit on 29-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Dont we love living in a great world, where we are free to have an opinion on things that doesn't affect us.

Abortion is a legal medical process that is decided between a women and her doctor.

I am personally against abortion but i am never planning on getting one.

So could somebody explain to me why people need to force feed us there opinion on a subject that dose not affect them in any way?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I wouldn't even know where to begin on breaking down and disagreeing with your post.

Just because someone isn't yet formed into a conscious human being doesn't mean that they are not yet a living being.


edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Sorry, a "human" fetus is NOT a person. A person is someone who has been born, and has taken their "first breath" of life. The man in your picture has been born, and IS a person. The fetus in your picture is past the stage of viability and would only be aborted if it was catastrophically deformed or diseased and/or posing a risk to its mother's life.

I don't understand why Christians are so bent on forcing women to give birth to unwanted children who are most probably going to end up being tortured for eternity, by Satan, according to their own religion.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TechUnique

Sorry, a "human" fetus is NOT a person. A person is someone who has been born, and has taken their "first breath" of life. The man in your picture has been born, and IS a person. The fetus in your picture is past the stage of viability and would only be aborted if it was catastrophically deformed or diseased and/or posing a risk to its mother's life.

I don't understand why Christians are so bent on forcing women to give birth to unwanted children who are most probably going to end up being tortured for eternity, by Satan, according to their own religion.


Your comment is too ignorant to even begin to refute. A foetus IS a human life. It is the very core of human life which we all were at some point.

Without the foetal stage there would be no first breath.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Your sperm is human life too, but it isn't a person. There is nothing sacred about a fertilized egg. There is, however, something sacred about a woman's autonomy and her choice on whether or not she wants to carry a an accidental pregnancy to term.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

A woman's right to kill a baby is sacred but the babies life is not?

The way you can separate the two and decide which one is right, and that the other is not blows my mind. I can't even begin to imagine how your moral compass works.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

From your OP "As I said I'm not looking to start an argument or attack anyone for their beliefs."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Again, a fertilized egg is not a baby, an embryo is not a baby and a fetus is not a baby. A woman's egg doesn't stop being a part of her body when it is fertilized. She has every right to evict it from her body. I wonder where your own moral compass points, when you promote the concept of women's bodies as merely incubators for your seed, with no care or concern for her self determinism and autonomy.

Becoming a parent isn't a duty, it's a choice.......possibly the most selfish choice that any woman will make.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

On the other hand, I know several people including myself to a certain age, that would have prefered not to have born into life. I was born into a 'decent' life but many are not. Many suicides have this as a fundamental cause - there are many people who are not exceptional and are unable to make a decent life out of the horrors of their childhoold and turn to addiction of various kinds to cope. They are not productive members of society nor to they see any reason to be as 'god' condemned them to this life, in this time, in these circumstances.

Perhaps those 'aborted' fetuses did not want to be born. You can't assume that they were seeking this life. Personally I wouldn't want to live the life of: a child not wanted, or in a deformed body, or with mental handicaps, or addicted and have as my first experience of life withdrawal.

I applaud your optimism, and know some remarkable people who have overcome childhoods I have trouble even imagining but they are remarkable - not the average unwanted child.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Get your facts straight before you post some emotionally-based internet BS.

Dred Scott did NOT say that the negro wasn't a human being. It said he wasn't a CITIZEN.

Roe V Wade said the fetus is not a PERSON as regards the 14th amendment. The word "person" appears many times in the Constitution, and none of them has any possible pre-natal application. Citizens are BORN or Naturalized. Fetuses are neither.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

It does indeed seem you are attacking people for their beliefs... and I think that's the problem here... "belief"... as it almost always is with emotionally invested or religious people, you think your belief is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Well guess what, your belief is not fact and isn't my reality!

You argue from an emotional stance that is manipulative and turns a blind eye to reality. Your emotionally and ideologically founded one-sided argument of “… the aborted person could have grown up to be a wonderful and amazing person contributing a lot to society”… has the complete flip-side of “they could have grown up to be a psychotic serial killer”… so your argument holds no water… you are attributing your hopes and ideals to another person’s reality… did you ever think that maybe you could be wrong?

Also, your comment of “Just because someone can't talk yet, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a voice.”, leaves the open question of, who do you think you are to be that voice? What gives you the moral high-ground to completely ignore another living person’s voice? Obviously in this situation the only voice that matters is the pregnant woman’s… she gets to be the voice of the shared biology of the living foetus… during most of the pregnancy, two bodies are one, and it is more her body than the foetus’s… neither of them are your body, so stay out of it (unless asked).

What you’re essentially saying is “only if the woman agrees with me does she get to be the voice for the growing entity, if she disagrees with me, I get to take her voice away”… you’ve said that others are wrong in this thread, I think you’re wrong!

I believe that a foetus isn't living, or even vaguely a person until there is brain activity (which isn't until the second trimester at the earliest)... and even after that, before the child is born, the woman's life and self-determination takes absolute precedence. As long as there is a biologically symbiotic connection that is needed to sustain another beings life, the woman has total choice, and she shouldn't be victimised for any choice she makes, but loved and supported in any and all decisions, especially any very difficult decision she may need to make for whatever reason it may be.

Only once a being has reached viability are there any grounds for external pressures around what the woman decides to do with her body, and even then preference and compassion go to the woman… if it’s a choice between mother and child in late pregnancy, it is the woman’s choice of which survives… and if I had a voice in that situation, I would prefer my love to live rather than the potential child to be the survivor.

You can believe anything you want, which you are free to do, but I don't care about your beliefs, and I believe something totally different... so get out of my life and worry about your own.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
When I was a teenager in the early 90s I had a home tutor. We went on to become very close friends. He once said something to me I never forgot which was (regarding abortion,) "I feel like it's the worst thing you can do. But I still support a woman's right to choose."

While in my more aged and considered opinions I don't know if I conclude it's the worst thing a person can do (as usual, that depends on the situation and reasoning imho,) but I basically agree with that.

Would I personally prefer to see adoption and other methods used instead? Yes. But it isn't my call to make. It's theirs. And I'm not going to view them as somehow evil or wrong, because I'm not in their shoes and I don't know what that decision is like to make.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Seeing we have hundreds of thousands of unwanted kids who need help now and not getting it...
Imagine if you anti choice folk gad there way and forced women to carry every child?.
Is there enough foster oarents now? Nope.
How are you going to pay to look after 115,000 more unwanted kids everyday?.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I wonder how the op feels about gay couples adopting. Plenty of loving gay couples who could offer a child a home full of love. Just got s feeling the op and other loving Christians might have a problem with that. I could be wrong?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

My two gay uncles adopted two troubled kids and they have done great with them.
Both starting uni and theirs dads are very proud.
Im proud of my uncles.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TechUnique

Again, a fertilized egg is not a baby, an embryo is not a baby and a fetus is not a baby. A woman's egg doesn't stop being a part of her body when it is fertilized. She has every right to evict it from her body. I wonder where your own moral compass points, when you promote the concept of women's bodies as merely incubators for your seed, with no care or concern for her self determinism and autonomy.

Becoming a parent isn't a duty, it's a choice.......possibly the most selfish choice that any woman will make.



Nice deflection and straw man argument there. You're still wrong about a foetus not being a human life. It is by far the most pure and uncorrupted form of human life there is. It's only when people are born that they start going down into 'Not human' territory with bad morals.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: TechUnique

Get your facts straight before you post some emotionally-based internet BS.

Dred Scott did NOT say that the negro wasn't a human being. It said he wasn't a CITIZEN.

Roe V Wade said the fetus is not a PERSON as regards the 14th amendment. The word "person" appears many times in the Constitution, and none of them has any possible pre-natal application. Citizens are BORN or Naturalized. Fetuses are neither.


6 of one and half a dozen of the other. If you were a negro born in a country but not classed as citizen, therefore not deserving of any rights then it's tantamount to the same thing. We all know that there was a general consensus that black people weren't real human beings a while back.

The way you guys talk about fetuses is as if they don't even exist until they come out of the mother. Like they are some sort of mystical slime ball that is unidentifiable until the mother pops it out and then suddenly it springs into a human baby. But right up until before then it's not.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74 fair play to your uncles. Anyone who can provide a loving home for a child should be considered as adoptive parents. So many children grow up not being loved by anyone




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join