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 - there is only one question that matters

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I have been giving this a lot of thought lately, as I watch my now 2 year old daughter growing up.

I think less about her twin brother now than I did the first year after they were born, and how he struggled for 10 long days to survive after the surgery to correct his heart defect - the longest 10 days of my life. I never even got to hug him, only hold his tiny little hand and watch his little heart beating faster than I thought was possible while he was hooked into all these tubes and a hyperventilator (to try to help remove the excess CO2). They left his chest open after the surgery, so I literally was watching his heart beating.

I'm now 56 years old (yes, an old fart to have a 2 year old daughter), and I honestly never in my wildest dreams imagined being a father would feel the way it does.

I would like to try to change the nature of the abortion argument into one that seeks common ground, and where the one, single question - the only question that really matters - can be discussed rationally, without the emotional baggage that people who have been engaged in this debate for any length of time usually bring to the table. If I reach just one person, that would be more than good enough for me.

So, as for common ground, I hope everyone can agree that no one - in their right mind - would advocate that it is OK to kill a newborn child, or that such an act would be anything other than a horrible crime of murder.

Once there is agreement on this, it really should become crystal clear that the entire argument hinges on the answer to one, simple, question. It isn't a new question, we've all heard it before.

When does Life begin?

I honestly don't understand all of the rage surrounding this one little question, but in an attempt to get people who think they already know the answer to this question to give it a second thought, I would like to rephrase the question a little...

If you take a newborn child, and start stepping backwards in that child's life, one heartbeat at a time, at what point - at which heartbeat - does that small, tiny, helpless child become a blob of flesh that you can casually rip out of a woman's womb and discard like last weeks leftover ham?

No other question is of any consequence, and I think this very important point gets lost in the very heated arguments about abortion.

So when does 'life' begin? Some people believe it is the second after the baby is born and draws its first breath. I think that people who believe this ... have never witnessed an abortion.

I personally believe that the *potential* of the life is what is most important. I believe that, because in the vast majority of cases, a normal reasonably healthy woman who gets pregnant will have a normal healthy baby, the unborn baby should have the same protections under the law that the mother herself enjoys, and that the baby will enjoy the moment it is born.

But based on my rephrased question above, maybe the point in time that I can live with is when that tiny little heart starts beating. I was surprised to learn that this happens at just 18 days (less than 3 weeks) into the pregnancy, which is often before the woman even knows she is pregnant.

I'll be quiet now, and think about little John Alexander, what he might look like now, and how much he'd probably be fighting with his sister, while I'm on my way to pick her up from daycare.
edit on 6-2-2017 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

My only issue is the purely ethical question: If something has the potential to become viable, is it ethical to kill it?

I've taken a few ethics courses over the years, but I recall a specific example from one class. Say you're walking in the woods and come upon a lake. You see someone is drowning in the lake. If you choose not to help them, are you in any sense guilty of causing their death?

I guess if you'd say yes, then you'd consider abortions not covered by the Hyde Act to be murder? I fail to see the difference between walking away from an inevitable death and neglecting an inevitable life. Just my take.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Life begins at conception.

All that we are is conception -- conception doesn't end when you leave the womb.

edit:doesn't end in the womb or even when you leave the womb*
edit on 2/6/2017 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

"So, as for common ground, I hope everyone can agree that no one - in their right mind - would advocate that it is OK to kill a newborn child, or that such an act would be anything other than a horrible crime of murder."

NO, there is no common ground to start from. That's the problem. Search after-birth abortion and realize just how sick these people are. Universities are teaching that "abortion" up to the age of 5 can be justified and sell it as compassion.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

I agree, conception is when a baby starts to develop. (should go with out saying)

The pro abortionists want to change the word baby to fetus to distance the actual "procedure" that is being done.

This is a sticky issue, and not many pro abortion people can calmly discuss it.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'll go with the Jews. First unaided breath, just like it says in Genesis. That seems like a good dividing line.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

When does Life begin?



Life has neither beginning, nor ending.

That, according to Jesus.

According to Buddha, all is illusion, never-ending samsara, the wheel turning constantly, cause and effect at play.

You could say life starts when a man looks at a woman with desire, but that's just the start of the process for the opportunity for life to take form in the flesh.

You could argue that life starts when a man and woman actually lay together and copulate.

For this reason the Catholic Church forbids the use of contraceptives. Since that "prevents" the life from taking form in the flesh.

Or, you could argue that life begins when the sperm swims upstream and attaches itself to an egg. Some people define human life to start at conception. But, all that's happening for sure, is a bunch of biochemical reactions taking place really rapidly.

When does the soul enter the body? That's what some people think is the true start of "human life."

Nobody knows the answer to this question. Some say there's no soul (Buddhism), other's say it happens at the baby's first breath of "air" when it's born. Some think it happens somewhere between conception and birth. Who knows?

Traditionally, life begins when the baby is born and takes it's first grasp of air, and cries out "bahhhh".

That we know for sure is "human life."

Prior to that, it's all theory.

Science has made lots of advancement, and can watch the fetus growing in the womb with ultrasound, heart beating, etc..but the fetus is not breathing, so the critical "breath of life" according to the Book of Genesis, hasn't entered the featus yet.

It is possible to stimulate a pre-mature birth, and force the fetus out, continue the development in the lab, and thus prove that the kid need not go to full term, to have a successful human life. But, then, the fetus has still been forced to "take it's first breath". So, again, that's "human life."

What if you kill the fetus before it takes that first breath of air? Was it ever alive? Did the soul ever enter the body? How would we know?

Science doesn't even have a concept of "soul".

According to science, life is just a bunch of biochemical reactions, following the laws of physics and chemistry, creating the illusion of life, no different from a computer program running an Artificial Intelligence routine.

What is life?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Wow, this really isn't all that complicated.

Sperm meets egg. Baby is developing.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
the only question that matters is, is quality of life more important and more beneficial to the human race than quantity of life?

after the baby is born the pro lifers are suddenly nowhere to be found do they suddenly lose their concern for the babies life after it is born?

There are too many murdering thugs running around destroying other peoples quality of life just because someone thought it was so important for them to be born when in fact it would have been better for society and the thug if he had been aborted.

a 16 year old ghetto rat who wants to have an abortion isn`t suddenly going to become a good loving parent just because she is forced to give birth to the baby she doesn`t want.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
'Abortion - there is only one question that matters'

I disagree, there are plenty more questions that matters

The quality of life afforded to the child would be one......the last thing a single mother with a drug habit on welfare with 8 kids needs is another mouth to feed
edit on 6-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2017 by JD163 because: spelling



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
You will never get everyone to agree where life begins.
Maybe a compromise of 3 to 4 months as a cut off for abortions.

Adoptions need to made much easier as well.

Never going to happen.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JD163

Why does that mother have custody of her kids?
She should have lost them already.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

cause CPS is not perfect,...it happens..



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
dp
edit on 6-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JD163


Cps is certainly not perfect. You got that right.
I would think fixing the system would be easier than fixing the mothers.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JD163


Cps is certainly not perfect. You got that right.
I would think fixing the system would be easier than fixing the mothers.


I agree, but until that happens, I much rather that the 'extra' kid not exist, then to fight for survival under such conditions.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
the only question that matters is, is quality of life more important and more beneficial to the human race than quantity of life?

after the baby is born the pro lifers are suddenly nowhere to be found do they suddenly lose their concern for the babies life after it is born?

There are too many murdering thugs running around destroying other peoples quality of life just because someone thought it was so important for them to be born when in fact it would have been better for society and the thug if he had been aborted.

a 16 year old ghetto rat who wants to have an abortion isn`t suddenly going to become a good loving parent just because she is forced to give birth to the baby she doesn`t want.


Thats the reality that pro lifers don't want to talk about or accept. They like to tell you what todo but they take no responsibility for telling you what to do.

The government child care services are a mess and already broken. They can't even keep up with the un adopted children of today and the ones that become part of the system don't usually make out to well.

Why don't the churches do something better with their money and give up their tax exempt status and then charge their members more money to properly take care and love the children that are ALREADY in the system if they care so much? Oh right its alot easier to just preach.

I'm don't agree with late term pregnancy but certainly don't see an issue with the day after pills, contraceptives, or abortion within the first 8 weeks.

Heck I'm not even against mandatory contraceptives for people living of welfare. The non abortion stance is hypercritical and will only cause more issues versus fixing the bigger problem.



edit on 42228America/ChicagoMon, 06 Feb 2017 16:42:54 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I tend to over simplify this argument and say it all begins when you open your legs OR precautions are not taken to avoid a "unwanted" pregnancy...


If some stupid f#ck decides to go the whole hog and blast his load into a willing unit producer and they then end up with a bun in the oven, sorry guys but that was day one of sex ed when you was 11, fairly obvious where it will land you??!!!.....

To sound like a infomercial, if you are grown up enough to get to that point you are old enough to deal with the consequences, those consequences are a living breathing person...

Funny that if my brief time on earth, 30 odd years.. I have smashed the back doors in with more than a few women and how is it I have not come to the point where a abortion was even needed to be thought of???, oh yeah that's right my common sense pixie showed up and said "hey dick head, get a condom ready, maybe two if she is lucky!!!!!"....

Bingo problem solved...

Only time I had "the call" was when it was pre planned after that night on the bed room floor with my wife of 5 years....


RA



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: slider1982




if you are grown up enough to get to that point you are old enough to deal with the consequences, those consequences are a living breathing person...


True , but if you are old enough to tell people what to do you should also deal with those consequences.

So when you tell someone to not abort within the first 8 weeks, you should also man up and offer to take and raise that child as your own.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


How much responsibility should goverment have on raising somebody's kids?
Poor kids are on Medicaid so they get healthcare.
Parents get wic and other food stamp programs.
They get free lunch and book rental at school.
They get tax breaks from the Feds.
I mean really how much more help can anyone expect?




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join