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: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

First, I am so very sorry for your loss! No pain in the world like losing a child, at any stage of life. Lost two very early to miscarriage, and twin grandsons, due to an incompetent doc and various issues, including early delivery. Know where you are right now. That pain, even when you think it's settled, can come back strong, without warning. So, (((HUGS))), for what that's worth.

As to your question, excellent point. I have sen very early ultrasound, 5-6 week stage, and seen the heart beating, so clearly, so early. And,, yes, that starts before most even realize they are pregnant. That's a life, a tiny little human being, deserving of protection. There is a reason pro-abortion people don't want an ultrasound requirement, because any pregnant woman seeing the truth would be far more likely to not go through with it. From the "mom" side of things, I can say, too, that you can feel that life, even early on, before movement is noticeable. I knew when something was wrong, too, the times that happened. I can't fathom choosing to do what I experienced, with no choice.

Hang in there. Weep with your wife, and remember that little one, and rest knowing he's in good hands.




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: KEACHI
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.


I wish you were wrong, but have had enough conversations to know that you are correct. Some of these people call a baby a "parasite", even, and worse. Some years back, I came across data that showed some tentative ties between the abortion industry and ancient Moloch worship, but the data vanished, as far as I can tell. Some days, hearing how some talk, I think they were on to something! There is a very real evil operating on that side.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
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.


Nonsense! Stating that, if someone becomes pregnant, they have a responsibility to allow the child to live, does NOT mean that someone else is then responsible for raising that child. Note, the issue here is personal responsibility. Theirs, not mine. That's like saying, "You can't tell a parent not to kill their six-year-old unless you want to raise that child yourself." Logic fail.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: daryllyn

Why is it awkward?

Your entitled to your feelings and thoughts, It is just what it is, my perspective is just different from yours, is all.

It is the human condition to have opinions and feelings on things, yet no experience with them. Only by interacting and listening to others can we truly get an understanding, even if it is only their understanding.

Again tho, everyone's experiences will vary, and mileage may differ, due to perception.

I've known a few adoptees who are bitter, and angry. I am not one of those.

I would wager many would rather have their chance, then to just be done away with.


You hit the nail on the head there - it's about YOUR decision to have a life, not that of your mother, who, thankfully, gave you that chance. No one has a perfect life, and claiming that it's "better" to not allow someone to live, than risk them having problems, is flat out ridiculous!

Hope you can find your mother. I'd bet she thinks about you, and did what she did to give you the best chance she could.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   


if someone becomes pregnant, they have a responsibility to allow the child to live.


Moral responsibility? Maybe, but morality is subjective,....legal responsibility? Not unless the woman chooses to take on that responsibility



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


What is nonsense and hypocritical is telling people they cant have abortions within a reasonable time frame say 8 weeks or even the day after pill and then walking away and acting like. the more moral and responsible one.

If you want to dictate others people's choices than step up to the plate and do the right thing and take care of that child and every child as your own. Eitherwise you are no more moral or responsible.


edit on 49228America/ChicagoMon, 06 Feb 2017 20:49:08 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.


No one said you have to like what other people do.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Well i know of a friend who was raped by a man and became pregnant because of the rape. She was traumatised and felt so dirty and depressed they didn't want to keep the child or have it grow in them. Circumstances like these i can totally relate and understand why she wanted and went through with the abortion.

People have their reasons for abortion and not all people believe that its wrong to get rid of a baby a specially when it is forced upon them by a very cruel and vile act such as rape. And don't be so fast to judge because until your raped and put in that situation you dont know if you would keep it or not.

Not only have you been violated and forced to have sex by a person but then to be judged by society and forced to keep a rapists baby is morally wrong to do to a person and very damaging for the persons psychological welfare.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151
This ethical dilemma doesn't apply without further discussion. IE can you swim, are you physically capable of delivering yourself and this person from danger without causing your own untimely demise, what will their quality of life be after you save them, did they even want to be saved in the first place? Who are we to push our individual morality onto someone else? Do we even treasure individuality anymore, does it fit into our social structures and frameworks?


Actually, it does, since I addressed those things in the quote you took out of context. I specifically stated in cases not supported by the Hyde Act, which include rape, incest, and cases where the mother's life is in danger. Not being from or in the USA, I can see how that might have slipped past you... but this topic is actually centered in the USA, so...
So, no... whether or not saving the person would include detrimental risk is irrelevant, as it would be similar to a birth putting the mother's life at risk. What would the quality of life be for the person? Seriously? that's not part of the equation. The question is whether the undeniable potential for viability is different than quantifiable evidence of it.
Treasuring individuality leads to treasuring individual morality, which leads to pushing. Both sides of every issue in the history of issues are guilty of this.

Again, to reiterate, my question is "Is the undeniable potential for viability any different than quantifiable evidence of it. If so, how?"



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

All that I can say is that I'm sorry for the loss of your son, for you, his mother, and for your daughter who will probably have a life-long feeling that something is missing from her life since they were twins.

As for the rest of the issue of abortion...I'm going to abstain from commenting, not because I necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but because I feel that the loss of your son is a better focus of my time.

Again, I'm sorry for your loss--I just can't imagine, and when I go home, I'll hug my 13-year-old and 3-year-old a little tighter tonight.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163





if someone becomes pregnant, they have a responsibility to allow the child to live.


Moral responsibility? Maybe, but morality is subjective,....legal responsibility? Not unless the woman chooses to take on that responsibility


I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Morals are not, as far as I am concerned, subjective. I hold to the standard that there is a clear right and wrong, for such issues.

If the woman doesn't want to be responsible for a child, then she needs to refrain from activities that can create a child. Most abortions are for convenience.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


What is nonsense and hypocritical is telling people they cant have abortions within a reasonable time frame say 8 weeks or even the day after pill and then walking away and acting like. the more moral and responsible one.

If you want to dictate others people's choices than step up to the plate and do the right thing and take care of that child and every child as your own. Eitherwise you are no more moral or responsible.



No offense intended, but that's a crock. Claiming that someone else should be responsible for a child created is just another way of passing off responsibility. The woman who chooses to have sex, and becomes pregnant, is the one responsible, along with the father. That's what personal responsibility means.

So, are you ready to care for all unwanted children in the world? No? Then, I suppose you want to legalize murdering them, too? How about the elderly? Ready to kill them off? The disabled? The poor? are YOU personally supporting them? While we are at it, are you willing to support every burglar, every armed robber? No? So, you want to legalize their actions, too?

That's your "logic".



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.


No one said you have to like what other people do.


It isn't about me "liking" what someone else does; it's about whether or not killing an innocent person is a reasonable method for birth control.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




Claiming that someone else should be responsible for a child created is just another way of passing off responsibility. The woman who chooses to have sex, and becomes pregnant, is the one responsible, along with the father. That's what personal responsibility means.


Agreed,

But the minute that you make the decision for them and force them to NOT have an early abortion , than you are no more moral nor more of a responsible adult by not concerning yourself with the well being of that child once its born and as it gets older.

The system can't handle what it has already.


edit on 41228America/ChicagoWed, 08 Feb 2017 09:41:06 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: JD163





if someone becomes pregnant, they have a responsibility to allow the child to live.


Moral responsibility? Maybe, but morality is subjective,....legal responsibility? Not unless the woman chooses to take on that responsibility


I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Morals are not, as far as I am concerned, subjective. I hold to the standard that there is a clear right and wrong, for such issues.

If the woman doesn't want to be responsible for a child, then she needs to refrain from activities that can create a child. Most abortions are for convenience.


Subjective as in, what is acceptable for someone, may not be for another, and nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another,...we should all just go by what the laws says....

A woman who does not want to be a mother is still entitled to having sex for pleasure,....not everyone is irresponsible, contraceptives are not perfect and accidents do happen. And for whatever reasons that woman chooses to have an abortion, she has already 'disowned' the child in her mind,....I shudder to think what kind of mother she would be if forced to be one.
edit on 8-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bender151

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151
This ethical dilemma doesn't apply without further discussion. IE can you swim, are you physically capable of delivering yourself and this person from danger without causing your own untimely demise, what will their quality of life be after you save them, did they even want to be saved in the first place? Who are we to push our individual morality onto someone else? Do we even treasure individuality anymore, does it fit into our social structures and frameworks?


Actually, it does, since I addressed those things in the quote you took out of context. I specifically stated in cases not supported by the Hyde Act, which include rape, incest, and cases where the mother's life is in danger. Not being from or in the USA, I can see how that might have slipped past you... but this topic is actually centered in the USA, so...
So, no... whether or not saving the person would include detrimental risk is irrelevant, as it would be similar to a birth putting the mother's life at risk. What would the quality of life be for the person? Seriously? that's not part of the equation. The question is whether the undeniable potential for viability is different than quantifiable evidence of it.
Treasuring individuality leads to treasuring individual morality, which leads to pushing. Both sides of every issue in the history of issues are guilty of this.

Again, to reiterate, my question is "Is the undeniable potential for viability any different than quantifiable evidence of it. If so, how?"



You misunderstand i should have created two posts. What i was getting at is its not that cut and dry. I took it as a concept (and probably incorrectly) of the pro-lifers vs pro-choicers, what we get on the news with the protests outside the clinics etc. The question on where life begins, which then en tales where does life end, when does it no longer matter?

You scenario is black and white - do you feel guilt for not saving someone else's life? - Again not black and white, there are so many wild cards in it. IF you take the concept down to the finest details and extreme, then anyone who convinces a woman to keep a child, and then in turn dies during child birth should feel guilty because of their death, because they where apart of creating that situation, or even more extreme are you accountable if the father commits suicide because he isnt mentally prepared for being an unexpected parent?

Unless i've taken everything out of context (which is entirely possible) I'm still not too sure how the black and white of it applies?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




Claiming that someone else should be responsible for a child created is just another way of passing off responsibility. The woman who chooses to have sex, and becomes pregnant, is the one responsible, along with the father. That's what personal responsibility means.


Agreed,

But the minute that you make the decision for them and force them to NOT have an early abortion , than you are no more moral nor more of a responsible adult by not concerning yourself with the well being of that child once its born and as it gets older.

The system can't handle what it has already.



You assume that any child not aborted would become an automatic ward of the state. Again, that presumes that the woman who bears the child would have no personal responsibility for that child. I state, plainly, the parents are responsible. You don't get to decide to kill your kids to avoid paying child support, so why would this be any different??



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163
Subjective as in, what is acceptable for someone, may not be for another, and nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another,...we should all just go by what the laws says....

A woman who does not want to be a mother is still entitled to having sex for pleasure,....not everyone is irresponsible, contraceptives are not perfect and accidents do happen. And for whatever reasons that woman chooses to have an abortion, she has already 'disowned' the child in her mind,....I shudder to think what kind of mother she would be if forced to be one.


If abortion was not legal, a lot of people would be a lot more careful. People aren't just getting abortions because their birth control failed; many are using abortion as a form of birth control.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: JD163
Subjective as in, what is acceptable for someone, may not be for another, and nobody has the right to impose their standard of morality on another,...we should all just go by what the laws says....

A woman who does not want to be a mother is still entitled to having sex for pleasure,....not everyone is irresponsible, contraceptives are not perfect and accidents do happen. And for whatever reasons that woman chooses to have an abortion, she has already 'disowned' the child in her mind,....I shudder to think what kind of mother she would be if forced to be one.


If abortion was not legal, a lot of people would be a lot more careful. People aren't just getting abortions because their birth control failed; many are using abortion as a form of birth control.


Maybe so, but my concern will always be on the fact that there will be accidents, and the child who is unwanted would be the one who suffers the most. And also consider the fact that there will be desperate young single mothers that would seek abortion the 'back ally way' endangering her own health and there is nothing stopping the rich from flying overseas and get it done. We may cut down the overall number of abortions if it was illegal, but the cost to society would be no less IMHO



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join