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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

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??


Killing your kid who is already born is murder, an abortion is legal and not considered homicide under the law,...big difference.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:42 AM
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.

That is why I clarified 'in their right mind'... I have no interest in wasting time arguing with someone who is in favor of killing small children just because they are living in poverty, or in a bad family situation.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'll go with the Jews. First unaided breath, just like it says in Genesis. That seems like a good dividing line.

Link/citation please? No offense, but I'd rather not take your or anyone else's word on such a question.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'll go with the Jews. First unaided breath, just like it says in Genesis. That seems like a good dividing line.

Oh, one more point...

I'm not sure of the actual science, but I have found many references online that unborn babies (premature) lungs are filled with amniotic fluid, and that they make breathing motions. This suggests to me that they are in fact 'breathing', just not air, they breath the amniotic fluid the live in while in the womb.

But that is just a unbacked theory - maybe someone else here has more science on what exactly is happening?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:56 AM
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?

Please, lets leave the invective and hyperbole out of this.

Once a baby is born, they are no longer in danger of being LEGALLY murdered (of course, that doesn't stop the sickos who kill their own children after they are 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.

Really? Do you have an example?


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.

And you know this because...?

Ghetto rat? Wow, your humanity is really a shining example.

Seriously, who are you to judge anyone under such circumstances? I have heard many stories of how suddenly becoming young parents turned the lives of the parents around, when faced with the harsh reality of being responsible for a new, fragile life.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: JD163
'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

That was one, care to elaborate on the 'many others'?

But to address this one...

Have you never heard stories of how some young mothers life was turned around by the birth of her child?

Again - who are you - or anyone - to pre judge?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
You will never get everyone to agree where life begins.
Maybe a compromise of 3 to 4 months as a cut off for abortions.

Thanks, but I'll stick with my 'heart beat' line. That image is forever permanently burned into my brain.


Adoptions need to made much easier as well.

On this we agree wholeheartedly! I recall a line in one of Heinlein's novels - I think it was my favorite (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) - about a society where adopting a child was about the same as adopting a kitten. It really shouldn't be hard at all. Pretty much anywhere would be better than being a ward of the state.


Never going to happen.

After this last election, I'll never say never again...



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




You assume that any child not aborted would become an automatic ward of the state.


Never said that , however statistic indicate that they don't fair to well.




that presumes that the woman who bears the child would have no personal responsibility for that child.


Never said that, actually I said the opposite that they do have a personal responsibility for that child/fetus.

What I said was that if they chose to abort within a reasonable time frame and you tell them that they can't , then you should also bear the responsibility of the consequence, since you are dictating what they can and can't do. Responsibility works both ways.

Otherwise you are no moral or responsible as they are because you overlook the consequences of your decision and impact on that child after they are born.



You don't get to decide to kill your kids to avoid paying child support, so why would this be any different??

What? that is the least likely scenario ever.

However , if you are deciding for them and making that decision for them, you should also have to take responsibility for your actions and consequences and not just walk away.

Like I said both parties should bare the consequences for their actions.






edit on 14228America/ChicagoFri, 10 Feb 2017 09:14:29 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spruk
a reply to: bender151
For the record i'm pro-choice, i believe each person individually should make the right choice for their morality, religion or their own choice, but i do play devils advocate from time to time despite my personal views.

This is the main point of my post and question.

How to word this response...

Let's say that we were debating the question of allowing mothers to murder their children up to 30 days after they were born.

Would you still be 'pro choice'? After all, a mother should have the choice of not having to deal with a crying, pooping, peeing ball of flesh every day, right? It is her body and time after all, right?

See what I mean? The only question that matters is, where does that life begin? Because once it crosses that line, it ceases to be a question of choice.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
So, I'm at work and not supposed to be on here...oops. So I can't bring in sources as I'm being quick.


There have been births at just under 22 weeks where the child has survived (albeit with medical assistance) yet I believe that vast majority of the US (Not American but as another poster said, this usually seems to be where the debate centres around) have cut off limits over 22 weeks.

Maybe then a limit should at least be set at 21-22 weeks, the point where theoretically, the baby being aborted could actually live if removed from the mother. Is that potentially not the point at which life begins? The point at which, with help, the baby can survive outside of the mother.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your question is answered with varying beliefs. No one's beliefs reign supreme over others'.

So, the question you asked doesn't really matter at all.

Actually, while I would agree that different people believe differently, that doesn't negate the importance of the question at all, it in fact raises its importance as one we should all be striving to answer definitively.

I would also submit to you that peoples beliefs can and do change.

Consider how you might feel after a life of 'pro choice' activism, if you had some major event happen in your life that called this belief into question, and you changed your belief to life beginning at conception.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
On abortion, I'd say there are two questions. Is it legal and is it ethical.

Legal? I think we can all agree that there are times when an abortion is medically necessary. That being the case, it makes no sense to make abortions illegal.

Non-sequitur. Removing an unborn baby because failure to do so would kill the mother is not an abortion, it is a last resort, life saving procedure.


And, adhering to the 10th Amendment, if it's legal for some, it must be legal for all.


Eh? The 10th amendment is about States Rights. In fact, the only applicability of it here is Ron Pauls position - that abortion should not even be in the sphere of the federal governments consideration. It should be left to the States.

So, you must be referring to the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment, which is the only possible constitutional way that the federal government can insert itself into the equation.


If it's legal for the woman who may die in childbirth, it must be legal for the rape victim, the poor woman who can't afford another child, and the rich woman who doesn't want to ruin her figure.

Another non-sequitur.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: daryllyn
However, I believe legislation should be pro-choice.

Why? Because the same group that is known for advocating for going through with a pregnancy doesn't give a damn about a person after they are alive. Life is sacred, but ensuring someone has any quality of life after they are born doesn't matter? What the hell, people. NOT what Jesus taught.

Sorry, but reality doesn't support this position.

Churches and many pro life organizations are very active in helping find homes for unwanted children, and helping those in need.

Also, if government would get out of the business of 'helping people', and lower our taxes accordingly, charitable contributions would go through the roof and churches would be in an even better position to assist those in need.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: VegHead
It's more a partisan thing. Conservatives are usually against the type of welfare that guarantees that kids/people in general get the help they need for a decent standard of living. They think "Trickle down" and charity and the like should cover all instances, when it's just not realistic.

Statistics don't back you up.

If the government got out of the charity business, and reduced our taxes accordingly, charitable organizations and churches would have more than enough resources to take care of those in need.

And at a much better margin too. You do realize that of the money that is allocated for 'charitable' spending (this would of course include all government charity programs, like medicare, SS, food stamps, housing assistance, etc etc ad nauseum), 75+% is wasted on the bureaucracy, and less than 25% of each dollar actually is spent on helping people?


It's hypocrisy really. I'd be willing to bet money that plenty of pro-life people do not donate to orphanages, etc...

Depends on your definition of 'plenty' I guess.

But I would wager a large sum that far more pro choice people do not donate to any charity, than pro life people who do.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: AMPTAH

Wow, this really isn't all that complicated.

Sperm meets egg. Baby is developing.


How could two "dead" things, come together and create a living thing?

Exactly. Answer... they can't.

Both the egg and the sperm are living, and their union - that sometimes lasts more than 24 or even 48 hours - results in, ultimately, a living human being.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: daryllyn

I do believe in reducing abortions drastically, at a reasonable cost, though.

Taxes going towards vasectomies, hysterectomies, condoms, birth control, IUD's, in my opinion, would be worth it.

I would suggest that a condition for having an abortion is that the woman must consent to being permanently sterilized.

Anyone that cares so little for human life that they are willing to murder an innocent, unborn child, should have no right to have one later.

I would even say that this surgery would be provided at no cost to the recipient.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.

It is worth everything, thank you very much, and allow me to return the (((HUGS))) three fold!

I still have a picture of my son hooked up to all of those tubes, not sure why I keep it, because I can see him much more clearly than in that picture, as if he was right in front of me, by just closing my eyes and thinking about it.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:50 AM
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.

And doing so with respect to someone totally incapable, both physically and mentally, of defending themselves. The very definition of a coward.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParanoidCovKid
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.

I will admit that rape is a very special circumstance, but...

What I have noticed is that pro choicers try to just lump the case of rape in with all of the other, totally unrelated, extremely weak arguments. For a while I wasn't sure why, then I realized, it is simple - to try to lend more weight to those otherwise extremely weak arguments.

One penalty I would like to see enacted for rapists - if they aren't put to death, they are subjected to a lifetime debt to the mother and child, in the form of 'alimony' and child support payments, just as if they had been married to the woman and fathered the child then divorced, but with the difference being, the 'alimony' is for the life of the mother, and the child support is for the life of the child (goes directly to the child at age 18).

When you start making criminals financially responsible for their crimes, some will actually sit up and take notice.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JD163
'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

That was one, care to elaborate on the 'many others'?

But to address this one...

Have you never heard stories of how some young mothers life was turned around by the birth of her child?

Again - who are you - or anyone - to pre judge?


Nope, I don't need any other questions,...its up to the individual

Yup, sure, after 8 kids and a crack habit, 9 is the magic number that made her see the light...ffs

I ain't pre judging, I'm leaving the choice to the mother ...if she don't wanner be a mom, who are you or anyone to force her?
edit on 10-2-2017 by JD163 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join