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.

 

What the Hell...Let's Chat Abortion!

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Its between a woman and her conscience ..... and nobody else's business.


That stands repeating.

A 'fetus' cannot survive on it's own and is therefore completely dependent on the mother. It is not a sufficient human being.

It is only life in the sense that a bateria or virus is life - but pro-lifers are not anti-anti-bacterial nor anti-anti-virial.

So the only argument is a cherry-picked religious one and has no place in a modern secular society.

If you don't want to have (or be party to) an abortion, you don't have to be - you have the freedom to make that choice. I assume you are very careful with your birth control method. But you cannot force your religious values onto others in a secular society.

Legal - medical abortions save lives. Women's lives.

Women will always seek abortions when a child is unwanted and making abortion illegal (or impossible for the poor to obtain) doesn't cut the number of abortions.

Easy access to birth control and abortion is about limiting the power of women.


Quite the contrary....it is BECAUSE the baby must feed from the mother that the intention to be self-sustaining is evidenced ..... this NEED to FEED to self-sustain defines LIFE.....a fetus could survive on its own in an artificial womb post-conception.

Once a lifeform is co-created via conception the final condition required to define life is the self-sustaining act of FEEDING....once something engages in this we have a lifeform...... using a plant paralell the circumstances surrounding how the seed ended up in the soil at the right time in the right place under all the right circumstances to germinate root and grow...are irrellevant to the existance of the plant as a lifeform.....for once it feeds it is self-sustaining by INTENTION....transplanting a germinated seed at any point and depriving it of its food is killing it.

Yes killing someone who simply doesnt have a name or birth certificate is between an individual and their conscience.

Sperm do not blindly fly around the world like lost snowflakes searching for eggs......and eggs arent the size of Mainsails scooping up anything they can find to become fertilised.It requires the INTENTIONS of 1 person and the physical intradictions and interactions of 2 people to co-create....we are responsible for how we project our intentions into the world expressed as our tangible actions....

If a life and death scenaio presented itself IMHO a mother has an over-riding right to survival which supercedes her intentions to support her willing or non-willing action of co-creation.

Am I interested in policing what women do with their bodies...nope....do I believe a co-creation has 2 equal partners with equal vested rights...yes....so this means I dont think society has a say...but i do believe the other co-creator has a say....which OVER-RULES THE COMFORT DESIRES OF THE WOMAN.....so unless it is a medical case of mother vs fetus.....ya gotta keep the lifeform alive....if both co-creators decide they wish to deprive the fetus of life....nothing is stopping them....but if one says yes to life the woman IMHO is OBLIGATED IN EVERY MANNER POSSIBLE to carry the baby full term or offer it a viable option....society doesnt obligate a woman to follow thru only a co-creators wishes can do this.

So...if a female co-creator wishes to abbrogate her interests in the lifeforms welfare but the male co-creator wishes the lifeforms needs to tended to....well the woman can either find a way to give the lifeform to the man by implanting it in him or by implanting it into an artificial womb......but she cannot murder and evacuate it.

If both co-creators decide to abbrogate their interests in supporting the needs of the lifeform....well they can agree to kill it together sharing every bit of the intentions like they did when they co-created it.




posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

then, every cell in your body could be defined a alive, since they can be cultured in pertri dishes..

and, we don't have the means to safely remove the embryo from the women without risking her health and life, and we don't at the present time have the artificial womb to care for it till it can sustain itself with the medical care we have available today!
so, not sure what your point is...



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Its between a woman and her conscience ..... and nobody else's business.


That stands repeating.

A 'fetus' cannot survive on it's own and is therefore completely dependent on the mother. It is not a sufficient human being.

It is only life in the sense that a bateria or virus is life - but pro-lifers are not anti-anti-bacterial nor anti-anti-virial.

So the only argument is a cherry-picked religious one and has no place in a modern secular society.

If you don't want to have (or be party to) an abortion, you don't have to be - you have the freedom to make that choice. I assume you are very careful with your birth control method. But you cannot force your religious values onto others in a secular society.

Legal - medical abortions save lives. Women's lives.

Women will always seek abortions when a child is unwanted and making abortion illegal (or impossible for the poor to obtain) doesn't cut the number of abortions.

Easy access to birth control and abortion is about limiting the power of women.


A "fetus" must be defined as alive or not.....and a "fetus" CAN survive without the mother...basic logic says if we can make test-tube babies we can support ANY STAGE OF LIFE BEYONE THE SPARK OF CONCEPTION......oh yes...that "fetus" can LIVE without its mother after she hs co-created it.


"A "festus" must be defined..." gibberish. It is alive but, as I stated, so are bacteria and insects and viruses and molds - where is the moral outrage of taking those lives? You say "for human benefit" and I respond "exactly"

"Basic Logic" tells us a "fetus" cannot live outside the mother - your idea of logic is irrational.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE


Its between a woman and her conscience ..... and nobody else's business.


That stands repeating.

A 'fetus' cannot survive on it's own and is therefore completely dependent on the mother. It is not a sufficient human being.

It is only life in the sense that a bateria or virus is life - but pro-lifers are not anti-anti-bacterial nor anti-anti-virial.

So the only argument is a cherry-picked religious one and has no place in a modern secular society.

If you don't want to have (or be party to) an abortion, you don't have to be - you have the freedom to make that choice. I assume you are very careful with your birth control method. But you cannot force your religious values onto others in a secular society.

Legal - medical abortions save lives. Women's lives.

Women will always seek abortions when a child is unwanted and making abortion illegal (or impossible for the poor to obtain) doesn't cut the number of abortions.

Easy access to birth control and abortion is about limiting the power of women.


A "fetus" must be defined as alive or not.....and a "fetus" CAN survive without the mother...basic logic says if we can make test-tube babies we can support ANY STAGE OF LIFE BEYONE THE SPARK OF CONCEPTION......oh yes...that "fetus" can LIVE without its mother after she hs co-created it.


"A "festus" must be defined..." gibberish. It is alive but, as I stated, so are bacteria and insects and viruses and molds - where is the moral outrage of taking those lives? You say "for human benefit" and I respond "exactly"

"Basic Logic" tells us a "fetus" cannot live outside the mother - your idea of logic is irrational.


I simply wish to define life so I can define death......as you stated it is alive......it has a template which develops it into a human therefore it is human from conception forward.Bacteria insects and viruses do NOT HAVE A HUMAN TEMPLATE directing them.They are alive but not human.No one but you is trying to apply morality to this equation.

Basic logic says if something is alive and thriving with intentional direction and you deprive it of this direction and the ability to live....you have KILLED IT.......you dont like the "Killed it" part do you ?...why?...so brave to talk the talk.....say it...say its ok to kill a human being if it is in your body....become as a god....make the claim that this is how you feel...stand up and be counted .

Please do NOT fall back on the rape victims or the people with illnesses or special circumstances.......because you are speaking from a free choice position....this means to me you are trying to pull together two completely different dynamics into one to benefit youir arguement......women who were FORCED to endure a conception they did not agree to be in a position to produce or women who were forced to accept a less than healthy conception or women who have dangerous health issues where carrying or giving birth could have a higher chance than normal of hurting them are not the same as the women who wish to have recreational sex resulting in conception and life instead of procreational sex and kill the evidence when they arent responsible with using birth control properly.

Proof of life is evidenced by the intent to feed oneself to continue LIFE......I said intent...not sucess.....if you change the environment so the feeding cannot happen YOU have made an intentional choice and action...some of us call it murder when you deprive a life of the things it needs to survive.

Sometimes people want to mix together a womans right to act in this world with some level of conscience or guilt or accountability or morality they wish to avoid dealing with....the intention precedes the action......and the consequence is the result of the action.......yes a woman or a man or a child can do anything they wish......there is no omnipotent guardian of the universe who will stop them.....and their morality is their own to define.......but none of this changes the definition of LIFE.....I cant give permission to kill a life or agreement that your body is only your own once a symbiotic lifeform has been created intentionally within it ....nope....if anyone is looking for some legal backing for such an action...its available to them somewhere..if anyone is looking for such legal backing too not feel guilty or wrong or immoral...well we define those things for ourselves.....but none of this changes the definition of life.

I just want to know the lines of division for future reference.....to me any discussion like this is simply a vetting process by which we can begin to learn about each others intentions.

What we think is more important than what we do ...intentions precede actions.

Ultimately a woman is in control of her own body and life....as everyone is....what she does defines her.....and this is why I simply wish to say post-conception is LIFE and if you KILL it,this is your choice,but you MUST ADMIT YOU HAVE KILLED IT,you cannot split hairs.......if you have the moxy to kill a life living in your womb you should have absolutely no problem stating such forthwith....if you do not wish to be judged for your actions then hop back on your Pink Unicorn and fly back to Never-Never Land.....lol....if you wish to build some legal machined definition of "life" to define if a fetus has rights or not....lol....go ahead you have the right to do so.

When you look at a skunk sideways you cannot see its stripes....its nice to see when people stand up and define themselves.

I think a woman like a man can do anything they choose....kill a lifeform or not kill a lifeform included...this is what I see every day......complete autonomy.....only an informal agreement to follow societal laws controls some behaviours.I have no moral judgement to offer or render....I have no right to that no power to do that.....I simply observe my world and co-exist/survive like everyone else.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

a tumor is alive also, and sometimes not at all life threatening, but you'd want that removed from you body if it becomes a bit uncomfortable or becomes so noticeable that people notice, wouldn't you??

I've carried three children, and they were quite close together. I spent the last months of my third pregnancy with pains shooting down my legs, unsure of my footing, with two children under the age of three years!! I had a doctor yelling at me not to lift anything, a husband who didn't want to stay home much... so of course, regardless of all, I had to pick up those kids! I swore to god that I would never go through that again, so ya, I would have aborted any other pregnancies. I had three kids already that were depending on me and couldn't risk not being able to walk, to be at my best when they needed me to!

you keep trying to pile guilt on the women, you seem to think you know everything you need to know about them. but you don't know crap! probably half the abortions in this country had just as much to do with the daddies reaction to the pregnancy. their "it's not mine, who else have you been with?" their well, you need to get rid of it, here's the money. their.... we just can't afford this! and then there's the impact the pregnancy would have on not just the women, but also the family. the job that she believes she will lose because of the pregnancy might be what is paying for the $100 inhaler that her child needs to breathe! or that child might have special needs that is already taking up too much of her time and stressing her out.

and let's look at the mindset of so many in this country at the moment...
before obamacare, the majority of insurance policies did not carry maternity care and women could pay up to $1000 for a rider. but, oh ya, why should a man have to have an insurance policy that covers maternity care, right? I mean they just get women pregnant, and that is cheap!!!
and here you are griping because women don't want to go nine months with something growing within them, draining them of their nutrients, increasing their weight to the point where, well... I had problems even walking!
and yet, I bet that is you had a deadbeat relative come into you home, eat your food, mess up your home... they'd be gone in no time! heck, maybe you are one of those who resent the few dollars that come out of your paycheck every week so that a child can have a meal or two a day!

mother are automatically deemed to be less valuable by employers... fathers on the other hand, are more valuable!
if mom finds that she needs a little help and gets it from the gov't... she's a deadbeat, lazy, ect.
and it seems that no one wants to be bothered in the least bit by the children playing in their own yard... they're too loud, their balls are thrown in our yard, and on and on...

abortion has never been a shame of just women.... it's been a shame on the whole society!



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: one4all

a tumor is alive also, and sometimes not at all life threatening, but you'd want that removed from you body if it becomes a bit uncomfortable or becomes so noticeable that people notice, wouldn't you??

I've carried three children, and they were quite close together. I spent the last months of my third pregnancy with pains shooting down my legs, unsure of my footing, with two children under the age of three years!! I had a doctor yelling at me not to lift anything, a husband who didn't want to stay home much... so of course, regardless of all, I had to pick up those kids! I swore to god that I would never go through that again, so ya, I would have aborted any other pregnancies. I had three kids already that were depending on me and couldn't risk not being able to walk, to be at my best when they needed me to!

you keep trying to pile guilt on the women, you seem to think you know everything you need to know about them. but you don't know crap! probably half the abortions in this country had just as much to do with the daddies reaction to the pregnancy. their "it's not mine, who else have you been with?" their well, you need to get rid of it, here's the money. their.... we just can't afford this! and then there's the impact the pregnancy would have on not just the women, but also the family. the job that she believes she will lose because of the pregnancy might be what is paying for the $100 inhaler that her child needs to breathe! or that child might have special needs that is already taking up too much of her time and stressing her out.

and let's look at the mindset of so many in this country at the moment...
before obamacare, the majority of insurance policies did not carry maternity care and women could pay up to $1000 for a rider. but, oh ya, why should a man have to have an insurance policy that covers maternity care, right? I mean they just get women pregnant, and that is cheap!!!
and here you are griping because women don't want to go nine months with something growing within them, draining them of their nutrients, increasing their weight to the point where, well... I had problems even walking!
and yet, I bet that is you had a deadbeat relative come into you home, eat your food, mess up your home... they'd be gone in no time! heck, maybe you are one of those who resent the few dollars that come out of your paycheck every week so that a child can have a meal or two a day!

mother are automatically deemed to be less valuable by employers... fathers on the other hand, are more valuable!
if mom finds that she needs a little help and gets it from the gov't... she's a deadbeat, lazy, ect.
and it seems that no one wants to be bothered in the least bit by the children playing in their own yard... they're too loud, their balls are thrown in our yard, and on and on...

abortion has never been a shame of just women.... it's been a shame on the whole society!




Why would you not AVOID another pregnancy instead of abort one considering your stated unbalanced situation?....its your body right?Pregnancy is not spontaneous...agreed..?

If your socio-economic situation is so bad that the nutrient losses associated with a normal pregancy would risk your health and life or that of a baby due to starvation of malnutrition.....one would thinkthat with things so bad the last thing you would expend energy on is procreation...so unless your Husband is levitating his seed around the house ....you shouldnt have anything to worry about....but it is your time and your dime.

Your story is heart rending and I wish you had not had to endure such abuse and such hardship....but in my world your case is not the norm......and IMHO in my society your case is not the norm......Women in my world are vastly more valuable as are children....I have heard about cases like yours and have had some family members find themselves very close to this type of dynamic......whatever your story is I also feel sorry that your life experience has led you to value a living fetus so little a sore right leg and a bad back would encourage you to kill it....but it is your body and your life.....and I offer and pass no judgement.You are a potential killer for reasons I would not be...but you are you and I am me as in nature it should be.

I pile no guilt...Is a Paternity test cheaper than an abortion?Dont parents know the cost of raising their own children and cant they count high enough to see they should possibly abstain from unprotected sex because they simply cannot afford it because of kids concieved beforehand ,so they need to find cheaper recreation.

I had a good friend who had children already and who had returned to school to better her kids lives concieved with a boyfriend she had no long term plans for or with.....she faced this dynamic with absolute bravery and steadfast surety......and by the way...I havent told women to have or not have abortions...I am not a judge or a god.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: one4all

I waited a few years to have my children, after around the age of thirty, under certain conditions, a doctor will advise a women to stop taking hormonal birth control... I was advised this after my first child. outside of sterilization, which is expensive, there really wasn't any good alternatives at the time, and well, those alternatives didn't work for me...

and, it was more than a sore leg and bad back, my first born was over nine lbs, my second was close to nine pounds, it was more like a displaced uterus I think. and it really want that that bothered me, it was the fact that I had a baby, along with a two year old that needed me, regardless of what the doctor said.

so, basically what you are saying is that we should have abstained from sex till I was sure that menopause had set in, am I right??
ya know, in many states refusing sex like that is a grounds for divorce?? ya know, I started a thread here on ats one time asking people if they felt doing so would be acceptable to them, and many said no, and that they thought it would be a reason for divorce. would you accept around 20 or so years sleeping in a separate bed away from your spouse? good birth control removes a lot of the risk of becoming pregnant, but there is always a risk. so, the best advice I can give people now is that unless they want a child, avoid the sex..... especially in the current political climate. not too many people take that suggestion seriously though.

and, by the way, I see a women who opts to end a pregnancy in the first few months because she is afraid that it will have a severe negative affect on her family as having less guilt that the people who are one these boards constantly beating war drums because they're afraid of the evil terrorists halfway around the world negatively affecting them and their families since there's a pretty good chance that it will negatively effect the women's family, if only financially.
what are the chances of any one person being affected by a terrorist? but what the heck, ya, drop a few more bombs on a few more villages, kill women, children, grandmas and grandpas... while your at it, leave their land polluted with toxins and radioactivity that will affect their children's children's children through the future generations.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

THANK YOU!!! -from a woman who have birth 2 months ago.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join