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.

 

How can Abortion be considered the mother's choice, who asks the baby's opinion?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I am truely, deeply sorry for your loss and the torture you have to live with Ladyv. I could not imagine what it is like to feel the things you feel about it. 17 is a very difficult age for a girl anyhow, without the added stress of pregnancy and abortion. I have a 17 year old daughter who I worry about and pray for sooooo much. Life for her scares me. She has a good head on her shoulders, but she is very pretty and guys come on to her all of the time. They all seem to want the same thing from her and it saddens her to realize it.
Did your parents stand beside you to help you work through it? I hope so. I love my children so much and could not imagine anyone not loving their children enough to let them live. There is just too much in this great big world to experience. You have told me a good bit about your life and I'm sorry for the grief I've spilled on you on here. Forgive me please.




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
It's odd. It seems that abortion is a human right granted to women. They are permitted to kill their unborn babies. Yet, they're not allowed to take meth. They can't snort coke. They can't shoot heroin. They're not allowed to marry their cousin, brother or father. They're not allowd to marry their pet. They're not allowed to commit suicide.

Why are all of these things ok to restrict women, but they have the right via the constitution, it seems, to be able to have a doctory shove a needle into their childs brain and suck it out as they're being born? I have a hard time understanding why this is an apparent God given right while the other things it's acceptable for the government to restrict.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I have a hard time understanding why this is an apparent God given right while the other things it's acceptable for the government to restrict.


Because, not everyone believes in your God, wants your morals or your values. You get to run your life, but not anyone elses.

A woman simply should not have to carry a baby to term for 9 months, if she chooses not to. However, if the Government would voluntarily begin sterilizing men, then I'll kindly support the banning of abortion on a national scale.

Now, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. However, abortion is, and always will be, the law of the land, and that will never change.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735


Because, not everyone believes in your God, wants your morals or your values. You get to run your life, but not anyone elses.



Whoa...hold on there! I'm not Christian, I'm Wiccan.....it's not always about a god, but about the energy force, life, and how one feels about taking that force away from another......there is no reason today to get pregnant if you don't want to.....even if your young, birth control is readily available to all!



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   


However, abortion is, and always will be, the law of the land, and that will never change.


There has been much debate over the RVW decision. It will be overturned in the future I believe. You do not have to have my morals, or my GOD. I ask you though,,, where do you draw the line? Did the woman who killed her 5 children do it justifiably? If a woman does not wish to care for her born children she shouldn't have to according to what you just said.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I respect everyones opinion. I am a woman and I would like to question everyone who think that abortion is all right and think that it should be just the womans decision. Well let me ask you have you ever been driving done the road and saw those churches with the hundreds of crosses in the front yard for only a portion a aborted babies in a year. Just out of curiosity how would you feel to know that someone in your life that you so dearly love could n't be there because there mother decided they didn't want the responsiblity. Or in another case what if it was you that your mother decided they didn't care enough about you to not have you murdered. Because that is exaclty what that is in my opinion MURDER. And all those people who say we.. what if she was raped? Yes it is a horrible thing to even talk about, but think about it 1 in every 5 females get raped now if everyone of them got pregnant and everyone decided to abort there would go the world's population. There are plenty of people who can not have children that would love that baby the mother decided she did not want to that baby so much to the point that she would have it killed!



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Just for evryones knowledge I am deesw daughter I thought I was signed in on my name.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Why are all of these things ok to restrict women, but they have the right via the constitution, it seems, to be able to have a doctory shove a needle into their childs brain and suck it out as they're being born? I have a hard time understanding why this is an apparent God given right while the other things it's acceptable for the government to restrict.


It seems to me that the main thrust of most abortion opponents is the third trimester abortion...
I hate to be the barer of bad news but MOST pro-choice people aren't in favor of them either. I know I certainly am not. Personally I believe once the child is viable outside the womb (without the child having to live in a tank in th hospital for 6 months) you should not be able to abort.
Your opinion is valid and important but it seems most antiabortion arguements are based on religious conviction. Last I checked we lived under the rule of law laid forth in the constitution not from the bible. Making this a theological arguement undercuts the basis of the United States. This is not a Chirstian Theocracy (yet, though I bet alot of you wuold love to impose that on the country.)
I always find it funny that you argue out of one side of your mouth that we should follow moral biblical arguements to outlaw abortion then out the other side scream and hiss at the religious theocracies in the Middle East as being 'undemocratic.' You want to have you cake and eat it too.


[edit on 12-2-2005 by observer]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by observer
Personally I believe once the child is viable outside the womb (without the child having to live in a tank in th hospital for 6 months) you should not be able to abort.


A child born full term is not viable either without breast or bottle, the only differeance is, it is cared for inside off of the mother before birth, and cared for outside, by someone, after birth. Either way, it dies without care....



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Very very good point ladyv.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
......there is no reason today to get pregnant if you don't want to.....


Well no good reason. But accidents and rape happen.


even if your young, birth control is readily available to all!


This is really being reversed from when you and I came along I'm afraid.

Have you heard what they're doing with the "abstinece-only" brainwashing (I mean education)? The disinformation is staggering. No more "readily available" condoms either. Forget about school/government handouts. And hey, if you live in one of those little town's with one pharmacy... and he goes to your Church or knows your Dad. Nope. Most kids won't protect themselves in the crazed anti-liberated environment we're fostering, but they will eventually give in and have sex.

Texas Teens Increased Sex AFTER Abstinece Only Program


"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.

The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex.


Of course, Bush is dumping more tax dollars in the program this year. Is it any wonder we went from 30 year lows in abortion rates under Clinton immediately back up under Bush?

Here's the way I see it. Granted my thinking is based on the big picture and taking this whole society into context, but that's exactly what the religious right needs to do for a change. It's actually the people that hate the fact this society has abortions at all that are the one's contributing to them the most. Not pro-choice, pro-education, pro-welfare, pro-healthcare people. (Not directed at you Lady V)

You want less abortions?

Stop teaching about the evils of condoms and start teaching about the benefits. More unwanted pregnancies leads to more abortions. It's obvious.

Also stop poo-poo'ing efforts to extend healthcare to all Americans. Dumb bunnies. When 20 million of the poorest Americans fall through the saftey nets, what do you expect? Them to cough up for doctor visits, healthy monitoring, extended hospital stays, giving birth? Or $180 bucks for an abortion so they can get back to their minimum wage job and hand to mouth existence? The same can be said for being anti-union, anti-minimum wage increase, pro-welfare caps for number of children, pro-religion in government...it all contributes to higher abortion rates. All of it.

I realize they might like to wreck everything so bad and drive up the abortion rate so much, it becomes more palatable for moderates to consider banning them all. But at what cost?

Nobody likes abortion, though plenty of us do like freedom and choice and don't happen to share the zygote worshipping hang-ups of others.

But it's actually those of us able to see past our disdain with a little compassion for one of the most difficult decisions a free person will ever have to make that have the foresight to try and reduce that decision of free will. Certainly not the moral authoritarians trying to force the "right decision" while simultaneously backing the unfortunate into an optionless situation where abortion may be the only way out.

There will always be abortion. Always has been. Always will be. Even if it's outlawed it will continue with even more dire circumstances. There will be no heaven on earth. No perfect world. EVER.

So the religious right should really get it's heads out of it's ass and start helping reduce abortions with some relevant compassion for the people alive now instead of driving the abortion rate up the wall only worrying about potential people.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   


Is it any wonder we went from 30 year lows in abortion rates under Clinton immediately back up under Bush?


Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 7 times in his administration. Explain to me how then he was responsible for record lows on abortion.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



Is it any wonder we went from 30 year lows in abortion rates under Clinton immediately back up under Bush?


Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 7 times in his administration. Explain to me how then he was responsible for record lows on abortion.


I gave you a link to the authoritative CDC Abortion Surveillance of all abortions in America sicne they started tracking them. Want me to read it to you too? The most significant drops came in Clinton's second term in fact once his policies kicked in. Public BJ scandal and all. '98 to '00 were the lowest rates since CARTER. Is God getting through to yet about sharing the loaves and fishes? :shk:

Funding education, teaching about birth control, giving the poor a leg up, extending healthcare... all lead to less abortions. Look at the data.

It's about education, not dogma.

FlyersFan posted some story the other day about the horrors of the new BLACK GENOCIDE with a current peak of 3 out of 5 black preganancies resulting in termination. :shk: Is it any damn wonder under conservative economic policy?

After just 5 short years of Bush breaking down the seperation of Church of State, replacing sex education with Moonies in our schools, and assisting in the Christo-capitalist dialogue of denial that pervades our new religious right driven anti-people, anti-intellectual, anti-science society, frankly, I'm not suprised you're "shocked" at the actual data.

I haven't looked up so called PBA's yet, but there never were many. Like a few hundered a year I think mostly in dire medical need? But that little bit of information was irrelevant to the right's propaganda efforts to use a completely made up term of "partial birth" to edge more down the slippery slope against choice.

Whatever. But you're just going to have to deal with the data my friend. Less abortions under Clinton than Bush 41 or Reagan, and more now under Bush. Chew on that a while. Read the article too about the failure of Abstience Only programs in Texas.

We all want the same thing here. Less abortions, right? I'm telling you how.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Rant,,, it is not the governments responsibility to control our childrens decisions, to pass out condoms, or birth control. You talk about educating people, educate the parents. It is our responsibility to teach our children right and wrong not the schools, not the government. True though they mimic what they see everywhere. Anti-abortion should be tought at home. I say make abortion legal,,,, just make it illegal for anyone to perform one.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Rant,,, it is not the governments responsibility to control our childrens decisions, to pass out condoms, or birth control. You talk about educating people, educate the parents. It is our responsibility to teach our children right and wrong not the schools, not the government. True though they mimic what they see everywhere. Anti-abortion should be tought at home. I say make abortion legal,,,, just make it illegal for anyone to perform one.


You just backed yourself into an argumental corner. You say it it is not the job of the state to control our children's decisions, yet you want the state to remove choice from those same people.. Pick a side, you are either for freedom from government interference or you aren't.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by observer]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I have never said that the government should take away a womans rights. I say abortion is not the womans choice. I say the constitution cannot give the individual the right to commit murder. See I'm not riding the fence. I said make it illegal to perform one, it's the same as murdering someone, and the government states that murder is wrong.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



However, abortion is, and always will be, the law of the land, and that will never change.


There has been much debate over the RVW decision. It will be overturned in the future I believe. You do not have to have my morals, or my GOD. I ask you though,,, where do you draw the line? Did the woman who killed her 5 children do it justifiably? If a woman does not wish to care for her born children she shouldn't have to according to what you just said.


I hate to break it to you, but Roe will never be overturned. That's the big Republican myth. It will never happen. Dubya can't do it. Dubya won't do it.
Rhetoric aside, you've all been lied too. It's the political equal of "The Carrot and The Stick"

And, even if the great miracle occurs, Shiva should come down from the sky and make it come true, you still haven't outlawed abortion, you've simply reappealed the Supreme Court ruling, standardizing the legal right to have an an abortion anywhere in the country.

States like Mississippi, Utah, and Alabama may ban it, but the majority won't. And you would still need a majority of said states to pass a constitutional amendment banning it. So, even if several states pass their laws, then you'll witness a new brand of gentrification away from religious states, consolidating both power and population in the blue states.

So, a part of me half hopes you get away with, if only to cripple the conservative moment for the next several generations.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
even if your young, birth control is readily available to all!


I'll tell that to kids in South Dakota who are taught that condoms cause cancer, or some such nonsense. I see your point though.

I just think that Christians should help the 2 million children that go to bed hungry every night, instead of adding another 5 million more.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   


I just think that Christians should help the 2 million children that go to bed hungry every night, instead of adding another 5 million more.


I think you should leave Christians out of it, this is not just a Christian thing, it's a humanity thing. Aren't ya glad that your parents decided not to abort you?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

I think you should leave Christians out of it, this is not just a Christian thing, it's a humanity thing. Aren't ya glad that your parents decided not to abort you?


Oh, I think we should leave Christians right in the middle of it.

Oh, and yes, I'm glad my parents didn't abort me.

edited by observer

[edit on 13-2-2005 by observer]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join