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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Heres the thing observer.
I am part of the solution. I give to charities which help unwed mothers find resources to assist them in raising thier children.
I also believe that the only stuation in which abortion should be legal is if the life of the mother is in direct, and dire danger.
In other words if not having one will, not might, will kill the mother.
As for abstinence I think abstinence should be taught as it is the only 100% fool proof way. I do agree that so called "safer sex" should be a part of any sex education program, however I dont feel enough emphasis is placed in "safer sex" programs on how many STD's condoms will not protect you against, or on the fact that condoms can and do fail.
The problem is IMHO, that sex has been degraded from a sacred expression of love and comiitment, to the equivalent of the local aerobics class. Casual, fun, a good workout, and no risk.
The solution is to use sex ed to actually educate our kids, And try and fght the popular meda's image of sex.
I also think that parents should be more involved in thier childrens lives. I dont care what you think, if your 14-15 year old son or daugther is havng sex you have failed as a parent.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
While I may take issue with some of your reply I thank you for that thought out answer mwm1331. This is what we need here. Not the typical screaming that goes along with these types of debates. Thoughtfulness and reflection lead to solutions. Let's see if we can keep this thread going in that direction.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   


Because most of the groups that activly lobby, protest, and commit violence are fundemental christian groups. Ralph Reed is a case in point.


Whereas most of the people for abortion are anti-Christian.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   


I would like someone to answer this for me.


Dude, first there is no need or abortion. Second, it starts at home. Teach our children abstinence, not safe sex, as well as teach them to take responsibility for their own actions. Stop passing the buck, pointing blame, and start taking responsibility for our own actions.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Good going mwm1331, good to see someone else on here with some sort of moral values for a change.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



I would like someone to answer this for me.


Dude, first there is no need or abortion. Second, it starts at home. Teach our children abstinence, not safe sex, as well as teach them to take responsibility for their own actions. Stop passing the buck, pointing blame, and start taking responsibility for our own actions.


Well, I guess you don't know much about human biology OR history. Teaching abstinence is a GOOD THING.. I never argued against that. I simply argued that also teaching children about safe sex just seems.. well... intelligent. Teens have sex, this is not a 20-21st centruy phenomenon, this is an ageless issue. Like I said in a previous post.. Puritan teens had LOTS of sex, and I bet ... actually I KNOW they "taught" abstinence. So if one of the most pious group off Christians ever still had a teen sex problem wouldn't it make sex in our overly sexed society to make make sure our kids are armed with something other than us telling them they will go to hell for having sex?
I am not "passing the buck" by asking questions am I? I would think that trying to come up with solutions is the exact opposite of pointing blame.

And pardon me for not being black and white in my morals. All this reading and thinking makes it difficult to fit everyone into the "evildoers and good guys" boxes.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Hmmm, okay.

1. Rape. In 1998, 333,000 sexual assaults and rapes were reported. Of those 333,000 only an estimated 25,000 resulted in pregnancy(1). Thus, in 1998 if you were raped, then you only had around a 7.5% chance of becoming pregnant. On the other hand, in 1998 there were an estimated 1,365,730 abortions done(2). Supposing every rape victim that became pregnant had an abortion, then rape victims made up 1.8% of all abortions in 1998. What does this mean to us? It's a bit obvious that most abortions are the result from reasoning that had nothing to do with rape. Now, let's put the rape issue officially at rest: Supposing you were raped, does that mean that you may kill? It's an ethical question, and as such it probably can not be given any objective answer. Granted, you may not want to keep the baby, but who would? According to a national survey, of 500,000 women who wished to adopt in 1995, 100,000 of those were registered to adopt children(3). Noting that 100,000 > 25,000 we can espy that the abortion of a child resulting from rape not only kills a possibility of a great child, but further hurts those just waiting for a child.

2. It's my body, I can do what I want. Supposedly in the US we have this thing that one do anything he or she wants unless it violates another person's right. Where do your rights end and another's being? That's tricky. Emotional abuse, for example, is not a physical taking away of rights, yet it is against the law(4). Do fetuses have rights? Well, let's see. Some American courts consider fetuses living persons and thus must have rights(5). In California abortion laws, 'viability' is considered a major factor with respect to fetsus being human beings(6). Yet, what will happen when sufficient science allows any embryo to be viable outside the womb? By implication, the progression of science will determine when fetuses become human in California.

3. Over population!. Let's take for granted that Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973(7). We can see by this graph that the birthrate from women (a good age for study) was decreasing even before Roe Vs. Wade, and started to increase again in the 1990's:
(8). We can also look at the quality of life with respect to STDs. Specifically, look at Gonorrhea:

In 1966, the US had a Gonorrhea rate of 181.9, and 25 years later the US Gonorrhea rate of 246.7. After 25 years of education, the rates for this disease mostly only increased until the late 90's (9).

Some food for thought,
Radardog






(1)seattletimes.nwsource.com...
(2)www.euthanasia.com...
(3)statistics.adoption.com...
(4)jeffcoweb.jeffco.k12.co.us...
(5)www.globetechnology.com...
(6)writ.news.findlaw.com...
(7)www.tourolaw.edu...
(8)www.ed.gov...
(9)www.cdc.gov...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
To the "observer" who made some great points, glad to see someone is thinking out there:

First of all, I am a sinner. My sins maybe greater than your own even. I will not elaborate but trust me as raised hell and hurt many people.

Second, the solution: It really is simple. There is a demand for infants. I propose the potential parents paying these young women for their time and suffering. Yeh, I know selling infants (what it really is) sounds bad but butchering sounds and is worse. Let the free market determine the price. Like any good liberterian a like capitalism. You all (y'all hensforth) thought I was Republican huh? Think about it, drug free, exceptionally nurished women will demand a higher price. Inspiration to those addicts to clean up. Right now it is nearly a 50 bil industry with adoptions both foriegn and domestic. Why not let these women who are not ready to have kids enjoy the windfall. If they choose to crank out babies, Like all you say, "It is her body". So her teeth fall out and her bones are brittle, she will be driving the BMW and living in a mansion. We can all kiss her...........



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I would like to address the aborton-rape issue.
I do understand why a woman who was raped would want to abort the child. I do understand that during that pregnancy, she wold be constantly reminded of the violation that she suufered. But what many fail to take into account IMHO, is the healing power of love. You see any womn who aborts a child due to rape is IMHO causing herself more pain by doing so. It is well known that many woman after beeing raped feel a sens of shame and gult, some even going so far as to believe it is ther own fault, What many don't seem to take nto account is the fact that allmost all women who have abortions feel a deep and abiding sense of shame and guilt as a result. Now how can compounding a womans shame at being raped whch is itrrational by causing her to also feel guilty for abortng the fetus help her?
On the other hand, should she decide not to abort, during the term of the pregnancy her natural maternal instcts and love for her child would IMHO help her to cope with the feelings of shame from the rape. Furthermore once she holds that child in her arms, that shame and guilt will quickly be supplanted by feelings of the greatest love any being can ever know. Yes it is a horrible thng to be raped, but just maybe by keeping that child, raising it to be a better man (if male) than the man who attcked and violated her she mangaes to turn the worst experience of her life into a source of deep and abiding love.
There is no pain so great that love can not cure it, and there is no greater love than that of a parent for its child.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
To the "observer" who made some great points, glad to see someone is thinking out there:

First of all, I am a sinner. My sins maybe greater than your own even. I will not elaborate but trust me as raised hell and hurt many people.

Second, the solution: It really is simple. There is a demand for infants. I propose the potential parents paying these young women for their time and suffering. Yeh, I know selling infants (what it really is) sounds bad but butchering sounds and is worse. Let the free market determine the price. Like any good liberterian a like capitalism. You all (y'all hensforth) thought I was Republican huh? Think about it, drug free, exceptionally nurished women will demand a higher price. Inspiration to those addicts to clean up. Right now it is nearly a 50 bil industry with adoptions both foriegn and domestic. Why not let these women who are not ready to have kids enjoy the windfall. If they choose to crank out babies, Like all you say, "It is her body". So her teeth fall out and her bones are brittle, she will be driving the BMW and living in a mansion. We can all kiss her...........


Thanks. I think what you propose as an option that should really be explored. I think adoption needs to be made easier to allow this to take hold. I don't know from personal experience but I have heard that it is a nightmare trying to adopt. If this process was made easier then Reaganwasourgreatest's idea might be able to be looked into a little deeper.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I went through all of that trouble for an informed post and no one replies to it. *whines*

Figures



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
I went through all of that trouble for an informed post and no one replies to it. *whines*

....Yeah - I was going to, but you hit the nail on the head....

I made a comment on overpopulation myself earlier that went overlooked as well....In fact, my reply to your post was going to deal with why anti-abortion people try to disprove overpopulation by actually using their "research" (if you want to call it that) as support for the pure ludicrous basis of their claims....

But I figured it would be a waste of time myself....
It's out there if ya'll are interested and want to root around yourself....



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Whereas most of the people for abortion are anti-Christian.


Oh please!
Can anyone say persecution complex.
I dont know why people even try cutting through the fog of ignorance some people choose to live in. Normally I try to stay out of these pointless debates and not award people points for ignorance but this is too much!

If something does not have consciousness the it is not sentient. Killing a nonsentient being is not murder. Yes a fetus has the potential of becoming a fully sentient being but then again theoretically so does a cell from a human body. Theoretically I can take a genetic sample from a human put it in my cloning machine and create a new person. Does this mean that because my cells have the possibilty for life destroying them is murder? We are greater then the sum of our parts.

Imagine a device that could keep alive a person who suffered a massive head trauma in an accident. I mean massive by the way everything above his jaw is gone. Now would shutting down the life support device be murder as well?

The whole argument isnt about when life starts its about when human consciousness starts and no one has proven (to the best of knowledge) when consciousness starts. So until such a time as someone scientifically proves when human consciousness starts I will remain steadfast in my beliefs that abortion is not murder.

I understand abortion is a sensitive issue that goes against peoples personal beliefs. That is why no one is advocating mandatory abortion procedures for all. If you dont want one dont get one its as simple as this don't get one... on the other hand lets not create a law that will a drive a regulated and relatively safe practice into the black market where it will still be done but by unlicensed "professionals" who learned their trade off of the internet.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   


Theoretically I can take a genetic sample from a human put it in my cloning machine and create a new person. Does this mean that because my cells have the possibilty for life destroying them is murder? We are greater then the sum of our parts.


You are delving into the rediculous now. Let's try and stay focused. I'll say it again, it's a good thing your parents didn't think as you do. Wouldn't ya say?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Its hardly ridiculous all my argument represents is a pardigm shift in reproduction. All a fetus is is the potential for human life it cannot exist on its own. It cannot become a person without the support system it is hooked up to. No more then the genetic sample put into my hypothetical cloning device can become a person on its own. The fetus doesnt even develop its sex until the ninth week of its exsistence. The fetus doesnt even develop the brainwaves typical of actual thought until the sixth month of its development. So before then it is essentially brain dead. Which ties into my scenario involving the hypothetical life support machine capable of sustaining a main with no brain function indefinitely.

Regarding me being lucky my parents dont share my views on abortion guess what they do! I for one am thankful I was raised in a secular scientifically literate and open minded house and allowed to develop my own views without having my brain polluted with prejuidicial irelevant dogma.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
This has been a rather dull debate for the following reasons:

For all of the religious dogma spouted out NONE of you have answered any of the points RANT made in his previous statements. :shk: no denials, no facts, nothing. Are you conceding the point with your silence?

No Fred I am not conceding. I know that you are in the medical profession and I am not, but I truly believe that life begins at conception. There are medical professionals who also believe this.

This link to American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists provides information about the growth and development of the fetus from conception on. The arguments some use for abortion on demand are given but there are others who place great value on human life and maintain the physician's role should be that of a caregiver to mother and baby, not the terminator of the unborn child.

This link provides definitions of the words Fetus and Fetal Ultrasound.

"Fetus" in Latin means "young one" and "Adolescent" are stages in human development.

Fetal Ultrasound opens the womb to show the human being within.



Having been pro choice certainly all of my adult life,


I was all for "Choice". It was a magic word to women in my era. We were young and it seemed as though a new world was opening to us.

Many if not most of us learned quickly that "you don't get something for nothing" "no free lunch". As the actual medical information became available we began to change our minds.


and having been a clinic escort at planned parenthood, and having faced the violent pro life protesters head on, I am amazed that once you take away their religious arguments, and that is not too hard to do as evidenced by this and other threads, they simply are like actors without a script. Befuddled and lost, they fall back on the same dogma and rhetoric that they have been brainwashed by. Its kind of like light and roaches scurry away to the dark lest ye be contaminated by the facts


I left all that in there Fred because I feel real bad that you have this impression of all pro-life people.


One other point to ponder. Which side has committed acts of terrorism and murder? By that definition, Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization. Funny, the "Pro Life" crowd has participated and actively sanctioned these crimes :shk:


These are the "few" and not the majority of pro-life people, Christian or otherwise. We do not approve of the terrorists methods used by these few.

But, you speak of violence only on the pro-life side. What about the millions of babies dead from abortions?

OK Fred, am I going to get thrown out of the nest now? :shk:



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

OK Fred, am I going to get thrown out of the nest now?

No way, If I wanted adoptee clones I would have said so
If you did not voice your opinion you would be tossed in a fraction of a second


I will try to reposnd to your post in a bit, but by your definition of life, would not a cancer tumor fit the descrition? Its a rapidly dividing mass of cells. It is alive, it grows, it needs the same fundemental things that a fetus needs does it not?

SHould we begin to firebomb cancer clinics and the like or protest?

Now I generalized alot of Pro Life supporters in my post, however most that I have met being in the streets or at the Republican national convention etc seem to speak from the same playbook. Just about the only difference I have seen to be hones are those who think ANY (violence and murder) means are okay and those who do not

[edit on 2/20/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

OK Fred, am I going to get thrown out of the nest now?

No way, If I wanted adoptee clones I would have said so
If you did not voice your opinion you would be tossed in a fraction of a second

Whew....I knew I liked your style Fred. Thanks again.



I will try to reposnd to your post in a bit, but by your definition of life, would not a cancer tumor fit the descrition? Its a rapidly dividing mass of cells. It is alive, it grows, it needs the same fundemental things that a fetus needs does it not?


I don't think so. My rapidly "dividing mass of cells" is already a human being. This little one is provided with the DNA from a mother and father and will not grow into anything else. He/she already has everything that makes that child a human being.

Off topic maybe, but as we speak my grand daughter is in the hospital giving birth to one of those "mass of cells". My son called me about an hour ago and we should have a baby sometime today. I am confident he/she will be a human baby.


SHould we begin to firebomb cancer clinics and the like or protest?
Now I generalized alot of Pro Life supporters in my post, however most that I have met being in the streets or at the Republican national convention etc seem to speak from the same playbook. Just about the only difference I have seen to be hones are those who think ANY (violence and murder) means are okay and those who do not


You know Fred, this looks to me as though we are looking at this "elephant" from different prospectives. Remember that story? The elephant was so big that each part became what the individual looking and touching the elephant thought the entire elephant was like. Did I say that right? Or am I making things more confused?

I have never seen anything like the descriptions you have listed. I have heard of a few incidents, but you make them seem as though these terrorists are striking constantly and many people are getting killed. Regardless of how many or how few it remains a terrorist act and is not condoned.

Several years ago we did have one incident, in Conn., I think, where a clinic was bombed and deaths occurred. I am just remembering this so may not have all details correct. This is fairly close to where I live and I can assure you people did not condone those actions. I believe the bomber was from NH and so that made it personal here too. The churches denounced his actions also.

Yes, I have been on protests. I have "marched" from one church to another. I have prayed in a "life line" going across the state. In none of these peaceful activities did we denounce anyone. We tried to give alternate information so that the prospective mother might make the choice for life. There are many organizations. mostly churches, but secular organizations also who want these women to know where and how to find the help they need.

Sometimes it did get very scary Fred. People in cars passing by would scream obscene threats at us, along with hateful and ugly faces and shaking of fists. My children hated that I was doing this. They were afraid that I would be hurt, or maybe end up in jail.

And, yes, we were praying. This is fairly peaceful and no one was killed during the prayers.
I do also help to fund (in my small way) these organizations who would like to help women. I also work as a volunteer.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
It's been a while since I've been on the site, and I'm quite saddened that there are people that believe in murder as a form of population control. Had you people not been born already, then perhaps you would think differently. Sounds kinda selfish. "Oh I'm already alive and fully grown and have lived a life, and no other children should be born and make my life a bit more cramped". People, that sux. Sorry to be so blunt.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
It's about choice.

Fast forward 30 years. The Earth is dreadfully overpopulated. The government enacts a law stating that each family can only have 1 child. If you get pregnant again, you must have a mandatory abortion.

The law is dictating your reproductive choices. Do you turn the choice over to the law? Or do you want that choice for yourself? If you accidently get pregnant, do you want the choice?

I would choose not to have an abortion. Even now. I don't want to have an abortion. For me, it would be wrong. I want that choice. That's why I support the choice for all women.

Nobody's trying to force you or anyone to have an abortion, just give you the choice. You make the choice not to have an abortion. How can you make the choice for others?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join