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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
When does the child have a CHOICE? It's not the womans body being murdered. By the idea of the mother having the choice to murder her children, then the woman that drowned her five children in the tub was just exercising her right to choose. Why did her children have nothing to say about it?




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
For all I know, the spirit of the child had already made the choice. Maybe that soul of that baby had a covenant with God to be a vessel of learning and spiritual growth for the mother.

Do you know? I do not.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   


Maybe that soul of that baby had a covenant with God to be a vessel of learning and spiritual growth for the mother.


What learning and spiritual growth could possibly come from murdering your child?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
When does the child have a CHOICE?


5 pages later and the sum basis of your argument hasn't expanded beyond repeating the title.

Tell you what, you ask all the zygotes you want what they'd like to do. When one answers, you'll have a point.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I don't even know why I came in here, but I'll comment on it nevertheless.

Abortion has nothing to do with the underlying issue. While I agree that women have no inherant right to abortion insofar as one would say the same for other elective surgery or precedures, it really isn't the issue.

1) Roe vs Wade should be overturned

2) We should come to a some conslusions about when life begins rather than talking about subset topics.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
1) Roe vs Wade should be overturned

2) We should come to a some conslusions about when life begins rather than talking about subset topics.


To answer #2, we have. See #1.

You may not like it, but for all intensive purposes (as all laws are arbitrary) the SCOTUS ruling established trimesters as a compromise to the metaphysical debate (as all metaphysics such as "when does life begin?" are arbitrary and predominantly cultural as well).

Obviously, as far as this nation's laws are concerned, life does not begin in the first 3 months, but there's enough reasonable doubt that it may to some degree thereafter so various restrictions on the woman's rights come into play.

Roe is actually a very conservative fetus-friendly ruling in the great scheme of things and given historical metaphysics across most cultures, most all of which have maintained since biblical times that life begins at breath.

The only thing those not happy with the current compromise want is total capitulation. That would include those that want abortion on demand all the way up to during delivery and those that want everything including birth control banned. Those groups will never compromise (or be happy) any more than we already have (or as a nation are). The nation overwhelmingly supports the Roe v Wade compromise as is. It's done.

There will be no satisfactory resolution to metaphysical questions beyond popular appeal, and that's been settled. And in spite of one minority's tireless wriggling, this can of worms should never be opened again.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Rant

You know as well as I do that Roe vs Wade being overturned would not do anything but end Federal trump over the states. You know me and my state's rights.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Rant

You know as well as I do that Roe vs Wade being overturned would not do anything but end Federal trump over the states. You know me and my state's rights.



Oh in that regard then, I'm actually flexible (moreso than most actually).

While I think it would be a travesty for Alabamans (for example) to ban abortion, as long as they could go to Florida and get one, fine. I just don't want women and kids dying in Mexico or alleys.

But that's really not what you seemed to be saying. If you're looking for "when does life begin" that's surely not any different in Alabama than it is in Florida. And making it so, would most likely have some constitutional implications.

I'm sure as you well know, most (not all) seeking to overturn Roe don't share your generous view to let state's decide. They actually want to ban abortions (much like gay marriage) at the federal level legislatively.

But leaving it up to the state's has problems too that come into play when those Alabamans cross state lines for a medical procedure. It's just an unnatural target for a "blue" or local morality law in my opinion. Granted a state can tell you when you can or can't buy alchohol. But if a state tried to prohibit consumption entirely (or contraception or abortion or square dancing for that matter), I believe the government has a duty to intercede on behalf of it's citizens "pursuit of happiness."

State's can be tryrannical too. And the fed has a job to do in that regard just as it did during civil rights. I don't know, it just gets stickier and sticker.

Ideally no part of taxes should go to support it, but plenty find everything objectionable on some level from welfare to war... so that's not really a valid arguement either. Plus we offset any pro-abortion funding with anti-abortion funding out the yin yang now given FBCI anyway (which I find to be absolutley objectionable on my own personal level).

It really does all boil down to choice. And teaching your kids your morals so they make the right one. I'm not trying to be flip. That's really all there is to it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
OK, fair enough. I would prefer that the members of the states decide the legality of the issue personally. I believe it is the right of the people to decide that which is not already dictated in our respective Constitutions as to criminality of our actions against others (or perception of).

Personally I don't want mothers and children dying in alleys either, but to be honest with you, you have to kind of roll the dice if you choose to do something as stupid as get an illegal medical procedure.

Personal freedom comes with the ability to drastically screw up your life, and this is like no other.

It is the choice of all sexually active hetrosexuals to engage in actions that are well known to have risks (no more than ever) of deadly diseases or the risk of pregnancy.

They need to solve their own problems.

But to be honest with you, a step in the right direction is to stop allowing my money to go and pay for something I believe is morally wrong.

While I may not be able to stop them, I surely think it wrong to have to pay for it by force (which really is the same way I feel about charity).

Much in the same grain, charity should be done on a personal or local level.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   


Tell you what, you ask all the zygotes you want what they'd like to do. When one answers, you'll have a point.


Tell you what, when one tells you " Kill Me!!!! " Then you come back with an arguement.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

Tell you what, when one tells you " Kill Me!!!! " Then you come back with an arguement.


I don't mean to use such horrible liberal tactics as logic and reason against you, but I thought suicide and was illegal and immoral as well.

Also, Zygotes can't talk.

Wasn't sure if you knew that.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   


I don't mean to use such horrible liberal tactics as logic and reason against you, but I thought suicide and was illegal and immoral as well.


Whatever dude. How in the world is murder logical. You believe suicide should be illegal, but not murder? Does refering to an infant as a zygot help you sleep better with your decisions? Let's call an apple an apple. The thing in a woman's womb is a human baby. It starts out human,and it ends human. It will never be anything else.
Besides you started the whole thing of the baby talking. Think about it, just don't hurt yourself.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Does refering to an infant as a zygot help you sleep better with your decisions? Let's call an apple an apple.


external image APPLE

ZYGOTE

Congratulations on your date rape! You've got zygote!
At this early stage of your pregnancy the embryo growing inside of you is very small, and is actually only a group of cells. The embryo at this stage is only the size of a pin head and measures about 0.006 inches, or 0.150mm.

Even though no busy body on earth can tell, you know you've got a little zygote wiggling it's way down your fallopian tube since you have to puke every five minutes. And it just gets worse! As the blastomere develops and continues to divide, a solid ball of cells called a morula is eventually produced. And that's just a hop, skip and burrow into your uterus away from forming a blastocyst!!!

The process of the free falling blastocyst eventually attaching itself to your body can take as long as a week from the time your Uncle touches you inappropriately. So if you eventually want a baby... watch that heavy lifting girls!

If you don't, you could always just go on the internet and have hysterical strangers personify your zygote with proper names. That's really effective at turning that unwanted pregnancy frown upside down.


[edit on 10-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

Besides you started the whole thing of the baby talking. Think about it, just don't hurt yourself.


I'm sorry, but you were the one stating that Rant would have a valid arguement if a zygote, infant, blob and or mass of cells suddenly started talking and requested a desire to commit suicide.

I think you need to get better at English.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Dude, you have a seriously warped perception of life. Murdering in the name of convenience!? I suppose though that you are against the death penalty.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Since no one here can seem to agree on when life begins, whether it's an infant or a zygote or a billy goat, I have an idea! Why don't we let each person decide for themselves?
That way nobody will be forcing anyone to have an abortion and nobody will be preventing anyone from having one. How's that sound?


You keep your nose out of my womb (if I have one) and I'll keep my nose out of yours (if you have one). Everybody can be as responsible for their own wombs as they are for their bowel movements and other personal bodily functions. Okie-Dokey?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
There's just one question,that i'd like to ask of the anti-abortionists.......

Q) What happens when a woman is raped,without any provocation or leading,on her behalf,and she is made pregnant by her attacker,in your way of thinking?


I have asked that question many times of anti-abortionists,and not once,ever got a straight answer.




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by britcitusa
I have asked that question many times of anti-abortionists,and not once,ever got a straight answer.


They don't think it happens, and when it does, then the statistical probablity of getting pregnant *actually* voids the arguement in their head.

Or, and this is still the most disgusting thing I've ever heard in my life, they stick to their guns and reply, "It's not the baby's fault! She should still have the baby! One sin doesn't make another right"

Or some such nonsense. Just ask Dick Cheney, he wants to ban all abortion procedures, including those caused by rape and incest.

Yeah.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by britcitusa
There's just one question,that i'd like to ask of the anti-abortionists.......

Q) What happens when a woman is raped,without any provocation or leading,on her behalf,and she is made pregnant by her attacker,in your way of thinking?


Interestingly, I am anti-abortion. If I were in a relationship where the woman became pregnant by any means, I would be totally against terminating the pregnancy, unless it was life-threatening. But I do think it's ultimately up to the woman to make that choice and I would support that.

I believe the people you're talking about are 'anti-choice'. They don't want to give women the choice. They want to make the choice for all women. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I just don't spew my morals all over other people. That's what your anti-choice people do. They think they have a right to do that.

So, regarding your question, here's a straight answer from someone who is against abortion! Although I know it's not the answer you expected:


It would be up to the woman.

Looking forward to other answers.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by britcitusa
There's just one question,that i'd like to ask of the anti-abortionists.......

Q) What happens when a woman is raped,without any provocation or leading,on her behalf,and she is made pregnant by her attacker,in your way of thinking?


I have asked that question many times of anti-abortionists,and not once,ever got a straight answer.



As unreasonable as it sounds in this day and age, two wrongs don't really make a right. I would not enable it in that circumstance either to be honest with you.

While I am not for government involvement, I do believe it has an authority to protect human life (so I believe).

Rape is a terrible thing, but I really don't think it's the fault of anyone but the man, and he is the one that should pay.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join