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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by britcitusa
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?


Well, brimstone735 tried to answer for me and everyone else who doesn't agree with abortion, but I think I'm going to flesh it out a little.

On this issue I have been very torn. Part of me says, apart from sure death of the mother, that would be the exception. The other part of me sees that a crime, horrible and terrible, has been committed, and as a result the mother is going to take it out on an unborn child. You probably haven't gotten a straight answer because the issue is so hard to deal with. We can either have a murder, or an estranged child that reminds the mother every time she looks at it of that horrible time.

Quite simply, I would now say no, put the child up for adoption if you must, but don't kill it. To everyone who freaks out at that, saying it's unfair to the mother that she have to carry the child because of a crime committed, I ask you, when is crime fair? If a woman gets maimed, as happens in many violent rapes, is it her automatic right after the police report to be made fully whole, even when medical science doesn't have the ability to do so?

Also, for those of you in especially in Chicago, but across the US, since it was a national story, do you remember "Girl X"? This was a 9 year old girl who was raped by two teenage boys, then forced to drink anti-freeze after the act. She went blind, deaf, and could no longer speak. It was a horrible crime, and after she lived through the ordeal, she became a terrible burden on the parents. Yet, did that give the parents the right to kill Girl X, because, as a result of a heinous crime, she now was a terrible burden on them? NO! And they would never have even thought of such a thing. Why, then, would it be acceptable to do the same to another child that cannot speak or hear, cannot speak for its self and needs the protection of its mother to speak for it?




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Nicely put JungleJake. It makes me feel a bit relieved that not everyone on this site are totally for the murdering of children.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Thanks to all who replied to this.The reason i asked this,was that this happened to a friend of mine.See,i am in agreement with anti-abortionists,EXCEPT,where it involves rape and insestuous rape.She was tols by an anti-abortionist,that she would burn in hell,if she aborted it.This person told her to get over her agony,NOT acopt the baby out,but to grow and love the child.That was the most,diabolical,absurd garbage,i had ever heard.
She was under psychiatric help,from the moment it happend.She had no insurance,no nothing,so she asked the state for financial aid.Since she was employed,the decision was no,because she would have ample time to get insurance privately and the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for this.She was in mental and physical pain,for three months.Soon after,she was found in her car,having taken an overdose of aspirin,
All this,because someone decided that,okay you were raped,okay you are pregnant,here's the biill,live with it,get over it.She was 22 years old.If she'd lived,she would be 36 now.
So to amyone,that may go through the start of this,i would say.......

Don't listen to anyone who says "You'll burn in hell".They don't decide that, the man upstairs does!You have the decision to make,don't let others sway you,in any way.Your faith in your belief,is yours.Yes,there are professionals,to talk it over with,not someone with their opinions.If you decide to have the baby,all the best to you.If you decide to adopt,all the best to you as well.If you decide on abortion,all the best to you too.Amd if your country has a no abortion law,go on vacation to one that does.

Thanks to all who answered and a special thanks to Brimstone.No matter who your god is,may your god,be with you.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
What a sad story, britcitusa! This is one very important reason for abortion to be available to those who choose it.


Originally posted by britcitusa
Don't listen to anyone who says "You'll burn in hell".They don't decide that, the man upstairs does!


I wish more Christians and anti-abortion and anti-choice people would remember that. But many, like deesw, judge me and others here child murderers! How harsh is that? Even though I've never done such a thing and never would do it.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   


I wish more Christians and anti-abortion and anti-choice people would remember that. But many, like deesw, judge me and others here child murderers! How harsh is that? Even though I've never done such a thing and never would do it


I have never judged you I just cannot fathom how someone could murder an innocent child, born or unborn.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
I have never judged you


Then what's this?


Originally posted by deesw
It makes me feel a bit relieved that not everyone on this site are totally for the murdering of children.


You singled out jake and said that he wasn't FOR murdering children like the others on this site. Who are you talking about if not me? You throw this harsh, nasty bile out there from atop your pedistal and then say you're not judging me? Please!

If that's what if means to you to serve the Lord, I don't want any part of it. You're setting a foul example, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
There has been a lot of discussion in this country lately after the aniversary of Roe VS Wade. I do not understand the concept of murdering a human life in the name of convenience. I was never a great big Ronald Reagan fan, but he was quoted once as saying " It seems to me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born ". A very great statement.


Have you ever heard the comment, you do not reason with children?

The ADULT makes the decisions. You play you pay. You screw around you get pregnant. What are you gonna do? You gonna suck it up and accept the responsibility, or you gonna take the easy way out? Either way, it's between you and your maker. If you do it for selfish reasons, you will pay the price one day. Why is there a price to be paid? Because you ended a possible life. One that was conceived in the site of God.

But who can be the judge of a man or women's motives? Only God.



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


If that's what if means to you to serve the Lord, I don't want any part of it. You're setting a foul example, in my opinion.


Noone here asked you to serve the Lord. We are talking about child murder. You are setting a foul example for humans in my opinion.
Please,,,, anyone who is for genecide is inhuman. Abortion is murder,plain and simple. Whether it was rape or incest does not change the fact that it is murder. Go on with the blinders on and think the child is not a human until it is born.
As for the arguement that an embryo cannot survive independantly from it's mother, show me a 1 or 2 or even 3 year old infant that can survive independantly from it's mother. If you remove a tree from the ground, can it survive independantly from the womb of dirt you removed it from? I think not.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Noone here asked you to serve the Lord. We are talking about child murder. You are setting a foul example for humans in my opinion.
Please,,,, anyone who is for genecide is inhuman. Abortion is murder,plain and simple. Whether it was rape or incest does not change the fact that it is murder. Go on with the blinders on and think the child is not a human until it is born.
As for the arguement that an embryo cannot survive independantly from it's mother, show me a 1 or 2 or even 3 year old infant that can survive independantly from it's mother. If you remove a tree from the ground, can it survive independantly from the womb of dirt you removed it from? I think not.


The bottom line is that is your opinion. So far, the courts say adults have a right to abort their unborn fetusus (up to a point).

Do you have a problem with letting adults make that decision for themselves? Do you have a problem with letting that be a matter between them and God? Do you think earth's justice trumps God's?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
You are setting a foul example for humans in my opinion.
Please,,,, anyone who is for genecide is inhuman.


Have you read my posts? I have said I am anti-abortion. I have said I would never have an abortion. How is that setting a bad example?

The only difference between you and me as East Coast Kid points out is that I do not step between someone and God and take over His job as judge.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I'm anti-abortion, too, for the record. But that is my personal opinion. I have no desire to impress my will upon others. Knowing the grotesque history of abortion in this country, I simply cannot support the overturning of Roe v Wade. To go backwards on that would be extremely harmful to the poor, not to mention irresponsible medically. If a woman has an abortion out of selfishness, as I said, before, she will pay the price for that one day. So will the guy who knocked her up.

Let God be the judge.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Do you have a problem with letting adults make that decision for themselves? Do you have a problem with letting that be a matter between them and God? Do you think earth's justice trumps God's?


Yes, yes, and no. First, earth's justice does not trump God's. God says murder is bad, but we say it is ok. Will God abide by our laws? I don't think so.

At the same time, it sounds like you've bought into the whole "don't push your morality on me" spin arguement. Christians aren't supposed to push their morality on the law of the nation, because religion is supposed to be seporate from government. Therefore, let's let the people who don't believe in God decide our morality. After all, the constitution, after Jefferson somehow managed to write into the constitution the "wall of seporation" by writing a letter to a church (FYI, only person in the history of America to be able to subvert all the stipulations in the constitution to modify the constitution, though he didn't realize he was rewriting the Constitution when he wrote the letter. I hightly doubt he had any idea he was about to have a line from his letter taken out of context to rewrite the Constitution, either...).

All of our laws are based on morality. This nation is build on the notion, the morality, that all humans have inalienable rights. It used to be that God gave us those rights, but now I guess it's evolution that gave man inalienable rights. So we, as Christians, are told, keep your mouth shut. Sit there in the corner like silent little lambs amidst the pain. We're told we have no right to impose our morality on everyone because this is a free nation as the very people saying that impose their morality on us. I'm amoral in today's society because I don't think a woman has the right to do with her body what she will, just as a man doesn't. It is still a crime to commit suicide. It is still a crime to do drugs. Yet it is not a crime to commit murder, as long as that person is inside of you. Do twins attached to one another have the right to murder the other? After all, it is their body.

No, people's morality is completely ingrained into our system of laws. Saying Christians don't have a right to impose their morality is mearly a spin campaign designed to stop one of the potentially largest movements against what they to believe moral. Yet even laws like our speedlimits were made for moral reasons -- Americans treasure human life, and driving too quickly imposes risks that we deem unacceptable to human life.

Finally, I will say this. You asked if I(anyone) have a problem with allowing adults to make their own decisions. I'll reply with a question of my own. Are you guilty of murder if you have the power to prevent it but do nothing?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
But JungleJake when the morality laws your legislative happy dominionist cohorts seek to impose on everyone else go against the Constitution of the United States of America there's another word for that: unconstitutional

I'm sorry the sale of contraceptives and private medical consults with personal decisions made absent congressional review pain you so, but tough.

Welcome to America buddy.
Leave the Roman Empire at the door.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Thanks for the welcome
Where in the constitution does it say a woman has the right to an abortion? I must have missed that clause or ammendment...



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Therefore, let's let the people who don't believe in God decide our morality.


Not at all! I don't want you to think that abortion is ok. I don't care what your morality is. You have your morality. Have it and enjoy it. No one is trying to force you to have an abortion! Go ahead and think that it's terrible and wrong and murder! Teach your children how terrible it is. Tell them of the murdering ways of the terrible people of the non-Christian world. No one is trying to stop you. Go ahead. No one is trying to change your mind or control your behavior or your thoughts. Just leave us alone. That's all we're asking.

You're the one who is trying to impose morality on other people through law. We are not. We are doing what we think is right just as you are. The difference is that we aren't trying to get you to do what we think is right.

You're saying, "I don't believe in abortion so nobody should have the right do it."
I'm saying, "I don't believe in abortion so I won't do it. But since I have the freedom to make that choice, others have the same freedom."
Others are saying, "I believe in abortion so I will do it, but I won't make others do it."

Now, you tell me, who is forcing their morals on others?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Where in the constitution does it say a woman has the right to an abortion? I must have missed that clause or ammendment...


Read the link in RANT's post. It's the right to privacy. In other words, it's none of your business whether or not a woman is pregnant or has an abortion or a boob job or a colonoscopy.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, establishing that laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, and effectively overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Thanks for the welcome
Where in the constitution does it say a woman has the right to an abortion? I must have missed that clause or ammendment...


Read the link. Until a stacked deck in the Supreme Court of the United States determines Americans don't have a right to privacy and the government does indeed have more rights than you, you can't ban things just because you think it's a sin.

Don't even start on the murder or drugs routine either. There's objective considerations there that outweigh any reasonable right to privacy and those are actually crimes you can punish fairly. And should.

If you think abortion is murder, however, and would like to try that tact instead, you'll have to amend the constitution legislatively in that regard. And you've got a long road of revision ahead of you. The place I'd suggest starting is arguing the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. Seriously. There's no "err on the side of life" clause to be found as long as the state can reasonably execute people based on the sheer opinion of peers.

But you're still going to have problems after that. Since the right to privacy will still be upheld (no matter what as long as I draw breath) as regards blood tests to even determine if one is pregnant or not, and what goes on in a medical doctor's office, you'll have to do something pretty drastic shortly after a successful ban on that one procedure. The War on Medical Privacy. Again, I'm dead serious. You'll require constant sting operations to determine which medical doctors are doing it anyway, and which women are now *murderers* according to your pious legislation, otherwise it has no bite whatsoever. And we don't make bull# laws to be openly flaunted.

People have thought about these things thoroughly long before any of us. And the highest court in the land very wisely said, screw this. It's sometimes the wisest recourse when you simply can't win. And you can't here despite the best of your intentions.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So if ya can't beat them, join them? Your statements were a contradiction in terms -- you'd fight for the right to privacy to your dying breath, even if it was a losing battle, but the battle on abortion can't be won, so give up.

I have bad news about the right to medical privacy -- the courts have already shot down fascets of it. Companies can require manditory drug testing. An invasive procedure to detect what you do in the privacy of your own home can be required by a company, and they have the right to get the police involved if they discover something. Do I think it's right? No, but your premise has already been compromised.

As for the wise legislation by the Supreme Court, even Dick Durbin, before he became the #2 democrat in the senate, believed Roe v. Wade was bad law.

Now, your contention is that abortion should be legal because of our right to privacy. How far does that privacy go? At what point do we draw the line and say, too much? I will go here, because it's relevant to the arguement, though you'd rather it not be. Already the right to privacy does not extend to drug use. A child in the custody of a Guardian has no right to privacy (though many are trying to get them the right to a private abortion and birth control, but no more). Your right to privacy doesn't even extend to keeping an extremely dirty house -- it will be condemned. Your right to privacy doesn't extend into the financial realm. If you, in private, made some poor financial decisions, a company thinking of hiring you has access to all of those decisions via a credit report before they decide to hire you or not. We are not permitted to kill ourselves, in private or public, punishable by law. Why is abortion the exception? Why has this suddenly become a God given...I'm sorry, evolution given right of all women to perform birth control even up to the third trimester?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So if ya can't beat them, join them? Your statements were a contradiction in terms -- you'd fight for the right to privacy to your dying breath, even if it was a losing battle, but the battle on abortion can't be won, so give up.

I have bad news about the right to medical privacy --


Your ilk are bad news for the right to privacy. Period.

Sorry if I gave the impression supporting the Constitution of the United States and law of the land was a losing battle however.

Allow me to revise my statement accordingly with the proper emphasis:

You can't win. Freedom already has.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Your ilk are bad news for the right to privacy. Period.


Because I think abortion is wrong? That's an interesting "difinitive" statement.



Sorry if I gave the impression supporting the Constitution of the United States and law of the land was a losing battle however.

Allow me to revise my statement accordingly with the proper emphasis:

You can't win. Freedom already has.


Thanks for the tip, but rather than relying on your prophesy, I'm going to hope to justice, instead.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join