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.

 

Ohio legislators propose total abortion ban

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Well except Jesus who was God and knew everything, but just kept it from us right? Because he thought it would be cool to fight over abortion and evolution 2,000 years later in a part of the world nobody knew existed except that sneaky know-it-all bastard that didn't bother to tell us (and "bastard" is the appropriate term actually given the lack of formal paternal lineage with his 13 year old runaway mother).


This is a grossly offensive assessment of one of the major religions of the world. One cannot use a common phrase for media grandstanding to describe Cindy Sheehan and not be warned, yet it is perfectly okay to deride the faith of billions and the one whom those billions believe to be God.

What you fail to note, or understand, perhaps, is that Jesus lived a few millinea after the writings in question and that he was put to death for having challenged the religious authority of his time and especially an enslavement to the law. And furthermore, it is not understood what Jesus knew or did not know while he lived as man, assuming he was God. Jesus' message was of the spiritual relationship of man to God and to his temporal fellows. It is clear from what is written that Jesus was not here to delineate all knowledge to the world, but to provide spiritual light.

You owe a huge apology to about 2.1 billion people, even if they are not overly represented on this board.




posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You owe a huge apology to about 2.1 billion people, even if they are not overly represented on this board.


No, I don't. Nerdling may owe one to you for that lame warn you got and probably didn't deserve, but that's got nothing to do with the context of my conversation with FlyersFan who I consider a good friend of mine and knows where I'm coming from even if you don't.

It's fine if you're offended and wish to express that, but the 2,099,999,999 other Christians should probably join PTS and speak for themselves.

EDIT: I see it wasn't Nerdling that warned you, but it was for ATSNN. Well that's an even bigger difference. You can call ladies that lost their children looking for non-existent WMD's media-whore's all you like on PTS Grady. If that somehow makes you feel better. You know, as an offended Christian.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
If government, both state and federal, outlaw abortions then it could be deadly. This would mean that the number of back-alley abortions will go up so drastically that an anti-abortion law would most definitely have to be revoked. What most people don't think is that having an abortion COULD ACTUALLY SAVE A PERSON'S LIFE. We just need to get it through there heads somehow.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Let me see if I have this straight....

A superpower FEARS this little piddly arse country over here might be a danger to them.....so it's okay to bomb it, conquer it, and torture it's occupants....and yes KILL!! self preservation at it's finest!

BUT.....a women and a doctor KNOW that a pregnancy will kill the women. they have x-rays, and lots of medical data to back them up. but, it the "moral" thing to do to block the women from getting the necessary treatment that would save her live? self-preservation be danged?

they are trying to exhalt the live of the unborn above that of the women who carry it! this is unconstitutional, they cannot exalt the live on one above another, even with both parties in question being born, living occupants in this country.

I'm telling yas, the only way that this movement is going to wake up and smell the roses is for us women, who really see the danger and believe it is real to tell our husbands, our mates that no, we will not inbide in sex, we cannot guarentee that it will not produce a child, and we just don't desire to have one at this time in our lives...so, well, get used to abstinance bud!!!

let's see just how long after that the men in this country either forget about banning abortion, or start enforcing their "right to rule" over their women!



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Give me a break! How many abortions are performed to save the life of the mother? The whole abortion issue is about promiscuity without consequences.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Abortion is indeed occasionally performed with the intent of preserving the life of the mother. In the US, this isn't often - but that's really not the argument.

It does happen.

The question is, what do we class as a "life-threatening" condition?

It's very, very subjective in this context. High blood pressure, for example, can lead to both fetal death and the death of the mother; even epilepsy can be life-threatening during pregnancy, as can an entire dictionary of other medical conditions which are potentially life-endangering. Who decides?

Using what criteria? What if my two doctors think my particular condition is justification for a termination, but yours wouldn't? Who is more right? If mine decide it's not, I'd simply be able to find two doctors who'd agree with my preference.

The very fact that it is subjective leaves us really with only one option: we need to keep abortion available, and legal; because the very second it goes back "in the alley", so to speak, we instantly endanger the lives of many, many more women.

If the argument is that "not every abortion is medically necessary", then it renders itself moot - we can see that if even one is necessary, then the procedure itself absolutely must remain legal.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Give me a break! How many abortions are performed to save the life of the mother? The whole abortion issue is about promiscuity without consequences.


So if .0001% of abortions were performed because of a threat to the mother, you'd be ok with banning them and letting those women (and their babies) die?

How about .01%?

How about 10%?

What number of women would you be comfortable handing a death sentence to?

Because however big that group is... I'm in it and I'd just like to know how many of us you'd kill to stay firmly standing on your laurels...



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
"The whole abortion issue is about promiscuity without consequences."

really?? what about the married women who have abortions? is that promiscuity? I mean, isn't what goes on in the bedroom between a husband and a wife their business, and everyone should just keep their noses out?
if it's promiscuity under such circumstances, unless of course, the couple really doesn't mind having children, well, how many married couples are willing to refrain from it?
no birth control method is 100% effective, I know this through experience. and, I also know from experience that there are many men out there who feel that their marriage certificate, or heck, and a night out at a good resturant shoud grant them a great night in bed. I have no problem with dates who think this way and act like jerks, as long as they can and do take no for an answer. but, if you are talking about a husband, who is holding all of the financial power, who has already fathered a few children with their spouse, well, all that will kind of diminish her power to say no just a tad, don't you think? are you willing to take no from your spouse for the year, or two, or maybe for the rest of your living days, because she does not wish to have children....or worse, would endanger her life by having them.

as far as those who have abortions because of careless habits, well, the guilt is on them in the long run...
as far as those who would lose their lives trying to carry children to full term that could have been avoided, but stupid laws like this were passed because we failed to acknowledge their need, well, that guilt, my friend will be on our government, and on it's citizens, I hope that those who support such lamebrained laws are ready to accept it!



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The abortion issue is not about saving women's lives from child birth, it is about sex without consequences. Yes, I believe that an abortion that saves the life of the mother is appropriate, but this is not an elective procedure. The vast majority of abortions are provided to single women, not to married women. Regardless of the demographics, women who support abortion want sex without consequences. All the rationalizations don't change that basic fact. There is no moral case for abortion for contraceptive purposes. It is murder.

[edit on 2005/9/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Regardless of the demographics, woman who support abortion want sex without consequences. All the rationalizations don't change that basic fact. There is no moral case for abortion for contraceptive purposes. It is murder.


I have a difficult time picturing my grandmother and recently departed great grandmother (we hillbillies live forever) wanting sex without consequences. But they do support choice.

Perhaps it was seeing what not having one did to my teenage mother pre-1973. I also know quite well as one of those "consequences" of what happens when two high school kids are forced to get married it's not exactly the valuable learning experience or happy ending some may think.

I suppose in some ways she learned her lesson...

Forget it. This is too personal and painful. There's a reason the hard fought and legally protected right of choice for women's reproductive sovereignty is Constitutionally based on a right to privacy. Illuminating every moral authoritarian on how narrowly myopic their punitive view of child birth is really isn't necessary.

Reasonable people know. It's the law for a reason.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
"Yes, I believe that an abortion that saves the life of the mother is appropriate"

-----------------------------------------------
great, so who decides when it's necessary, when it's not. this is about the third law that has come up that refuses to consider the mother's health. bush's ban on partial birth abortions was shot down by the courts for this very reason, so instead of taking the needs of that percentage of the population (which I don't care how small it is), he just plans on fighting it all the way to the supreme court. so what about that small number, do they then, as their life is being threaten then go out and hire lawyers, spend the time and money bringing their need to court after court, with their medical evidence to prove their case all the way up to the supreme court just to get that medical proceedure that will save their life? the way some of the courts are around here, she might be dead, but hey the child might be starting the first year of high school....maybe, unless her death was totally in vain and he died also in pregnacy!
who is to decide? because with the partial birth ban, is wasn't doctors who decided it wasn't necessary in ANY cases to ensure the safety and well being of the mother.....it was a bunch of politicians, playing the polical game vote gathering that they have always played? the doctors think it is sometimes needed.
how about we say that before bush starts another war, maybe with iraq, or maybe with korea, we have him hire lawyers, and let the opposing country also do the same, and we bring them into a court of law and hash it out, and well, let the appeals process play itself out, if the courts one day decide that he can have his war, we will go to war?

and hey, guns and even tasers have caused death!! and have been known to be abused by police officers. so from now on, before the cop can use such force, he has to go to the courthouse, prove to the judge that his life is endanger, then maybe, we'll let him use the gun. of course by this time, the criminal might have actually killed him, or have continued on with his crime and be gone, by hey, we're savin g the lives of innocent victims of police brutality here, aren't we!!

I guess, by what I've read and heard....that these laws are intentially being written, without any consideration for the mother, and then the courts are being told that if they find it unconstitutional, well, instead of just shooting it down as unconstitutional they should just write in and change that part that they think is.....they should write the laws in other words. congress can't find a way to ensure the rights of every individual to protect their life and wellbeing...so they're passing their job off onto the courts.....all the while the same congressmen are probably the ones griping about the judges "legislating from the bench."

I see no one has bothered answering the question.....would you be willing to refrain from sex with you spouse, abstinance IS the only 100% effective method of birth control ya know, or would it be grounds for divorce, or adultury, of maybe even a little battery to put her in her place?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Perhaps it was seeing what not having one did to my teenage mother pre-1973. I also know quite well as one of those "consequences" of what happens when two high school kids are forced to get married it's not exactly the valuable learning experience or happy ending some may think.


Forcing someone to get married is a different discussion than ending
abortion. Having a child doesn't automatically mean a person has to
get married.

ADOPTION is always an option. Just because a woman has
a child, that doesn't mean she has to get married. Her family can help
raise the baby. If the family won't help, there is help from the church.
Our church has an apartment where unwed mothers can go to have
their children and live with their babies. It is rent free until they are
out of high school and college. Our church supports this. If there is
no family and no church, then there is ADOPTION. It's much better
than painfully killing a preborn child.

As to your situation ... if you don't wish to discuss it then that's fine .. but
I'll ask the questions anyways .... the child that your mother became
pregnant with before she was married - if the child was you or a sibling
then you are ALIVE because she didn't kill you. Isn't it better that you,
or your sibling, are ALIVE?? Her mistake, or her family's mistake, may
have been to insist on marriage when she could easily have given you
or your sibling up for adoption. Don't blame the lack of an abortion on
a miserable marriage. Marriage itself is to blame for a miserable
marriage ... not the child.

Blame the forced marriage for the misery. Blame the religion that
forced the marriage. Blame it on parents who pushed what they
wanted and didn't think about what the options the daughter had.
But don't blame it on a lack of abortion. There are too many other
reasons and options.

[edit on 9/28/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Blame the forced marriage for the misery. Blame the religion that
forced the marriage. Blame it on parents who pushed what they
wanted and didn't think about what the options the daughter had.
But don't blame it on a lack of abortion. There are too many other
reasons and options.


I don't understand how you can see how wrong it is to force marriage, religion and parental wishes on someone, but not childbirth.

And trust me I do think of the child. Unwanted is unwanted.

There's no shortage of kids waiting to be adopted either. Not everyone can get the perfect white newborn on demand they want, but other people's misery shouldn't be a government forced baby factory for fulfilling the needs of the unfulfilled wealthy.

Adoption is an option, but so's not perpetuating your own misery and the potential misery of a child just to support the baby trafficking industry.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I don't understand how you can see how wrong it is to force marriage, religion and parental wishes on someone, but not childbirth.

Someone painfully DIES in abortion. That's the difference. It's wrong
to force marriage on someone. There is nothing wrong with not allowing
people to kill other human beings.


And trust me I do think of the child. Unwanted is unwanted.

Unwanted - Until they are adopted.


There's no shortage of kids waiting to be adopted either.

Actually, there is.


fulfilling the needs of the unfulfilled wealthy.

1/4 of married couples have fertility problems. That crosses all
economic borders. We adopted and we are NOT wealthy. My
friend is expecting her adopted baby tomorrow. They are not
wealthy either. Her family, and ours, had to make major cut backs
in household spending, had to save dramatically, and had to accept
'gifts' of $$$ from family members to adopt. Emily cost us 18K and
that was 10 years ago. My friends daugther is costing 25K.


not perpetuating your own misery and the
potential misery of a child

So how is someone miserable by sparing the life of their child?
So how is a child miserable by LIVING instead of being painfully killed?
And as far as perpetuating 'potential' misery of a child ... my daughter
is living a very good life and she's VERY happy. We dote on her. She's
my entire world and I'd die for her. So much for being miserable when
adopted. Oh, I'm sure there is an anomoli here and there in the world
of adoptees, but for the most part people who adopt make great sacrifices
and have a strong desire to adopt. The child is VERY wanted.

So you'd rather the child be killed than face 'potential' misery in an
adopted situation? What about their potential happiness? I haven't
seen any stats on how happy adopted children are, but the adopted
children I know are all very happy and well adjusted.


just to support the baby trafficking industry.


I'd love to know where to tap into this so called baby trafficking industry.
We'd love to adopt again but just don't have the money. Does this
alleged baby trafficking industry have a market place or a store front?
Any sales coming up in the near future?

In regards to your comment about WHITE children being adopted ...
We lived in Alabama when we were going through the adoption process.
We first looked at state adoption. The wait was up to 8 years. If you
were older than 35 you automatically couldn't adopt. We said we were
very much open to interracial adoption. We were told BY THE STATE that
first we'd have to foster care interracial children and then we couldn't
adopt THOSE children. We'd have to be evaluated for a few years and
then get put on a waiting list if we were deemed 'okay'. And even then
we were discouraged from doing so. All this when we were already
~ 35 so we would be past the age cut off anyways.

So we went to Lutheran Family Services and Catholic Family Services.
The wait was just as long.

So we went overseas. It was MUCH more expensive and we had to
really do some financial manuvering. It took us 9 months to get Emily
from Bolivia.

RANT - on a personal note - I'm glad that your mother
didn't abort you. I wish you were too.
I'm sorry to hear
that she was pressured into a marriage that she didn't need
to go into. But that's a separate issue. Adoption would have
been a fine option for you. But still ... I'm glad you weren't
painful killed by shredding or by chemical burning before
you were born. It's nice to have you here with us, even
when you disagree with me!


[edit on 9/29/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
1/4 of married couples have fertility problems.


This is all I really need to quote here as it is the hot button response I was hoping to draw out for discussion.

You (and others against choice) frequently comment on the various nefarious agendas of the "culture of death" perceived to be all around you. The insidious plot to eradicate black babies or make abortion doctors rich or devalue life or encourage recreational sex or circumvent parental authority or usher in a new age of God knows what. You're conspiracy theorists. Which is fine, but you percieve everyone around you to have a selfish agenda excepting you altruistic souls that simply feel the pain of the unborn.

Hogwash.


Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'd kind of like to vote for him...


John McCain has 7 children. His youngest is adopted from
Mother Teresa's orphanage in India. I have high hopes that
he'll run. Considering that he has an adopted child I feel that
he will understand the red tape and costs that interfere with
Americans adopting and perhaps he'll cut through it at the
White House level.


We're not blind (speaking on behalf of the pragmatic living in the real world). We see you on the news dragging crosses to Terri Schiavo's Hospice and screaming like somebody just cancelled Jerry Spinger on you. You have needs, wants and desires damnit. The people that lay down in the streets and throw blood on 16 year old cheerleaders looking for a simple 45 minute procedure to try and get on with their life after a mistake have ISSUES. Deep seated issues. We don't.

Those in dire need for salvation or fulfilment or that simply want to teach them hussey's to keep their legs closed, have the problems. Not anyone else.

The rest of us are just being practical. No. If somebody scooped my brain out with a spoon today, I promise you I wouldn't give it a second thought.


I'm glad you're glad my Mom didn't abort abort me, but Jesus Christ stop projecting lady. Get out of everyone else's head and womb already.

Your problems aren't mine. Mine aren't yours. You figure yours out on your own and quit trying to legislate a solution out of somebody else's womb for YOUR PROBLEMS.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Someone painfully DIES in abortion.

That would depend on whether or not the fetus has developed pain receptors.

Unwanted - Until they are adopted.

Or end up in foster homes to be systematically raped and abused as many are.. I also don't think there is a great demand by barren parents for blind, deaf, retarded or crack babies.. did you adopt one in these categories?

So how is someone miserable by sparing the life of their child?
So how is a child miserable by LIVING instead of being painfully killed?
And as far as perpetuating 'potential' misery of a child ... my daughter
is living a very good life and she's VERY happy. We dote on her. She's
my entire world and I'd die for her. So much for being miserable when
adopted. Oh, I'm sure there is an anomoli here and there in the world
of adoptees, but for the most part people who adopt make great sacrifices
and have a strong desire to adopt. The child is VERY wanted.

The biological mother of your daughter may've had alot of support when adopting her out.. most would not be so lucky and it wouldn't be so 'simple' [for the woman].

I'd love to know where to tap into this so called baby trafficking industry.
We'd love to adopt again but just don't have the money. Does this
alleged baby trafficking industry have a market place or a store front?
Any sales coming up in the near future?

So do you like the fact that women have unwanted pregencies.. but resent the fact that they may abort them so you can't adopt? That seems a little opportunistic of someone's situation but I guess it's like organ donation.. someone misses out. I think it would be the hardest thing for a woman to either have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption.

RANT - on a personal note - I'm glad that your mother
didn't abort you. I wish you were too.
I'm sorry to hear
that she was pressured into a marriage that she didn't need
to go into. But that's a separate issue. Adoption would have
been a fine option for you. But still ... I'm glad you weren't
painful killed by shredding or by chemical burning before
you were born. It's nice to have you here with us, even
when you disagree with me!

I am sorry if you have had difficulty with pregnancy.. and i'm sorry that you hear of women with no dificulty who are not in the position to have a baby and choose to abort.. but your situation is not their fault. You have not walked in their shoes and should not judge them. In future if you see someone is reluctant to discuss something.. and they have said it is a painful topic.. perhaps you could refrain from blatently trying to tear possible wounds open and pour salt in them? You've tried this angle a couple of times now and it's generally offensive.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
When I was growing up as a teen I saw first hand forced marriage around me, been from a Island that was predominant Catholic any teen that had "sex" been pregnant or not was forced into marriage to "Save her from the scorn of society"

I am glad that this practice is not longer used, because most of the teens that I knew that went into force marriage are now divorced.

And I know quite a few, see sex is unavoidable and part of human nature, what society made of it is what makes the big difference.

And for Grady wanting an apology let me remind Grady that God and Jesus is a myth of faith and religious believes and only alive in the mind of the followers.

Religion doesn't have the power to be forced upon others without consent here in the US and respect is only in the eye of the beholder.

When topics like abortion border in religious believes is open to any kind of opinion and any kind of debates.

If the faithfully feel offended by the answers of some of the posters in this boards then it will be only fair that he or she take an open mind on the issue, grow a thicker skin or ignore the threads.

Or add his views without demanding apologies for something that until this day can not and will never be prove without doubt.

In ancient Jewish tradition a women that became with child without a husband or before been married was stone to death for growing inside a bastard and the prove of her guilt, so much for the feeling of the "fetus" right, kill the mother, and the fetus within her.

Regardless of divinity or not.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
You (and others against choice)

Nope. We've been over that. There is no such thing as 'anti-choice'.
At least not with me. People have a right to choose if they are going
to have sex. Everyone knows that if you put part 'A' into part 'B' then
the product is 'C'. (baby). The choice was made at the time of sex.
No one should die by 'choice' - and that's what abortion is.


The insidious plot to eradicate black babies

Google Margaret Sanger. It's real.


or make abortion doctors rich

hadn't heard that one.


you percieve everyone around you to have a selfish agenda

Nope. Everyone doesn't have a selfish agenda. YOU are projecting.
Most folks don't understand what actually happens in an abortion.
If they understood that preborn children are burned to death and
shredded ... and that they feel pain ... I'm sure they'd reconsider
killing the child.


We see you on the news dragging crosses to
Terri Schiavo's Hospice and screaming

Nope. I wasn't there. I was definately praying for her and
the situation, and I spoke my mind about it. But no RANT,
I wasn't there screaming and 'dragging crosses'. And I've
never been to an abortuary either.


The people that lay down in the streets and throw
blood on 16 year old cheerleaders

..... are obsessed and need some mental health counceling.


looking for a simple 45 minute procedure

There is nothing simple about killing a preborn child. And the
'procedure' itself gets more and more complicated as the child
develops.


but Jesus Christ stop projecting lady.

Now THAT's funny!! After reading your post RANT, it's really obvious
that you are the one projecting, not me. You've generalized and
lumped everyone who doesn't believe in abortion into one big
bucket of puke lead by the Operation Rescue nutz or something.
Honestly .. you are projecting, not me.


YOUR PROBLEMS.

When preborn children who feel pain are murdered for $$$ and
then their body parts are sold to pharmacutical plants for more $$$
then it's everyone's problem in America. It's a death business, not
an issue of 'choice'.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Unwanted - Until they are adopted.

Or end up in foster homes to be systematically raped and
abused as many are..

I have never seen any stats that show an abnormally high percentage of
adopted children being abused compared to the average number of birth children being abused. Is there a discrepancy? Got any stats??


I also don't think there is a great demand by barren parents for blind, deaf, retarded or crack babies.. did you adopt one in these categories?

Actually these children ARE adopted and there are many people with
hearts big enough to love them. Our adoption agency, Villa Hope in
Birmingham Alabama, adopts out children with special needs. Many
adoption agencies do. Our daughter had Hepititis, double pneumonia,
some kind of exotic skin virus/infection as well as a lazy leg/foot and
her eyes didn't work (something with the muscles, they floated every
where). At this point she has weak lungs from the pneumonia and
has active asthma. She gets pnuemonia every November and usually
again in May or so. She has special orthodics for her feet. He leg has
strengthened up, but her feet are both painful from the fact that her
arches are growing the wrong way. She needs surgery to put titanium
spacers in her joints in her feet. We have to wait until she is 13 or so
and is just about done growing before we can do that.


The biological mother of your daughter may've had alot of
support when adopting her out..

Not that we know of. Emily was found abandoned on a bus in Bolivia
when she was two days old.


but resent ...

Nope. I resent no one. I just think it's awful barbaric for people to
kill children, especially when the can feel it.


You have not walked in their shoes and should not judge them.

I have judged no one. How on earth you come to that
conclusion I have no idea. Its amazing how those who
support abortion automatically think those who don't
support it are somehow judging people. Projection.


In future if you see someone is reluctant to discuss something..

RANT brought up things from his own past on his own. If he didn't wish
to discuss it, he wouldn't have done so. There was nothing reluctant
about him or his discussion.

perhaps you could refrain from blatently trying to tear possible
wounds open and pour salt in them?

I didn't.

You've tried this angle a couple of times now and it's
generally offensive.

I haven't done it at all. You are offended? That's your problem.


[edit on 9/29/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Ummm...ya know, I know at LEAST TWO members following this thred that just might be dead.....if they didn't get those abortions. and well, considering that the laws that is the topic of this thread WOULD deny this option to future women and more than likely at least a few will die, well....

I DO get the impression from some here that they place a much higher value on the life of the unborn than they do the person who is carrying it.

Rights of the fetus/rights of the mother....
okay.....
according to this law, the rights of the fetus to life outweigh the life of the mother....
so, later on down the road, when some go into the doctor, with a variety of different ailments that now can have their symptoms alleviated legally with medications, will they later be told to live with those symptoms, because the life of the unborn trumps their pain and suffering, damage to their physical bodies, and maybe death because the medication that would prevent all this MIGHT be dangerous to the child?

does the unborn child have the right to feed off the mother for eight months to begin with.....do I have the right to feed off you? Come on!! you want to get picky, call everyone murderers that has ever had an abortion, well, that unborn baby is totally dependent on it's host, the mother, she could just as easily kill it by not eating enough, or eating too much of the wrong thing, like cinnamon!! shallwe infringe upon her right to decide her own diet, her own excercise routine? does the unborn have the right to infringe on the rights of the mother to the point where she is draining her energy, her nutrition, causing emotional rollor coaster rides, overwhelming food urges for odd foods she never wanted before. Does it have the right to add a 40 to 60 pounds to her body weight? and what if her body can't take that stress, does it have the right to incompacitate her, or kill her?
because this law says all that!!

quit acting like bringing life into this world is an obligation of women, it isn't, it is a sacrifice, the women choses to make, for another.
personally, I think that society is freaking out, women aren't deciding to make that sacrifice, who can blame them? employers don't want to pay enough to feed them, cloth them, provide them with the medical care that they need. Our health industry is built so that, hey, if she gives birth to it, and decides to take care of it for a few years instead of paying an obnoxious amount in childcare, hey, she more than likely will lose her health insurance, since it is based on employment so much and family plans are out of reach! there's a good chance that she will spend those few years at home with her child cut from the medical care that she needs.
birth control is NOT 100% effective, women are often urged to go off the pill around the age or 35 and well, they are also told of the additional risk involved in child bearing that start around then also. and well, unless you can honestly sit there and tell me that if your spouse decided they want no more children, you would willingly, without griping, without running out to find another partner, without forcing her (or him)to change her mind, live without sex for the rest of your lives.....well, what can I say....it doesn't seem like you are willing to live the life you are trying to force down others throats!

[edit on 29-9-2005 by dawnstar]



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join