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.

 

¿ For or Against Abortion ?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   


I agree with Tinkleflower. I respect other peoples beliefs, but as MY religion does not agree with yours, I don't feel the law should force me or others like me to follow another persons religious belief.


if I wanted to be a real jerk, and if I had the power to do so, I would have you kicked out of this country just because this country was founded on my religion. just think about that for one moment. we put our nation under God and our rights come the creator. our founding fathers had every intention on keeping christianity in the government and to keep the government out of religion. because of christianity being the foundation of our nation, we have many rights and many freedoms, because oof christianity america is more than just land governed by people with political power.
with that said

abortion is murder no matter how you look at it.
anyone who has ever voted for abortion has already been born. think about that one. if you could give the unborn child a choice on whether to live or be aborted, im sure that it would chose to live. I mean whenever your life has been in danger, im sure that you have thought to yourself a time or two about how much you want to stay alive or how much you dont want to die. life is great, so why keep someone from experiencing it? abortions are painful for the child, I understand that the pain does not last for very long at all, but its still painful. kinda like burning. if I burned you at the stake, yeah you would be in a lot off pain, but the pain wouldnt last for too long.
abortions can also damage a woman in many ways. it can cause breast cancer in women. it can bring a womans fertility down to zero.

I dont care what the reason you have to justify abortion, there is no good reason. its not the childs fault its there. its someone elses fault. maybe not the mothers fault either, but why try to play God and try to erase a life just because one thinks that its not supposed to be there.
aborting a child is like your family going to the movies but leaving you home just because they dont have enough money to pay for your ticket. (probably not the best analogy) its not fair to the child and its the childs life you are taking.
why does the mothers right to have an abortion stop at birth, why isnt it extended beyond the time of birth up until the kid is 18? its her kid and she had to carry it. there is no difference in killing it 5 seconds after as opposed to killing it 5 seconds before. im sure anyone with common sense can see that.

its wrong, there is no favor for it.

EC




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

if I wanted to be a real jerk, and if I had the power to do so, I would have you kicked out of this country just because this country was founded on my religion. just think about that for one moment.


Thought about it.

Came up with same conclusion: Yes, that'd make you a real jerk. I'm glad that you're not



because of christianity being the foundation of our nation, we have many rights and many freedoms, because oof christianity america is more than just land governed by people with political power.


Fact remains, there's a good reason why there's meant to be a separation of Church and State; this country is secular by definition, and that's a good thing. The founding fathers were concerned with religious oppression, and that's exactly why it's the way it is.



anyone who has ever voted for abortion has already been born. think about that one.


Do you really think this is new rhetoric? Do you honestly think that nobody has ever considered this line before? Anyone who has ever voted for the death penalty has never been executed before, either. It's a pointless statement, surely?




abortions can also damage a woman in many ways. it can cause breast cancer in women. it can bring a womans fertility down to zero.


Don't buy into propaganda.

Don't believe the hype

Please read

And more here



I dont care what the reason you have to justify abortion, there is no good reason. its not the childs fault its there.


See that's the crux of your opinion - you don't care what reasons there might be, you've already made up your mind. Which is fine
Just be honest about it, and don't bandy about the whole "abortions cause breast cancer" line, because it's just not true.


why does the mothers right to have an abortion stop at birth, why isnt it extended beyond the time of birth up until the kid is 18?


The reason should be obvious



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
If you feel so strongly (and it is obvious that you do) about abortion being so wrong, Let me ask you. Have you adopted? And not a cute perfect little baby, but a hard to place child. A baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, or one addicted to heroin? One that is lost in the "system" and left unloved and unwanted even by society?

Additionally, to say that our founding fathers were Christian is a severe misstatement. Most of the original founders were self-proclaimed atheists.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

Please note also that John Adams is known as being the most religious of the founding fathers.

Many were self proclaimed Deists (ie Pagans) including Benjamin Franklin and Ethan Allen. Thomas Paine was very vocal about his dislike of religion in general, a strong advocate of atheism.

The phrase "In God We Trust" on money was originally "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One). The change was made during the Civil War. The founding fathers chose something different. I fear they would have been rather disappointed in the change.
www.treas.gov...

They feared that the morals of religion would pervert the laws of government, and vice versa. They wanted to make it so that the morals of religion would not impose themselves on people who did not follow those same beliefs, and that the laws of government did not restrict the religious beliefs and practices. Therefore, by those standards, outlawing abortion presses a moral standard that a religious group holds on people that do not follow those same religious teachings. Not outlawing them does not mean that I *have* to have an abortion, just means that if Jane Doe wishes, she may.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   


Lets say you're an 18 year old girl who is 10 months pregnant.


10 months pregant...not sure if it's possible to get abortion at that stage


i'm very much for abortion, for many reasons:

1) i think everyone should have a 'choice' to have an abortion or not to.

2) if it were made illegal and that 'choice' was taken away, women would resort to getting abortions in back alleys, by non-doctors etc...and well right now it's good because abortion is 'controlled'.

3) if a girl is raped, and 'has' to have that child, i couldn't stand someone telling her she 'had' to have that child. she should certainly have a choice to get rid of it. sure you could give it up for adoption but sooner or later that child will find out his mum didn't want him and his father was a rapist.

people who shouldn't have abortions:

1) a 16 year old girl doesn't understand the concept of procreation and has casual sex with her 19 year old boyfriend without using condoms, and her only reason for having an abortion is because she can't be bothered to have a baby or just feels she might not be up to it.

as saintforgod once said, sometimes you might not like the responsibility, or sometimes you might not want the responsibility, but matter of fact, sometimes you just have to accept it and deal with that responsibility. well it was something along those lines and i think it's a very fair point.

just because 'you don't want the baby' is not reason enough to have an abortion. if there is every possibility of bringing a new life in to this world then by all means take it. in certain circumstances such as rape, possible death to mother and/or child then yes i think abortion is o.k. however, abortion is not there for young mothers to have another option 'just incase they get pregnant'... it most certainly is not a 'last ditched attempt' just because the condom burst and you forgot the morning after pill.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   


Fact remains, there's a good reason why there's meant to be a separation of Church and State; this country is secular by definition, and that's a good thing. The founding fathers were concerned with religious oppression, and that's exactly why it's the way it is.


separation of church and state is not found in the constitution. it was in a letter tha thomas jefferson wrote. and its a one demensional wall keeping the government out of the church and keeping the church in the government. thats why in our pledge, we say "one nation under God".
thats why our dollar bill says "in God we trust"
thats why we still have the 10 commandments in the supreme court.



Don't buy into propaganda.


I dont buy into propaganda. I have friends who have had abortions and then after that been told be doctors what it could have caused. I know some people who have had abortions and now cant have kids. I also know a few people who have had abortions and either have breast cancer or have died from breast cancer.
its not propaganda.



10 months pregant...not sure if it's possible to get abortion at that stage

hey my mother didnt have my little sister until after 10 months. of course that was one hefty baby. weighed 10 lbs 4 oz. im suprized it wasnt bigger.
some women can get to 10 months without having the baby yet. its crazy but it has happened.

EC

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

I dont buy into propaganda. I have friends who have had abortions and then after that been told be doctors what it could have caused. I know some people who have had abortions and now cant have kids. I also know a few people who have had abortions and either have breast cancer or have died from breast cancer.
its not propaganda.


Sorry, I just find it hard to believe there are doctors who would promote such obviously disproven rhetoric as with the breast cancer link allegations.

I've known women who've had terminations and yes, a couple have been infertile afterwards. It's a risk you take with many gynecological conditions and surgeries (even benign surgeries). That's not the part I was questioning though.

As for the breast cancer, again, I'm sorry, but your anecdote is not evidence of anything. Breast cancer does have several causes - can the patients you know prove that theirs was caused by their abortion?

Who told them this?

What was the proof? What about the millions of women who've had terminations who have never suffered breast cancer? If there was a direct link, surely there'd be more, yes?

Did you read the links provided, by the way?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

I dont buy into propaganda. I have friends who have had abortions and then after that been told be doctors what it could have caused. I know some people who have had abortions and now cant have kids. I also know a few people who have had abortions and either have breast cancer or have died from breast cancer.
its not propaganda.



Hmmm, reminds me of something my Immunology professor was always fond of saying. He quoted a "STUDY" that said "Wearing skirts causes cervical cancer"

Frankly, these days, SNEEZING causes cancer. The studies I have seen that showed the positive link were all anti-abortion sites, the ones that show no link, were medical sites. The positive link sites don't show me all the possible factors involved. Power lines? Family history? Some did include smoking. Other children? Hormone therapy? Eating habits?

www.cancer.ca...

However, I know smoking can cause cancer. I still CHOOSE to smoke. If we ban abortion on the basis it might cause increase risk of breast cancer, shouldn't we ban the use of pesticides? That shows an increase in cancer. Or high voltage wires? Estrogen? Sunbathing?

As for the unable to have kids, that is a risk with almost all abdominal surgeries. I had a minor procedure done for an abnormal test result. I had to sign a *seperate* waiver that said I was aware of the risk of infertility and increased risk of miscarraige as a result of the procedure. However, a very valid concern. One that made me consider hard if I would have the procedure.

However, they are valid concerns if considering an abortion as to why NOT to have one. They are not however valid for creating a Law against it. Not unless you want to outlaw everything that is unhealthy or risky.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ariande Tau
Frankly, these days, SNEEZING causes cancer.


Studies have shown that scientific tests cause cancer in laboratory rats.


-----------------
Anyone who says that casual sex is the same as rape has never been raped. Anyone who says that incest is the same act as intimate relations with someone on an equal footing has never been on the receiving end of incest.

Rape and incest are not sex. They are power and control, pure and simple. I've been raped. I've been sexually abused. And I've been pregnant from the rape. Should I have been forced to have that child? I was 18 at the time. I was afraid I was going to be thrown out of my house. The guy who raped me was supposed to be my boyfriend who wouldn't listen when I said no. He was bigger and stronger than I was, and pinned me.

By your lights, Evolution Cruncher, I should have been forced to go through the pregnancy. I was trying to decide what to do when I went in and found out that having a child would, quite simply, kill me. I was not physically capable of surviving a pregnancy, and there was next to no chance the child would survive the pregnancy, either. But according to the very strongly "pro-life" camp, I should have been forced to go through the pregnancy and take the risk of my life - after all, I had the sex, I had to pay for it. Nevermind that I didn't have sex, I was raped, and there's an entire world of difference.

Long story short, I had the abortion. My parents found out, and I was thrown out of the house anyway. My ex-boyfriend stalked me and tried to rape me again, after telling me that if I did what he wanted me to do, he'd take care of me.

I don't like abortion. I don't ever, ever want to go through that again, and I'd have to seriously talk to anyone who was considering it. But I'd never make their choice for them, because only they can know why they make it.

As far as "it doesn't cost that much to give a baby away" - I'm sorry, but bull. Pregnancy IS expensive. If there's no insurance, it's a good bet that there's no pre-natal care, there's no ultrasounds, there's no vitamins, there's no checkups, there's no nothing making sure that everything goes right. Even if there is insurance, you're still talking anywhere from $750 to $2500 American (or more) before the child is even born. Tell me again how much it doesn't cost to give a baby away, now?

Incidentally, Shaunybaby - the American FDA disapproved the "morning after pill." I believe they decided that there was no compelling evidence that it was safe for use.
It's not even allowed to be put into rape kits at hospitals.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Incidentally, Shaunybaby - the American FDA disapproved the "morning after pill." I believe they decided that there was no compelling evidence that it was safe for use. It's not even allowed to be put into rape kits at hospitals.


The FDA approved it in Sept 2000; as of June '05 it's still on the market and still available; it's still got the black-box warning too.

FDA alert

One reason it might not be in a rape kit, is it needs a prescription; you can't include (generally) Rx meds in a generic kit unless the entire kit has been acquired via prescription too.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Incidentally, Shaunybaby - the American FDA disapproved the "morning after pill." I believe they decided that there was no compelling evidence that it was safe for use. It's not even allowed to be put into rape kits at hospitals.


The FDA approved it in Sept 2000; as of June '05 it's still on the market and still available; it's still got the black-box warning too.


Ah. I might be thinking of a refusal to allow pharmacists to dispense, then. That would make one heck of a lot more sense, since even the FDA can't be that stupid. Can it?


One reason it might not be in a rape kit, is it needs a prescription; you can't include (generally) Rx meds in a generic kit unless the entire kit has been acquired via prescription too.


I think what really bothers me the most about this is that even in the ER,at least some doctors - who are, one presumes, allowed to write prescriptions - are more or less forbidden to write prescriptions for this, even if the victim wants and requests it. In some cases, they're not even allowed to counsel the victim that it's an option open to them if they go to an outside clinic! It's got to do with the way some funding systems are set up - if a hospital provides abortion services of any sort, they may lose some types of funding. Given how many hospitals are chronically low on funds, this is an understandable concern on the part of the administrators, but it seems really very ... well, punishing, to be honest, to not even be willing to provide an assurance that a child will not happen out of such a terrible event to someone who's already been through that much trauma.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I suppose in the ER though, they can't often fulfill the requirements set down by the government; mifepristone requires doctors to follow a pretty strict set of rules, including counseling the patient, seeing the patient several times in the office and adhering to the many, many other laws that states have set up for abortions. Doing this in the ER setting would be impractical...at least as far as "seeing the patient several times in the office" goes.

That said, I'm not sure why it would be needed in the ER at all - the rape victim would be advised to see Mr Ob/Gyn to obtain the drug, the same as she'd be advised to see one anyway for follow-up monitoring (or alternatively her PCP).

Pharmacists are also fully able to dispense...but there have been cases where they themselves have refused to do so, for whatever reason.

It's actually a bit scary. This is why I really, really don't want States to be able to decide themselves which drugs are "good" and which are "bad"...can you imagine one or two saying 'Well, contraception is an abomination, so the BCP can go, for a start..."?

And quite honestly, I think it's dangerous and unethical for a pharmacist to refuse dispensing a legal prescription for anything without a darn good reason (like...certain pharmacies won't fill an rx for large numbers of narcotics, but they have some jolly good reasons for doing so).

Nice input, Cat



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHICKST3R
Which would you rather be?

Going back to the law of abortion. I don't think it was right for Bush to try and pass something like that. There should be no law that states what a women should and shouldn't do when it's their body and their baby!

Lets say you're an 18 year old girl who is 10 months pregnant. Your parents are willing to help you take care of the baby, but don't have any money to do so. You have no choice but to get an abortion..right? Well, this is where I get stumpped. You could have the baby and then set it up for adoption or you could kill the baby because you have no money to take care of it.


Not true, you could go on social assistance until you get on your feet. That's why it's there. It's not the mother's responsibility to take care of her adult of a child's child.

She's 18? She can vote, she can have sex, she is responsible for the well being of that child period.

I don't condon abortions unless it is a risk to your life.

Are these women so stupid as to forget about the morning after pill?
Are you that much of a moron and a lazy stub to wait until the baby develops a brain and then kill it?

They invented contraceptives for a reason, use them!

It's no wonder the stupid people have children and the smart ones wait until they can afford it... THese people just don't think!

I don't care what the excuse is, it is inexcusable to partake in an abortion when there were many choices availble to you in the beginning, before you decided to spread your legs and you had 3 days after your rendezvous to get the morning after pill...

You know you are at risk of being pregnant if you made the conscience decision to have sex without using the pill or a condom or a diaphram.

so go get the pill just in case.

If you've been raped, I can understand, still, go get the morning after pill, you have 3 days/72 hours, and while your at the clinic or your doc's, get checked for std's..

Why wait 4-5 months or weeks to check yourself...

If you don't believe in contraceptives put the baby up for adoption.
you have soooo many choices before making the big one.




You're 14 years old and is pregnant with a 10 month old baby. You have to choices, either you have an abortion or have the baby and set it up for adoption. Well, since you're ONLY 14 YEARS OLD your body might not be able to handle being pregnant. So sadly you decide to have an abortion but you don't just want to kill the baby because you can't take care of it. This really stumpt me, big time!


It shouldn't stump anyone if you think ahead.

you have 72 hrs after intercourse, and again, you know when you aren't using protection, so go get the pill just in case...

a 14 yr old's body can handle it, look to the third world countries where kids have babies at 12. This is vaginal birth, their bone structure is made to handle it, just because your 14 doesn't mean you get off easy.
The 14 yr old made a big decision because they thought they could handle it, they can handle giving birth.



What do you guys think?


I just told you



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

If you've been raped, I can understand, still, go get the morning after pill, you have 3 days/72 hours, and while your at the clinic or your doc's, get checked for std's..


Isn't it a little strong to insist on this?

Some victims are simply too traumatised to even see a doctor until weeks later, if at all.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Some victims are simply too traumatised to even see a doctor until weeks later, if at all.


Yes, my friend was raped by two men at the same time, threw a pillow over her face, one held her down while the other one raped her.

She didn't want to go see a doctor, but with a good friend by her side (me) I had to instill a little logic into her head about the possible ramifications of waiting too long. It was hard for her to do, but she understood the what ifs. Some people don't have good friends or family members, some are in it all by themselves, I feel bad for them for what happened, but these people need to think about the ramifications while they are emotional. You can't beat yourself up over something you had no control over, take control now before the situation gets even worse.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I just don't think it's that easy, you know?

We need it to be possible, for such cases; I've known one or two women who simply couldn't get medical help. One was held captive after she was raped, for over a week, before she was released. Too late, even if she'd gone for help immediately.

That's all, really; like you, I hate the idea of abortion for "contraceptive" reasons, etc etc. But it's not going to go away (it's been around for millenia in some form or another), and if it's here to stay, I'd much rather it's performed safely.

(I'm also really glad we can discuss this civilly
)



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I just don't think it's that easy, you know?

We need it to be possible, for such cases; I've known one or two women who simply couldn't get medical help. One was held captive after she was raped, for over a week, before she was released. Too late, even if she'd gone for help immediately.

That's all, really; like you, I hate the idea of abortion for "contraceptive" reasons, etc etc. But it's not going to go away (it's been around for millenia in some form or another), and if it's here to stay, I'd much rather it's performed safely.

(I'm also really glad we can discuss this civilly
)


There's no point in getting mad about it, I'm just mad at the idea of it being used for reasons that could have taken a different route that didn't include abortion.

Being held captive is a terrible terrible thing and my narrow minded conclusion about the morning after pill wouldn't apply obviously, i'm not thinking about that instance, more like the kids and young adults who use it not because they had to but because they didn't exhaust all other avenue's before making that decision, and I find that inexcusable.

I'm sorry for your friend and I hope she's staying strong, I know something like that could be devastating on a person spirit.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Pregnancy and abortion is a woman's issue, because she is the only one that can become pregnant and chose the outcome.

I always said that a woman issue should never be in the hands of strangers, religious, political and others groups.

It should remain what is been up too now a woman's choice and a woman issue.

The woman's womb is part of her body something she was born with it should never become a subject of legislation because that will be dealing with human body parts.

Once you legislate that part of the body anatomy then what will be next?

Women could be relegated and at the mercy of the courts just because she is a woman and have a womb.

Sometimes in the haste of our religious and political views we forget the big factor here, this is not about fetuses or the right of a fetus but the right of a woman to have control over her body, organs and reproductive parts.

How many women will rather have the courts to take away the rights of her own body?

I for one am against it.

The whole deal is bigger that many can imagine and the ramifications of controlling women's bodies parts will be to enslave women and take away her rights as a human being.

Think about it.



[edit on 16-9-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
marg6043,
I can understand your point of view but it makes me question on how you would stand on such issues as:
a woman being charged for fetal alcohol syndrom
a woman being charged for a "crack baby"
a woman being charged for the various afflictions tobbaco usage causes a fetus.

I am asking this to get a clearer understanding of what you are saying.
The problem that I see with your argument against abortion is that no one but the woman should have any say as to how she treats her body. So by your argument, a woman should not be faulted for injuries the fetus may suffer due to any abuse that the woman feels that she has the right to do to herself.

I am not trying to cause problems but trying to learn / understand.
Thanks



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Then why do you think is not laws controlling who should become a mother or who should not?

For the same reason that legislation against human body parts will never be.

Because is a touchy subject is a subject of controlling human beings and taking over the rights of their bodies.

As bad as it looks and as sad as it sounds it will be women's out there that will become mothers even when they are not fit to be mothers, and it will be women out there that care less what their vices do to her or her fetus.

If we legislated the woman's wombs the courts will be able to chose who will have a child or not or encarcerate women's at will for not taking care of their womb or fetuses, they will also force a women to become an incubator for a fetus and a child that she do not want base on laws and interpretation of the law.

I am for women rights the same way that men protect their rights more than they do the women's.

Even if I in the back of my mind disagree with many issue that surrounds abortion and who should be fit to be a mother or not.

But is not one issue but a bigger issue, in oder to accommodate for a few the rest will have to suffer equal.

That I am against it.

The problems in our nation are that courts can never be clear of their intentions as by interpretations of the laws.

What one judge deem by the law in one state it means different to another judge in another court.

That is human nature.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That is human nature.


It is also human nature to be extemely selfish and try to make end justify the means.

If this wasn't "life" we're ridding ourselves of via doctor's hands, why is it so controversial?

It's just murder directed against children who are inches from birth, let's not play semantics, as I get the notion that calling the baby inside the womb (it) or (fetus) makes the argument to murder (abort) ok.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join