Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abortion, yay or nay?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2003 @ 03:58 PM
link   
This is a very delicate subject....
When is the fetus deemed to be "alive?"
What are the circumstances associated with the one seeking the abortion? Do the circumstances/reason outweigh/justify the need for abortion?
Perhaps one needs to define what "Life" is, in all respects....implying the fetus and the mother.
Almost feel like I am walking of egg shells here....the subject is so delicate and yet so emotional.

How can one even place a "moral" issue and implication to this. I have discussed this in another thread. What determines our "moral" views and beliefs? Are they not ultimately up to the individual...despite absolute, relative, and objective morality definitions? Is it not ultimately up to this person to decided subjectively if what she is doing is morally wrong or morally right?

Then you have circumstances that come into play.... What I don't agree with is if one just ups and has "fun" only to find that later on, she is pregnant. Both 'parents' are responsible, thus I feel both should be involved with the "final" decision. Then, because of the "fun" had, they both realizing that they can't afford the baby and the other many varied reasons, they opt to have an abortion....thats what gets my goat. I see no justification for this. I won't go into much more of this because there are so many varied reasons and circumstances....I just mentioned one that seriously bothers me.

This issue will always ultimately reside with the mother, irregardless of the 'fathers' wishes. It also ultimately will impact her life forever. The pain will never go away. The thoughts will never cease. Her decision will ultimately rest with her conscience; her view of morality; her view of wrong and right and her circumstances.

This subject is "delicate" for a reason......so are the tears that are shed before and after......

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by Seekerof]




posted on Aug, 22 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
my opinion on it is this.
There are so many other options available that make abortion an unncessary practice.

Abortion is messy, painful, emotionally scarring and hard, no matter what side you're on. these are the facts.

Women and men have many contraceptive choices to make this a moot subject.

If you're about choice, i'd say choose the miriade of better options then having a doctor scrape your uterus.

if you're about life, then educate the masses on how to protect themselves.

case closed.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Fury, I think this is about when protection fails. You could use every form of protection at once and still get pregnant.

While yes should use protection, but hell, my mom was on the pill and got knocked up with me.

It should be the womans choice as long as it isn't alive. And I mean alive as in could live outside the mother, not as in a glob of pond scum is alive. So, alive outside mother? usually at around 6 months pregnant(early babies born months to soon) So abortion before 5th month sounds good. But again, if the woman wants one and can't get it, she will have it then dump it in a dumpster.

Don't say adoption. How many kids are waiting to be adopted? Adopt them first then we'll see about the rest.

Or, other crude means used in old times and modifyed today. Shove something up there. Usually a smooth stick(today a broom handle or coat hanger) and cause a miscarrige. Or be kicked/punched/other forms of hitting in the stomach cusing a miscarrige. Abortion clinics are a safe way of doing those. Unless a pro-choice group blows up the hospital that has the clinic and has several dozens die so one person doesn't get an abortion, but dies anyways due to the explosion.

Funny thing though, they believe it is alive and abortion will kill it, so they blow it up along with the mother and the other dozens of people in the area. Then go to a jail and support a frying in the chair.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 05:24 PM
link   
abortion is too often used to avoid the consequences of ones actions,once conception takes place there is nothing that should be done,if this were the course of action which people were forced to deal with,a lot of moral and societal issues would be solved as well.

The only exceptions should be:
-rape (maybe).
-gross deformity(unviable fetus).
-death to the mother if carried full term.
The choice between these three should still be the mother's choice.
Yeah,I hear it already,
"well ,what if the mother is poor?"(wrong!)
"well,what if the mother is a minority?"(descrimination!)
"well,my body my choice"(keep your legs closed)

I don't care if you think this is something that you think you have a right to decide.

It is ALL about morals and responsibility,and too many people give these two things very little thought!.

And besides that,the fetal material is worth a whole bunch of cash and used for all kinds of purposes which the medical establishment charges the patients for,the mother is generally not compensated.

So on one hand we have people answering to the consequences of their actions,a good thing.

On the other hand we deprive a basically illegal money making scam from happening like the moneymen like.

We allow people to live,that even though there are those on this board who would say they are "worthless"," poor"," whatever",who knows what these people who never were would have been?,who is in a position to decide who dies?,who gives life?,they have no business judging anyone that way anyway,
a lot of people should look in the mirror and really try to figure out where they fit into the big pic,I am sure they would be disappointed if they were truthful with themselves.

Everyone has the right to have children,regardless of how "worthless",you think they may be.

I used to think differently when I was younger,I know a few people who would not exist except for the mothers desire to have the kid,good people.


arc

posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 06:12 PM
link   
you missed an exception - the mental health of the mother



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 06:33 PM
link   
....In the mental health thing,it leaves an opening for some legal@$$hole,(Judge),or other unqualified person to steal away someones right to have children.IMO there are few who really are qualified,or do the job for the right reasons.

I could understand an exception in the case of someone who was too profoundly disabled to raise a child,but then there could be plans to make adoption arrangements,but still,even though this person may be disabled,they should have the right to choose,they may need help but it is still not an impossibility.

I was reading an article some time ago about an experiment conducted to test how effectively mental health could be determined by proffessionals at clinics,they failed miserably.

One group of test subjects was officially diagnosed as being clinically schizoprenic,depressed etc,and sent out to try to convince professionals in the mental health field that they were normal happy people,they succeeded for the most part to be diagnosed as normal.

The other were normal healthy people who were sent out to try to be diagnosed as having some form of mental disorder or whatever,they were successful being diagnosed as loonies for the most part.

Kinda makes ya wonder.

Who really is qualified to decide if someone is normal or capable of raising or having a child?.It ia a God given right though.

It appears to me that parenting skill is seldom considered,the less adept a parent is,the more likely it will be the kid is absorbed into the system,the government loves nothing more than to raise young people to be zombies,chaos is a big money maker.

Nothing in politics happens by accident,the results of most policies will never be noticed until years pass,then it is too late.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Ok Unbalanced, what if the person has aids? Should they be allowed to kill their children with aids or be allowed to abort the fetus when it is not yet living?

Or what if like some of the cases you hear about where living in inner city, poor, father of two of the kids is in jail for murder, one doesn't know who daddy is, and two more have daddy in graveyard after a coc aine overdose? She then gets pregnant again and instead of bringing another child into the world that she can't take care of, she decides she want's to end it before it is alive. Should she be denied because she doesn't fall under your standards? Or should welfare pay for another kid no one, not even the mother wants? I do not say all should be aborted, but that the woman should have the choice to abort it or not.

Or what if the mother is a crack/heroin/other drug addict, making the would be child a crack/heroin/other drug baby? Most of them either die soon after birth or live sick and unhealthy lives due to the effects of the drugs their mother was on? Should they be born if the mother does not want them? I do not say all should be aborted, but that the woman should have the choice to abort it or not.

You can't say under this situation and none other for someone will bring you a situation not covered yet should be. Besides, it is their body until the fetus is alive. And don't say close your legs, for some use protection and have smart sex, yet still have kids. The reason they use protection is because they don't want and/or can't handle a kid at that time of their life which is why they are using protection. Heck, some married couples don't want a kid at the beggining of their marrige and use protection, yet still have kids. But what if not ready for one? Should they be forced to have a child they can't take care of because you say they have to?

Besides, if you will tell them to close their legs, then tell guys to keep it in their pants. It takes two to have a kid, no man, no kid.

And again, you mention adoption. What about the millions of kids waiting to be adopted? What about the kids who will go through life to never be adopted? Shouldn't we be adopting them first?



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 07:23 PM
link   
......Have your own point of view,I was just expressing mine.

So now it goes on to how much of the responsibility to make these types of decisions should be shifted to the government,because of this and that.

Fact is no matter how much people try,it will always be an imperfect world,and you know why?.
MORALS,CONSCIENCE,RESPONSIBILITY,or more precisely,a shortage of these things.

The only reason these things even come up is because so many people are not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

Like AIDS,some people got it from transfusions,some from rapes,most from drug use,unprotected sex and other things that they were fully aware of to be risky,the responsibility thing was out the window way before the pregnancy occurred.

Same with most of the other things you mentioned.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I remeber a comedian saying once that the same pro lifers also supoort the death penalty. Wonderful logic. Force the kid to be born so you can execute him on death row when he becomes and adult. Wonderful. Not to mention that these people scream about taking life, yet blow up abortion clinics and kill people. Hm......im missing logic here.

James makes a good point. Adoption, when the system is so full of unwanted kids and foster kids that they cant find homes for, lets add more of em. great. people need to realize the realities of adoption. Its not realitic to say all unwanted kids should be adopted, they get thrown into the system for years and years, many hardly ever finding a home. if theres all these infertile couples that want to adopt kids, why aint they?

Remeber, until recently, a kid wasnt even considered human, or in many cultures, even given a name until a certain age. Hell the Heathens in Europe didnt even believe you were Human until you were weaned from your mother and could eat Human food. Thus, the question of when a baby becomes a sentient human being, when its actually human, is still debateable. Ive seen fetuses and stuff, they dont look like humans or babies to me, the embryo looks like a sea horse, or a fish, and fetuses look like aliens. This is during the first three months, of course. After that, then they start looking like people.

of course, im still to see the logic of late term abortions, unless medically necessary. i mean, if you cant make up your mind after the first three months, youre pretty stupid anyway.


Every woman who decides has to make this descision, thus, she must live with the concequences. it is not for men nor church nor govornment to decide for her.


arc

posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by uNBaLaNCeD
Who really is qualified to decide if someone is normal or capable of raising or having a child?.


as far as mental health goes, the person suffering from depression or whatever is usually the best person to decide whether they are really capable of having a child at that particular time in their life



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Yep,that is right,but there are those who would really like to take that right to decide away.

Once the government gets involved,you can just kiss those rights goodbye,bit by bit,but then they already are involved,so it may be too late.

There has been legislation presented to congress that would make it unlawful for someone who suffers from depression,or has ever suffered from depression,and other pseudopsychological conditions from owning a firearm.

How far of a stretch would it be to deny someone who suffers from depression etc.,the right to have children?.
I do not see it as such a big stretch.

Sliding back toward those old eugenics again I think,maybe...hope not.



posted on Aug, 23 2003 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I have one question about the abortion issue. Why is there not a national investigation (by Congress, the American Medical Association, the Disease Control Center, and all consumer advocacy groups) concerning the high failure rate of contraceptives? Indeed if aircraft were to fail at the same rate that the pro-abortionists claim for contraceptives, then several hundred people would die in air crashes every week. If that were to happen, every airplane in the USA would be grounded (except for those strictly required for national defense) until the problem were solved. My question is thus: if contraceptives are so unreliable as claimed, then why is there not a national call by everyone to investigate this problem in an effort to create a solution?



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Profit.
Who profits?.
-the contraception industry.failed but still cost money.
-the medical industry.(disease, pregnancy)
-the social service industry.It grows it.
-the legal system.It grows it
There are more who profit but the single largest profiteer involved is the governments,by growing a bigger taxpayer herd to live their parasitic existence off of,and all of the above industries also pay the government through taxes on services once again.
The picture just gets bigger and more profitable for the few at the expense of the many,chaos is profitable.
Sorry if this post sounds fragmented,I need to drink some coffee yet this morning.


arc

posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 09:10 AM
link   
it is made clear what the failure rate of each contraceptive method is

IUD - 10%
Pill - approx 5-15% depending on make and type
condoms - approx 2%

when you consider just how many sexual acts involving contraception take place every minute of the day, and the percentage of those that result in pregnancy, it is still a very small figure. Even sterilisation is not 100% effective - I have met 2 people myself who found this. One where her tubes were not tied properly, and another whose husband's vasectomey of 10 years prior managed to partially reverse itself

Its not a conspiracy - it's called 'sh1t happens'



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 09:23 AM
link   
...it is just that,like you said,$hit happens,but there are those who are waiting to profit from it ,and the less $hit is avoided,the more $$$$ they will rake in.

The moral issues with drug use,risky sex,even lack of inhibition through alcohol consumption,child abuse even,all play a role in the mistakes that are made.

Just think about how many people would be out of a job if there really was an effort to fix some of these problems,any good person who gets into a position to make changes is promptly stifled by those who are not elected,who are in office before he/she gets elected,who profit from this chaos which arises from not really,but only kind of trying to remedy these problems,going through the motions I guess you would say.

There are so many pieces to this puzzle that it boggles the mind,IMHO it boils down to morals and responsibility on the part of the people,we all know the government is short on morals,by the time anything gets done,the morals are lost in the fighting over the cost of actually getting anything done.

I think about these things constantly,I think too much.



posted on Aug, 24 2003 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


James makes a good point. Adoption, when the system is so full of unwanted kids and foster kids that they cant find homes for, lets add more of em. great. people need to realize the realities of adoption. Its not realitic to say all unwanted kids should be adopted, they get thrown into the system for years and years, many hardly ever finding a home. if theres all these infertile couples that want to adopt kids, why aint they?

Quite true.
On one hand, you have all of these children in the system who are either too old, wrong color, developmentally disabled, etc. for the potential adopting parent. Many people adopting seem to look for the "perfect" child, or a child that suits them rather than approach it as simply the opportunity to be a parent.
On the other hand, in some (most?) states in the US, the regulations and the high cost make it very difficult to adopt. It's not as simple as deciding that you are going to go adopt a child and just do it. It is a long and painful process. I wish it was easier.
To say that putting a child up for adoption as a alternative to abortion is a noble thought, but there are holes in the theory.

BG



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Skadi, that was George Carlin.

Anyways, it is funny though, even without George Carlin saying it. Pro-Lifers are against abortion but for death penalty and bombing hospitals and sniping doctors and against stem cell research that would save millions of lives all because they consider something that looks like a bunch of pond scum human. Also, pro-lifers are mainly Republicans and christians. Let's see....

Republicans want more average and poor people to screw over and tax the hell out of while their ich buddies pay less then a homeless man does.

Christians want more sheep to shell over their hard earned money so the leader can buy a new Porsche or a new Rolex.

Well, as said, never heard of people who think you have the right to control your womb bombing a church or sniping a Republican politician. Yet a few years ago there were a few dozen attacks on doctors and hospitals led by the pro-lfe group killing over one hundred people. But then the government stepped in and stopped the attacks. Now only hear about the attacks if you look for them.

Did you know there was an atack on a childrens hospital in California because a branch of it sold condoms and pills and other forms of protection pro-lifers say are wrong. In the attack two doctors, one nurse, and over a dozen kids are killed. But with Republicans in power and all the hooha going on in California, you would never hear about this attack for Republicans support it.

As George Carlin also said......"The president said he will get government off your back. Why? Cause now they moving to your uterus."





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution