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.

 

Parents sue over the sex of their baby.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


yeah, abortion is possible at 6 months and even after, its called late term abortion. there are many groups supposedly standing for personal rights for women that fight against any legislation outlawing late term abortions except in instances where the expected mother is raped, or her health is at risk. they even fought against a bill to give the unborn child anasthesia pre-late term abortion.

whats sad is, there are some women who dont even think about it, and just ho around, excuse me that was honestly supposed to say "go around" but i hit the wrong key and decided to leave it that way. i know a girl in her mid 20's who has had at least 3 possibly 4 abortions, all by choice, all because of a lack of use of protection during sex. i mean, its just sickening that someone would keep popping out dead babies so they can have ever so slightly more sensual sex. is it really worth it?

[edit on 3/23/2008 by runetang]




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by Amaterasu
That it failed is not the issue. The issue is that the ultrasounds must have shown the development. And now a child, doomed to agony, is in this world.


So by the time the child is far enough along to determine sex...we what.. kill it...because its not a girl? I understand the point your making..that if it is a boy and knowing it will suffer we should kill it and start over....but doesn't that just seem wrong?



No... By the time the fetus is far enough along. It is not a child until first breath. At least if you take the words the God of the Bible gave His people. He told His people that the soul enters the body at first breath, and why there are so many Christians who say otherwise confuses me.

So... No, it doesn't seem wrong. Especially when takes into account the fact that this world is grossly overpopulated to begin with. Surely we do not need children who will burden society. As harsh as I may sound, we would do best to cull our herd, but no one has the right to choose which of us breathers should go. So, the best option is to make sure unwanted fetuses are not forced to that first breath.

Which is what happens when the anti-choice people harass and badger the women who would have an abortion to the point that they go ahead and give birth. They would force all these fetuses to their first breath - and then abandon them.

Doesn't THAT just seem wrong?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Actually, i doubt that by the time the baby had developed a gender they could have aborted. I am not certain of the point of no return, but i am pretty sure that by the time gender is fixed and definable that the period where a standard abortion can be carried out is past.

Thus, they could not have aborted and your fears are groundless.


Actually, depending on the state you're in, they can perform "partial birth" abortions, which are where the body of a fully formed fetus is allowed to pass its body out but is aborted before the head is able to take its first breath.

So really, there is no "point of no return" until first breath. Any killing after that is murder - because at that point (if you heed the words of the God of the Bible), that is a souled being.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The thread became pro/anti abortion, huh?

I'm gonna answer the op's question...

I am vehemently against the idea of choosing the traits of children. To stop them developing diseases/disorders, sure. But cosmetic choices, I don't want. I resent the idea that a child will be born beautiful (by most standards) by the whim of parents. If that child's personality means they are an asshat, it doesn't help them.
To me it stinks of "rich get richer" except the beautiful get more so (beautifuller?
) and we end up with an even more visible division in society between haves and have nots.

I think that people should be born with the same genetic random hand that everyone else gets, and it's up to you to go from there (No "advantages"?). Could the child even resent the parents if they dislike their appearance? Knowing that it wasn't "noone's fault", but their parent's active decision?
Or they start to think that it isn't them that their parent's wanted? Whatever they were going to naturally be like, their parents wanted a miniature Tom Cruise, no matter what their child will be. It's like stealing someone's baby... (a stretch I know)

Will we end up with a race of greys? Physically identical? (as everyone's "perfect" children converge on an accepted physical ideal?) I dunno.
I just don't want people to do this kind of thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I am 22 years old and have a 14 month old son. I cant even imagine what trying to manipulate the formation of a child costs, but I can sure imagine that there is a whole lot of things better that money can be spent on than altering a process humans have been getting right for thousands of years for free have already done.

Legally, the company/practioner(s) involved should be fined, and pay restitution. They should subsequently be banned from marketing this procedure ever again, as they attempted to create a coverup that knowingly would not stay hidden. I would even go so far as to issue a year of prison to the individuals who authorized the coverup, as it was a deliberate and intended misleading the couple, costing them untold mental and financial anguish.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
In other words, GOd is probably punishing that kid, and his will is not to be thwarted. Right? Better to let someone have some atrocious genetic disorder than piss off the big bearded white guy in the clouds by trying to prevent it.


Pff. Get that garbage out of here.

I do not appreciate blatant religious attacks... I am not a god-freak or a bible thumper. You can stop beating that atheist war-drum whenever you like...

I said that if you don't like the term God, use nature. NATURE WILL NOT ALLOW us to genetically alter babies in the womb and 'get away with it.'

It's that simple.
Apparently, not simple enough for some people to understand



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I feel for the baby, how is he going to feel growing up with his parents knowing that they didn't want him, they don't even have to tell him, kids can sense this kind of stuff. Suing over this is just worrying, what kind of parents will they be? it's sad for their child.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Greed, GREED, Greed, so many greedy people in this world. I have absolutely no problem with people attempting to remove disease genetically before birth, but I do have a problem when people become so greedy that they'll risk or discard the unborn in order to achieve their perfect genetic trophy.

We have been given the ability to figure this out, but we must tread lightly as we learn about (DNA) the codes & blueprints of our creation, though we may better ourselves we can just as easily destroy all that was/is if we proceed to quickly.

I agree with those who say, maybe they shouldn't have been so greedy if the first place as they knew that this result was a possibility. Without that greed an adopted baby would have met most of their requirements.

How anyone could sue the doctors who tried to help them achieve their greedy wishes, just shows you exactly how greedy they are.

How would you like to be the child of these people to find out later they sued the world because of your entry into it?

While their intentions may have been good the results exposed their true evil.


Originally posted by Amaterasu

It is not a child until first breath.


Technically it may not be what we classify as a child, but a living human being it is and just because it gets its oxygen & nutrients via its mothers body does not mean it does not feel or that it is not aware nor that is not yet alive.

I dispute you contentions that it has no soul until it takes its first breath. Many believe the soul enters the body when the production of '___' is sufficient which is somewhere between 12-16 Weeks. I won't elaborate & derail this thread further.

It has a soul, yet you say it doesn't, that you can justify your words that treat it as if a piece of meat/flesh from the supermarket to be discarded if spoiled or unwanted.

I contend that if we knew of the evil and greed behind your words before you came to be, we should have aborted thee. But then without you as an example of what not to be, we couldn't have balance, so allow you to be we do.


Originally posted by Amaterasu
So... No, it doesn't seem wrong. Especially when takes into account the fact that this world is grossly overpopulated to begin with. Surely we do not need children who will burden society.


And your EVIL GREED manifests itself in your words as well. After all I was born already and why should I have my world be made more difficult by having to share it with new comers who use up too many resources and become a burden on my happiness & comfort.

Greed, GREED, and more greed.

That's what I see maybe I'm wrong.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Originally posted by Amaterasu

It is not a child until first breath.


Technically it may not be what we classify as a child, but a living human being it is and just because it gets its oxygen & nutrients via its mothers body does not mean it does not feel or that it is not aware nor that is not yet alive.


What I'm saying is merely that, if you take the word of the God of the Bible, the soul does not enter until first breath, and any killing would be more on the lines of killing a cow or a fish. IF you take the word of the Biblical God.


I dispute you contentions that it has no soul until it takes its first breath. Many believe the soul enters the body when the production of '___' is sufficient which is somewhere between 12-16 Weeks.


Dispute it with the Biblical God. I'm just a neutral messenger.


It has a soul, yet you say it doesn't, that you can justify your words that treat it as if a piece of meat/flesh from the supermarket to be discarded if spoiled or unwanted.


*I* don't say it. The Biblical God says it.


I contend that if we knew of the evil and greed behind your words before you came to be, we should have aborted thee. But then without you as an example of what not to be, we couldn't have balance, so allow you to be we do.


Shoot the messenger.



Originally posted by Amaterasu
So... No, it doesn't seem wrong. Especially when takes into account the fact that this world is grossly overpopulated to begin with. Surely we do not need children who will burden society.


And your EVIL GREED manifests itself in your words as well. After all I was born already and why should I have my world be made more difficult by having to share it with new comers who use up too many resources and become a burden on my happiness & comfort.

Greed, GREED, and more greed.

That's what I see maybe I'm wrong.


What is this tripe? Evil greed? Because I point out that the planet is grossly overpopulated, that makes me evil and greedy? It's not just me I am worried about. It's ALL of us.

Maybe you are wrong... [shrug]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I don't know the Bible, nor do I quote from the Bible or the God you contend that backs up your claims. Though I believe in a God, I follow no religion or book. I just have seen enough to know there is some intelligence currently beyond my grasp that created all that I know and I see DNA as evidence to that - even though it's only a glimpse.

I speak from my heart & soul and I believe what I have come to believe through my experiences in my years on Earth and not some book written by men.

You can quote your Bible all you want, but if you were to watch life inside the womb from conception to birth and reach out with your true feelings you would see that somewhere between conception & birth a feeling living being exists and that's no where near the time it takes its first breath as you or the book you claim contends.

Though I reluctantly support rights to abortion, thats only because I support freedom of choice and I would never advocate or participate in such. The game is giving each life a chance, with each chance comes more possibilities and one possibility can change the course of our entire existence, which may lead to solving the game, or taking us to the next level.



[edit on 24-3-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
I don't know the Bible, nor do I quote from the Bible or the God you contend that backs up your claims. Though I believe in a God, I follow no religion or book. I just have seen enough to know there is some intelligence currently beyond my grasp that created all that I know and I see DNA as evidence to that - even though it's only a glimpse.


I applaud an independent view of "God" - or spirituality, if you will. Actually, the Biblical God, early on, gave the Hebrews a set of laws and stuff. Not the Bible itself, but the Talmud. In the Talmud, He says that life begins at first breath. My point is that the followers of the Bible would claim a different point (conception), and that clashes with what thei God told them.


I speak from my heart & soul and I believe what I have come to believe through my experiences in my years on Earth and not some book written by men.

You can quote your Bible all you want, but if you were to watch life inside the womb from conception to birth and reach out with your true feelings you would see that somewhere between conception & birth a feeling living being exists and that's no where near the time it takes its first breath as you or the book you claim contends.


It's not MY Bible. But it IS my world that is grossly overpopulated, with non-white kids growing up in institutions and foster homes that, for the most part, fail to give the primary need a human has, that being love. Small wonder we have so many twisted individuals in this world.

Regardless of what a fetus does prior to birth, the fact remains that if that fetus is unwanted, and especially if it is a non-white fetus, to bring it into this world is insane, in my opinion. By forcing the women to have these babies and then abandoning them to their lot in life, when the world does not need any more humans, is very sick. In my opinion.


Though I reluctantly support rights to abortion, thats only because I support freedom of choice and I would never advocate or participate in such. The game is giving each life a chance, with each chance comes more possibilities and one possibility can change the course of our entire existence, which may lead to solving the game, or taking us to the next level.


Oh, I am all for choice (glad you are too, however reluctantly). I am all for freedom. I just have issues with those that force children into a mostly loveless existence, rather than take responsibility for them on a personal level. I would think, if they really cared, they would be adopting every child they forced into the world, prepared to love and nurture them. Not hinder the woman's choice only to walk away. That infuriates me.







 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join