To staunch pro-lifers : Is abortion always wrong?

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I don't think its fair to characterise Sanger's views as simply hatred.

She only acknowledged, and supported the theory that "unfit" women are more likely to have an abortion (this coincided with the black population).

For example:


Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth


This does not seem like a woman who had a vitriolic hatred of black people and wished to see them all dead.


In 1926, Sanger even gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[11] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."


This was not some racial warrior trying to kill all "undesirables". She merely saw a correlation between race and condition, condition and reproduction and genetics and condition; and defended the outcomes.

Does the fact that 70% of abortions take place in minority areas make it any worse than if they had taken place in white areas? Why should it matter that more black babies are aborted than white babies? Surely in your eyes, a crime is a crime, isn't it?




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
thats it ive given up reading on the 6th page,i just dont think il catch up on this heated topic.
taste the ignorance : your veiw is that of someone who is ok with man going against nature as a deffence to a hard curcumstance(mans biggest crime) a scary discition that may change the life of a mother iriputibly. am i right?
slayer 44: is it that you think people with a dissability are not worthy of life? it is a hardship for them as much as it is made for them,not knowing any other way would it not be normality for them?my reason for this thought you brought up downs syndrome earlier, in my expeiriance people are people no matter how ignorant they are as is the opinion of my friends who suffer this problem.if theyer mother had done what one of your earlier posts suggsted i would have never met two beautiful twin souls who are allot more interlectualy advaced than a few in this thread.peosonally my opinion is when a sperm and egg are no longer they are either dead or ALIVE if you want to call a premature baby a phetus or zeagote then do so but dont change they're right to a life. sientist : murder is the life of another being taken against its will so to agree with you an unbourne child should be able to decide its own fate just some sencible food for thought
love and light
mr50


edit damb keboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:


[edit on 23-1-2009 by 5ive the light]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 5ive the light
 


Excuse me, but my view is that of someone who believes that NO ONE should have the right to tell any woman what to do with her own body. For all of you people crying "murder" despite the fact that it is wrong by the very definition of the word: Most, if not all of you eat meat. Eating meat supports the killing of something that is most definitely already living it's life. So if you're going to sit here and say that life has value. Why is it that only HUMAN life has value? We're all animals here.

Secondly: Until it is born, the fetus growing inside the mother is a PART of the mother. It has no free will and it has no voice in the matter. It is a part of her, and she has the right to decide whether she wants it to continue to grow inside of her or not.

If you're going to say anything about an abortion being a decision to "sacrifice one life for another", that is a commutative situation. IF you're are going to believe that an abortion is sacrificing one life for the other (the baby for the mother) than NOT having an abortion holds the same consequence (the mother for the baby). Either way (if you believe this ridiculous sentiment) you are sacrificing someone else's well being. What gives you the right to say that the fetus's life is more important?

Thank god Roe vs. Wade passed. You people would rather see children unprovided for and suffering...rather see teenage mothers everywhere...rather hear about all the girls hurting themselves in an attempt to perform abortions on their own.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Secondly: Until it is born, the fetus growing inside the mother is a PART of the mother. It has no free will and it has no voice in the matter. It is a part of her, and she has the right to decide whether she wants it to continue to grow inside of her or not.

even when the child is born, it has no free will, or should I say volition? and guess what, after birth, rights come into effect! It is not inside her but the child will die if the mother doesn't choose to help, or anyone else (doctors) for that matter.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by juveous]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


You don't understand what I'm saying here. Before birth, the child is A PART of the mother's body. It is not it's own life form and does not have it's own separate set of rights. AFTER birth, the child is it's own living thing and has the rights of a living thing.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by juveous
 


You don't understand what I'm saying here. Before birth, the child is A PART of the mother's body. It is not it's own life form and does not have it's own separate set of rights. AFTER birth, the child is it's own living thing and has the rights of a living thing.


actually I'm aware of this. But think about it, we separate the child into a different stage of being as soon as the child emerges from the womb. but the child cannot be separate from the the assistance of someone else. It is still bound by someone's choice for it to live. separate yes, but not really.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


i eat meat. i am a human. we are made to eat a vareity of things meat being one of them if i & all others did not eat meat there would not be half the animals being looked after by farmers they are stock,livestock but still stock. a cow could not save my girlfriend i she was in labor you could tryit if you want but we are they'er master without us they wouldnt exist they would still be oxen or whatever. walking meat is fine to kill it is'nt murder its a food chain. if the mother needed to eat the fetus to suvive then it would be fine.
she doesn't.
if she chose to have sex without a condom or what ever its what you can expect is it not. just because its not the right time for you is not the childs fault is it?
if it was rape then i'd think to myself what if this is the only child i could have, what if this child could make up for such an event,
i thought id post that before im done just to let u know were im going with this.
when then child is still in the womb it doesn't share thoughts with its mom it has its own it cannot be possesed by her so the mother is controlling it, i is its own being. as inexpirienced as it is to not use morse code through moms belly telling you it wants to live. the fact that it is alive in the first place means it wants its life even in an instincive way.
abortion is wrong and is not what needs to be discust. its what has brought us up to be so careless in the first place? that society has allowed such a way of thinking as to make men rape women,women kill they'er children, im all for defending rights but should we draw a line at some things were adults arent responsible any more? im 22years old and i cant get how the world is full of undergrown children and wonder if i had the choice to get rid of your annoying inconveniance would i?
.
.
.
.
.
.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by 5ive the light]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 5ive the light
 


Without us they wouldn't exist? You mean like a fetus right? Without us a fetus sure as hell wouldn't exist.

Just because you may think that a pregnancy brought on by rape may be the only child you may have, doesn't make abortion wrong. You should be able to make your own decision in the matter.

EDIT: Condoms are not %100 effective. My brother got through condom and foam. No birth control is %100 effective. The fact of the matter is that BEFORE the child is born, it is a part of the mother and is therefore subject to her decisions.

juveous(sp?): I understand what you're saying, but I'm not giving it a different group. I'm simply saying that BEFORE birth it's a part of the mother, AFTER birth it's a separate entity.

[edit on 1/23/09 by TasteTheMagick]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


no i mean cattle any animal we farm with out human intertracion they wouldn be like they are. as for you brothers failing contracptive i hope you got the morning after pill in time? dont wont another abortion now do we. you dont get it , if you dont want kids? as safe as you play, dont do what makes kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! duh if u do deal with it
if you cant help some one with it
peace im goin home check the tread tomorrow

hope you find the warmth in your words i didn't
peace and lght
mr 5
edit: fujin keyboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
[edit on 23-1-2009 by 5ive the light]


[edit on 23-1-2009 by 5ive the light]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 5ive the light
 


People shouldn't have to be abstinent JUST because sex COULD lead to abortion and some people just don't like that. Women deserve the right to choose. They're the one's that would have to carry the child for nine months and the RAISE it.

I'm sorry, but if I get pregnant (regardless of HOW it actually happens) and I know that I can not provide for the child OR I know that I do not have the means to give the child a good life OR if this child is the product of rape...well then I'm going to have an abortion. And that's my choice. If you don't like it, you don't have to have an abortion.

I really would like to see what would happen if we tried to pass some laws governing what men could do with their penises.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


ok so that means as society cant aford to keep you they shoud inject YOU with clorine? would that make it ok. i feel very sory that humanity has such stains on its soul, people who refuse to be humane. you were right earlyer (kinda) you are an animal. its things like this that seperate humans from pigs ,well some of us.you've just shown me not to worrie about helping every one, not every can be saved(espeicaly your unwanted phetus[baby baby]). thank you for my lesson i hope yours wont be as harsh as im sure alot of peeps would wish it were.
peace and understanding
5
ps i hope y'all like the thread i start to morrow



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Only atheists can feel comfortable morally to have an abortion. If you are a Christian, for instance, then you have to realize that you stand a chance of killing a person. It's a gamble for them, which I view as a sin if they choose to abort.

I would not respect a religious person who had an abortion.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Any opinion I have on this, i will keep to myself.

But i did read something posted by a friend on another forum that is definitely worthy of thought.


Lincoln’s Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion
January 22, 2009 | By: John Piper
Category: Commentary

On January 12, 2009 Samantha Heiges, age 23, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for drowning her newborn in Burnsville, Minnesota. If she had arranged for a doctor to kill the child a few weeks earlier she would be a free woman.

What are the differences between this child before and after birth that would justify it’s protection just after birth but not just before? There are none. This is why Abraham Lincoln’s reasoning about slavery is relevant in ways he could not foresee. He wrote:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (“Fragments: On Slavery")

There are no morally relevant differences between white and black or between child-in-the-womb and child-outside-the-womb that would give a right to either to enslave or kill the other.


"Bob" can be a sanctimonious jerk from time to time...but he is also fairly smart, and staunchly Christian (that is where most of our disagreements come from, as i believe Jesus was Buddhist and trying to speak this to the Jews).

But his statement above is definitely worthy of consideration to anyone. His view is basically: the woman has a right to her body, but it is the right of the unborn child that is being affected.

Like i said, MY opinions on this topic remain with me...so don't read too much into this post, other than to understand I am sharing something that is interesting.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
They're the one's that would have to carry the child for nine months and the RAISE it.



This is not always true. There is a certainty in my life, one that i have made the choice to ensure is always there: my children will be raised by me. I am fortunate to have a good wife and feels the same as i do. Even better, we look forward to the day when it will be just us again, and our kids have moved on.

It is not the woman the raises the child. It is the parent(s) that raise the child. For a woman to use this as her reasoning shows a level of selfishness, as it does not consider what her child may want/need, nor what the father may wish.

Regardless of anything else.

I am not a "pro-lifer"...but i am not your typical "pro-choicer", either. My faith is buddhism, and i believe that what is meant to happen, will happen.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
You know, it's interesting that the same people that say "It's a woman's body, it's her choice!" are the VERY SAME PEOPLE that scream the loudest when men want a "financial abortion" (i.e., not to have to be financially responsible for a child).

Interesting.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Interesting

Black pastor warns Obama

Black pastor warns Obama not to preside over genocide of blacks through abortion.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I personally have never had an abortion. But my sister inlaw had one. When I was 10 years old she had one done. They told her if she carried the baby full term she would go blind. She was already having treatments for her eyes weekly due to the complications her Diabities was causing. But 2 weeks after it was done, her emotional stress was so bad that she almost killed herself. She later on divorced my brother because she couldnt handle what she had done. And she now is remarried and has 2 beautiful boys but it still bothers her. After 30 years.

I may never have gone through one but I did have my tubes tied and that was emotional enough. I went through alot for 2 weeks after I came home. I would sit and cry thinking I may have killed any children I could have had.

I think we need to look at the person having it done, not at the abortion part of it. And if they have it done more then once there is a problem. Limit it to a once in a life time thing and no more. If they have it done more then that then they are doing something they shouldnt.

But as for finding out that your child may have a problem before they are born and killing them for it. That is wrong. I have a son with MR and a daughter with Autism and I love them more then my Normal child. Any parent that can kill a child with a disability needs to be shot there selves or have an operation so they cant have any kids.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 5ive the light
 


Society doesn't have to provide for me, I do that myself. I don't see how you can equate the killing of a fully grown and developed and self aware person to that of a tiny undeveloped something growing in the organ of another person that has POTENTIAL sentient life.


TheSingularity:
My mother is religious and she had an abortion when she was fifteen.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
that has POTENTIAL sentient life.

The children are not 'potential' sentient lives.

They open and close their eyes.
They suck their thumbs.
They respond to sound.
They play with their toes and with the cord.
They sleep and wake.

THEY FEEL PAIN

Unborn human children are sentient beings.

There is no question about it.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Fine, lets say I agree with you.

Now tell me this (don't weasel out of it this time!).

What about the fetus when it is at a 4- cell or 8-cell stage.

It has no eyes.

It has no thumbs.

It has no ears.

It has no toes, no cord, or anything else.

It has no capability to sustain itself independent of the mother.

Scientifically, it has no sentience.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join