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.

 

Do women have a human right to taxpayer paid abortions? I don't think so!

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zerra

Originally posted by galatea

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
As for abortions for rape, I know of an instance of a rape where the mother was told by everybody to get an abortion, but she kept it anyway.

And I happen to see the child, a girl a few years later a very cute and very happy child oblivious to the circumstances that created her.

It really made me think about the issue, that child was enjoying the joys of life, yet her conception was act of terrible violence, for which neither the mother or the child was to blame.

One possible solution is adoption in this situation.


What about a 12 year old that's raped by a relative and conceives a child... and incest usually results in birth defects.. plus most 12 year olds bodies aren't ready for giving birth... just wondering what you think.


I agree with you that their body is just not ready for birth, I just want to point out that incest is more of a cultural taboo than a genetic disaster. It will take many generations of 'inbreeding' for this to happen and many cultures it is okay to marry your cousin.
For us, it's more so of a taboo that will have very serious social, psychological, and emotional consequences. This is risky /harmful enough though.


That's true, I didn't think of it that way. I, however, would prefer not to have children fathered by my relatives, lol.

Her daughter did come out just fine and was very cute. I just can't imagine how the mom, felt about the situation. but, I guess that's another topic.




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I need to go before you guys turn me into a pro-lifer.

I'll be back after my show.

xx



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:

Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.

Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?



In cases of rape, wouldn't the pill-morning after work in these cases too? They could take it after they report to a doctor-for their health. Sperm can take up to 40+ hours before actually hitting the egg. Why would rape victims today, wait months before reporting the crime? Could be messy situation, though that does occure.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by galatea
I need to go before you guys turn me into a pro-lifer.

I'll be back after my show.

xx

lols.
Hope it's a good show! I'm pro TV all the way. tcha!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:

Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.

Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?


This could cause some false accusations directed at men.
The sex was consensual, until the girl finds out she is pregnant.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
You're all talking about timing and location.

I'll vote for this if you add a part saying any mother of any age can ask the Government to abort their child of any age born or unborn. At any time any mother can request Government paid termination and cleanup of any of that mother's born or unborn children. Let the women start the requests to clean up this Nation right now. Hire an Elimination Czar immediately and start billing the taxpayers.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zerra

Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:

Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.

Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?



In cases of rape, wouldn't the pill-morning after work in these cases too? They could take it after they report to a doctor-for their health. Sperm can take up to 40+ hours before actually hitting the egg. Why would rape victims today, wait months before reporting the crime? Could be messy situation, though that does occure.


That's true. I don't know much about the morning after pill, is it easily available to people?

Another question, would you guys rather more funding be available for birth control to help prevent unwanted pregnancies? I would prefer this option myself.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:

Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.

Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?


This could cause some false accusations directed at men.
The sex was consensual, until the girl finds out she is pregnant.


That's what I think would happen if abortion became illegal. A lot of false accusations would start happening to obtain one.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by canadianmouse
 


So you think it is ok for any woman to have eight abortions. They should be sterilsed on the second one in my opinion.


Very few women would ever have eight abortions. That is propaganda that you are reading that states that women are addicted to abortions. It isn't like women are lining up for an abortion between their nail and hair appointments. Come on. And personally it isn't my choice as to what they do with their bodies. My body is my choice.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by canadianmouse
Killing a live child is murder, that child is living and breathing. Abotion isn't murder because abortion is legal and not the murdering of life. Life is when the person can live and breathe on their own. In a mother's womb they can not.


**(Insert screaming here)***

WHAT?!?!?!? Just because a LAW makes it legal to abort, this negates a living breathing human being? So, when a dog is pregnant, those aren't puppies until they're born?

And it is LAWS which state the killing of a pregnant woman results in two counts of murder, manslaughter, etc..

Which do you prefer? Non-human for abortion puposes, human if the mother is killed?


Screaming is not required for a rational debate.

The reason it is against the law to kill an unborn child when you murder a pregnant woman is because you cut off the life supply of that fetus. Again without a womb that fetus can not survive. That is a wanted fetus in the female body, that is why the person would be charged with two murders.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnityFT

Originally posted by canadianmouse

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by canadianmouse
 


1. IT is going to be based on my opinion because I created the thread.What do you expect?

2. I would be aganst blood transfusions too if there purpose was to the kill a baby because the mother found it to be inconvienient to her life at the moment.


You don't seem to be understanding where I am coming from, there are religions out there that do not believe in transfusions. If you are going to pick medical procedures based on beliefs and not legal medical laws then no one should be allowed blood transfusions to be covered. You should have to pay for that out of your own pocket.

You can't start picking and choosing what the health care system will allow because in the end not everyone is okay with every procedure.

Also having a abortion isn't killing a baby. A fetus isn't a baby.. The fetus depends on the mother to live. How do you know that it is only because she is being inconvienced is the reason for the abortion? There are many reasons for having an abortion. Being pregnant is a medical condition. Pregnancies are not that easy on the female body. Don't start judging women until you have been there in the room having an abortion. You are assuming you know what a woman is going through in there.


A fetus isn't a baby... a fetus depends on the mother to live? I'm pretty sure babies all the way up until they turn 4 yrs old depend on the mother to live. Does that mean babies aren't babies until they're able to take care of themselves and be independent?

No one knows more than I do that pregnancy (and more specifically, the delivery) is not "that easy" on the female body. But our bodies are designed to do this. Just because pregnancy isn't "easy" or "convenient" isn't a valid excuse for terminating a life. And it IS a life. I think, since we consider someone dead when their heart STOPS beating, it's safe to assume their life began when their heart STARTED beating. That's not a religious belief, that's a fact. There's really no grey area here, is there?

And yeah, that's the good thing about this forum, we get to state our case based on our beliefs. Has nothing to do with religion (for me, anyway).

Abortion is a selfish act. There is ALWAYS another alternative.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by UnityFT]



Yes it is very hard on the female body and a woman's life is a very valid excuse as to why they are terminating a pregnancy. Not a life as you call it. Life means they are just that, alive. They aren't living on their own. I also know what it is like to have children, as I have 2 of them. I had two very hard pregnancies and deliveries. So I can fully understand why someone like me wouldn't want to go through it again.

Their life doesn't start until they are born, hence why we have birth certificates. Life begins at birth not at gestation.

You seem to be twisting my words about a fetus requiring a mother to live into a child needing a mother to live. A fetus needs a mother's womb to survive, they can not survive on the outside. A child doesn't need a mother to survive, they can survive on the outside with any family member or non family member in a foster care setting.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Here here, with the exception that life begins at cell division. That is life after all and most life as we know it starts as such.

I don't think I've ever heard a pro-choice person argue their position without being emotionally detached from what that bunch of cells is, a baby. They discuss a developing human being in scientific terms I think strictly to dehumanize it and distance themselves. And, more often than not, they argue their case from a platform of "me, me, me": "I'm not responsible, I can't advance my career, I can't afford to raise it, I'm single". Truly the epitome of the "me" culture is the agenda of abortion.

And yes, if you are against it, you're often (i.e. always) made out to be some religious zealout hellbent on speading or forcing your views on others. That's their whole defense; that pro-choice folks are ignorant, illogical religious nutjobs who would rather supress women's freedoms and force them to get coat-hanger abortions in some shanty.


How about.....
I'm not gonna be able to walk if I try to carry this baby nine months and experience has already proven that there will be no one around willing to help care for the three I already have!!

that sounds rather me, me, me, but with a twist....there's already three looking for this person to care for them!!!

I know the part about walking is possible, because I had a very, very hard time walking when I was carrying my third....
I also know that experience can prove that even then, there could be no one around willing to help out....

and, well, I also know that when laws are written that restrict abortion, the special cases like this get whitewashed, set aside, denied!! there's a women in poland now, legally blind, single handedly trying to care for four children because of this.
There's was a discussion on these boards not that long ago about a 12 year old in I believe brazil that was rapped by her father and wound up carrying twins. She had more than one doctor stating simply that her body was not developed enough to carry the baby, and well, there was a big discussion about this....
in plain simple words, many of the anti abortionists just claimed the doctors were lying. read on this thread, someone has already stated that many of the women who claimed rape would be lying.

I spent 20 years being just about the sole caretaker of my children, ya, the husband paid the bills, or tried to. but, well, for most of those years, he did not want me to work....why should he have to come home from a hard days work to have to take care of the kids...that was my job...
then suddenly, it's I'm sick and tired of having to take care of all of yas (ya, like me fixing his lunch and making sure it was on the table for him every day on time so he could eat it and run back to work wasn't taking care of him).....I have to do everything!!! the guy went to work, sat and read while his machine ran, occasionally checking on it to make sure it was running..... I was up and running from the time I got up till the time I went to bed! and, well, the only point I am trying to make is that in society, it seems all too often that the contribution of motherhood isn't noticed, it's not work....it's all play!! whatever. or like some seem to think, it's a curse, the horrible consequence of a women's sin! It's a baby for crying out loud!! you were one once yourself.....were you a curse?
our economic system is brutal to families at the moment. and we are told that well, if we couldn't afford them, we shouldn't have had them......aren't they telling me that I should have aborted my three kids? my three kids are now productive member of society, were raised with little help from society, and because I point out that hey, ya know, we can't afford to live, well, I shouldn't have had the kids.

societal views are very much the source of many of the problems. just look at the discussions that go on...should women be in the workplace, who's watching the kids while she is (never crossed the men's minds that hey, maybe they should be!!). and on and on we go!!!

they want all us women going back to being their little subservient helpmates...and that is all it boils down to.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I havent read all the replies to this thread, and i apologize if this has already been mentioned. but in my province in canada, abortions are covered. and no one i know seems to have a problem with it. except of course for the handful of older people that stand at the street corner by the hospital with their signs every once or twice a year. i think that this debate over whether its "right" or not really should just end. the 2 sides are NEVER going to agree. and one persons view of whats right and moral is going to differ from another persons view of what is right and moral. so there is no way for people to agree on this ever. abortions arent going anywhere. so if you have a problem with the concept of abortion it is up to you to work out that issue for yourself. we need to all accept that this is now a part of life in the year 2009. if you have a problem with abortion, dont get one. dont try and take that right away from another person because it's not your place to do that. their body, their choice. and if you dont want tax money going toward abortion, then your only choices are to not pay your taxes, move somewhere where its not part of their taxes, or just learn to accept that this is the reality of the current age we live in and move on.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
No. Only women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and women married to or knocked up by GOP Congressmen, have a right to taxpayer-funded abortions.

In fact, we are so concerned that women in the Middle-Eastern meccas we now occupy may not *know* are entitled to taxpayer-funded abortions, we take the humanitarian step of visiting upon them abortions in the form of mass chaos, bombings and other wild events that stem from military invasions guaranteed to result in civilian casualties.

Personally, I'm proud and happy to be contributing MY tax dollars to this valiant effort. At home, we need to realize that the 4 ounces of fetal matter in a woman's womb may become the next Sean Hannity or Balloon Boy, so women who spread their legs and act laciviously need to get with the program and procreate, as clearly they asked for it anyway.

Gawd Bless the You-Ess-of-Ay!

[edit on 12-11-2009 by criticalthinker]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by canadianmouse
 




The reason it is against the law to kill an unborn child when you murder a pregnant woman is because you cut off the life supply of that fetus. Again without a womb that fetus can not survive. That is a wanted fetus in the female body, that is why the person would be charged with two murders.


Do you have any idea how totally irrational your statement above is?

So what you are saying is that it is murder if the mother wants the child, but not murder if she decides to abort it because she doesn't want it.

You even call it an unborn child when someone murders her, thus kiling the child, but when she aborts it then it is just a fetus.

It is illogical to define the exact same thing differently just because the circumstances change. Do you understand the error?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce


Do you have any idea how totally irrational your statement above is?



I sure don't. It's dead-on to me.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


This part of their comment is important to note:


That is a wanted fetus in the female body


A wanted fetus will lead to a healthy child should no complications occur.

A unwanted fetus does not.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Hey Sauce, the answer is no!Do I have the right to a government paid for vasectomy? Great thread by the way s&f



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Hey Sauce, the answer is no!Do I have the right to a government paid for vasectomy? Great thread by the way s&f
]


uhhmm...i'll donate the money for yours.
sorry...you just threw that out, and someone had to run with it


[edit on 12-11-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Do I have the right to a government paid for vasectomy? Great thread by the way s&f


And yet, without a vasectomy, will you deliver a baby?



new topics




 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join