The Insanity of Abortion in America

Originally posted by trueperspective
[

I mean think about this...If your mother was pro-choice and aborted you, you wouldn't even exist.

You say you are religious...ok

Then you believe that the human body is not the end all/be all of life.

You then must agree that there is a soul...in your opinion, where would such a soul "go" then upon death...

The fetus would theoretically be sinless (unless God designed a exceptionally faulty system...lets say he put a little foresight into it to begin with and either our soul, or essence either goes straight to heaven(yay) or simply transferred to another fetus in waiting)...

Now, is life just a mechanical process...a bio-chemical computer of experiences, or is it a soul moving a machine around? If its a soul, then no problem..the soul didn't die. If its just a bio computer, then turning it off before it gets experience would be similar to unplugging a toaster.

You must define life...must must must...and once defined clearly, then you can start to decide what to do. I personally would see the abortion issue to be more opposed by athiests whom believe this is all there is than people whom believe life is a inconvenient sidestep to "going home".

....and these "mentally unstable" women.

What if they are so mentally unstable that they have no understanding of even being pregnant? Are they then mentally stable enough to take care of themselves -- and their fetus -- while it is developing for nine months? And what if they are not? Who takes care of this baby after its birth?

The baby's health at the time of birth is directly related, though not the only cause, of babies being born with severe birth defects. Do you think that a born born with Alcohol Fetal Syndrome "feels no pain"? Do you think a baby born with a deformity due to a lack of folic acid while in the womb "feels no pain?" Have you ever seen a baby born with a severe spinal deformity due to inadequate folic acid during development? I have. There is pain involved to say the least.

You can argue this many ways. However, a woman that chooses to have an abortion is less likely to care of herself and/or the baby during OR after delivery. This leaves an unwanted baby, possibly born with severe birth defects, that "we" now raise. I don't see how you can say that is without "pain" at all.

The only thing that I would like to see "changed" regarding Roe v. Wade is I believe that the men who father these babies should have more say prior to the baby being aborted. However, my above arguments would still stand, but I do think it unfair to not allow the potential father a choice in the matter.

I think liberals should turn their whole act around being Pro-Choice, you know how many votes you are losing? you know how many Union dues you are losing?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
When does life and namely a soul inhabit a body? That is a question that can not be reasonably answered beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When you have to go to the drastic measure of cutting someone open to prevent the natural process of it becoming a baby I believe you have denied life. Once the cells start dividing it is a lifeform in development.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I think liberals should turn their whole act around being Pro-Choice, you know how many votes you are losing? you know how many Union dues you are losing?

Then they would not be liberals...liberals (unlike common belief) is not some political party, its a ideology based on choice for the people, not the government...to choose the liberties of how you run your life regardless of sex, race, etc...choosing what a woman should do with her body and her philosophy is the opposite of personal liberty, or liberal philosophy.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I think liberals should turn their whole act around being Pro-Choice, you know how many votes you are losing? you know how many Union dues you are losing?

Then they would not be liberals...liberals (unlike common belief) is not some political party, its a ideology based on choice for the people, not the government...to choose the liberties of how you run your life regardless of sex, race, etc...choosing what a woman should do with her body and her philosophy is the opposite of personal liberty, or liberal philosophy.

You are contradicting yourself by killing someone who wants exercise his/her right for the same liberties. I guess all you liberals can be called Dictators then.

Originally posted by 4ortunate1

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
When does life and namely a soul inhabit a body? That is a question that can not be reasonably answered beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When you have to go to the drastic measure of cutting someone open to prevent the natural process of it becoming a baby I believe you have denied life. Once the cells start dividing it is a lifeform in development.

How do you feel about surgery then...the natural progression of cancer is treated this way...and cancer can be argued to be the process of turning a human into spirit form...I imagine your pro-surgery in that case however.

You know...its not natural to shove tubings over genitals to prevent a child...you deny life from naturally occuring that way also...are you also anti-condom? What about taking birth control pills that unnaturally flush eggs?

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I think liberals should turn their whole act around being Pro-Choice, you know how many votes you are losing? you know how many Union dues you are losing?

Then they would not be liberals...liberals (unlike common belief) is not some political party, its a ideology based on choice for the people, not the government...to choose the liberties of how you run your life regardless of sex, race, etc...choosing what a woman should do with her body and her philosophy is the opposite of personal liberty, or liberal philosophy.

You are contradicting yourself by killing someone who wants exercise his/her right for the same liberties. I guess all you liberals can be called Dictators then.

Which is why my previous posts have been discussing when to define what life is, what a human is, and when all this starts..I dont deny that a person having a abortion in their 7th-8th month because it is inconvenient is murdering someone...they are clearly a human then...what I do take issue with is someone trying to convince me a 6 week old growth is a person...in my mind, its not. flat out.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I really like debating with you because you are getting at the heart of the matter. Let's define life both ways and see if rationale still points to abortion.

From the religious stand point. Obviously life is considered sacred, especially human life. Life begins at the moment of conception so it would be a baby from day one. So in that regard, the conclusion is abortion is murder, BUT again I don't want to use that argument because our laws SHOULD NOT be based on religion.

So... based on your defenition a life is just a series of experiences. Ok well, I don't know of a single child ( I say child, because as a child one is full of dreams and hope and optimism) that would say "ya know mom, I kinda wish you would have aborted me" The reason I can't use an adults perspective is because OF COURSE some have had extremely hard lives and wish that they had never been born. BUT that is AFTER the fact.

And someones personal experience should not be used to decide what is best for someone esle before they have had the chance to experience it itself.

I mean think about this... Don't you hate hate hate it when someone knows something or has seen something and you ask about it and they say..."Trust me, you don't want to know." Please, let me freakin' decide what I don't want to know or experience. To me it is the EXACT same way with abortion.

You are basically saying, "Based on the circumstances this kids life is going to suck...Trust me, he/she doesn't want this life"

!?!?!?! And about the parent not wanting the child... hello adoption! Yes it hard, yes their is a process to adopt, but in my mind we are talking about a life, not a peice of garbage. You should expend a little effort to a fellow human to give it a chance at a life.

So I know that was a long post but either way you define life, I think the rationale still points to life and not death.

I knew this girl... she was raised catholic... she got pregnant when she was 20... did not feel up to the challenge of raising a child... and surely could not take the unGodly guilt of aborting the child... so she did the next best thing... washing her hands of all responsibility, she put the kid up for adoption.

Ah the hypocrisy...

It's okay to kill a child in war, to shoot a baby with an apache helicopter or assault rifle... I mean, it's not okay, but it's collateral damage... we can definitely live with that and sleep at night...

But for a woman to choose to end a pregnancy... that is truly evil, right? Definitely not forgivable....

I would say abortion is the collateral damage of savings young lives, families, and futures in everyday life.

reply to post by SaturnFX


In the cases you mentioned the cells have not started dividing. If you can prevent that from happening through action or inaction you have not denied life. Once inaction will no longer prevent a child from being born and you need to take action to prevent it you are denying life.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by 4ortunate1]

Originally posted by 4ortunate1
Once the cells start dividing it is a lifeform in development.

A life form "in development" is not life yet. Just as a computer "in development" is not yet a computer until it is fully functional.

Something can not exist until it has been fully developed. Seeds have the potential of developing into trees, however not all of them become trees. If you step on a seed and crush it, you don't say: "I just killed a tree." At best, you say I killed a potential tree, which is not the same thing. You may OR may not have killed an actual tree.

Further, that seed can not grow without someone taking care it. If the seed is not taken care of, it will never become a tree -- or at least not a tree capable of reaching its potential or perhaps even perform the function of a tree. Its growth would be stunted, it may prematurely die, perhaps it's trunk will be malformed....

This is the same as a fetus. Until they can remove fetuses and have them develop completely on their own without the requirement of a womb, the woman has no choice but to fulfill this duty. However, if it is a duty she doesn't want, she will not take care it. Much like the seed, without the PROPER care, it will never have the life that you envision.

Everybody that imagines abortions thinks of "perfect" little babies that grow up in loving households, maybe go to college, and become adults that live a nice, happy life.

Here's the reality:

Picture an underweight baby, say 4 lbs., from smoking during pregnancy, that is born with alcohol fetal syndrome to a woman that drank for the last nine months, with a sever spinal defect since its mother never took prenatal vitamins or watched her folic acid intake.

So, now you have a deformed, alcoholic, underweight baby that is more susceptible to life-threatening illnesses, crying in a hospital all alone with no body to take care of it. It remains here until it is stable and then it gets sent to state child services, an orphanage, foster care....waiting for someone to *hopefully* adopt it and pay for the gazillion medications this poor child needs.

Originally posted by trueperspective
Please ATS, help me understand why we risk arrest to protect TREES while we spend MILLIONS in legal fees to block legislation to protect babies from being slaughtered??

Your emotional wording ("pro-abortion" and "babies") aside, generally, the people who risk arrest to protect the environment also wish to protect the individual's choice to procreate or not. It's a fight to protect in both cases.

Originally posted by trueperspective
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE can decide what is BEST for a human that hasn't even had a CHANCE!!

But they can decide what's best for themselves. Each woman should have the choice to make the decision about what is best for her.

Originally posted by trueperspective
I mean think about this...If your mother was pro-choice and aborted you, you wouldn't even exist.

And I wouldn't know the difference. The world would still go on. Everything would be fine.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
You are contradicting yourself by killing someone who wants exercise his/her right for the same liberties.

You have no indication that a fetus "wants" anything. Let alone knows about rights and liberties.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Ok, I have read alot from you so please answer (not tryin to trap you)...

Ignoring the whole "when does life begin thing", why is it even deabted about abortion? I mean it is undisputable that the BABY will be a human being. So why are there people so vehament about letting women kill a baby in the womb, alive or not it is GOING to be a human.

Isn't that like attempted murder??? You were GOING to kill the guy until you failed, or got caught. I will never ever understand the rationale.

Alright this is going to be my one post on this issue, I'm not about to argue about abortion with Americans, there are just some things we Europeans should stay far far away from.

However, I can't help but respond to this one point: Following your line of thinking, male masturbation should be a punishable crime because sperm are potential human lives as well, and simply discarding them would be criminal. For women, taking birth control pills would also be a crime because it causes her to waste her eggs which are potential life.

In fact, wouldn't the use of any kind of contraception be illegal under your idea since it prevents to living cells from their potential of becoming human life?

I don't believe it is as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Here's the reality:

Picture an underweight baby, say 4 lbs., from smoking during pregnancy, that is born with alcohol fetal syndrome to a woman that drank for the last nine months, with a sever spinal defect since its mother never took prenatal vitamins or watched her folic acid intake.

So, now you have a deformed, alcoholic, underweight baby that is more susceptible to life-threatening illnesses, crying in a hospital all alone with no body to take care of it. It remains here until it is stable and then it gets sent to state child services, an orphanage, foster care....waiting for someone to *hopefully* adopt it and pay for the gazillion medications this poor child needs.

Not to rain on this already sad outlook, but personally some of these people with disabilities are the sweetest, most loving individuals I have EVER met.

I know a woman that has had an abortion, then she did not and had a child with down syndrome. She regrets everyday that she had an abortion.
NOT because of religious guilt, BUT because her child which is now part of MY family is one of the most cheerful, fun-loving guys and she wounders what the other child might have been like.

I am offended personally that anyone would use a disability as a justification for termination.

How incredibly inhumane.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by trueperspective]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I'm not American but I will argue with you. Sperm and eggs alone will never create life. Only when they are combined can they create life and unless you actively try to combine them a baby will not be created. Once combined life will be created unless you do something to prevent it. Inaction can prevent the prcoess until the point the cells start dividing, after that point inaction will not longer prevent the process. That's the difference.

It's not a question of when life begins. I would say as soon as the egg is fertilized, that's the start of life.

To me the question is, when is the taking of life justified...

It seems to me that as long as we have no problems ending life in war, and as we as we as people can justify the massacre of civilians in war, dropping bombs on houses and villages... sending our children overseas to kill and die.... we really need to ease off the issue of abortion.

We have a population problem... we have kids who are not fit to be parents... We have a lot of hard choices to make every day....

Do we destroy rain forests and the animals that inhabit them so we can have paper? Do we pollute the oceans and kill dolphins and whales so that we can drill for oil or simply have sewage plumbing? Do we drop bombs on mosques while families inside are in worship, just because we heard a terrorist is also in there? How many killings of innocents have we found new labels for so that the mass deaths can sit quietly in our conscience? Until we solve these much bigger problems, I think you need to take the question of abortion off the table.

It's a woman's body. it's her right. It's something she has to live with...

As for the people who judge... go pick up that bible again and read it carefully. I think you missed something important.

reply to post by trueperspective


I'm sorry, I tried to bite my tongue and not say anything, but it really REALLY annoys me when a male (I'm assuming you're a male OP, by the heading in your avatar) voices such strong opinions against an issue that is ultimately something only a woman will ever endure.

I have nothing else to add, just remember that you do not and could not possibly understand what a woman goes through before making such a decision.

reply to post by Isis_Is_I


Uhmmm... I saw my first born son emerge from the body of my wife while we cryed over something so beautiful, and then we cried in agony as my wife lost OUR second child due to complications.

I guess I do know a little something about children and life and the process. By the way my wife is currently pregnant and I am EAGER to meet the new addition.

reply to post by trueperspective


That's great that you're excited for your new child. However, your post is completely irrelevant to Isis_Is_I's post.