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.

 

what shall the penalty be for an abortion?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 1xion325alpha
 


actually, all i said was that sanger basically brought mass abortion to america.

roots of ideas is important. like i said, i'm for a womans right to choose, but planned parenthood has always targeted minority, urban, populations.
do white woman get them, of course, i know of one personally, a big mistake when i was 17. did i want her to get it, no, did she want to have the kid at 16, no. do i think she had the right to terminate the pregnancy, yes.

and, nor am i arguing the fact about the procedure being around for years. native americans i know don't tend to get abortions, they use herbs if discovered early enough.
clinical abortion is not the only way to abort.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by rubbertramp]




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by boo1981
 


Didn't read the rest of the thread, just wanted to reply to you. Not everyone who gets pregnant is irresponsible. Do you know what the odds of getting pregnant while using condoms and other forms of birth control are? Sure they're really really low but not impossible. I think that once there is a 100% effective birth control then yes it would be irresponsible to some degree. Unfortunately even that small chance can leave someone with an unwanted pregnancy, even a pregnancy that they are incapable of handling financially.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


even though i disagree for the most part, i appreciate your conviction.
same with almost any topic, in general people just follow the party line and really don't understand the issues.


Very much appreciated, and I embrace discussion with those who's political beliefs don't run only skin deep (which seems to be a rampant epidemic in human history).

I'd be happy to chat about what you disagree with if you'd like.

Peace
KJ



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by amazed
Women have the right to decide what to do with her own body, if someone does not agree with that, then they can raise the unwanted child and pay for the pregnancy themselves and pay for any issues a pregnancy may cause for a woman.

Those against abortion (personally I don't call them pro lifers), stop trying to control other people, if you REALLY want to stop abortions, step up to the plate and start adopting all these babies and give them the life you think they "deserve".


This is a ridiculous argument. Saying that one must personally assume responsibility for another's poor choices is foolish and doesn't do anything for your cause.

Personally, I'd see abortion eliminated entirely, even in cases of rape. The penalty would be incarceration at worst, although I can't see it being more than typical manslaughter sentencing.

Additionally, law is interference in one's liberty. Saying one must get consent to have sex with a woman, saying one must not murder another, saying one may not steal from another, etc is all applied moral judgments.

You simply disagree with the application of this moral judgment so let's stop being coy.

Women shoulder the burden of pregnancy alone, whether we like it or not. I do not need to be in her shoes, be a woman, or really care about her situation at all to make a value judgment on if abortion is right or wrong.

I believe it's wrong, seek to eliminate it, and would apply punishment to any partaking in the activity.


here;s what i disagree with.


Personally, I'd see abortion eliminated entirely, even in cases of rape. The penalty would be incarceration at worst, although I can't see it being more than typical manslaughter sentencing.
Additionally, law is interference in one's liberty. Saying one must get consent to have sex with a woman, saying one must not murder another, saying one may not steal from another, etc is all applied moral judgments.


in some ways i believe that due to human nature, a completely lawless society would be anarchy.
without a law against something like intentional killing, someone might kill one of my family members and never be punished. which means i would become the law in order to avenge the killing. i'd be unable to just walk away.
in the case of rape or incest, i would not be willing to restrain the pregnant mother in order to force her full term.'
psychologically, a woman can see the unborn baby as evil inside her, not her's etc........this can lead a mother to suicide. depends on mental stability.

i do believe there are evil humans whom should not get free reign to kill, rape etc....
in order to handle this situation, americans would need to act against them as civilians.
most are to fat and lazy. just call 9-1-1.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by rubbertramp]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hypntick
reply to post by boo1981
 


Didn't read the rest of the thread, just wanted to reply to you. Not everyone who gets pregnant is irresponsible. Do you know what the odds of getting pregnant while using condoms and other forms of birth control are? Sure they're really really low but not impossible. I think that once there is a 100% effective birth control then yes it would be irresponsible to some degree. Unfortunately even that small chance can leave someone with an unwanted pregnancy, even a pregnancy that they are incapable of handling financially.


Yes i agree with you on this as i have been one of those who have fallen pregnant while on birth control. I myself went through the hole process of going to a doctor to have an abortion. But when it came to it i just couldnt do it, we already had a son and my dream was to have a daughter too. I knew that this baby was going to be a girl, so i just couldnt go through with the abortion. Even though finacialy this would cripple us. Im so glad i did carry on with the pregnancy because now i have a wonderful daughter, with whom i have the strongest bond with.

And now i have been sterilized as i have my dream of a son and a daughter. Some people think im mad but im not as i have gotten my wish in life, and to ask for more is just greedy.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
another related topic i wonder about is deformities.

if a baby in the womb is severly deformed and you know that it would be a lifetime of excruciating pain, is this worth a consideration?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


i think that if you know that a child will be born into suffering then personal i would not carry on with said pregnancy. I do not think it would be fair on the mother or child. Its bad enough when my children get ill, but to watch your child suffer every day of there life and then die as a child because of there illness or disability is heart braking.

Every women should have the choise weather or not they want to carry on with a pregnancy, just dont be selfish in doing so.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp

here;s what i disagree with.


Personally, I'd see abortion eliminated entirely, even in cases of rape. The penalty would be incarceration at worst, although I can't see it being more than typical manslaughter sentencing.
Additionally, law is interference in one's liberty. Saying one must get consent to have sex with a woman, saying one must not murder another, saying one may not steal from another, etc is all applied moral judgments.


in some ways i believe that due to human nature, a completely lawless society would be anarchy.
without a law against something like intentional killing, someone might kill one of my family members and never be punished. which means i would become the law in order to avenge the killing. i'd be unable to just walk away.


Don't misunderstand me. I do see proper law that way, but that is not to say that I disagree with it's necessity. We do require a common framework to maintain justice.

I am not an anarchist, but a reasoned and moderate libertarian.


in the case of rape or incest, i would not be willing to restrain the pregnant mother in order to force her full term.'
psychologically, a woman can see the unborn baby as evil inside her, not her's etc........this can lead a mother to suicide. depends on mental stability.


It seems many times we must suppress one evil and allow another. I have personally known rape victims that resulted in pregnancy, carried to term to good effect. I married one and raise a child not of my blood almost from his birth.

I know of no crime that allows violence or punishment of a third (and generally unrelated) party by the victim.

I do see the problems that are there now and will arise if my views come to pass and have associated ideas on a more positive remedy. Additionally, I should say that I do not believe that our government should sanction death, but should advocate to preserve maximum life. Accordingly, I am opposed to the death penalty.

I am also an atheist, so there are only reasoned positions rather than supernatural thoughtlessness.


i do believe there are evil humans whom should not get free reign to kill, rape etc....
in order to handle this situation, americans would need to act against them as civilians.
most are to fat and lazy. just call 9-1-1.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by rubbertramp]


I agree, otherwise government would be abdicating it's primary responsibility.

Prisons, crime, and justice are another can of worms though.

Peace
KJ

[edit on 25-4-2010 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by boo1981
i think that if you know that a child will be born into suffering then personal i would not carry on with said pregnancy. I do not think it would be fair on the mother or child. Its bad enough when my children get ill, but to watch your child suffer every day of there life and then die as a child because of there illness or disability is heart braking.

Every women should have the choise weather or not they want to carry on with a pregnancy, just dont be selfish in doing so.


Eugenics, even cleverly veiled or well intentioned, is a foul thing that speaks to the darkness of mankind.

I choose to give life a chance, as should you. I would gladly accept 5 years or even 2 years with any of my children than to ease MY suffering by disallowing them even the common courtesy of a chance to fight.

Also, you can not strip selfishness from anything humans do. We will embrace most evils if the body accepts it as tolerable.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I think it should be the other way around, people need to be penalized for gettting pregnant...

here me out

Every single pregnancy should be looked at from a financial standpoint. I know it sound's souless but please this world is extremely overpopulated.

If you want to have a child, you must be able to show valid financial proof you can, in fact, afford to raise a child.

For instances where a child is dearly desired then one of the families can put up the downpayment for the child.

I know it sucks, you can say wait only rich people can have kids and the poor people aren't allowed to have children....

I din't create the monopoly game we've been playing for the last 100 years but I will tell you this. 7 Billion people is WAY too many...



I always wonder about people who believe in reincarnation and the whole karmic thing....

If souls are reborn, how the hell did we go from 500 million to 7 billions??? Are these new souls? No, we are animals with a breeding problem, simple



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AaronTheSpeaker
I think it should be the other way around, people need to be penalized for gettting pregnant...

here me out


For some reason this idea keeps rearing it's ugly head even though any attempt (regardless of reason or need) would be met with violence and revolt.

But I'll hear you out.


Every single pregnancy should be looked at from a financial standpoint. I know it sound's souless but please this world is extremely overpopulated.


Children are not a business venture and the world is so far from being over-crowded as to make the idea beyond ridiculous.


If you want to have a child, you must be able to show valid financial proof you can, in fact, afford to raise a child.


You will find that in our current economic culture, banks would be the first to underwrite "child loans". Maybe I can get a job at the Reclamation Centers when they default on their loans.

You know this would happen, black market or legally. The idea gets worse the more logistically you dig.


For instances where a child is dearly desired then one of the families can put up the downpayment for the child.

I know it sucks, you can say wait only rich people can have kids and the poor people aren't allowed to have children....


This would be a very easy tool to control the masses, aid in the clamping down on certain races or groups unfavored, and be beyond rationality. I mean really, how would you administer the steralization? Do you not think this would increase risky sex? Don't you think people would find ways to make babies illegally? Do you kill the children of unlicensed people?

The whole thing is a mess and gets far worse the more you try to set down a rational plan.


I din't create the monopoly game we've been playing for the last 100 years but I will tell you this. 7 Billion people is WAY too many...

I always wonder about people who believe in reincarnation and the whole karmic thing....

If souls are reborn, how the hell did we go from 500 million to 7 billions??? Are these new souls? No, we are animals with a breeding problem, simple


Where do you get the idea that we have too many people? My guess is half-baked suppositions and feelings.

Peace
KJ



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Not a darn thing as "Roe v Wade 1972" decreed that no entity can either pass or enact laws that prohibits or denies a woman her reproductive rights.

Abortions are afforded to those who know full well the cannot afford the kid, flat out refuse to raise a kid with the Father of the kid that beats them on a daily basis as well as those who were not a willing participant in the act (ie, rape and incest).

That would be like asking "When is there going to be a law that prevents the uneducated or the illiterate from having a kid?" Whose to say "When is a law going to be passed banning felons, convicts, drug addicts from having a kid?" It is the start down a slippery slope for which we shall not be debating hypotheticals.

God knows when we cannot afford a kid and are unable to provide a kid with the life that all kids deserve to have. God also understands that no female is to keep a kid in the even they were not a willing participant in the act. Why should she be reminded every day for the next 20 years of the haineous and hellacious act of her being violated in the worst of ways?

To the ultra religious answer this one :

Does your daughter have to be raped to realize that she wasn't a willing participant in the act? And does that not matter? What about if she's in a coma and gets raped while in the hospital?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join