Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How can anyone support abortion

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I dont understand the so called "pro-choice" movement never have never will. Aside from the fact that I think its misnamed, (afterall the child being killed doesnt get a choice) I just cant accept that the murder of an unborn infant is not morally reprehensble. But this thread isn't about me or my views its about you and yours (yes I'm talking to YOU) so tell me How do you justify the so called "pro-choice" stance?




posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
This is a tough one for me on a moral level... I would call myself 'pro-choice' however I find it so hard to justify in my mind because it is taking away life, any form of of life should be valued at whatever 'stage'. But if we lived in a society that didn't allow abortion that would be wrong, I believe in a womans right to choose, at the end of the day everyone has this right.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
But the problem is that woman is choosing to end the childs life. Isn't that murder? If the child were one of her organs like say a kidney that would be one thing but though the child is formed within her it is not a part of her. It is a seperate life entirley. If I choose to the the life of another I am a murderer why doesn't the same standard apply to the most innocent among us?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
How can you justify the cultural acceptance that guys should run around and have all the unprotected sex they want?

You see, it took two to make that baby... and the guy whose genetic material it contains is every bit as responsible as the woman. In most cases, however, he just simply wanders off. No consequences, no cares -- and heaven forbid anyone point a finger at him for causing the situation.

Before you get too morally upright, do realize that this practice is extremely ancient. Drugs to cause abortions were known in ancient Egypt and other places, punching women in the stomach to cause miscarriages was quite common before modern medicine, and every single culture that I can think of (including the oldest like the Sumerians) abandoned or killed unwanted babies.

It took two to make the baby.

The easiest way to end abortions is to teach men to use birth control and to avoid the "sex with every female around" mentality. So what do you intend to do to help men cause fewer unwanted pregnancies?



(note... I'm ignoring the issue of pregnancies terminated because of medical conditions. That's a horrible choice (because the family wants the child) but sometimes necessary. I don't think anyone should interfere with that choice.)



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
mwm1331: don't think you can say that the baby isn't part of the mother. Think about it...the baby couldn't live without the mother, it becoms part of the mother. If the woman cannot maintain that baby physicaly, or mentaly, or emotionaly then she cannot go through childbirth. I understand what you are saying but this is a person's right to their own body.



[edit on 7/8/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

It took two to make the baby.



Indeed, both are responsible, and people should be more careful. But when it comes down to it it is always the womans descision, it is her body. This doesn't mean she is fully responsible, but thats how it is.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The baby is not a part of the mothers body she is just a vessel in which the child is formed. The child has a life and a soul of its own and to murder it because it would be inconvienent to have a child is wrong. Everything that is a part of us we are born with. We dont form any new organs or parts after birth (except for hair ) we are born with all of our pieces. To say that a liver and a fetus are the same (both parts of a womans body) you have to ignore the facts. The only time in which an adult may take the lfe of another is in self defense or the defense of another. Why then do we allow wmen to murder the most innocent humans wh will ever exist for no other reason than that they think it would be too hard?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
I dont understand the so called "pro-choice" movement never have never will. Aside from the fact that I think its misnamed, (afterall the child being killed doesnt get a choice) I just cant accept that the murder of an unborn infant is not morally reprehensble. But this thread isn't about me or my views its about you and yours (yes I'm talking to YOU) so tell me How do you justify the so called "pro-choice" stance?


I believe your position is based on a piece of unsound reasoning, mwm1331. Children aren't aborted. Infants aren't aborted. Babies aren't aborted. Abortions are performed on unrealised potential human beings - so to be opposed to abortion is no different to being opposed to male masturbation.

So what's the "morally reprehensible" choice? To remove, surgically or medically, a cluster of cells, or bring an unwanted, unplanned, often unsupported child into an already-overpopulated world?


Edit for an additional thought: Though the mudpit is no more, this is still the forum for political discussion. Wouldn't this thread be better placed on BTS?

[edit on 8-7-2004 by StrangeLands]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Your right byrd it does take two to create a child just as it should take two to raise a child. the fact is that both parents should be responsible for the lfe they create. as for


the cultural acceptance that guys should run around and have all the unprotected sex they want


I dont think thats true. I never had unprotected sex untill I was engaged. While I was fairly promiscuos I felt that the consequences of allowing my passions to overtake my reason were too high. But as you said it takes two and both partners, man and woman, need to take responsibillity for making the right choice. It only takes one person to be protected but it takes both people to have unprotected sex. As for the deadbeat dad issue I thnk that there should be serious penalties for those men who refuse to live up to thier responsibillities. But to use the actions of a few ignorant men to justify murder is IMHO just as wrong

[edit on 8-7-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The baby is not a part of the mothers body she is just a vessel in which the child is formed.


I think you inadvertantly just hit the nail on the head as regards the backlash to the "pro-life" movement.

A woman is not "just a vessel" and I can understand a woman's reluctance to have someone that considers her as such to govern her and her body.

It's simple really MWM. If you're against abortion; don't have one.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

I. But as you said it takes two and both partners, man and woman, need to take responsibillity for making the right choice. It only takes one person to be protected but it takes both people to have unprotected sex. [edit on 8-7-2004 by mwm1331]


what about cases of rape where the woman doesnt HAVE that choice? If ( god forbid) I ever got pregnant ourt of a rape I will be damned if I am having a child I didnt want and didnt ask for.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Im sorry earthtone but thats simply not true. Its not simply a cluster of cells we are talkng about it is a lving breathing human.
by week 6 the childs heart is already beating.
by week 10 the nervous sytem and many internal organs are functioning.
so even before the end of the first trimester the child has a heart that beats, and nerves which can feel. How can you say that simply because the chld is not yet developed enough to live n its own that its not alive? Thats like saying a person on a respirator does not hve a right to live because they cant breath without help from a machne.

Byrd allow me to name some other ancient practices that were very widespread.
Slavery
Human Sacrifice
Homosexual pedophilia (the ancient athenians thought tht the best way to raise a male boy was to mentor him to an adult male who would engage in sexual intercourse with him and show him how to be a true man)

Should these practices be legal as well?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
[So what's the "morally reprehensible" choice? To remove, surgically or medically, a cluster of cells, or bring an unwanted, unplanned, often unsupported child into an already-overpopulated world?




I agree here, this is an important issue. The world is over populated. As we run out of supplies of oil and such bad things will happen, there are too many people consuming.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
RANT you misunderstood or misinterperted me. I was not sayng that ALL a woman is is a vessel. What I was trying to express is that in the context of the biologicall relatonship between mother and fetus, the mother acts as a biological life support system. In that very narrow relationship she acts as a life support system. I dont believe a womans only purpose is motherhood or procreation. Nor am I one of those men who is threatened by the Idea of working women ( In fact I supported my wife during her Masters and P.H.D studies so that she could get a job which would pay her at least something close to what shes worth). But we wont allow a thinking adult who wishes to voluntarily end thier own life to commit suicide or allow a physician to help them but we allow a pregnant woman both when shes not the one who suffers the full consequences of her decision.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
We are talking about legal abortions here, carried out under strick guidelines. This is a safe procedure, not usually untaken lightly.

Do we really want to go back to the days of the backstreet abortionist and unwanted children who are what? abandoned, neglected, or at best adopted? Many victims of the illegal operations died or became infected and unable to bear children.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
iwouldificould- there is no way you can convince me that a child being abanonded or adopted is worse than not being.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   
What does MWM stand for? Misogynistic White Male!

You bring-up suicide/euthanasia, another questionable moral/legal issue. NO relation to the topic.

Imagine for a moment: You are a woman who's inbred father(who carries a genetic disorder that causes severe dementia by adolesence)rapes you. The child you carry is severly deformed and carries the genetic abnormality described above. Your OBGYN believes that the irregularities of this pregnancy may well kill you if allowed to come to term. The child, if it lives at all, will be deformed, retarded, unwanted, and possibly without parents. Is it not proper to terminate this pregnancy? If not, why?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I think what we're talking about here is lack of responsibility by many different people. We all love to tout our "rights" . Our right to do this or that and our human rights and thats all well and good. What we fail to discuss too much is that with these rights also come responsibility..and to a liberal and many conservatives, thats a damn dirty word.

Do I think abortion is wrong? Well, it depends. If the child is suffering and its the medical opinion of a pediatric doctor that its best then, I wouldn't think badly of the parents and would hate that they had that decision to make. If its because a child would inconvenience the lifestyle of the parents, then I call it murder 1.

I think Byrd makes a great point concerning the farther's role in all this. Yes, I think he's just as responsible and I think if the law and society held him to his responsibilities, then less women would feel backed into a corner and consider this treacherous act. Look, I don't want government control over a woman's body anymore than anyone else who's pro-choice but we must consider the responsibility of both parents once this innocent precious life is conceived. Our children should be above every other interest in life second only to God Almighty.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Abortions are performed on unrealised potential human beings - so to be opposed to abortion is no different to being opposed to male masturbation.

So what's the "morally reprehensible" choice? To remove, surgically or medically, a cluster of cells, or bring an unwanted, unplanned, often unsupported child into an already-overpopulated world?


I just wanted to inform you, that I not only disagree, but that this is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I don't know why someone would utilize such an easily crushable arguement like this, but it is only funny because it is so off base, that it MUST be satirical, but I'm sure it's not.





Wow.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
it should only be allowed in cases of rape. you know why the liberals want abortion? freedom from consequences and moral responsibility, which is what they are trying to get





new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join