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 Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
That's fine, as I said. But then don't turn around as some of the states have and count it as a human, by charging a drunk driver for killing it.

A little consistency is all I am looking for.


...if a woman who perceives her fetus as a much wanted baby is in auto accident caused by a drunk and the fetus dies, her perception of her fetus out-weighs the drunk's need to not be held responsible for his actions...

...if a woman is pregnant and doesnt want to be pregnant is in auto accident caused by a drunk and the fetus dies, her perception of her fetus cannot prevent the drunk from being charged with its murder - because - in the usofa, its illegal for a non-professional to terminate a pregnancy... so, he still committed murder in the eyes of the law...

...what if the drunk driver was a professional abortion provider?... it doesnt matter... he terminated a pregnancy without permission of the host, while driving drunk and not within the legal confines of his practice...

...consistent enough?...




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I ask him if he will be willing to adopt.

We are seriously thinking about it.

That's awesome man
You could maybe get the joy you are looking for and help a kid/baby out as well

Me and my wife were also wanting to adopt as we saw an ad on the newspaper for a specific little girl
but then she got taken and we called too late

She was vegetarian, we are also vegetarian, so naturally we would want a vegetarian as well.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmazonOfArtemis
*Sigh*

What exactly do these threads acheive? It should ALWAYS be a woman's choice whether or not she decides to have a child. It is very easy to sit there and judge other people just because you believe your point of view is the only moral and correct choice. What about women who have been raped? What about failed contraceptives? What about circumstances?

Each woman deserves the right to have control over her own body, do you not consider the implications of women being forced into having unwanted children??
edit on 5-9-2011 by AmazonOfArtemis because: (no reason given)


Abortion as birth control is reprehensible in a modern society...

My 17-year-old child cannot get a tooth pulled without my consent, but my 13-year-old can have surgery outside of a hospital performed by "doctors" who break the Hippocratic oath, and by law I cannot be informed,

This is a serious problem and you can scream 'it's her choice' all you want. You are wrong.

Ending a pregnancy caused by rape or incest legitimate.

Broken contraceptives? When you bet on red, and the wheel shows black, you don't get your money back. You deal with consequences like you're human.

Circumstances? What if you're a guy who 'accidentally' impregnates his girlfriend? Maybe you're unable to provide for the child due to "circumstances." Should you be able to choose to kill the fetus against the mother's will? Why not? She can kill it against YOUR will.

Arguing for abortion will always make otherwise normal people look like idiots. There is no good argument.

You are wrong.
edit on 9/6/2011 by YoureTheCrazyOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2011 by YoureTheCrazyOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Kitilani
The morning after pill is not preventative


Actually, in most cases, it is. It CAN cause a fertilized egg not to attach to the uterus, however, so in a way, it can still be effective after conception. But its purpose is to prevent the egg from being released and provide 'discouragement' to the sperm.


I do not think you got what I meant by "preventative." Anything you do AFTER the fact is not preventative.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I always wonder how many of these hardcore pro lifers are adopting unwanted children. My guess is not many.

And i dont think abortion has anything to do with pro choice. People just started using the term to describe that particular choice and it just stuck.

Its kind of like people always assuming that any ufo is an alien craft.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


So, let me get this straight. If a mother doesn't perceive their child as a human, it's not human. If a mother perceives their child as being human it's human. In either case, it's ok for a woman to kill their baby if they feel the need, before it's born, human or not. So now, babies in the womb are only human if their hosts "perceive" them as such? The drunk driver is screwed no matter what and is a murderer, fine who cares. But if a man thinks it's murder to kill a baby in the womb, eff him because he doesn't matter. By law, it's only NOT murder when a "professional" doctor murders the child instead of say, some guy ripping it out. My head is spinning because this is twisted.


I guess it's the "law" that makes women feel like it's all good. Maybe it adds comfort, I dunno but any way you slice it, it's murder.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
I always wonder how many of these hardcore pro lifers are adopting unwanted children. My guess is not many.


This should answer your question.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by marg6043
I ask him if he will be willing to adopt.

We are seriously thinking about it.

That's awesome man
You could maybe get the joy you are looking for and help a kid/baby out as well

Me and my wife were also wanting to adopt as we saw an ad on the newspaper for a specific little girl
but then she got taken and we called too late

She was vegetarian, we are also vegetarian, so naturally we would want a vegetarian as well.


See, he would have adopted that one but it was taken. Now he only wants another one that fits his mold. Too bad for all those unwanted kids that eat meat. Screw them.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
It's kind of like say Germans should have the choice to torture Jews.
Abortion is based around an unborn being living inside a born beings body. Now obviously the issue with the Nazis is not based around this, and is in fact, far more worse than abortion. If you're going to make comparisons to the nazis, at least make sure your comparisons actually make sense first.
edit on 6-9-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
you're not for supporting the man if he wants it to LIVE and even is willing to claim 100% responsibility for it. I can't understand why some of you can't realize where you are sounding bat#$% crazy.


...respecting someone else's right to choose what happens to their body is a very simple concept to understand - except for control freaks and misogynists but they'd change their minds in a hurry if legislation ever dictated which males would be castrated for the benefit of society as a whole and they were on the nut-cuttin list...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


I've never been in a situation where the mother of my child wanted to kill it (thankfully)....BUT I think it would be awfully rash of you to throw out terms like "control freak" just because a man wants his child to live.

Is it really that hard to think of the CHILD, or is everything *always* about the woman?

Oh, and that castration comment was nice. You seem to have a deep seeded hatred for men and should seek professional help.

edit on 6-9-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Darkrunner
That's fine, as I said. But then don't turn around as some of the states have and count it as a human, by charging a drunk driver for killing it.

A little consistency is all I am looking for.


...if a woman who perceives her fetus as a much wanted baby is in auto accident caused by a drunk and the fetus dies, her perception of her fetus out-weighs the drunk's need to not be held responsible for his actions...

...if a woman is pregnant and doesnt want to be pregnant is in auto accident caused by a drunk and the fetus dies, her perception of her fetus cannot prevent the drunk from being charged with its murder - because - in the usofa, its illegal for a non-professional to terminate a pregnancy... so, he still committed murder in the eyes of the law...

...what if the drunk driver was a professional abortion provider?... it doesnt matter... he terminated a pregnancy without permission of the host, while driving drunk and not within the legal confines of his practice...

...consistent enough?...


No it isn't.

Sounds like the whole premise (in SOME states, and by SOME viewpoints) is, "Well it was GOING to be a baby six months from now, and therefore, representable under the law as a human being, and worthy of a charge of manslaughter."

Now I am not defending this scenario on the drunk driver's part. He should be liable for all damages to the vehicles and the occupants.

But to pull out the "Well the fetus WOULD have been a human being so lets charge you with manslaughter" is nonsense. You have a woman just down the street doing the same thing, and it's okay.

And it is okay, but don't want to hear that the fetus killed by a drunk driver is somehow anymore "alive" than the one killed by abortion.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkrunner
 


...hypotheticals are an excursion into fantasy land more often than not... if you can come up with a REAL case that i can research online, i'd be more than happy to discuss it with you...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Woman's right to choose (to kill the baby) is greater than the baby's right to live "IF" that is the woman's choice.

...and, that is the irony for those who pay child support for producing kids out of marriage.

When an unwed women wants to keep a baby, the father has absolutely no choice in the matter.

Now, we need a welfare law that says, "If you have a child out of wedlock, the mother has a choice to keep, abort, or put the child up for adoption. Since the mother has three choices, the father will not be held under obligation if she chooses to keep the child. No welfare, child support, nor social support will be given to those who keep their children without being married." Once we have laws like this in place, the level of out of wedlock children will decline.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Oh no its murder.... So is war.. so is collateral damage.... So is euthanasia.... Sometimes the people in charge of making these tough decisions can look out across the horizon and say to themselves its for the greater good that we do this....

Right wing pro lifers have never had a problem with the decisions made to kill of people... Including death of the innocent. It seems its only when it involves womens rights that they suddenly become so passionate about the sanctity of human life. I need to call bullsh*t.

They would force them to keep a child then deny them welfare when they are unable to afford it.

To the pro lifers I say toughen up. Get over it.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yes, that is my position. To give a fetus the right to life would create a situation in which a woman's rights to her very person would be violated.


BS. The only way a pregnant woman's body can be violated is if she had been raped. You say a pregnant woman is having her rights violated....so WHO is the 'violator' exactly? It's certainly not the fetus seeing as they made no choice to 'invade' anyone's body. The woman basically had the fetus put inside her. SHE is responsible for her own 'violation', as you put it. If the life of fetuses were protected by law, no woman who is pregnant as a result of consensual sex is being victimized or stripped of their rights in any way, shape, or form. She has the choice of sterilization or abstinence if she would hate to have a child so much that she would have it killed.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yes, that is my position. To give a fetus the right to life would create a situation in which a woman's rights to her very person would be violated.


BS. The only way a pregnant woman's body can be violated is if she had been raped. You say a pregnant woman is having her rights violated....so WHO is the 'violator' exactly? It's certainly not the fetus seeing as they made no choice to 'invade' anyone's body. The woman basically had the fetus put inside her. SHE is responsible for her own 'violation', as you put it. If the life of fetuses were protected by law, no woman who is pregnant as a result of consensual sex is being victimized or stripped of their rights in any way, shape, or form. She has the choice of sterilization or abstinence if she would hate to have a child so much that she would have it killed.


How about

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

how about that?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


Biology defines life. It does not say any life is more or less.

Therefore, the only logical legality for abortion would be when one life threatens another, or of course when there was no choice to have sex

Other than that, the choice was made by the mother to have sex.

That's all there is to it. There;s nothing to rosy up to. There's no scientific nor logical reason to afford abortion to anything besides those reasons.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I hate women so much. Well, some of them anyway. They always make everything so much harder in life....They do!

edit on 6-9-2011 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
BS. The only way a pregnant woman's body can be violated is if she had been raped.


Did you really start off that nonsense rant with this?
So the next time your wife is pregnant and someone decides to punch her in the spine and stomach for a few hours, you will be relieved knowing she was not violated.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


eh. You control what happens to your body when you have sex. If you choose to have sex and you end up getting pregnant, that's your responsibility.

Therefore, from all scientific perspectives, there's really no legality for it beyond rape and threat to life.

People can argue moral and ethics till the cows come home. I don't believe in either for that very reason. Scientific knowledge provides reason enough why abortion because you "fell like it" is murder plain and simple. It's murder for rape and threat to life as well, but for these events, freedom was violated. This nation clearly states that everyone, irregardless to age, sentience, race, blah blah blah has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And until any one of those are violated, there is no legality to the taking of life.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join