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: 21
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 





A fetus is not a being and it has no rights? Is that why when a pregnant woman is murdered the killer is charged for 2 murders? The court seems to think the fetus is a being why dont you?


Not necessarily. In about half of US states, he would be charged only with 1 murder, because a foetus is not a person by law.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 


I also think it is wrong the man does not have a voice in the decision for abortion because he certainly has a legal obligation if the child is born. Whether he willing accepts it is entirely another story, but if he is proven the father he is LEGALLY obligated to support the child. Even though he has no voice if the woman wants to kill his child.


yes of course, if the father is the longtime or not boyfriend or the husband but does not want to take responsability, sure he should be forced by law to help financialy the mother that wants to keep the child ...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 




but for a mother waiting for her baby that baby is her futur person son or daughter, so for her the potentiallity is already a person in her mind !!!!


So now whether something is "wanted" determines if its a person? So if noone wants some born baby, can it be killed?
If something is a person with a right to live, it has a right to live regardless of if its wanted or not.
And if something is not a person with a right to live (fetus), it has no right to live regardless of if its wanted or not.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 




but for a mother waiting for her baby that baby is her futur person son or daughter, so for her the potentiallity is already a person in her mind !!!!


So now whether something is "wanted" determines if its a person? So if noone wants some born baby, can it be killed?
If something is a person with a right to live, it has a right to live regardless of if its wanted or not.
And if something is not a person with a right to live (fetus), it has no right to live regardless of if its wanted or not.


I know it is difficult to explain, especially when it's not my native language ...
how could I tell it .....
either a baby is a wanted one with love and all
either it is not a wanted one with no love at all and despair all over.
A embryo is NOT a person, there lays the difficulty to understand the question !!!
it is a pregnancy, which means it is an EVOLUTION until birth when the embryo becomes a PERSON.
you may not consider a embryo as a person, it is "something" ( a " tissue " like someone else said ) that shall become a person at BIRTH when it gets much love and all the rest to grow in the womb as it must be.

For the mother that wants the baby : her baby already has a different personnality into her MIND, just like when a artist makes a statue with love and artistic effort, it begins with a stone and it will become a statue, but the artist already has the statue in his mind.

When a mother does NOT want that baby for good reasons where she alone has to be responsible for, then that baby never can become a person because it even does not exist into her mind !!! She has no will to let it grow, she has no will to love it or to feed it, she wants it away ... the potentiallity to BECOME a person is broken !
just like an artist who destroys his work before it's finished because accident, or not finding it good or whatever ..
not a good example, but the artist is master of his work ! the mother is master of her pregnancy.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 
With so many women that long to hold a baby in their arms and love and raise it but can not, it seems wrong to let another just throw hers away.

Would it be so terrible to let it grow and give it to someone that would give anything to have it? Many families would happily pay the costs and care for the birth mother during the pregnancy.

How can the value and validity of even a potential life hang on one person's value of it?

I could see if there was a reason other than just not WANTING to raise it. If this is the only reason, how could anyone be so selfish and have so little value of life? I will never understand. I don't want to understand.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


I agree completely. The mans right to his child is so often disregarded in societies laws. An abortion should be mutually agreed upon, after all the father has contributed a piece of his body to the offspring. Assuming the conception happened by consent of both parties the fathers wishes should demand as much respect as the wishes of the mother.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 
With so many women that long to hold a baby in their arms and love and raise it but can not, it seems wrong to let another just throw hers away.

Cinaed, I was adopted as a child. I'm a direct product of the type of situation you speak of so I can accept it with a sympathetic ear.
But I also believe in individual choice, why should the wishes of someone else be more important to us than what we want for ourselves. This attitude has started fights and wars since forever. If we all act on the wishes of others rather than what we personally believe is right then we discard personal choice, where would that get us? And who will be the authority of what is right and wrong?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I would like to raise two points.

Firstly, to the person who said multiple abortions was similiar to a serial killer- I can understand your view- however you then said something about "a serial killer feels they were perfectly right to kill their victims". I have one huge query about this and it is the use of the word 'victim'.

I would say that to be a victim there has to be a degree of suffering, for suffering there must be life and feeling. Does a fetus qualify as a being capable of suffering? Biologically at least it does not, it doesn't have a developed nervous system.

Secondly, would the contraceptive pill not qualify as 'actively' quashing the potential for life?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by yes4141
 


Abortions take place even late stage, I do not know at what stage a fetus is able to feel pain as I am not a Dr. I wonder if a beating heart counts?

Preventing pregnancy does not destroy life, it prohibits conception. There is even a morning after pill now. I do firmly believe the potential father's that are certainly LEGALLY responsible if a child is born should have a voice in a decision to kill their unborn child. I also think there needs to be more legal standards in place

I view an aborted fetus as a victim, one that can not speak for itself. If you saw any of my earlier posts you know I am not suggesting abortion be illegal. I am suggesting people should be more responsible. The number of women having multiple abortions is increasing. I also find it appalling a Dr. can not treat a child for a cold without parental consent but they can give them an abortion!

xavyniceday.wordpress.com...


Late stage abortions even dismember the fetus and videos show these fetuses recoiling from the tool ripping their bodies apart. Since I am not a medical professional I can not be more specific than that.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cinaed
 





Abortions take place even late stage, I do not know at what stage a fetus is able to feel pain as I am not a Dr. I wonder if a beating heart counts?


Late stage abortions are usualy restricted or banned, and overwhelming majority of abortions happen in first few months.

According to current science, the foetus may be able to feel pain from about 4-5th month at the earliest, when cortex and thalamocortical connections begin to develop, tough this is a lower limit.

I do consider stage of neural development to be crucial to abortion debate. Our rights stem from our minds seated in the brain.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

Thank you for the information. This is my point exactly. You say the *overwhelming majority* take place early...

This means there are abortions talking place when a fetus does feel pain then, yes? This is there very reason I think we need more structure to the current laws. I am not content to close my eyes to the *minority* who feel the pain.

If we were talking about any other minority, people would be screaming discrimination from the highest roof tops!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Fretless
 


All I am suggesting is people be more sexually responsible, even though they can just get an abortion, and... if there is no danger to the pregnant woman I wonder if she is counseled on ALL the options available to her?? Nine months isn't such a long time out of a person's life to give life to another. Especially if the child can still be wanted and cared for.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinaed
 





This means there are abortions talking place when a fetus does feel pain then, yes? This is there very reason I think we need more structure to the current laws.


I do believe most countries where abortion is legal do have limits outlawing late-term abortion, except to save the health of the mother. This is also the opinion of US population, where support for abortion being legal strongly depends on trimester in question.

Conception and birth are extreme positions. Do not fall for this false dichotomy, when in reality there are multiple points between them that are much better suited for abortion limit, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   


According to current science, the foetus may be able to feel pain from about 4-5th month at the earliest, when cortex and thalamocortical connections begin to develop, tough this is a lower limit.




As for the upper limit, it may even be close to birth:

medicalxpress.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't understand how some people can say that being pro-abortion means you are pro-choice and if you are against abortion you are not pro-choice.

How does that make sense?

To me pro-choice = you can do whatever you want to your body

but with Abortion it's not about YOUR body, it's about the body(depending on trimester) inside of you.


It's almost like you get it.... (except that a fetus is not a body at all..)



You can do whatever you want to your house within property rights as long as you don't hurt the property of your neighbors but does that mean if I am inside of your house you can kill me?


You just shot yourself in the foot by going against your main pro-life support: Texas.

It's funny now that I think about it, actually. It's socially acceptable to shoot someone for being in your house in Texas, but not scrape off the excremental ovum out of your fallopian tube. This takes "family values" to new and exciting heights



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo



According to current science, the foetus may be able to feel pain from about 4-5th month at the earliest, when cortex and thalamocortical connections begin to develop, tough this is a lower limit.




As for the upper limit, it may even be close to birth:

medicalxpress.com...



As for reality, the "omg they feel pain" argument is retarded because babies experience plenty of pain during birth. Vaginal muscles aren't weak; babies aren't made of stone. Also, the very abrupt temperature change is sure to send shocks of pain through the poor things entire body. So, by that logic we should ABORT THEM ALL TO SAVE THEM FROM PAIN!


Don't get me wrong, if I were to be an expected parent abortion would simply not be an option for me; couldn't bring myself to do it. However, taking choices like that away from others who need it is just.... too much intrusive totalitarian garbage for me to stomach.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 





As for reality, the "omg they feel pain" argument is retarded because babies experience plenty of pain during birth. Vaginal muscles aren't weak; babies aren't made of stone. Also, the very abrupt temperature change is sure to send shocks of pain through the poor things entire body. So, by that logic we should ABORT THEM ALL TO SAVE THEM FROM PAIN!


I dont think the pain during normal childbirth is comparable to being aborted. On the other hand, this pain argument can be made irrelevant by treating abortion in late-term like an euthanasia and anesthetising the baby first.

Also, it is not just about the pain, that is just one of the atributes that can be considered important from a neurological standpoint.




Don't get me wrong, if I were to be an expected parent abortion would simply not be an option for me; couldn't bring myself to do it. However, taking choices like that away from others who need it is just.... too much intrusive totalitarian garbage for me to stomach.


Allright, answer this, please:




Question to those holding a pro-choice position: imagine that we are not talking about a fetus, but for example a siamese twin that needs a sibling to survive. Would you still hold a pro-choice position, meaning that the sibling could choose to disconnect from his dependent siamese twin, even if it would kill the twin?


And I disagree, right to life is more important than right to choose about my own body, especially when we are talking only about a few months of discomfort for the woman vs. a murder (if someone considers it a murder).



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Ok, let's be clear.

The consequence of what you are advocating, if abortion were to be made illegal again as many of you wish, is that you would FORCE women to carry their babies to term.

That is really what we are talking about. FORCING our daughters to reproduce against their will. And if you believe that that is ok, than what is also ok to force people to do with their bodies?

Whether you are pro or anti, this is really about people we know, and I think we should think about that for a few seconds

Who would make abortion illegal and who would enforce the laws? The state obviously. So, in effect, what you are really saying is that it should be alright for the state to force our sisters and daughters to reproduce, even if they don't want to...just in this case right? Just in this one area. Think about that. Is that truly what you desire?

Do you really want the state to be telling us what we can do with our reproductive organs? Do you want to open that door? Perhaps it would be used as precedent, not just limited to reproduction, perhaps to force people with healthy organs near death to donate them, perhaps stem cell and blood donations in the name of saving lives. It's saving a life, who doesn't want to do that, otherwise, well it could be argued that you're just letting these folks die.... what does that make you? Oh how arguments can be twisted and used against us!

Whenever you get the state forcing us to do the right thing, they get to decide what is "right". Beware!

Beware giving the state the power to control our bodies. I wouldn't be too quick.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinaed
 





Preventing pregnancy does not destroy life,


No, but it has also been said many times through this thread that abortion ceases the "potential for life"- this implies that it also doesn't destroy life.




I view an aborted fetus as a victim, one that can not speak for itself.


This implies that the fetus has thoughts, feelings, emotions and merely cannot communicate them to anyone- do you think this is so?

I absolutely agree that personal responsibility should be far greater in this subject(and all other parts of society).




I also find it appalling a Dr. can not treat a child for a cold without parental consent but they can give them an abortion!


This is ludicrous, no matter what side of this debate people are on I think that almost all would say that a fetus and a young child are very different creatures and not equivalents. This statement is merely to provoke a reaction and imply that abortion is the equivalent to murdering a child. A child is conscious, can feel pain and emotions and has an identity- do you believe a < 2 month fetus shares those characteristics?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by yes4141
 

I think my words were misunderstood on the comment about a Dr. not being able to treat a child yet give them an abortion.

My meaning was not to equate a child to a fetus. I am talking about how a child can get an abortion with no notification to a parent or family member. While I understand the implications of an abused pregnant child, still, if a child is impregnated by extended family or friends, keeping parents in the dark does NOTHING to protect other living children.

I understand this is a very controversial subject and I guess I need to just unsubscribe from thread because most people feel strongly whichever side of the argument then are on and personally I am growing tired of coming back to this thread over and over....nothing really will be accomplished by it so I will put my interest and energy into places I can feel my energy is better served.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join