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.

 

SOCIAL: Abortion

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I'm pro-choice...but with certain resrtictions - Kerry basically says - "I'm not getting involved. Do what you think is right for you."...and I agree and disagree with this...

I think women who have been raped or people who are simply not in the financial means to properly care for a baby should have the right to an abortion before they reach the second trimester....I see a huge difference allowing a abortion early on versus the potential for the mother to smother or drown the baby several weeks or months after birth when the truth of their situation hits the fans....

I also think each woman should be allowed only one chance (provided they were to be raped again) - it's too much of a convenience for people today to get knocked up and kill their offspring 3-4 times a year....that just shows ignorance and immaturity - those are the people that are killing the babies - not the poor teenage girl who was date-raped and got preganent as a result...one person learns their lesson as a result and the other does not...




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The Green Party supports a woman's choice to have a child.


This is a delicate issue, not just polically but personally. I know that were I ever in a position to consider I would choose to have the baby. If there were some horrible circumstances surrounding it, I know I would still try to have the baby.

Can I impose my own wishes on the rest of society? This is where the issue gets sticky, for me. I have read a great deal on this issue, and it seems that every time something new comes to light I start leaning a little more to one side or the other. On this issue I think I am neutral.

How devasting to grow up adopted, do some research and discover oneself the product of a rape.

How devastating to decide you really wanted the baby - after it's too late.

I think the ultimate question is who's rights come first? The woman's or the child's? Not an easy answer.


For now I am leaning more toward pro-choice. Outlawing them will not stop abortions, it will only make them much much more dangerous. I would rather they were performed in a medically sound environment where the woman knows exactly what her choices are are the consequences thereof, and plenty of medical and mental care, than by some unknown with a hamger in the back of an annonymous garage.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cercey

Can I impose my own wishes on the rest of society?


Stopping a murder has nothing to with your "own personal wishes." My own personal wishes are that every child molester be murdered. If you stopped me from murdering, you would be within the law. Would you suggest I not be stopped because you dont want to "impose your own wishes on the rest of society?"


How devastating to grow up adopted, do some research and discover oneself the product of a rape.


Go and ask "the product of a rape" or an adopted person if they want to die. If they really do, they can commit suicide. At least leave the choice up to them. I am sure most children born of a rape dont want to die. Most women who have an abortion because they were raped are looking for inner peace that an abortion cant give them. Even if it did, we must not be allowed to kill just because it makes us feel better. Finding my wife in bed with another man would mess me up for a long time, but I would not be justified in killing that man, even if it made me feel better. No person's individual gain can be more important than the life of another human.


I think the ultimate question is whose rights come first? The woman's or the child's? Not an easy answer.


It is a very easy answer. The woman wants to commit the selfish act of killing a baby because she thinks it will make her feel better. The child did nothing wrong. The rights of the child come first.



For now I am leaning more toward pro-choice.


Leaning more toward pro-choice? How can you not take a stronger stance? Either you think women are being violated or you think babies are being murdered. How can you be middle of the road?


Outlawing them will not stop abortions, it will only make them much more dangerous.


And outlawing murder has never stopped it. If we made murder (referring of course to murders other than abortion murder) for certain things legal, such as a spouse legally killing another spouse for cheating, it would make murders allot less dangerous, as they could be done with the help of professionals, just like abortion. Not a good argument there.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Leaning more toward pro-choice? How can you not take a stronger stance? Either you think women are being violated or you think babies are being murdered. How can you be middle of the road?


Though we are obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum here Cavscout, I agree it's not a multi-choice morality-conditional question...and the candidates aren't framing it that way. This issue isn't about our opinions as voters were we to be made Supreme Court Justices.

It's abortion on demand or never. That's pretty much it. This is also why I respect Cheney's postion more than some of these efforts to marginalize morality, saying it's okay in this case, but not this case. Kerry is the same way, but on the other end saying it's not up to us ever. It's up to the individual.

Most everyone falls somewhere in between in their opinion about when abortion is okay, but that's simply not an option. King Solomon isn't running for president and we can't look into people's hearts on a case by case basis to grant liberties.

We either grant liberties fairly and equitably to all in any situation or restrict them from all in any situation. That's what's ultimately going to happen one way or the other and it's only fair that it does.

So pick your evil, swallow it and live with it. You won't be given an option #3.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT


It's abortion on demand or never.




Damn strait, RANT. Its either murder or its not. If it is, its never right. If its not, then abortions for all who want them.

I think if people didnt have this sub-conscious desire to be politically correct about the issue and really took a stance on the issue, we would be able to get somewhere with it.

It is almost as if it has been added to the list of things we should never discuss in public (or, I should say, some people think should not be discussed in public.) Religion, politics and abortion. Lets keep quiet on the issues that matter, and therefore get us heated. We may never get anywhere on those issues, but at least we will not argue. Now isnt that nice?

Screw that! Say what you think on the subject, lest your views never be heard. Dont worry about pissing people off. If they are doing something evil, why do you care if you offend them by saying so. Take a stance or we will all stand still.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
BTW. Thank you PistolPete for having the intestinal fortitude to start the topic we all new was coming, but didn't have the nerve to start ourselves.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

A child should not suffer because of the Premisquiousness of the mother.

Premisquous? Thats a broad assumption.. it also takes advantage of cultural stigma associated with sexually assertive women. Surely there are some women who fall pregnant from their first time or have contracetives fail? Are they sluts too?

Rape is a Different story but I still do not think an abortion should be performed even in this case the child committed no crime.

So the woman should be punnished instead? A women gets raped.. the rapist- after forcing his penis inside her body.. ejeculates inside of her and if she concieves though this brutal violation.. he then remains inside her. It's not about punnishing a child or vengence.. it's about trying minumalise the trauma of a rape victim. Even if she has an abortion it won't remove all her pain.. she may still end up suicidal but I suspect being forced to carry her attacker's child would be an added trauma she shouldn't have to be forced to deal with.

Would it be ok, if it would remove all the pain of the raped woman, to go to an orphanage and kill a 2 day old infant?

A 2 day infant is not inside her body. The comparison is trying to get people to imagine a fully formed baby being killed instead of an inch long feteus and is designed to evoke an emotional reaction and again demonise the woman as a heartless muderer. I do not deny that there is life there.. I agree it is a human being but I don't think the mother's future, quality of life or survial should traded for a pregnancy she is illequiped to deal with.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by riley]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by phantompatriot
if the child is had by accident or mistake, which is rare or by rape etc. Abortion should be allowed. but if it is because of persoanl mistakes or the mother cant look after the childs needs, then no, abortion is wrong thats why they have adoption agencies, stem cell research places, and even
underground human testing facilities lol. but you get my point.


It always makes me laugh when people refer to pregnancy as an "accident" or a "mistake". There's no such thing. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but if you're gonna screw, the chances are pretty good that you'll likely get pregnant. That's what procreation is all about...it's what our reproductive systems were built for. The problem is that too many people aren't careful and don't think about the consequences of their actions.

Personally I'm not keen on abortion...I wish people would be more responsible when weilding their sexual organs in moments of passion. I've worked in several clinics and you can't imagine some of the whiny selfish excuses I've heard about how women became pregnant...as though they had nothing to do with it. As though it happened due to external forces beyond their control.

There are rare medical related circumstances where abortion may be necessary. As for the rest...people have to make their own choices. I just wish they were smarter about it from the onset.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I don't think the mother's future, quality of life or survial should traded for a pregnancy she is illequiped to deal with.


1. If you're illequipped to deal with a kid, use a contraceptive - it isn't that difficult to do and saves you a lot of possible grief.

2. Her future? Her child will never get a chance at any future.

3. Give it up for adoption.

I just think that that's the most disgusting pro-choice argument possible. I can see how one would argue "women's rights", and I see why one would argue in cases of rape or for the health of the mother. But the "mom is irresponsible and the kid will be an inconvenience on her life so it must go" argument I absolutely can't stand. Who are we, or even that child's mother, to decide that it shouldn't get that chance to live? No one should be allowed to decide whether or not someone else can exist.

Riley I'm not attacking you, just strongly disagreeing.



posted on Oct, 23 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

1. If you're illequipped to deal with a kid, use a contraceptive - it isn't that difficult to do and saves you a lot of possible grief.

Too little too late.. but I do completely agree that prevention should be the answer.. it's pretty bloody useless suggestion as an after thought though.

But the "mom is irresponsible and the kid will be an inconvenience on her life so it must go" argument I absolutely can't stand.

I find that assumption equally as disgusting. An 'inconvenience' is a woman having an abortion because she won't be able to fit into her favourite dress anymore. Note that I said traded: choosing the baby's life over the mother's as though her life is expendable. I doubt many do it for trivial reasons.. do women really use abortion as a form of contraception? "Oops I'm pregnant for the eighth time. Thats okay.. I'll just book in and have it ripped out like I usually do.. much easier than using a franger" I suspect many are coerced [perhaps in the case of teenagers.. coerced into having sex in the first place] into aborting by prosepective fathers who are worried about being inconvenienced in being forced to pay maintenence.. which I find apporant as I am pro choice not pro abortion.. but of course we are not talking about the fathers are we? BIG surprise that people shout "Well adopt it out!!" [a complex issue with it's own problems anyway] .. instead of suggesting the actual father be expected to keep it. Why not?! If the featus is defined as being a completely seperate life from the mother why isn't the father held just as accountable for a pregnancy? Why must she always be held responsible for his actions as well? Our culture.. as proved by the media.. values women predomenantlyy on their sexual value.. and is preoccupied with male sexual gratification.. even to the point that there is a myth that men are so weak minded that they are unable to say no to their own erections. Not surpsingly unwanted pregnancies are a consequence. It's not women who should be held solely to blame- it is our whole culture that needs to be overhauled.

Riley I'm not attacking you, just strongly disagreeing.

Likewise.. I actually expected worse.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Abortion Doctors are the lowest form of human. They should all be sentenced to Life in prison... John Kerry is a Loser playing the Polls... he claims he personally thinks Abortion is wrong, yet he will not add his name to those in favor of outlawing the most scandalous form of this atrocity, Partial Birth Abortion. John Kerry said on National TV he would support the ban if it included a clause to allow the ban to be bypassed with the provision that either the Life or HEALTH of the mother is in jeopardy... When does assuring a fetus is DEAD, EVER save the mothers life.... If she can withstand the act of Partial Birth abortion itself she most likely can stand the birth, but even in the RARE, million to 1 odds that she cant... there was a part of the ban to assist her. Now Kerry also wants a general term, "Health" included.... this is nothing more than a loophole to render this Ban useless. The mothers emotional "health" in jeopardy.... Financial "health", and non-life-threatening physical "health", could be in danger... "Oh crap, I stubbed my toe... Kill the baby!!!"

John Kerry claims to believe Abortion is wrong... yet he LACKS THE PERSONAL CONVICTION TO STAND UP AGAINST THIS WRONG. Do not believe his lies... John Kerry is a "Plan less" Joke with no punch line. He will impose his beliefs on everyone considered for the Supreme Court.

For those of you out there who want to say, "well embryos arent people... they are just clumps of nothing..." I say to you...

Lets engineer a virus patterned after the common cold that can recognize the presence of an Embryo or fetus and kills it. How long do you think people will last on earth without embryos and fetus'? 50-70 years? 30-60?

(Disclaimer: I am not for the creation of constructive/destructive organisms. This includes the Embryonic Stem Cell / Cloning Hoax)

For all you Embryonic Stem Cell Research people who are scared to death that one day they have to die and are all for creating and slaughtering Life to extend your own.... Embryonic Stem Cell "cures" will REQUIRE CLONING TECHNOLOGY.... Might as well approve that too before we spend 1 Trillion dollars to save the rich people. Think ahead people... Do you envision assembly line Labs creating custom made cures for the poor? Don't fool yourself.... Federal Funding Embryonic Stem Cell research is just another example of the Rich raping the Poor. Poor wont benefit from the technology but you can bet they will pay for it.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   
While I am pro choice, I do not belive that abortion should be used as birth control especially late term. If the mothers life is in danger that is another thing.

What I do not understand about the whole issue is this. Why does the woman get to decide totaly what to do? What if the father wants the child but the mother decides to abort anyway.

Like wise I do not think it is right that if the mother wants the child and the father wants nothing to do with it ( not a commited relationship obviously ) should have to pay child support.

Mom makes the rules on this one. Dad stay in the car.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot

What I do not understand about the whole issue is this. Why does the woman get to decide totaly what to do? What if the father wants the child but the mother decides to abort anyway.



I guess you'd have to be a woman to understand this one. For nine months it's the woman with the fetus growing inside her belly...followed by the dreaded delivery date. If the woman doesn't want the baby, but the father does, that still means that the mother has to carry to full term. To put it bluntly...that means putting her body and life out of commission for almost a year...just to appease someone elses wishes. Until there's some miracle medical technology that can seamlessly swap the fetus from the woman's body to the man's so he can give birth to the child himself...the woman's in the driver's seat for this one.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wyzewun
I guess you'd have to be a woman to understand this one. For nine months it's the woman with the fetus growing inside her belly...followed by the dreaded delivery date. If the woman doesn't want the baby, but the father does, that still means that the mother has to carry to full term. To put it bluntly...that means putting her body and life out of commission for almost a year...just to appease someone elses wishes. Until there's some miracle medical technology that can seamlessly swap the fetus from the woman's body to the man's so he can give birth to the child himself...the woman's in the driver's seat for this one.


A woman doesn't get sole power to determine whether Roe vs. Wade remains law of the land. A man has every right in the world to be against or for abortion, and vote accordingly if theres a vote. The option to be irresponsible should not be for women only. The idea of holding a man against his will for 18 years of child support is not fair, especially since a woman can get an abortion at virtually anytime prior to birth. Until women start producing children without men on a regular basis the have nothing to cry about. Blame God that it takes 2 to procreate. The justice system is heavily geared to the womans point of view, and babbling about wanting more rights will likely backfire. I hope we can get Roe vs. Wade overturned and drive the slut revolution back to hell.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   

/What if the father wants the child but the mother decides to abort anyway.

If father's made a genuine offer of being the primary caregiver- [in writing maybe?] there would possibly be alot less abortions. [And she should pay maintenence.]

Like wise I do not think it is right that if the mother wants the child and the father wants nothing to do with it ( not a commited relationship obviously ) should have to pay child support.

You aren't very clear here. So you think he shouldn't have to pay child support if he wants nothing to do with it? Why?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
If father's made a genuine offer of being the primary caregiver- [in writing maybe?] there would possibly be alot less abortions. [And she should pay maintenence.]



You gotta be kidding? You're not going to find a woman ANYWHERE who'll carry a baby that she doesn't want in the first place, to full term...and then hand it over to the father and pay HIM maintenance for it. You are just joking...right?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

You gotta be kidding? You're not going to find a woman ANYWHERE who'll carry a baby that she doesn't want in the first place, to full term...and then hand it over to the father and pay HIM maintenance for it. You are just joking...right?

I was anticipating being called sexist so I added it on in the preview without thinking.. you're right of course.. but it's obvious that that wasn't my main point.. never do I see it discussed what his responsibilty to the child should be [apart from shot gun wedding to breadwinner] ..or the possibility of him taking care of the kid himself. All I've ever heared on this issue is woman bashing- and 'adopt it out' from people who probably would never put their money where their mouth is and actually adopt a stranger's 'saved child' themselves.. it would suddenly be 'but it's not my business'.. which I find a copout. I don't see how it is constructive to call women 'murderers'.. the difference between murder, manslaughter and mercy killing is motive. Years ago I was friends with a couple and confidant to both.. she got pregnant.. at the time she was jobless and boardering on homeless as she was constantly getting beaten by her father. She got rid of it.. and he turned around to me over a beer afterwards and told me if she hadn't of done it he would have punched her on the stomach.. I was stunned that.. after he's been playing the supportive bf to her saying her future was important etc. etc. that he wouldn't have let her ruin his life. [didn't stay friends with him after that- he dumped her anyway]. Her adopting it out was out of the question as she'd grown up in foster homes which was a gourmet for pedohiles at the time [her father finnaly gave her a home at 14 after child porn court proceedings]. I have other examples of friends who were in worse and complex circumstances- [a girl at school was phisically forced by her parents to have one at 13] abortion is a horrible thought but as I don't know all these hypathetical women that have abortions and what their personal circumstances are I'm not about to start preaching at them.. *who knows what further damage could be done to their lives. You earlier said you worked in a clinic.. and said their reasons for falling pregnant were pretty weak.. given the availabilty of contraception- why do you think there are so many unwanted pregnancies?

[edit. I just discovered the f word gets filtered out?!
]

[edit on 26-10-2004 by riley]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
You earlier said you worked in a clinic.. and said their reasons for falling pregnant were pretty weak.. given the availabilty of contraception- why do you think there are so many unwanted pregnancies?




Actually, sexist didn't come to mind. But yeah, their reasons for getting pregnant in the first place are pretty weak considering all the sex-ed and birth control methods available. In this day and age there's no excuse for the high numbers of unwanted pregnancies. The reason it happens? Too many selfish, irresponsible people out there who don't give a damn about anything else but themselves. And it's not just teenaged girls...I'm shocked at the numbers of adult working class women, who should know better...ending up at the doctor's office the next day asking for "morning-after pills" because, well...was just out for a few drinks with the girls and wasn't prepared for anything...it all happened so fast...you know how it is. Yeah, right. Give me a break.

I'm no prude...sex is great and should be alot of fun. But maybe if people gave a thought about the life-long effects/responsibilities of procreation...they might be more careful??????

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Wyzewun]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   

their reasons for getting pregnant in the first place are pretty weak considering all the sex-ed and birth control methods available.

Available.. but how accessable?

The reason it happens? Too many selfish, irresponsible people out there who don't give a damn about anything else but themselves.

This includes fathers as well?

And it's not just teenaged girls...I'm shocked at the numbers of adult working class women, who should know better...ending up at the doctor's office the next day asking for "morning-after pills" because, well...was just out for a few drinks with the girls and wasn't prepared for anything...it all happened so fast...you know how it is. Yeah, right. Give me a break.

Yeah- you would hope a grown woman would have a little more forethought.. a condom in the purse wouldn't cost much but at least she's trying to prevent possible abortion I guess. The question is working out why doesn't she know better?! Now this is a really important question.. and to actually make some headway into this issue it would be good to have real answers for it instead of just charactor assumptions.

But maybe if people gave a thought about the life-long effects/responsibilities of procreation...they might be more careful??????

Our culture doesn't teach people to think about being careful. The media suggests sex is predominantly for recreation and only for procreation when the plot calls.. rarely do I seen a bloke putting on a franger in a movie. The purpose of sex-ed should be to try to give facts and teach people that sex is actually a serious responsibility despite media myths but as it usually has religious sentiments ["Abtain!!"] ..it makes sex-ed pretty useless- people never get told all they should know. There is a HUGE amount of information [and contracetive options] available. I've always had access to it- but I'm not sure other women have, and given what you've told me it sounds like they haven't. What I am sure of is that people like to emmulate cultural ideals. Annorexia is an epidemic caused by the media.. you've even got 8 year olds trying to look like the 'perfect woman' now. If girls/women are getting conditioned to look certain ways.. it shouldn't surprise anyone that they try and are expected to act certain ways as well.. shame the consequences of our 'sex sells' culture aren't considered very important.. seems this applies to the aborion issue as well.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I can only hope people become more responcible. I for one do not see the point in offering an easy way out of life's complications.

I understand the side that says that they will do it anyway (back alleys and other horrible "stories"). That is true, but that's a moot point considering other crimes (should it be overturned that is) still happen.

I personally am tired of swapping rights for responcibility.

By the way, there are women who carry babies they will not keep (and aside from the chemicals do not want) all the time.

The options are getting better everyday.

Libertarians aren't really decided on this one, but I'd say it's a 50/50 mix in the party.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join