Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

Thanks all for your replies.

Many of ignorant past generations of mankind had treated women as mere chattels or babies producing factories They deny women of their free will and right to make a decision on aborting or not aborting their babies.

Examples-
Husbands or in-laws demanding children, even when the mother cannot cope.
Husbands or in-laws demanding specific sex of child, demands the mother to abort the unwanted sex.
Negligent fathers who refused to take care of the family.
Worried mothers who see no future or security for their child in a dysfunctional society


Women too are fellow humans with a mind of their own. When they are robbed of their decision, then what happens next will be the responsibility of those who robbed her of such.

Will she love her born child in the case where abortion is banned, and where abortion is not banned - can she live with the tragedy of a lost human child within her whereby the decision to abort was not hers to make, or regret making one?

There is a wider perspective over the abortion issue than just a law intent as a solution of imposition. Why did the 'unwanted pregnacy' occured? Why the change of mind? Why have a child in the first place? - are but some of the questions that gets thrown up.

Ultimately, society plays a role over the issue of our most vital, critical and precious resource - children. Without them, mankind will end, as simple as that.

Mainstream religions had been the greatest pro-life proponents of 'pro-life'. It had been in the teachings since the dawn of our civilisation.

But if abortions had risen - legal and illegal ones, then mainstream religions will have to ACCEPT blame for their FAILURE to convince, sway hearts and minds to encourage the furtherance of our species through the beauty of the basic family unit. 'Bans' are stupid concepts born out of stupidity, presuming 'might' will win ,for whatever laws one man creates, another can destroy, or not follow.

'Power and Might may be derive from barrel of guns or draconian laws, but it is the hearts and minds that rule mankind. '

Society too will have to share that FAILURE, for it had not given the mother-to-be enough assurance on the future and safety of herself and child, for example, the dire economic situation we are in right now worldwide and threats of war on the horizons.

Only in acknowledging truths and realities, no matter how painful it will be, can we correct them to progress and evolve. Thus, may the pro-life camp consider carefully and look at the wider picture of realities and responsibilities.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by badgerprints

 

In the UK(pretty sure it's the UK), there are even lesbians going after paternal child support from the sperm donor, and actually winning.... Dude is gay, decided to help his lesbian buddies have two kids, then they pull that on him. People make me sick sometimes......

source

/facepalm

That is the most inaccurate reporting of news ive read on this site in AGES! Its the government going after that guy for child support and they're doing it because he didnt take a legal route when donating sperm and therefore left himself in the sh!t

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


"Legal route" when donating sperm.....
Lets see how fast women change their tune if the government started telling them there is a certain route they have to legally take in order to use their eggs.....

Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union license in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton — a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's — Jacob also adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13

But the women's relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.

Shortly afterward, a court awarded her about $1,000 a month in support from Shultz-Jacob. Shultz-Jacob later lost an effort to have the court force Frampton to contribute support — a decision that the Superior Court overturned April 30.

Meaning for that the lesbian mother sicked the court on him after her relationship fell apart. It is not his problem their relationship fell apart, and it should be mommy number two paying support, not the guy who did his friends a favor and helped them have a kid. You honestly see nothing wrong with that picture?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

"Legal route" when donating sperm.....

Lets see how fast women change their tune if the government started telling them there is a certain route they have to legally take in order to use their eggs.....

Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union license in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton — a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob's — Jacob also adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13

But the women's relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.

Shortly afterward, a court awarded her about $1,000 a month in support from Shultz-Jacob. Shultz-Jacob later lost an effort to have the court force Frampton to contribute support — a decision that the Superior Court overturned April 30.

Meaning for that the lesbian mother sicked the court on him after her relationship fell apart. It is not his problem their relationship fell apart, and it should be mommy number two paying support, not the guy who did his friends a favor and helped them have a kid. You honestly see nothing wrong with that picture?

You are obviously american and dont understand the british welfare system
Typical of someone on ATS talking about something they know nothing about!

And FYI, yes i do see something wrong with that picture but i reiterate my main points:

1) Its the government going after him
2) He didnt take the legal route and is now facing the consequences of his "good deed"
3) Life isnt fair lol

If men has no say in pregnancy being aborted, then they hold no financial responsibility if the mother decide to have the baby.

If that was a law, it would put some in their place.

At the current state, men lose either way.

Men want the baby, but women doesn't = men lose
Men does not want the baby, but women do = men lose

serious flaw in that.

Originally posted by luciddream
If men has no say in pregnancy being aborted, then they hold no financial responsibility if the mother decide to have the baby.

If that was a law, it would put some in their place.

At the current state, men lose either way.

Men want the baby, but women doesn't = men lose
Men does not want the baby, but women do = men lose

serious flaw in that.

Please, enlighten me...

What the hell do men want!?

And dont give me no short answer either.





And dont say sandwich

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Ill make a sandwich for you lol.


Well, what Men want depends on the situation.

What are you answers to the following.

What if your husband/bf need the baby and you don't?

What if your Husband/bf DONT need the baby and you do?

reply to post by luciddream


Unfortunately the statistics show that at least 50% of all abortions women have are because either pressure from the man or single parenthood. The other highest percentage are of young women in their teens.

Whenever abortion comes up it is only the women who are vilified and the only time men are brought up are for those rare cases when they wanted the baby. As long as the issue continues to be skewed and the spotlight remains solely on women you aren't going to find a solution.

Do you know how they do a blood transfusion in a crisis? They put the donor on a table, and stick a tube in your arm, then put the recipient on the floor so the blood will flow down.

now imagine this scenario:

You wake up to discover that you were in a car wreck. You were unconscious and they couldn't rouse you. But they realized that you were the same blood type as another victim of the crash who happened to be bleeding to death. So, you wake up, and discover that someone else depends on you for their life. You didn't consent to give them blood, but now your are.

Is it moral, to insist that this stranger be deprived of life, because you never consented? Should that life be terminated, because the donor decided she doesn't want that for herself, and, after all---it is HER body?

I understand the whole argument about when a fetus becomes a human.

But the fact is, if the fetus is not attacked, it will grow into a human. Not a cow or a cabbage or a fruit-fly, but a human. That is all a human fetus can ever become. It didn't magically become a human on the 40th day or the 120th day or his 13th birthday. The fetus was ALWAYS a human--a human fetus.

If there's no brain activity, do you think that makes you "not a human"? What if there is only half of the normal amount of brain activity? Maybe as much brain activity as a chimp has, but not as much as a human has. Can we declare that your coma has made you a chimp, and have you "put down?"

Brain activity doesn't define a human. Retarded people are not "less human." And geniuses aren't "more human" than the rest of us.

It's not about brain activity.

reply to post by tovenar


Nice work twisting Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous violinist thought experiment.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. ... To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

I have no opinion on abortion really but a cursory investigation of the roots of Planned Parenthood & Margaret Sanger would reveal a eugenics operation - the Nazi's got their eugenics ideas from Americans.

It's not a mystery if you go look...the elites don't want you breeding. It has less or nothing to do with religion or woman's rights & 99% to do with brainwashing!.

The Elites do not want you around or your children walking this Earth!
& they play the religion off the women groups while you argue they are making plans for you.


Okay - Go Bill Gates (pay attention to what he says):

The Elites are saying if we can't kill them on the front end (Abortion) - we will kill them on the back end (Vaccines, GMO Foods , Artificial Sweetners) - really if your awake not to hard to see.
imo

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

I have put forward this view many times...

Unless you are a women carrying the fetus it is none of your business.

How dare you?
I was awarded custody of my kids when my son was just 3 months old. I changed (and paid for) all those diapers, I cooked (and paid for) all those meals, I did it all by my damn self without 1 red cent from their mother. I love those kids more than anyone ever will... including their mom. So how in the world can you cling to the belief that if I'm not the one carrying the BABY, that its none of my business?

Last time I checked, men really don't have a choice in which PARENT carries the baby, now do we?

reply to post by Bone75

What did ant of that have to do with retaining an early term fetus?

Mainstream religions and politicians must comprehend that the best laws are those that a citizen will accept and abide by on their own free will, and not by imposition, for no mortal can look beyond the heart of human, which is capable of deeds well hidden, of both good and bad.

I, as a Christian, understand that the best laws are those given us by Our Creator, not by man, for the very reason that you state above - that the heart of man contains the capacity to do both good and evil. Knowing this, the laws produced by man are also used for good and evil. Legalising abortion has allowed 50,000,000+ murders to happen, and as good brings life, abortion is by definition an evil. As the Old Testament and history clearly shows, the sacrifice of children comes into a population swayed into sexual immorality. It is a natural consequence to rampant sexual immorality. In which case, the solution does not lay with abortion or with people stepping up to raise these children, but rather, with the underlying behaviour which caused the child sacrifice to enter the populace in the first place. Proof in point, tens of thousands are on baby adoption lists yet their aren't enough babies because the woman would rather slaughter the infant in her womb than carry him or her to full term. Man wants his fun but none of the consequences, hence why our sin loving population legalised the wholesale slaughter - so they don't have to be reminded of the consequences of their night of fun and irresponsibility. Mankind, left on it's own, will choose to redefine evil as good in order to keep partaking in behaviours that it has grown to love. Even if it means redefining murder as 'abortion' to convince oneself that it's not breaking the command Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Knowing this, Christ Jesus stepped into our world to offer foregiveness through repentance and the strength of God's Spirit to bring us into His Truth of just how fallen and separated we truly are from true life in His Kingdom.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Laws of the Bible are not very ethical. Lots of stoning, condoning of slavery and legal selling of daughters. If we followed the Bible's laws when it came to rape the woman would not only have to carry and keep the child but she would be forced to marry her rapist as well.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Yeah, we need to go back to the good old days! When everyone feared god, and the church, and god was going around smiting people's first born kids for the sins of the parents, and every weekend there was a good old fashioned witch burning, or werewolf hanging. Where only the noble class could read, or get any education.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Bone75

 

What did ant of that have to do with retaining an early term fetus?

"retaining an early term fetus"

Could you just listen to yourself for a minute? You and those like you are so ashamed of this practice that you won't even use terms such as "pregnant" or "baby" when discussing the topic anymore.

Reword the question and I might just answer it for you.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Ill make a sandwich for you lol.


Well, what Men want depends on the situation.

What are you answers to the following.

What if your husband/bf need the baby and you don't?

Need is a strange way to put it, but my view is tough luck. No female reproductive organs? No baby.

What if your Husband/bf DONT need the baby and you do?

Choice is mine, and if choose to keep it and he wanted nothing to do with the baby then fair enough - I wouldn't expect him to pay anything.