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.

 

Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

No! No!

The moment of birth, when one draws their first breath. You know, their birthday? The day that is written on that thing called a "Birth Certificate?" That is beginning of ones existence into this existence.


Apparently some don't comprehend the "belief" of physical separate from the Energy Consciousness (soul).

Kind of like a toaster. It doesn't work until you plug it in. (that's gonna get some heat
)

Physical is still physical though and reacts to stimuli.


edit on 12-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Some just don't realize it's not complicated. They like to make it complicated. Abortion is murder and life starts on day one of conception. See, not so hard. Some people want it to be complicated. The complicated and miracle part of it all is that human life starts when one sperm and one egg fertilize and at the end of 9 months creates a beautiful baby.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
It is sad to see that abortion had became the second next issue that would be critical to the presidential election, and see how such an issue had been MISUSED by both religions and politicians to divide the nation of the ignorant and the faithful to achieve their personal glory and agendas.

Mankind had been given the gift of free will by our common Creator. When a woman is pregnant, it is her free will and responsibility over the life of the child inside her.

If mankind were to create laws that take that decision and free will from her, then it will become mankind's responsibility over what happens next.

There are a variety of reasons why a female would get pregnant. We should not just simply base the reason that she was a 'loose' woman and thus resulted in such situations, for there is empirical evidence to suggest NOT so, only is the most convenient one to fool others to accept the anti abortion stance.

If a female is forced against her will, resulting in a live birth, then is mankind prepared to take FULL responsibility for the child should the mother not be able to when it imposes its will to ban abortions?

Truth is, very very seldom does mankind accepts such responsibilities, but instead DEMAND the mother to take care of her child. Worse, at times resulting in the loss of both mother and child in tragedies of life and modern living such as poverty, lack of emotional support, discrimination, etc.

Then will mankind equally be held accountable for such losses in life when it imposes its will to ban abortions?

I applaud the humans whom stalk abortion clinics and try to sway women away from abortions in lands where abortions are not banned. Such is the manner to fight abortions - peacefully through winning hearts and minds, and NOT by force.

The insignificant nobody me is FULLY, TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY against abortions, but I will never force anyone against their free will, more so over the issue of abortions., for it takes away precious lives, a murder upon an innocent child human

RATHER, education and family orientated motivations are the way to win hearts and minds for a mother to want her child, and love him/her for life, along with society's support.

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.

Let the woman take FULL responsibility and free will for the child, the way EVE accepted, not from man but by our common Creator, and we mankind give her the fullest support in terms of education, motivations, goals and material needs where we can, for her to keep and love the child.



How about NO!
Women or rather the individuals who support the nonsense in this article love to talk about how women ought to have a right to decide for themselves to be a parent, but yet demand that men pick up the responsibility.

I believe in gender equality. If Men do not have a reasonable right to opt out of parenthood then neither should women. Frankly spoken, the whole "I have the uterus so I make the rules" BS is now gone. Man it is going to be interesting when the artificial womb that has been perfected makes it to market. Combined with the fact that it is easy and safe to turn sperm cells into egg cells, women are obsolete in terms of the continuation of the human species.

So please continue to demand rights without responsibility, continue to demand that we all worship the gynocentric matriarchy, it will only speed up the age of man and the permanent destruction of the tyrannical matriarchy! Us men are not here to be slaves to entitle women's choices. If women want the power to decide if they should or should not be a parent, and if women demand that men be denied such a power as well, then women ought to bear the full responsibility for it as it is a personnel choice now. They are doing no great service to humanity at all. As I am sure an artificial womb would be far safer, healthier and better place for future members of society to be born from.

P.S
To the people, especially the feminist people, who love to say to men "if you don't want to be a parent keep your legs closed", why don't women who do not want to get pregnant keep their legs closed? Or is feminism some kind of supremacist movement?
edit on 13-11-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 




I believe in gender equality. If Men do not have a reasonable right to opt out of parenthood then neither should women. Frankly spoken, the whole "I have the uterus so I make the rules" BS is now gone.


Except men do opt out of parenthood all the time. Disappear the moment they find out the woman is pregnant or stick around and make piddly child support payments. There is a reason that out of the 12 million or so single parents 9-10 million of them are women.

They are also turning eggs into sperm. Guess neither gender is going to be needed in the future.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GideonFaith
Some just don't realize it's not complicated. They like to make it complicated. Abortion is murder and life starts on day one of conception. See, not so hard. Some people want it to be complicated. The complicated and miracle part of it all is that human life starts when one sperm and one egg fertilize and at the end of 9 months creates a beautiful baby.


I know its a real eye-opener to see people bent on picking and choosing when common sense and decency should apply.
Here, it seems, we have so-called women selecting specific women, who are allowed, granted this "free will". In addition to that, according to these judgemental mouth pieces, ...only selected, specific children should be granted life.
This subject, thread, isn't about women being responsible, having free will. Its about power trips and disdain toward anyone who might stand for true equally.
Its a shame that these preacher-type and power-tripping women embrace such violence and select-ism.
If you step back and take a look at the bigger picture, you'll realize the true agenda and the price they are willing to pay for this select-ism religion.
Pathetic.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GideonFaith

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


It is not a baby or infant until birth.

Biologically and medically they are fetuses while still in the womb.


Baby, infant or fetuses; they are still human life.


Actually no. You could state it is the beginning process of Human Life but a Fertilized Egg that is implanted itself in the Uterine Wall...is NOT a Human Being as of yet. A Fetus does not become Sentient until way down the line in it's later development.

THAT is what should be at issue. When exactly or PLUS or MINUS an amount of time...is a Fetus Sentient? Prior to this all we have is an empty Biological Shell designed to create a Sentient Being. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 
Split, I enjoy reading many of your post and agree with you on many of them.
Not this one however.
A human life begins a conaeption. This human life will grow and change throughout it's life span until it dies. When a woman chooses to have an abortion she removes that life.
This has nothing to do with being sentinent, self aware or when the soul enters the body.
When sperm meets egg a human life is formed. It begins to grow and continues to do so long after birth.
Quad



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


A fertilized egg may be a human life form, but it's hardly a human being or a person. Nor is it the beginning of life, as both the sperm and the ovum are alive and are human.

It has no brains, bones or any physical features that define a human being; no ability of discernment or memory capacity. It isn't even visible to the human eye. Human beings have emotions like compassion, sadness, hatred and anger which a fetus just doesn't have. Besides having an inability to experience emotions, a fetus doesn't have a capacity for intelligence, reason, logic or morality. So even though a fertilized egg or a fetus may be biologically human, it has not characteristics of a human being.

It lives inside the woman's body depends solely on the woman's body to survive. They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings.

While anyone can take care of a human baby, only the mother can bear her child, she can't pay someone take on her pregnancy for her. The very thought that a person resides within another person is ridiculous. A person is a sovereign individual.

Even if you say that a fertilized egg or a fetus has the right to life, that right doesn't trump the right of the mother not to care for it. Slavery is illegal and t is also illegal to force someone to donate organs or blood, so why would it even be considered that we should force a woman to rent out her body for 9 months?

We have legalized contraception that usurps any believe that sex is a contract for procreation, or assert the the assumption that woman can't have sex purely for pleasure. The free exercise of one's own moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And when a woman find herself faced with the difficult prospect of an unwanted pregnancy she has every right to exercise her own morality in her decision.



edit on 14-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Windword,
I do not want to argue or seem stubborn.
It really does not matter how you justify abortion, it is still taking a human life.
It is every woman's right to have sex when she wants, for what ever reason she wants.
Most of us learn at an early age where babies come from and the role women play in the process. When you have sex you know as well as the man what may happen. If you are mature enough to have sex then you should be mature enough to deal with what comes of it without taking a human life.
So if you or anyone wants to go out and have wonton sex, have at it. However, another human should not have to give their life for your momentary pleasure.
Quad



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


What you mean to say is that "another potential human being should not forfeit the prospect of existence over the rights of the woman to not be a mother."

I don't care what you use for justification, A fertilized egg is not a human being. It's not worth of any rights that the woman doesn't give to it herself.

Sperm is also human life, yet we kill sperm by the bazillions, with no guilt.


edit on 14-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by GideonFaith

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


It is not a baby or infant until birth.

Biologically and medically they are fetuses while still in the womb.


Baby, infant or fetuses; they are still human life.


Actually no. You could state it is the beginning process of Human Life but a Fertilized Egg that is implanted itself in the Uterine Wall...is NOT a Human Being as of yet. A Fetus does not become Sentient until way down the line in it's later development.

THAT is what should be at issue. When exactly or PLUS or MINUS an amount of time...is a Fetus Sentient? Prior to this all we have is an empty Biological Shell designed to create a Sentient Being. Split Infinity


Your belief is not my belief, my belief is not your belief. I believe at the time of conception starts life. You don't.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


What you mean to say is that "another potential human being should not forfeit the prospect of existence over the rights of the woman to not be a mother."

I don't care what you use for justification, A fertilized egg is not a human being. It's not worth of any rights that the woman doesn't give to it herself.

Sperm is also human life, yet we kill sperm by the bazillions, with no guilt.


edit on 14-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

No, that is not what I meant to say, please do not go down the road that so many take. Please do not put words into my mouth to try and "prove" your point.
I said exactly what I meant. If you did not understand my previous post, maybe these folks can explain it a tad better.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don't make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.
www.prolifephysicians.org...



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


I'm not saying that it isn't human. I'm saying that it isn't a person, a human being. It isn't worthy of rights. Especially when those rights violate the rights of the woman, who IS a human being, a sovereign person.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Who are you to say one human life is more important than another? If you have consensual sex, don't you understand you might get pregnant? Why should another human life be taken because you made that decision?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

While anyone can take care of a human baby, only the mother can bear her child, she can't pay someone take on her pregnancy for her. The very thought that a person resides within another person is ridiculous. A person is a sovereign individual.


Good positive arguments.

Unfortunately - - - anti-abortionist Pro-Lifers don't care. They have tunnel vision.

They seem incapable of seeing/understanding the entire scope of unintentional impregnation.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by windword
 


Who are you to say one human life is more important than another? If you have consensual sex, don't you understand you might get pregnant? Why should another human life be taken because you made that decision?


That's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that the right to life of a fertilized egg is more important than the right of the woman to exercise her own morality. You made yourself the judge.

Do you also want to force a pregnant rape victim to carry her rapist's child?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by windword
 


Who are you to say one human life is more important than another? If you have consensual sex, don't you understand you might get pregnant? Why should another human life be taken because you made that decision?


That's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that the right to life of a fertilized egg is more important than the right of the woman to exercise her own morality. You made yourself the judge.

Do you also want to force a pregnant rape victim to carry her rapist's child?

Did you not see that I said "consensual"?
That is not what I am doing. I am saying that the right to life of one human life in not more important than another. Anyone who thinks so has made themselves judge, jury and EXECUTIONER.
You have already agreed that it is a human life being aborted.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


My point is, if you're okay with a pregnant rape victim aborting, then you are placing the value of one life above another. A woman who finds herself pregnant due to birth control failure shouldn't have less rights that a woman who is raped.

If you're okay with contraception that causes spontaneous abortions, like the Pill and the IUD, then you are placing the value of the woman's choice above the right to life of the fertilized egg.

The act of consentual sex is not a binding contract for reproduction. If a legally condoned contraception fails and a woman becomes pregnant she can't be legally obligated to carry that pregnancy to term.

To take a pragmatic view of life beginning at conceptions and then to declare that all life is sacred, therefore, the life of the unborn should be afforded the same rights as any other sovereign individual, is to take the view of a slave state, where women would be forced to breed is optimum.

Is that your ideal?

Personally, I don't think abortion is murder, for reasons already stated. You do. We aren't going to agree on that. But I bet that we can agree that a lot of atrocities suck, like the murdering and maiming of children because of war! But we can't do a thing about it.

Abortion is going to continue, and that sucks for some people, but there isn't really anything that can be done to stop it from happening.

We have to learn how to find a middle road.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


As for rape victims, I still do not agree with abortion. But this falls into a different area. The woman did not give her consent. She was violated and did not have a choice. Only 1% of abortions come from rape victims. I do not agree with it but I can understand it.
The rest of your argument is absurd. Take responsibility for your CONSENSUAL actions. Do not take the right of life away from another because you were careless.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Woman dies after being denied abortion in Ireland


Savita Halappanavar, 31, went to University Hospital Galway with back pain on October 21 and was found to be miscarrying.

She died of septicaemia a week after being admitted, 17-weeks pregnant.

Her husband Praveen Halappanavar told the Irish Times that after days of "agony" his wife had asked for an abortion.

He said she had repeated her request over three days but was told Ireland was a Catholic country and by law nothing could be done because of the presence of a foetal hearbeat.


It goes on further to say


In 1992, when challenged in the "X-case" involving a 14-year-old rape victim, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted when the woman's life was at risk, including from suicide.

But an earlier constitutional amendment banning abortion remains in place, leaving medical professionals to navigate a legal minefield when treating pregnant women.


She died because doctors made a call assuming that she wasn't in immediate danger.

Consequences of the all-or-nothing approach.
edit on 11/14/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join