Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A question for people who are pro-abortion

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


You are expressing very noble sentiments for your own imaginary scenario. The situation millions of women everyday will find themselves in , left to bring up a child they may not want has more bearing on why people actually choose abortions. I don't think you could ever be convinced though as you are in the priveledged position (ie a man) of never having to confront such a scenario personally.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 





If the baby was part of the woman's body, it would have her DNA. It doesnt. It has it's own unique DNA, as the baby is NOT the mother, it's simply inside the mother.


Isn't that enough of a reason? An unwanted and uninvited squatter has taken up residence and is taking nutrients from it's host's bones, organs and blood. It's causing her high blood pressure, edema, nausea, headaches, backaches, among other things that could effect her health for the rest of life, not mention the psychological effects.

edit on 5-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by James1982
I am morally against abortion.


Fine, then how about you keep your morals to yourself, mind your own business, and let other people have their own morals.


What is wrong with you people? Seriously? I really want an answer. It's like your blind and unable to read anything in this thread.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
reply to post by James1982
 


You are expressing very noble sentiments for your own imaginary scenario. The situation millions of women everyday will find themselves in , left to bring up a child they may not want has more bearing on why people actually choose abortions. I don't think you could ever be convinced though as you are in the priveledged position (ie a man) of never having to confront such a scenario personally.


Meaning what?

Considering I am pro-choice, what bearing does your post have on me or my thread/posts?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by James1982
 





If the baby was part of the woman's body, it would have her DNA. It doesnt. It has it's own unique DNA, as the baby is NOT the mother, it's simply inside the mother.


Isn't that enough of a reason? An unwanted and uninvited squatter has taken up residence and is taking nutrients from it's host's bones, organs and blood. It's causing her to high blood pressure, edema, nausea, headaches, backaches, among other things that could effect her health for the rest of life, not mention the psychological effects.



An uninvited squatter? That's what you consider an unborn child? Wow.... and I'm the one getting heat from people in this thread. Says a lot, doesn't it?

And it's a totally invited squatter, unless a woman was raped she literally opened herself up to having that squatter appear. If you unlock your front door and hang a sign out front that says "All are welcome" why would you be surprised to find homeless squatting in your house?

This just makes no sense...



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
What is wrong with you people?


What is wrong with you?


I really want an answer.


Why? You have been given answers, but do not like them....


It's like your blind


You are the one blindly trying to push your morals and beliefs on others here....



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


You're confusing biology with an invitation.

Every time you have sex do you consider it an invitation to become a parent? If so, have you discussed this with every one of your partners first?

If the woman is using birth control, and it fails, there is no invitation, even if she did accept sexual advances.


edit on 5-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


Way to try and dehumanise women there

Anyone who supports abortion has no business complaining about the dehumanization of others.


Men will never understand what goes through a woman's mind when she finds out she's pregnant

Women don't all have the same thought patterns. Women aren't identical drones.


Abortion is a women's issue and you should leave it to women to decide what's right and wrong.

Abortion is an issue of either discarding or allowing the continuance of the life of a human being. Each human being has TWO parents. Therefore, it's certainly not a 'women's' issue. When deciding what's right and wrong, logic should be used- not childish emotional sentiments.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 






Abortion is an issue of either discarding or allowing the continuance of the life of a human being. Each human being has TWO parents. Therefore, it's certainly not a 'women's' issue. When deciding what's right and wrong, logic should be used- not childish emotional sentiments.


What difference does it make how many people decide? You have already decided that there is no right choice if abortion is the choice. You believe that abortion is just, well, wrong.

You have decided that you're the one who decides what's right and what's wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Of course I think senseless murder is wrong. But under the current system, men can be legally obligated to pay up for 18 years for a choice that was 100% the woman's.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 

yes James, i starred Winword's response, both of them.

i cannot believe "vocabulary" is such a stumbling block for you so let's clarify, shall we ?
before the medical terminology of today, the 'unborn' were known as parasites.

so, do parasites have 'rights' as you profess ?
if so, i sure don't want you anywhere near my healthcare insurance plan (Obamacare)


in my younger day, the 'unborn' wasn't even considered a 'person/child' when it was intentionally killed in utero by another human/accident/murder (regardless which trimester)


quite honestly, aside from the new medical terminology (zygote, fetus and others) it's the same parasite it has always been and it isn't any less of a parasite until it can survive sans host, period.

your excessive emotional attachment is abnormal, especially for a male.

personally, i thought Winword's "squatter" reference was relative.
squatters appear when you Least expect them ... so do some pregnancies.

your perpetual reference to the unborn as a 'child' is horribly misleading.

if you are in favor of InVitro processes (as am i), the question reverts back to you.
Why should we dispose of all of those unwanted "children" ???

your preference for abstinence is something for which you should be proud, however, you cannot and should not expect the same of any other.

as stated previously, sexual encounters are not solely for the purpose of reproduction, accidents happen and they aren't always the result of promiscuity, wrecklessness or disregard for human life.

you might want to try to be honest with yourself before venturing down a road you will never travel.

and, to be honest, i'm rather discouraged that in all your posts here, not once did you mention the Father's rights regarding the process of abortion ... shouldn't they have some say in the matter ?

oh and btw, since "humans" are perpetually referred to as "parasites upon the Earth", please don't attack the vocabulary or me for pointing it out, i didn't create it
edit on 5-4-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 


So, barring making abortion illegal, how would you change things? Would you like to see a man be able to force a woman to give birth, possibly also being forced to turn the baby over to him, or for a man to be able to force a woman to have an abortion?

If so, what criteria of familiarity between the man and woman would validate and necessitate his overriding her choice: Husband, fiancee, live in boy friend, just dating, first date, one night stand, date rape, incestious older family member.............



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Charmed707
 


So, barring making abortion illegal, how would you change things? Would you like to see a man be able to force a woman to give birth, possibly also being forced to turn the baby over to him, or for a man to be able to force a woman to have an abortion?

I don't know why you're acting as if 'forcing' a 9 month ordeal is outrageous when 18-YEAR ordeals are forced...or why you're acting as if the forced removal of a 'parasite' is outrageous. There's a lot of situations where a child is under the primary care of one parent.


If so, what criteria of familiarity between the man and woman would validate and necessitate his overriding her choice: Husband, fiancee, live in boy friend, just dating, first date, one night stand, date rape, incestious older family member...........

Just as it's irrelevant in the matter of child support, the relationship between the two parents (with the exception of rape) is irrelevant in this matter too. Regardless of the relationship of the parents to each other, they both equally contributed genetically to the child.

If a woman doesn't want a child but the man does, she would only have to deal with those consequences for 9 months. If the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, he he has to deal with those consequences for a lifetime.
edit on 4/5/2013 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by windword
 


Of course I think senseless murder is wrong. But under the current system, men can be legally obligated to pay up for 18 years for a choice that was 100% the woman's.
while this is true in some cases, it doesn't apply to all.

and the relative point here would be ... (as mentioned previously) ... should child support be mandated from the moment of conception ??
as it stands today, the 'origin' is the date of Birth ... not gestational periods.

and, if support extends to conception, shouldn't provisions be mandated for the mother-to-be ??
she is incurring un-necessary, additional expenses in all forms (medical, transport, dietary, cosmetic, a plethora of'em)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Charmed707
 


So, barring making abortion illegal, how would you change things? Would you like to see a man be able to force a woman to give birth, possibly also being forced to turn the baby over to him, or for a man to be able to force a woman to have an abortion?

I don't know why you're acting as if 'forcing' a 9 month ordeal is outrageous when 18-YEAR ordeals are forced...or why you're acting as if the forced removal of a 'parasite' is outrageous. There's a lot of situations where a child is under the primary care of one parent.


I'm not "acting" at all. I'm trying to have a civilized conversation, and I'm asking a legitimate question.

Do you think it's okay for a man to force a woman to have an abortion or to give birth against her will?



If so, what criteria of familiarity between the man and woman would validate and necessitate his overriding her choice: Husband, fiancee, live in boy friend, just dating, first date, one night stand, date rape, incestious older family member...........

Just as it's irrelevant in the matter of child support, the relationship between the two parents (with the exception of rape) is irrelevant in this matter too. Regardless of the relationship of the parents to each other, they both equally contributed genetically to the child.


So? The woman now has to keep contributing physically to keeping (not a child yet) the fertilized egg to term, something that no other person on earth can do for her.

The issue is not who contributed how much or how often, but who's choice must be considered, and why.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by windword
 


while this is true in some cases, it doesn't apply to all.

The point is that men can be legally forced to pay for something that is the result of a woman's choice. If women were even expected to bear the child she took part in creating because of a man's wishes to be a father, all hell would break loose.


and the relative point here would be ... (as mentioned previously) ... should child support be mandated from the moment of conception??

Under the current system, at least for people that would even consider abortion and think it's 100% the choice of the woman, everyone born after Roe v. Wade is the result of a woman's choice. That means the entire process of pregnancy and giving birth is 100% the result of her decision, and thus, no man should ever be legally responsible for such an exclusive decision.

edit on 4/5/2013 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 

wow, what a jaded response


If a woman doesn't want a child but the man does, she would only have to deal with those consequences for 9 months. If the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, he he has to deal with those consequences for a lifetime.
in case you don't know, one (just 1) pregnancy changes a woman for LIFE, whether or not the child survives to delivery.

it is not a question of I or YOU, it is what is the best outcome for ALL involved.
not one entity should be excluded unless the circumstances warrant such an exclusion.

the what-ifs are overwhelming when the discussion of what to do now, embarks.
to invalidate the input of any participant is wrong and that includes the potential life of the child.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 

hmmmm, not up with the times are ya ?

The point is that men can be legally forced to pay for something that is the result of a woman's choice.
yes ... and equally, both men & women have been legally obligated to pay for a child they never participated in creating ... i never said it was fair



If women were even expected to bear the child she took part in creating because of a man's wishes to be a father, all hell would break loose.
happens every day and with 'women' who have barely reached puberty

so, why isn't hell breakin' loose already ???

the other part of your post was soooo bad that it deserves its own response



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 


Under the current system, at least for people that would even consider abortion and think it's 100% the choice of the woman, everyone born after Roe v. Wade is the result of a woman's choice.
in some ways, yes, but not as you imply.
so far, without the woman's full cooperation, babies are a bit difficult to produce in their complete form


what difference does it make if a woman thinks it's 100% her choice/decision ??
what if, in her case, it was ??
who are you to judge either way ?


That means the entire process of pregnancy and giving birth is 100% the result of her decision,

thanks for the chuckle

back to that baloney again ?? no thanks.
sorry dude, that's a 2-way street no matter how you look at it.


and thus, no man should ever be legally responsible for such an exclusive decision.
check with Mr Rourke ... he could probably arrange that for ya on Fantasy Island



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Do you think it's okay for a man to force a woman to have an abortion or to give birth against her will?

You already know the answer to that question. I don't condone abortion and a pregnant woman who was not raped was not forced into the situation. Respecting others' rights and not playing the violated victim just because you don't like the outcome of your decision is just acting like a responsible adult.

Do YOU think men should be forced to pay child support for 18 years?


So? The woman now has to keep contributing physically to keeping (not a child yet) the fertilized egg to term, something that no other person on earth can do for her.

What do you mean 'so'? Giving up your hard-earned money for 18 years is a much more egregious consequence. Ever heard of a surrogate?


The issue is not who contributed how much or how often, but who's choice must be considered, and why.

It's all about genetics. DNA testing is used to highlight biological fatherhood as to find out who will be paying for 18 years. If either parent wants the child, then by weighing the consequences, that logically trumps everything else.
edit on 4/5/2013 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join