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.

 

Democrats Need To Rethink Abortion Issue

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

To me this is saying that when Man's knowledge reaches a point in development to determine when life begins, this question should be answered. It simply had not reached that point in 1973. I beleive answering this question is fundamental in the abortion issue.


I read it that way as well. The trimester system established in Roe v Wade and the Courts reflection on 14th amendment protections for human life is often forgotten.

With that said the medical community has not been able to say definitely when life begins. It still remains a philosophical debate. However, they are discovering that a fetus begins to feel pain, etc. at a relatively early stage. For me that led to a change in my pro-choice stance - I now believe that at a certain point in the pregnancy abortion should no longer be an option unless the life of the mother is in danger.

B




posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Natas313
You want to ban abortion, because it is immoral? Is it immoral then to kill entire families in other foriegn countries with supreme military technology in terms of "terrorism," or "the war on drugs."How bout destroying entire species and habitats of animals and plants?



How is what you are saying an argument against abortion???
How does the war in Iraq change the fact that abortion is the ending of a human life???

Yes, I agree that most Pro-Lifers don't "get it" in terms of changing liberal minds. But that does not automatically make the basic message of Pro-Life wrong--it just means that the messengers are flawed.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassie Clay


I dunno...what if I decided to go out and smack that co-worker I don't like upside the head for being a "meanie" or steal that cd I can't afford because I desperately want it but can't afford it right now or suddenly decided to not pay the phone company? I'd be an idiot who did idiotic, destructive things & I'd probably have to answer for it.



1. Are these situations really analogous to drinking and doing drugs while pregnant?

2. Is banning abortion acceptable to you if the result is deformed and drug addicted babies and neglected and impoverished children?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassie Clay

Originally posted by Natas313
You want to ban abortion, because it is immoral? Is it immoral then to kill entire families in other foriegn countries with supreme military technology in terms of "terrorism," or "the war on drugs."How bout destroying entire species and habitats of animals and plants?



How is what you are saying an argument against abortion???
How does the war in Iraq change the fact that abortion is the ending of a human life???

Yes, I agree that most Pro-Lifers don't "get it" in terms of changing liberal minds. But that does not automatically make the basic message of Pro-Life wrong--it just means that the messengers are flawed.


All the circumstances I listed constitute taking innocent lives as is your argument of abortion right? That is the argument


Abortion has been going on for ages, it should be a woman's choice or her and her partner's if she feels the need to incorporate him into the decision process of ending the pregnancy. Some of these same people that are anti-abortion are also anti-sex ed, or anti-birthcontrol. Why not put all that time and effort into the education of the next "breeders" so they don't get pregnant instead of trying to force beliefs on people. IMO that would be more productive in terms of stopping the need for abortion, but keeping that option open to others who need it.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
I read it that way as well. The trimester system established in Roe v Wade and the Courts reflection on 14th amendment protections for human life is often forgotten.

With that said the medical community has not been able to say definitely when life begins.


I think a human embryologist may disagree with you on this issue.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agitator

Originally posted by Cassie Clay


I dunno...what if I decided to go out and smack that co-worker I don't like upside the head for being a "meanie" or steal that cd I can't afford because I desperately want it but can't afford it right now or suddenly decided to not pay the phone company? I'd be an idiot who did idiotic, destructive things & I'd probably have to answer for it.



1. Are these situations really analogous to drinking and doing drugs while pregnant?

2. Is banning abortion acceptable to you if the result is deformed and drug addicted babies and neglected and impoverished children?



My point is: if you do something purposely wrong, you have to pay the price--not have special laws written for you in anticipation of you doing something wrong. Does the teenager in question have a gun to her head that forces her to drink & do drugs?? Is the solution to this killing off the baby in the first place??

As to your second question, I have a question for you: is the answer to those negelected & impoverished children to have a govt-sanctioned ending of their life while they are in the womb? If the argument is that there is not enough money or adoptive parents or food to go around, & we "need" to "get rid of" a few hundred thousand babies before they even have a chance to "drain society", then we should say exactly what that is--govt. mandated depopulation.

But don't cushion this rhetoric of abortion with such misleading newspeak phrases like "a woman's right to choose" & "pro-choice."

It's: "A woman's right to choose to end her baby's life" & "Pro-Death". Let's at least be honest about exactly what we're talking about, regardless of your personal beliefs.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by Bleys
I read it that way as well. The trimester system established in Roe v Wade and the Courts reflection on 14th amendment protections for human life is often forgotten.

With that said the medical community has not been able to say definitely when life begins.


I think a human embryologist may disagree with you on this issue.


You have something for me to read? I strive to remain open minded on this subject.


Bleys



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Cassie Clay I thank you for your much more eloquent argument against abortion than my words can muster.

Abortion is simply wrong. It is evil and our society is very very wrong to support it.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I have an interesting question for you.
If men carried babies instead of women,do you think abortion would EVER have been an issue?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
What if the drug is prescribed by a doctor....necessary for the health of a mother.

What is she is working in an occupation that will seriously affect the child? Hey, I worked in a shop where all birds that flew into the place would die in 24 hours!! Believe me, it wasn't healthy for unborn babies either!! And, well, while I was working there, one of the women just up and quit.....she was pregnant, and they didn't want to work with her so she could avoid those chemicals....so, well, it seems to be the same group griping about the abortions, that are also claiming that it's perfectly acceptable to pay ceo's hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while paying the little men in the same company proverty wages. They are also the ones griping because too much of their money is being taken in taxes....and yes, they really do resent having to pay for the food on some kid's tables.

So, well, just what is the solution?
Can we force them (fathers included) to be sterilized.......just like we seem to want to force women to go through expensive c-sections if the doctor seems to think it would benefit the baby..(or that savings account he has for that nice third vacation home?)



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
You have something for me to read? I strive to remain open minded on this subject.


In my brief search for this answer, I encountered many sights which addressed the issue. However, they are all pro-life, and I cannot assure that the data is presented in an unbiased manner. I simply haven't had the time to verify the information presented.

A google search on "human embryologist life begins" (without quotes) should provide enough hits to enable you to weigh through the information provided and decide if the essence of what it is saying is biased or not.

edit:

Here is one site that seems to approach the question clinically.



[edit on 3-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassie ClayIUnwanted pregnancy is not an emergency justifying abortion. If a mother is going to die if she does not have an abortion, we have a few choices. We could let the baby & the mother die. We could save the mother & abort the fetus. If the fetus was viable enough to be delivered alive & that delivery would result in the mother's death, that is a more complex situation.
Good to see that at least you now understand it to be more complex than as previously stated. However, the choice of who to allow to live or die is the exact same moral issue, which is...is one life worth more than the other? I highly doubt the morality touting crowd, most of whom I am sure are those packing Bibles under their arms on Saturdays, sin on Sunday and beg forgiveness on Monday ever stop to consider who has the right to determine which of the two gets to meet their maker, or that such a choice violates the law of one they claim their moral position on in more ways than one.


My own parents were not married at the time I was born, and my mother was unwed, poor, and filled with great ambition. I love my mom, but if abortion was a viable & accepted practice back then, I'd probably be sticky pink biomass on the wrong side of a metal scraper.
But you would never know would you? On the other side of that coin, what if your mother's life was threatened if she had you, what would your life be like today? would your grand-parents have decided between an unborn child or the child they knew and loved?

But her & my dad got married & toughed it out. It was far from easy. But they managed, and my mom got her science degree anyhow.
And I applaud your parents for their commitment to you and wanting you. That makes all the difference in the world, unfortunately the streetkids and adoption agency orphans can't say the same.

What right do I have to say it was ok for me to live & millions of potential lives to die? Exactly, so it is not up to you to declare something a moral wrong and lend a caveat as you see fit.


And I'm totally for birth control & sex ed.
Yes and so it should be, but after having this conversation many times before with others, the consensus seems to be that despite the USA having a very good educational system which would assist in this regard, they would rather educate their teenager on sex-ed instead. Well, obviously what they say and what they do are two different things, because I doubt that all teenage pregnancies occurred because their folks didn't talk to them. Even so, that does nothing to address the other more serious issues such as rape, incest and serious defects that will render the child nothing but a breathing vegetable.


dh

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I'd support any woman's right to choose, though I think they should start thinking about the life inside them and the Karmic consequences
After all there's always consequences
Still I piss myself when I see a Bushist life-affirming statement
After all these horible horrible regime creeps re-elected by numb brained voters are all about death, DEATH, DEATH, nothing but death
They commit mass death in the Homeland and in many foreign territories
They want to see genocide in Africa and the Indian Sub-Continent
They look on with satisfaction
IT keeps their wheels turning
They suck and salivate on it
The public should have seen through these people by now and their lust for biotechnological abortion and gene research
They're into what they say they are not
The patenting and control of life
c/o Bush and Co
Scumbags for the world eternal

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dh]

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dh]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
All these what ifs and what happens. When it comes down to it, we are trading definition for comfort.

When we get in hard times, we want an easy out. God forbit anyone have to struggle like everyone else. But really, is it so hard to meerly continue with waht you started?

No woman, outside of rape or incest, is being "forced" to do anything. She had sex, she got pregnant, she's out of luck in the easy out department once Bush changes the justices.

I'll say good riddence to the practice when it is illegal, then we'll see how violent people get, especially after condemning Christians (a very small margin of thema at that) for killing abortion doctors and hampering access to clinics.

It'll be one big party for all us Pro-Lifers.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Somewhereinbetween says:
What right do I have to say it was ok for me to live & millions of potential lives to die? Exactly, so it is not up to you to declare something a moral wrong and lend a caveat as you see fit.



I think "Kill=bad" & "No-Kill=Good" does not really lend itself to broad subjective viewpoints. I think that killing is immoral, especially when it comes to innocents that according to the New England Journal Of Medicine start to have brain-wave activity at 43 days.

Do you understand what you're saying? It's like saying cops don't have the right to declare a moral wrong when they see a husband beat his wife, or a person try to kill another person--because the morality is "subjective." If we can't agree on some very basic, moral ideas such as "taking a human life is wrong" then we are really f**ked as a society, at the very least in a karmic sense.

And back to the argument about mothers who can't afford to support their children--if this is a reason cited why abortion should be legal, then we go back to the govt sanctioned depopulation situation. If we can't afford to feed & adopt out these "mistakes" then let's admit it and admit the abortion we are pushing for is for depopulation purposes--not some "warm and fuzzy" pseudo reason like "we are doing what the unborn baby would have wanted" -- because the unborn baby, with its heightened nervous system, is too busy reeling from the pain of being killed in a # of gruesome ways.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by Cassie Clay]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samhain
I have an interesting question for you.
If men carried babies instead of women,do you think abortion would EVER have been an issue?


Samhain,
If men carried babies instead of women, the entire gender-role thing would be different. It would have drastically changed everything, right from the beginning of humanity. Women would go hunting and men would have stayed home to carry babies to term. Men probably would have female hormones to produce milk & women would have he opposite, and the way they relate to the world would be completely reversed. And yes, women probably would have more power.

It is a fact of life that certain biological processes specific to gender have shaped the roles of that gender to an extent. But right now we really should have equality between the sexes, because we should know better by now.

But abortion is the taking of a human life. That this human life is being carried by a woman makes it to an extent a woman-related issue. But you can throw all the feminism you want on top of this issue & in the end it will still basically be that abortion is the taking of a human life. And conflating abortion rights with women's rights degrades feminism, in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The truth is Bush won due to the following reasons

1) Against Gay Marriages = devout religeous (regardless of denominations); Homophobic voters,

2) Anti-abortion = Anti-abortionists, devout christian voters

3) Anti- stem cell = devout christian voters,

4) Security, Anti-terrorism = Middle America, Hispanic + African American voters, Conservative voters



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassie Clay
MY point is: if you do something purposely wrong, you have to pay the price--not have special laws written for you in anticipation of you doing something wrong. Does the teenager in question have a gun to her head that forces her to drink & do drugs?? Is the solution to this killing off the baby in the first place??

As to your second question, I have a question for you: is the answer to those negelected & impoverished children to have a govt-sanctioned ending of their life while they are in the womb? If the argument is that there is not enough money or adoptive parents or food to go around, & we "need" to "get rid of" a few hundred thousand babies before they even have a chance to "drain society", then we should say exactly what that is--govt. mandated depopulation.

But don't cushion this rhetoric of abortion with such misleading newspeak phrases like "a woman's right to choose" & "pro-choice."


My point is that you believe or want everyone to be responsible. Well guess what everybody isnt. It doesnt matter if you dont like it or think they should be they just arent.

Now here is the really bad part there is NOTHING you or I or anyone can do about it. You cant make people responsible.

So no their isnt anyone forcing this 17 year old to drink or do drugs or have sex she is doing it because she is not responsible. I dont like it you dont like it, but it is happening. The only thing that is being forced is her baby to stay in her body and endure this torture.

So because she is irresponsible she probably wont make adoption plans or eat right or do anything we want her to do right. She may not even tell anyone she is pregnant until she is showing. Why she is not responsible.

So is it responsible for us to force this baby to go through this.


[edit on 3-11-2004 by Agitator]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agitator
My point is that you believe or want everyone to be responsible. Well guess what everybody isnt. It doesnt matter if you dont like it or think they should be they just arent.

So is it responsible for us to force this baby to go through this.


I can almost bet that almost to a man (so to speak), every person would rather take any risk in order to live.

Everyone wants at least a chance.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Agitator
My point is that you believe or want everyone to be responsible. Well guess what everybody isnt. It doesnt matter if you dont like it or think they should be they just arent.

So is it responsible for us to force this baby to go through this.


I can almost bet that almost to a man (so to speak), every person would rather take any risk in order to live.

Everyone wants at least a chance.


Fair enough then thats where I personally disagree. Many of these babies suffer a far worse death.

But I respect your opinion.


[edit on 3-11-2004 by Agitator]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join