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.

 

A Baby's Right to Choose

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Abortion has been demonized by religous bible swarping fanatics, but the reality is, if a woman doesn't want to have a child then it isn't any of your bible thumping business.


- Interestingly even the Bible doesn't have a thing to say on the matter. Surprising when one considers that people not wanting to have every child they conceive is hardly a modern concept.

Not that it stops many of the fundamentalists, no, they just insist another part of the Bible relates even when it - clearly - doesn't.

Fascists using God, yet again.

......cos, of course, only their 'version' of God and 'Christianity' is valid, right?




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Abortion is murder? Get real. I just don't get how people think they have the right to legislate and dictate what a woman does with her body. If she doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, then who the hell are you to tell her she has to. The conservatives in this country make me sick, bashing abortion, but when these kids grow up in poverty, they bash them for getting on the welfare system. I had a wart removed a few years ago, did I murder the wart, or did I remove something from my body that I didn't want there to begin with. Raw fact of the the matter, there are going to be 20 billion people on this planet within our life time, 20 billion large mammals on a global ecosystem that can't really support half that number. All this hooplah about celebacy is rubbish, fact is folks are going to have sex. The urge is irresistable, and is a basic function of biology. We have the medical technology to make abortion a reasonable and feasible means to not only stem the human overpopulation, but to offer women a chance to choose not to bring a child into an unsuitable environment, and you creeps want to call her a murderer for that? Abortion has been demonized by religous bible swarping fanatics, but the reality is, if a woman doesn't want to have a child then it isn't any of your bible thumping business. I'd much rather see a woman abort her pregnancy than to bring one into generally fatherless resentment and poverty.


Total Codswollop!

1) Its not her body that she is killing - I am pro-choice on suicide. However I disagree on deciding the fate of anybody else. When you are pregnant it is not your life you will be aborting, its a child who has no say in the process.

2) Sex and children - honestly I am sure you will propogate pedophilia too since sex is natural? Sex is an activity that was meant to lead to procreation. For centuries normal society would procreate within a firm and stable relationship in order that children would have both a mother and a father to nurture them. The sexual revolution came about in the 60s with the advent of the contraceptive pill, but still hey why bother with that if I decide not to have the baby I can have an abortion.

3) we are not against choice - we are pro-choice we are just protecting the right to choose of the fetus.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Interestingly even the Bible doesn't have a thing to say on the matter. Surprising when one considers that people not wanting to have every child they conceive is hardly a modern concept.

Not that it stops many of the fundamentalists, no, they just insist another part of the Bible relates even when it - clearly - doesn't.

Fascists using God, yet again.

......cos, of course, only their 'version' of God and 'Christianity' is valid, right?


What's it really matter what the reason is for wanting or not wanting abortion.

News Flash, there are a good number of people who are Christians, who are for abortion, and there are plenty of Pro-life folks who are not christian.

So keep the anti-Christian retoric out of this, because trust me, you have no monopoly on Universal Truth.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
No, but the previous post was. Did you forget you said that?


- No. I think the point is valid. Despite not having the formal separation of 'church' and state we do not have this narrow religious view dictating our laws.


Did I draw that conclussion from thin air? Not really. Let's look at the post from a little earlier below


- I - still - don't think I have actually said anyone is an 'idiot' here, correct?


That's kind of the same thing I think about your rational.


- Well there we are then.


The idea that you have the universe figured out and the Christians are full of it is about the most arrogant thing you could come up with.


- If that were true you'd probably be right but seeing as you are telling me what you think I think it's no real surprise you're wrong, is it?

Actually I think only some 'Christians' are "full of it"......mainly the evangelical fundamentalist sect types.....but then it would be just laughable to pretend they are in any way representative of the term 'Christian', wouldn't it?


But please people, keep wanting to force us to live in a country that maintains barbaric actions, and government funded at that.

It'll change some day.


- You guys work away at turning your country into a theocracy if you like that's your affair, we won't I'm glad to say.


What's it really matter what the reason is for wanting or not wanting abortion.

News Flash, there are a good number of people who are Christians, who are for abortion, and there are plenty of Pro-life folks who are not christian.


- Yeah but there's nothing quite like getting 'God' in on it all is there?



So keep the anti-Christian retoric out of this, because trust me, you have no monopoly on Universal Truth.


- I'm not especially anti-'Christian' and I claim no universal truth....just my right to express my view and hold my opinions.

......and what?






[edit on 4-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
LOL Yeah, that Baby your refering to is a blob of rapidly dividing cells. What about the rights of my wart I had removed? As far as pedophilia, no, I'm not advocating grown ups and children having sex, but if your going to sit there and deny you weren't sexually interested at an early age, then your full of it, or you had some issues. My point there is, you aren't going to thump your bible and keep teens from having sex. Your not defending anyone rights, your telling women what to do with their bodies. Ignorance like this keep stem cell research locked up in hokie debates when it could be saving peoples lives.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
1) Because the Christians (some of them) are louder and sometimes bigger asses about their views, does not mean Pro-Life = Christian. Nor does it mean that their view is invalid.

Because some views expressed in government are in line with religion does not mean it's a theocracy, nor does it mean we want that.

2) I am Christian (if not a bad one), but that only has the ability to influence my views (much like all the reading I do, or conversations I have). I do NOT think that Christians need to USE (or should use) religious reasons in a diverse crowd because it really falls on deaf ears and defeats the point.

I do not use Christian rational to debate my point, as many others do not, yet the Christian bashers come out to play daily around here.

3) It's really a matter of when you believe life begins (which does not have much, if any basis in religion). If you believe that life begins at conception, then you would believe it to be murder.

This is not something you want the government to allow, let alone fund.

4) No one knows if there is a God or not. If there is no God, then there are no Universal Truths and everything is relative. In that, there is no problem with being restictive.

We restrict people daily, in your country and mine. The rights of those we deem to be criminals are trounced daily as well. It's really a matter of where to draw the line.

5) Women can either allow a man to have a legal say in the abortion choice, or keep the choice and the responcibility exclusively. It can't be both ways.

I'd really take a look at the divorce rate, fatherless child rate, and the abortion rate (and time it started) as to what the real problem is. Abortion is but a side note to the problems with our society.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
1) Because the Christians (some of them) are louder and sometimes bigger asses about their views, does not mean Pro-Life = Christian. Nor does it mean that their view is invalid.

Because some views expressed in government are in line with religion does not mean it's a theocracy, nor does it mean we want that.


- I have not said anyone's view is invalid and I agree with your 2nd statement as a point of plain fact.

Mind you, given the public statements of some of the US evangelical fundamentalists and the friends in the current administration what people say they want and what they are likely to get are likely to be 2 very different things IMO.


2) I am Christian (if not a bad one), but that only has the ability to influence my views (much like all the reading I do, or conversations I have). I do NOT think that Christians need to USE (or should use) religious reasons in a diverse crowd because it really falls on deaf ears and defeats the point.

I do not use Christian rational to debate my point, as many others do not, yet the Christian bashers come out to play daily around here.


- That's good for you. Really.

You may or may not be amazed at the number of people who think quoting the Bible or some religious attitude they hold as the be-all and end-all in a debate.

As if 'scripture' some how 'settles' the matter. It may well do for them and those who believe as they do but it is hardly the 'show-stopper' they imagine for anyone else.


3) It's really a matter of when you believe life begins (which does not have much, if any basis in religion). If you believe that life begins at conception, then you would believe it to be murder.

This is not something you want the government to allow, let alone fund.


- Well fair enough, to a point.

The point of honest difference is whether a feotus is 'alive' in the sense that is usually implied.

I would contend that it is alive, yes, but undeveloped to such an extent that it's destruction is in no way equivalent or like the murder of a live, birthed, person.

Also given the divergence of opinion in so many areas, approval of how the gov spends the funds it raises is something that can be argued by many for many different things.


4) No one knows if there is a God or not.


- Of course.


If there is no God, then there are no Universal Truths and everything is relative.


- I do not agree that 'universal truths' require a 'God' or Gods for that matter.

In fact I would say the opposite is the case seeing as certain universal human truths can be demonstrated to exist no matter what the particular deity of the time.


In that, there is no problem with being restictive.


- I suppose the very fact we exist in any kind of society inevitably imposes restrictions of some sort. I believe in as little as possible myself.


We restrict people daily, in your country and mine. The rights of those we deem to be criminals are trounced daily as well. It's really a matter of where to draw the line.


- Indeed.


5) Women can either allow a man to have a legal say in the abortion choice, or keep the choice and the responcibility exclusively. It can't be both ways.


- Now this I find I can't agree with. IMO it isn't a matter of a simple 'deal' like this.

It is always going to be a womans' ultimate choice as it is ultimately her responsibility for her own body.

Sorry, tough and all but that's biology for you.


I'd really take a look at the divorce rate, fatherless child rate, and the abortion rate (and time it started) as to what the real problem is. Abortion is but a side note to the problems with our society.


- Yeah, again I don't really disagree with any of this here.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I hiccupped oops


[edit on 11-4-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

5) Women can either allow a man to have a legal say in the abortion choice, or keep the choice and the responcibility exclusively. It can't be both ways.


I partially agree with this statement KJ, but the only man entitled to say anything in regards to a woman choice is the father of the fetus, not the government, not you, no other man but the one who contributed to the situation. #, I see no problem with the father of the unborn fetus having to be legally notified and choose between allowing the woman her choice or financially, emotionally, etc support the potential child. Yes "men" should be involved in the decision of whether an abortion is an option but again the men involved should be the ones who actually have a stake in it not Joe Schmoe or Betty Butt-In, not the govt People seriously need to start minding their own business.

and I have yet to meet a Pro-lifer that will explain why so many children in our society are unwanted, why so many are up for adoption and foster care. Instead of saving lives around you, you turn a blind eye to those in your face and fight to save a fetus that is not yet a child.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
and I have yet to meet a Pro-lifer that will explain why so many children in our society are unwanted, why so many are up for adoption and foster care. Instead of saving lives around you, you turn a blind eye to those in your face and fight to save a fetus that is not yet a child.



Come come now WW. We've had enough conversations about this to know that the reason for unwanted children etc.

People are selfish. Why? Because we are unable to love ourselves. That is the human flaw. The core of all things wrong with mankind.

But that is no reason to justify something many believe is wrong. I know the current trend of thought on this board is that we big bad mean pro-lifers want our women back in the kitchen.

My wife is at home with the kids and ccoks dinner at night too. Hell, I'm trying to get her to go back to work, but really that is a very difficult job (not that I am accussing you of this idea, but making a point).

This has nothing to do with the women or their purported rights. It's about a baby that we believe is life from the start.

We could get into day 3 day 4, week 5 trivialities, but that does not address the real bulk of this issue.

Either way it really makes no difference. I kept telling people that Bush and Kerry would ruin America.

Looks to be Bush as of now, because no matter what he says, he does have a test for judges because that's how the Big Two play the game.

He will have the chance to replace one, if not two of the Justices and abortion will effectively be over as a legal practice.

That will most likely be a leading cause in the meltdown.


IBM

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Marg, you and a few other dieharders have not answered my question yet that was in my first post. What would you do if someone pointed a gun at your head and said, "It is my choice to decide your life because i am irresponsible and do not want to take care of you." What would you say?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Marg, you and a few other dieharders have not answered my question yet that was in my first post. What would you do if someone pointed a gun at your head and said, "It is my choice to decide your life because i am irresponsible and do not want to take care of you." What would you say?


Objectively this wouldn't happen, but it does and it bothers me. It's not quite that extreme, but the point that is important is that we feel these children matter.

The logical rebutal is "Well who is going to feed them or take care of them".

The answer is simple:

1) We define life in one term, much like death.

2) We fix the system so as to allow anyone who wants to prosper to prosper.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Life begins at conception, but yet it is only a clump of DNA and cells on a programmed path to grow still not a baby. If this started under the sanctity of marrage and love then it should become a baby by choice.
If the woman was raped, then it is her choice to abort the abomination.
If the womans life is at stake then it is her choice.

From a moral stand point abortion is wrong.
From a legal standpoint, another woman's U~ is none of your business!


The same people that love guns and saving babies, don't give a crap about the child that is brought into this world. The child forced to be born has a 35% chance of not having health care. He/She may grow up in a world were they won't be accepted due to the fact he/she was not born in a loving manner. Now a child born out of love and want has a better chance in life and healthcare. All children should have automatic healthcare!

I recently heard a report that since Bush stole office, abortions have risen due to birthcontrol funding being cut. Can anyone elaborate on this?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Herman, you were not even born in the 50s and 60s, so wait until you have some children and go to puberty with them.


Umm.....wwwwhhhaaaattt?


I'll assume that you meant wait until my kids are sexualy active and then see how tough it is to keep them away from sex. If parents will raise the kids themselves, and not let the T.V. do it, maybe their kids wouldn't be idolizing these hollywood figures and thinking it's ok have sex at 13. Parents need to take responsibility, bottom line. Abortion is not the answer.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
If the woman was raped, then it is her choice to abort the abomination.
If the womans life is at stake then it is her choice.


A child from violence is not at fault. It really defeats the purpose of outlawing it if women who get raped can have abortions.


The same people that love guns and saving babies, don't give a crap about the child that is brought into this world. The child forced to be born has a 35% chance of not having health care. He/She may grow up in a world were they won't be accepted due to the fact he/she was not born in a loving manner. Now a child born out of love and want has a better chance in life and healthcare. All children should have automatic healthcare!

People's condition should not affect abortion. We can not allow what some would consider criminal because they are poor. People are poor so it's ok, right.

Who is going to pay for this great new healthcare. It's not a matter of getting every child covered, but having the government handle kids healthcare is beyond hopeful, it's really a sweet sweet idea.


I recently heard a report that since Bush stole office, abortions have risen due to birthcontrol funding being cut. Can anyone elaborate on this?


I'm sorry, but if you can't go to the store and get some condoms, then you are a really sad person who probably should be spending their time doing other more productive things.

Again, can't allow things because they are inevitable. This goes hand in hand with everything people think is wrong.


IBM

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by IBM
Marg, you and a few other dieharders have not answered my question yet that was in my first post. What would you do if someone pointed a gun at your head and said, "It is my choice to decide your life because i am irresponsible and do not want to take care of you." What would you say?


Objectively this wouldn't happen, but it does and it bothers me. It's not quite that extreme, but the point that is important is that we feel these children matter.

The logical rebutal is "Well who is going to feed them or take care of them".

The answer is simple:

1) We define life in one term, much like death.

2) We fix the system so as to allow anyone who wants to prosper to prosper.


SO basically it would be ok to shoot someone? Lets say there was a supreme court ruling that allowed this. What would you do. It is a realistic situation and it warrants an answer. Why is scott peterson being tried for the murder of an infant? Hopefully this will set a precedent for future abortions to be murder.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I didn't realize three months had gone by...(our normal rate for new abortion threads) This one is about like the others.

In my opinion, the anti-choice movement is all about making yourself feel better. You people don't have to deal with the guilt, shame, ridicule of either instance. (having a tot or ending it) You get to sit up on a high horse and judge people while good honest people would suffer under this. And this makes you feel good. Not the plight of others, but that you made a change. You made a change that coexists with your beliefs. It will make you feel better. But you don't take into account the full affect of it.

Do you think this will end? Do you think abortions would simply stop? No, backroom abortions would go on. Accidental overdoses would happen. A million of these suckers would happen each year. You cannot stop it.

Besides, you people are doing the worst possible #ing thing. You are trying to treating the symptoms, not the problem. If you truly want abortion to go away, do not assault the right to a woman's choice. It will only be met with piss and bile. You people need to effectively define the TRUE problem (and I assure it is NOT abortion) and fight that. Whatever you find to be the root of it all, be a crusader against that. Believe me in this, the problem is not the abortion, it is nothing more than a symptom. And it is my belief that problem is much easier to fix.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Objectively this wouldn't happen, but it does and it bothers me. It's not quite that extreme, but the point that is important is that we feel these children matter.

The logical rebutal is "Well who is going to feed them or take care of them".

The answer is simple:

1) We define life in one term, much like death.

2) We fix the system so as to allow anyone who wants to prosper to prosper.


SO basically it would be ok to shoot someone? Lets say there was a supreme court ruling that allowed this. What would you do. It is a realistic situation and it warrants an answer. Why is scott peterson being tried for the murder of an infant? Hopefully this will set a precedent for future abortions to be murder.

What? I think you've got me all wrong. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they have killed two people.

Hell, the Federal Government considers pregnant women to be two people in many cases (where applicable).


IBM

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   


What? I think you've got me all wrong. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they have killed two people.
Hell, the Federal Government considers pregnant women to be two people in many cases (where applicable).



Show me your reasoning? If the kill a pregnant woman, he has killed two women. Yes that is correct. The unborn fetus, as well as the woman. So how is this any different than killing the unborn fetus in abortion. You are contradicting yourself.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by IBM]



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

Originally posted by IBM
Show me your reasoning? If the kill a pregnant woman, he has killed two women. Yes that is correct. The unborn fetus, as well as the woman. So how is this any different than killing the unborn fetus in abortion. You are contradicting yourself.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by IBM]


Show you my reasoning for what? I'm Pro-Life, as I have been through all these threads.

I think you have my position confused, or you need to re-explain what you are looking for.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join