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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Hey guys, you shouldn't overturn abortion because people will abuse all those unwanted babies.





posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Judge not, lest ye be judged...

What about if the pregnancy was the result of rape, do you really expect a woman to mother the child of the man who raped her?

What about babies who are deformed, or even brain dead (spina bifida)?

Sure we need to protect babies...

from a system where health care and education are a privelige of the rich.
from poverty and drug abuse symptomatic of little or no opportunity.
from a world with no hope and light at the end of the tunnel.

If your serious, youll realise that women don't want to have abortions, they are forced to because of the rotten state of our so called "civilisation". If your unprepared to take any personal responsibility for this, you could go and live on another planet...

or, how about trying to make a difference in making it a better world for us to bring children into...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Hey guys, you shouldn't overturn abortion because people will abuse all those unwanted babies.


Exactly correct, despite your sarcasm, for I am sure had you a real argument on that basis, you would be telling us why exactly you must believe those almost 900,000 children were abused because they were wanted and loved, then you would be explaining to us why unwanted babies would be loved and not abused.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Sorry if this was covered....didn't read the whole thread.

I think that the concern should be why does the Government feel that it is
o.k. to tell me as an individual that i do not have the right to CHOOSE weather or not i wish to have an abortion. Is this just another way to take away my choices?

I could care less weather or not its right or wrong. All I care about is that
if for sum reason I need to CHOOSE one way or another, I still have the right to. The right to make a personal choice on a personal subject.

And yes I do have a child, but do not think I should have any say in regards to Weather or not sumone else does. Personal choice is exactly that. Personal. Nobody elses business. Period.


IBM

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

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?


I would say...okay. You don't have to take care of me.

Would you kill me then?


Just curious


No I would not because, I am not evil. I would put you in a mentally insane institute for answering yes.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by IBM]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
It is against the law to kill another human being. I cannot kill my baby from the instant he/she emerges from my womb. What an outcry of horror would be heard.

So why do I have a legal right to kill my baby if he/she is only 3/4 emerged from my womb?

In 1973 when Roe v Wade was passed I was in my late 30's. The magic words of "freedom", "choice", and sexual revolution had us women on the edge of our seats, wanting this new world. Almost like getting the vote in the days of my ancestress, I suppose.

I don't believe many women actually knew what it was all about. We were all for "choice" and "freedom". I think those words were all we really heard.

Because the court could not come up with a medical answer for when life begins...the court decided to establish the parameters that tied viability to personhood. There were many different medical and religious ideas as to what viability should be.

Little by little medical and scientific information began showing up in many different places and perhaps I had grown a little wiser. I began to pay attention to what I was hearing.

In 1981 a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on when human life begins. Appearing was a group of well known geneticists and biologists who testified that human life begins at conception . www.roevwade.org...

Ronald Reagan wrote shortly after the 10th anniversary of Roe v Wade.... "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"....For the Human Life Foundation..


The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unbornfor genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and
other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?


The entire piece can be found here: www.humanlifereview.com...

The following is an article by Ward Kischer, Ph.D
I have received permission from Dr. Kischer to use this link.

C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D. is an emeritus professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, specialty in Human Embryology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine. He is also Chairman of The American Bioethics Advisory Commission and adult stem cell researcher. 6249

In this article he discusses the 167 Scientists and Physicians who testified for Roe v Wade. He shows that not one was a human embryologist. He points out the errors in their testimonies.

He then reviews for us much of the heartache and misconceptions that have happened since the ruling of Roe v Wade. It has become a savage division between our people.

Then Dr. Kirscher begins his argument for the beginning of a human being at conception.


Dr. Kischer speaks about the beginning of life and the continuum of life. Thus, in sexual reproduction, which evolved later, and produced the advantage of variety, fertilization became the time at which the new individual began and sustained the continuum. This means that first contact between sperm and ovum, the initial event in fertilization, became (and is) the supreme moment for initiation of the continuum.


See the complete article. www.lifeissues.net...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Beautifully put mahree, Vote cast for the high above award. You have one vote left.

Somewhereinbetween,

you're forgetting that kids are suing their parents nowadays for getting spanked.

You do make a point, but at least an abused child is live child. You tell me which is worse?
No, I'm not endorsing child abuse either.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
My objection to the Roe vs. Wade decision is that it allows women to use abortion as a form of birth control. Screwed around and inconveniently got pregnant? Hey, you have the right to the "total control of your own body".....just get an abortion! It's also a great aid to the guys who seem to have a problem controlling their sperm output....girl got pregnant? Easy solution!

Early term abortions in cases of rape or the survivability of the mother......YES, (you'll notice I don't include incest....a big NO there. If a relationship was consensual, then the participants should pay the price, if an incestuous relationship was NOT consensual, then it qualifies as rape).

If it comes right down to it, why shouldn't a man have the unqualified right to control what happens to his own sperm and thus have the right to demand that a woman abort/murder any fetus resulting from a tryst that was "just a one-nighter"?

If a woman can terminate an inconvenient baby, why can't the man who provided 1/2 the DNA make the same demand?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Why can't I terminate an inconvenient girlfriend?

That IS just a joke people, I'm tryin to lighten the mood a bit



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Somewhereinbetween,

you're forgetting that kids are suing their parents nowadays for getting spanked.

You do make a point, but at least an abused child is live child. You tell me which is worse?
No, I'm not endorsing child abuse either.
I am not a believer in corporal punishment on a child who has no recourse but to accept same unless they want a further beating.


IBM

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Why can't I terminate an inconvenient girlfriend?

That IS just a joke people, I'm tryin to lighten the mood a bit


Just write it off as an aborted relationship.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   


Its just a bundle of cells
its my body
a frst trimester fetus isn't really alive


This is a collection of videos and images of early stage fetus. The picture is the face of a 10 week old fetus the video is also a first trimester fetus The last link is a compilation of 3d images taken at various stages of devolpment. Look at the pictures, watch the video and tell me if you honestly believe the statements quoted above which form the basis for the "pro-choice" argument
www.medical.philips.com...
www.ob-ultrasound.net...
www.gravityteen.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   
its different every time..... if the baby was conceived with both parties willling to have intercourse (spelling sorry) then i think the baby should not be aborted but if it wasn't and it was rape then i think a somebody in the professional business should have a word with the vitim and make them consider all the options before they do anything rash...... but if the vitim decides to abort the child then it is up to her.... but only before she has heard all views from her family and friends... only if she wants to... and really i dont think you men understand about the facts of life because most men who have written on this board have been so sexist its unreal! bazzing..... natzi's. it's so stupid it funny... well to put a stop to think silly argument. it depends on the facts and if the women decides to abort the child then its her business unless the father is in the picture then it's up to both of them. i think it isn't right for a women to abort the child if the father wants the child. but only if the sexul experience was consentend but if her raped her then its her body, their child and she has to live with the mental and physical scarring of having to get rid of her child.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SgtNFury
My objection to the Roe vs. Wade decision is that it allows women to use abortion as a form of birth control. Screwed around and inconveniently got pregnant? Hey, you have the right to the "total control of your own body".....just get an abortion!

And all these hyperthtical woman would rather have an invasive surgery than use a franger?

It's also a great aid to the guys who seem to have a problem controlling their sperm output....girl got pregnant? Easy solution!

I suspect that this may be the reason for alot of abortions. If a girl is young and pregnant.. she would be emotionally vulnerable and easily coerced into doing whatever a dominearing teenage boy wants her to do. Potential fathers marching their girlfriends to the butchers is not an issue that gets enough attention. It's always about the girl 'screwing around'.

Early term abortions in cases of rape or the survivability of the mother......YES, (you'll notice I don't include incest....a big NO there. If a relationship was consensual, then the participants should pay the price, if an incestuous relationship was NOT consensual, then it qualifies as rape).
So does a consentual sexual father/ 13 y/o daughter relationship count? If he's been doing it for years prior and using emotional blackmail that counts as rape to me. "Our little secret sweetie". Btw thanks for actually addressing the rape issue.

If it comes right down to it, why shouldn't a man have the unqualified right to control what happens to his own sperm and thus have the right to demand that a woman abort/murder any fetus resulting from a tryst that was "just a one-nighter"?

Because it is inside her body.. not his.. unless you believe in slavery and think her autonomy as an adult human should be taken away to honour his?

[edit on 9-11-2004 by riley]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
pffhh, come on really.... i think the first two pics on this thread were a huge exaggeration only meant to stir up trouble. am i against putting a revolver against an actual babies head as shown, yes. but as for ending its life before it actually is born, not unless its done sooner than later, when its less developed. you speak of using people failing to use protection, how about rape victims who dont have such a luxury? and talk about it being legalised murder, what about smoking, it's pretty much a legalised form of suicide (over a long period of time), yet its ok, so why not b1tch about that? its a womans body, her choice and business, just cause a guy sticks something in her doesnt overwrite that choice at all, ever. dfh out.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I never got a response to these questions so I am posing them again. I am interested to know how the Pro-Life crowd feels about them.

1. If we consider a human to be "dead" when we can no longer detect any brain activity, doesn't it stand to reason that a fetus should not be considered "alive" until after the first signs of brain activity begin?


At about the twenty-third week the lungs become able to function, and, as a result, 23 weeks is the earliest date at which premature babies have survived. At 24 weeks the third trimester begins, and at about this time, as the cerebral cortex becomes "wired," fetal EEG readings begin to look more and more like those of a newborn. It may be a logical consequence, either of natural selection or of divine creation, that fetal higher brain activity begins at about the time when life outside the mother becomes possible. After all, without brain function, prematurely born fetuses would lack elementary survival skills, such as the ability to root for nourishment.

EEGs show that third-trimester babies display complex brain activity similar to that found in full-term newborns. The legal and moral implications of this new evidence are enormous. After all, society increasingly uses cessation of brain activity to define when life ends. Why not use the onset of brain activity to define when life begins?
www.tnr.com...


2. Are you vegetarians? It seems to me that animals are quite a bit more capable of deciding whether or not they want to be slaughtered for our food then an unborn, undeveloped fetus would be of deciding whether or not it wanted to be born.
Why do you feel that it is murder to destroy a creature who cannot yet experience fear/pain and who has no sense that it is even alive, but have no problem killing and butchering an "inferior" creature who does experience fear and pain, and is conscious of its existence, if the creature is going to be used for food? Shouldn't all meat-eating Pro-Lifers really call themselves the Pro-Human-Lifers instead, since they aren't truly Pro-Life?

3. What if a child hates the life he/she was born into and decides to kill him/herself? Since it is now their life and their choice, shouldn't they have that right? Or does it become their guardian/parent's responsibility to stop them and to make them stay alive against their will even though they are now capable of making independent decisions?

Let me see if I have this straight:
Abortions should be illegal because the mother is making a choice that is not hers to make, because the life she would be ending is not her own. Since the baby she carries is technically an individual, only the baby should have the right to decide if it wants to be born or not. Obviously, that is not possible, therefore all abortions must be done without the baby's consent, making them an act of murder.
HOWEVER, once the baby is born and has become truly self-aware, it no longer has the right to choose in favor of ending its own life. That choice is no longer the child's to make, nor is any other decision of any importance. The same adults who were told that they could not get an abortion because their unborn baby was the only one who had the right to make that choice, are now expected to ensure the child's continued existence regardless of whether or not the child itself wishes to go on living.

Seems to me like the unborn child is given more rights than the born child, because everyone knows the unborn child can't do anything yet. Once it starts to actually become the "individual" some people are so hell-bent on protecting (while "in-utero"), the child loses its individual right to decide its own fate. Why is that, I wonder? Kinda smells of hypocrisy, but that's just my impression of it.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I can't believe the amount of attention this thread has recieved. It's exactly the same as watching violent movies, or partaking in extreme sports etc. If you don't like it, if it offends you, or you think it's stupid, JUST DON'T DO IT. If other people want to do/see/hear/smell/whatever the thing that offends you, let them, it's their choice


For those against abortion and decide that everyone else on this planet should be against it too, how about rape victims? Victims of incest? How about times where the condom has a hole that isn't noticed untill it's too late? How about the women with that implant contraseptive thingy you can get put in your arm, and it isn't placed correctly? How about people who for whatever reason, the pill doesn't work? How about the 14yo girls that are sexually active? It's all fine to get on your high horse and say "oh well, a 14yo shouldn't be having sex anyway, and you should be responsible enough to ensure your contraceptive works", but this is the real world, and in the real world, accidents happen, underaged kids have sex, people get raped, contraceptives fail....or maybe you want to see 14yo girls with 6month old sons/daughters and an explosion of abandoned kids and kids in foster homes.

I am adopted, my mother had me when she was only 16. It ruined her life, and if it wasn't for her very wise and gutsy decision to put me up for adoption, I would have never had a decent life either due to her circumstances. For some girls who realistically are unable to care for a child, adoption is not an option due to pressure from the family or whatever, in which case it's better they don't have the baby at all.

Well, that's my two cents. If you don't like my opinion, go whinge to someone that cares



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Jezebal I agree that brain actvity is one way to determine life, unfortunately for your argument brain activity can first be detected at 8 weeks and the brain is fully formed by the 12 week.
www.w-cpc.org...
Now please awnser my question how can you look at the images in my previous post, the descriptions of behavior exhibited in the above link, and tell me tht the fetus is either
1) Not living
2) a part of the mothers body
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

By the 7th week (5th since conception) the embryo has a distinct Blood type from the mothers. Since no living organism known to science has two separate blood types I can only conclude that the embryo is not a part of the mothers body and that they are two distinct and seperate organisms.
By the 12th week the fetus can feel pain has a fully formed brain and heart and can move within its environment. I can only conclude from this that the fetus is alive.

Can you post any data which disproves the information or a logical argument which would allow you to negate my conclusions?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I am an Adoptee. Thank God I wasn't aborted I've had a really good life and wouldn't choose not to have lived it. Consider me against abortion, with a few exceptions. Those have been mentioned.

One thing I keep reading time and again is "If you don't like abortion just don't do it, and let others do as they please!" This argument holds no water whatsoever to me. It's like saying "If you don't agree with killing people, don't do it but let me go on with it!"

You have to try and understand anothers point of view before you really can discuss something in my opinion. Someone who is against abortion usually believes that life starts at conception. This stand point means that an aborted fetus is actually killed. People who are pro abortion do not consider the fetus to be a living person. Hence the opinion here is an abortion is not murder.

The only way to get a completely objective view on abortion and it's legislation is by determining when life begins. And this would most likely not happen because the opinions differs so much. This is a never ending discussion.


There is one thing that I have a really hard tim understanding though. I can't see how someone can be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. For me, taking a life is taking a life period. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc. That is perhaps a completely other discussion though.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I never got a response to these questions so I am posing them again. I am interested to know how the Pro-Life crowd feels about them.

1. If we consider a human to be "dead" when we can no longer detect any brain activity, doesn't it stand to reason that a fetus should not be considered "alive" until after the first signs of brain activity begin?

I never got a response to these questions so I am posing them again. I am interested to
know how the Pro-Life crowd feels about them.



Maureen Condic has addressed this problem and if you are serious about your question
you might want to see what she has to say. She ties the ending of life to the beginning of
life using the same criterion.

Maureen L. Condic,
Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy

The link will show credentials of Maureen L. Condic.
www.bioscience.utah.edu...

In 1968 brain death was defined as the difference between the living and the dead.
Now, there is controversy on this position. With some in vegetative states the line is not
as definite.

the loss of integrated bodily function, not the loss of higher mental ability, is the
defining legal characteristic of death



Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the
single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of deaththe ability to
function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells.


Please read the article for detail of this amazing piece of work.

Life: Defining the Beginning by the End
Copyright (c) 2003 First Things 133 (May 2003): 50-54.

www.georgetown.edu...




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join