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.

 

I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

page: 16
51
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by libertytoall
 


No, after the baby is born, it is not the personal property of the mother and there are certain things the mother is required to do for the dependent child-- but the mother still has the legal right to say she doesn't want to raise the child.


What are you going to do when you are put in a situation where you are helpless and entirely dependent on someone else who has no reason at all to help you for help?

Our economy is not that great right now, or the world's stability, it could be a situation that you find yourself in rather easily. And when it happens, I just think you should consider what I'm saying, and then it might make sense.

You are free to do what you want, is what I guess I'm saying. Just don't forget what I said about the lesson, you'll know it when you see it.

Also, if we are talking about an individual situation where the mother decides that the baby is not something she can handle at the moment, you are correct, it may be wiser to give it up for adoption.
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


The world needs more people who think like you. You have a mature and compassionate outlook on life. The world needs a lot more compassion. I'm still digging to find some within a few other posters here..



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

darkbake

kaylaluv
reply to post by libertytoall
 


No, after the baby is born, it is not the personal property of the mother and there are certain things the mother is required to do for the dependent child-- but the mother still has the legal right to say she doesn't want to raise the child.


What are you going to do when you are put in a situation where you are helpless and entirely dependent on someone else who has no reason at all to help you for help?

Our economy is not that great right now, or the world's stability, it could be a situation that you find yourself in rather easily. And when it happens, I just think you should consider what I'm saying, and then it might make sense.

You are free to do what you want, is what I guess I'm saying. Just don't forget what I said about the lesson, you'll know it when you see it.



We all have our different views on what is considered compassionate. The woman who gets an abortion may the same woman who volunteers at a homeless shelter. Who are you to judge that woman? What we are talking about here is the law. Is the law correct in saying that what a woman does to her body is her business and hers alone? I say yes. Even if we don't personally agree with it, it's not our body to command according to our personal views.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I say no because the baby is a human being who is helpless, the fact that the baby is helpless should give him or her more protection, not less - if we are in disagreement about the law, the law is what the law is.

About the justifications of the law, I'm not even sure what they really would be without looking into the court case more in depth.
edit on 17-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 

Where are some real answers for a real life event? Do you think laws and preaching morality will change hearts? So let us say abortion is illegal again. How will it be enforced? Are you going into every woman's bathroom to check for hangers and knives? Are you going to check her medicine chest for drano or lye or other poisons? Maybe you have some answers that all the giants before you could not find.


I only found one. I invited a teenager to live in my home if she would keep her baby. She lived with us for a year and it was hard on our finances and family. And we have followed through, the child is now 10.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I say no because the baby is a human being who is helpless, the fact that the baby is helpless should give him or her more protection, not less -


So, should you personally be legally required by law to take someone into your home who would otherwise be helpless? Should you be legally required to adopt a child from an orphanage? There's compassion and then there's the law - don't mix the two.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I think this particular topic is rather interesting, and it showcases a lot of different and conflicting perspectives.

I think many of the reasons that people use to justify abortion actually highlight some very, very serious societal issues that all of us face. However, they shouldnt be used as "excuses," imo, rather they should be used as issues of focus that we ALL have the ability to face and fix.

I think it all boils down to when something is considered actual life. At what point does potential life become living? I am not so sure that any of us have a solid and quantified answer to this, other than one that confirms our own bias because its convenient. Because of that, I sway towards pro-life because the consequences of being wrong are not something that I wish to participate in (i.e. murder).

One thing that is rather cemented in my psyche is that women who choose abortion because the baby would "get in the way" of how they want to live their lives is an ugly reminder of how selfishly some people view the world.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


You know, I don't think it even matters whether the fetus is an "actual life" or not. A baby already born is an actual life, and if the mother decides she can't or won't take care of it, she can have it removed from her home. It will be put somewhere else and get care from someone else. It might not get good care in this other place, but the point is, the woman has the right to give up all responsibility of the child.

If the woman wants the fetus taken out of her body, and she doesn't want the responsibility for it anymore, she has that right. Let's say the woman who is 6 weeks pregnant says I don't want this in my body, and the doctor removes the fetus intact and alive from the woman's body. It is now no longer the woman's responsibility, correct? Obviously the fetus will die outside the womb, but that's not the woman's responsibility, the doctor now has it.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


You know, I don't think it even matters whether the fetus is an "actual life" or not. A baby already born is an actual life, and if the mother decides she can't or won't take care of it, she can have it removed from her home. It will be put somewhere else and get care from someone else. It might not get good care in this other place, but the point is, the woman has the right to give up all responsibility of the child.


I do think it matters, especially since in the context you provide, that definition is one that has massive moving goalposts in my eyes. The determination of when a baby can successfully be brought into this world (or "born") is based on the advancement of science, medicine, and technology. Beyond that, if the baby is an "actual life," then removing it from this material world is murder by definition.

At some point, we will likely be able to have babies without involving a human womb at all. When this happens, how do you feel the outlook on the context of "life" or not will change, if at all?


If the woman wants the fetus taken out of her body, and she doesn't want the responsibility for it anymore, she has that right. Let's say the woman who is 6 weeks pregnant says I don't want this in my body, and the doctor removes the fetus intact and alive from the woman's body. It is now no longer the woman's responsibility, correct? Obviously the fetus will die outside the womb, but that's not the woman's responsibility, the doctor now has it.


That seems like a way to skirt responsibility and shift blame to me. Regardless of my perception, when medicine has reached a stage where that baby will be able to survive after being removed from the womb at 6 weeks, do you think the outlook on abortion will change at all?

To me, we would be speaking of adoption at that point. But, the topic is abortion and they are different to me. Do you make a distinction between the two?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Serdgiam



That seems like a way to skirt responsibility and shift blame to me.


You could say the same thing about the woman who has given birth to a baby that she decides to give up all responsibility for. What happens to that baby after she gives it up is no longer her responsibility. She is not culpable if that baby dies in someone else's care.


Regardless of my perception, when medicine has reached a stage where that baby will be able to survive after being removed from the womb at 6 weeks, do you think the outlook on abortion will change at all?


It would then be the same as if the woman had carried the baby to term, then decided to give up all responsibility for the child. I think the woman will still have the right to give up all responsibility of the fetus. But instead of the fetus dying, it will just be put in the artificial womb. The terminology of "carrying a baby to term" will actually not really exist in the same sense at this point, because "to term" could mean 6 weeks, or 4 weeks, or 2 weeks.

This may cause some problems in our society however, as there may be a backlog of available babies and not enough adoptive parents to handle the load. Could be an extra burden on tax-payers. What's funny is that those same people who fight so hard to ban abortion and "save the children" are usually the same people who absolutely hate being forced to pay taxes that go towards helping those in need (like children in orphanages or foster care). They don't want their compassion to be legally enforced by the government. Ironic, isn't it?


edit on 17-9-2013 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
What is a foetus?... I mean, WHAT is this mass of cells gestating within the Human female? is it a cow? is it a slug?... What is it. You folks out there who have no problem ending the life of this foetus refuse to call it Human.... So I ask you WHAT IS IT?... If you let it grow, will it grow into a salamander?... A Moose? No, it will develop into a Human... Since it will not be something else, it is HUMAN...

For those who use the argument that it is unable to live without the Mother... What about a 2 year old child? What about a severely Mentally handicapped person?... How about the disabled elderly? By your logic, we should have the right to eliminate those as well... If you are unable to take care of them, then we should just kill them?

Pro Choicers are self-centred egotistical and dangerous...
edit on 17-9-2013 by 001ggg100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

kaylaluv
You could say the same thing about the woman who has given birth to a baby that she decides to give up all responsibility for. What happens to that baby after she gives it up is no longer her responsibility. She is not culpable if that baby dies in someone else's care.


As a concept, I wouldnt necessarily disagree. However, there is a difference in that one option (abortion) involves certain death, while the other does not (adoption). This is where we come back to what is the crux of the issue, to me, and that is "when does something become meaningfully alive?" The question is pertinent because it is something that can and will change stances according to advancement in medicine, all the way to the beginning, or when the egg becomes fertilized. To me, this means that in a pro-choice stance, it is not a foundational concept that I really understand (which I am trying to do here).


It would then be the same as if the woman had carried the baby to term, then decided to give up all responsibility for the child. I think the woman will still have the right to give up all responsibility of the fetus. But instead of the fetus dying, it will just be put in the artificial womb. The terminology of "carrying a baby to term" will actually not really exist in the same sense at this point, because "to term" could mean 6 weeks, or 4 weeks, or 2 weeks.


This seems to blur the lines between death and life as if there is no difference, and I am not sure I follow you on it. Would you mind expanding on it a bit more?


This may cause some problems in our society however, as there may be a backlog of available babies and not enough adoptive parents to handle the load. Could be an extra burden on tax-payers. What's funny is that those same people who fight so hard to ban abortion and "save the children" are usually the same people who absolutely hate being forced to pay taxes that go towards helping those in need (like children in orphanages or foster care). They don't want their compassion to be legally enforced by the government. Ironic, isn't it?


This is where we certainly have an agreement. That said, I think that if our tax money was used meaningfully and efficiently, instead of to maintain budgets, many things would change for the better in all the topics the concept encompasses. We constantly increase taxes instead of using the money we have in more meaningful ways.

This is what I was talking about with larger issues that we can face, and fix, if we actually put the effort in to do so. However, it tends to be used as an excuse. For pro-choice it is used as a basis of justification of free-will chosen actions. For pro-life it is used as a basis of inaction and dismissal, since approaching these issues (which only intertwine with abortion and do not define it) would seemingly give some legitimacy and weight to the "opposing" side.
edit on 17-9-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


You know, I don't think it even matters whether the fetus is an "actual life" or not. A baby already born is an actual life, and if the mother decides she can't or won't take care of it, she can have it removed from her home. It will be put somewhere else and get care from someone else.


Parents are obligated to take care of their kids. Sure, they may transfer this obligation to someone else if all parties agree, but you cannot just unilateraly dump your kid on the state or other people. You will be sued for child support or even charged with child neglect. So beware when using this kind of analogy.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Not necessarily. We have "Safe Haven" laws, here in the US.


Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let mothers remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the mother. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 001ggg100
 


Many pro abortionist have changed their mind in resent years due to modern science.

To change ones mind would mean you have to admit you were wrong, and wrong about a issue that meant life or death.

They purposely use the word fētus, because it takes the human element out of the picture.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Latin fētus bringing forth of young]

www.breakingchristiannews.com...

Doctor Who Did 1,200 Abortions Tells Congress to Ban Them



At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard–really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush d own on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you.

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose.

If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.

Before I close, I want to make a comment on the necessity and usefulness of utilizing second and third trimester abortion to save women’s lives. I often hear the argument that we must keep abortion legal in order to save women’s lives in cases of life threatening conditions that can and do arise in pregnancy.

Albany Medical Center where I worked for over seven years is a tertiary referral center that accepts patients with life threatening conditions related to or caused by pregnancy. I personally treated hundreds of women with such conditions in my tenure there. There are several conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or “terminating” the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.

www.lifenews.com...


2013 05/23 Dr. Levantino Testimony
youtu.be...




Theses procedures are brutal.
Dr. Levatino
edit on 113030p://bTuesday2013 by stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


True, however the justification behind them is not about rights of the mother to abandon a kid, but to prevent mothers harming or killing kids they want to get rid of. So that can hardly be used to argue in support of abortion..



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stormdancer777
 


Years ago, I used to be pro-choice. Then I asked myself the question I keep parroting, and that is; "When is someone, or something, considered alive?"

The question surpasses the ability of science, at least in its current stage. And the ability to self-sustain changes constantly as science and medicine continually progresses. The issues brought up justifying not bringing a child into the world tend to be ones that have far-reaching effects beyond the topic of abortion. Meaning, they are things that we can fix, and if they are used to justify anything whatsoever, it should be the action we can all take to make the world a better place.

When it came down to it, I asked myself; "What if I am wrong?" The consequences of being wrong in this uncertain topic are significantly worse to me than being "correct" about a life-form gaining its right-to-life on a basis that is continually changing and shifting.

Because of that, pending any revolutionary science that somehow defines when something gains rights as a living being in a quantifiable and objective fashion... I feel its better to err on the side of caution.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Of course not, it's non related. You can't kill or harm a born person without consequences. But there are avenues available for mothers who don't want their babies, to leave their babies with others, without consequences.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


My stance is that a woman's body is hers to do with as she sees fit. If she doesn't want something in her body, she should have the legal right to have it removed. Period. Now, if the fetus is non-viable, it means the procedure is an abortion (even though you could theoretically "deliver" it). If the fetus is viable, it means the procedure is delivery (induced if necessary). Regardless, I don't believe you should force a woman to use her body as a life support system against her will. Artificial wombs move up the viability date, which allows for a delivery -- that's all.

If it's okay to force a woman to carry a fetus until it is viable, then we can start forcing people to do all sorts of things to their body "for the good" of someone or something else. Should we force someone to give up a kidney to save someone else's life? Should we force someone to give up some of their bone marrow to keep someone else from dying? Sometimes people die, because they didn't have the available bone marrow. Is that considered murder? Should the viable bone marrow donor be charged with murder because they didn't want to put their body through the procedure? Is this potential bone marrow donor selfish? Maybe - but do we have the legal right to legislate and force unselfishness, even if it means someone else's death?



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Its more a subjective topic rather than objective. Only math is purely objective.

From my experience people either totally oppose it or tolerate it. No one likes getting abortions for obvious reasons. Where one draws the line is what people discuss. Some say no abortions at all, while others say make exceptions. Of course there those that make it a habit and think nothing of it, much like illegal substance abuse. The freeloaders of society that suck the government tit and lack morals/ethics.

I am against abortions but make a rare exception...if someone is raped and seeking justice.

Some schools dont teach birth control and this is what creates the problem. The church makes discussing birth control a taboo and preaches abstaince which is unrealistic.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join