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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Bleys
You have something for me to read? I strive to remain open minded on this subject.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I'm totally for birth control & sex ed.
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?
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."
Originally posted by Agitator
My point is that you believe or want everyone to be responsible. Well guess what everybody isn�t. It doesn�t matter if you don�t like it or think they should be they just aren�t.
So is it responsible for us to force this baby to go through this.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Originally posted by Agitator
My point is that you believe or want everyone to be responsible. Well guess what everybody isn�t. It doesn�t matter if you don�t like it or think they should be they just aren�t.
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.