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 tothetenthpower
Wow, your views a a little askew friend.
It IS wrong to murder your child, abortion is not murder.
These people are the only gift from God there has ever been , how dare you call them burdends. You ask any real parent of a handicapped child if they think they are a burden and you will find that they love those children MORE because of what they are.
As far as your pro-choice stance goes, I commend you, it is a women's right to choose wether or not to abort a child, but it should have nothing to do with being a burden.
If you terminate your pregnancy simply because you don't want to be bothered to raise a child, then you have done so for the wrong reasons.
That is a selfish way of thinking.
It should have everything to do with circumstance. Rape victims, crack heads and extremely young teens, those are the good reasons for abortion. The reasons you have given are a cop out.
Since I came to trully realize the burden of a mother carrying an unwanted child for 9 months, I began to think through all of the burdens that a family could face by an unwanted family member. For instance, we all know people who trully regretted having a certain child because of personality conflicts, high maintenance, post partum depression, etc.
I have read alot of shocking things on ATS, but this...wow my friend, you really need to re-think what you have just posted. Especially your kill instead of cure ideas, I mean, ARE YOU SERIOUS!
I will tell people to visit this thread, not to support this idea, but to stand in awe at the sheer ammount of moral injustice.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Stormdancer777
See this is where you misunderstand me. Sure some handicapped people can be an added benefit to society. That is why I leave it to the parents to decide if they want to raise this kid until they are 80. We may benefit to a degree by watching this handicapped person, but we arent the ones suffering on a daily basis to take care of them.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Finalized
Yeah Hawking is a benefit to society and nobody is probably going to terminate him because of that. You know its just like abortion. People who want to have babies will and they will live and people who dont want to dont have them. Its all about the choice and the personal power and the freedom to choose.
Of what value are the less than perfect in our society?
1. Sarah Bernhardt: French actress (1844-1923) Disabled by a knee injury, her leg amputated in 1914, she continued starring on stage until just before her death. She is regarded as France's greatest actress -- "The Divine Sarah".
2. Beethoven: Composer: Was deaf when he composed his 9th symphony.
3. Winston Churchill: had a learning disability.
4. Walt Disney: had a learning disability.
5. Edison: Had a learning disability. He couldn't read until he was twelve years old and had a very difficult time writing even when he was older.
6. Albert Einstein: Mathematician/Physicist: Had a learning disability and did not speak until age 3. He had a very difficult time doing math in school. It was very hard for him to express himself through writing.
7. Goya: Spanish painter (1746-1828): At age 46, an illness left him deaf. He went on to create the most famous Spanish art of the 19th century.
8. Alexander Graham Bell: had a learning disability.
9. Stephen Hawking: physicist/mathematician has Lou Gehrigs Disease and is in a wheelchair. He needs a computer to speak.
10. Milton: English Author/poet (1608-1674): He became blind at age 43. He went on to create his most famous epic, Paradise Lost.
11. George Patton: This World War II General had a learning disability.
12. Nelson Rockfeller: former Vice President: had a learning disability: dyslexia.
13. President Roosevelt: At age 39, his legs were paralyzed by polio. He became governor of New York state and was elected president four times.
14. Harriett Tubman: Abolitionist (1830-1913): As a child she was struck by an overseer. The blow fractured her skull and resulted in narcolepsy for the rest of her life. She rescued hundreds of slaves on the underground railroad.
15. Werner Von Braun: had a learning disability and often flunked his math tests in high school.
16. George Washington: Had a learning disability. He could barely write and had very poor grammar skills.
17. Woodrow Wilson: U.S. President from 1913-1921. Had a learning disability -- was severely dyslexic.
18. Robert M. Hensel: Disability Advocate,Poet & 2x World record holder was born with Spina bifida
Originally posted by DohBama
yes, its the unborn living humans fault that a rape occurred and must be killed for it. punish the baby.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Let me start off by telling you a little about myself. Until recently, I was an ardent Pro-Life supporter, but I recently came to learn that Pro-Choice was better for all involved. It was hearing the arguments of the other side that made me realize my error. I am sure you know what they are... a woman should have control of her body, carrying an unwanted fetus for 9 months could be considered torture, the child and mother would both be better off in the long run, the child could become a financial burden to society, etc.
I have always viewed abortion as a form of murder. This may seem extreme to some, but in the end it became a positive attribute in my transition. Once I overcame the idea that it was wrong to "murder" your child, it was easy to realize the true benefits to letting go of this pro-life way of thinking. Now I was free of my own predjudices and able to find Eugenics.
I believe the best way to describe this is intra-family eugenics, meaning to only give the rights to the family of the individual that needs to be terminated for the good of the family and/or society.
Since I came to trully realize the burden of a mother carrying an unwanted child for 9 months, I began to think through all of the burdens that a family could face by an unwanted family member. For instance, we all know people who trully regretted having a certain child because of personality conflicts, high maintenance, post partum depression, etc.
Also, there are the handicapped and mentally ill individuals whose burden on their parents is sometimes overwhelming, the emotional, the feelings of failure, the financial because of medical bills, and the fact that many of them never become independent so you are responsible for them for the rest of their lives.
In addition there are the elderly and the sick...the cancer and heart patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. All of these people are a potential burden to the family and/or society.
Just think of the economic savings to our society if we just terminate these burdens to society instead of trying to cure them. For instance, imagine your elderly parents who have saved their whole lives. Why should a person allow that money be used up to keep them in a rest home, when we could just terminate their lives. Wouldnt they be just as happy dead as rotting away in an overpriced nursing home?
So I say now is the time to change the laws to give people a real freedom of choice so they can have the freedom they deserve and live their lives the way they wanted to, before the tradgedy of these burdensome people entered their lives. It leaves us with a better, more healthy, more wanted group of people with the desired genetics to pass to the future. I mean wouldnt you have killed a child Hitler if you had the chance?
I envision it as taking these people to the doctor. Having the doctor administer a drug to knock them out and then proceed to terminate them through lethal injection or poison gas. Its quick its painless and they are none the wiser.
I hope you all will join me in this personal crusade to make the world a better place.
[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]
[edit on 5/21/2009 by justsomeboreddude]
Originally posted by ImzadiDax
So its the mother who should suffer? This what you are saying? She had NO choice in the rape so therefore she must have no choice to its ultimate outcome as well? Do you not see how it would be too far for some women?
Originally posted by muzzleflash
rather than developing ways to terminate unwanted people
we should send them to mars as our first settlers or something productive like that
Originally posted by DohBama
every friend of min who had a baby loved being pregnant, oh, there were some rough spots, hormone fluctuation, some vomiting, but nothing to kill a baby over.
"i dont want a stretch mark. i'm afraid i'm going to have to have you torn apart and sucked out, sorry pal."
even a product of rape (a fine tradition back in the old days, read your world history) is a valuable human with all the potential to love, be loved, contribute, grow old and die like everyone else.
there are many of us who are likely descendent's of "reproduction by rape" at some point in our family trees.
but hey, sure, stick a fork in the back of their head and suck their brains out instead.
its all good, yo!
right?
Originally posted by Finalized
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Stormdancer777
See this is where you misunderstand me. Sure some handicapped people can be an added benefit to society. That is why I leave it to the parents to decide if they want to raise this kid until they are 80. We may benefit to a degree by watching this handicapped person, but we arent the ones suffering on a daily basis to take care of them.
Sure, just look at Dr. Stephen Hawking, I think we can all say that he's a benefit to society.
Originally posted by Amagnon
You can't legally enforce love and affection.