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 Zerra
Originally posted by galatea
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
As for abortions for rape, I know of an instance of a rape where the mother was told by everybody to get an abortion, but she kept it anyway.
And I happen to see the child, a girl a few years later a very cute and very happy child oblivious to the circumstances that created her.
It really made me think about the issue, that child was enjoying the joys of life, yet her conception was act of terrible violence, for which neither the mother or the child was to blame.
One possible solution is adoption in this situation.
What about a 12 year old that's raped by a relative and conceives a child... and incest usually results in birth defects.. plus most 12 year olds bodies aren't ready for giving birth... just wondering what you think.
I agree with you that their body is just not ready for birth, I just want to point out that incest is more of a cultural taboo than a genetic disaster. It will take many generations of 'inbreeding' for this to happen and many cultures it is okay to marry your cousin. For us, it's more so of a taboo that will have very serious social, psychological, and emotional consequences. This is risky /harmful enough though.
Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:
Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.
Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?
Originally posted by galatea
I need to go before you guys turn me into a pro-lifer.
I'll be back after my show.
xx
Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:
Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.
Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?
Originally posted by Zerra
Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:
Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.
Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?
In cases of rape, wouldn't the pill-morning after work in these cases too? They could take it after they report to a doctor-for their health. Sperm can take up to 40+ hours before actually hitting the egg. Why would rape victims today, wait months before reporting the crime? Could be messy situation, though that does occure.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Originally posted by galatea
So hypothetical situation:
Let's say abortion becomes illegal, except for rape cases.
Would said mother have to prove that she was raped to have said abortion?
This could cause some false accusations directed at men.
The sex was consensual, until the girl finds out she is pregnant.
Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by canadianmouse
So you think it is ok for any woman to have eight abortions. They should be sterilsed on the second one in my opinion.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Originally posted by canadianmouse
Killing a live child is murder, that child is living and breathing. Abotion isn't murder because abortion is legal and not the murdering of life. Life is when the person can live and breathe on their own. In a mother's womb they can not.
**(Insert screaming here)***
WHAT?!?!?!? Just because a LAW makes it legal to abort, this negates a living breathing human being? So, when a dog is pregnant, those aren't puppies until they're born?
And it is LAWS which state the killing of a pregnant woman results in two counts of murder, manslaughter, etc..
Which do you prefer? Non-human for abortion puposes, human if the mother is killed?
Originally posted by UnityFT
Originally posted by canadianmouse
Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by canadianmouse
1. IT is going to be based on my opinion because I created the thread.What do you expect?
2. I would be aganst blood transfusions too if there purpose was to the kill a baby because the mother found it to be inconvienient to her life at the moment.
You don't seem to be understanding where I am coming from, there are religions out there that do not believe in transfusions. If you are going to pick medical procedures based on beliefs and not legal medical laws then no one should be allowed blood transfusions to be covered. You should have to pay for that out of your own pocket.
You can't start picking and choosing what the health care system will allow because in the end not everyone is okay with every procedure.
Also having a abortion isn't killing a baby. A fetus isn't a baby.. The fetus depends on the mother to live. How do you know that it is only because she is being inconvienced is the reason for the abortion? There are many reasons for having an abortion. Being pregnant is a medical condition. Pregnancies are not that easy on the female body. Don't start judging women until you have been there in the room having an abortion. You are assuming you know what a woman is going through in there.
A fetus isn't a baby... a fetus depends on the mother to live? I'm pretty sure babies all the way up until they turn 4 yrs old depend on the mother to live. Does that mean babies aren't babies until they're able to take care of themselves and be independent?
No one knows more than I do that pregnancy (and more specifically, the delivery) is not "that easy" on the female body. But our bodies are designed to do this. Just because pregnancy isn't "easy" or "convenient" isn't a valid excuse for terminating a life. And it IS a life. I think, since we consider someone dead when their heart STOPS beating, it's safe to assume their life began when their heart STARTED beating. That's not a religious belief, that's a fact. There's really no grey area here, is there?
And yeah, that's the good thing about this forum, we get to state our case based on our beliefs. Has nothing to do with religion (for me, anyway).
Abortion is a selfish act. There is ALWAYS another alternative.
[edit on 11-11-2009 by UnityFT]
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Here here, with the exception that life begins at cell division. That is life after all and most life as we know it starts as such.
I don't think I've ever heard a pro-choice person argue their position without being emotionally detached from what that bunch of cells is, a baby. They discuss a developing human being in scientific terms I think strictly to dehumanize it and distance themselves. And, more often than not, they argue their case from a platform of "me, me, me": "I'm not responsible, I can't advance my career, I can't afford to raise it, I'm single". Truly the epitome of the "me" culture is the agenda of abortion.
And yes, if you are against it, you're often (i.e. always) made out to be some religious zealout hellbent on speading or forcing your views on others. That's their whole defense; that pro-choice folks are ignorant, illogical religious nutjobs who would rather supress women's freedoms and force them to get coat-hanger abortions in some shanty.
The reason it is against the law to kill an unborn child when you murder a pregnant woman is because you cut off the life supply of that fetus. Again without a womb that fetus can not survive. That is a wanted fetus in the female body, that is why the person would be charged with two murders.
Originally posted by HotSauce
Do you have any idea how totally irrational your statement above is?
That is a wanted fetus in the female body
]
Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by HotSauce
Hey Sauce, the answer is no!Do I have the right to a government paid for vasectomy? Great thread by the way s&f
Do I have the right to a government paid for vasectomy? Great thread by the way s&f