Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

I should start by saying I am very much anti-abortion, I can see very few instances where abortion can be justified, in fact almost none. The one exception I would have is where the birth will cause the death of the mother; in those circumstances I think it is justifiable for the medical professionals to advise an abortion other than its wrong. If you have an abortion or facilitate an abortion then in mind you are no better than any other child killer, and if you condone abortion in my mind you supporting the killing of innocent children. Although I am Catholic, I hold these views independently of my religion. I just think it is wrong; I don’t need to bible to tell me murder is wrong, so I don’t need it to tell me abortion is wrong.

Today I got really really annoyed; if ATS would let me curse I would use some stronger language. This is what has got me so annoyed. Currently in the UK a woman can have an abortion at 24 weeks (if she had “compelling reasons” for doing so), I have a neighbour who has just had a child at 24 weeks, the child is alive and the doctors say is doing well. If she wanted to she could have had time to go and have the child aborted a few days ago, a perfectly beautiful gift from God, a handsome baby boy, fully formed, she if she had chosen to could have gone and had him murdered thanks to our abhorrent liberal system. She could probably tell a couple of doctors that giving birth to the child would psychologically damage her in some way or that she would have to pass the child on to the state and they would have happily stabbed the child through the heart. It happened to almost 3000 children in 2008 and not a single person was tried for murder.

Do you know that in the UK in 2008 22% of all pregnancies ended in abortion, to me that is just about the same as killing of 22% of 8 year olds in primary education, I mean you wouldn’t have a child then realise that at 6 months old you can’t cope and have your baby put down like a dog. Something like a quarter of all pregnancies worldwide end in abortion, it’s sick. I think it’s more of a representation of how moral decadence has led to a sickening decay of our society that has paved way for to us justifying the killing of innocent children in a massive genocide. And that’s what it is, “GENOCIDE!”, nearly 200,000 people died in 2008 in a massive genocide supported by the state, they justified this genocide by saying it was ok to kill the unborn defenceless child as they could not defend themselves. If the Congo killed 200,000 people there would be an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. This is truly a massive conspiracy, the UK government are allowing the genocide of hundreds of thousands of children, whatever happened to the first call of government being to protect its citizens.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Agreed, abortions should not be willy-nilly. But, as you state, if abortions are necessary in some instances, then who should provide that service?

You know what the circumstances are when women do not consult a reliable medical professional to have an abortion? When the practitioners of abortion go under ground because it's been de-funded by the government or made illegal.

And usually, that step would go hand in hand with a larger social situation that promotes more unwanted pregnancy.

In my opinion, the "pro-life" crowd is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of abortions in every back alley.

How to cut down on abortion? Promote sexual and reproductive awareness in "coming-of-age" adolescents, either through the schools, places of worship or family. There is nothing unholy about sex, if you look at it from a religious point of view, because this is how you create more human beings. However, when, on the one hand nobody wants to talk about or teach sex and reproduction, and, on the other hand, young teens are exposed to innuendo and suggestion, as well as their own hormonal changes, what can you expect.

Bottom line, it is 100% unacceptable to look at abortion in a bubble. It straddles the spheres of sexual education, poverty and social programs and crime. You cannot just make it legal or illegal to solve any problem. The only way to neutralize abortion as "only-when-absolutely-necessary" is to examine all of the links it has to other aspects of our society.

Oh, and to answer your rather inane juxtaposition:

Abortion is when a woman in a horrible emotional, spiritual or medical dilemma must make a personal decision with potentially negative repercussions for herself and the sadness of losing what could have been.

Genocide is when a group of people with no emotional or spiritual quibbles decide, en masse, that another group of people - for the mere fact of who they are - should be totally eliminated.

Major difference.

reply to post by kevinunknown



I am willing to be open about this as I usually take the stance that its a personal decision for the individuals.

My question to you is. If you want to ban abortion, then what do you plan to do with all the unwanted babies that will result in this. Adoption is a very messed up process that usually results in the couples who are seeking adoption backing out because of the cost and legal issues that are involved. I know of many that this has happened to. They backed out, becasue a good experience became an unpleasant one.

If you can solve this issue. Implement it, then I will back the anti-abortion laws. but until such time, I will take a backseat to this issue.

I am against people using abortion as a form of birth control. However, I am for someone's right to choose.

There are too many abortions occuring everyday. There are valid reasons at times, like the mother's health, rape victims, incest victims, etc.

For the rest there are free condoms and pills available everywhere. We should use these more and rely on abortion less.

Two big oversights in the OP's post.

1) You are effectively saying women should have to give birth to children conceived via sexual assault otherwise be deemed a child killer in your rather ignorant blanket coverage of all cases. You are labelling the woman, a victim of crime, as a higher risk than her attacker. This displays a complete lack of common sense.

2) Genocide and abortion are massively different and to compare the two is an example of utter stupidity. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a specific ethnic, racial, religious or national group. In other words, a planned destruction of one particular group in society. Abortions are no such thing. By likening abortion to genocide you are saying there are forces at work to attempt to abort all pregnancies to somehow eradicate them completely. People get pregnant every day (and please don't use that in any kind of argumentative response as reproduction is necessary in order for the human race to survive so it's a pointless argument) so you would never be able to carry out an act of genocide. You are labelling all unborn babies as a group in society, being targetted specifically by another.

Do you realise how utterly ignorant and naive what you are actually saying truly is, in both instances?

You've compared two completely different things and bracketed them as the same in an attempt to ruffle feathers on here, without thinking about what you are actually saying.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Well with regard to rape, only between 1 and 2 % of rapes lead to pregnancy although some statistics will say up to 5%. The likelihood of it is low and it varies depending on what study you read so rather than everyone thronging statistics around all I would say is this. Why should the child be killed because of the act of violence against the mother. That to me is still wrong as two wrongs don’t make a right, its still murder, first the mother is raped then kills her unborn child. For me that is still wrong.

I mean nearly 200,000 out of that only 52 were aborted because the mother might die when giving birth. I think this is justifiable but would also ask why the mother should live and the child die. The mother has probably already lived perhaps 30 years of her life.

reply to post by ALadInsane


It is mass killing of the unborn child, I would call it genocide, its sanctioned by the state.

And I have already addressed the issues of rape. I mean you say it like every abortion is as the result of rape that is not true. I do not recognise that as a valid argument as to why abortion should be legal for all up to 24 weeks.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

Well with regard to rape, only between 1 and 2 % of rapes lead to pregnancy although some statistics will say up to 5%. The likelihood of it is low and it varies depending on what study you read so rather than everyone thronging statistics around all I would say is this. Why should the child be killed because of the act of violence against the mother. That to me is still wrong as two wrongs don’t make a right, its still murder, first the mother is raped then kills her unborn child. For me that is still wrong.

I mean nearly 200,000 out of that only 52 were aborted because the mother might die when giving birth. I think this is justifiable but would also ask why the mother should live and the child die. The mother has probably already lived perhaps 30 years of her life.

Of course how silly of me. How on earth could a woman not go all broody and doe-eyed at the prospect of raising a child she a) hadn't wanted or planned for in the first place or b) could grow to resemble the person that took away her dignity, pride, trust, possibly virginity, confidence and faith in humanity.

Seriously, don't try and explain away the idea of abortion due to rape as still being wrong by throwing low percentage statistics at it. It doesn't work.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by ALadInsane

 

It is mass killing of the unborn child, I would call it genocide, its sanctioned by the state.

And I have already addressed the issues of rape. I mean you say it like every abortion is as the result of rape that is not true. I do not recognise that as a valid argument as to why abortion should be legal for all up to 24 weeks.

Your definition of genocide differs wildly to that of the rest of the world I'm afraid. Therefore yours is massively inaccurate and unfounded.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

Well with regard to rape, only between 1 and 2 % of rapes lead to pregnancy although some statistics will say up to 5%. The likelihood of it is low and it varies depending on what study you read so rather than everyone thronging statistics around all I would say is this. Why should the child be killed because of the act of violence against the mother. That to me is still wrong as two wrongs don’t make a right, its still murder, first the mother is raped then kills her unborn child. For me that is still wrong.

I mean nearly 200,000 out of that only 52 were aborted because the mother might die when giving birth. I think this is justifiable but would also ask why the mother should live and the child die. The mother has probably already lived perhaps 30 years of her life.

Really? Are you being for real?

Is it preferable to bring up a child in a home where the mother sees it as a product of an insane amount of trauma? Granted some mothers can do this. A lot don't want to take the chance to see if they can overcome those feelings.

As for saving the mother's life... What if she has other children?Leave all those motherless? Both of your points could lead a child on a far worse path.

I am no moral authority on this. And I can only assume you are a man, who can not possibly concieve of the mental anguish with which most of these decisions are made.

reply to post by kevinunknown


how bout i beat you within an inch of your life?

then get your ass pregnant.


shall i gloat when you are feeding that kid?

when you are 14 or 32 shall i not care?

screw you. it ain't your kid is it? you got some stake in raising it?

reply to post by kevinunknown


1. Genocide

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

You are incorrect about genocide. Words mean things.

2. If you are against abortion, don't get one. Other women's medical condition and choices are NONE of your business.

Originally posted by ALadInsane
Two big oversights in the OP's post.

1) You are effectively saying women should have to give birth to children conceived via sexual assault otherwise be deemed a child killer in your rather ignorant blanket coverage of all cases. You are labelling the woman, a victim of crime, as a higher risk than her attacker. This displays a complete lack of common sense.

2) Genocide and abortion are massively different and to compare the two is an example of utter stupidity. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a specific ethnic, racial, religious or national group. In other words, a planned destruction of one particular group in society. Abortions are no such thing. By likening abortion to genocide you are saying there are forces at work to attempt to abort all pregnancies to somehow eradicate them completely. People get pregnant every day (and please don't use that in any kind of argumentative response as reproduction is necessary in order for the human race to survive so it's a pointless argument) so you would never be able to carry out an act of genocide. You are labelling all unborn babies as a group in society, being targetted specifically by another.

Do you realise how utterly ignorant and naive what you are actually saying truly is, in both instances?

You've compared two completely different things and bracketed them as the same in an attempt to ruffle feathers on here, without thinking about what you are actually saying.

edit on 23/2/11 by ALadInsane because: (no reason given)

I agree with you and just want to add : really I think we shall never be able to explain this abortion question to some people still thinking they have the right to tell woman what to do or how to behave with their body, being victim of rape or other medical or psychological reason ..
lots of threads already on ATS about abortion but people still saying abortion and genocide is like of the same, come on, how can we discuss and explain this ad infinitum ......
those people against abortion really think we are PRO ..... NO we are not pro, we do not like abortion, we prefer other solutions and the woman : do you think they LIKE abortion ??
If woman make the choice for abortion it is because of great despair or being victim of whatever, but abortion is NOT something they did want at first hand !!!
It's a pitty some man can not be raped and get pregnant, you would see how fast they would change their mind !!
Do never judge another person, never judge a woman in trouble with a pergnancy not wanted ...
and genocide is about a killing of thousands of persons by another thousand of other people, how can you compare that with a single woman and her single body and her single pregnancy and her single despair ....
nobody is killing thousands of babies in hospitals or like Herodus !!!
Don't mix everything !!
Abortion is a extreme solution to a extreme big problem, nobody likes big problems anyway so .....

Ok deep breath, this is my take on it.

Abortion is killing a child, you can dress it up however you like but that is what it is.

If you think that whatever the surrounding issues are make that acceptable, then be honest about it.

Why can't we kill children outside of the womb anyway? It's none of your business to decide what parents cannot do.

Originally posted by 547000
Why can't we kill children outside of the womb anyway? It's none of your business to decide what parents cannot do.

edit on 23-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

if I understand you well, you ask why parents may not kill their babies just after being born ??? because it's not of our business also ???
well well well, how explain that ??? ( = sarcasm ), well because nobody is allowed to kill another person of course or do you think it is acceptable ?? that's all about our businnes as a society, otherwise ...
a baby born is a baby concieved by his parents in a act of love, a baby born is a person like you and me that the parents really wanted to have, so why would you want to kill that baby ?
A embryo is normally the result of a act of LOVE between the parents ok ? so, who would want to kill that embryo ??
you do not kill what you love and want ( normally ... ).
A woman will never have a abortion of the baby she loves to have ...
but a embryo in her chest, being the result of a rape or with a very critical medical problem, there she has the right as a person herself to decide what to do with HER pregnancy !!! that is none of our business, yes !

These shouldn't be willy-nilly or so flippantly done but the choice should remain for those to make it, right or wrong. On the other hand or the ssame one I fully support the death penlty and murder or executions can be justified by...
If you will bring religion into it, JC was executed, and ifthe grand architect saw it to be justice, we must accept at least this one justified act.

Originally posted by geekyone
Abortion is killing a child, you can dress it up however you like but that is what it is.

If your definition of the word child is "human offspring from conception to 18 years of age", then yes, it's killing a child. According to Merriam Webster, a child is "unborn or recently born", so they apparently agree with you that abortion is killing a "child". Their example is: "she's pregnant with her first child".

Other Sources list various meanings.

# a young person of either sex...
# a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age...
# a human between the stages of birth and puberty.
The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority. ...

The term "child", as used in the phrase "she's pregnant with her first child", implies the intention to bear the child. A woman who intends to terminate her pregnancy doesn't refer to the fetus as 'her first child' as she doesn't intend to bear a child.

So, we could get into defining the word child, but because you define it as you do, you are right. But when it comes down to some unknown woman getting an abortion, you have no right to the knowledge of her pregnancy, much less the right to dictate what she does about it. And that's the bottom line.

You have every right to feel the way you do about abortion. I understand it. But the decisions a woman makes - whether or not to carry a child for 9 months and bear it, whether to keep it or adopt - should be made by one person and one person only. She's the one that's going to live the rest of her life dealing with the consequences of those decisions, so she alone should make them.

It is simply not your decision to make.
.

I'm 100% with the OP. Besides the womens life being in danger, I see no justification for an abortion.


Don't give me this "choice" crap, women had a "choice"...same "choice" a man had...that is before they decide to have sex, not after.


Abortion is one thing I don't excuse, when I find out a women has had an elective abortion...I can think of her as nothing else but a selfish whore.

You can hate me for that, but it won't change my mind...I don't have any sympathy for baby killers.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by geekyone
Abortion is killing a child, you can dress it up however you like but that is what it is.

If your definition of the word child is "human offspring from conception to 18 years of age", then yes, it's killing a child. According to Merriam Webster, a child is "unborn or recently born", so they apparently agree with you that abortion is killing a "child". Their example is: "she's pregnant with her first child".

Other Sources list various meanings.

# a young person of either sex...
# a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age...
# a human between the stages of birth and puberty.
The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority. ...

The term "child", as used in the phrase "she's pregnant with her first child", implies the intention to bear the child. A woman who intends to terminate her pregnancy doesn't refer to the fetus as 'her first child' as she doesn't intend to bear a child.

So, we could get into defining the word child, but because you define it as you do, you are right. But when it comes down to some unknown woman getting an abortion, you have no right to the knowledge of her pregnancy, much less the right to dictate what she does about it. And that's the bottom line.

You have every right to feel the way you do about abortion. I understand it. But the decisions a woman makes - whether or not to carry a child for 9 months and bear it, whether to keep it or adopt - should be made by one person and one person only. She's the one that's going to live the rest of her life dealing with the consequences of those decisions, so she alone should make them.

It is simply not your decision to make.
.

I never said that it was my decision to make. I just wish people would not try and dress the issue up with their use of language.

A baby is born premature at the same age as a baby is aborted. You cannot call them different "beings" just because their methods of leaving the womans body were different. They were both babies only the situations were different.