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

Even if we set rare occurrences like rape or handicaps aside....we have the issue of mothers having children...that THEY DONT WANT.

No matter how 'bad' or 'evil' some find abortion to be, we cant escape the fact that there are already too many children without homes that are in need of families and too many children in homes that are not healthy environments for them to be in.

We dont need to keep adding to the list of children that need families and children that are in families that are not healthy environments.

There are tons of children that grow up with issues that sometimes they never overcome...because their parents were not every really ready to be parents.

Granted, some mothers or fathers (or both) are able to buck up and grow up due to the fact that a child is coming but on the flip side of that...many do not. They continue their immature lives, they continue bad habits, they are not mature in their mentality or their emotional states...and this is not 'good' for a child.

The sad fact is...we bring children into the world where they dont have healthy environments to reach their full potentials as human beings. If someone is not ready to raise a child...you cant force them to be proper parents. If children are born in resentment, its more likely that anger may be taken out on that child in a unconscious way or that the parents may be spiteful towards the child.

reply to post by Maslo


And what does that sentience matter if it's indifferent to an animals at that age?

If you cannot see the utter hipocracy of defending an ape's life but saying its ok to kill a human's before it's even born, I wonder just how much you've looked over the logic of this situation. because you're reasoning is poor.

reply to post by MindSpin


Maybe you should find out what a hysterictomy is and what it does to the woman's body before you suggest that she have one.

The fetus most certainly is a part of the woman's body inasmuch as it is using her resources. More correctly, it is a parasite that depends on the woman's permission to survive.

I care not when "life" begins, or whether it is sentient or has a heart beat. It doesn't matter. Fact is the woman has the choice to carry to term or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to 44247844,
The man has to pay because he did his part in producing the baby. Tough lesson, maybe he will be more careful next time.
If the woman has sufficient financial holdings she should let him go, and I do believe that under those circumstances the law should also let him go.
Unfortunately the ususal thing is that the woman or Girl has no income; is a minor yet in school, or otherwise unable to earn a living for herself and the child. And so too, the father may be too young to work and pay child support....in which case...We have Another Welfare event.

If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not….again tough!
He has no right to force her to remain pregnant.

The root of our problem goes to the deliberate influence via the media . it seems to be part of a long term plan.
This from the Congressional Record:Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

"25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce."

Go to this site to read all the points...do they fit our present national situation?

www.rense.com...

reply to post by OhZone

If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not….again tough! He has no right to force her to remain pregnant.

Wow...that is a tough one. For as you pointed out it took the man and the woman to make a pregnancy so I have some open ended thoughts about the mans rights to the pregnancy and child.

reply to post by Gorman91

If you cannot see the utter hipocracy of defending an ape's life but saying its ok to kill a human's before it's even born, I wonder just how much you've looked over the logic of this situation. because you're reasoning is poor.

If you cannot see the utter hipocracy of defending an unsentient mass of cells, but saying its ok to kill already sentient and intelligent beings like apes, I wonder just how much you've looked over the logic of this situation.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


He has no rights to the pregnancy.
It is the woman's body and not his.
He does not own her just because he got her pregnant.

In times past pregnancy frequently resulted in a wedding with one or both parties being unenthused about it.

Only of people who force their views on others; particularly religious fundamentalists.

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by LeoVirgo

 

He has no rights to the pregnancy.
It is the woman's body and not his.
He does not own her just because he got her pregnant.

In times past pregnancy frequently resulted in a wedding with one or both parties being unenthused about it.

Im not saying he owns her...but the woman knows the consequences to having sex and just because its her body does not mean the 'male' who may not wish to be part in aborting his 'offspring' should not have a say in any of it.

Granted...hopefully a woman and man could talk things through if the man wanted to raise the child and allow the woman to willfully not be a part of that child's life if that is what she chooses. But I do think that it equally takes both man and woman to 'make the offspring' that both should have a say in decisions of aborting or not.

Lets say the woman wants the child but the father thinks its best to abort. Well, even though the father thought it would be best to not have the baby....he still, no matter what...has to help support that baby (as you pointed out in your earlier posts...that this is 'his part' in getting someone pregnant. Just the same...a woman knows the risks of sex and if the 'father' wishes to not see his offspring aborted, I think as long as he shows that he can support the baby and offer it a fruitful like all on his own...then he should have a say in the life of his offspring.

If he has no right to the pregnancy...then how can the system force him to pay child support if he thought the baby should not be born but the woman thought it should be?

reply to post by OhZone


Yet she has the right, under the law, to force him provide for a child whether he wants to or not. If a woman can terminate the pregnancy without consent from the father; the father should have the right to sever all rights for unplanned pregnancies and not be forced to pay support for the next two decades.

reply to post by Maslo


Apes have no potential to cure cancer or build cities. That mass of cells do. Please do not try to use my own claims against me when you don't even agree with the basis of the claim, that being potentiality.

To answer your original question...

gen·o·cide   
[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

a·bor·tion   
[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

There shouldn't be any confusion now

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by geekyone

Originally posted by OhZone

I'd like to know how he concluded that the fetus has a right to enslave its host.

He obviously believes in Slavery.
Since he gives her no alternative, this is Enforced Slavery, which is an act of Violence.
He violates her human rights.
And it is a violation of International Law.

Oh my, the world truly has gone mad.
However did we get to the point where a pregnant woman is some one who has been enslaved by an alien host?

I didn't say "alien host".
Reread the sentence.

Alien or Aliens may refer to:
Alien (law), a non-citizen inhabitant of a country

So that does describe how many of the posters are describing unborn babies.

But if it makes you feel better then no, you didn't say "alien"

reply to post by OhZone

Maybe you should find out what a hysterictomy is and what it does to the woman's body before you suggest that she have one.

I fully know what it does to the women's body...she can get her tubes tied if she would rather do that...she has a "choice". You were the one suggeting mandatory vesecitomies for men....just showing you how completely ridiculous and moronic the idea is.

I don't think you got the message.

The fetus most certainly is a part of the woman's body inasmuch as it is using her resources. More correctly, it is a parasite that depends on the woman's permission to survive.

Sorry...but biology and genetics disagrees. Just because you are ignorant of science, doesn't make your opinion correct.

A newborn infant also depends on the women to live...are you ok with killing infants??? (I cringe at the thought of your response).

I care not when "life" begins, or whether it is sentient or has a heart beat. It doesn't matter. Fact is the woman has the choice to carry to term or not.

It is apparent you have no regard for life...we fully understand that. Your emotions have shown as much. Your emotions have overcome your logic and sensabilities.


Let me point out just how hypocritical you are...all it takes is two quotes from your reply.

The man has to pay because he did his part in producing the baby. Tough lesson, maybe he will be more careful next time.

If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not….again tough!
He has no right to force her to remain pregnant.

Your opinion means little when you have obvious predjudices like this. I'm sorry you hate men...that is an issue you have to work out for yourself.


Maybe you should try holding both parties responsible, instead of making the female out to be the victim in all cases.

reply to post by OhZone


As MindSpin has already pointed out, it appears (note that I said that it "appears") that you have a prejudice against males. As I have already pointed out, it seems that a lot of people seem to think that a woman is completely helpless and cannot decide whether or not she wants to have sex. This somehow makes it to where the man has to pay, even if he wanted to abort the baby (or at least absolve himself of all financial responsibility).
Again, as I have already said, I am not claiming that the man has the right to force the woman to remain pregnant. I am saying, for "equality's" sake, that if the woman need not take into consideration the man's opinion, then the man need not be financially tied to the baby. LeoVirgo and Rastus3663 seem to have a similar sentiment (forgive me if I am wrong).
I do not see how it is just "tough" simply because it is the woman's body. I will say again that the woman is not completely helpless and unable to make a decision about whether or not to have sex. It seems that "My body, my choice, OUR responsibility" is a common mindset among some people. OhZone, can you give me your opinions on these thoughts? Thank You.

reply to post by MindSpin


Actually I don't find them terribly tough questions I just don't spend my entire day on ATS and you seem like a very selective reader. I don't believe an embryo is a human being, we start out as cells. Our molecular structure is basically the same as that of any other living being therefore it is rather ignorant to so strongly separate us from animals. Life is life and cannot simply be reduced to human life. What are we but an advanced animal?
Who are you to tell a women if she should feed her child everyday you ask? Who are you to tell a women that she should give birth to that child in the first place. I would be very surprised if you said you were a woman. You clearly don't seem to have a uterus or concept of what the carrier of that embryo must deal with.
I would like to also point out that an embryo or fetus cannot survive outside the womb, therefore to treat it as a separate human being than the mother at that point is kind of silly. The embryo needs the mother to survive, but not vice versa. I really think the mother's health and rights come first seeing as she is more than a little necessary in this whole baby making process.
Drop a baby off to what hospital? What then? I think you are the one focusing on only the early stages of life here. As if hospitals aren't busy enough already and we don't already have enough abandoned children on the world. Every embryo you force a person to not abort means one more child without a home. What are you going to do for these children, please tell me? You believe so much in giving life a chance, are you out there giving chances to life that already is? Third world countries are packed full of children who really have little to no chance, for every extra child born in any poorer country, one more will die. So, who are you saving, by stripping a woman of her choices, throwing an suspecting life into an environment of turmoil, and causing an even greater demand for foster parents. But of course, if everyone is already being forced to have biological children, who is going to be adopting? Very few, and unless these abandoned children are lucky enough to find care or be in a place where social services will offer them sort of care, they will likely face starvation, suffering and untimely death. This to me by no means makes any sense. I am not saying, to push abortion on anyone, but by all means, to allow each and every woman to decide for herself.

In reference to this paragraph:

"What of the case where a baby is born severly retarded, with no signs previously during ultrasounds??? Does the mother have the right to weigh the options and decide that this child won't have a perfect life...that it will probably have a very difficult and maybe even painfull life...and then decide if she should kill it? Based on your "logic" of us just using the information available to us to make the "best decision"...this scenario should be fine in your book. "

As I said, genius, I'm certainly not telling anyone to go killing an already living child. Seeing as it breathes on it own and lives without the need of it's mother's body, at that point, it would be murder, not abortion. A difference that the person who made this thread obviously wasn't capable of comprehending either. Of course, the best decision in that case would be to seek appropriate care for that baby.

Morality cannot be excluded in this discussion, for the entire basis of it is a question of what is right and wrong. And you have been arguing morals the entire time. If you were truly coming from a purely scientific standpoint, you would look back on evolution, realize what we came from, and not be so ignorant as to say "only human life applies" for we, humans, are a further evolved animal. Meaning animals, over the long span of things, have the potential to become just as, or more evolved. As do we, and everything else alive. We haven't stopped evolving, just because it doesn't seem apparent in several human lifetimes. Science tends to look at the bigger picture and consider all factors.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by LeoVirgo

 

Im not saying he owns her...but the woman knows the consequences to having sex and just because its her body does not mean the 'male' who may not wish to be part in aborting his 'offspring' should not have a say in any of it.

****Likewise the man knows the consequence of having sex.
If he wants a child he should look for another woman.

Granted...hopefully a woman and man could talk things through if the man wanted to raise the child and allow the woman to willfully not be a part of that child's life if that is what she chooses. But I do think that it equally takes both man and woman to 'make the offspring' that both should have a say in decisions of aborting or not.

**** Nice if he can pursuade her to use her body to bear his child and she is willing to go thru this for free. What does she get out of it?

Lets say the woman wants the child but the father thinks its best to abort. Well, even though the father thought it would be best to not have the baby....he still, no matter what...has to help support that baby (as you pointed out in your earlier posts...that this is 'his part' in getting someone pregnant. Just the same...a woman knows the risks of sex and if the 'father' wishes to not see his offspring aborted, I think as long as he shows that he can support the baby and offer it a fruitful like all on his own...then he should have a say in the life of his offspring.

****Again, the man also knows the risks of having sex. Again, if he does not want his offspring to be aborted, he should find another woman to bear it for him. If she is willing to have the child and he is willing to support it, of course he should have a say in its life.

If he has no right to the pregnancy...then how can the system force him to pay child support if he thought the baby should not be born but the woman thought it should be?

edit on 26-2-2011 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)

****I understand your quandry Perhaps you could answer some of your own questions by doing some role playing. You've heard the expression about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. Everyone can learn a lot by doing just that in many situations.
Do the role playing. Make a mental movie where you are the girl or woman. Do this from both sides. One movie you don't want to be pregnant and want to abort. Your boyfriend wants the child.
Note your thoughts and feelings.
Next be the girl or woman who wants the child and the boyfriend does not.
This time you have decided to go full term and keep the baby. Sorry thing is that you really cannot afford to support it. Do expect that the father will help out? Note all your thought and feelings as you are fully immersed in this role.
You should try this both from the perspective of a young girl 14 or 15 and a woman in her 20's.
Notice any differences when you are 14 to when you are say, 23.
Then you might try playing the role of the boy/man in both situations.

reply to post by MindSpin


Please consider the fact that the abortion issue is not black and white, but to make it illegal, you are making it so.
It is important to treat the matter with care and no act foolishly. To make informed decisions that act best in the interest of mother and child. And sometimes, that best interest for both is to cease the pregnancy. Sometimes it is not. But certainly, you are not committing murder before those cells have a heart or brain. You are aborting, what could become life, same all those dropped eggs that go unfertilized, or those that die on their own.

reply to post by OhZone


OhZone, it seems that you are finding another way to say "tough" to the man in this reply. However, you do consider the situation where the man does not want to pay for the baby. In this situation, you tell LeoVirgo to role play "walking a mile" in both the man's and the woman's shoes.
If there is a woman who does not want the baby, but the man does, then I guess your response is "tough". Now, there is not really a problem with this response, as long as you consider the other situation that you pointed out.
If there is a woman who does want the baby, but the man does not, but the woman could not afford the baby without the man's help, then is it not an "equal" response to tell the woman "Tough, then you have to abort the baby"? as compared to "Looks like you are going to have to pay up, man"?
As you can see, I am not playing "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I am simply looking at how the laws are clearly not equal, although people are supposed to be "equal". What are your thoughts on this, OhZone? Thank You.

Rastus3663 says: “

“Yet she has the right, under the law, to force him provide for a child whether he wants to or not. If a woman can terminate the pregnancy without consent from the father; the father should have the right to sever all rights for unplanned pregnancies and not be forced to pay support for the next two decades.”

****And how is child supported? Welfare?
Shouldn’t he just man up to the fact that he is indeed a father?
Does he care of what the child will think of him as it grows up…maybe meets him when he/she becomes an adult.
If you were that child how would you feel about it?

Mindspin says: “ It is apparent you have no regard for life...we fully understand that. Your emotions have shown as much. Your emotions have overcome your logic and sensabilities.

Let me point out just how hypocritical you are...all it takes is two quotes from your reply.”

“The man has to pay because he did his part in producing the baby. Tough lesson, maybe he will be more careful next time.

If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not….again tough!
He has no right to force her to remain pregnant.”

“Your opinion means little when you have obvious predjudices like this. I'm sorry you hate men...that is an issue you have to work out for yourself.

Maybe you should try holding both parties responsible, instead of making the female out to be the victim in all cases.”

****If as you say I have no regard for life, then I must not be emotional huh? I thought I was being coldly Logical, which is the only way Logic works.

Why do you think it is being prejudiced to expect a man to support his child?
The female is frequently the “victim”. Date rape happens more than is ever reported.
The male is the one who is most often the aggressive one. If the girl likes him she isn’t going to scream “rape”, even tho she was not willing to have sex.

I don’t hate men. I rather like them. I would rather have lunch with 5 or 6 guys than a bunch of girls. The always make me feel special.

44247844 As I said above - date rape happens more often than is reported. The girl/woman does not always “decide” to have sex. Her boyfriend decides for her; sometimes by sheer strength and persistence.
Don't tell me you all are virgins. You know full well what I am saying, don't you?

So we absolve the male of financial responsibility. And of course that means he has no further contact with any resulting child.
You are all OK with Welfare then?
That’s your taxes at work as well as mine and those others who think the father should take financial responsibility for raising this child.

reply to post by 22ndsecond

I don't believe an embryo is a human being, we start out as cells. Our molecular structure is basically the same as that of any other living being therefore it is rather ignorant to so strongly separate us from animals. Life is life and cannot simply be reduced to human life. What are we but an advanced animal?

Yes, we are an "advanced animal"....however...animals are seperated into these little things call "species".

SO...that human embryo...it is not the same as any other living being. Here...a multiple choice question.

A human embryo has what type of DNA:
a) Dog
b) Frog
c) Human
d) That of all other animals (common DNA)

Who are you to tell a women if she should feed her child everyday you ask?

Me??? I'm nobody...but the government does tell women this through neglect laws.

Who are you to tell a women that she should give birth to that child in the first place. I would be very surprised if you said you were a woman. You clearly don't seem to have a uterus or concept of what the carrier of that embryo must deal with.

Again...it's about telling women they can't kill another human life...no matter what stage of development it is at.

Men can't kill that same human life at the embryonic stage...if he does...he is charged with murder.

And yep, I'm a man...does that invalidate my opinion? THere are other women in this thread that share my views...there are many many many pro-life women.

Sorry...but that argument that men's views don't matter on this issue is weak and illogical.

I would like to also point out that an embryo or fetus cannot survive outside the womb, therefore to treat it as a separate human being than the mother at that point is kind of silly. The embryo needs the mother to survive, but not vice versa. I really think the mother's health and rights come first seeing as she is more than a little necessary in this whole baby making process.

Except for the fact that it is a separate life...because it has different DNA than the mother does. An infant can't survive without another human caring for it either...but we don't go around killing infants (well at least I hope you guys don't).

Mother's health...sure...I've said many times that if the women's life is in danger then that is a medical decision she needs to make.

A man is a little necessary in the whole baby making process as well...where are his rights???

Drop a baby off to what hospital? What then? I think you are the one focusing on only the early stages of life here. As if hospitals aren't busy enough already and we don't already have enough abandoned children on the world. Every embryo you force a person to not abort means one more child without a home. What are you going to do for these children, please tell me?

What I do is irrelevant to my argument and irrelevant to the biological process of life.

But since you and others are obsessed about it...I donate to many charites that help meet the needs of children. And me and my wife plan on adopting kids once we are finished raising our own.

I'm sure that isn't enough for you...if I don't adopt all the kids of the world...I guess I can't have an opinion of people killing babies

As I said, genius, I'm certainly not telling anyone to go killing an already living child. Seeing as it breathes on it own and lives without the need of it's mother's body, at that point, it would be murder, not abortion.

But your "logic" and "reasoning" is no different no matter if the human life is an embryo or a newborn infant.

Both are reliant on the mother for survival...both don't show any self-awareness or signs of sentience...and the "reasons" for killing/abortion are EXACTLY the same in both situations.

That is what is called a slippery slope...and you have no logical argument against it except that the human life know lives on the outside of the womb. That is a very weak argument.

Morality cannot be excluded in this discussion, for the entire basis of it is a question of what is right and wrong. And you have been arguing morals the entire time.

Morality is subjective...if we can we should use objective science whenever we can.

In this case, it is the logical choice because we have a clear and accurate definition of when "life" begins. And it protects more "life" than your subjective definitions do. Seems like the logical choice to me.

Please show me where I am using "morals" in MY argument using Biology???

Science tends to look at the bigger picture and consider all factors.

I am looking at the bigger picture...my definition of human life is broader than any others in this thread.