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 moonzoo7
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Wow, here we go....what defines a person? Should the "Rights" of a potential "person" outweigh the Rights of an actual person? The controversay is based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that not everyone subscribes to. So, the religious people want to force their beliefs on women who may not share the same belief system? That's crazy, if you ask me. Talk about having your Freedom and Rights trampled on. We're talking about each individual woman's Right to control her own body. Each woman inherently has her own Reproductive Rights. The decision should lie solely with each woman, based on her own individual beliefs and experiences. Does anyone really want to have the government dictate what you can and can't do with your own body?
Christians say they value "life" above everything else. Except when it comes to killing Muslims, that is. Or criminals on Death Row. Or the children born into poverty, who then cannot properly be cared for and educated. Or doctors who provide birth control for women. Or anyone whom they disagree with. Not all, but most "christians" are very judgemental, hypocritical, and tend towrds being Moral Relativists.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - M.Ghandi
Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
I think it is murder!
Originally posted by moonzoo7
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Wow, here we go....what defines a person?
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Originally posted by onthedownlow
We have been trying so hard to create accountability among the young men in society, but we sell our souls so that our young women will not be held accountable. Why, to women that claim to crave equality, do they desire a double standard that removes accountability from their choices. Abortion has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with hypocrisy.
Excuse me but im not sure that im following what your saying, society has changed on the responsibility part (for example, here in the UK they encourage both sexes to use protection) When a girl gets pregnant her blame is not down-played, but neither is the boys...
And Abortion IS a right. By law in fact. And even if it was illegal (which it has been in the past) backstreet abortions would only rise in numbers and put more women at risk.
But do please explain what you mean in your OP.
Originally posted by onthedownlow
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Originally posted by onthedownlow
We have been trying so hard to create accountability among the young men in society, but we sell our souls so that our young women will not be held accountable. Why, to women that claim to crave equality, do they desire a double standard that removes accountability from their choices. Abortion has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with hypocrisy.
Excuse me but im not sure that im following what your saying, society has changed on the responsibility part (for example, here in the UK they encourage both sexes to use protection) When a girl gets pregnant her blame is not down-played, but neither is the boys...
And Abortion IS a right. By law in fact. And even if it was illegal (which it has been in the past) backstreet abortions would only rise in numbers and put more women at risk.
But do please explain what you mean in your OP.
As a citizen of ther United States, my rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights. Abortion is not a right, yet it is currently legal. The thing about rights, they are equally applied to all, and at no point can a male choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (that would be wrong on many levels). Advocates for womens rights would argue that inequality exists, but I would argue that they are creating inequality. We all understand how babies are made, just as we understand the consequences of driving under the influence- yet, one demands accountability and the other suggests that there should be none. This is hypocracy, plain as day. I believe that abortion is wrong, and I don't believe that it should be used to avoid accountability- although, I do believe that any women who are not willing participants in the act that culminates in the pregnancy need not maintain accountability.
Originally posted by SlowlyLonely
reply to post by Maslo
Abortion does not conform to the legal definition of murder, but I would hate to be a person who assessed the treatment of human life based on the law. Fetal growth is indeed human life; it is not less essential to the development of a person than the growth that occurs after birth is.
What is the difference between withdrawing life support from a brain dead patient and aborting an unborn child? A person who is brain dead does not have the potential to lead a productive life, whereas an unborn child does.
There is also a difference of perspective in how the decisions are made. A loved one who consents to withdraw life support typically asks: What would be best for my loved one? A woman who consents to an abortion typically asks: What would be best for me?
The idea that abortion is an act of kindness to the unborn child obscures a truth: most women who experience an unplanned pregnancy do not fear for the unborn child; they fear for themselves.
If a woman does not wish to be a mother, she can give the child up for adoption. The option is always there.
Originally posted by SlowlyLonely
reply to post by reitze
My response has nothing to do with the usurpation of a woman's authority over her womb. Abortion, I assume, will continue to be legal; and even if Roe Vs. Wade were repealed, women would still have abortions. Regardless of what the law says, a woman will always have authority over her womb.
However, my hope is that women will exercise that authority with respect for human life, not merely respect for what philosophers or politicos define as a "person."
edit on 20-3-2012 by SlowlyLonely because: (no reason given)
The siamese twin thing? well if 1 head is vital and the other head is not then it would be up to the ruling head whether or not to cut off the other, just like I could cut off some body part if I felt it necessary.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by reitze
The siamese twin thing? well if 1 head is vital and the other head is not then it would be up to the ruling head whether or not to cut off the other, just like I could cut off some body part if I felt it necessary.
Makes sense. But in case of pregnancy, a foetus is indeed viable after some 6th month (and this will be pushed further with advancements in medicine). So what would your position be in case of siamese twins when both are viable, and can be separated without killing the other one? This is the correct analogy for late-term pregnancy.
I would never agree with such siamese twin having the right to murder its brother, just because they are still biologically connected with an already largely obsolete connection. And the same thing applies to pregnancy.edit on 21/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)edit on 21/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
and how in the hell do any of you out there really know when a soul, the central essence of our life force enters that union of "cells"? As of yet, we have no way of knowing when the soul enters the body.
Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
The fetus isn't a sibling, its contained within a mom. So again regulations controlling the mom interfere.
If God can trust mom's to make the right decision - that's good enough for me.