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.
windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
I had a friend some years back in that situation. A young, single girl, raped. She got pregnant. She kept the baby. This was a beautiful little girl, very sweet, and very loved. The mother stated simply that she didn't believe punishing a child for the crime of the father was right.
I hope that this young, single mother and rape survivor doesn't live in a state that give parental rights to her rapist.
windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
It is also a fact that the tests for these things are often incorrect. There are parents that were told, after amnio, that the baby would be "defective", and abortion was recommended. They refused, and had perfectly healthy children, with NO issues.
No. Such a thing is abominable when it does occur, and those laws should be changed.
That isn't a reason to kill the child, though.
I have known couples that were told they had a "defective" child, and found later that the child was normal. I have read a LOT of stories of other such couples, too. Such stories aren't false. Tests aren't foolproof, and even a top-notch OB/GYN, head of that department in a major hospital, admitted they can be wrong. The tests also come with real risks.
it isn't our place to decide of a person has a right to live or not. That is for God to decide.
As a mother, I would die before I would kill a child to save my own life.
"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."
Martin Luther 1483 to 1546
Your comment, however, is reminiscent of Church doctrine on the role of women as baby makers. "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." Martin Luther 1483 to 1546
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
Does that include allowing people the free will to vote to criminalize abortion?
Forgive me for having absolutely no respect for what some perceive as "God's will." I prefer to leave "God's will" out of legislation and opt fora society that reveres personal freedom and free will, thank you.
This is not doctrine of any Christian church. It is one man's opinion and he didn't write the Bible, (change it up some, but he didn't write it). Do you think Christians should hang their faith on every word this man says? Sounds like this is what you believe. I doubt any denominations go there.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."
St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."
Does that include allowing people the free will to vote to criminalize abortion?
List of Countries where Abortion is illegal
Angola,
Central African Rep.Chad
Congo
Benin
Gabon
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Madagascar,
Mauritius,
Mauritania,
Senegal,
Somalia,
Uganda.
Afghanistan,
Iran,
Egypt,
Lebanon,
Libya,
Oman,
Syria,
United Arab Emirates
Yemen.
Bangladesh,
Myanmar,
Indonesia,
Laos,
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Malta
Colombia,
Ireland
Brazil,
Guatemala,
Haiti,
Honduras,
Nicaragua,
Panama,
Venezuela,
Paraguay,
Dominican Republic
Chile,
El Salvador
Mexico
Sudan (r)
Cote d’Ivoire
Lesotho
Mali
Niger
Tanzania
- See more at: www.whichcountry.co...
windword
But, this does happen, and children are often placed with an abusive parent or caretaker. There are plenty of holes in the law that work against the best interest of the children involved.
LadyGreenEyes
That isn't a reason to kill the child, though.
windword
A fertilized egg.......
An embryo.........
A fetus.......
Isn't a child![/quote]
DNA shows that you are mistaken.
LadyGreenEyes
I have known couples that were told they had a "defective" child, and found later that the child was normal. I have read a LOT of stories of other such couples, too. Such stories aren't false. Tests aren't foolproof, and even a top-notch OB/GYN, head of that department in a major hospital, admitted they can be wrong. The tests also come with real risks.
windword
Fine. get a second opinion.
But, you religious folk can't keep denying science and medicine, like denying carbon dating, but relying on Xray technology and chemo therapy, accepting vaccines, but denying the sciences of biology and evolution, accepting astronomy but denying cosmology..........
It's denying science to claim that a human being at an early stage of development, with unique DNA, is simply a "part of the mother", and thus subject to her whims to live or die. If you want to discuss things like carbon dating, evolution, and so forth, start a thread for that. It's off topic here.
windword
It isn't really ethical, in order to promote your pro-life stance, to encourage expectant mothers to ignore their doctor's finding and advice, because you don't like the prognosis. Denial doesn't make a problem go away.
It isn't ethical to pretend that a person isn't a person to excuse killing them, to promote your pro-abortion stance. A doctor that tells someone to kill their child should lose his medical license. No, denial certainly doesn't make the problem go away, and many formerly pro-abortion people have realized that.
windword
If it's for God to decide perhaps we should stop all life saving and life extending methods and leave it all up to God. No more paramedics, surgeons or fire fighters. Using this argument, employers and even insurers could deny coverage based on God's will!
Are you actually trying to compare deliberately ending a life to taking measures to save one? Really??? I can't even begin to comment on that.
windword
We can't have a free society if we allow legislation that's based on some religion's interpretation "GOD" and of what is God's will. There are those that don't believe in a God at all, little alone your God. You can't enforce your beliefs on others, no matter how justified you may think they are.
We cannot have a free society of some members of that society receive no protection under the law for even their right to live. Pretending that the unborn aren't human is forcing them to accept YOUR beliefs, and they have no say in the matter. Separate people with unique DNA are not part of the mother; they are human beings at an early stage of development, and should be afforded every right of all human beings. Stop trying to bring religion into this, and address the science you claim to support, but ignore on this simple matter.
windword
The way I see it, the pro-life God is biology, and biology is the will of their God. But to me, a society who's morality is based on a biologically driven moral compass is equal to the materialistic metaphor of "The Beast", that is our biblical enemy. The Beast (sexual urges) must be resisted, but if, in a moment of weakness, or if ones' birth control should fail, then "The Beast's" will must take precedent. The Beast must be honored.
Do you even know what that's supposed to mean? Please make up your mind, and either address this as a religious person, or don't. This constant back and forth is making me dizzy.
LadyGreenEyes
As a mother, I would die before I would kill a child to save my own life.
windword
Good for you. But not all women feel that way, and you can't force a woman to place a fertilized egg's, an embryo's or a fetus' potential to realize life after birth, above and beyond her own well being.
Those women should keep their legs crossed, then. If someone isn't responsible enough to raise a child that results from their actions, they have no business committing those actions. Killing another person for one's own irresponsibility is the worst example of the "it's someone else's fault" mentality of the modern society. A "fertilized egg" is a tiny human being. Denial gets you nowhere.
windword
Forgive me for having absolutely no respect for what some perceive as "God's will." I prefer to leave "God's will" out of legislation and opt fora society that reveres personal freedom and free will, thank you.
Except, of course, for the personal free will and freedom of all those killed in the womb, right? Easier to pretend they aren't really people, right? Gee, didn't people say that about certain skin colors at one time?
LadyGreenEyes
Except, of course, for the personal free will and freedom of all those killed in the womb, right? Easier to pretend they aren't really people, right? Gee, didn't people say that about certain skin colors at one time?
with unique DNA
It's not a person. . . . Its functionality is closer to a parasite.
The only valued babies in our country are the ones born to celebrities and the wealthy.
You do not have the answers to creation but God our creator does, He has revealed it, life begins at CONCEPTION. He creates a new human person with a body and a SOUL. We can know and modern science today shows you with technology.
That's why I mentioned the giraffe, to emphasize the point that it was human. Consider your position. It is human, and it is uniquely identifiable, as it has different DNA from its mother and father. If simply left alone it will be perfectly capable of doing, thinking, and appearing just like any other human.
It's certainly human, there's no question about that. But no, it's not a human being.
This, to me, is a very strong argument on the pro-life side. So we're not sure if a baby is a human being or not? Surely, in a situation in which we're not sure, the wise move is to err on the side of caution and not kill something that may be a human being.
There's a whole lot of controversy around the areas of when you really begin to be able to call it a human being.
All right, so if it's a human being, we can kill it because it's making mom feel sick for a period of time? Are you arguing for lethal self-defense? That is beyond imagination.
Having a parasitic functionality certainly does add credit to the pro-choice side, especially in the early trimesters. This is literally a fleshy growth in a woman's uterus that robs her of her nutrients and energy and physical capabilities.
I fail to understand this sentence at all. An analogy may be imperfect, actually all analogies are imperfect, but I've never heard of a strawman analogy.
Your analogies that you suggested do not, so they are strawmen. It's not the same thing.
All right, so if it's a human being, we can kill it because it's making mom feel sick for a period of time? Are you arguing for lethal self-defense? That is beyond imagination.
I think self defense is a sensible argument.