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.

 

A Conversation About Abortion you need to read!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
This should be no surprise as well value life less and less as time goes on. 30 million deaths, at least 20+ million of them for convenience.

We should be ashamed.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And being a male, as far as Im concerned, abortion is none of your business, period. Since its not your body that has to carry the fetus for 9 months. Unless youre volunteering your body as a surrogate for aborted fetuses, I strongly suggest to you and your conservative pals to get into a cause that is your business.


I'm no conservative, but if that is the case then should men be absconded from paying child support for children born out of wedlock? Not that I would escape that responsibility, but it is a valid question where abortion is legal.

Two to tango. Is the man any more responsible for the woman getting pregnant? It's your body isn't it? Your body certainly is your business. Particularly when deciding when, where and in what manner a man penetrates it. No?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
This should be no surprise as well value life less and less as time goes on. 30 million deaths, at least 20+ million of them for convenience.

We should be ashamed.


The ones that really should be ashamed are the doctors, practitioners, and advocates of this slaughter. How could someone go to work at day, knowing they they would be aborting humans all day long? I personally cannot imagine it....Do abortion doctors make a lot of money? What about abortion nurses?
I challenge either to come out in this thread and describe to us their day at work- How can they do it? But watch, none will answer, they hide in shame and fear.
I sure pity these people when they stand before God- the ones who are preforming the slaughter are more guilty in my opinion. And, I feel, the wrath of God shall be upon them more than anyone else.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
... And so, what would you like to say to the SEVENTY MILLION Americans who would have lived but have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade in the 1970s?

... Would you like to apologize to them, for the fact their experiences were truncated before they began?

... And you WONDER WHY America imports labor that the younger generation could and would have done--but no--it's Mexicans and Vietnamese and East Europeans who will inherit America from the older Generation--not Americans.



I am sorry but you have misunderstood me. Perhaps I didn't explain my position correctly.

The quote questioning whether a woman would choose to abort knowing that her child would be born to suffering was what I tried to answer.

Real life is full of suffering and cannot be avoided. So that would not be a reason to kill a baby.

I agree with the rest of your post. When I was a kid all of the neighbor children worked on the farms during the summer. It was fun too.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Yep, some people will jump at "You're being judgmental!", won't they?

Hey, call it like it is.

Ya know, if people saved it for marriage and remained faithful, I bet we'd have a whole lot less of this nonsense. I think we were doing just fine as a society until feminism came along. I was born in the midst of it too, in the 70s.

I have to mention a maternal uncle. He got a girl pregnant way back when. He was ready to support the child and everything, and she went and aborted the baby. My mother says that today my uncle is still a grieving father.

So if a woman doesn't want the baby, it's okay for her to kill the child, never mind that the father might want said child!


As I mentioned, I'm a mother myself. I was very protective of my little boy during my pregnancy, and I'm still protective of him; he's going on 3.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
Amethyst,

In an attempt to deny my own ignorance I have found that the American Bioethics Advisory Commision has stated that,



scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is NOT a "potential" or a "possible" human being.

Source


so I offer you my humble apologies.


As to whether abortion is right or wrong, I feel we will just have to agree to disagree.


Well, we got that far.
Now, given that it's human from conception, we have no right to kill that little human. Murder is taking an innocent human life.

What's that Dr. Seuss quote--A person's a person no matter how small?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Yep, some people will jump at "You're being judgmental!", won't they?

Hey, call it like it is.

I did.


Ya know, if people saved it for marriage and remained faithful, I bet we'd have a whole lot less of this nonsense.

I'm all for monogomy etc.. but are you refferring to both genders?

I think we were doing just fine as a society until feminism came along. I was born in the midst of it too, in the 70s.

When feminism came along? Half of society wasn't doing fine. Do you mean when women got the vote, when they won more rights to work or when domestic violence and rape in marriage became illegal? You want to go back to the 'good ol days' when it was culturally acceptable for a wife to cop a back hander for not having dinner on the table? Or when girls weren't allowed to play certain sports? Do you think they should bring girdles back in or ban bikinis? I was born in the 70s too and realise we weren't doing just fine beforehand.. but then I actually bothered to do some research on the subject.. you obviously haven't. You are probably talking about the sexual revolution not just feminism. You probably have many things in your life that you wouldn't have if not for feminism- you should be grateful.

I have to mention a maternal uncle. He got a girl pregnant way back when. He was ready to support the child and everything, and she went and aborted the baby. My mother says that today my uncle is still a grieving father.

So did he offer to just support the child or did he offer to take sole custody of it? Thats sad. I hope he was able to have a family and build a life for himself.
But should he have kept his legs crossed?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
... appears to me to be a LARGER ISSUE than is currently recognized.

... People who are unable to postpone satiety are called "children."




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Journey
The ones that really should be ashamed are the doctors, practitioners, and advocates of this slaughter. How could someone go to work at day, knowing they they would be aborting humans all day long? I personally cannot imagine it....Do abortion doctors make a lot of money? What about abortion nurses?
I challenge either to come out in this thread and describe to us their day at work- How can they do it? But watch, none will answer, they hide in shame and fear.


I think that we as Americans should be ashamed as this horrific act was made legal by the American voter.

You will never get the answer to that challenge, but I can guarantee you that none are Christian at heart. Some might be Christian but in name only.





Originally posted by Amethyst

I have to mention a maternal uncle. He got a girl pregnant way back when. He was ready to support the child and everything, and she went and aborted the baby. My mother says that today my uncle is still a grieving father.

So if a woman doesn't want the baby, it's okay for her to kill the child, never mind that the father might want said child!



And I would bet that the mother thinks of it once in while, hell the lady who Roe v Wade was over has repented and wants it repealed. She realized she decided the outcome of a life, an innocent life.





Originally posted by PsychosesAmethyst,
In an attempt to deny my own ignorance I have found that the American Bioethics Advisory Commision has stated that,


scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is NOT a "potential" or a "possible" human being.


so I offer you my humble apologies.


As to whether abortion is right or wrong, I feel we will just have to agree to disagree.




I really salute you and your ability to admit error.
Even if we don't agree on everything, this shows that there is hope.





Originally posted by riley
I'm all for monogomy etc.. but are you refferring to both genders?

I think we were doing just fine as a society until feminism came along. I was born in the midst of it too, in the 70s.

When feminism came along? Half of society wasn't doing fine. Do you mean when women got the vote, when they won more rights to work or when domestic violence and rape in marriage became illegal? You want to go back to the 'good ol days' when it was culturally acceptable for a wife to cop a back hander for not having dinner on the table? Or when girls weren't allowed to play certain sports? Do you think they should bring girdles back in or ban bikinis? I was born in the 70s too and realise we weren't doing just fine beforehand.. but then I actually bothered to do some research on the subject.. you obviously haven't. You are probably talking about the sexual revolution not just feminism. You probably have many things in your life that you wouldn't have if not for feminism- you should be grateful.


I think not, and the wife beating still goes on. I doubt that it was as widespread as you think. A Christian man was forbidden to do such things. Scumbags have always been and always will be.

Feminism has hurt the womans cause, now look she stands with an M16 in the battlefield, she has to work to help the family survive and leave the child rearing to others.

It has been one of the downsides to society in my opinion. Sure some good things came of it, but at what cost?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Isn't that what Jesus SAID?

"Broad is the way leading off into Destruction and many are there who find it. Narrow is the way leading off to Life, and few there are who find it."

"You will know them by their fruit. You can't get rotting fruit off a good tree nor good fruit off a rotting tree."

"The sheep will be on the Right hand, but the Goats on the Left hand. ... I never knew you."

And so forth.

Jesus said that time and time again.

Why are you surprised that it is a small remnant of "Christianity" that is actually faithful to the Sermon on the Mount?

What's to be surprised about?




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

As for war, I guess no war would be good but that is unrealistic with humans.

I am Pro-Death Penalty



Gotcha.


Originally posted by edsinger

For the record, I am pro-Life



You are pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, believe war is inevitable and also, that poverty is a product of personal choice.

I can't imagine how you resolve all those contradictions. Can you please explain?



.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
...I can't WAIT to hear this (NO DOUBT Scriptural) EXPLANATION.

...



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Isn't that what Jesus SAID?
Jesus said that time and time again.

Why are you surprised that it is a small remnant of "Christianity" that is actually faithful to the Sermon on the Mount?

What's to be surprised about?




No I am not surprised by this, although John 3:16 doesn't leave much as a requirement, you are right, we shall know by the fruits.

We all fall short and that is why Christ died. We just must accept that IS why he died.



Originally posted by soficrow
You are pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, believe war is inevitable and also, that poverty is a product of personal choice.

I can't imagine how you resolve all those contradictions. Can you please explain?


Contradictions? I think not . The death penalty was also required for some crimes until Christ came. I do not think that the death penalty is anti-God in any way. One must pay for ones crimes.

And nowhere is poverty a personal choice, but no where does it say that one can not bring themselves out of poverty either.

Plus riches on earth are not the same as riches in heaven.

Did God say that war should never be? Was fighting the Nazi's anti-God?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by soficrow
You are pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, believe war is inevitable and also, that poverty is a product of personal choice.

I can't imagine how you resolve all those contradictions. Can you please explain?


Contradictions? I think not . The death penalty was also required for some crimes until Christ came. I do not think that the death penalty is anti-God in any way. One must pay for ones crimes.



The Old Testament demanded retribution and 'an eye for an eye,' but Christ's teachings were different. He said, "Judge not lest ye be judged," and encouraged moderation.



And nowhere is poverty a personal choice, but no where does it say that one can not bring themselves out of poverty either.


If bringing oneself out of poverty is possible, it follows that poverty is a personal choice. Which it is not for the millions of sick and otherwise 'disadvantaged' in the USA.



Plus riches on earth are not the same as riches in heaven.


Not sure what this refers to? ...Throwing the money-lenders out of the temple?



Did God say that war should never be?


Christ certainly did, by implication if not directly.



Was fighting the Nazi's anti-God?


The Nazi's could have been stopped before they started, which is the Christian way - instead, they were supported and financed by many powers in the USA including the Bush family. This allowed the situation to escalate and profit the financiers. ...Wars are engineered by bankers and investors. They're not Christian.



.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Also, it was expected by Jesus and the apostles that Christians would CONTINUE to follow the Law

Matt 25:16-21, 1John 5:3 and the book of James attest to this.

As the Apostle Paul says, Jesus died once for all time so that we would not have to live with the fear of death.

Thus, capital punishment is repudiated ONCE FOR ALL TIME. It may have been de rigeur under the Law; however, Jesus fulfilled "death for sins" and there is no longer any reason to kill anybody.

And if you belong to a denomination that says it's okay to kill people, think it over once again. I believe that is contrary to unconditional Love that Jesus proclaimed.

A Christian that advocates death for sin is NOT a Christian INDEED, only in word. Talk is cheap.

You gotta turn the other cheek; forgive 77 times; walk the walk--

OR, you're on that broad road [for hypocrites] that leads off to destruction.

No kidding.

There's no rationalizing standing up for pro-life and then killing people for sin. No way--not since Christ's death on the cross for us [all of us who walk the walk].

Nuff said.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
So Christ expected Christians to lie down and be conquered right? Never fight, never protect, never kill.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's.





Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by edsingerContradictions? I think not . The death penalty was also required for some crimes until Christ came. I do not think that the death penalty is anti-God in any way. One must pay for ones crimes.




Originally posted by soficrowThe Old Testament demanded retribution and 'an eye for an eye,' but Christ's teachings were different. He said, "Judge not lest ye be judged," and encouraged moderation.


So we are not to punish any crime, just let them free and keep letting the free? That is not what the Bible says and you know that. Capital punishment is not given out for petty crimes, but for those the are crimes that are wholly unforgivable. Christ can forgive them, sure, but are we to let them out to kill again? What of the "ultimate price for crime". The Death penalty is not anti-Christian at all. Maybe if you are a catholic you might feel that way, but not all Christians and some Christians see nothing wrong with defending family or country, especially one that let's one worship as they see fit.





Originally posted by soficrowIf bringing oneself out of poverty is possible, it follows that poverty is a personal choice. Which it is not for the millions of sick and otherwise 'disadvantaged' in the USA.


But many do! So we are to reward those who will not lift a finger to help their own cause. So we then become the caretakers of the lazy? We should help those who cant help themselves but not encourage dependency. Hard work and good stewardship is part of the equation also.



Plus riches on earth are not the same as riches in heaven.


Originally posted by soficrowNot sure what this refers to? ...Throwing the money-lenders out of the temple?



No, what I meant was you can't take it with you, you know?


Did God say that war should never be?

Originally posted by soficrowChrist certainly did, by implication if not directly.


Oh really? And where would this be? He did not say overthrow Rome, but he didn't say let them slaughter your children either.



Was fighting the Nazi's anti-God?


Originally posted by soficrowThe Nazi's could have been stopped before they started, which is the Christian way - instead, they were supported and financed by many powers in the USA including the Bush family. This allowed the situation to escalate and profit the financiers. ...Wars are engineered by bankers and investors. They're not Christian.



So now WWII was Bush's Fault! I knew it....



Had nothing to to with Chamberlain's appeasement in Czechoslovakia did it? Had nothing to do with appeasing Hitler and hoping the problem goes away. The classic head in the sand syndrome.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
do you know why no one wants to listen to a man complain about abortion? because there are more irresponsible males out there than are illegitamate children,that's why. why don't we work on educating about NOT getting pregnant instead of abstain and all that mess? it kills me how the same sick people that stand on my sidewalks holding pictures of gore that i don't want my kids to see are the same people who run in disgust when talk of sex education or handing out condoms is brought up.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl it kills me how the same sick people that stand on my sidewalks holding pictures of gore that i don't want my kids to see are the same people who run in disgust when talk of sex education or handing out condoms is brought up.


So the innocent should die so that a mom doesn't have to deal with the hardship of having children?

How about this, when a abortion is granted, one must get sterilized (both male and female)


Didn't think so...



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
If abortion is to remain legal, can't we at least do away with the Orwellian "newspeak" about "a woman's right to choose" and "pro-choice" and refer to the procedure as it really is?

"A woman's right to choose to end her fetus's life"

and

"pro-death"

I know that liberals are always up in arms about preventing the US from becoming a fascist state full of doublespeak and manipulation of the truth--just like in Orwell's "1984"--so I'm sure they would back up my modest proposal.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassie Clay
I know that liberals are always up in arms about preventing the US from becoming a fascist state full of doublespeak and manipulation of the truth--just like in Orwell's "1984"--so I'm sure they would back up my modest proposal.


I seriously doubt that, they think it is perfectly moral for a mother to choose to kill a child for any circumstance. They always claim what about the mothers life but are not willing to limit this practice to only that, they see nothing morally wrong with it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join