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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

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.


Now here's a good one:

Many liberals are against spanking children (they scream child abuse) but are for abortion--where the child is often ripped apart and truly is the worst form of child abuse.

Reminds me of a joke. One of the ways you can tell a liberal: She has an abortion while wearing a Save the Whale T-shirt.




posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
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.


You're right, there are "irresponsible" men out there. But the truth is, is those men have no financial obligation to the child because he has no say in the matter.

We can not be responsible for something we had no choice in, because right now there are legal avenues to rid yourself of the problem. No rights = no responsibilities.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
...They are responsible FOR WHAT IS LAW-FUL to be responsible for. The fact that abortion is LEGAL means all sorts of industries now profit off the tissues of aborted fetuses.

...If it's not law-ful to conserve, they will not conserve. If a fetus is just a "thing," then there is no mandate to conserve the life of the soul.

...If it's not law-ful to be home with your family every afternoon and teach your children the family culture, norms and values--it won't happen. And so our children--especially our daughters--are more imbued with the desire for convenience than they are with the desire to be resurrected at some future time, in an intact genetic family line.

...If it's not law-ful for you to get enough rest so that you can think straight, it won't happen. TPTB don't want us to be thinking or reasoning too carefully about the outcomes that Abortion are creating--wholesale immigration and the plundering of white Americans' inheritances.

...You see, when a legal profession confounds Law to the extent they can drive society by knowing and playing to its contradictions, what you have achieved is a new form of Slavery in which only the street-savvy survive it.

...And the street-savvy are predatory--after anything they can get.

...We are very very close to total chaos. And that--too--is what the Underground wants, so we'll abort our line of succession, eliminate each other in fury and terror, and leave the ground to the predators-in-charge.

...Pray your prayers. Do it diligently. Prayer is the only defense we have against these reptiles-in-power.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
[I would think that with all the food we have in this nation and with the blessings that God has granted the United States we could afford to raise these children. If the parents do not want them, then let them be adopted and YES I would take some into my home and my wife and I have discussed it by we do not have the 30,000 dollars it takes. Not an incentive to take these children is it? So what the hell, they are a pain, even a parasite as someone called them, they deserve death right?



since they arent even alive, how can they deserve death?



So when the baby is in your wifes womb and you feel the child jump at the sound of music....it is not a child or a human right?



Ed, seeing how I am a woman, and am not gay, I do not anticipate having a wife or fathering children with her.


The question of whether or not its a human child is one that can only be answered by the person whose body the fetus inhabits. If the woman wants it, it is alive, she can feel its life, she cant wait for its birth. if the woman does not want it, it feels no more alive than a tumor or cyst, and more like a parasite that is making her ill.




Oh hell no it is not. The death penalty is a RESULT of a crime and war is sometimes the necessity need to saves ones life and country and the possibility of raising children in the first place. 30 million Americans killed since Roe V Wade.....getting near Stalin numbers there aren't we?



30 Million Americans were killed since Roe vs Wade? I would suggest you take a look into qualifications for being an American citizen. An American citizen is anyone who is BORN on American soil, or BORN of American parents. So far, I do not see 30 million people who were BORN who have been killed by the descision. I only see that 30 million necessary medical procedures have been performed on 30 million American women who were BORN and whose quality of life is better because of it.



Well you don't get the Death Penalty for just 'being' there. It is not the baby's fault that a sperm and an egg decided to hook up.



Nor is it the parents fault the condom broke, the womans fault that she was raped, or either parents fault that they simply cannot afford anopther kid, or the moms fault the dad took off and left. So, the rights of the living breathing walking HUMANS must be considered before the rights of a randomly formed, non thinking, breathing, unamed cluster of cells that does not constitute as an entity.




I have made plenty but can not register to one who does not value life. It is a fundamental difference in how some think of the world. I think there is a creator and that life begins at conception. You on the other hand do not and no one seems to answer my question as to why a mother can not kill her 3 year old if given the choice between boat payment and the child. I mean they can be so burdensome and why should the age make any difference. It is cold to kill an unborn child, and especially so because of irresponsibility for ones actions.



I value life...I value the living. Those who are here. Alive. Thinking, breathing, who were born. But a vaguely formed clump of tissue that someday could be a human is NOT a life. It is a potential life. The womans body that it inhabits, THAT is a life. a full life. A living human. Thus, as far as I am concerned, HER rights outweigh those of the fetus, which is only a potential. Consider the fetus or embryo a life, and I can use the same arguement for sperm, and even lobby to have male mastrubation outlawed. (after all, an ejeaculation releases millions of sperm, which move on their own, and are also potential life too. So, everytime you go spend quality time with mr winky, Ed, you are killing millions of Americans in a manner of minutes)





Oh yes it is, it is not my business to get involved with a 7-11 robber when someone is going to get shot and killed. It is murder and legalized and sanctioned murder at that. You seemed filled with hate, how would you see it 20 years down the road if you finally realized that it is wrong and that as parents, you have deliberately killed your child. It is a MORAL issue and that is a fact.



Youre hardly saving a victim from an armed robbery. Youre creating a victim by preventing a woman from exercising control of her own body.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
That was cool.....but.


to you life begins at birth....so I know you are male as you have never felt a child inside you. I have held my hand on the womb and can feel the baby move and yes LIVE!

As for the masturbation argument, they are not a zygote, BIG difference.

You know there are sperm banks also and just think of all that money I let slip through my hands over the years!



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
It doesnt make sense to be pro-war yet anti-abortion, several posts here already point out the contradiction and I would like to add further .

If the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent lives in pre-emptive strikes is justifiable in the interest of the greater good, and/or in the interest of self-preservation, then so is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy in the interest of the greater good and/or self-preservation also justifiable.

You are not the woman who decides to terminate her fetus life you do not know the reasons for her decision or how difficult it may be for her to follow through with her decision. Is it not possible that maybe, she believes it to be in the best interest of her would-be baby, her family and/or herself. ....... Edsinger you have discussed adoption and yes you would take some in then why dont you? Why is not having $30,000 extra a year a valid excuse for you and not for another? Unless you WILL take on her baby and raise him/her as your own then whether you agree or disagree with her choice is irrelevant.

And you say that there is enough food for everyone theoretically yes there should be but take a reality check there are people who go hungry even in America, kids who go without meals and medical attention. In Iraq, there are camps of hungry people, in parts of Africa, there are whole populations of people dying of starvation. These problems should be solved before you go rallying for the rights of millions of fetuses to be born into situations that may not be favorable to their survival and wellbeing.

To people who make it their business to criticise women, doctors and staff in abortion clinics,
unless you :
1) are never ever guilty of making a mistake
2) never ever have sex except for purposes of procreation
3) are absolutely fine about higher taxes to accommodate a substantial increase of the number of single mothers on welfare
4) can guarantee and find suitable and loving homes for each and everyone of those would-be babies
you have no business in meddling with a womans choice to have an abortion. Unless you are all of the above, you are being hypocritical, judgemental and irrational when you point a finger of condemnation.

If you really do care about the lives of millions of children, how about .. channeling all that energy into positive action instead feed hungry children, clothe them, educate them, give them medical help if and when they need it; contribute to their physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing otherwise, really just get a life!



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
to you life begins at birth....so I know you are male as you have never felt a child inside you. I have held my hand on the womb and can feel the baby move and yes LIVE!


Of course, but you're not feeling that at 3 months or less, when most abortions are performed.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesiaOf course, but you're not feeling that at 3 months or less, when most abortions are performed.


Ah but the others are not OK then? It is still the taking of a life.

war is hell, and people die. But we do our very best to keep the killing of the innocent to a bare minimum. Why do you think the terrorists hide amongst civilians? Because that is the safest place to hide. Hypocritical my arse.





Originally posted by c_au
It doesnt make sense to be pro-war yet anti-abortion, several posts here already point out the contradiction and I would like to add further .

Edsinger you have discussed adoption and yes you would take some in then why dont you? Why is not having $30,000 extra a year a valid excuse for you and not for another? Unless you WILL take on her baby and raise him/her as your own then whether you agree or disagree with her choice is irrelevant.

just get a life!


First, war is not the same, it is not the premeditated killing of innocent life, whether you believe it or not we do our best to avoid this.

Second, it just so happens that we probably will try, but with my tax burden and debt burden I can not afford one now. I am to busy paying for the freebies of others so to speak.

My wife can no longer have children and we are wanting another child, so why is it so expensive? I could afford to raise the child, just not purchase it. If the laws were made a bit easier then things could be different.

Third, I have one and I am trying to save others..



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I really do wish you all the best in adopting a child
.... and I really believe where there's a will, there's a way.

"If the laws were made a bit easier then things could be different." - by this are you talking about adoption laws? Would making abortion illegal help you in your quest to adopt a child? Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not, they will take place in backyard clinics instead, or there will be self attempts at terminating the pregnancy.

Also, while I recognise where you're coming from when you say you're trying to save babies, I would ask you to seriously consider that on the other side of the coin, you may be trying to save their lives only for them to be born into terrible situations of neglect, poverty and abuse.

Good luck to you and your wife
, but I really don't think that making abortion illegal is the answer.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by c_au
It doesnt make sense to be pro-war yet anti-abortion, several posts here already point out the contradiction and I would like to add further .

If the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent lives in pre-emptive strikes is justifiable in the interest of the greater good, and/or in the interest of self-preservation, then so is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy in the interest of the greater good and/or self-preservation also justifiable.


The idea is defense, which is in a different class. Personally I do not believe this war is a good idea, and am against the death penalty to boot.

War is unavoidable, because even if we live to a higher standard, others do not. What's the point? If the difference between global politics, and domestic crime are not apparent, then we have a problem.


To people who make it their business to criticize women, doctors and staff in abortion clinics,
unless you :
1) are never ever guilty of making a mistake
2) never ever have sex except for purposes of procreation
3) are absolutely fine about higher taxes to accommodate a substantial increase of the number of single mothers on welfare
4) can guarantee and find suitable and loving homes for each and everyone of those would-be babies
you have no business in meddling with a womans choice to have an abortion. Unless you are all of the above, you are being hypocritical, judgmental and irrational when you point a finger of condemnation.


Wrong.

1) No one says you can't make mistakes, but in this world, you tend to be responsible to carry the results of those mistakes. Same applies here.

2) I know that trying to stop premarital sex would be a ridiculous waste of time or attention. We can hope people use due diligence when doing anything that could endanger yourself or others, financially or physically.

3) Well, Welfare tends to be a bit of a scapegoat on both sides (issue depending). I know for a fact, that local programs are more efficient and hard hitting than anything the government has to offer. What's the point of huge federal social programs anyway? Nothing, just a wasteful but feel good measure.

4) I won't pretend to say that withdrawing abortion will not have heavy tolls, but there has to be a compromise. Allowing people to actually pay their bills will decrease the abortion rate, social program recipients, etc. If not done properly, we will all suffer I agree, but there is a solution to this problem.

Who said condemnation? Certainly not me. You may focus on the woman, but we tend to focus on the baby, so it's not really a congruent argument from the start. We are not trying to keep people down.


If you really do care about the lives of millions of children, how about .. channeling all that energy into positive action instead feed hungry children, clothe them, educate them, give them medical help if and when they need it; contribute to their physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing otherwise, really just get a life!


Well, working for change certainly helps, and I am all for change to aid the working people in this country by allowing them to use to most of the money they earn. Changing abortion needs to be coupled with economic release and the return of people's income.

That way, it's not only the aborted children I care about, but those who are kept.

My wife was certainly in a big place to get an abortion. She didn't and I accepted this boy as my son in every sense (although not the biological father). We've been married almost 2 years and have a 16 month old and one due in March (yeah, I'm a machine baby!).

It can and is being done. We (certainly my wife and I) ask nothing more than what we have ourselves done. We understand very well only being able to eat what the church food pantry gives up. It hurts, and it's hard, but Americans are tough people (or once were).

You've always had to fight to get what you want. Somewhere along the line, people got spoiled I guess. Fill their bellies and empty their minds I've heard.

The derivative is love, not hate. I do apologize for those on my side that act like jerks, and tend to get a bit overzealous. Condemning these women is the last thing we should be doing.

Hell, we should be helping them.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by c_au
"If the laws were made a bit easier then things could be different." - by this are you talking about adoption laws? Would making abortion illegal help you in your quest to adopt a child?

you may be trying to save their lives only for them to be born into terrible situations of neglect, poverty and abuse.

Good luck to you and your wife
, but I really don't think that making abortion illegal is the answer.


That is not why I am pro-life, it is a moral question for me, as to my wife and I, we will try and maybe succeed. The cost of the attorneys alone makes it a no go at this time, abortion being illegal would make the number available and the pro-lifers out there would give them homes unlike you would believe. Even those who have children. It is life and that should be saved if it can.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethroThe derivative is love, not hate. I do apologize for those on my side that act like jerks, and tend to get a bit overzealous. Condemning these women is the last thing we should be doing.Hell, we should be helping them.


I agree and I have not condemned them, they are the ones who have to deal with it for the rest of their lives and studies have shown that it is not easy to do.

If I seem overzealous then I apologize but mean the best for the rights of the unborn. They are Gods children or is you prefer, your children and should not be killed, I could live with the 3 case rule as it would stop 3/4 of these procedures, but it doesn't work that way, its all or none.

Partial Birth Abortion is a good example.....anyone ever see what actually happens? If the mothers life is in true danger then that is one thing but that is not normally the case.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
"4) I won't pretend to say that withdrawing abortion will not have heavy tolls, but there has to be a compromise. Allowing people to actually pay their bills will decrease the abortion rate, social program recipients, etc. If not done properly, we will all suffer I agree, but there is a solution to this problem."

....Fair enough, if this is the solution to a decrease in the abortion rate, then efforts to push for these changes will not be wasted?

From an earlier post "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."

If this is accurate, are there 30 million couples wanting to adopt who will provide suitable and loving homes ?

and ... of course it would be totally irresponsible to use abortion as the preferred method of birth control, but unwanted pregnancies can and do occur even with the practice of due diligence, and what about pregnancies that occur as a result of rape?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I know that there are millions of couples that would adopt.

As for the rape, that is less than 10% of the cases.


We need to start somewhere...



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Look we can argue about this forever ... are there accurate statistics that show 30 million couples want to adopt?

Should those 10% of rape victims not be allowed to choose to abort? My cousin was raped at the age of 14 by her own dad (not my blood relative) and fell pregnant as a result.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by c_au
Look we can argue about this forever ... are there accurate statistics that show 30 million couples want to adopt?

Should those 10% of rape victims not be allowed to choose to abort? My cousin was raped at the age of 14 by her own dad (not my blood relative) and fell pregnant as a result.


How about this, we allow it for rape and incest and mothers life ONLY. Would that be acceptable?

as for your other question , the better question is are their 1 million couples a year, yes. 30 Million over the last 30 years, yes. (IMHO)



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
And how does one go about proving they've been raped?

What would your standards be there?

It seems to be hard enough for a woman to prove she's been raped; the onus is still on her to present proof, and prove that she was not being suggestive, etc.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
And how does one go about proving they've been raped?

What would your standards be there?

It seems to be hard enough for a woman to prove she's been raped; the onus is still on her to present proof, and prove that she was not being suggestive, etc.


Well a police report for starters, that way it couldnt be used as an out by couples going opps, let kill the kid so we dont have to deal with it.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
For starters?

A police report isn't enough?

Does she also have to prove that she wasn't in some way asking for it?




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by parrhesia
And how does one go about proving they've been raped?

What would your standards be there?

It seems to be hard enough for a woman to prove she's been raped; the onus is still on her to present proof, and prove that she was not being suggestive, etc.


Well a police report for starters, that way it couldnt be used as an out by couples going opps, let kill the kid so we dont have to deal with it.



I would also like to add that hospitals usually have a sexual assault centre, where they gather up evidence. I had a friend who was raped a few years ago, sure she was out to party but that's not the kind of partying she expected. From my understanding, they put a pillow over her face, one guy held her down, the other one went up her skirt to remove her ,.. scratched both legs with his nails, ... they took a black light to see if there were any semen stains on her clothes or underwear, checked under her finger nails for skin, took pictures of the scratch marks on her legs, ... thats the kind of # they do to prove a rape case... some cases are harder then others... sometimes theirs no evidence at all except for a withdrawn distraught depressed woman.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join