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.

 

Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

page: 19
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Oh come on, this isn't a binary solution. Abortions happen at various times - many during the early stages, when the foetus isn't very developed at all and therefore can't de described as viable, let alone as human. Late term abortions are rarer but are sadly necessary when the life of the mother is at risk or in other circumstances. People who want to ban abortions drive me nuts as they seem to think that conception results in a tiny human being appearing in the womb. It doesn't - it's a collection of cells that might develop into a baby.
All of which is besides the point if you're a man - we have no idea what a woman goes through in pregnancy so we are utterly unqualified to comment. Oh and if I see one more congressional hearing about abortion or contraception in which a bunch of old men and priests whitter on about the morality of it all I'll explode. They are totally and utterly unqualified to comment. Unless it's on the latest prostate cancer medication. Bunch of hypocritical assholes.

edit on 27-8-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?

If not, why not?
edit on 13Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:01:44 -050014p012014866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?

If not, why not?


That's naturally occurring right?

Like a heart attack or stroke would kill.

Or is there a "difference" in your learned opinion?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I'm pretty sure the father, unless the pregnancy was due to criminal action, ought to have some input on the matter. It takes two.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If life begins at conception, in the case of spontaneous abortion (which occurs in about 50% of fertilized ova), is the mother to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter then?

If not, why not?


That makes no sense. Sometimes stuff just happens. Murder or manslaughter involves intent. If grandma falls down the stairs, you don't go to jail. If you push grandma down the stairs, you go to jail. Same grandma, same stairs, same end result, but different intent.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

LOL

Are you trying to insinuate that when a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, naturally, which is about 50% of the time, it's akin to heart attack or a stroke?

Fate of a Fertilized Egg: Why Some Embryos Don't Implant



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

LOL

Are you trying to insinuate that when a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, naturally, which is about 50% of the time, it's akin to heart attack or a stroke?

Fate of a Fertilized Egg: Why Some Embryos Don't Implant


Somehow I knew somebody would mis-interpret like that !!!




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Oh come on, this isn't a binary solution. Abortions happen at various times - many during the early stages, when the foetus isn't very developed at all and therefore can't de described as viable, let alone as human. Late term abortions are rarer but are sadly necessary when the life of the mother is at risk or in other circumstances. People who want to ban abortions drive me nuts as they seem to think that conception results in a tiny human being appearing in the womb. It doesn't - it's a collection of cells that might develop into a baby.
All of which is besides the point if you're a man - we have no idea what a woman goes through in pregnancy so we are utterly unqualified to comment. Oh and if I see one more congressional hearing about abortion or contraception in which a bunch of old men and priests whitter on about the morality of it all I'll explode. They are totally and utterly unqualified to comment. Unless it's on the latest prostate cancer medication. Bunch of hypocritical assholes.


Several valid points. You don't have a tiny baby at the moment of conception. You have a couple of cells--no brain, no heart, no response to stimulae. One cannot call that an individual.

Every individual has a right to self defense and self preservation, so I can't see logic of banning abortion when the health and safety of the mother is the issue even if the baby or fetus involved has a brain.

I don't see the relevance of gender or being able to empathize with a pregnant woman has to do with the law though. The law is supposed to be neutral and not based on emotion, but on facts.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.


Except that it's not WITHIN another person's body. That IS the difference.


Pro-abortionists don't want to consider personhood outside the arbitrary passage through six inches of birth canal because they don't even want to consider any sort of restriction and it is much easier to kill what one keeps dehumanized.


That's where you're failing. NO ONE is "pro-abortion". We are Pro-choice. I would not have an abortion, but I am pro-choice. I refuse to make that choice for someone else. You're not getting it because you're not willing to. It's really NONE of your business what ANY woman does with her body, yet you stick your nose in like some authoritarian man who knows better than the woman, herself. It's really disgusting.



I find some valid points but also some blind refusal to think on both sides of this issue.


WTF are you talking about? I think life begins at conception. I am against abortion. But I make that determination for myself and no one else. If that's not thinking on both sides of the issue, I don't know what is!



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.


Except that it's not WITHIN another person's body. That IS the difference.


Pro-abortionists don't want to consider personhood outside the arbitrary passage through six inches of birth canal because they don't even want to consider any sort of restriction and it is much easier to kill what one keeps dehumanized.


That's where you're failing. NO ONE is "pro-abortion". We are Pro-choice. I would not have an abortion, but I am pro-choice. I refuse to make that choice for someone else. You're not getting it because you're not willing to. It's really NONE of your business what ANY woman does with her body, yet you stick your nose in like some authoritarian man who knows better than the woman, herself. It's really disgusting.



I find some valid points but also some blind refusal to think on both sides of this issue.


WTF are you talking about? I think life begins at conception. I am against abortion. But I make that determination for myself and no one else. If that's not thinking on both sides of the issue, I don't know what is!


It's not disgusting and it's not authoritarian. Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone--you can't because I haven't. All I have done is pose some deep questions and the very fact that you take deep umbrage to these questions and thoughts demonstrates that you really don't want to think about it. Like I said, people eon both sides of this take great offense to having their dogma questioned and that they react in a hostile manner and assume that you are trying to restrict them when you question is clear demonstration that the position is dogmatic, not rational. Life and death issues involve us all and it is rather arrogant to say "a man can't understand." I've never been raped, but I can clearly see why rape is wrong and I will always vote to keep rape illegal. Are you suggesting that, since I am not a woman, I cannot dislike rape? That is a silly premise.

Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Ok, so, you've decided to be obtuse?

That's fine.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Physiologically and logically, a baby in the womb is no different than a baby outside the womb one hour later.


Except that it's not WITHIN another person's body. That IS the difference.


But what is that difference that makes them not a person one moment and a person the next moment? The brain is the same. The heart is the same. The physiology is the same. Can you articulate why one is a person and the other is not? If dependency is the only difference, then why should a woman be arrested for killing her new born but could legally kill it the day before? That this is true makes no sense.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Are you suggesting that, since I am not a woman, I cannot dislike rape? That is a silly premise.


It's a silly premise to suggest only women can be raped to begin with.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
How did this topic ....




Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment


turn into another abortion debate? I'm not a mod and I don't really care!

I guess it just proves the volatility of almost anything sexual; especially to those with an agenda

edit on 27-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone


You've dictated all kinds of things to people that don't agree with you. You've dictated that self proclaimed progressives are really Marxist; that pro-choicer individuals are merely pro-abortionists who are irrational and have been blinded by their own dogma. According to you, they haven't employed critical thinking skill to the issue, which is why they need you to assist them into thinking "deeply" on a subject that you have dictated that they clearly don't understand.



Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.


Bullox! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying something is totally dependent on her, whether she's in her first trimester or in labor. Until that baby is BORN, it is still a part of her body, attached by an umbilical cord and a placenta. It relies on her blood, breath, heart, et al.

A child is an autonomous individual once it's born. Even if it's a preemie on respirator, it is living outside the womb. Viability is what's key here.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The thread went in this direction when it was suggested that criminalizing gay sex is much the same outlook as those who want to criminalize abortion and certain methods of contraception.


edit on 27-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Are you suggesting that, since I am not a woman, I cannot dislike rape? That is a silly premise.


It's a silly premise to suggest only women can be raped to begin with.


I think that you, however, get the point. One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




Please point out a single post where I dictated anything to anyone


You've dictated all kinds of things to people that don't agree with you. You've dictated that self proclaimed progressives are really Marxist; that pro-choicer individuals are merely pro-abortionists who are irrational and have been blinded by their own dogma. According to you, they haven't employed critical thinking skill to the issue, which is why they need you to assist them into thinking "deeply" on a subject that you have dictated that they clearly don't understand.



Inside another, outside another, independent, not dependent are not things that make someone a person or not. It's really a simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue.


Bullox! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying something is totally dependent on her, whether she's in her first trimester or in labor. Until that baby is BORN, it is still a part of her body, attached by an umbilical cord and a placenta. It relies on her blood, breath, heart, et al.

A child is an autonomous individual once it's born. Even if it's a preemie on respirator, it is living outside the womb. Viability is what's key here.





No, you only see that because you dislike me. I've said, throughout this debate, that BOTH sides of the issue have valid points and that people on BOTH sides tend to be dogmatic about their positions.

That is not a dictatorial stance. That is an observation. I have not dictated anything to anybody in this thread.

Where have I told anyone to do anything, except to think?

Perhaps that's the ultimate sin to some people--to suggest that the opposite side has a valid point.

My primary belief system includes the value of individual autonomy. It also includes the principle that you should not take a life without justification. This is the only issue where I see those principles come into conflict and I must admit it is a hard thing to wrap one's head around.

I've done nothing other than point out that this is a very complex issue and that both sides have both valid points and blind dogmatic points. You believe what you want to--you do nothing but. With that, I'm out.
edit on 27-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?


Is that your way of saying that you think that abortion is wrong, that you're against it, and that, even though your a man, who can't get pregnant or carry a baby, you still have the right to dictate what's right and wrong to women who disagree with you, and/or seek out abortions?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I think that you, however, get the point. One does not have to be a woman nor be a rape victim in order to understand that rape is wrong and to be against it, yes?


Yes, I think I know what you're saying. What I don't know is how this thread turned into an Abortion debate though.

Wasn't this about a Pastor wanting to throw Gays in jail for 10 years hard labor???

How did False Imprisonment of Gay's become a discussion about the Morality of Abortion??




top topics



 
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join