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.

 

Abortion and Responsibilties That Follow

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
umm, I seem to remember a few parents on here speaking up against any ban on abortion....
me being one...




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Seamrog

Sexual consent laws are a topic for another thread.

In terms of abortions, it's "her body, her choice" in my book. Do I agree with people having abortions? Not really. But it's not MY place to tell people what they can and can't do with their own body.





Again, "ME, ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MY, MY, MY, MY, MINE, ME, MINE, ME!!!!"


You have no regard for the body of the defenseless child.

And NO, the consent argument is exactly, one-hundred percent the same. Either a child can consent, or a child cannot consent.



edit on 8-7-2015 by Seamrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Mugly

nope


prevent. not terminate




You can dance a dark path around semantics all you want, but you are living proof that from the moment of conception, and embryo is a distinct, individual human LIFE.

I find it a particularly cold evil that attempts to draw a line at when 'life begins,' when 7 billion walking examples are right in front of your narrow eyes.


not semantics at all.
theyre called facts.

i am 100% not living proof that life begins at conception.

keep saying it though. maybe it will be true tomorrow



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

i wonder what image people see in their mind when they think 'defenseless child'

does their mental image resemble a toddler or expired vaseline

just saying



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

I'm so sorry.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer
umm, I seem to remember a few parents on here speaking up against any ban on abortion....
me being one...





Yeah, that's why I didn't say all.

A damned shame, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Seamrog

Sexual consent laws are a topic for another thread.

In terms of abortions, it's "her body, her choice" in my book. Do I agree with people having abortions? Not really. But it's not MY place to tell people what they can and can't do with their own body.




Again, "ME, ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MY, MY, MY, MY, MINE, ME, MINE, ME!!!!"


You have no regard for the body of the defenseless child.




Ahem.

Until the umbilical cord is cut, it's still a PART of the woman's body. Thus, she can decide what to do with it. End of story.

I'm sick of conservative christians going on and on about "personal liberty" and "smaller government" and whatever other tripe they choose to digest from Alex Jones and Glenn Beck that week. Then go on about REMOVING the rights of a woman to decide what's best for their own damn body. And trying to pass laws which RESTRICT the rights of women. I guess "personal liberty" and "smaller government" only apply if you're a man.

ETA: Okay, so if the child cannot consent to the sex, why then is she responsible for the life growing inside her? She didn't consent to any of it, right?
edit on 8-7-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: Added more after reading Seamrog's edit



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

A woman should have the freedom to do whatever she wants with her body.

But the body of the unborn baby? That's another person. That's another life.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mugly

i am 100% not living proof that life begins at conception.

keep saying it though. maybe it will be true tomorrow




LOL. The gymnastics relativists have to go through to deny natural law.

Bruce Jenner can keep calling himself Sally all he want too - he'll still be Bruce in the morning, and you'll still be demonstrably wrong.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

A woman should have the freedom to do whatever she wants with her body.

But the body of the unborn baby? That's another person. That's another life.




NOPE. "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MY, MY, MY, MY, MINE, ME, MINE, ME!!!!"


No child's right to breathe shall come between her and her uterus!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

People will stand moral high grounds until it comes down to finance and time, then they get all quiet and look the other way.


I'm not touching this topic with a thousand foot pole, but trying to argue the morality of this position, or the lack thereof, by pointing out that it's prohibitively expensive and time consuming to take care of the world's obscene number of unwanted children is a rather explicit statement of money and time being worth more than life.

And that seems a rather odd position to take when showing other people the hypocrisy of their positions...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Until the umbilical cord is cut, it's still a PART of the woman's body. Thus, she can decide what to do with it. End of story.





YUP - this is the Culture of Death.


Congratz!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Until the umbilical cord is cut, it's still a PART of the woman's body. Thus, she can decide what to do with it. End of story.





YUP - this is the Culture of Death.


Congratz!


Call it what you want, sunshine. But it's legal in the United States. And you ain't changing it anytime soon.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Call it what you want, sunshine.




It is correctly called MURDER.


The Supreme Court can never trump natural law, or it's Creator.


Nor can any woman, no matter how much she wants to celebrate it.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

and you are so sure that the decision is being based on
"ME, ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MY, MY, MY, MY, MINE, ME, MINE, ME!!!!"?
nothing more, it's all about what the women wants? what her living kids may have depended on her didn't matter one little bit. the discouraged husband working a full time and a part time job struggling to support the family he has muttering how he didn't know how he was gonna afford another child just didn't matter...
nope!! it's all about the me me mine mine selfishness and greed!!!

ya know what?? if I could assure myself that there was a way to actually prevent women from being required to sacrifice their health, their life, the well being of the children already in this world, I would agree...
there comes a time when abortion should be controlled more...
but I am not hearing that! I am not seeing it in the world where in countries that have bans court battles go on just to convince judges that nine year old kids deserve an exemption when they are carrying twins because of incest and an army of doctors are claiming it will kill the kid, or when young women die from infections cause by being forced to carry dead fetuses!
nor can I assure myself of that when I read word like yours!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

And here comes the God arguments. That didn't take long.

Thanks for showing once again that you're incapable of independent thought and feebly cling to what a 2,000 year old book tells you is "moral".

Gonna go stone some harlots next?

I hear someone worked on the Sabbath last week! You should probably kill them too.

Funny, the bible talks so much about killing people for various slights to God. I wonder who REALLY worships death in this thread.

Food for thought. Though, considering our history corresponding with one another, you'll probably slap the plate out of my hand.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Nope, whine all you want - my point stands with or without God.

You have no consideration for the right of a defenseless child to breathe.

I do.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Being that the vast majority of abortions are matters of convenience, and have nothing to do with any argument you have posted here, it still ignores the point that the women arguing that it is their 'right' to murder children do so because it is "their body."

"ME, ME, ME!"

I know it ruffles a lot of feathers - it SHOULD.

It is the epitome of ugly.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog
well according to "God's Law" women are to be subservient to the men, so well where do you get off saying that the women shouldn't be having sex if she didn't want to have kids....



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

He is beating himself up because he is a closet gay man btw.
i think he needs to come out and be who God made him to be.




top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join