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.

 

The hypocrisy of the pro-life argument

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Jesus Christ, people, can you please read the entire thread before crucifying me???

I did read the entire thread. Jesus Christ, people, can you not pull your head out of your propaganda?



That response was in regards to a comment that implied that ALL of the students in a high school should take turns being in that daycare--this would be a terrible idea


If high-schoolers don't have experience taking care of babies - because you forbid it ----- then how will they become knowledgeable about how to raise children???????

And - I'm not a 'dude'. Besides that, you think they would be UNSUPERVISED?

Ridiculous.

Calm down.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t


I wasn't saying that either. I said that teenagers WILL have sex. I didn't say anything about all of them. So no I didn't.


You said in your OP that

no teenager likes abstinence
. So, yes, when I said

I was saying you were wrong when you insisted that all teenagers wanted to have sex.
I was representing you accurately.



Government education is standardized buddy.


But people aren't. That's why it sucks.



I have nothing against abstinence as a choice. It's when it is presented as the ONLY option that I have a problem with it.


Fair enough. So let's present it as the only safe option as a reasonable compromise




Ok well then that is what I want. Safety and the ability to enjoy life.


Can't have both...



Have you actually done the numbers on this or are you just making them up in your head?


It's my usual tongue-in-cheek alternative to abortion. I think it's actually a terrible plan, but it strikes me as a more useful thing to do with unwanted children than kill them. Population growth is good, not bad; the more people, the more workers; the more workers, the more wealth is created. (That's oversimplified, of course, but it's more or less true that a nation's strength is in it's population; the more babies, the more workers, and soldiers; the more workers and soldiers, the more technological and scientific advancements, wealth creation, and, of course, safety from foreign threats. Obviously overpopulation is a problem but I am confident in scientific advances to deal with that issue as it becomes a problem.)



Plus we already have a problem with police brutality because of the police being disconnected from the neighborhoods they are supposed to police, and you want to add tons of people to the national register whose ENTIRE lifetime has been training to fight a war? Yea, THAT'S going to go over well.


Hey, they'll be military, not policemen!



I feel like I just had a trailer for a horror movie flash through my head. There is PLENTY that could go wrong. Not to mention, why would we need all these soldiers? There are millions of abortions each year, if every one of those became a super-soldier instead, we'd be CRAWLING in soldiers in this country. We'd basically become Sparta.


And Sparta was...AWESOME! We could spread democracy to all ends of the earth




Well it's a TAD harder to structure a country of 300 million people to work like ancient tribal cultures you know?


Not really. The ancient tribal culture's "structured" themselves that way, the structure wasn't imposed from the top-down. If people today wanted to take care of their families, they could, no big deal. Lots of people still do it.



Ancient Cultures only rocked if you were one of the people on top. Even the Romans still mistreated non-Romans that immigrated to their empire. Now you are applying rose colored glasses to things you don't understand.


No, I'm not. The ancient cultures had a lot of sucky stuff (for example, no air conditioning, crucifixion, slavery.) But we still mistreat "non-Romans" who immigrate to our "empire." We may have done away with slavery but we've replaced it with the criminalization of non-violent offenses. We have the most advanced medical care in history, and we die needlessly from drinking, tobacco, and drug overdoses. Lots of people today would say that modern culture only rocks if you're one of the people on top. I'd say they're suffering from lack of perspective, but so are the people today who like to pick on the cultures that invented stuff like justice under the law, philosophy, literature, and the clock. The wheel goes round and round, and for all the gains we've made, it hasn't all been progress.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Slapmonkey I am not assuming anything, I'm just generalizing trying to make my point clear, don't take it personal, I can see you are a good guy.

And I am certainly not trying to tell you what to do with other people's children, quite the opposite: I am asking you not to tell others what to do with their bodies or their potential children. See, nobody likes to be told what to do, same with women who have abortions, they know what they are doing, their body, their choice.

I love children and I have been blessed with three and would always feel blessed with more, but not everybody feels the same. We need to understand that. A baby is a 'potential' human being, I know it sounds horrible, but it is. The mother is a human being and to me her welfare and wellbeing comes first. It may sound heartless, but that's the truth.

And a fetus in the first trimester cannot survive by itself, can only survive whilst being attached to the mother, which makes it part of her, part of her body and women should have the right to control what they do with their bodies (and future) without anybody else telling them. It is her right to decide. Her choice and only hers.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: SlapMonkey



And a fetus in the first trimester cannot survive by itself, can only survive whilst being attached to the mother, which makes it part of her, part of her body and women should have the right to control what they do with their bodies (and future) without anybody else telling them. It is her right to decide. Her choice and only hers.


Isn't this true of newborns though? Without artificial involvement, it will die if it cannot breastfeed. And scientifically, if the baby's DNA is separate from the mother, wouldn't that make it a separate organism?

Methinks this is one of the weaker lines of reasoning in the pro-choice movement.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Well put, OP.
I'd also like to point out the ridiculousness of ALL sides to continue to believe they are having any kind of rational debate, while utilizing the labels "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life." This has bugged me since R v W.
While somewhat generalizing the positions of either "side," it's clear to anyone that "Life" is not the opposite of "Choice," and vice-versa.
Those who are "Pro Choice" are not "Pro Death," or "Anti Life."
However, those who are "Pro Life" are most certainly against individual freedom of CHOICE.
This should be a sign for most, but somehow, it's just ok with everyone.
I know it's semantics but like I said, always bugged me.

That being said, it was weird to grow up going to a high-school with a day care but having to wait til I was 16 to apply to get a license to drive. And it's sad to watch people I know who are financially stable and would be great parents struggle and fight to adopt, while others who would be homeless without government assistance are pregnant again.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

A newborn can survive by being fed by anyone, not just the mother.

Does it really matter whether there is separate DNA? The fact is, the woman has a right to have something removed from her own body. Now, we could pass a law that says the first trimester fetus must be delivered intact, but what good would that do? It won't survive no matter who is willing to feed it.
edit on 16-7-2015 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: StalkerSolent

A newborn can survive by being fed by anyone, not just the mother.


No, not really, unless you resort to artificial means as I pointed out.



Does it really matter whether there is separate DNA? The fact is, the woman has a right to have something removed from her own body.


How is that a "fact?" You say these things, but I don't think they mean what you think they do. I've never woken up and been like, "By Jove, I have the right to have something removed from my body! It is the will of the gods!" If it's a fact, *prove* it. It should be indisputable.

And it matters that it has separate DNA for the purposes of the specific argument that I was responding to. Your argument, which would involve a new and rather interesting right of "having things removed from one's body" (I presume that it is gender-neutral?) is a...slightly different take on things.



Now, we could pass a law that says the first trimester fetus must be delivered intact, but what good would that do? It won't survive no matter who is willing to feed it.


But would things change if medical technology catches up to the point where it could survive?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent


No, not really, unless you resort to artificial means as I pointed out.


I fed my newborn formula. Is that considered artificial? My husband fed her formula too, as did my mother and my mother-in-law.



How is that a "fact?" You say these things, but I don't think they mean what you think they do. I've never woken up and been like, "By Jove, I have the right to have something removed from my body! It is the will of the gods!" If it's a fact, *prove* it. It should be indisputable.


I'm sorry if you don't think you have the right to have something removed from your body. I guess you don't think you have the right to breath air either. That sounds like a personal problem to me.



But would things change if medical technology catches up to the point where it could survive?


Yes, things could change if the fetus was considered viable at a younger gestational age. It wouldn't mean that the woman couldn't remove it, it would just mean it couldn't be aborted in the usual way.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
originally posted by: kaylaluv



I fed my newborn formula. Is that considered artificial? My husband fed her formula too, as did my mother and my mother-in-law.


Yeah, that's what I meant




I'm sorry if you don't think you have the right to have something removed from your body. I guess you don't think you have the right to breath air either. That sounds like a personal problem to me.


Hold on a second! If I run into the emergency room, and I ask them to pull out my liver, and they laugh at me (or cuss me out) are my rights being violated?



Yes, things could change if the fetus was considered viable at a younger gestational age. It wouldn't mean that the woman couldn't remove it, it would just mean it couldn't be aborted in the usual way.


Why not?
edit on 16-7-2015 by StalkerSolent because: Formatting...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme

An egg does not have a functioning brain. Neither does an embryo with an undeveloped brain.


Well it is alive and functioning at the level of its development as every human has done...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I realize this INTIMATELY. That's why I can't understand why you'd want to NOT have abortions. Paying for an abortion is FAR cheaper than subsidizing that child's childhood because the mother kept the child but was unable to afford to live without being on welfare.


I'm not against abortions as much as using it as first choice. Women that do this I fear do not have much value in the future for the children they do have.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Hopefully one day scientists will design an incubator that can support a fetus until it can live on its own.

At that point we will find out if the issue is really about lives.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Here is the true Hypocrisy:

Christians are neither conservative nor liberal, for there is no difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to biblical principals:

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder"

Conservatives, as defined by modern society support war and defense. War & Defense=Murder
Liberals, as defined by modern society support abortion. Abortion=Murder.

My best friend growing up was a product of date rape. Imagine his mother was so selfish to abort him (common argument) and deny him of life. Both of these sides need to be educated by the principals of the Bible!



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Interesting.


I have heard from both Conservative and Liberal that the NT replaced the OT and I am certain that Exodus is OT.


Usually they say that when issues of abominable acts in the OT are brought up like rape, incest, murder, slavery and genocide.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome

Interesting.


I have heard from both Conservative and Liberal that the NT replaced the OT and I am certain that Exodus is OT.



That is not true, the OT and NT compliment each other. For instance, the first prophecy in the Bible is in the OT at Genesis 3:15. Not only is it the first prophecy, but it is also the last prophecy to be fully fulfilled in all the scriptures including the NT.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome




That is not true


Well you can't both be correct.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome




That is not true


Well you can't both be correct.


When they say "replace" I think they're trying to explain some sorta complicated theology very quickly. I doubt there's much actual doctrinal disagreement between what The Chrome says and what you've heard.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome




That is not true


Well you can't both be correct.


When they say "replace" I think they're trying to explain some sorta complicated theology very quickly. I doubt there's much actual doctrinal disagreement between what The Chrome says and what you've heard.


The beauty of the truth is it's simplicity, which is why it is overlooked.

Matthew 10:8 "Freely you have received, freely give."

Name one religion that has no paid employees or ministers, and you shall find the truth.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome




That is not true


Well you can't both be correct.


When they say "replace" I think they're trying to explain some sorta complicated theology very quickly. I doubt there's much actual doctrinal disagreement between what The Chrome says and what you've heard.


I am pretty sure that just means people are picking and choosing what they want to follow if it benefits their argument, but if a really embarrassing or nasty part of the OT is brought up that is when they say the OT doesn't apply.




top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join