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: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TheChrome




That is not true


Well you can't both be correct.

if a really embarrassing or nasty part of the OT is brought up that is when they say the OT doesn't apply.


There is no embarrassing part of the OT. Everything has a basis, a story, a point in which a casual observer will not understand without a thorough study.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.


Science will solve this by having the ability to turn off reproduction until the person is ready, or even one day, is proven capable to support their children. I know that to have children is a right today no matter how inept a person/couple is, but I see a time when it becomes a privilege that will need to be earned instead.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.


No, not really. The idea that the NT supersedes yet compliments the OT is found in the NT itself, and it was held by the early Christians at a time when no one found the OT nasty or embarrassing, because people were still doing the same stuff (killing people, enslaving people, etc. etc.) It's pretty basic Christianity really, but most people don't take the time to understand basic Christianity.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



So what you are saying is, we should murder unborn children because they may or may not be wanted. This instead of good people stepping up and taking care of children no matter of the circumstance. Having the balls to be a real person, and not chicken out on responsibility like the twisted selfish aborting people want to do!



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



So what you are saying is, we should murder unborn children because they may or may not be wanted. This instead of good people stepping up and taking care of children no matter of the circumstance. Having the balls to be a real person, and not chicken out on responsibility like the twisted selfish aborting people want to do!


What is your personal experience in this matter?

Are you male or female?

Have children?

A teen daughter that got pregnant?

Religious?

Or just a self righteous idealist?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.


Science will solve this by having the ability to turn off reproduction until the person is ready, or even one day, is proven capable to support their children. I know that to have children is a right today no matter how inept a person/couple is, but I see a time when it becomes a privilege that will need to be earned instead.


I go with getting a license to reproduce. Proving that you can both emotionally and financially raise a child to adulthood.

Here's a site on Male contraceptives. How many men are willing to be responsible for not getting pregnant. How many men are willing to take a pill full of hormones, that might have side effects, etc. Or a shot that's stops pregnancy by changing something in your body?

www.malecontraceptives.org...
edit on 17-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Or a shot that's stops pregnancy by changing something in your body?



Annee, science will get better. Males and females will have their reproduction capabilities turned off, abortions will become a thing of the past and populations will get under control. It is inevitable....


edit on 17-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



So what you are saying is, we should murder unborn children because they may or may not be wanted. This instead of good people stepping up and taking care of children no matter of the circumstance. Having the balls to be a real person, and not chicken out on responsibility like the twisted selfish aborting people want to do!


What is your personal experience in this matter?

Are you male or female?

Have children?

A teen daughter that got pregnant?

Religious?

Or just a self righteous idealist?


It makes no difference who I am, or what my experience is. I have difficulty answering a question about self righteousness, when it should be a common human instinct to take care of children regardless of preference or circumstance. This is what is disgusting and pathetic about uncaring sickos.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
Or a shot that's stops pregnancy by changing something in your body?



Annee, science will get better. Males and females will have their reproduction capabilities turned off, abortions will become a thing of the past and populations will get under control. It is inevitable....



I dunno. Religion keeps getting in the way of science and logic. So much time wasted.

There has been suggestion that every baby boy have a vasectomy at birth.

I'd kind of like some choice before desperation makes it inevitable.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



So what you are saying is, we should murder unborn children because they may or may not be wanted. This instead of good people stepping up and taking care of children no matter of the circumstance. Having the balls to be a real person, and not chicken out on responsibility like the twisted selfish aborting people want to do!


What is your personal experience in this matter?

Are you male or female?

Have children?

A teen daughter that got pregnant?

Religious?

Or just a self righteous idealist?


It makes no difference who I am, or what my experience is. I have difficulty answering a question about self righteousness, when it should be a common human instinct to take care of children regardless of preference or circumstance. This is what is disgusting and pathetic about uncaring sickos.


Exactly what I thought you'd say.

Male, right? Probably Christian.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent


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.


It's different, a baby outside the womb can breath, drink and eat alone, a fetus can't.

But however we may think and feel we have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies and how many kids they have. Is it immoral? Unfortunately you cannot decide people's morals, you cannot legislate morality in this area, regarding a fetus in the first trimester. It is the mother's choice and only hers to do what she wants to do with her body and life. Abortion has always existed and always will exist, whether we like it or not. Those women who want to have one will do so even if it is illegal.

We need to stop telling women what to do with their bodies and lives. We need to stop trying to regulate women's sexual lives by telling them they shouldn't have sex unless they are ready for the consequences. Women are not other people's property. Women only belong to themselves and they are the only ones who should choose how they want to live their lives.


edit on 17-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You call out hypocrisy, I call out the lack of respect for human life.



Lack of respect for human life? Are you kidding me?

There are thousands of needy LIVING children who's lives are not valued. Respect for human life would be finding homes for these children. Feeding and educating them to be contributors to society.

Not adding to them with more unwanted children.



So what you are saying is, we should murder unborn children because they may or may not be wanted. This instead of good people stepping up and taking care of children no matter of the circumstance. Having the balls to be a real person, and not chicken out on responsibility like the twisted selfish aborting people want to do!


What is your personal experience in this matter?

Are you male or female?

Have children?

A teen daughter that got pregnant?

Religious?

Or just a self righteous idealist?


It makes no difference who I am, or what my experience is. I have difficulty answering a question about self righteousness, when it should be a common human instinct to take care of children regardless of preference or circumstance. This is what is disgusting and pathetic about uncaring sickos.


Exactly what I thought you'd say.

Male, right? Probably Christian.


I don't know what that means. I would hope that whatever you imply, you would respect that I would take responsibility as a human being, to take care of another human being. Asking if I am male or Christian is like me asking if you are a NAZI Transexual Eskimo



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
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.


Ok. Fine. It was a bit of hyperbole. You got me.


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


All we can do is provide the education. It is up to the person whether they want to listen to it or not. Last I checked, rapes happen in cultures with or without sex education, so I think you are being a bit sensational by saying that sex education is going to lead to more rapes.


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


I mean if you want to present it as the only FAIL SAFE option, I don't mind, but to say it is the only safe option is a misnomer. Just because contraceptives have a fail rate doesn't make them unsafe. Plus if both the man and the woman use them, then it drastically cuts the odds of pregnancy down.


Can't have both...


You're right. You got to find a balance, legalized abortions IS that balance. I can support the woman's right to choose to have an abortion but not support getting abortions on my own. It's pretty simple really. If getting abortions is TRULY an affront to god because it is murder, then the women who get them will answer for that when the time is right. No need to make them suffer now.


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.)


Soldiers aren't producers though. They are only consumers. So soldiers don't generate wealth at all. The more we have, the more they drain the wealth of the country. Look at Rome. One of the reasons it fell was because once it started to transition to a stable empire instead of always expanding, it started to fall apart because it couldn't maintain its armies. Your solution is probably the start of creating an authoritarian state. No country needs a standing army of millions of soldiers.


Hey, they'll be military, not policemen!


Great, so they won't be ruthlessly beating us, they'll be ruthlessly beating foreigners. SO much better.


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


What? Please tell me this is a joke. I mean Sparta was pretty cool, but we don't need the modern equivalent of a Sparta in this day and age. Especially with nuclear weapons on the table.


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.


We'd have to completely rebuild society from the ground up. This would have to start with people's values and traditions then move onto dismantling governments. It just isn't feasible in this day and age.


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.


I know we aren't perfect, but I'd like to say that our time offers more freedoms to more people than any other time in the history of the world. That goes for the entire 1st world, not just the US.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.


That's not fair to say. You don't know every woman's circumstances that warrants them getting an abortion and to think that every woman who gets an abortion is a bad mother is certainly a bad approximation. Sometimes abortion is the ONLY choice.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
originally posted by: Agartha



It's different, a baby outside the womb can breath, drink and eat alone, a fetus can't.


But this is also true of lots of people *after* they are born.



But however we may think and feel we have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies and how many kids they have. Is it immoral? Unfortunately you cannot decide people's morals, you cannot legislate morality in this area, regarding a fetus in the first trimester. It is the mother's choice and only hers to do what she wants to do with her body and life. Abortion has always existed and always will exist, whether we like it or not. Those women who want to have one will do so even if it is illegal.


We legislate morality in plenty of other areas...



We need to stop telling women what to do with their bodies and lives. We need to stop trying to regulate women's sexual lives by telling them they shouldn't have sex unless they are ready for the consequences.


Doesn't that seem like it could end up hurting women? I mean, we don't encourage people to drive cars or fly planes or drink alcohol unless they are mature enough to be understand the consequences.



Women are not other people's property. Women only belong to themselves and they are the only ones who should choose how they want to live their lives.


Good old John Locke, I see. He would disapprove.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Ok. Fine. It was a bit of hyperbole. You got me.


Swell.



All we can do is provide the education. It is up to the person whether they want to listen to it or not. Last I checked, rapes happen in cultures with or without sex education, so I think you are being a bit sensational by saying that sex education is going to lead to more rapes.


I don't think sex ed leads to more rapes. I think a culture that thinks that sex should be easily had does. I don't think this is because of sex ed, but I think if sex ed is mishandled, it can feed that culture by normalizing it.



I mean if you want to present it as the only FAIL SAFE option, I don't mind, but to say it is the only safe option is a misnomer. Just because contraceptives have a fail rate doesn't make them unsafe. Plus if both the man and the woman use them, then it drastically cuts the odds of pregnancy down.


Did you read the link? Planned Parenthood wasn't referring to people not having babies, they were talking about the other health benefits of abstaining from sex until you are past your teenage years. I see no other way to pick up on those health benefits, do you?



You're right. You got to find a balance, legalized abortions IS that balance. I can support the woman's right to choose to have an abortion but not support getting abortions on my own. It's pretty simple really. If getting abortions is TRULY an affront to god because it is murder, then the women who get them will answer for that when the time is right. No need to make them suffer now.


OK, but *if* that's the case, what about the kids? We're gonna die and go to the afterlife and they'll be like "you sick puppies left us to die." (Like this) That doesn't just hurt the women, that reflects poorly on the entire society. And also kills the kids.




Soldiers aren't producers though. They are only consumers. So soldiers don't generate wealth at all. The more we have, the more they drain the wealth of the country. Look at Rome. One of the reasons it fell was because once it started to transition to a stable empire instead of always expanding, it started to fall apart because it couldn't maintain its armies. Your solution is probably the start of creating an authoritarian state. No country needs a standing army of millions of soldiers.


But authoritarian states are awesome! (not)
Yeah, I do agree with you there. In theory, my plan would free up most of the people who are soldiers now to be producers. But in reality, it would be a terrible plan. Still more useful than killing kids, though.




What? Please tell me this is a joke. I mean Sparta was pretty cool, but we don't need the modern equivalent of a Sparta in this day and age. Especially with nuclear weapons on the table.


Yes and no. Sparta had some good aspects. But they mostly had bad ones. I would have preferred it if the Athenians won.



We'd have to completely rebuild society from the ground up. This would have to start with people's values and traditions then move onto dismantling governments. It just isn't feasible in this day and age.


Yeah, it is. It takes a long time, but completely overhauling people's attitudes towards life and longstanding beliefs can happen. It just doesn't usually happen from the top-down. We're at the apex of such a shift as we speak.



I know we aren't perfect, but I'd like to say that our time offers more freedoms to more people than any other time in the history of the world. That goes for the entire 1st world, not just the US.


I respectfully disagree; I think that was true recently, but we've shifted our trajectory. Ever since 9/11, the world has been going to hell in a hand basket. People's freedoms in the US have been going, people in Canada and Britain have been denied the right to free speech, Spain has cracked down on journalist's freedom to do their jobs, places like France and Switzerland have been passing laws aimed at restricting the religious expression of Muslims, Germans have been denied the freedom to homeschool.

We were looking much better two decades ago.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You do realize it doesn't really matter, right?

Anybody can think rationally. People may have more credibility because of their experience in certain matters, but as a general rule suggesting that people's arguments are irrelevant because of their gender or religion is a straight up ad hominem, and a rather offensive one at that. Attack the argument, not the arguer.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I don't think sex ed leads to more rapes. I think a culture that thinks that sex should be easily had does. I don't think this is because of sex ed, but I think if sex ed is mishandled, it can feed that culture by normalizing it.


Why? What evidence do you have to base this reasoning on? I mean, psychology only says the EXACT opposite. That sexual repression is what leads to more rapes and assaults. If you want someone to believe your musings, you are going to have to back that up with actual scientific data and evidence, because to me, that looks like baseless fearmongering.


Did you read the link? Planned Parenthood wasn't referring to people not having babies, they were talking about the other health benefits of abstaining from sex until you are past your teenage years. I see no other way to pick up on those health benefits, do you?


10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex

Like I said, abstinence only gets the label of being the only option that can't lead to pregnancy. I would never discourage someone not to have sex though.


OK, but *if* that's the case, what about the kids? We're gonna die and go to the afterlife and they'll be like "you sick puppies left us to die." (Like this) That doesn't just hurt the women, that reflects poorly on the entire society. And also kills the kids.


Well since abortions have been happening forever, this conversation has likely happened throughout eternity. So whatever. I only care if a woman I get pregnant has an abortion though.


But authoritarian states are awesome! (not)
Yeah, I do agree with you there. In theory, my plan would free up most of the people who are soldiers now to be producers. But in reality, it would be a terrible plan. Still more useful than killing kids, though.


Yea, instead of killing kids we are having them grow up to be instruments of death. TOTALLY more useful.


Yeah, it is. It takes a long time, but completely overhauling people's attitudes towards life and longstanding beliefs can happen. It just doesn't usually happen from the top-down. We're at the apex of such a shift as we speak.


Of course it can happen. It has been happening since the 60's with the civil rights movement then before that with women's sufferage.


I respectfully disagree; I think that was true recently, but we've shifted our trajectory. Ever since 9/11, the world has been going to hell in a hand basket. People's freedoms in the US have been going, people in Canada and Britain have been denied the right to free speech, Spain has cracked down on journalist's freedom to do their jobs, places like France and Switzerland have been passing laws aimed at restricting the religious expression of Muslims, Germans have been denied the freedom to homeschool.


Bull crap. That is just dystopian paranoia. Our country has just extended the right for gays to marry, since 9/11 they've also overturned laws that made it illegal to be gay. Drug laws are being reconsidered and we are likely on the cusp of totally legalizing marijuana. Freedom of speech is more widespread than ever in this country with the expansion of social media.

The government since Bush left office has also been getting less repressive like it was at the height of the Iraq war. You don't hear about goofy TSA abuses anymore. Our country is definitely coming back from the brink. Things got dark for a while, but they are brightening up again.

By saying that the country or world since 9/11 has been getting worse is just only looking at the bad and ignoring all the good that has happened. Again, things aren't perfect, but they've DEFINITELY been worse.


We were looking much better two decades ago.


In 1995, the best we could do for gays was tell them not to tell anyone they were gay so that they could join the military. Marijuana could EASILY land you in life in prison. Things were nice in the 90's (I know, I remember them too), but there were things we have now that we didn't have then. Things may have been better for YOU in the 90's, but that doesn't mean that they were better for everyone.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t


I don't think sex ed leads to more rapes. I think a culture that thinks that sex should be easily had does. I don't think this is because of sex ed, but I think if sex ed is mishandled, it can feed that culture by normalizing it.

Why? What evidence do you have to base this reasoning on? I mean, psychology only says the EXACT opposite.


No...a dude who writes for Psychology Today says that.



That sexual repression is what leads to more rapes and assaults. If you want someone to believe your musings, you are going to have to back that up with actual scientific data and evidence, because to me, that looks like baseless fear mongering.


This isn't difficult. If people *mishandle* sexual education, as I specifically said, it's not surprising that it's going to give people wrong ideas.




10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex


Your link didn't address the downsides of having sex in one's teenage years. You're avoiding the point.



Like I said, abstinence only gets the label of being the only option that can't lead to pregnancy. I would never discourage someone not to have sex though.


Well, it *is* the only method that's 100% accurate.



Well since abortions have been happening forever, this conversation has likely happened throughout eternity. So whatever. I only care if a woman I get pregnant has an abortion though.


How...civic minded of you




Yea, instead of killing kids we are having them grow up to be instruments of death. TOTALLY more useful.


Yes. Someone has to do it.



Of course it can happen. It has been happening since the 60's with the civil rights movement then before that with women's sufferage.


That's more like it.




Bull crap. That is just dystopian paranoia. Our country has just extended the right for gays to marry, since 9/11 they've also overturned laws that made it illegal to be gay. Drug laws are being reconsidered and we are likely on the cusp of totally legalizing marijuana. Freedom of speech is more widespread than ever in this country with the expansion of social media.


You were speaking of the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the world as a whole. And you're throwing out a few more freedoms gained for a few, not addressee the massive freedoms lost for many. And I forgot to mention the growing repression of freedom in Russia.



The government since Bush left office has also been getting less repressive like it was at the height of the Iraq war. You don't hear about goofy TSA abuses anymore. Our country is definitely coming back from the brink. Things got dark for a while, but they are brightening up again.

By saying that the country or world since 9/11 has been getting worse is just only looking at the bad and ignoring all the good that has happened. Again, things aren't perfect, but they've DEFINITELY been worse.


This is USA-centric, whereas before you were talking about the world....


In 1995, the best we could do for gays was tell them not to tell anyone they were gay so that they could join the military. Marijuana could EASILY land you in life in prison. Things were nice in the 90's (I know, I remember them too), but there were things we have now that we didn't have then. Things may have been better for YOU in the 90's, but that doesn't mean that they were better for everyone.


See above ^



new topics




 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join