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: 15
42
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No crap, but it wasn't exactly a hot topic issue up until recently.


It was always a hot topic... It's just people like you who don't see why so many people don't like what is happening because you can't, or don't want to understand that we are talking about innocent human lives.


Then explain how countries with legal abortions have lower abortion rates than countries with illegal abortions.


People like you make excuses of "it's to save mankind, to save the Earth" and other idiocies to condone the murder of innocent human beings. But people like you are losing your humanity, soon enough more and more people like you will even agree that "it is ok to murder post-natal babies, after all, they don't have rights just like human fetuses don't have rights because they are not individuals yet"...


So? MY stance still results in less abortions overall. So I think I'm not to worried about how I feel about the situation.
edit on 21-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

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


Then work on your reading comprehension skills, please.



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.


Listen, dudette--people have been having babies for 100s of thousands of years. High school has only existed in the past few hundred years. I wonder how people learned to raise their children without high school daycare programs.

Hmmmm....I just can't figure that one out. /sarc

Also, I never said I thought that they would be unsupervised, I clarified to ensure the original HS daycare idea wasn't implying that they'd be unsupervised.

This goes back to that reading comprehension thing, dudette.
edit on 21-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I find it ironic that you would criticise Buzzy for reading comprehension and call her "dude" twice in the same post.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I find it ironic that you would criticise Buzzy for reading comprehension and call her "dude" twice in the same post.


Yeah, that's not reading comprehension, that's just me being an ass--major difference. But I did change it immediately after I posted it (and before I saw your comment), even though having grown up in California, we called everyone "dude," regardless of gender. It was meant to be provocative because I'm tired of people misinterpreting things I say that are out there in 'black and white' for them to read correctly.

I have a low tolerance for people who are corrected many times when they misinterpret something, yet still continue to misinterpret things. Holding conversations with them is a pointless endeavor.

I guess slang is relative. Apparently, so is irony.
edit on 21-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
. . . . having grown up in California, we called everyone "dude," regardless of gender.


LOL, so true.

Dudette is/was actually kinda insulting. Like you're a Girly-Girl and you don't "hang".

edit on 21-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Listen, dudette--people have been having babies for 100s of thousands of years. High school has only existed in the past few hundred years. I wonder how people learned to raise their children without high school daycare programs.


By being parents as teenagers, and/or helping to raise their younger siblings.

You are so out of touch that it's mindblowing.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Yeah, that's not reading comprehension, that's just me being an ass--major difference.

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, thanks.

As for the rest of your posts - do some research into how primitive cultures dealt with rearing children. How MODERN cultures deal with rearing children.

You are so mistaken on so many levels that it truly baffles me.

Anyway, carry on, then, slap your monkey.....and don't bother to look into anthropology or social sciences. If it's that important to you to be able to consider yourself ''correct', rather than extending yourself to learn something, and go out of your comfort zone......it will all be a waste of your time anyway. And my waiting for you to do so will equally be a waste of time.

That's fine. Thanks for your feedback!

(Not my circus, not my monkeys)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Listen, dudette--people have been having babies for 100s of thousands of years. High school has only existed in the past few hundred years. I wonder how people learned to raise their children without high school daycare programs.


By being parents as teenagers, and/or helping to raise their younger siblings.

You are so out of touch that it's mindblowing.


Oh my...you don't comprehend sarcasm.

Okay, now I see why maybe there's a massive chasm of misinterpretation existing between us.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

See comment above

(and when you quoted me about reading comprehension, that was me responding to someone else who implied I was lacking some...that wasn't even directed at you. Are you sure about your reading comprehension???)
edit on 22-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

ooohhh!! hahaha

Why didn't you make it clear you were being sarcastic?

Glad to hear it.
I get a little ermmmm.....excited about parenting issues.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well, to be fair, I was only being sarcastic about the part where I acted like I had no clue as to how people learn to raise children without high-school daycares in which to work.

The rest--without re-reading all of my posts--I stand by.

I'm a hard person to figure out with my sarcasm...even my own family can't tell when I'm being sarcastic or serious. I've honed it down to a fine art.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I think the problem is that most people think it's an A or B type of situation. Everyone thinks it has to be pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro-life I don't like the thought of murder, and I do think it murder that's just my opinion, without a life threatening situation. You can be pro-choice for any reason, that is logical to you, if you want. That's what is great about true freedom. There shouldn't be any laws that tell you or me what to do if it doesn't affect anyone else. If you or anybody has an abortion that doesn't affect me at all.
edit on 7-22-2015 by ABissell because: typo



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABissell
I think the problem is that most people think it's an A or B type of situation. Everyone thinks it has to be pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro-life I don't like the thought of murder, and I do think it murder that's just my opinion, without a life threatening situation. You can be pro-choice for any reason, that is logical to you, if you want. That's what is great about true freedom. There shouldn't be any laws that tell you or me what to do if it doesn't affect anyone else. If you or anybody has an abortion that doesn't affect me at all. I guess i'm pro-decision what ever you logically decide.


Yes. Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion.

It's Pro-Choice. You can be anti-abortion and still be Pro-Choice.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yep, that's what the "choice" part means.

You can be pro-choice and NOT have an abortion.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Annee

Yep, that's what the "choice" part means.

You can be pro-choice and NOT have an abortion.


I really have trouble understanding how pro-lifers can't understand this simple thing. To them it seems like pro-choice = pro-abortion. Apparently they don't know what it means to choose...
edit on 22-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABissell
I think the problem is that most people think it's an A or B type of situation. Everyone thinks it has to be pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro-life I don't like the thought of murder, and I do think it murder that's just my opinion, without a life threatening situation. You can be pro-choice for any reason, that is logical to you, if you want. That's what is great about true freedom. There shouldn't be any laws that tell you or me what to do if it doesn't affect anyone else. If you or anybody has an abortion that doesn't affect me at all.


This means that you are really just pro-choice.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Annee

Yep, that's what the "choice" part means.

You can be pro-choice and NOT have an abortion.


I really have trouble understanding how pro-lifers can't understand this simple thing. To them it seems like pro-choice = pro-abortion. Apparently they don't know what it means to choose...


One also can''t logically describe one abortion as murder and another as "necessary" or "understandable."

As you know, that's the one that sticks in my personal illogic catcher.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You could say that i'm pro-choice if you want. But if I were a doctor I would never abort a child for any reason other than certain death to the mother. I could never support my wife, sister, daughter or anybody in doing so. I feel like having an abortion is murdering which is the worst thing possible in my opinion. I don't want to bring God into it but it's a fundamental point of my decision and it is that God does everything for a reason be it an unplanned pregnancy. Another thing is its easy to say yes to something you've never had to do. If you knew how to with all the tools, would you actually perform an abortion yourself to a healthy successful married 25 year old women just because she doesn't want it? I wouldn't...

But if there are doctors willing to do it and a women wanting it done. I can't do anything.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ABissell

Well that's why there are special doctors that give abortions. It's not like you go up to your general practitioner and say, "Hey I'm pregnant, can you give me an abortion?" Being a doctor who does abortions is something you would be MORE than aware of having to do when you took the job to be an abortion doctor.
edit on 23-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: westcoast

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Annee

spontaneous murders happen all the time too… and we still call it death if someone is killed accidentally.


Accidental murder?

A fetus is a parasite to the host body. Sometimes the host rejects it on its own, sometimes it is rejected.

A potential human is not a person. No matter how many times you claim it is.





NO, I am not being sarcastic.

They are NOT babies. They are a lump of cells.

A potential human is not a person.



This is not what the bible says. Psalms 139:16 " Your (God's) eyes saw my unformed body (Embryo)"

More than 2000 years ago before this debate existed, God inspired to be written his view that people are people at the point of conception. There is not an exception to this rule...
edit on 23-7-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

This is not what the bible says. Psalms 139:16 " Your (God's) eyes saw my unformed body (Embryo)"

More than 2000 years ago before this debate existed, God inspired to be written his view that people are people at the point of conception. There is not exception to this rule...


America is a secular country.

The bible is not law.
edit on 23-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join