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: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


See! That is thinking outside the box to accomplish your goals. Reduced teen pregnancy means reduced abortions (at least from teenagers).


Yep!!!

That's what social workers do.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74


Whoever said Education education education was right.

I think I did that in a recent thread or two.




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Laws are stupid. My little sister gave birth at 16 years of age. She couldn't make any medical decisions for herself and yet she was able to make all medical decisions for my nephew.

I agree that sex education is important, conversations need to happen at home but also in places that are capable of helping a child without judgment or fear of judgement. That's the key to good reproductive health in teenagers.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Laws are stupid. My little sister gave birth at 16 years of age. She couldn't make any medical decisions for herself and yet she was able to make all medical decisions for my nephew.

I agree that sex education is important, conversations need to happen at home but also in places that are capable of helping a child without judgment or fear of judgement. That's the key to good reproductive health in teenagers.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
There will never be a civil discourse on abortion as long as no one can agree on when "life" begins.

And before you even start discussing that, how about trying to get better education and birth control methods out to the masses? An IUD is extremely effective and can last 10 years. The newer Mierna ones combine hormonal birth control with a physical device.

Male birth control needs to be made available. Males need to have better options than a condom. Condoms aren't great birth control. They're better than nothing, but males deserve to have more say over their reproductive rights. If we can make a dozen medications for erectile dysfunction, we can make a reversible male birth control option.

These are underlying issues that need to be dealt with before the pro/anti abortion topic should even be discussed.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Fixing some of those issues would go a long way to reducing the abortion rate too.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Yet another issue where neither side wants to give an inch. All or nothing, no compromise, no surrender.

And those in the middle get shouted down or ignored.

Not a shot at your thread, Krazy. Just an observation: I don't think I've ever seen an actual conversation about abortion where any sort of compromise was listened to.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Abortion can't, and probably won't be 'banned' at any point in the future. Even with proper well distributed sex education and even birth control, someone somewhere is bound to make a mistake. Creating absolute abstinence (whether forced or not) doesn't solve any problems either since it encourages a rebellious mindset. Abortion is just an unfortunate reality of the world right now. I have faith in the percentage numbers showing lowered abortion rates, though it's uncertain whether this is due to more restrictive regulations or women having more pro-life mindsets.

I think, considering the warring circumstances it would be better to have more solidified control, rather than to swing the door wide open or close it completely (as seen in abstinence-only thought). If anyone truly wishes to call themselves 'pro choice,' they will have no problem with additional regulations. Whether this be offering free ultrasounds, counseling, or other material to offer an actual choice instead of relying solely on an uninformed decision at a desperate time. In this way, I think Texas has made good progress on at least letting the woman consider her decision, in a healthy manner (June 17th, 2015 article):



Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that relied heavily on the precedent set in Casey; a panel of three judges ruled that most parts of a Texas law, known as H.B. 2, does not place an undue burden on a large fraction of Texas women who might seek an abortion. The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics; prohibits abortions 20 weeks after fertilization; and requires, in many cases, at least four in-person visits to a doctor within a two-week period. All clinics must be ambulatory surgical centers, which means they can perform outpatient surgeries

This not only gets rid of the 'dirty clinics,' but also allows for an interruption in a train of potentially panicked thought. It becomes not a decision made in haste, but a decisive one. Though I feel strongly about human life and think abortions are a stain on human dignity, I am not so blind to think shouting matches and stonewalling will get us anywhere. We don't need compromise for either side, we need progress.



edit on 15-7-2015 by Septimus because: small edit



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Septimus

Finding an answer somewhere between "all" (pro choice) and "none" (pro life) would be a compromise I'd say.

Call it progress if you want, but when so many are firmly camped at one end or the other, progress is going to involve compromise.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Septimus

Finding an answer somewhere between "all" (pro choice) and "none" (pro life) would be a compromise I'd say.

Call it progress if you want, but when so many are firmly camped at one end or the other, progress is going to involve compromise.

It's a compromise for both instead of one or the other. That's called progress. Rhetoric, how does it work?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
There will never be a civil discourse on abortion as long as no one can agree on when "life" begins.

And before you even start discussing that, how about trying to get better education and birth control methods out to the masses? An IUD is extremely effective and can last 10 years. The newer Mierna ones combine hormonal birth control with a physical device.

Male birth control needs to be made available. Males need to have better options than a condom. Condoms aren't great birth control. They're better than nothing, but males deserve to have more say over their reproductive rights. If we can make a dozen medications for erectile dysfunction, we can make a reversible male birth control option.

These are underlying issues that need to be dealt with before the pro/anti abortion topic should even be discussed.


Nice to hear some clarity. I keep sating over and over science and medicine need to define what makes the fetus aware of itself and its surrounding as a basis for life. I personally am against abortion but realize its a reality and should be a choice between a woman and her dr until that point when it becomes murder (life).



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Excellent points in the OP and in many of the responses. In the final analysis, the most practical solutions are the most effective. There were abortions long before any of us were born, and there will be abortions long after we're gone, if we don't address the root causes. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes it lawful to punish someone for it. I would much rather eliminate abortions for the right reasons -- i.e., because no woman feels the need for an abortion.

Education is a huge part of that. Not just sex and birth control education, but teaching kids the skills they need to earn a living to care for themselves and their families... and teach them how to take care of kids. In my opinion, shop classes need to be returned to schools, along with other skills-building courses that give kids a needed marketable skill.

And I would put a child daycare facility into every high school, and every student would work in that daycare and learn how to properly care for children, giving them a reason to be more careful about making babies to begin with.

Knowledge is power... when we know better, we do better.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-life":

Pro-choice: Feels they should have a say in what happens with their body

Pro-Life: Feels they should have a say in what everyone else does with their body.

Enough said!



ETA: I didn't mean to reply directly to you Shamrock
edit on 15-7-2015 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Septimus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Septimus

Finding an answer somewhere between "all" (pro choice) and "none" (pro life) would be a compromise I'd say.

Call it progress if you want, but when so many are firmly camped at one end or the other, progress is going to involve compromise.

It's a compromise for both instead of one or the other. That's called progress. Rhetoric, how does it work?


It doesn't work. Which is what I was getting at. So what are you arguing about?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

edit on 7/15/2015 by Klassified because: Nevermind



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
There is yet another problem with religion, the loyalties of the followers may lie with other countries, other peoples, and other times.

Think about this, when their "God" takes a human form it must choose an ethnicity or a race, that very choice could be interpreted as "God" favoring one group of people over another, even though "God" supposedly created all humans. Also, this goes to show that "God" favors one time over another, why doesn't "God" take a human form every 100 years or so? Also, this goes to show that "God" favors one country over another, what's lacking in the other countries, are they "chopped liver"?

This can actually be seen in practice, the last 20 years have shown that the ultimate loyalties of certain politicians and a significant portion of the American public lies with another country and another people.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If being pro-life, to you, is TRULY about the killing of a helpless human being, why do you think that banning abortion will cut such things down?


The same reason that abolishing the death penalty would save lives. I figured the logic was pretty sound, there...maybe you should explain how banning abortions would not reduce the amount of death for these helpless, unborn children. There are more than one-million abortions every year--how would banning the practice that results in these deaths not reduce the number of deaths from said practice?

Maybe it's just my ideals that seem to align with the libertarian idea that most things should be legal unless it harms another human being--nothing is much more harmful than killing.

And since this is about hypocrisy, please don't try to argue that a developing fetus isn't a human being--science and logic say otherwise. (this is directed at others who may respond with that comment, not necessarily you)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I have to admit. You are quickly rising in my views as an honest and open Christian who wants to look honestly and intelligently at society's issues instead of just narrowly through a filter determined hundreds of years ago. Well said post.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Whatever you call yourself - it's not your decision. It is the woman's and the woman's only with the adivse of trusted and I repeat trusted professionals and loved ones. A woman has soverigency (I can't even spell the word close enough for spell check to help - get over it) over her body - an embrio is not an independent being of any sort.


Then tell that to the court systems that try people for murder when they shoot or assault a pregnant woman which causes the developing child to die. How can someone murder something that isn't its own being?

Here's the thing--even at the zygote stage, a developing child has its own unique HUMAN DNA. While that child is dependent upon the mother's body up through a certain stage in order to survive, that doesn't make it not its own individual being, independent or not. Take a conjoined twin--they are considered two individuals who share one body, even if severance from that body would kill one or both. So, please tell me why that logic doesn't work when talking about a completely separate being that is attached to another solely for the purpose needing temporary survival? Seriously, I'd be interested to hear why that logic only works for conjoined twins, but not for a temporarily dependent fetus.



I'm sorry you feel so strongly about forcing your views on others and suggest that you don't get an abortion if you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy. In the mean time I congratulate your adoption of all the un-aborted crack babies - that is truly a christian thing to do.


I'm not forcing any views on anyone--everyone has the unalienable right to life in this country. I don't need your pity because you differ from my views, I don't need your petty sarcasm and condescension, and I certainly don't need your ignorant implication that I am a Christian, or am a follower of any type of religion: I'm not.

And for the record, my wife feels the same way I do, and I had to watch the dramatic decline of my sister's happiness and self-esteem after she had an abortion at the age of 17. Not a day goes by (even 21 years later) that my sister hasn't regretted her decision, but she didn't know any better at the time. The OP talks about consequences--my sister is living with the unintended consequences of her decision every day of her life. Go be condescending to her about it, because having a discussion with you on these topics goes nowhere, very fast, every time.

Best regards.


The arugment is not off-base in the least - it is fact based and rational.


If you say so.
edit on 15-7-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If being pro-life, to you, is TRULY about the killing of a helpless human being, why do you think that banning abortion will cut such things down?


The same reason that abolishing the death penalty would save lives. I figured the logic was pretty sound, there...maybe you should explain how banning abortions would not reduce the amount of death for these helpless, unborn children. There are more than one-million abortions every year--how would banning the practice that results in these deaths not reduce the number of deaths from said practice?


I already showed why making abortions illegal wouldn't reduce the amount of abortions in the OP when I showed how the abortion rate is higher in countries where abortions are illegal. Clearly you didn't read it if you don't know why I'd be asking that question...

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people stop doing it... As has been shown through countless amounts of research, banning something doesn't make it go away or even reduce its occurrence. It just drives it underground and makes it unsafe.


Maybe it's just my ideals that seem to align with the libertarian idea that most things should be legal unless it harms another human being--nothing is much more harmful than killing.


Lol you call being pro-life Libertarian? Libertarians wouldn't be in the business of having the government presiding over the rights of a woman's body.


And since this is about hypocrisy, please don't try to argue that a developing fetus isn't a human being--science and logic say otherwise. (this is directed at others who may respond with that comment, not necessarily you)


I'd rather we stay focused on all the research and stats I used in the OP that you apparently ignored when you started responding to me.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join