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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
But we are a civil society. Conservative idealism may work brain storming but not in the real world. Not taking care of society ends up costing more in the form of crime and nearly every industrialized world understands this. We should be worried about the spending programs that don't help society at all over civil society help.

I don't believe in welfare as we have it now but more in education and job training, however we are plenty a rich nation to not have to tax the public more for social programs but rather clean up the waste and cooperate welfare that cripples tax payers without offering any benefit.


Oh, I agree--but not about corporate "welfare" (a corporation's money isn't the government's...calling tax breaks "corporate welfare" implies the gov't has a right to that money) as much as international aid and brining our troops home to actually defend our borders and not somebody else's, thereby dramatically reducing the cost of our military while still keeping defenses high. I know that comes across as isolationist, and to an extent, it is, but we should not be focusing our financial resources (and human lives) on other countries when we can't even care for our own.

Where you and I differ, though, is apparently that you seem to think government has a role in taking care of society, whereas I think society itself and those who are capable should be caring for society, leaving government largely out of the equation.

But, we're only rich if we quit overspending on stuff that we need not spend, and I don't see that happening soon, so we need to come to grips with the fact that we're a nation with a lot of money that is in the poor house due to spending.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
You choose not to adopt because it is expensive, they choose not to have a child because it is expensive.


Not the same thing--I didn't kill a child because of cost burden. Let's not compare apples to blood oranges.


And no, I am not stereotyping, it's the truth: when pro-lifers say 'It's about taking responsibility for having sex and dealing with the consequences' they are saying that 'women should not be sexually active if they are not ready for motherhood'. That is trying to control and regulate women's sexual lives.


Again, that's not the same. Telling someone that if they're going to have sex, that they should be prepared for the possibility that it could lead to pregnancy is not the same as regulating and controlling a woman's sex life--it's called reminding someone of the possibilities and letting them decide if they want to take that risk. No one is chasing around women with a thread and needle trying to sew up their vaginas--that would be trying to control them or their body. Obviously, that would be crazy for anyone to do, but the comparison that you made is also quite out there, IMO--it's using a skewed interpretation and then presenting it as a stereotyped fact.


You may be different, I don't know, but most of those I have met never showed an inch of empathy for what some of those girls were going through. I can assure you that the vast majority of women do not choose to have an abortion lightly.


I've never said that they do--remember, my whole argument on this thread is that I'm against abortion because it is, imo, murder of a helpless human, and those humans, who I see as having a right to life unless something natural happens (and my wife and I have endured two miscarriages, too), were denied that right at the hands of other human beings. I'm not judging the human beings, I'm judging the act--perfectly good and honorable people sometimes do terrible things.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey, did you know that the execution of "the death penalty" actually costs MORE than keeping someone in prison for life?


The death penalty is an internal fight with me, but so is life-long imprisonment. I wrestle with both punishments, both in my heart and ideologically.

Do you have a link to that stat? There seems to be way too many variables for that to be true, and I would have to assume that this includes attorney/court costs for appeals and all of that jazz.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Totally agree. If we have no right to life, we have no rights to anything. But laws alone do not fix the problem. At best, laws are a deterrent. If our true concern is life, then we have to do more. We have to address all those reasons that make women feel abortion is their best/only option.


Maybe this is semantics, but laws are a social guide to activity--punishments are the deterrent. But I don't disagree with your point, but I think a law protecting all life--even unborn--would be an appropriate catalyst to the reform we're discussing.


Obviously, there would be adult supervision and instruction, as well as proper adult/child ratios, etc. But there is a very big difference between the maturity required to babysit and the maturity required to bear and raise children. Teenagers have been babysitting forever, without killing or maiming the kids in their charge. How is one to learn how to parent unless one learns about taking care of kids? And where better than in school? Kids don't come with a parents manual... Better education makes better parents at any age.


Hmmm...maybe their parents could help them learn how to raise children? Maybe parenting classes that are often provided by the hospitals in which these children will give birth?

I agree that education is a major key, here, and that not all parents are good parental role models and give the best advice, but you have to admit that, at least with paying a teenage babysitter, you have the choice as to who is caring for your child and where they are doing it. I'm not saying that teenagers can't babysit--in fact, I'm quite certain that I said it would be a good idea for the parents (both male and female) of the baby to be in the daycare with their child. My point was that you seemed to imply that all students should have to care of the children in the daycare, and that wouldn't fly with me (or, probably, most parents).

You and I aren't too far off with how we would handle the overall problem, I just think we differ on a few details overall




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What?

We are talking about babysitters. What??!!!!!

I was entrusted as a kid to teenaged babysitters.....I was a teen-aged babysitter for LOTS of kids......I grew up to be a daycare provider myself, in my home....and later a teacher of parents.

My daughter worked as a daycare staff-member while in high school. She is one of the BEST qualified people I have ever known.
She's a scientist now, but when she was in high school she worked at a very progressive-minded daycare center in the 'burbs. She herself is hoping/planning to have kids when she is 30-ish.

So, dude. You need to


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

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, I don't care how great your daughter is at babysitting, or the 16-year-old across the street who has babysat our kids, or the 17-year-old crappy babysitter who babysat me as a kid.

I'm not an idiot--contrary to what you've seemed to convince yourself of--and I understand that there are SOME teenagers who are great at caring for children. That fact doesn't mean an entire school is.

So, dude, you need to take comments in full context and stop tell people to
, unless you yourself are willing to do the same.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The belief that humans against killing baby humans are somehow responsible to provide care and well being to every single unwanted child in the world is complete idiocracy.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you read my last post you'll see that I was pro-life too... and then I met the girls and women who had decided to have a termination and I realize that life is not black and white and that some girls were between a rock and a hard place... and some women too.

My friend, let me ask you this:

I met this 30+ woman, married with 3 kids. She had 3 C sections and the last one had lots of complications, but she survived. The doctor advised her not to have another one as she will probably not survive it. They used contraception but she got pregnant anyway: was she to risk her life and perhaps leave 3 orphan children to have that last baby? She wanted to give those kids she already had the best chance in life, so she had a termination. I think that was the best choice. Do you think she should have gone ahead and maybe perished giving birth to her 4th child?

Sometimes you may use all the best contraception the right way and at the right time, and yet you can get pregnant as nothing is 100% safe. You may be ready to have sex but you definitely do not want to have a child as you are not ready to be a mother. Would you expect a young girl to raise a child in poverty? Or to give birth to that child and give it away? Most children are not happily adopted and they spend their childhood and youth in horrible loveless conditions (and many end up on drugs and crime, as shown by statistics). Would you still think it's wrong to terminate that pregnancy?

I agree that there should be a fetal age limit to abortions, like in the UK, but I prefer to make life better for the living, I prefer to focus on the well beings of those already alive. You may disagree and that's ok, we are all different.

I am pro choice because I rater protect a life that is already living and because women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and make their own decisions, seeing they are the ones that have to live with it.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you read my last post you'll see that I was pro-life too... and then I met the girls and women who had decided to have a termination and I realize that life is not black and white and that some girls were between a rock and a hard place... and some women too.

My friend, let me ask you this:

I met this 30+ woman, married with 3 kids. She had 3 C sections and the last one had lots of complications, but she survived. The doctor advised her not to have another one as she will probably not survive it. They used contraception but she got pregnant anyway: was she to risk her life and perhaps leave 3 orphan children to have that last baby? She wanted to give those kids she already had the best chance in life, so she had a termination. I think that was the best choice. Do you think she should have gone ahead and maybe perished giving birth to her 4th child?

Sometimes you may use all the best contraception the right way and at the right time, and yet you can get pregnant as nothing is 100% safe. You may be ready to have sex but you definitely do not want to have a child as you are not ready to be a mother. Would you expect a young girl to raise a child in poverty? Or to give birth to that child and give it away? Most children are not happily adopted and they spend their childhood and youth in horrible loveless conditions (and many end up on drugs and crime, as shown by statistics). Would you still think it's wrong to terminate that pregnancy?

I agree that there should be a fetal age limit to abortions, like in the UK, but I prefer to make life better for the living, I prefer to focus on the well beings of those already alive. You may disagree and that's ok, we are all different.

I am pro choice because I rater protect a life that is already living and because women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and make their own decisions, seeing they are the ones that have to live with it.



The majority of people support abortion in these very specific and statistically minuscule situations. Pregnancy by rape and life threatening medical conditions to the mother or baby comprise at most 10% of abortions depending on which studies you review.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The belief that humans against killing baby humans are somehow responsible to provide care and well being to every single unwanted child in the world is complete idiocracy.


Well where else is it going to come from? You guys are so hellbent on making sure the child is born. Well many times women are getting abortions because they cannot provide, by themselves, the needs to raise a child healthily. Thus if you force all women to have a child and not abort, SOMEONE has to take care of it. Whether it is through welfare, through adoption agencies, through state child care, or through charities, it needs to happen. Lest you suggest we start letting babies starve in the streets. You can't just magic the means for a young mother to take care of an unexpected child if she just can't do it.

You can't just NOT consider this aspect of the argument. You want to ban abortions, then explain how we can take care of this inevitable problem as well. It's already bad enough WITH abortion legal, it's not going to get any better if we were to make abortion illegal.

This is why I wrote the thread. So many pro-lifers want to just outright ban abortion and not think about the consequences of their actions. Heck, most pro-lifers are conservatives. So I KNOW they don't support welfare programs. So, to me, it looks like pro-lifers just want the baby to be born at all costs then couldn't give a DAMN what happens to it afterwards.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi


The majority of people support abortion in these very specific and statistically minuscule situations. Pregnancy by rape and life threatening medical conditions to the mother or baby comprise at most 10% of abortions depending on which studies you review.


What about my second example? The young girl? There is not life threatening medical condition there.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Well where else is it going to come from? You guys are so hellbent on making sure the child is born. Well many times women are getting abortions because they cannot provide, by themselves, the needs to raise a child healthily. Thus if you force all women to have a child and not abort, SOMEONE has to take care of it. Whether it is through welfare, through adoption agencies, through state child care, or through charities, it needs to happen. Lest you suggest we start letting babies starve in the streets.

You can't just NOT consider this aspect of the argument. You want to ban abortions, then explain how we can take care of this inevitable problem as well. It's already bad enough WITH abortion legal, it's not going to get any better if we were to make abortion illegal.

This is why I wrote the thread. So many pro-lifers want to just outright ban abortion and not think about the consequences of their actions. Heck, most pro-lifers are conservatives. So I KNOW they don't support welfare programs. So, to me, it looks like pro-lifers just want the baby to be born at all costs then couldn't give a DAMN what happens to it afterwards.


Exactly, this is why I mentioned above that most kids in foster places have a very bleak future indeed: most end up in jail or dead by the time they are 20 (the big majority of those in jail come from foster homes).

We need to think about what happens once those babies are born and if you are not going to take care of them, why do you have to decide what those girls or women are going to do? It is the women's choice and theirs only.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

It's pretty much why I don't think the pro-life argument will ever gain enough traction to overturn abortion laws in this country. The consequences of what they are proposing are too damn obvious to everyone but the pro-lifers.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You could read the study and find out.


I'd love to. Do you have a link? The one in your OP goes to that other article about the sex-ed class.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I posted followup information about the study here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The belief that humans against killing baby humans are somehow responsible to provide care and well being to every single unwanted child in the world is complete idiocracy.


Well where else is it going to come from? You guys are so hellbent on making sure the child is born. Well many times women are getting abortions because they cannot provide, by themselves, the needs to raise a child healthily. Thus if you force all women to have a child and not abort, SOMEONE has to take care of it. Whether it is through welfare, through adoption agencies, through state child care, or through charities, it needs to happen. Lest you suggest we start letting babies starve in the streets. You can't just magic the means for a young mother to take care of an unexpected child if she just can't do it.

You can't just NOT consider this aspect of the argument. You want to ban abortions, then explain how we can take care of this inevitable problem as well. It's already bad enough WITH abortion legal, it's not going to get any better if we were to make abortion illegal.

This is why I wrote the thread. So many pro-lifers want to just outright ban abortion and not think about the consequences of their actions. Heck, most pro-lifers are conservatives. So I KNOW they don't support welfare programs. So, to me, it looks like pro-lifers just want the baby to be born at all costs then couldn't give a DAMN what happens to it afterwards.



People need to take RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS instead of trying to solve their problems by killing baby humans.

Humans. That's what the babies are. Living humans. I don't support killing them.

I don't support drunk driving. I don't see drunk drivers out there arguing against my beliefs because I don't provide rides home to every legally drunk person.

I don't support murder (okay, kind of redundant). I don't see murders arguing against my beliefs because I didn't provide methods to prevent them from killing someone.

Why is it just the pro-abortion crowd that thinks this is valid?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi




Why is it just the pro-abortion crowd that thinks this is valid?


Why is it that the anti-abortion crowd think its ok to push their beliefs on everyone else?

Also, the only one's classifying it as murder is the anti-abortion crowd. I guess the pro-choice crowd should just classify it as saving lives if were jumping to conclusions.

Or better yet, how about we say the anti-abortion crowd likes to torture babies, since a good portion of abortions are decided because the baby has debilitating deformities or a rapist father etc.


edit on 16-7-2015 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
People need to take RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS instead of trying to solve their problems by killing baby humans.


Great. So how is that going to happen? You yelling at me isn't going to magically make teenage or young adult women who get pregnant be suddenly more responsible and mature with their decisions.


Humans. That's what the babies are. Living humans. I don't support killing them.


And you don't seem to support taking care of them once they are born. As long as they clear that birth canal, that is all that matters to you.


I don't support drunk driving. I don't see drunk drivers out there arguing against my beliefs because I don't provide rides home to every legally drunk person.


You ARE paying for drunk driving costs with your tax dollars though.


I don't support murder (okay, kind of redundant). I don't see murders arguing against my beliefs because I didn't provide methods to prevent them from killing someone.

Why is it just the pro-abortion crowd that thinks this is valid?


Because you just compared apples to oranges. Aborting a fetus is a COMPLETELY different action, motivated by COMPLETELY different reasons, than murdering another human being. A woman isn't going to get an abortion because she is jealous of her expectant child's husband or something like that for instance.

I still don't see you offering solutions for the inevitable over worked social services program that would arise from your solution to ban abortion. I mean, if you EVER want me to side with your side of the argument, you are going to have to think up a solution to that problem first. I'M going to take you at your word that every life matters, so that means that it doesn't JUST matter that we make sure the child is born. The child has another 18 years of living to go before it can live on its own. It behooves us to make sure that child is provided with a nurturing environment so it doesn't become disillusioned and slip into crime and just create even MORE problems for the system.

You want to talk about responsibility? How about considering some responsibility for your legal decisions? You preach day and night that these women are being selfish and irresponsible for taking the easy way out, yet never actually consider your own responsibilities of your decision to make abortion illegal.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Well they are taking responsibility for their own actions. They could just pop the kid out and then throw it in the dumpster because they can't afford to feed it. They have to make an appointment, go through the counseling, then go through the actual procedure, which is no picnic. It would be so much easier to just let it come out on its own and then throw it away.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



W.H.O. scientists estimated abortion rates from countries where it was outlawed, using data on hospital admissions for abortion complications, interviews with local family planning experts and surveys of women in those countries.


I'd love it if they would provide some actual numbers, like how many hospital admissions per year are suspected of being the result of a botched abortion.

Interviews with family planning experts? Nah, no chance any of those folks would seek to inflate the numbers.

pfft surveys... ha.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
I am pro choice because I rater protect a life that is already living and because women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and make their own decisions, seeing they are the ones that have to live with it.


So, you're flat-out pro-choice just because of a minority of the instances of why people have abortions?

You must note that I've mentioned more than once in this thread that I'm against elective abortions--abortions that are necessary for the life of the mother are completely different. Hell, I even enter into the pro-choice category when it comes to rape pregnancies, but I do so semi-reluctantly, knowing the possible mental and emotional impacts having a baby in those instances can have.

But the bottom line for me is this: If the abortion is elective for any reasons other than stated here, I must stand up for that baby's right to life.

And believe me, I'm still a bit torn on the rape pregnancies, but that's where my empathetic nature comes in for the woman, and since the intercourse that produced the baby was not consensual, the pregnancy certainly isn't the fault of the woman's choice to have sex.

Thanks for at least asking about my stance on the issue--too many on here are making baseless assumptions.

As for your questions about poverty, we in this nation have families, friends, social programs, and many other charitable places that can help ease the "burden" of raising a child in poverty. If the choice is raise the child in poverty or kill it before it has a chance at life, I vote for poverty. But then again, I'm the guy you see with his family providing a hot meal for the homeless and the impoverished at my own expense, serving them all personally and not wanting a thanks in return, so maybe I just have a skewed view of the kindness of strangers in a community to help those in need. We donate many, many items in lieu of selling them, in hopes that they find their way into homes who truly need them (and no, I don't donate to the Goodwill...I don't like their policies there).

Seriously, maybe this is why I put my reliance and faith into local communities to help out those in need instead of the government or instead of using poverty as an excuse.

Maybe I live my life as an anomaly and the rest of the world sucks at doing their part, but I'm not going to let that be used as an excuse to kill helpless human beings.




top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join