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.

 

Fwd/Meme I received in re: Gun Control and Abortion Made a lot of sense to me.

page: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Not everyone getting a gun is out to kill a person. Everyone getting an abortion is


Abortions don't kill people. They terminate "potential" people.

Guns are made to exact lethal force, for hunting or for self defense. Abortion is a kind of self defense, "Stand your ground", if you will.




posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

And to think the first 28 years of my life the background check never existed.

I wonder how Americans ever got along without it.


Yeah, but weren't you born around 1776 also???



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Men should not be the ones making the law on abortion.


There are more than 100 women in Congress in total . That is more than ever before. Cant exactly say the above...



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You'd think they'd be the first ones adopting kids and paying it forward.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: neo96

And to think the first 28 years of my life the background check never existed.

I wonder how Americans ever got along without it.


Yeah, but weren't you born around 1776 also???


Yeah but guns existed then and have up until today.

The funny thing there is that for over 220 years the background check DID NOT EXIST.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You can still say whatever you want at home, but if you have the gall to persecute poor women at the lowest point of their lives you could at least have the courage to stand up for the bs you're spouting.

Bullies.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Not everyone getting a gun is out to kill a person. Everyone getting an abortion is


Abortions don't kill people. They terminate "potential" people.

Guns are made to exact lethal force, for hunting or for self defense. Abortion is a kind of self defense, "Stand your ground", if you will.





Abortions don't kill people the same way guns don't kill people...your argument is getting to be as bad as the OP at this point.

Abortions are made to exact lethal force as well.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Not everyone getting a gun is out to kill a person. Everyone getting an abortion is


Abortions don't kill people. They terminate "potential" people.

Guns are made to exact lethal force, for hunting or for self defense. Abortion is a kind of self defense, "Stand your ground", if you will.





So you use the term potential people. Those mothers that actually bring those potential people to term and birth them do so at their own decision. Are those people expendable and able to be killed without abandon simply because they were a "potential People" prior to being born?

Just wondering where the potential people cut off is. Because is they DO have a birth defect and the mother HAS chosen to bring them into the world, are they still considered a person? Or can others just kill them at will because they really are NOT people in your eyes?



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




So you use the term potential people.


Not only me. That's what the Supreme Court uses, in Roe V Wade.


Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.



For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother


www.law.cornell.edu...



Just wondering where the potential people cut off is.


See the above.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

All females are responsible for mass killings and because they gave birth to humans (or have the potential to do so), therefore they should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

^^^^That's the logic being displayed and makes me want to purchase my first firearm, and a sh!t load of ammo.

"how can I fly like an eagle when I'm surrounded by turkeys"



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So when does a "potential" person become a person? When the mother decides?

And what about the laws that allow prosecution for two murders when a pregnant woman is killed?



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Abortions don't kill people the same way guns don't kill people...your argument is getting to be as bad as the OP at this point.


An acorn isn't an oak tree, and an embryo isn't a person. Abortions don't kill people.

Guns to kill people, real breathing, thinking, autonomous people with hopes and dreams. People die of gun shot wounds every day. Every day, people kill people with guns on purpose!



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Then Dred Scott was only a piece of furniture? Until a war decided otherwise ... I would rather this issue not go so far.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe




So you use the term potential people.


Not only me. That's what the Supreme Court uses, in Roe V Wade.


Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.



For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother


www.law.cornell.edu...



Just wondering where the potential people cut off is.


See the above.



Like I said....you used the term Potential People....different from the potentiality of life as you quoted. If a person with Down's Syndrome is considered a Potential People by one mother, but not by another, and the one kills the Potential Person in the womb, yet the other goes to term with it, solely based on the fact that the Potential Person has Down's Syndrome, does that make it ok for the one that WAS born to be killed by someone later in life because the decision was made on numerous occasions by numerous women to kill their Potential Person solely based on the fact the Potential Person had a birth defect?

At this point I see your argument is grasping at straws.

Like I said, I am not against abortion. What I am against is the comparison drawn by the OP. It is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So when does a "potential" person become a person?


A person is born into the world.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft




how can I fly like an eagle when I'm surrounded by turkeys"


Very carefully.

Want to hear something funny ?

Some eagles are an endangered species, and killing their eggs has up to a $250,000 fine, is a felony.

Shame human life doesn't rate the same.
edit on 3-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Wow! I never knew that gun in the hall closet at my grandparents was just waiting for its chance to kill us all in our sleep ... somehow, 40 years later everyone in the family is still alive or dead of natural causes. That gun is still in the hall closet except for when it's needed to kill some critter or other.

Same with all the knives in the kitchen and baseball bats and any other potential instruments of mayhem.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's right. It's up to the woman what her considerations are, not you, not me. If a woman wants to continue on with a Down Syndrome pregnancy, then she should have that choice. She should also have the choice to terminate her pregnancy. She doesn't have any moral duty to that fetus. She may, however have a moral duty to her exiting children and family.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko




So when does a "potential" person become a person?


A person is born into the world.





Hmmm, so that's pretty arbitrary.

If I have a baby prematurely, then it's human, but if it's not born prematurely, it's not human until it is? The only difference between the two babies is the patch of real estate. Each one is equally developed and capable of sustaining outside the mother.

Something magically happens in there? You believe in magic then. So until the baby fully emerges, it's not human. I guess you support partial birth abortion then because technically you think if the head isn't out it's not human ... Wow.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

If she didn't want to have that fetus, she shouldn't have behaved in such a way as to have it.




top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join