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.

 

One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

? Who said I'm happy? Oh wait you take it personal, is that it? All I am saying is devolution is a serious concern.
And if you want to become a parent you should have to be able to be a good one.
It should be the other way around, actually: you should have to apply for a license before you're allowed to get kids.




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Not to say, I think it is bad ethics to NOT consult with the father, but keep the government out of our vaginas, pleez



OK. I keep seeing this.

You want the government out of your vagina, but at the same time, you want the government to pay for everything that goes on inside your vagina - free care, free birth control, free abortions, etc.

Do you not begin to see how these two positions are mutually exclusive? Your head should be exploding from the cognitive dissonance.

If you want to use your vagina as you see fit and not have it be anyone's business what goes on there ... then the simplest way to ensure that is to take full, including financial, responsibility for it, not demand that everyone else pay for what you want to do with it.

See, my taxes are now wrapped up in what goes on inside your vagina, just like yours are wrapped up inside what goes on inside mine. Believe you me, I never wanted anyone else to pay for what goes on inside my vagina. I happen to find the idea of the government and everyone else's money paying for what goes on there a bit creepy and was perfectly happy taking care of it myself, even if that meant I had to adjust my extracurricular bedroom activities accordingly.


Churches are tax exempt. By your logic, the government should be able criminalize the reading of specific sections of the bible. I mean, if you want the government out of your church, then stop being subsidized by not paying taxes, right?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

That is quite legit, but would that apply to those who are brain dead and kept alive on life support? Does the decision of life (or death) come from those who decide for the person/baby/fetus? Is it life (or death) if the person doesn't have brain activity or a heartbeat but can be kept alive through technology?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson
Not sure about when an abortion should be legal but the one time it should not be allowed is if it is being used as birth control.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




And yet, all those things have been done and we still don't see a drop in the rate of abortion. Stop blaming Republicans for everything wrong in your world.


Actually abortions have been dropping. Perhaps you should update your rhetoric. I'll give you a "Christian" source since you might find that to be more palatable.

Christian Life Resources


Significant Downward Trend
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. appear to have dropped to about 1.06 million a year.

Two independent sources confirm a downward trend: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute (GI), which was once a special research affiliate of abortion chain Planned Parenthood.


That's raw numbers and just from 1990-present. The abortion rates would show an even more relevant (and pronounced) decrease.

As for this bit of melodrama:


You could kill all Republicans tomorrow, then you could kill all the Christiand, and people would still have a lot of abortions.


Again from Christian Life Resouces citing in this case, the 2008 Guttmacher Institute figures:


Those women who had abortions in 2008 listed their religious affiliation as:
Roman Catholic = 28.1%
Protestant = 37.3%
Other = 7.1%
None = 27.5%


So yeah about 72.5% of the women having abortions appear to be religious and at least 65.4% of those would be Christians.
edit on 2016-3-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Except that separation of church and state prevents that. I could see your point if say only one religion was tax exempt, but since all religions are tax exempt and for the most part self funded, why should the government be involved at all?

I believe Ketsuko (and please correct me if in wrong) is talking about a free market system where these services are mostly self funded, where people can shop around for what they want and not have the government take everyone's money and use it for things not everyone supports. This way the people have access to care in a competitive marketplace where the government has little or no say regarding what any one person has to do with their body.

Nor sure if that makes sense, I may just be rambling here using buzzwords to try and make an argument.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

Completely agree. Thank you, Sir.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: matadoor
Yeah, I actually had the chance to sit and talk with an abortion supporter a couple of years ago. After one statement I changed her mind on the subject.

"The difference between a legal abortion and murder, is TIME."

Abort a baby at 3 months? Legal.

Purposely kill the baby as it emerges from the woman? Life in prison.

That statement can't be argued.


Yes it can and the person you were talking to must not have been very sure in their beliefs to begin with.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: KingKelson
Not sure about when an abortion should be legal but the one time it should not be allowed is if it is being used as birth control.



I don't know why people say this. Honestly, what would be the difference between using birth control to effectively trick your body into not allowing an egg to attach itself and fertilize, etc.; and having a doctor sweep your uterus once a month, taking any maybe fertilized eggs with it? It's still an "abortion", yet would still be birth control. Women's bodies do this spontaneously and often.

I doubt there are a large group of willing women who allow their fetuses to come to any sort of stage and then opt for an abortion, over and over again "like birth control". And if they did, what's the difference between that and one abortion? Essentially nothing.
edit on 15-3-2016 by Atsbhct because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: KingKelson
Not sure about when an abortion should be legal but the one time it should not be allowed is if it is being used as birth control.



I'm confused with what you mean by saying that you aren't sure when abortion should be legal then say that it shouldn't be allowed as a means of birth control. So what is the difference between legality and "not allowed"?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple




Sounds like a fun idea for the weekend! Thanks


Do it! Mean while I'll grab some beers...and enjoy the cluster # thread.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
i has one simple question for anti abortion advocates :

WHY ?

it is a trick question because i have asked it on many occasions

and the most common answer = religious fundamentalism

some claim it isnt - but 2 followon questions usually reveal deep seated wingnuttery



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I believe the fetus becomes viable at 37 weeks?
At no point should the process of abortion be illegal, however I do believe after a certain period of time say the point in time where the fetus could live outside the womb one should consider finishing the pregnancy and giving the baby up for adoption.

I also believe that at anytime should the mothers life be threatened due to the pregnancy the mother should have the choice of continuing the pregnancy or terminating it.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




i has one simple question for anti abortion advocates :

WHY ?


Because of our lack of answers to the questions "what is alive?" and "what is human?"



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Why the need to push your emotional responses on something that is legal, and decided between a women and her doctor.

Most people against abortion are the first to say we don't want the government to decide for us.

Let the women be, i am personally against abortions but it is not my place to tell people what to do, pretty simple.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why is there a need to police a woman's choice because of a question we don't even know the answer to.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

NVM

edit on 15-3-2016 by Bennyzilla because: sometimes it's just not worth it



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: frostie

So if a pregnant woman is murdered, does one or two people die in your opinion?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct




Why is there a need to police a woman's choice because of a question we don't even know the answer to.


Because she may be ending a human life.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

That question is like the "which one would you let drop, petri dish or baby" question.

Both trying to tell a point to the other side, however, not very viable comparisons



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join