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.

 

SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Talorc




Of course we should make the decision on our own. And as with most decisions, one choice is usually better than the others.


and the best decisions take into consideration the present circumstances.
no one can say that not aborting the baby is the wrong choice in all circumstances, can they??



Definitely not. In some circumstances it may be the right thing to do.

Being financially or emotionally unprepared is not one of those circumstances. It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Alright, good day ma'am. Sounds like you are a capable woman. I'm sure you would have done just fine in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, too. Capability and strength come entirely from character, not favorable conditions.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.


Give me ONE. Just ONE unselfish reason to have a child. To bring another being into this world.

Not having a child because you are not ready, for whatever reason - - is the most unselfish thing anyone can do.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Talorc
It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.


Give me ONE. Just ONE unselfish reason to have a child. To bring another being into this world.

Not having a child because you are not ready, for whatever reason - - is the most unselfish thing anyone can do.


Well, caring for a child entails unconditional love (or it should, anyway). Loving unconditionally is the opposite of selfishness.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



Being financially or emotionally unprepared is not one of those circumstances.


There is no duty to procreate.



It's just selfishness.


Wanting children is selfish. Having a child is one of the most selfish things a person, or couple, can do, and the only reason that they do so is because they WANT TO!

They want someone to love unconditionally. They want someone who will love them unconditionally. (They will be disappointed). They want a little clone of themselves to show off to the world, someone that they can dress up and educate to be just like them, someone who they can look at and see a reflection of themselves. They want to be accepted by society. They want a legacy and someone to take care of them in old age.

It's all about desire. If it isn't there, it isn't there.

The government wants you to have children so that you'll consume, and work, and go into debt supporting your family, so that you'll be subdued by necessity.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And the people that have to pay for the abortions...
How about you pay out of pocket all abortions you want? Or like I have stated in the past set up a charity where people who agree with and want to pay for the abortion of other woman can do so... But no, instead some people want to force everyone to pay for something that they don't agree with...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Talorc
It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.


Give me ONE. Just ONE unselfish reason to have a child. To bring another being into this world.

Not having a child because you are not ready, for whatever reason - - is the most unselfish thing anyone can do.


Well, caring for a child entails unconditional love (or it should, anyway). Loving unconditionally is the opposite of selfishness.


You can't love a LIVING CHILD unconditionally?

There are plenty in this world already, desperately in need.

There is ZERO unselfish reasons to bring another child into this world.




edit on 28-6-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Annee

And the people that have to pay for the abortions...
How about you pay out of pocket all abortions you want? Or like I have stated in the past set up a charity where people who agree with and want to pay for the abortion of other woman can do so... But no, instead some people want to force everyone to pay for something that they don't agree with...



Hmmmm, let me think.

Cost of abortion and/or birth control vs at least 18 years of cost for neglected, unwanted, hungry, needs education, etc child.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   



There is no duty to procreate.



There is no duty to abort or avoid having children.



Wanting children is selfish. Having a child is one of the most selfish things a person, or couple, can do, and the only reason that they do so is because they WANT TO!

They want someone to love unconditionally. They want someone who will love them unconditionally. (They will be disappointed). They want a little clone of themselves to show off to the world, someone that they can dress up and educate to be just like them, someone who they can look at and see a reflection of themselves. They want to be accepted by society. They want a legacy and someone to take care of them in old age.

It's all about desire. If it isn't there, it isn't there.

The government wants you to have children so that you'll consume, and work, and go into debt supporting your family, so that you'll be subdued by necessity.



Such profound cynicism.

Guess what? In the case of unplanned pregnancy, the people having kids wanted none of those things you described. Many people still choose to have the child out of principle alone.

I wonder what ladyvalkerie thinks.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

You can't love a LIVING CHILD unconditionally?

There are plenty in this world already, desperately in need.

There is ZERO unselfish reasons to bring another child into this world.



That's what you "think" but you are wrong.

Selfishness is wanting to kill a new human life simply "because it is not the right time". There are other ways to not get pregnant "if it is not the right time".

Selfishness is wanting everyone to pay for something they don't agree with.

Selfishness is wanting people to only love other kids that don't have their genes... (because it is what YOU want strangers to do instead of giving them the choice)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



I wonder what ladyvalkerie thinks.


Ladyvalkerie has made it clear that each and every one of her children were planned.



In the case of unplanned pregnancy, the people having kids wanted none of those things you described.


Pity that you can't see the difference between unplanned and unwanted.



There is no duty to abort or avoid having children.


Captain Obvious profundity?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc





Definitely not. In some circumstances it may be the right thing to do.

Being financially or emotionally unprepared is not one of those circumstances. It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.



I had three kids, in less that three years. by the times my third one was about halfway through his nine months, I was having trouble walking. not saying I wasn't walking, I had to. the economy where I was living had hit hard times for machinists and so my husband fell back to his secondary career, truck driving. that was his remediation to our financial difficulty. so I was left with a car that wasn't running, actually caught on fire before he left, and two kids under the age of three, and a third on the way. I couldn't trust my footing, had to pick those kids up regardless of how I felt about it or even what my doctor was advising me. I had no choice. I had to lift them, I had to carry them, I had to risk falling and hurting one of them.
It taught me just how important I was to my LIVING kids. If I couldn't take care of them, no one was gonna help me do it! If I had gotten pregnant after that third child was born as soon as I did with the other two, I would have aborted it, and it wouldn't have been for selfish reasons!

my husband and me raised those kids with very little help from anyone. we made too much money to get any help from the gov't and too little to actually provide them with all their needs. we went many years trying to live on too little till my son's asthma lessened at least to the point where I didn't have to worry about having a nurse call me so often because of the attacks. his medication was insane and there were times when I had to keep him home simply because we had to wait till payday for that second inhaler the school insisted had to be kept in the nurse's office.
so when I did go back to work, it was for decent clothes for the kids, medicine that they needed, and medical care more often when they got sick. and, if I had gotten pregnant then, I would have aborted because the environment in my workplace posed real risks to a developing fetus. and, it wouldn't have been selfish. my working was the remediation to our financial problems!



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

She is clearly a very selfish woman for choosing to have children.

Well, the point still stands that even in the case of unwanted pregnancies, many parents go through with it out of principle. Not for any selfish reasons.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Well, it's law.

We don't have to like it, but it is the law. We are a nation of laws. We have "laws" that tell us where to pee and not to pee. We have laws that are idiotic, like helmet and seatbelt laws. And laws that allow women to kill their babies.

We have too many laws. Our freedoms and individualities are surrounded and defined by these laws.

Laws have replaced common sense. Laws have replaced wisdom and intelligence and compassion and caring. We don't define ourselves by our selves, we define ourselves by our "laws".

I acknowledge it, because it is law. I will not recognize any wisdom or common sense from it. I gain nothing from it. The world will not be a better place from it.

My mini-rant on this given topic.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Annee

And the people that have to pay for the abortions...
How about you pay out of pocket all abortions you want? Or like I have stated in the past set up a charity where people who agree with and want to pay for the abortion of other woman can do so... But no, instead some people want to force everyone to pay for something that they don't agree with...



and the people that have to pay for unwanted kids?....
how about you pay out of pocket for all the abandoned, homeless, and foster care children.....but no, we are forced to pay a percentage of our taxes for adoption agencies, food and shelter programs for poor kids, school lunches, medical care, etc....and let's not forget if these kids grow up to NOT BE productive citizens, we pay for food stamps, housing credits, and if it comes to it, law enforcement, jails, and the legal system in general.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



She is clearly a very selfish woman for choosing to have children.


So are women who choose careers, apparently.




Well, the point still stands that even in the case of unwanted pregnancies, many parents go through with it out of principle.


How many is many? What principle, guilt? Duty?


Not for any selfish reasons.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think you come from some airy fairy new agey place where "Love is all you need"! Lalalala..
edit on 28-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Laws have replaced common sense. Laws have replaced wisdom and intelligence and compassion and caring. We don't define ourselves by our selves, we define ourselves by our "laws".


First off thanks for discussing the topic.


Actually these laws had to be implemented because wisdom, common sense and compassion were lacking for a segment of society. And you're right. Laws DO define a society. America is becoming more accepting AS A WHOLE. These laws prove that.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Talorc
It's just selfishness. Finance and emotions are remediable, other things aren't.


Give me ONE. Just ONE unselfish reason to have a child. To bring another being into this world.

Not having a child because you are not ready, for whatever reason - - is the most unselfish thing anyone can do.


Well, caring for a child entails unconditional love (or it should, anyway). Loving unconditionally is the opposite of selfishness.


You can't love a LIVING CHILD unconditionally?

There are plenty in this world already, desperately in need.

There is ZERO unselfish reasons to bring another child into this world.





The compulsion to have children is neither selfish nor unselfish. It's just biology. Sure, the decision to adopt is commendable, but the desire to have your own kids is far more complicated and multifaceted than you suggest. Looking at as a simple choice between selfishness and unselfishness is a gross oversimplification.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx


Oh I see... It's easy make another charity for people who want to help others in need... In case you didn't know such charities do exist. Not to mention the fact that trillions of dollars have been stolen by the Federal Reserve and given freely to other banks and nations. The 13 trillion U.S.D. that the Federal Reserve made "disappear" from 2007-2010 and later we found it was given to foreign banks, and foreign nations freely could have been used to help people in the United States.
edit on 28-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Laws have replaced common sense. Laws have replaced wisdom and intelligence and compassion and caring. We don't define ourselves by our selves, we define ourselves by our "laws".


First off thanks for discussing the topic.


Actually these laws had to be implemented because wisdom, common sense and compassion were lacking for a segment of society. And you're right. Laws DO define a society. America is becoming more accepting AS A WHOLE. These laws prove that.


Laws can never replace wisdom, caring, compassion. They just enforce rules that (to some) mimic caring, compassion, wisdom.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join