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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Abortion tussle at debate was wow

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
interesting post from a Pastor in North Carolina....it raises the questions as to just how far the morality of Pro-Life campaigners stretches...a question I have raised myself, although I could never put it quite as eloquently as he has. But he covers all the bases.

John Pavlovitz NC Pastor on Pro Life

quote....

" I wish that once diverse babies are thrust out into a violent, difficult, painful world you actually gave more of a damn about them."

quote...

" Because if that life, you say you so treasure, one day converts to Islam, you label it dangerous, you see it as a threat, you applaud suggestions of its expulsion, you deny it open worship. "

It's a though provoking read. Most people have a clear opinion on abortion issues....and are unlikely to change their viewpoint. This Pastor's article really hammers home the opinion that I offered on another similar thread here just yesterday..that Pro-Life...really means Pro- Birth.




posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It was right in front of my face today.

When someone kills a pregnant woman is it not double homicide? I would imagine pro choice people or dems have scrambled to change that law where they can or is it still a double homicide in 50 states?

The dr kills just the baby and not the mom and makes money and its all good? That is not counting them profiting off the whole thing. I WOULD MUCH RATHER THEM PROFIT OFF OF RAISING HEALTHY BABIES AND HELPING WOMEN IN NEED THAN DESTROYING THEM AND SELLING THEM.
It needs a high amount of oversight no matter how you look at it.

You can twist it numerous different ways problem is with these twists its still kinda a straight line!
edit on 26-10-2016 by randomthoughts12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: randomthoughts12
when these laws were passed, they said that no pregnant women would ever be imprisoned because of abortion, or miscarriage but well, there's more women imprisoned because of them then men...pleas explain that one to me!



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: randomthoughts12




I would imagine pro choice people or dems have scrambled to change that law where they can or is it still a double homicide in 50 states?


No, they scrambled to stop it from becoming law. It was enacted to pander to the pro-life/anti-choice community, as those crimes enumerated within the law were already illegal.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.


A woman's choice is sacred. Only she can decide whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term. No one can supersede her choice and force an abortion on her. That can now be prosecuted as murder.

Here's the problem that the pro-choice community had with this law.


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then they would have a constitutional right to life. However, the laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide (and often, other violent crimes) during the entire period of pre-natal development (27 states) or during part of the pre-natal period (nine states).


The pro-life community, as well and the National Republican Platform, are pushing hard to amend the constitution to give an embryo the same rights as its host! That would make elective abortion illegal across the board and that is why a vote for Trump is a vote against women's rights.


edit on 26-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomthoughts12

When someone kills a pregnant woman is it not double homicide?
!


Yes.

Because it does not involve choice.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




The pro-life community, as well and the National Republican Platform, are pushing hard to amend the constitution to give an embryo the same rights as its host! That would make elective abortion illegal across the board and that is why a vote for Trump is a vote against women's rights.


it would also make many of the more effective birth control illegal, since the embryo is declared a person even before it makes it's way into the uterus and many of those birth control methods have a two prong way of preventing pregnancy. the first is to prevent conception, but in case that fails, the second is to make the uterus inhospitable for implantation.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I would say yes, except for most murders choice is involved. In abortion there needs to be oversight and more than 4 people to say yes late term.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I was focusing on the ability of what the law can do. I will consider looking more into the current cases as to there is a lot of problems with the system as is. Its hard as to all the regions and changes. Consequences is a whole different story but it does complicate the issue. I imagine there is a huge problem with the men forcing woman into abortion and partly what I am saying is to help those woman in need.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

This whole world is the older people and generations trying to take advantage of the younger. Some of what they are doing is good and moral but some does not go so far. They have a point but in some cases I agree they are pushing it.

I stand partially corrected as that was a assumption as a question. Thanks



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join