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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: randomthoughts12

I'm anti-abortion and religious and that's still bullsh*t to me.

It's the pregnant woman's right. No one else.




I call bullsh*t on that. Granted the woman carries the baby, but what about the other half that created that life?

So the father should have no say in the life he has also created?


Okay.

Here is a scenario...

The pregnant woman doesn't want an abortion...
The man wants her to have an abortion...

So the father should have a say? According to you?


No the father shouldn't have a say, & I say that as a man.




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The father should have a say. Not to force her to abort, but to absolve himself from the child, same choice mother has when she chooses to abort and not take responsibility for the child, if she chooses to carry the child to term after that. It's her choice but she does so without slaving the father's paycheck for 18 years.

If the father wants any rights into the child's life he needs to agree to pay child support within the allotted time. If he chooses not to, only way he gets anything is if the mother decides to let him in.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

penalize the woman


You had to bring sex into it. I can hear her in bed 30 years ago, "Penalize me Bill, Penalize me harder!"
edit on 20 by AshFan because: spelling



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Then the man should wear a condom or keep his legs closed.

Imagine how many men could get out of child support lol

That's ridiculous.
Own your responsibilities.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The same is true for the woman equally. She's has the choice to absolve herself of responsibilities, so should the man.

It's called equality.

As to how many men will choose to cut themselves out of their child's life before they are born? Not sure. Probably a comparable number to women choosing to do the same by choosing to abort or give their child up for adoption.

You know women that have the right to say no, or demand the man use a condom, and the ability to be on the pill.
edit on 10/20/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Bone75

So your answer is yes, you would choose to put your newborn child through endless suffering until they die.


Did you have trouble comprehending my response? Who are you to sum up the child's life as endless suffering? Who are you to say that seeing her mother's face, or feeling her father's embrace isn't worth the suffering to the child?



Bet you wouldn't do that to your dog.

So a dog doesn't deserve to suffer but a human fetus does. Wow, that's messed up.


That's probably the worst strawman I've ever read.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
If only God has the right to abort a child, why doesn't he put a stop to them?

Humans -1 : God - 0



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The same is true for the woman equally. She's has the choice to absolve herself of responsibilities, so should the man.

It's called equality.


In what way?
What I said was in jest, you cannot police sexual intercourse.
No one should "close their legs"...
It was sarcasm in the form of all the horrible things people say about women flipped onto the man.

I'm anti-abortionist so you won't often here me defend the process or the people involved...


But...

I want alternatives.
Better alternatives that the standard birth control which can fail.

I'm not discussing elective abortion, Puppy.
To me that's the third most disgusting thing behind rape and paedophilia.


We have been discussing abortions that are a danger to the mother. i.e. late term.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Isn't a women who's life in danger already allowed to choose themselves over the baby even late term?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Article 3 of the UN Human Rights states everyone has the right to life. Fetuses are a stage in human development thus they are human. They also comply with the biological requirements of life though the argument that fetuses can not reproduce has been made, but neither can infants so that argument suggests infants are not life(must I go on?).


By the way. Use of birth control pills and condoms reduces the chance of pregnancy to less than a percent.
edit on 20-10-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc




Article 3 of the UN Human Rights states everyone has the right to life. Fetuses are a stage in human development thus they are human.


No sorry. I refer you to Article 1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Just like the US Constitution, the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires that a person be born in order to have human rights.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Isn't a women who's life in danger already allowed to choose themselves over the baby even late term?


So what gives the man a say?

Nada.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




Isn't a women who's life in danger already allowed to choose themselves over the baby even late term?


No. Especially not in a Catholic hospital.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: crimsongod21

Thank goodness we have the technology that saved your life today. I am against abortion, but when there are complications, sometimes the pregnancy must be ended to save the mother's life. I'm sure your mother was probably going through a great deal of physical pain and grief with the loss of the baby. In the old days, both the unborn baby and mother would die. It's a miracle that the mother or in some cases child or BOTH can be saved these days. I'm glad you have your mom there for you, and I appreciate the doctor for saving both of your lives.

If it is specifically needed to save the mother's life, then that is one case I would agree with partial birth abortion. If the mother used drugs or alcohol during the pregnancy enough to complicate it and she's "getting rid of it" to deal with a "guilty conscience" or something like that, then I hope there is some sort of accountability in the after life!

Abortion should be a right, but it should have certain limitations. I didn't like the way that Donald Trump answered that question. I don't particularly agree with Hillary either. The above is how I feel. The government should protect the rights to abortion, and finance it where it is to strictly save lives, and I would expect no more than that.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I am saying you can't have a full term abortion because at full term
a) it is a baby....no longer a foetus

b) at full or very late term the baby is not aborted but delivered. And only in very exceptional circumstances where there is a threat of death or harm to the mother...or the baby has died

c) yep...pretty sure that HRC will know the difference between made up $hit that gets put around by the likes of Trump and his Pro Life Trumpety Numptys and how the actual medical procedure and the law works to protect women and babies.

Hope that is clear enough



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

Who are you to say that seeing her mother's face, or feeling her father's embrace isn't worth the suffering to the child?



And who are you to say it is worth the suffering?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Then you may get depressed when you come to the realization that those are the two that can become president.


Well, one thing they discussed was his economic plan being that he was...I think gonna make Japan pay us or something. I do remember being very confused that he simply ignored completely that question
Its always the only real question in most elections is the economy and what they plan on doing..he went on a tyrade on how japan needs to pay up.....which they already do pay for the military base that is there actually

I think he also mentioned his plans on economic boom by...having soo many jobs, it will be good jobs, jobs like you wouldn't believe.
done by....telling china to cut out being competitive or something, who the hell knows.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The fetus is a stage of HUMAN development. The fetus is alive and human. Any claim otherwise denies science.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Fine. But only persons that has been "born" have rights, according to the UN and according to the US Constitution.

The unborn do not have rights. Period.


edit on 20-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ksiezyc

Fine. But only persons that has been "born" have rights, according to the UN and according to the US Constitution.

The unborn do not have rights. Period.


It's still murder.

Killing a human because they don't have "rights" is straight out of the Hitler handbook.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join