It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where do you stand on abortion?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:34 PM

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

If you want to rob a bank, you'll find a way. Why make it illegal?

That's a poor analogy.
I don't think you should take money from someone else's pocket. If it's your pocket however, what say should I have?

Ah, but that's the thing.

It has become that very issue because abortion providers DO take money out of our pockets either via mandated insurance coverage or government funding.

And don't tell me they don't directly use those funds for abortions. The funds freed up by the government money are used, so it's the same difference.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:38 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

OMG! Your tax dollars fund the roads that abortionists drive to work on each day, and their clients use to access their abortion clinics! Our infrastructure provide the electricity for those clinics! YeGads! Where does it end?

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:46 PM
Yes, if you affect someone else, and it's illegal there is a problem. If you define an embryo as life there is a problem. If not, then it's your choice.

Who should define life? I say the State. Some States allow recreational drug use some don't, it's their job to regulate their own laws.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

So you are ok with murder if the fetus is the product of rape? Why? What did the kid ever do wrong?

So you are ok with murder if the fetus threatens the life of the mother? Why? Shouldn't the fetus have the right to fight for his/her life? Lets go back to the old days when the a hands off approach was taken until 1 or the other died and then try to save the winner.

So you are ok with murder if a woman can afford to pay for own abortion but not ok with murder, if woman has to rely on tax funding? Why are rich woman getting a free ride from her irresponsible behavior but poor woman has to take it up the wazoo or take her chances with a coat again/

Are you seeing any inconsistencies in your position yet?

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:00 PM

originally posted by: Profusion
Where do you stand on abortion?

None of my business.

I'm not comfortable with the idea, out of some vague sense of Roman Catholic guilt beaten into me through years of being taught by Christian Brothers, but my disliking an idea has no reason to translate into telling other people they can't do it.

If I see someone casually boasting about having them then I'm going to judge them for it, but I'll keep my mouth shut. I can't really recall many people acting like that, though. People that I know (and know of) that have had them, have usually given it a lot of thought and treat it as a serious decision.

I know one person who still struggles with it 20 years later and occasionally wonders what the child would have been doing now. I helped her plant a rosebush as a memorial a long time ago. She still gives me roses from that bush from time to time. Just to clarify, I wasn't the father.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:01 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

So your argument is against taxation?

Let's stop all the fancy meals and perks of being a politician first.

Then we can argue about the economical benefits of scared little girls bleeding to death.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:04 PM
Read the OP, did not read any responses yet. Just to keep my mind clear of what I was thinking, will go back and read them.

I have a friend over too, we're turning into drunks, ha. She does have many intriguing ideas and I asked her to come over and help me with a response on women's issues, in regards to business, since she is a biz person. I'm not sure what that would be beyond that biz wants and steers you to breed more consumers - and isn't that kind of blatantly obvious? I don't have an MBA and I know that. Isn't that obvious?

She says that I should say something about pollution, since I studied enviro sci. Yeah and it's everywhere and - OK the both of us are polluted and so is about everyone we know. Don't people see this? What about all the personal injury lawyers on TV? Are you sick with, exposed to, this that the other? Don't people see those?

It's pretty badly polluted here in the lower US great lakes region. I got it in IL and my friend here got it in MI. She's now got chromosomal damage to the DNA too from chemo drugs.

You think people like us should have kids? And there are many, many of us. And even more who don't even realize what damage they have.

What about the kid? Who would very likely be seriously ill. Non viable even. Vegetative. Gross deformity.

Such a being should be forced into existence ONLY to suffer and die anyway?

HOW is this HUMANE?

People treat livestock and pets better.

And once all these seriously ill children (not to mention the normal unwanted) are forced into existence - who will pay for them? Heroic care and life at all costs - costs ALOT OF MONEY too - who will pay for that? YOU WILL - formally socialized medicine or not, it is socialized because for those who can't pay - just like shoplifting losses - that's shoved off on everyone else.

And the RW and religious types like to say things like - 'People born into bad circumstance can just go out and work like the rest of us'.
Vegetables on life support can't work.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:04 PM
Pro choice, with limits and that choice should be made as difficult as possible to make.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:22 PM
a reply to: ausername

Every species on earth has some means of controlling procreation. If a newborn anything is sick, abnormal etc, the mother or father will ease its suffering by granting a quick death.

To date, human being chose to control procreation by controlling the females sexual activity.

That is what the controversy is all about. Everyone is sooooo concerned that with legal abortion, woman can now control when and how they procreate and can enjoy sex just as much as men.

Some people just don't like that!

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:47 PM
Decided to rephrase this as - what if one is just cut out for a different lifestyle?
edit on 23-1-2017 by FalseMove because: clarity

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:53 PM

Underlying many of the posts is a feeling of punitive pious glee, eg.

A woman has enjoyed sex punish her, make her suffer for her sin.

Make it difficult make her pay....serve time (18 years of responsibility

at the very least!!)

God forbid that any woman has complete control of her own life.

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 10:59 PM

originally posted by: AMNicks
a reply to: namelesss

if one cannot answer that question exactly, then shouldn't the tie go to the runner?

Accept one can answer these questions!

The question to which I refer, is when, exactly, does the lump of cells become a legal person.
Some say after there is a brain.
Others say at conception.
Others say when it can survive on it's own if separated from the mother.
There are many Perspectives, and that is the point that if the 'line' is more of a vague 'window', then, again, shouldn't the tie go to the runner.
No abortions unless it is to save the life of the mother, or rape or similar...
Perhaps not even then?
See what I mean?
But I repeat, no matter what the law is, women who will get an abortion will do so, and it is an ethical society that would help make the process as safe and painless as possible.

If a women has a gun and is going to shoot innocent people, YES we have the right to tell her what to do with her body (take finger off trigger)

That's why I mentioned that one has the 'right' to use deadly force to stop the fetus from harming the health of the woman; self defense.
But there are so many Perspectives...

You are completely correct, although making it completely unconditioned allows women to use this as birth control!

I find that a completely fallacious argument.
First, an abortion is an extremely traumatic experience, filled with pain and tears!
One NEVER forgets!
Second, there are no stats to support such an assertion.
Third, inexpensive birth control is so widely available, so accepted, that one is considered a 'freak' NOT to use birth control.
It can keep you from getting laid at all!
Not to mention the buffet of diseases...
And it's easy...
Nah, the only time that it's really used as 'birth-control' would be at the (rare) failure of a condom (for instance) or a pill, perhaps, forgotten...
As a last ditch resort, rarely, perhaps.
Unless you consider the 'morning after pill' to be an 'abortion'.

Becoming completely disconnect with the idea that this is murder

Don't get all emotional on me.
'Murder' is a legal term, defined legally, by statute, clear for all to see.
It is rare that having an abortion can land you in torture/prison/is defined, legally, as murder.
I do understand that, in certain jurisdictions, harming a pregnant woman and causing an abortion can be prosecuted as 'murder'.
In other places, simple assault and battery, perhaps misdemeanor...

Extra rhetorical credit;
Would you like to guess which states would call the causing of the death of an unborn 'murder', and which states could care less? *__-

edit on 23-1-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 11:07 PM

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Leave it up to each person to decide for themselves .

If people want to murder their offspring then let them live with the consequences of their decisions .

Why didn't you just say "pro-life"?


posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 07:28 AM

24 weeks seems a reasonable maximum

24 week old "fetus"

This seems reasonable maximum to kill or so you say

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in