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.
originally posted by: EvanB
If you want to justify murdering your own children then carry on. Just don't expect everyone to a agree..
I personally shun abortionists and know there is a special place in hell for them
Genesis 38:9, "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother."
originally posted by: darkbake
The O.P. makes a very good point. My views are on par with this nun for sure. I think we should help the poor and those who are struggling. Unborn children should also be respected. Good social programs and resources for women, both pregnant and those wanting to be sexually healthy, are still important even if they don't cover abortions. In fact, the more positive services that are available to women (maybe alternatives to abortion like adoption, or birth control, or protection, or education) the less likely they might be to have an abortion.
originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: Xenogears
Take your outdated oppression laden filled philosophy back to the 1600's.
Can you say that sh&t in pulic or only on the Internet where nobody knows your name and face?
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee
Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?
Yes.
Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".
This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.
It does target women. If a woman wanted a child but wasn't chosen by the goverment, she would have no choice. Hence the government is lierally telling that woman what she can do with her body.
NO, it doesn't.
"If a woman wanted a child"
Obviously in your world men don't.
I am sorry but you are making no sense.
The government telling a woman that she can legally not get pregnant is the ultimate control over her body.
originally posted by: Xenogears
For now a woman can't get pregnant without a man, if the government destroyed all sperm and the ability of men to produce sperm, she could not get pregnant even if she wanted to, yet her body would be untouched.
edit: note, that I'm not advocating for that, just putting an example of how it does not necessarily infringe on a woman's right over her own body.
originally posted by: Grambler
But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.
originally posted by: Annee
I live in the present.
I support the Constitution as a framework of our government.
I am really not interested in the type argument you are trying to put forth.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Grambler
But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.
It still takes 2.
Both man and woman.
originally posted by: Xenogears
People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition.
originally posted by: Xenogears
A new citizen also deserves good genetics,
originally posted by: Xenogears
and adequate housing, education, health care,
originally posted by: Xenogears
mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.
originally posted by: Xenogears
What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.
originally posted by: Annee
Save LIVING children.
originally posted by: TruthJava
a reply to: Annee
Exactly the point! To have an abortion so one can avoid responsibility for the next 18 years is wrong and a sin against that child. A person should not have sex if they want to guarantee no responsibility for the next 18 years.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Xenogears
For now a woman can't get pregnant without a man, if the government destroyed all sperm and the ability of men to produce sperm, she could not get pregnant even if she wanted to, yet her body would be untouched.
edit: note, that I'm not advocating for that, just putting an example of how it does not necessarily infringe on a woman's right over her own body.
But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.
And I am not ripping on you, but come on, really? This is such a ridiculous statement.
Why stop there? If we just killed all men that would solve the problem. Or better yet, how about nuclear annihilation? No government interfering with womens rights after that right?
I don't know what you are going for with your argument here.
Fact is saying that women should have to have the permission from the government to get pregnant is the ultimate government control over a womans body. You know this, so why even try to paint an outlandish genocidal scenario to try to justify this repugnant statement.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Agree with you on those at least partially. What if the "government" comes to claim that children should be vegans because in their minds vegans are more healthy?... That leads to compulsory nutrition as mandated by the "government".
Wait what?... Good genetics?... That sounds like eugenics and what the NAZIS did in Germany...
In part agree with you, but I don't believe it should be compulsory as you seem to believe.
Here we go... First you claim "a new citizen deserves good genetics" in other words a eugenics program controlled by the government... I guess you are unaware on the history of the NAZIS who also believed "mankind deserves good genetics from the master race"...
Then you go and say "new citizens should have mentally fit parents"... Who would decide what is "mentally fit"?... So you seem to be "pro big government which would control what genetics children are born with, and the government should control all aspects of people's lives, including what they should think and teach their children...
And here we go again with "a progressive" thinking people should be sterilized...and of course under government control... Thanks but again, no thanks...
originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Southern Guardian
Look, it's a "glob of cells"
I say we continue allowing abortion to be legal, on the stipulation that every expecting mother has to get an ultrasound so that she can see exactly what they are choosing.