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.

 

Abortion - there is only one question that matters

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: tanstaafl

First, I am so very sorry for your loss! No pain in the world like losing a child, at any stage of life. Lost two very early to miscarriage, and twin grandsons, due to an incompetent doc and various issues, including early delivery. Know where you are right now. That pain, even when you think it's settled, can come back strong, without warning. So, (((HUGS))), for what that's worth.

It is worth everything, thank you very much, and allow me to return the (((HUGS))) three fold!

I still have a picture of my son hooked up to all of those tubes, not sure why I keep it, because I can see him much more clearly than in that picture, as if he was right in front of me, by just closing my eyes and thinking about it.


I can understand keeping it! He's your son, and that's a tangible reminder of him. And, most welcome!! If nothing but being able to offer some comfort comes of the loss I know, well, that's something! Hold those mental images, too! I have NO doubt he's safe and secure now, held in God's own hands. When King David lost his son, we are told that child was with God, and I believe that is an indicator that God cares for the little ones who are lost. He is a loving God!

One day, they will be there to greet us.




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.

And doing so with respect to someone totally incapable, both physically and mentally, of defending themselves. The very definition of a coward.


Very much so!! I can fully understand how hard in unplanned pregnancy can be. However, I cannot fathom taking that route! I was a mother at nineteen, married young, didn't plan a baby so fast, but she came along anyway! I had other plans. Even so, wouldn't trade her for the world!! She's an adult, doing well in her job, with three wonderful kids, who would never have been born had I decided to abort. I can't imagine a world without them!!

Plus, there is the harm done to the women as well. I have spoken to people who did make that decision, and regretted it. The pain is very deep, and very real! The industry doesn't talk about that, because they want people to think it's just some simple procedure. It isn't. The loss I feel, with miscarriage, women feel after abortion, and worse, because they chose to lose that child. That makes deep scars.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NGC224

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.


Huh?...Imposing their will on someone else?....Look..... I've said this a few times before.....
When THE PARASITE can survive without needing a HOST,......Then you can have a conversation about "what" it really is, and what to do about it...EVEN then, it STILL comes down to the choice of the WOMAN who is bearing the literal weight....HER BODY, HER CHOICE period!


A baby is not a parasite. One's own offspring, within the womb, is not parasitical in nature. No, it isn't her body. It's the body of her child. Let me help you:




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I agree that there are a lot of people trying to rewrite our early history, christian and non-christian, yes. But with regards to this specific question, as I said, before, there are far more non christians trying to erase all references to our christian roots, that christians trying to make more of it than it was.


So you agree as long as it's still a "My side is better than your side" kind of agreement??
Well, then I'll point out that I disagree with your opinion that there are less christians pushing to rewrite history. But since neither of us has actually factually verified the actual numbers on that I'll just call it about even and leave it at that.


This is the post[/url] you responded to, and you totally ignored everything after reading the first few words once you wrongly got it in your head that I was claiming we were founded as 'a Christian Nation'.

So, by all means, go have a read and come back if you like...


Because you keep talking about "Christian roots" and Moral Law when discussing Abortion. But since we both agree that it's not a Christian Nation then Christian roots and morals really don't matter in this case does it??? Because not everyone here is Christian nor is required to follow it's teachings. So why bother pointing them out as a position behind your argument??? Do you also consider our native american roots and religions opinion??? How about the views of Scientology since they're here too???

I didn't think so. Neither do I care what their religious laws have to say about it either. See how that works??



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: NGC224

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.


Huh?...Imposing their will on someone else?....Look..... I've said this a few times before.....
When THE PARASITE can survive without needing a HOST,......Then you can have a conversation about "what" it really is, and what to do about it...EVEN then, it STILL comes down to the choice of the WOMAN who is bearing the literal weight....HER BODY, HER CHOICE period!


A baby is not a parasite. One's own offspring, within the womb, is not parasitical in nature. No, it isn't her body. It's the body of her child. Let me help you:



I'm sorry but your graphic doesn't work. You point to the picture of a body INSIDE another body and just claim "Not your body". I mean it's IN that body so it's not exactly NOT there body now is it?? They are most certainly connected in a very biological sense and one actually grew from within that other body. So yah, they are pretty much the same body. The second literally grew from within the flesh of the first. They will eventually separate but until then they are as much one as you can get.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: NGC224

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: daryllyn
So much this. People tend to assume their assumptions are the end all, be all, objective truth, when that truth is actually subjective.

You cannot impose your will on others, based on subjective truths.


Yet that's what someone getting an abortion is doing; imposing their will on someone else, based on what they want/believe.


Huh?...Imposing their will on someone else?....Look..... I've said this a few times before.....
When THE PARASITE can survive without needing a HOST,......Then you can have a conversation about "what" it really is, and what to do about it...EVEN then, it STILL comes down to the choice of the WOMAN who is bearing the literal weight....HER BODY, HER CHOICE period!


A baby is not a parasite. One's own offspring, within the womb, is not parasitical in nature. No, it isn't her body. It's the body of her child. Let me help you:



I'm sorry but your graphic doesn't work. You point to the picture of a body INSIDE another body and just claim "Not your body". I mean it's IN that body so it's not exactly NOT there body now is it?? They are most certainly connected in a very biological sense and one actually grew from within that other body. So yah, they are pretty much the same body. The second literally grew from within the flesh of the first. They will eventually separate but until then they are as much one as you can get.


Wrong! What was that about Christians being science deniers?!?!? Seriously!? This is Biology 101, basic science. No, a baby in the womb, of any species, is not the same body as the mother! Different DNA, different person.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
There is only one queation you need to ask when it comea to abortion.

That is: is it any of your business?

The answer is no.

Ah, I see, so when your wife is murdered during a home invasion, it is none of your or anyone else's business.

Thank you for your participation.


The man does no work towards the growing of a baby.

Just because you dumped your load into a woman one night does not automatically give you the right to tell her what to do with her body.

But i imagine womens rights are not something that concerns you.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Because you keep talking about "Christian roots" and Moral Law when discussing Abortion.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

While others have, I didn't mention either in my initial post, and I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned either one even once (except in response to someone else who did) in any of my responses, although it is really hard to consider this question without morality coming into play in some fashion.

I merely pointed out that the only question that matters is 'when does life begin', and proposed an alternative way of phrasing the question to try to get people who have already made up their minds to maybe, just maybe, rethink it.


But since we both agree that it's not a Christian Nation then Christian roots and morals really don't matter in this case does it???

It matters in so far as you keep claiming it doesn't.


Because not everyone here is Christian nor is required to follow it's teachings. So why bother pointing them out as a position behind your argument???

Again, I have not brought up the 'christian roots' of our nation in support of my argument in this thread.

I only brought that up to counter the ridiculous claims that the founding of our nation had nothing to do with christianity, when it had almost everything to do with it.

As to why you seem to be so offended at the thought that the founding of our nation is firmly rooted in christian principles, I have no idea.


Do you also consider our native american roots and religions opinion???

How about the views of Scientology since they're here too???

I didn't think so. Neither do I care what their religious laws have to say about it either. See how that works??

Well, I see you making ridiculously huge false analogies (American Indian religions (they had many) played no role in the founding of our nation, and scientology wasn't around yet) to try to make your points.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
The man does no work towards the growing of a baby.

Depends... if the man is supporting her financially and emotionally, then I call BS.


Just because you dumped your load into a woman one night does not automatically give you the right to tell her what to do with her body.

Just because some woman lied to me about loving me, and had sex with me just to get some money and other 'stuff', doesn't give her the right to murder my unborn child.


But i imagine womens rights are not something that concerns you.

I don't believe in 'womens rights', I believe in the rights of free people'.

In case you wondered, that means I don't believe in 'special' rights for any group of people.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I didn't say it was the same person. But it is certainly attached and growing inside the other. It's also fully reliant on that host for a time as well.

The host is literally providing it with the biological material which it is consuming to grow. It is absorbing material from that host to grow into it's own creature. Like a cell that is dividing into two cells almost. Only instead of being an exact copy the new one only has half the info from the original host and half from a donor.

I know they aren't the same. But pretty damn close and one needs the other to survive while it grows at first.

Throw a fit all you want but they aren't two separate things as long as one of them is growing within the other.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

It matters in so far as you keep claiming it doesn't.


I have to say that is one of the best BS responses I've ever got back from anyone on here.

I applaud you in your efforts on that one.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I didn't say it was the same person. But it is certainly attached and growing inside the other. It's also fully reliant on that host for a time as well.

The host is literally providing it with the biological material which it is consuming to grow. It is absorbing material from that host to grow into it's own creature. Like a cell that is dividing into two cells almost. Only instead of being an exact copy the new one only has half the info from the original host and half from a donor.

I know they aren't the same. But pretty damn close and one needs the other to survive while it grows at first.

Throw a fit all you want but they aren't two separate things as long as one of them is growing within the other.


A mother is a mother, not a "host". Changing the terms does not change that fact. And, in fact, you basically did say they were the same. You stated,


So yah, they are pretty much the same body.


Same body means same person. They are not the same.

A baby a year old needs someone else to survive. That doesn't make it right to kill them.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

A baby a year old needs help surviving because of the environment in which it's in but it is technically capable of surviving on it's own biologically.

A fetus in the womb can't. It is fed through a cord attached to the host mother. It can't survive or even function correctly yet. It couldn't feed itself even if food were there like a baby could. It's not even able to breath air yet like we do. All those biological functions are still being taken care of by the mothers body until they develop within the child.

A baby has those functions. It still needs some help but it is technically self sufficient and fully functional as an individual being. A fetus isn't. It is incapable of survival without some kind of direct assistance to keep it alive until it's fully developed. Until then the mother, or now possibly through machines and modern science, must be there to take over those functions until the child has them running on it's own.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

A baby a year old needs help surviving because of the environment in which it's in but it is technically capable of surviving on it's own biologically.

A fetus in the womb can't. It is fed through a cord attached to the host mother. It can't survive or even function correctly yet. It couldn't feed itself even if food were there like a baby could. It's not even able to breath air yet like we do. All those biological functions are still being taken care of by the mothers body until they develop within the child.

A baby has those functions. It still needs some help but it is technically self sufficient and fully functional as an individual being. A fetus isn't. It is incapable of survival without some kind of direct assistance to keep it alive until it's fully developed. Until then the mother, or now possibly through machines and modern science, must be there to take over those functions until the child has them running on it's own.


Being dependent does NOT make one less human. It simply makes one dependent. A baby in the womb does depend on the mother, but that does not give her a right to kill that baby.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
but that does not give her a right to kill that baby.


Well obviously that is debatable based on the situation though now isn't it. There are in fact situations where it is ok or even is a better option than her having it.

There is a grey area because that's the way things are.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
After the first abortion they should be sterilized ,since they have proven they havent the maturity or IQ to use contraceptives or the self discipline to keep their legs together ,in this day and age there is very little Excuse for it ,with all the contraceptives,apart from a bunch of selfish ,self centered feminists demanding their ''Right '' to do WHATEVER they want,without repercussion or responsibility and screw everyone else and the consequences, and that the Government and everyone else pay their way through life .



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ozb1777



After the first abortion they should be sterilized


"They"? Are you thinking of the same "they" as "They put the lotion on the skin, else "they" get the hose again"?

Can we castrate the would be fathers, as well?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Science has clearly proven that life begins at the zygote stage. I don't mind women having abortions as long as it is limited to rape, incest, or complications that endanger the life of the mother.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
but that does not give her a right to kill that baby.


Well obviously that is debatable based on the situation though now isn't it. There are in fact situations where it is ok or even is a better option than her having it.

There is a grey area because that's the way things are.


I don't believe it is. We are talking about a human being. Killing a baby is never a good option.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Really??? So you think birthing the child to the crackhead mother who decided to put it in the microwave was a good idea???

Or the woman who gives birth in the middle of walking down the street only to then cut the cord and throw it in the trash to suffer a very short life in garbage is still a worthy life and one of compassion. Because I don't. If I was that child I'd much rather someone spare me those hours or days of helpless existence until my brutal fate and let me out of that whole thing as early as possible.




top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join