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.

 

My Freedom rant. . . and everyone poops except me

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

I can't even blame booze for bad ideas, I haven't hit the bottle yet today.


That makes one of us...




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: DBCowboy

Cute.
Not quite what I meant, but it'll d--oh dear god, DB's wearing a thong under that



If I wore a thong OVER the dress, it'd look silly.

Sheesh!



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


That is true.. however, it is unreasonable for that woman to expect tax payers to foot the bill as well.

I have no problem with reproductive freedom, even though I disagree with abortion personally. My issue is being forced to pay for it. It is their right, but they must fund it. Not the people via government.

Unless someone wants to argue that taxpayers should pay for my guns



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Well, just a point of reference; you are arguing on principle then, because the cost of the procedure to taxpayers is negligible by virtually any standard you consider (other than principle). Funding, or not funding, the procedures wouldn't make even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% difference. However, the flip side of that coin paints a far different picture; the public assistance costs associated with unwanted children is, in fact, both measurable and considerable.

Freedom of choice is probably one of the only things I agree with the left on!




edit on 12/10/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So freedom of choice trumps freedom to life?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So freedom of choice trumps freedom to life?

For those that believe in god or reincarnation, it's kind of simple. Those cells get back in line & wait for the next humping couple to hit a home run.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Yes ...

They want me to stay out of their bedroom, but they also want me to pay for what they did in it. The way I see it, they shouldn't have it both ways.

Your bedroom, your body, your conscience, your money = your choice.

Bring me in at any step, and it involves me to some degree.
edit on 10-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So freedom of choice trumps freedom to life?

For those that believe in god or reincarnation, it's kind of simple. Those cells get back in line & wait for the next humping couple to hit a home run.


What happens when those cells want to live instead of get assassinated?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


it is unreasonable for that woman to expect tax payers to foot the bill as well.


Valid point. The majority aren't taxpayer funded, but rather out of pocket. See the Hyde Amendment and subsequent legislation.


It is their right, but they must fund it.


The majority do, out of pocket.


My issue is being forced to pay for it.


I don't particularly like my tax dollars going to drop bombs and kill innocent people overseas who have not done anything to me, either.


even though I disagree with abortion personally


I'm only "pro-abortion" insofar as I don't have the right to deny a woman from making the choice herself, even if disagree with it.

Freedom.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Rights shouldn't conflict with each other.

Yet the right to choose conflicts with a right to life.

Now I will caveat that the unborn have no rights. But I find it sad (in a way) that a small fish like the Snail Darter has more rights than an unborn human.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Yet the right to choose conflicts with a right to life.


That rests on the debate of when life is defined as beginning, and at what point the unborn is considered a "person."

That's the problem.


Now I will caveat that the unborn have no rights.


Legally, little to no.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I find it sad that there is more outrage over animals euthanized in animal shelters than there is over babies killed by their own mothers.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I just quoted you the actual text of the ruling itself. Nowhere in there is there a right to an abortion,


The court disagrees.

Quote whatever you wish, and get as dramatic as you want, but women currently have the legal right to abortion (within the first trimester), and the SCOTUS agreed.

That is a fact.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

I find it sad that there is more outrage over animals euthanized in animal shelters than there is over babies killed by their own mothers.

I don't. It's nearly impossible to place every single discarded animal, and those that don't end up adopted or in refuges end up euthanized. Simple fact of life there. Now, if we were to do the same for human children, swapping "discarded animal" for "discarded baby", and "refuges" for "orphanages", it'd be something to discuss. We know full well there's far more abandoned kids and seized kids in care waiting to get adopted than will EVER be adopted in the first place.
Dollars to donuts nobody would want their tax money to pay for them in state-run orphanages, and we know how well the churches handled that in the past, so...Square one. Less kids via abortions, or do we hash out who pays for them for 18 years when they're dumped off somewhere or stuck in a poverty cycle for yet another miserable generation, and then they produce their own destitute offspring they can't afford or want, etc?

Tut-tutting is all fine and dandy, but you need to do better than romanticized abstinence. That doesn't work for s#.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

hahahhaha



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Eh, man has decided that killing is lawful in all kinds of situations...self-defense, during war, the death penalty, even medical negligence leading to wrongful death gets a pass as long as the deceased is old, uneducated, unemployed (ie. unlikely to yield a large settlement/jury award for a trial attorney). Even innocent people can be lawfully killed with the right defense attorney (or in the absence of a good prosecuting trial lawyer).

People make the laws we live by. I don't see abortion as being exceptionally repugnant by comparison.




edit on 12/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Yet the right to choose conflicts with a right to life.



There is no natural right to life.

There is only the natural right to kill.

That is the natural right and the natural law. We, humans...U.S. citizens -- people who create laws which narrow the natural law and sacrifice some our natural rights in a social compact -- have merely decided that killing is illegal and punishable in many situations.

***

ETA: I celebrate the rest of what you wrote though. But, I have a feeling I disagreed with the thing that was most important to you. =(

edit on 12/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Murder is murder.

If people were doing as they should, we wouldn't have either issue. But people are not responsible pet owners, nor are they responsible about the reality that sex, no matter how "safe" you make it leads to babies.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry. I don't agree with that.

There are some things you have simply because you are, and to say otherwise is to acknowledge that government does have the ultimate and arbitrary power to remove those things from you.

In this case, what you are saying is that our own government has every right to go genocidal because it arbitrates the social compact via law and can therefore decide that some groups are completely and utterly unworthy of their natural life and therefore deprive them of it and anything or everything else the state deems fit to remove.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   
So here's a illustrative (but hypothetical) question for y'all...

You volunteer to go on a deep space mission to another planet capable of supporting life. One other person, of the opposite sex, is also chosen. It will be a one way trip. You will be put into stasis (i.e. ageless sleep) until your craft lands on the distant planet.

One day in the future you wake up from your long sleep on the beach of a tropical paradise (I intentionally omitted any reference to Eden here). No one else is around, you are the only two inhabitants of this planet. There is no government, no society, nothing.

What are your "rights"?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join