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.

 

Appeals court: Indiana abortion law signed by Mike Pence unconstitutional

page: 3
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

They can have abortions all day long IMO, but not a single PENNY of public money should go to it. Some woman and her morally bankrupt/wrong lifestyle isn't my problem (or anyone else's)

They need to pony up the money themselves. Same goes for their 20 other kids they didn't abort. Their housing, food, education, and life needs to be entirely funded by the parents (or parent, since a normal, monogamous morally-correct family is rare)

And if they can't pay? Why are they even in this country? There are places (like Mexico, Honduras, etc) where people like them can live in squalor without harming the rest of us/our society.

But hey, some would rather have sex all day and get abortions at (even partial is too much) tax-payer expense. They then raise the children (always more than one) at tax-payer expense. Their medicine, food, housing, education, incarceration (its statistics, look it up) also at OUR expense.

Either pay your own way or get out of our beautiful country. We don't need losers and freeloaders. Period.

Looks like Executive Orders should be issued on a rolling basis to thwart the Federal court's overreach once again.
edit on 4/21/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Some woman and her morally bankrupt/wrong lifestyle isn't my problem


Yes. God forbid women have sex for pleasure right?


They need to pony up the money themselves. Same goes for their 20 other kids they didn't abort.


Just like the other member bringing up 'welfare abuse' in his response, you're bringing up 'public abortion funding' which has nothing to do with the OP. When you can't think of a counter argument, make one up.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MiddleInsite

You're right.

It is legal to kill unborn children because they are not considered individual human beings with their own unique DNA.




Unless of course the mother is killed, then suddenly it is a unique human being and the person is charged with two murders. Never understood that. I think the truth of what a human life really is only dawns on people when it isn't their choice. Murder is murder. Legal murder is still murder.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede


It's all about a woman's choice. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was pushed through by pro-life groups and lobbyists and was opposed by pro-choice groups and lobbyists because they saw it as a path to criminalizing abortion. And, indeed pro-lifers are certainly using it to promote that pathway. Some supposed Christian pro-lifers even want to kill women who have abortions, citing this very Act.

In the end, even The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, protects a woman's choice. In this case, her choice to carry her pregnancy to term. (Choice cuts both ways) To take that away from her, by taking her life, is the "murder" of two. I don't agree with it, but it protects a woman's choice, for now.

Shrug......



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MiddleInsite

You're right.

It is legal to kill unborn children because they are not considered individual human beings with their own unique DNA.




Unless of course the mother is killed, then suddenly it is a unique human being and the person is charged with two murders. Never understood that. I think the truth of what a human life really is only dawns on people when it isn't their choice. Murder is murder. Legal murder is still murder.


You don’t understand that the second murder charge is added because it’s assumed the mother would keep the child? Because the child exists until it doesn’t, even if you killed the mother in her way to abort the fetus, she hadn’t gone through with it.

It’s about self determination and bodily autonomy
edit on 4/21/2018 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MiddleInsite

You're right.

It is legal to kill unborn children because they are not considered individual human beings with their own unique DNA.






Unless of course the mother is killed, then suddenly it is a unique human being and the person is charged with two murders. Never understood that. I think the truth of what a human life really is only dawns on people when it isn't their choice. Murder is murder. Legal murder is still murder.


You don’t understand that the second murder charge is added because it’s assumed the mother would keep the child? Because the child exists until it doesn’t, even if you killed the mother in her way to abort the fetus, she hadn’t gone through with it.

It’s about self determination and bodily autonomy


Oh, I understand perfectly. It is a human life when it is convenient. Otherwise it is a piece of meat. I have no issue with people choosing do do what they want, but they need to be consistent that it is killing a human in all cases.


edit on 21-4-2018 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede


I consistently disagree with The Unborn Victims of Violence Act.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MiddleInsite

You're right.

It is legal to kill unborn children because they are not considered individual human beings with their own unique DNA.






Unless of course the mother is killed, then suddenly it is a unique human being and the person is charged with two murders. Never understood that. I think the truth of what a human life really is only dawns on people when it isn't their choice. Murder is murder. Legal murder is still murder.


You don’t understand that the second murder charge is added because it’s assumed the mother would keep the child? Because the child exists until it doesn’t, even if you killed the mother in her way to abort the fetus, she hadn’t gone through with it.

It’s about self determination and bodily autonomy


Oh, I understand perfectly. It is a human life when it is convenient. Otherwise it is a piece of meat. I have no issue with people choosing do do what they want, but they need to be consistent that it is killing a human in all cases.



Clump of cells is the correct term.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson

I don't want to call anyone names or try to ascribe improper motivations to any point of view. So I'm tired of the reverse happening, that I'm considered some sort of troglodyte for believing in saving the unborn children's lives. Economic arguments against saving life never have held sway with me.



Before abortion was made legal It was the poor girl/woman who ended up dead

of sepsis or half her entrails hanging out due to back street abortions.

Economics is what saved the well off probably privately educated girls, as daddy

had the funds to get her a private abortion in the safety of some Doctors surgery.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The idea that one is logically, or morally, inconsistent to be against abortion and against welfare abuse is not only wrong, it is a red-herring. If your world view is such that you consider abortion to be murder, you would want to prevent that murder. Hypothetically having prevented that murder, why should you be responsible for the surviving victim. When someone prevents the murder of a person other than an unborn child, or fetus, or whatever, should they first do a calculation to the cost to society that would be engendered by saving that person?


When the repubs scream, it is about saving the unborn child, you have to ask, why do they stop caring when it is born?



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I am pro life and hate the fact that there are abortions are taking place but I am also for the right for a woman to choose.

You would think that anyone who is pro 2nd amendment or pro free speech would be for this too. If you do not like people stepping in and telling you what you can do or what you can do with your life, then stand up for this too.

After all it is the woman who suffers the consequences and not the general public.



posted on Apr, 21 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: donnydeevil
I am pro life and hate the fact that there are abortions are taking place but I am also for the right for a woman to choose.
After all it is the woman who suffers the consequences and not the general public.



Do you ever wonder what the consensus would be if it was the male who carried

the fetus to full term?

At least a year out of their lives (producing and feeding an infant) for every child

they have? ..... Hmmn



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join