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.

 

Alabama: Hey, y'all, watch this! Missouri: Hold my beer.

page: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

I think people miss the nuance.

While I try to keep liberty on the table, I won't promote those freedoms as the option.

However, if never disown or think down upon my sister's for showing they're human and imperfect.

I'd do anything for them, ironically some may see that commitment to the family unit as immoral.




posted on May, 16 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you thought about how the actions of the right will energize the left to come out in mass to vote in the next election?


The left are still a voting minority, unless you count the election fraud, dead folks and illegals..

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 16 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero


People are willing to trade one life for another

I didn't know pregnancy was terminal?

My wife and I had two kids via pregnancy, and she survived both times. My parents had two kids, and my mother survived, way back in the 1960s! When did pregnancy become a terminal disease?

TheRedneck


I guess you either missed my point or decided to ignore it and reply this way to a snippet of what I wrote.

My point was a question, if you are suggesting that we are talking about a human at conception then that life is equal to all other humans, right? A life that has the same value as anyone else, and so if that is the case then why in the situations that there might be risk to the mother, or worst with situational pregnancy in the form of rape, why do right to life people allow for an abortion for these limited reasons?

If the doctor told you that there is a risk to your wife's life if she didn't abort would you say we will let God determine who lives and who dies. If your daughter was raped at the age of 12 would you say the child needs to be born no matter what?

If that is how you are I can respect that, I for one can't follow that form of logic. If you are a right to life and believe there are situations that allows for abortion then you are a hypocrite in you beliefs.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xtrozero

True.

But the poster in question expressed distaste at the idea of giving children up for adoption. Since my husband was adopted, and I have two nephews who are adopted, and we have had the discussion about adopting ourselves off and on over the years since my health is not conducive to easy pregnancy, I'm not sure what the issue with just giving up a child is.

And of course we're also being led to believe it's the most wonderful thing ever when gay couples want to adopt now. If no one ever just gave their children up, then those couples would remain forever childless, wouldn't they, and it wouldn't have a thing to do with evil adoption agencies.


I personally do not support abortions, but I believe that a woman can chose. Where I personally draw the line is there needs to be a point that the woman just takes the pregnancy to full term and gives up the child for adoption. For me, prior to 12 weeks the brain is hardly developed, and even at 6 weeks it is developed to about what a shrimp has. Humans justifiably kill all the time in the form of defense, war, job, as a punishment etc, so why do we suggest that aborting a group of basic human cell with a brain developed to that of a shrimp is wrong?



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

It's not just about science; I am simply using the science to refute claims that are made based on incorrect science. For example, it is not alive... yes it is. That does not mean I believe that everything alive is sacred simply because it is alive. People have their appendixes removed all the time, and the appendix is alive. I had my tonsils removed at a young age; they were alive at the time.

If you look back, you will see where another poster mentioned this is more about when a child attains consciousness, and I responded with a wholehearted agreement. That's what it is really about, at least for me: compassion for all concerned. As you justly point out, when a woman is raped she will likely not care if the child is physically alive or what stage of development it is in... she wants it gone. It is the result of a horrendous violation of her body by another.

But that is situational. The child did not rape the woman. The child in no way has tried to harm the woman. The child will likely, if allowed, grow into a loving, special boy or girl. There is no "rape gene" that was passed on genetically.

So we have the situation of one person who understandably and desperately wishes to remove the child from her body, and a child who has committed no crime, no sin even, against the woman but will die if she follows through. What is the solution?

If I were biologically blessed sufficiently to participate in the conversation, I would say that the woman has a vested interest in her mental health that must be considered, and that means the child must die if she so wishes. I would also say she should not torture that child any more than absolutely necessary. Abortion is the direct killing of a child; there is no way I can see anyone disputing that fact. We also know that the child attains sentience and feeling continuously during the pregnancy. So the resulting reasonable solution I would accept is to simply do it, but do it now. Do not wait and thereby increase the pain that the child will feel. It does not deserve vengeance like its father may.

It is true that this bill does not allow for rape or incest. Again, were I biologically blessed with the correct body parts to speak to this subject, I would complain about that (and did before I was informed I was not allowed to speak due to my biological makeup). So, since my agreement with your reasoned thinking is not possible, I cannot agree. That saddens me, because the above reason is the only reason that would keep me from agreeing.

However, it appears to me that the reason I am unable to agree with you is based on the Roe vs. Wade ruling. If that ruling is removed, then I could agree with you that exceptions in cases of rape, as well as incest, should be allowed. So I can only root for an imperfect law now because the end result of that law legally might be to make it possible for me to agree with reasonable statements like yours.

Humans tend to make things so complicated...


TheRedneck



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Vroomfondel


That is great if you don't want any input in your child's future. Most men want a say in their childs future when a pregnancy, planned or otherwise, is known. Just because we won't carry the child does not mean we won't love it or want a say in its future. And that includes whether it is born or not. It takes two to create a child, it should take two to make all the relevant decisions regarding that child's life.


10% are teens, with the vast majority are single mothers and poor, so where does your logic fit in that most women who elect to abort are not people we typically would want to have kids, make good life decisions or expect them to lead a positive life in caring for a child?


Regardless of financial stability, it is still one person making a decision affecting the child of two people. Even if the mother is a teenager why does that mean the father has no say in what happens to his child? If she decides to abort the father has no say in the matter. If she decides to keep it the father is financially bound for 18 years and still has no say in the matter. Men are not just sperm donors with bank accounts. We are fathers who love our children just like their mothers do.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: okrian


I am saying it's totally ok to just have promiscuous sex all the time. If two people want to do that and no one is taking advantage of the other person, then have at it. None of your business.

As long as no one gets hurt, sure, have at it. I'm not going to agree that continuous promiscuous sexual activity is good, but hey, it's your body and your life.

But the caveat is that no one gets hurt. Killing is hurting.


Moreover, your body starts telling you to do it at a very young age. Younger than you are wise. And herein lies a big part of the issue.

A diabetic will often crave the sugar that could kill them. Obese people crave food, even though it places them at medical risk. We are not purely animals, and unlike other animals we have the ability to control our base instincts. There have been plenty of times I really wanted to physically injure someone else because I was that angry. That was my body (the neurotransmitters that control emotions like anger) telling me to do it. Would that have absolved me from the consequences? No.

Neither will listening to the hormonal volcano that is male puberty absolve you of the consequences of promiscuity.

Were we like other animals, no one would care. A woman got raped? Meh, don't affect me. She had an abortion? Meh, don't affect me. She killed a guy? Meh, don't affect me. That's how animals react and think. I see it all the time living out here in the sticks. Our dog will be absent one morning, come back after a few hours, and be just as unconcerned as he could be about knocking up a female dog. Meh, not his problem... he wants petting now!

But we are not purely animals, and we should care. We seem to care an awful lot about foreign nationals trying to cross our border illegally; we seem to care enough about the lives of horrendous criminals for many to protest the death penalty; we care so much about other species of animals that we will attack members of our own species for not caring as much as we do. So why don't we care about our own unborn?

We don't see it; that's why. Woman misses period; woman takes test; test says pregnant. Woman goes into hospital room; doctor follows woman in; doctor leaves room; woman is no longer pregnant; doctor sends his bill. No one got hurt, right? You're fine, the woman is fine, the doctor is rich, so who got hurt? The only one you never saw: the baby. It was simply minding its own business, trying desperately to grow so it can get out into the light. It didn't ask to be made; you and your girl made that decision. But suddenly, without it doing anything whatsoever, this sharp metal thing comes into its limited sensory circle. It tries to recoil as best it can with underdeveloped muscles. Its mouth tries to contort into a scream, even though it cannot scream yet. The metal thing keeps approaching, then grabs part of it's body and pulls it apart. There is no anesthetic, only pure pain. Then it happens again. Piece after piece is violently ripped off the tiny body, until the mercy of death takes it. Even then, its remains are ripped apart and pulled outward until nothing remains. Then the pieces are dumped in the trash. Daddy comes into the room and holds Mommy while they celebrate the ripping apart of the result of their 'love.'

I don't know how accurate that is; I don't remember much about my life pre-birth. I will admit that. However, you should admit that you have no way to know it does not happen that way. So yeah, go ahead, and live your life the way you want to as long as no one else is harmed. Just remember that applies to all the someone else's, not just the two of you.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Regardless of financial stability, it is still one person making a decision affecting the child of two people. Even if the mother is a teenager why does that mean the father has no say in what happens to his child? If she decides to abort the father has no say in the matter. If she decides to keep it the father is financially bound for 18 years and still has no say in the matter. Men are not just sperm donors with bank accounts. We are fathers who love our children just like their mothers do.


Well I agree 100%. We can not force a woman to have a child if the dad wants it and she doesn't, but then the logical direction would be we should not force the dad to support if he wants to abort and the mother doesn't. I 100% believe the man is screwed either way. If the mother wants to take it to term and the dad has the legal right to sign away all rights, privileges and support then things would be equal.

We know the bleeding hearts would not do that..they scream for the woman's rights in one breath and then scream that the dad has obligations in the next breath.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


My point was a question, if you are suggesting that we are talking about a human at conception then that life is equal to all other humans, right? A life that has the same value as anyone else, and so if that is the case then why in the situations that there might be risk to the mother, or worst with situational pregnancy in the form of rape, why do right to life people allow for an abortion for these limited reasons?

The Alabama law, the Georgia law, the Missouri law all allow for an exception in cases where the mother's life is at risk. That's a strawman argument based in a false presumption. You want an answer? Show me one abortion law in the US that does not allow for exceptions in the case of mother's health. I'll wait.

Alabama's law does not even say that she cannot receive an abortion period. It does not apply to women at all. It simply says a doctor cannot provide an abortion unless the woman's life is in danger. She can go anywhere else and get an abortion on demand; just not in Alabama.

...which, incidentally, means my taxes in Alabama will not ever go to provide an abortion.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
One of the things that bothers me most, for there are many, is that men are excluded from the decision making process. It has been a well-known fact for a very long time that the father plays an important role in the child's life. There are attorneys making tons of money fighting for fathers rights in divorces. The father has no less than 18 years of financial responsibility for a child. A fathers love is immeasurable, just as a mothers is. Yet men are excluded when the decision to have the child is being made. It is not fair to have someone decide that your child's fate is none of your business, until after it is born - then its all you.


It's sounds to me like you're upset because you can't force a woman to have an abortion.

If you wanted the baby and she wants the baby, there's no problem, right? But, if she wants it, and you don't, it's all your responsibility. "It's all you". Therefore you should have a say and be able to force her to abort, right?

Conversely, if she doesn't want it, and you do, you think you should be able to force her carry your baby, right?

So, in the end, you think it should be all you, right?





Just playing Devil's advocate here but it seems to be more likely that the man wants to be absolved of 18 years of financial responsibility for a decision that only the woman can make - whether to keep or to abort...



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: badwhiskey

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
One of the things that bothers me most, for there are many, is that men are excluded from the decision making process. It has been a well-known fact for a very long time that the father plays an important role in the child's life. There are attorneys making tons of money fighting for fathers rights in divorces. The father has no less than 18 years of financial responsibility for a child. A fathers love is immeasurable, just as a mothers is. Yet men are excluded when the decision to have the child is being made. It is not fair to have someone decide that your child's fate is none of your business, until after it is born - then its all you.


It's sounds to me like you're upset because you can't force a woman to have an abortion.

If you wanted the baby and she wants the baby, there's no problem, right? But, if she wants it, and you don't, it's all your responsibility. "It's all you". Therefore you should have a say and be able to force her to abort, right?

Conversely, if she doesn't want it, and you do, you think you should be able to force her carry your baby, right?

So, in the end, you think it should be all you, right?





Just playing Devil's advocate here but it seems to be more likely that the man wants to be absolved of 18 years of financial responsibility for a decision that only the woman can make - whether to keep or to abort...




Sad that there are people out there advocating the removal of choice from these women, it Really shows just whom among us are the authoritarians.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The Alabama law, the Georgia law, the Missouri law all allow for an exception in cases where the mother's life is at risk. That's a strawman argument based in a false presumption. You want an answer? Show me one abortion law in the US that does not allow for exceptions in the case of mother's health. I'll wait.


Abortions are legal, period. Georgia and Missouri have adopted the heart beat limit, and that is about 6 weeks. I'm not sure why the heart beat means anything as the brain is about what a shrimp has at that point, but they are putting a limit on it, not so much an exception. With Alabama they outlawed all abortions except as you say in the case of serious risk to the mother. I expect a very lucrative business in the near future there, or one just 10 feet across the state line.
Prior to Roe vs Wade there was 17 abortions per 1000 child bearing women, today there is about 12 to 1000, so what are we fixing, it sure isn't abortions.

My original point was we are trying to morally punish women for getting pregnant, and not so much suggesting all lives matter. If all lives matter then there would be no exceptions.



Alabama's law does not even say that she cannot receive an abortion period. It does not apply to women at all. It simply says a doctor cannot provide an abortion unless the woman's life is in danger. She can go anywhere else and get an abortion on demand; just not in Alabama.

...which, incidentally, means my taxes in Alabama will not ever go to provide an abortion.

TheRedneck


Yep, illegal abortions on the way which prior to Roe vs Wade 12 times riskier... boy that will fix it... BTW the Alabama's law will never actually go into affect...
edit on 17-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: okrian

I think people miss the nuance.

While I try to keep liberty on the table, I won't promote those freedoms as the option.

However, if never disown or think down upon my sister's for showing they're human and imperfect.

I'd do anything for them, ironically some may see that commitment to the family unit as immoral.





Your problem is you see people as equals, you need to regress back to some medieval mindset to align yourself with how religious folk expect you to.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

It's should be obvious by now that not all lives matter.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Scary how some people fight hard for the right to kill a fetus.

Out if sight out of mind huh

Naturally to me it sounds disgusting, but if you see the people going, it's a good thing they.never reproduce.

There are lots of losers out there that should never have kids

In NYC many girls have 2 abortions before graduating highschool

Some have had them one a year throughout high school.

Something wrong there, but then again these are the low end of society



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

It is amazing how little pro lifers fight to protect a fetus..

We all like to claim violence is never justified, but killing babies is literally the best justification imaginable .... lol


But yet pro-lifers only seem to complain on Facebook...



Almost like none of them really believe it is murder



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


Abortions are legal, period.

And will likely stay legal, regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court. It's just time to have a real, inclusive conversation about it. Roe vs. Wade has been used as a stick to keep beating those who legitimately want improvement with, so it has to go. It's time this noise about shutting down reasonable conversations ends.

As you say, even if the law goes into effect and abortions are generally illegal in Alabama, there is no restriction and can be no restriction to crossing that Tennessee line and getting one. There will be abortion clinics there like there used to be beer and liquor stores, like there is now convenience stores selling lottery tickets, on every street corner. That or, as I suspect, the law will be softened to include some more common-sense situations. It's not there to be enforced; it is there to get those who will not listen to others to shut up and let us in on the conversation.

I think you're one of the few who get that, even if you are still seemingly wrestling with the concept.

We live in a society today in America where ideas are not allowed. Want to say something conservative-sounding on a college campus? Nope, try it and someone will either kick you out or punch you in the face. Upset about an abortion issue? You better not be male or a Christian, or you have no right to speak. Upset over an open, porous border? You racist! Get out of my society!

That is where the problem is, and the only way to solve it is to take everything away from these self-righteous, my-way-or-the-highway elitists that try to determine who gets to speak. So we're doing it. It's that simple. It's our damn country too.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh no. You can speak to this. Trans activists have made it very plain that they are every bit as much a woman as if they were born biologically female.

Simply announce you feel like a woman today and have at.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Even most countries in Europe have actually had this conversation. Many places abortions are illegal beyond 21 weeks unless there is some horrific thing about to occur. Now, they make some concessions I don't like such as considering Down's Syndrome one of those horrific things, but at the same time, you can't use it as birth control beyond a certain point either.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Abortions are legal, period.

As they should be. They are a valued medical procedure that can save lives. Very few people want all abortions illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join