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.

 

The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia



And a vasectomy would

prevent him committing the same 'crime' over and over again.

An incentive:

"You are hereby sentenced to three years in prison. However, if you elect to undergo a vasectomy procedure, your sentence may be reduced by one year. If you also elect to take, and successfully complete, a responsibility course, I may just let you walk out with time served, after completion."

Now all we need is qualified instructors for the responsibility course.




posted on May, 24 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

*Off Topic* the thread is about abortion not slavery.


It is not off topic when in both topics "the left" believed/believes human lives are property...


originally posted by: eletheia
I dont think they were considered 'not human' but they were bought and paid for
therefor property. However that was then things change and evolve and its not
now there was a lot back in history we have learned from so whats the point of
raking it over and over?


Things don't seem to have evolved for left-wingers like you who think "human beings are not human but just a clump of cells, or like viruses..."


originally posted by: eletheia
The womans body is her own and the fetus is using it to grow and mature


Yet again, the baby that is growing inside a woman is not part of her body. They are distinct human beings no matter how much you try to dehumanize "those other human beings..."



originally posted by: eletheia
The fetus despite everything is only able to survive at the behest of the woman

otherwise it would go on living out side of the woman..... It is totally dependent

on the woman/host to survive/live. AND THATS A FACT.


Newborns and kids are totally dependent on their mothers, or someone to take care of them, and that's a fact...



originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The unborn still need their own brain, their own beating heart, etc. At around 9 weeks of gestation the lungs of the unborn are working, on an ultrasound you would see their chest expand and contract, although they still need the mother to get oxygen and remove CO2.



originally posted by: eletheia
Wrong!!

Even when a fetus's lungs are fully developed, it's impossible for the fetus to breathe until after birth. Developing babies are surrounded by amniotic fluid, and their lungs are filled with this fluid.




Human Anatomy and Physiology
Does the diaphragm function in a fetus?
Yes it does, only no air is supplied because it is in amniotic fluid. The lungs and the diaphragm function during fetal development in order to prepare for breathing air after birth. During the time in the uterus, the gas exchange is done by the mother through the umbilical cord and her lungs.

Link

Everything I wrote is true... You need to learn to comprehend what people type instead of blindly replying with knee jerk reactions...


originally posted by: eletheia
Who ever said that!!

They need to be birthed first? and only ONE person can do that.......


That does not make the human fetus property of the woman... The human fetus is still a HUMAN BEING, despite your attempts at making them into something they are not...



originally posted by: eletheia
There you go again .....the topic is not slavery.


In both topics the left devalues human life...



originally posted by: eletheia
You've got me there I can't make head nor tail of what you are saying.....but


Of course you can't... You can't have women disagree with you it seems. My argument is easy to understand... There are millions, if not billions of women who do not see the unborn as "things" that you can get rid off because it is convenient...



originally posted by: eletheia
did you know that a large proportion of women who have abortions already

have one or more children? and many many others who have abortions will

go on to have families. when they are in a better situation to do so ......only

just not then.


Again, convenience is no excuse for abortion on demand... If the life of the mother is in real danger I can understand. As for "rapes," I wonder why left-wingers like yourself don't propose to murder the rapists. The death penalty imposed on rapists would surely help to lessen the amount of rapes there are. But instead the left chooses to blame the innocent, instead of the rapists...


edit on 24-5-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
ElectricUniverse wrote:

.......Yet again, the baby that is growing inside a woman is not part of her body......

To give credit where it is do - That is the most ridiculous and false statement I have ever read on ATS.

Apparenty you believe the baby growing inside of a woman is not part of her body - but rather it is part of your mind.

FALSE - The baby growing inside of her body is part of her body and mind - And your mind doesn't belong there


I've seen some pornography in my lifetime - questionable as to whether it is obscene
- But I have no question of the obscenity of others, who don't belong there, attempting to invade Women's wombs
- that is obscene and is illegal - And it must remain that way

edit on 24-5-2019 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Again, convenience is no excuse for abortion on demand...


Good thing they don't need an excuse, because abortion on demand is still legal in every state of the Union!
Praise the Lord! Can I get an "Amen"!



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView


The baby growing inside of her body is part of her body and mind - And your mind doesn't belong there

Every cell in a person's body has a unique DNA sequence. That DNA sequence is what makes that cell a part of that body.

The baby does not have the DNA sequence of the mother. It has its own specific, unique DNA sequence, obtained from both the mother and the father. It is quite possible, and not rare at all, for the baby to have a different blood type form the mother! There is no direct connection between the mother's blood supply and the baby's blood supply; that's why it has a placenta.

For someone who is trying to say that all religious views are founded in hate and ignorance, you are certainly showing a profound amount of hate and ignorance.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Every cell in a person's body has a unique DNA sequence.


So, is DNA sacred now? Is DNA so special that it contains a holy spark that must be wicked?

Where do you stand on frozen embryos? Is their DNA sacred too?



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where are you getting sacred? Where did I say DNA is sacred? So you even know what sacred means?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
"It's my body, I do what I want"..."I ain't a ho!!!"..."OMFGawd, two lines, I'm pregnant !!!"..."No scrubs but still be chasing waterfalls."

"Don't forget to spade an neuter your pets."



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where are you getting sacred? Where did I say DNA is sacred? So you even know what sacred means?

TheRedneck


You tell me. You're the one saying that DNA has some magical property that suddenly bestows a fertilized egg, which was a part of a woman's before fertilization, with personhood now separate from the mother's personhood and her body.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


You're the one saying that DNA has some magical property that suddenly bestows a fertilized egg, which was a part of a woman's before fertilization, with personhood now separate from the mother's personhood and her body.

And how does that fact make anything "sacred"?

DNA is... nope, not gonna go there. Go get your own education. My tutoring goes for $30 an hour. You've used up your freebies.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You're the one arguing that DNA suddenly makes a fertilized egg separate from a woman's body. You seem to be promoting a sacred right to life of a fertilized egg, based on its unique DNA. So, you tell me. What magical power DNA has to bestow the right to life on a fertilized egg, over the will of the host body's autonomy.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I'm explaining science. Genetics, to be exact. The same science that is used today to catch rapists and determine paternity. The same science which is so well established it is allowed as court evidence in criminal trials. You are the one who is simply refusing to even try to understand... at least that's what it appears to be. I actually believe you are just playing dumb to try and press an agenda of hate that you cannot let go of. That's scary; it indicates your hatred of children is so strong it outweighs your concern for women, to the point that you would discount the very science that helps to catch those who would harm women because it means a child might be seen in a different light.

You really need to get over this whole "children are a punishment" thing. They're not, and you were not. I'm sorry you had to go through that, but Sookie... it's time to break the chain. It's time to end the hate.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




No, I'm explaining science.


No you're not. You're using pseudo science to try to make us believe that a fertilized egg is a person.



You really need to get over this whole "children are a punishment" thing.


The religious right needs to stop trying to punish women for their sexual behavior by forcing them to have children that they don't want.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

I read about 4 paragraphs of this garbage and stopped.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


You're using pseudo science to try to make us believe that a fertilized egg is a person.

DNA is pseudo-science now? So you apparently don't believe DNA evidence should be admissible in court.

I have not once stated that a fertilized egg is a "person." I stated that it is alive (true), human (true), and not merely an appendage of the mother (true). Whether or not that living human is far enough developed to be realistically considered a "person" is quite debatable.

But you can't see that. You can't see that I night actually agree with you on something. Every bit of this conversation is about you trying to come up with any reason, any excuse, any plausible or implausible situation to defend yourself against those who might agree with you if you would get a clue!

This... THIS is why Roe vs. Wade must go. This is why we can never agree on anything and are living in a divided country. This is why we are in the shape we are in, economically, socially, morally.

Go learn something and get back to me.

Anything.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



DNA is pseudo-science now?


This is what you said, and this is what is pseudo science.



Unique DNA. It's not an organ, not a 'parasite,' and not dead. It is a separate, living human organism that is not part of the woman's body


How does unique DNA magically separate what was a part of a woman's body, suddenly making it not part of her body?

That is your argument, magical DNA, and the reason you think "Roe V Wade" must go. Because not everyone agrees with you that unique DNA autonomously separates a fertilized egg from its host, and makes a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy an immoral choice. That's the reason you so adamantly defend unconstitutional laws to make her choice illegal and want to see Roe V Wade nullified.


edit on 25-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I know what I said, and it is true.


How does unique DNA magically separate what was a part of a woman's body, suddenly making it not part of her body?

How does the chid's DNA 'magically' become distinct from the mother as it exits the birth canal? That seems to be your argument. How does the child's blood type 'magically' change from the mother's blood type as it exits the birth canal? It must; if the child is a part of the woman's body, it must have the same DNA and blood type or it will be rejected as a foreign invader (just like in an organ transplant). But if it never changes as the child is born, then the child is a clone of the mother by definition.

The meeting of egg and sperm creates a new instance of DNA, unique from both the mother and father. We've known this for quite some time. We call it 'genetics.' Look it up. It is you who are now believing in magical properties.

Start at about 4:06:
Sorry to bust your religion.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



How does the chid's DNA 'magically' become distinct from the mother as it exits the birth canal?


LOL. That's some first rate goal post pushing you got going on there!

First of all, I'm not questioning DNA being "unique". I'm asking you how it's uniqueness magically makes what was a part of the woman's body, suddenly not part of her body.

Secondly, successfully exiting the birth canal is what makes an unique fetus a person. But, we're talking about abortion, not birth. You're argument is that the fertilized egg, because of its unique DNA, is no longer a part of the woman's body. Right?



How does the child's blood type 'magically' change from the mother's blood type as it exits the birth canal?


How does unique blood make something that was part of a woman's body, suddenly not part of her body? A healthy fetus will begin to develop red blood cells at around 22 weeks. Is that the point when it is no longer part of a woman's body, where it was before?



The meeting of egg and sperm creates a new instance of DNA, unique from both the mother and father. We've known this for quite some time.


Thanks for the lesson in the birds and the bees. However, a fertilized egg, with it's unique DNA, isn't a part of the woman's body as soon as it exits her body, not before.



posted on May, 26 2019 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


First of all, I'm not questioning DNA being "unique". I'm asking you how it's uniqueness magically makes what was a part of the woman's body, suddenly not part of her body.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR SEVERAL PAGES!!!

I'm done with you. Go troll someone else.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 26 2019 @ 03:46 AM
link   
in two days we will memorialize thousands, maybe millions of veterans who died for this Republic - For the rights of its
citizens - And yes for the rights of the unborn, those yet to be who will define and map the future - God willing they
will be wanted upon entering this World.

In the name of these men I post the following:

Scopes Trial Text

"The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case in July 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.[2][3]

Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 (equivalent to $1,400 in 2018), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, which set Modernists, who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion,[4] against Fundamentalists, who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether modern science should be taught in schools.

Origins

State Representative John W. Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass anti-evolution laws. He succeeded when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, on March 25, 1925.[5] Butler later stated, "I didn't know anything about evolution ... I'd read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mothers that the Bible was all nonsense." Tennessee governor Austin Peay signed the law to gain support among rural legislators, but believed the law would neither be enforced nor interfere with education in Tennessee schools.[6] William Jennings Bryan thanked Peay enthusiastically for the bill: "The Christian parents of the state owe you a debt of gratitude for saving their children from the poisonous influence of an unproven hypothesis."[7] In response, the American Civil Liberties Union financed a test case in which John Scopes, a Tennessee high school science teacher, agreed to be tried for violating the Act. Scopes, who had substituted for the regular biology teacher, was charged on May 5, 1925, with teaching evolution from a chapter in George William Hunter's textbook, Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914), which described the theory of evolution, race, and eugenics. The two sides brought in the biggest legal names in the nation, William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense, and the trial was followed on radio transmissions throughout the United States...............


See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

We all know the final outcome don't we? - NO? You neve studied history?


But you see I'm really quite spiritual - I say the dead veterans did not die in vain - They did not die so that a group of
right wing control freaks could hijack the rights of women and turn their bodies into possessions of the state.



NOW - Let's play a game to celebrate the dead - who did not die in vain.

Let's call this game 'pin the tale on the sinner' [remember the party game pin the tale on the donkey?]

It's played like this: One group, the group that says 'all' life in an act of God attempts to pin the tale on the
scientific rationalist who claim life especially Human life is caused by a carnal sex act.

Meantime the men, and women, of science try to pin the tale on religious fantasists, claiming that they are the
true sinners for attempting to force unwanted life to be born



You see its tha same old story, science based upon facts vs. religious fanaticism based upon imagined fantasy.

What I wonder is why anyone, with a sense of moral decency would want to bring any life into a World so
influeced by backwards, stupid, and idiosyncratic minds attempting to set science and history backwards
-



==================================================================================================


But then again........when you think about it, there are problems with Evolution.

For example why would any decent Human blame the poor monkey for the idiots that comprise much of Humanity
- Why insult the poor monkey?

Maybe there is a Creator who is trying to punish an inferior being for claiming his name and then blaspheming all the intelligence that
he gave them. ?



But make no mistake here - I have nothing against religion or religious groups that do not allow abortion among there own
- they have that right.

Just don't try to push your religious view upon the rest of this Country.

We are a country where freedom of, and freedom from, religion is paramount




















edit on 26-5-2019 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2019 by AlienView because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join