It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why are so many anti-abortionists also anti-life?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Pro Death Penalty

Anti-nanny state, don't steal my money at gunpoint to give it to someone esle. Government funded programs for any "social" activity is wrong.

Yes we all know that you also want to shoot inmigrants at the border Dr.

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:37 PM
Well lets look at Bush since he has made it clear he is against abortion and is the President and currently is the hope of every anti-abortionist out there to change Roe vs. Wade.
Bush is clearly for business over societies wants and needs.
How do I know this?
Well he just got passed the bankruptcy laws that will help businesses
Tort reform, guess who that helps? Buisnesses of course.
Envirormental issues are put on the backburner for business needs,
Now by the same token this man has cut most all social programs.
Most insurance companies will pay for viagra but not birth control. There is no legislation to force them to provide working women with birth control.
And Bush also has the highest kill rate of any governor out there before he became President. The problem with the death penalty is justice is not blind. If you are ugly, poor, or a miniority person you are more likely to get the death penalty; and also many times its wrong, there have been many people who have been proven innocent only after being put to death. Hey the OOps we were wrong is just not enough!
Currently they are also giving the message of abstinence and also information that is not true to teens.
So anti-abortionist are saying have the kid, if it starves to death big deal we can't help you btw if it does we will call you a murderer and kill you but hey its all good we are good people. The thing is that the very people saying don't have an abortion are the very people denying working poor women or women who can't afford birth control anything but abstinence as an alternative. Thats their politics, thats what they support, they support cutting social programs, they support the death penalty.
There are many reasons a woman might have an abortion, one if you already have children the more children you have to provide for the less the others will have and therefore the less chance they will have. I know for myself I never had to ponder the thought of an abortion but I did choose to be sterilized after I had three children for the above reason, I mentioned. So if these anti-abortionists would start putting their money into programs to help buy working poor women birth control and condoms and education they would be much more successful at preventing abortions. All they ever focus on is that story of how one rich stupid woman used abortion as a form of birth control, not the ones who had no access to birth control due to insurance refusing to pay for it, not the ones who are struggling to feed and provide for the children they already have. I really don't support abortion but I refuse to remove that as a woman's right because sometimes they feel they have no choice. What I do support is giving them every choice available and educating them so that they won't have to make that choice, but if it comes right down to it and that is what they feel to be their only choice then I don't feel you or I or President Bush has a right to take away that option.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by RANT
As for liberals being pro-choice and anti-death penalty (as some are), there's no conflict there either. They're pro-society. Greater good. Worrying about every zygote and stem cell is a rather ridiculous waste of energy, intellect and resources when the philosophical mission is far greater.

Well ... sorry Rant ... but as you know I disagree. 'worrying about every
zygot' (which is a pre-born human) IS worth worrying about. I think we
are all capable of taking care of the pre-born as well as taking care of those in prison. I think we have enough smarts and energy to be able
to handle care of the pre-born. If we stopped giving our money away
in foreign aid, we'd be able to take care of everyone here just fine.
Being pro-society is wonderful. Taking care of those already born includes
educating them on the connection between abortion and breastcancer. Educating them on the painful death the preborn children go through.
How about the couples who desperately want to adopt but because of a
shortage of babies they can't (and don't get me started about the system
discouraging interracial adoption!! we were open to that but the system
strongly discouraged it! (UGH!) Those people are part of society too.

What is the 'philisophical mission' according to RANT?

[edit on 3/12/2005 by FlyersFan]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:55 AM
Anti-abortionists doesn't like the idea of a killer taking the life of an unborn child and then walking away as though she didn't do anything wrong! If a man had anything to do with the murder, then he needs to be executed also.

We're pro-death penalty because why should the tax-payers continue to house and feed murderers that's inflicted grief upon the survivors of their victims?

And yes, we go to war to stop the escalation of aggression and violence against innocent civilians.

War may be the epitome of violence, but it is neccessary to squash the people who instigated it.

[edit on 12/3/05 by Intelearthling]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What is the 'philisophical mission' according to RANT?

Rant has nothing to do with what I've been saying in this thread. I've tried to explain, compare and contrast widely understood bare bones fundamental tenants and stated planks of both conservative and liberal political ideology as relates to abortion without one iota of religious perspective.

Having said that, you may not care at all what I'm talking about... but again...

No not again, read the thread.

I've said all this anyway. The liberal mission is the greater good and the advancement of society. In that regard it's concerned with humanity from breathe to death. Concern over every zygote and stem cell, is NOT in the interest of the greater good or the people we've got. It's that simple.

Conservative ideolgy (the real kind) is based on the individual. In that regard it's only concerned with "stepping in" from conception to breathe, making sure individuals get here. Then your on your own...

(unless your rich, then the government still helps with a little grease here and there).
Okay that was me.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by RANT
The liberal mission is the greater good and the advancement of
society. In that regard it's concerned with humanity from breathe
to death. Concern over every zygote and stem cell, is NOT in the
interest of the greater good or the people we've got.

Okay. Thank you. That was very clear. AND I can point to exactly
where I disagree. (if anyone cares) The greater good and advancement
of society (IN MY OPINION) would mean that we don't impose the death
penalty on anyone - born or unborn - just to make things easier on others.
Is it easier to kill an unborn child then to have to take care of him or her?
Sure. Is it easier to kill a murderer and get him or her out of the way than
to have to house, feed, educate, or just plain keep him/her out of society?
Sure. If the criteria used is 'for the greater good and advancement of
society' then that would be a very powerful phrase to use FOR the
death penalty. Kill the bad ones, leave the air, food, space, and resources
for those of us who behave ourselves (or at least don't break the law).

Concern over the unborn does show concern over those already born.
There are physical and psychological damages done to many who have
committed abortion. There is a breast cancer/abortion link, even if the
abortionists cry 'no evidence'. There is enough to be concerned about.

Why limit it to only 'from breathe to death'. Why not from the
first moment of life until death?

If - the liberal mission is the greater good and the advancement of
society - then the left better be careful because the right can use this
statement to further the death penalty case.

I put forward that 'the greater good and advancement of society'
includes the end of the death penalty (except in extreme cases for
self defense) for EVERYONE - convicted murders as well as innocent
unborn babies.
I don't consider Margaret Sanger a bringer of 'greater good'
for society.

[edit on 3/12/2005 by FlyersFan]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by RANT
it's only concerned with "stepping in" from conception to
breathe, making sure individuals get here. Then your on your own...

There is such a thing as 'personal responsibility'. The government
DOES help out in many areas of life. But people can't expect to
get a free ride in life. Personal responsibility. If you make the choice
to copulate knowing that you can't afford to raise a child, or that you
aren't in a position to take care of a child, then that child shouldn't
have to die a painful death because you were stupid. ADOPTION.

We did it. If people could only see the LOOOOOOOOONG waiting lists
for adoption in this country.
And before someone brings up that
there are plenty of minority children waiting for adoption .... guess what
... the system STRONGLY resists placing black children with white
families. We lived in Alabama when we adopted. We were both
around 35 years old. We were STRONGLY discouraged from that.
We were told '.... well .... first you'll have to foster care for a few
years .... then of course you probably won't be able to adopt that
child you've been fostering ..... then others will come through ....
then perhaps we will look at the situation .... blah blah blah.' When
asking about a white child we were smiled at and said 'oh yes, we
can put you on the waiting list (6-9 year wait)'. We met people
who had been on the list 6 years and hadn't moved forward even
one spot. I could go on and on ... but the point of all this is
that there are MANY good families who wish to adopt. MANY.
For the greater good of society... why kill the unborn child, why not
save that life, and make a loving family VERY happy and give the
child up for adoption?

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by frayed1

I do know those that manage to be anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty....(Remember, GWB also manages to be both)

The way I see it is that GWB supports innocent life (babies), but doesn't like to slap murderers on the wrist, and by the way where do you want to put all these inmates? Everyone knows that killing is wrong and if they don't want the death penalty then just don't kill people. Abide by the rules and there will be no problem with the death penalty.

[edit on 3/12/05 by Kosmo Yagkoto]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:43 PM
I know this is a shocker to many of the anti-abortionists and pro death penalty but but at one time the CIA was bringing in drugs to sell to us. One of the biggest problems is people getting hooked on drugs, then turning to crime to support the habit, and many are parents. My daughter recently told me a story about a little boy coming to school he was very sad and the teacher asked him why he was so upset, the child was eight and he said his little sister dropped the baby and it died. The little sister was only 5 years old, she was taking care of the baby because their mother was out buying drugs. Another thing she told was that a teacher noticed a child always wrapping up food everyday, always taking something home, so she asked him why he did this and he said it was for his little brother, she thought this was very sweet but explained to the kindergardner that surely his brother was getting food at home and he could eat all his lunch. The child replied back that no his little brother only got what he took to him. The teacher called social services they investigated and both boys were living off of that one child's lunch. The grandmother had custody and wasnot feeding either of them. She bought groceries but only for her, they survived off the school lunch and what they could find in the garbage. There are stories like this everywheres, its not as simple as you people make it out to be, most social programs are being cut, the same social programs that would provide rehab, for people needing it and wanting it, social progrmas for children are being cut. There is no doubt that we are not all born equal, that crazy to even think we are, some kids are born to happy homes where they receive all they need, others are not, some kids are born with high IQ's others are not, I could go on and on with this one but won't. The thing is sometimes the only chance some of these kids have are what education they can get and the only healthy food they can get is that free lunch at school but all these programs are being cut. If the people who are anti-abortionist supported the very programs that help children instead of supporting cutting them a lot of the problems society has would be fixed to a certain extent. But right now your only answer is stop abortions so more children will live and then cut the very programs that might give them a chance at a decent life and then wonder why when society as a whole has turned its back on them they turn to crime and then you build more prisons and kill them. Then you pat yourselves on the back about how good you are for saving those poor little babies, well what are you saving them for? Think about it if their born into a life of misery and you support taking away every program that might help change things for them why bother saving them at all?

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:29 PM
I'm pro-life and anti-fetal genocide. I don't believe any persons life should be at the whims of politics and that's what it is, politics. The left is anti-death penalty and pro-fetal genocide while the right is anti-fetal genocide and pro death penalty. Sorry, but I don't call it abortion like they want me to, I call it like I see it. I ain't the smartest man alive but I'll not call a tree a rock because everyone else was taught to.

I don't believe in the death penalty because one day we're executing child murderers, the next we're doing away with political adversaries or the innocent. This coming from a man who if you hurt my child in any way, I'd rip your freakin lungs out. Ofcourse this creates my own personal canundrum because I'd want to do it and can't say I wouldn't, but in this society we can't have folks taking care of business as they see fit. We are a society. We need to protect the living, including those that have yet to take a breathe of air on their own.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:22 PM
wait a minute republicans claim to be anti nani state but support adoption and group homes? just where do you think 99.9% of these people and angenceys get their money?

anouther issue that hasnt been raised is assisted suicide for the terminally ill who in most cases cant pay for medical care anyways but its ok to force the prolonging of their suffering at the expense of taxpayers?

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:37 AM
FlyersFan, then work to change the system first, on adoption. If we can see a dramatic shortage on children in an adoption agency, then and only then, may your argument hold water. There are several kids who are deemed unadoptable, not just by race but also age. But that too is not the biggest problem with adoption. There is a large amount of red tape involved. It is easier to adopt one of my family members did.

Also, I am kinda iffy by what you had said. And I hope that I am completely reading more into it then there is there. You talk about the adoption agencies having almost an abundance of black children and no white children. Are you only wanting white America to stop aborting fetuses? I am sure you did not mean it like that, but I just had to pose the question.

And further more, stopping all abortions, would that not only increase the shear number of black children within the system? Or would you not care since getting the white baby is much easier? (You would get the smile and nod and be handed your baby...or at least be on a shorter list.)

All in all, I would not have as big of a problem if you said to change the system first. I.e. the interracial thingy you spoke of...the age thingy I spoke of...the red tape that is present on all of them.

notbuynit, the inherent flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that everyone who is pro-choice is pro-fetal genocide. When that is not the case. Hell, I am a pro-choicer who does not like abortion at all. (And I am definitly against abortion on demand.) Many people who are pro-choice also detest abortion. (I'd probably say the majority.) The act of abortion is fetal genocide in many regards, but believing this is not the government's decision is nowhere even close to pro-fetal genocide.

As for many some of the pro-choice folks here, you are certainly making it hard to be one. Many of you damage the argument as a whole when you open up mouth. Maybe you just aren't conveying your ideas correctly, maybe you are just speaking from your ass. But whatever it is, it hurts.

As for me, I am pro-choice. I am pro-death penalty. I am pro active euthanasia. (Another debate completely) Heck, in some regards, I am pro-war. (But not in the conventional way) I abhor the fact that someone is trying to force their opinion on me. And I too would probably beat the life out of someone if they tried to harm my child. If I am hypocritical in my stances, please tell me where. I would love to know.

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:42 AM
Also, to who ever said they would worry about every zygote...then there are alot of murdering women who have never had an abortion. The pill, the morning after pill, and just woman's plain old body can and will keep a zygote from attaching itself to the uterine lining. Care to amend that statement now?

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:34 PM
Abortion is 90 billion dollar industry.

Adoption is a 1.4 billion dollar industry

Which will determine a politicians vote?

Who are the whores? Young girls misled that this is an easy fix to a problem, young men that get out of paying child support, or the politians on both sides of the fence?

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by OXmanK
Also, to who ever said they would worry about every zygote...then there are alot of murdering women who have never had an abortion. The pill, the morning after pill, and just woman's plain old body can and will keep a zygote from attaching itself to the uterine lining. Care to amend that statement now?

You make a good point but I think you will find that those that oppose abortion also oppose contraception and have a very dim view of women as well.

Personally, I feel that a women should be allowed an abortion if she so desires, I use contraception every time I have sex ( which is not as often as I would like ) and think very highly of women in general.



new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in