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.

 

It's Chief Justice John Roberts you punks...and there goes Roe v Wade?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
After a brief detour from the thread subject, please let's get back on track. Discussions such as the above are often better left to private u2u's.




She ma'am. . . but you forgot to read the one before mine.

By the way it will take more than just Mr. Roberts to over turn wade vs. roe.

let see who else will be brought to the next seat and that is what I am looking for it.




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Because they can not control their sexual urges and the women right to bring life or not, they most have the exclusive rights to tell women what to do with their private parts, and the right to monitor their uterus.


It's not the uterus itself but *who* is inside it during pregnancy.



And still nobody have quote where in the bible say that abortion is murder.


A lot of it is logic. Murder is the killing of an innocent. An unborn baby is human and innocent. Read through the book of Job. Read where David says that in secret was he formed inside his mother.
When any of you find it please post a link to it.

The Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible, for example...the word sums up what's found in 1 John 5:7.


Now masturbation is quoted in bible.


Where? If you're talking about Onan, that's been twisted I don't know how many times. Sounds to me like Onan withdrew so he wouldn't get his sister-in-law pregnant. God ordered him to impregnate her, he disobeyed, he was destroyed.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Amethyst
It's trying to take the easy way out instead of owning up to it.


I assume you have never lost a child by your post?


I had a miscarriage 5 years ago and was devastated. Giving birth to my second child a year later helped ease that pain.



See...back when I was 15, I was unlucky enough to get a girl pregnant and she had a termination [against what I wanted] and yet for me and for her, it is still on our minds every damn day of ourlives.

I still speak to the girl now and it still hurts her.


My uncle was in the same position way back when. His girlfriend chose to murder my unborn cousin. My mother says he's still a grieving father. See, that's how abortion hurts people! How can it be a good choice when it causes that kind of pain?



As it does to many women who have an abortion, however many times the choice is to have the abortion or bring a child into a situation which is not good for it. Such as a young family, abusive father, list can go on...


None of which is a valid reason. If my son, who is nearly four, is being abused by me and/or my husband, should we kill him? Young family? There were plenty of young families (by our standards) over 100 years ago. There's never an excuse to kill a child. What you do is provide for your child the best you can--even if it means adoption. There are crisis pregnancy centers that help.


But by no means is it an easy option...


That's because most of the time, a woman seeking an abortion has to fight her conscience and her maternal instinct. Abortionists lying and saying that it's not really alive, it's a clump of cells, ad nauseum, doesn't help. If a woman can have abortions and not feel remorse, it's scary because that means she's pretty well hardened.

I know firsthand that upon finding out you're pregnant, you have mixed emotions. I was excited and at the same time anxious--would I be a good parent? Will we have the means? Groups such as Planned Butcherhood play on the anxiety the girl has. Rarely if ever is adoption mentioned as an option--they're out to sell abortions. That's their money-maker. They exploit women--they don't help them!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Amethyst, relating now to the Victorian era is a poor arguement and you know it. The world is so different now compaired to then - in fact, it was rare for a woman to go through higher education or to work during this period...let alone getting pregnant outside of marriage. We had mental institutions special for them...in fact where abortions were given and the woman was locked away for being so 'deviant'.

Society has moved on from then...

If you are going to bring a child into an abusive relationship, in many cases an abortion can be the better option especailly if it is early on. In the first stages of an animal [including humans] existance we are not really live but forming as an entity. Just a question; "Do you eat meat or eggs?"

In the present society we live in, abortion can be a better option than bringing a child into a life which will not be productive for it. Will making abortion illegal remove people having them? No.

So why not target the disease instead of one of the symptoms?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

If you are going to bring a child into an abusive relationship, in many cases an abortion can be the better option especailly if it is early on.


So should we kill all children who are being abused now? That's what you're saying right there. If you're so worried about a child being in an abusive relationship, there's adoption. Plenty of couples want to adopt.


In the first stages of an animal [including humans] existance we are not really live but forming as an entity. Just a question; "Do you eat meat or eggs?"


Last I checked, eggs were in the Meat group. Why do you think vegans avoid eating eggs?


Will making abortion illegal remove people having them? No.



YES! I was reading on abortiontv.com, where 70% of women who aborted said that were it illegal, they would never have done it. Most people don't do something because it's illegal. I can guarantee you, were theft legal, we'd see the number of thefts skyrocket.

Just because a child *may* be abused is a pretty poor reason to kill him/her. That's one of the sorriest and most pathetic reasons I've EVER heard!
Instead of being so fatalistic, why not TRY and do your best for your child?

Like I said, if you really think that's good, then why don't you suggest killing all children who are being abused right now?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Great post. Thanks Marge.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. I havent seen an answer yet.

I am happy for you that you are married. I am not intreseted in your sex life per se or anyone elses. What I am intrested in concerning your posts, Marge, is why you must use the technique of putting everyone else who disagrees with you into a time warp back in history some where. You dont use a specific reference to a time period..just shove them back into a time warp with labeling and name calling
I am also intrested in why when you make your points of politics why you use sex and sexuality carte blanche yet ridicule others for their sexuality. Mind you now..I am not intrested in defining myself or others by sexuality but what intrest me is the appearence of a double standard concerning this topic on your part. The techniqe used!!
When I put the whole thing together in a pattern I come up with "histronics" Something like this famous statement. "He played on our fears!!!!!!"
You see Marge..its last years technique...it is this to what I am alluding and seems to give such offense to you and others in this room. Where does one learn this type of thinking/justification?? I am curious about this. And then support it with namecalling and labeling. And then go on to assume it is carte banche to play through while others stand pat.
It doesnt matter if it is this topic of Judge Roberts or others ..it is the same fingerprint. Highly strung emotionalism!!
I have noticed this in other posters...a poster named Riley comes to mind though I havent posted back to them in awhile. It is the same fingerprint but I must admit he is a bit more emotional.
As to "male rights" ..I mentioned nothing about this. My querys are about the method of thinking and justification. Not male rights. I dont know why you think I would be speaking about Male rights. I speak more about male ignorance if memory serves me concering my previous posts. Oh by the way..most men dont need defending. They need to wake their brains up...not thier glands. Not much hope for them with a over abundance of sports training/cheerleaders clouding their thinking.
I dont have a problem with women standing up for thier rights if they can do so with a valid reasonable point. Not histronics and over emotionalism/drama. "He played on our fears!!!"
Do you see the difference.???
As I said Marge..it doesnt matter if it is this topic line of Judge Roberts or any other topic. The debate technique is very noticable. Now others in this room are aware of it. They need to be as it is very effective in silencing most.....Just not me.
Please elaborate on the questions I posed..not a placebo.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Hmm…Amethyst, I suggest you get a hold of a book called ‘Human Nature and the Social Order’, ‘Human deviance, social problems, and social control’ and ‘Beyond Mead: The societal reaction to deviance’ if you honestly believe that making something illegal will stop people from doing it.

They might help you to re-evaluate your point, since they are able to use historic examples from many cultures which go against your ideas. As well as the fact your source is heavily biased…



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
"My uncle was in the same position way back when. His girlfriend chose to murder my unborn cousin. My mother says he's still a grieving father. See, that's how abortion hurts people! How can it be a good choice when it causes that kind of pain? "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, I have a book on my geneology, in it there are a few listing that are ended with words such as "dies in childbirth". It also worth mentioning, that these women didn't leave behind one or two kids, try more like 6 or 7. we could never prove or disprove weather or not these women's lives could have been saved if they had present medical techniques....LIKE ABORTION....available to them. But I'd venture to guess that more than a few could have been saved thru abortion. and, I've read some of the old newspaper clippings from back then also, what happened to those kids after the mother's deaths? well, in some cases, the oldest child was left to raise the younger siblings. Maybe dad would die shortly after wards, leaving the oldest not only the responsibility of raising the siblings, but also earning the money...or stealing whatever.

In some cases, denying abortion, can also hurt more than just one indiviadual.

and it seems that more and more of the laws that are being written are not giving any considerations whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding the women's reason for wanting the abortion. like the health and wall being of the mother, which will directly effect the health and well being of every member of her family!

[edit on 1-10-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 1-10-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Dawnstar--

If you're saying abortion is safer than childbirth, I'd have to say that's a flat-out lie. In fact, one of my hobbies is genealogy, and I have a few ancestors who died in childbirth--with their FIRST child.

Pregnancy and childbirth are completely normal and natural. It's a normal biological function. Induced abortion is unnatural and entails sticking sharp instruments up you-know-where. In fact, it's been linked to breast cancer, whereas, if you carry your firstborn to term (barring miscarriage), your risk of breast cancer DROPS.

There is nothing safe about induced abortion. In fact, you also risk having your next child born prematurely if you have an abortion. And if that child dies, then you've indirectly killed him or her.

What's true is true. Truth always sounds biased to those seeking to perpetuate lies.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
no, I am saying, and I believe the doctors will agree, that sometimes, because of various medical conditions, the women is safer having an abortion than carrying the child full term, or having a c-section. and I imagine that if one was on her 5th or 6th child and is 39 or so years of age, this might very well have been the case with her! I know that after three kids, my uterus is displaced, and well, carrying the last one made it very difficult to walk even! I can't imagine what it would be like after 4 or 5 9lb babies!



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Now I would understand having to take the baby out in case of an ectopic pregnancy. But then it's not a matter of "choice," is it? You're not exactly exercising a "right to choose" in that scenario.

Now why a late-term abortion in case of "mother's health?" Just take the baby early--no reason why the baby should die.

I could hardly walk the last two weeks of my pregnancy. But my child is more than worth it! I can't see where pregnancy can be life-threatening when it's completely natural. Besides, in this country, death because of pregnancy is almost non-existent.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
with me it was more like four or five months....and well, it was more a problem with the nerves....and I had two other boys to take care of so I had no choice but to lift them, carry them , and well, take care of them, since if I didn't no one would....
luckily, I never fell with any of them.
What if the same heath problem that is complicating the pregnacy would also compilicate a c-section?
and well, as far as the number of deaths because of childbirth, if these laws are passed, it would be interesting to see how much the rate goes up....then we would have our answer as to weather or not abortions could sometimes save the life of the mother, wouldn't we? but, then, it would really suck to be one of the ones that it would have saved, don't ya think?

and yes, I do consider instances....not ectopic pregnacies or whatever since the chances of the baby living is pretty slim also.....where the mother's life would be endangered to be HER CHOICE. if there is a chance that the baby could survive, she just may choose to trade her life for that baby. I'm certainly in no postion, neither is anyone else, to decide for her weather she should, or should not, make that choice.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
There is some merit to your point about making something illegal. As to "Beyond Meade" is that the anthropologist Margret Meade? I am not sure???

As to making something illegal I was thinking more along the lines of Prohibition or sometimes called the Volstead Act circa 1919 or so as I recall. It seemed that so many just ignored it unless pushed heavily by politics to not do so.
This also spawned huge industrys in the alcohol buisness especially in large key citys along the trade routes. Lots of historical information on this available to those intrested.

As to the subject of abortion I am not in favor or abortion ..but my main point is that inspite of the Court ruling ...the issue that I see by the furvor over this topic is votes ..not abortion. Hence my warning to Thomas Crown and others. Debating the abortion issue from the histronic and legal/immoral points is useless and is spinning ones wheels and I believe this is not unintentional. The purpose of the abortion ..Roe vs Wade and who is on the supreme court at any level is about votes ...political power in certain circles. The ability to get into offices on issues especially in high electorial vote states where they have large populations of women. Pure political power.
All this emotional stuff so carefully but vitriolically cultivated is to cover up the main issue ..political power/votes. Emotional histronics is a placebo to keep people fighting on tangental issues. Never the main target. This is not the only cause like this ..there are others. Christians and right wing people just keep walking right into the trap and never think outside these emotional issues. Little thinking going on outside thier provincialness.
Oh and by the way..when the Republicans are done with these Christian groups who are so heavily supporting them..they will burn these Christians when they are no longer of any use to them. Dump them by the roadside. They are in for a shocker.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Itsn't that nice to call others murderers just because the have choices and used them?

It sounds really hypocritical to jugde others for their actions because they differ from yours.

If calling other murderes make anybody self importance and self righteousness better and in a higher position that others you go ahead, because the same way you judge you will be judge as by your own so call christians beleives line out in the bible.

Pity.

Orangetom find somebody else to answer your post, I am done with you.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

YES! I was reading on abortiontv.com, where 70% of women who aborted said that were it illegal, they would never have done it.



Hello and Good evening from reality. Abortion is actualy illegal in some countries, yip, it's not just an ideological evengelical pipedream! It's really happened!

Those for abortion being made illegal should look into the case of Ireland, another modern western democracy where abortion has been illegal for a long time. Just because abortion is illegal does not mean it won't happen (really, we're not just kidding ya), it just makes the experience more traumatic for those who want it. In Ireland most women travel to England or Wales for an abortion, and the numbers doing so increase each year.

In the US they would travel to Canada or Mexico. I'll leave up to you to imagine what those desperate for an abortion and too poor or unable to travel to either will do.

It also leads to stories like this one from Portugal (that also has strict abortion laws):



www.cphrc.org.uk...

A court today convicted a nurse of performing illegal abortions at her home and found one woman guilty of terminating her pregnancy in a case that reignited debate on Portugal's restrictive abortion laws.

Abortion rights activists say about 16,000 illegal abortions are performed each year in Portugal, a nation of 10.3m people.

Government statistics show that each year about 10,000 women are treated at hospitals following botched illegal abortions.

However, prosecutions for illegal abortions are rare, largely because of secrecy surrounding backstreet clinics.



I have sympathy, when reality hits ideals its often not pretty.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by kegs]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
You posted:

"Orangetom find somebody else to answer your post, I am done with you."

I dont quite understand it ..I get going along a topic line ...try to be civil and ask questions..and the conversation just breaks rigiht down!!!????

It has to be the Salt.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs

In the US they would travel to Canada or Mexico. I'll leave up to you to imagine what those desperate for an abortion and too poor or unable to travel to either will do.


Exactly, abortion will continue, but only the women with financial means will be able to get it in a better enviroment.

The rest of the poor will be relegated to "Old Fashiong Coat Hanger" procedures or the "Old Fashion Miracle Concussions" to be either killed by bleeding or get poisoned.

But that is "Fine and Dandy" for all the selfriougteous in this country that think themselves without sin.

Because that will make them better than anybody else, but the truth is that taking the bible in context, they will be judge just the same and guilty just the same.

I challenge anybody withoug a sin to throw the first stone, because the truth is that even new born babies as by relgious views are born into the world with the sins of their fathers.

Humm the bible contraditions makes us all sinners, regarless how many times the faithful repent of Jesus die in the cross.


Thanks for the nice info, Kegs.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Marge Ive got to hand it to you. You are a woman ..24 carat pure gold.

You posted:

"Exactly, abortion will continue, but only the women with financial means will be able to get it in a better enviroment.

The rest of the poor will be relegated to "Old Fashiong Coat Hanger" procedures or the "Old Fashion Miracle Concussions" to be either killed by bleeding or get poisoned.

But that is "Fine and Dandy" for all the selfriougteous in this country that think themselves without sin."

yep...24 carat gold..the absolute high ground even as a "sinner" no problem with high ground. More " victimization" and on the backs of the "Poor" also. Well done Marge ..Well done.

Remember what I told you ...about Hurrican Katrina...and poor victims???
Keep it up Marge...your doing well in the victim category. Being poor is always a automatic gaurantee to play through at the expense of others. No problem .....just pile it on Marge..the rest of us are good for it. We owe everyone ..especially if they are poor.

Intresting to me that you dont put the option out here to not get pregnant by any means. Never occurs to anyone Marge...astonishing. After all the poor are gauranteed a safety net ...at someone elses expense...we owe it to them by the fact of our birth especially if we are not poor.
In case you havent noticed Marge ..this is feudalism..indentured servitude to the people who work and pay for this safety net. Are these people "victims" since they automatically owe someone else especially if they owe someone who is poor. Are they guilty by reason of their economic status of how and to whom they are born???? Your reasoning makes these people as expendable and disposable as the unborn. 24 carat pure gold reasoning Marge..well done ..bravo.

Intresting also to me that you dont post or incude the unborn baby as being poor. they dont count. They havent even been born yet into poor and you make them expendible and disposable..very intresting victim technique Marge. Yup...24 carat womanhood...Girl stuff ...all the options on someone elses wallet. How to get it all without work. Make someone else disposable and expendable. Never ..never..never..be responsible..for your conduct...always the safety net. I can get this stuff in a Cosmo/Elle quizz.
On the other hand ..it is instresting to me that many of the Christians you post against for self rightiousness havent made this connection with your technique and victimization. I admit many of them are not very bright. On this you can count on them being silent and allowing you to play through by your intimidation techniques. Well done again. I am thoroughly intimitated and cowed. Please continue to play through.

Very very good default settings you use to play through Marge and establish yourself as the high moral ground. Well done..
I am certain that no one else on these boards has noticed it. Well done ..bravo.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
As I recall Marge...you are through with me...good grief..I should have known better...sorry.!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
orangetom1999, no, I was talking about "George Herbert Mead" a philosopher and some of his writings. Although done at the end of the 1800's, it is still important for today.

As for nobody talking about education and better contraception, I do believe that was the first thing I mentioned. That is the key to this issue on both sides. Do not make them illegal but remove the need for them through better contraception, avalability and knowledge.

To us all it might seem basic that sex = children, unless you use protection but to many young teenagers who have never been told that they have no clue.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join