Gays rights vs Abortion rights.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

My point in relation to abortion and "gay rights" is that gays have more rights than babies at this point. Arent we in America, "One nation, with liberty and justice for ALL"

Gays have more rights than babys?
IT IS A HETERO RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION>IT ISNT GAYS HAVING ABORTIONS IT IS STRAIGHT PEOPLE LIKE YOU
WE THE PEOPLE NOT WE THE unGAY

Originally posted by Biggs

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Why should a gay person have the right to live and a baby not. It is forbidden to kill infants.

Why should you get decide who lives?
You are worse than Al-Qaeda and the Nazi's combined.

I agree. If two guys or two girls want to have a wedding to celebrate their relationship and live in each other's pockets & have the same rights as other folk then, why not? It's their private personal business. And if a girl wants to have an abortion, then that's her private personal business too. Who am I as a stranger to decide what's best for her. I have my own business to attend to. I mean, if she keeps on doing it, then she might need her head looked, and perhaps someone could advise sterilisation. But that's between her and her doctor, it's not my business nor is it yours. It beats me though, why some folk think they have the right to decide for others. It's like some sort of ancient witch hunt behaviour. There's a helluva lot worse going on in the world. Get your nose stuck into something that's helpful.If someone's coming at you with a pickaxe, then you have the right to interfere with their life. If someone's lying in your street starving, then you have the right to interfere with their life. Tthey might not want to be fed though, then you should back off and get on with your own business.

I tried to stay away from this thread, as I am neither a pregnant woman, a gay man nor a fetus, but what the hell.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If gay people have rights and put their sinful "partner" on an insurance plan or such, why cant my friends brother put his own brother on his insurance plan???

Ah, those poor, uninsured bastards. If only they were gay...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONALWhy is it that gays are banning the nonsinful people as in australia from places.

I'm not sure why this matters to you unless that was a place you used to frequent. Measure your rights compared to that of a homosexual and you will realize that you have no room to complain.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Why is it that gays have a right to live and a small baby does not.

This is a remarkable statement that I would expect to hear from a Crusader. I've yet to hear a homosexual question why heterosexuals are allowed to live over another individual and I think I will be long dead before it is said.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
And i dont like my mom anyway she shouldnt get any rights either. HAHA.

I hope one day when you come face to face with your God, that He teaches you the compassion and forgiveness that you and people like you never give Him credit for.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONALThe other half of the baby came from the father.

Then let him have the child should he so desire. I'm sure there is a thread on ATS about a technology that will soon allow men to have children. I remember it. Although, I could foresee a thread of yours about child-bearing fathers

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONALBut why do we allow this, seeming that you also agree it is wrong.

You have no choice but to allow it, as your body and actions are subject to the laws of your society. If you believe in your God so greatly, as your invocation of His name is near blasphemous, then let Him decide, "what to do with her" when that time comes.

As for abortion, I have two brothers that I love dearly, and when I think about abortion, I wonder how life would be without one or both of them; but, if there is one thing that I believe in, above all, it is the freedom to choose, whatever that choice may be, whether it is to be homosexual and join in a civil union, have an abortion or buy an insurance plan.

Edit: faulty parallelism


[edit on 2-6-2007 by Mephorium]

so here's my questions.....

why is it that people just can't seem to live and let live??

how is it that so many hardworking americans live without healthcare to begin with...if the lack of accesible healthcare is such a big problem that we have these giant social programs like medicaid, ect....well, one would kind of come to the conclusion that we consider healthcare to be as necessary as shelter and food, wouldn't we. so why do we let so many fall through the cracks, not only that, but we take their hardearned money and give it to someone we feel is more worthy of that healthcare....
if healthcare is a necessity, then shouldn't all americans have it? do this, and you would solve your problem with gay people having their partners on their insurance, but not their brothers. WE ALL should have the right to affordable healthcare!!! forget about all your little special interest groups, all clamouring their "special circumstances" as reason for it to be granted...(or not to), and well, work to make it a right for all of us!
and it might also solve at least a little bit of the problems that lead to abortion, since it costs alot less to have an abortion than it does to have a kid!!

and speaking of abortions, well, I'm sorry, but that little unborn baby does tend to put some stress on the mother's body....some way more than others. there's also other things to consider, she might have other obligations she has to contend with...other children to care for, a job that she has to do everyday to be able to feed and shelter those children. There's many a man out there that wouldn't give up one day of work to take their sick child to the doctors, let alone let a tiny unborn infant interfere with his ability to earn a paycheck, go fishing, or hunting, or heck, even drink that case of beer everynight....
When I was pregnant with my third child, I also had one with acute asthma, another that kept me up all night with another health problem, I was told early on in my pregnancy that I shouldn't be picking them up....what can I say, I had to, so I did.. I didn't have a car, so most of the stuff we needed, I carried one, pushed the other in the stroller, and walked to the store and carried the groceries home. By the end of the nine months....I had trouble walking. many women by the sixth or seventh month are put on total bed rest. So, who should decide when the sacrifice that is being required...(remember for a few it could be death)....it just too much, YOU?? some church group somewhere?? some bought and paid for by special interest politician hundreds of miles away in washington?
It is the women that is being asked to sacrifice, she is the only one who should have the right to accept or not!

last question, if life is so precious, that you expect a women to risk sacrificing all to bring it into the world, why the heck is it so cheap afterwards, that it's nothing to blow it away in wars because of your fear? You say let God deal with her, take care of her, she should have faith in the God....where the heck is your faith when it comes to imaginary wmds in third world nations thousands of miles from your home?

[edit on 2-6-2007 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by Biggs

Why is it the my gay brother get his ass beat and you don't?

Thats messed up he should go on the right path. You should be guide him.

First of all you still dont get it. A baby is not a part of a woman, it depends upon the mother to live. A baby has different Major Histocompatibility Complex genes which label her cells different than her babys!!!! Dont you people get it, ask any scientist. Please provide a scientific counter argument otherwise you are defeated. I provided my link earlier.

Originally posted by Biggs

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

My point in relation to abortion and "gay rights" is that gays have more rights than babies at this point. Arent we in America, "One nation, with liberty and justice for ALL"

Gays have more rights than babys?
IT IS A HETERO RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION>IT ISNT GAYS HAVING ABORTIONS IT IS STRAIGHT PEOPLE LIKE YOU
WE THE PEOPLE NOT WE THE unGAY

Well biology doesnt allow kids to be born among two gay people anyway, so thats why. Im sure if there was some way for them to have kids they would do the same.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Is this a parasite:

Yes. According to m/w:

Parasite: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.
Parasitism: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures.

An embryo cannot survive without the mother. Another person cannot take it and take care of it. A baby, however, can be cared for by another person and is not a parasite. Sometimes mothers die in childbirth and the babies don't die. This is proof that a baby doesn't need that particular person to survive. Embryos, however, die when a pregnant woman dies. Proof that it is a parasite.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
a baby needs breastfeeding

Baby's DO NOT need breastfeeding! Many mothers choose not to breastfeed. I was not breastfed and here I am 50 years later doing just fine. I don't know where you're getting this information...

Gays rights vs abortion rights makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
My point in relation to abortion and "gay rights" is that gays have more rights than babies at this point.

No they don't. When a baby is born, it has all the rights everyone else has. Until it is born, it is not a "baby", but a fetus.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I dont believe that they should be allowed in a union because God says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Fine. That's what you believe. Thanks for sharing. God had nothing to do with my marriage. Not one religious word was spoken and we didn't go near a church. But the STATE gave us a MARRIAGE license and certificate of marriage. We are married. Whether this God person says so or not.

Well ok, yes it kind of is a parasite but it is still a person with a beating heart and neuron electrical activity. And what kids when they grow older arent still parasites. Im sure many kids still in there teens and early adulthood are parasitic to a home and money and would die otherwise. Is that not also parasitic.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Im sure many kids still in there teens and early adulthood are parasitic to a home and money and would die otherwise. Is that not also parasitic.

What? No, that's not parasitic. They are independently living, breathing people. Your argument is all over the place and makes no sense. I'm sorry. Look up parasite and really understand what it means.

I know quite a few men who were kicked out of their houses at 16 and left to fend for themselves, they're still here 40 or more years later, they didn't die. basically, when push comes to shove, the natural desire to life kicks in and kicks them in the tush!! and no, scientifically speaking this isn't being a parasite, it might be being immature, or lazy, or just a little scared to venture out on their own, but it's not a parasite.

sometimes, though, an embryo can become very parasitic, to the point where it is doing irreparable damage to the host....and when this happens of course, some feel that the host should not have a say in just how much of her health she should sacrifice for this future baby?? church leaders who don't believe the government should trust God when it comes to wmd's, war is better!! and politician who believes that life is sacred, when it can provide them million dollar campaign contributions are much better equipped to handle this decision than the host that is feeling the negative effects first hand!!
and of course, all of this is somehow tied into homosexual couples, who in no way will ever have to face such a problem...

Ok I will admit that a fetus is teh "perfect parasite". But it is for a reason, it depends on the mother for survival. BUT fact is it is still a human being and depends on the mother for feeding in the womb and OUTSIDE the womb. If there were no mother around it would resort to other means, but the mother is superior in providing care. Whoever said they dont need to be breastfed is ok. First of all you can get away with not being breast fed, but breast feeding is SUPERIOR to other means. Ask any peditrician.

www.billcasselman.com... :
"English mother and Latin mater and many similar maternal words contain the worldwide etymon ma ‘breast’ + ter an Indo-European agent suffix, so that the etymological meaning of the word mother is ‘breast-feeder.’ For other words ending in the Indo-European -ter suffix, look at: brother, sister, daughter, pater, frater, German Schwester ‘sister.’ The dental t sound often alters slightly to become a dental d sound, as in the German word for brother, Bruder. "

If you want to counter my argument please provide a scientific link.

Nobody is arguing the best care for a born child. Why are you totally changing the discussion to another subject?

The thread is about abortion rights. I think. It's not about caring for a baby. Or breastfeeding.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If gay people have rights and put their sinful "partner" on an insurance plan or such, why cant my friends brother put his own brother on his insurance plan??? This is ridiculous.

Why is it that gays are banning the nonsinful people as in australia from places. I say we ban all gays from everywhere except their houses.

Why is it that gays have a right to live and a small baby does not. Shame on you. What are we coming to.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

I originally responded to this thread when it was called "Gays Should Not Have Rights". That was easy to deal with as most offensive statements are quickly reduced to the garbage they are.

However, I don't understand why the mods retitled it 'Gay rights vs Abortion Rights', because even that debate fails to hold water. May as well call it "This Brand of Intolerance vs that brand of Intolerance', because this thread is, once again, a promotion of ignorance thinly disguised as intelligent debate.

I say 'Ignorance" in all generosity, because I don't think that many proponents of either homophobia or anti-choice would actually be willing to explain to a gay acquaintence or a pregnant unwed sister that they should have no rights. All of this right-wing, neoChristian fooferah sounds really great through a bullhorn, or over a few-too-many wobble-pops with the lads...or even in the anonymity of a web forum.

But I think most of this uncompassionate rhetoric withers when it becomes personalised on a one to one level. At least I hope so, because it is that level of human kindness which separates us from the beasts.

So...barring any personal attack (and it's funny how this subject attracts them), there's my final word on the subject.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Nobody is arguing the best care for a born child.

Why are you totally changing the discussion to another subject?

The thread is about abortion rights. I think. It's not about caring for a baby. Or breastfeeding.

One of our fellow ATSers commented that "because the baby is independent of a host organism for it's basic biological continuation,
a baby and an embryo that can not survive outside of a host body are two completely separate things. "

This was the reason I was bringin up the best care for a human being outside the womb.

But none of you have responded to my earlier question:So if a woman had a siamese twin who was alive would she have the right to shoot it?? I mean it is "her body" as all you folks say.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
a baby and an embryo that can not survive outside of a host body are two completely separate things. "

Yes, they are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. So, why bring one into a discussion about the other? Only to muddy the waters, I suspect.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So if a woman had a siamese twin who was alive would she have the right to shoot it?? I mean it is "her body" as all you folks say.

No, we folks wouldn't advocate the killing of one's twin. A conjoined twin is born, right? So, no. Once a child is born, the killing of it is murder. I don't understand your confusion on this subject.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

it isn't that gays have more rights than the unborn that is bothering you....
heck, you have more rights than the unborn too, we all do.


what is bothering you is that living women have more rights than the unborn that they carry. you would prefer it be the other way around, the unborn child's rights should trump the rights of the mother...

gays have nothing to do with it this....they can't make babies, unless science helps out some and there's a donor to offer either sperm or egg.

you're just trying to find a unique way to rant about the two hot issues...

but, unless you are willing to tell a pregnant mom of three that she should risk sacrificing her life....(and be willing to jump in and help with those three children if she happens to lose it)....well, you have no right to call someone you have no knowledge of "sinful" because she happened to have had an abortion.
that's out of line, just as supporting stupid anti-abortion legislation that gives no thought to the health and welfare of the mother is out of line.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
a baby and an embryo that can not survive outside of a host body are two completely separate things. "

Yes, they are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. So, why bring one into a discussion about the other? Only to muddy the waters, I suspect.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So if a woman had a siamese twin who was alive would she have the right to shoot it?? I mean it is "her body" as all you folks say.

No, we folks wouldn't advocate the likking of one's twin.

A conjoined twin is born, right? So, no. Once a child is born, the killing of it is murder. I don't understand your confusion on this subject.

No I said someone from here said they were two separate things, I am providing a counter and saying they are not two separatie things. That was a quote from another person. NOT ME.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
No I said someone from here said they were two separate things, I am providing a counter and saying they are not two separatie things. That was a quote from another person. NOT ME.

So you are saying that an unborn fetus is the same thing as a born baby.

The counter is that an unborn fetus is a parasite and dependent on the woman and therefore she should have the right to keep it or not. A born baby, while needing care from SOMEONE, is not a parasite.

The only counter you've provided is that it's better to breastfeed a baby than not.

Your counter argument is as confusing and irrelevant as this thread.

Later.