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.

 

Obama Says He Doesn't Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If the fetus is considered a life,


And that's the big IF. And since it's such a subjective question, the only logical person to make that decision is the person who has the fetus inside her (or him). I cannot make that judgment for anyone else and I don't want anyone telling me that it is or isn't a life.

I wouldn't choose abortion unless my life was threatened, but I reserve the right to that choice and I insist on it for every other pregnant person.



apc

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I think there is little doubt that a fetus from the moment of conception is in fact a life as life is defined merely in terms of potential. A rock is not alive as it has no potential other than to forever be a rock unless acted upon by external influences. Ants and plants however have the potential to grow, consume, and reproduce. Sentience and self-awareness is what must be taken into consideration whenever any individual life is terminated. We have no problem eating apples because they are not sentient. Likewise we have no problems killing a cockroach because they are not self-aware. Some of us do kill sentient self-aware beings to survive - to eat - which is perfectly acceptable as that is the natural order. But a fetus for the first portion of its life is neither sentient nor self-aware. Only potential exists. So that potential must be weighed against others. The significance we associate with those variables are subjective and can never be explicitly cast from one to another. They are arbitrarily assigned by the individual. These are what some would consider punishment. Their logic is no more flawed than those who call life a "gift." It is entirely a matter of perspective.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Again, I agree with you however I was approaching it from a constitutional and Natural Law standpoint.

Since the fetus cannot live without the mother up to 18-24 weeks (differing estimations are part of the problem), I am inclined to put the rights of self determination of the mother higher during this period.

However past the point where the fetus can survive outside the womans body, their natural rights are equal and must be considered as such. I doubt we can justify killing the fetus if it could survive on its own accord. This of course makes third trimester abortions an absolute no-go area.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 




Thanks for the clarification, although I would disagree with your conclusion.

But you did bring up one interesting point:


By the passing of Roe Vs Wade, statistics show a massive drop in crime approximately 14 years onwards as there was a drop in the number of kids born into these conditions, which were more likely to result in them being criminals.


Are you saying that crime decreases as the number of abortions increases?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by apc
 



Originally posted by apc
Sentience and self-awareness is what must be taken into consideration whenever any individual life is terminated.

Ironically, the same conditions exist at the end of many lives, as senility sets in. Making euthanasia an alternative for treatment.


apc

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Uhm... only if you plan to eat them. But the capacity for higher cognition still exists so it would have to be their call. I fully observe the right to die.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 




Thanks for the clarification, although I would disagree with your conclusion.

But you did bring up one interesting point:


By the passing of Roe Vs Wade, statistics show a massive drop in crime approximately 14 years onwards as there was a drop in the number of kids born into these conditions, which were more likely to result in them being criminals.


Are you saying that crime decreases as the number of abortions increases?


Absolutely


Its because the underclass element in the city which perpetually breeds criminals are more likely to have underage pregnancies, the children of which they are incapable of raising.

Increased abortions in the inner city = fewer criminals being born. Its almost like eugenics by choice...interesting phenomenon.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Well, 44soulslayer, I gotta say, that certainly is a ballsy statement! I'm surprised it hasn't attracted more discussion here.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Maybe Obama would much rather prefer his kids do
what a certain ex President said IS NOT sex.

In his eyes, that probably would not be constituted as punishment.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Increased abortions in the inner city = fewer criminals being born. Its almost like eugenics by choice...interesting phenomenon.


Actually, I have read that. There are stats to support that. I'm just too darn lazy at the moment to go on a google search.

Yep JSO .. the higher the abortion rate in cities .. the lower the crime rate.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The source is two Harvard professors of social and economic issues : Levitt and Dubner.

I read this theory in their book "Freakonomics" and was entirely convinced by it.

They also use statistics to show trends in gun ownership vs violent crime (inverse proportionality); and capital punishment vs muder being proportional (which I wasnt so convinced by).

I keep touting this book as a brilliant read, but nobody seems to pick it up haha. I guess not enough people are interested in the socio-economics of political issues.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Why are you suprised at something he said. He didn't say it his speech writers told him to say it. I can't keep up with this guy, other that the realization that I would rather vote for Bush for a third term than this guy.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Royal76
 

Well, then he should hire speech writers that have a better sense of what's acceptable to say. Was this really in a written format or just an off-the-cuff remark? If it was written out by someone else, then it wouldn't be as interesting. An on the moment remark however gives us better insight to how he actually feels and thinks.



[edit on 7-4-2008 by dbates]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
If he said it he meant it. And I like these people who say he didn't mean to say that or that's not what he meant. If he didn't mean to say it then why did he say it? And if that's not what he meant then they must be mind readers.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I disagree. Have you ever done a Q&A like that? No notes, just answering questions. People are likely to make those kinds of mistakes because they haven't had time to plan the wording.

reply to post by UScitizen
 


Oh really? You know?

You've never had a freudian slip? You've never made any mistakes when speaking, embarrassing ones at that?

How many speeches have you given to a room, of say a thousand people, who are asking you questions in a public forum?

Then add national TV to that.

Do you really think Bush meant to say "OBGYNs need to practice more love with their patients"?

I think you're right, he meant what he said, just not how he said it. It is a punishment to have to raise a baby at 15 years old, but it is not a punishment to have a baby or be pregnant in general.

reply to post by Royal76
 


Can I just go ahead and thank you for voting for Bush the first two times?

Thanks to people like you who don't pay attention to the news or get any non-partisan opinions, we are currently living in one of this countries darkest eras.



reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I wouldn't agree with calling it eugenics. That would imply that it's these people's genes that are responsible.

I think it's pretty obvious that it's not the genes, but it's the situation.

Take a poor, uneducated family and switch it with the Rockefellers for 3 generations. By the time the third generation is dead, the Rockefellers will be uneducated and violent, and the previously poor family will probably be Republican.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Hmm... I was under the assumption that it is the restriction of reproduction of an undesirable element within a population. Thats the textbook definition of eugenics, is it not?

I see what you mean though... its that the people are voluntarily stopping their own reproduction and; its not based on racial or genotypic factors but socio-economic situation. I could hazard a link between those two things, but that would be an incredibly dangerous path for me to tread!



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Yeah, no I see exactly what you mean, and it does seem correct from a eugenicists' point of view.

However, I think eugenics is more of the filtering out of bad genes by not allowing reproduction right? Basically, by not allowing people with poor genes to reproduce, the race will become better (which I believes happens on its own in nature - gogo Darwin).

Anyway, I guess I just disagree with eugenics in the sense that I don't believe that poor genes are necessarily what's causing these people's problems.

Know what I mean?

Eh, it's just a weird subject.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Definitely I agree with you, but from a Eugenicist's point of view they would argue that the social situation is a product of the genes of a person to a certain extent. I think thats why Galton was so inclined to sterilize mentally handicapped people and criminals.

While I wouldnt agree with forced Eugenics, I do believe in creating a framework which is voluntary in its action on the human gene pool. If the underclass are offered free abortions, would it not stop the underclass in its tracks?

As I said, its a dangerous area because people get emotional and upset! (Justifiably too).

If youre interested in reading about the social darwinism vs public services debate, theres a very good thread here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Contraversial too!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join