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.

 

Right To Life Historic Measure (that includes protection of every person from the time of fertilizat

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Just like Hitlers right to hate Jews did not outweigh the Jews right to live.

You're right to have sex and get pregnant does not out weigh the child's right to live.

Life is more important that some brief pleasure . PERIOD.




posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


I do! Hubby explained it like this:

In the case of rape: The child is conceived against your will, The blood is not on your hands but the rapist's hands, if you abort it. Forgot what he said about life threatening. Will ask again when he gets back

[edit on 31-5-2008 by undo]


Agreed. The victim's been through enough without having to carry around a nine month reminder.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Annee
 



Just like Hitlers right to hate Jews did not outweigh the Jews right to live.

You're right to have sex and get pregnant does not out weigh the child's right to live.

Life is more important that some brief pleasure . PERIOD.


Your twisted analogy. Your belief.

We could do this all night.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No it was a good analogy. Ones opinion does supersede a human life.

No I believe that everyone has a right to live and not have their life taken from them by force. We take people rights when they are criminals- when you steal we take your freedom. Again you do have the complete authority over your body. You are not asking for control over your body - you are asking for permission to let someone else kill an innocent that happens to be in you body. NOT THE SAME.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
So you don't consider rape or incest to be deciding factors?

Tough question.

But is it the child's fault? Why is it the the child has to make the ultimate payment?

Im sure rape victims don't base their decision on 'making someone pay'. It's not the fetus' fault but that certainly doesn't morally justify making her carry and give birth to it.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by riley]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Annee
 


No it was a good analogy. Ones opinion does supersede a human life.

No I believe that everyone has a right to live and not have their life taken from them by force. We take people rights when they are criminals- when you steal we take your freedom. Again you do have the complete authority over your body. You are not asking for control over your body - you are asking for permission to let someone else kill an innocent that happens to be in you body. NOT THE SAME.


Still your opinion. Your view of what life is.

A physical world - doesn't mean Life is physical.

Energy beings do not die - they are eternal. A Physical experience and Life - - are not the same thing.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Im sure rape victims don't base their decision on 'making someone pay'. It's not the fetus' fault but that certainly doesn't morally justify making her carry and give birth to it.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by riley]


Thats why I said its a tough question.

I am just speaking on behalf of the person who doesn't have a voice in the whole situation.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by riley
Im sure rape victims don't base their decision on 'making someone pay'. It's not the fetus' fault but that certainly doesn't morally justify making her carry and give birth to it.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by riley]


Thats why I said its a tough question.

I am just speaking on behalf of the person who doesn't have a voice in the whole situation.

..which of course means ignoring the rape victim's voice.

I see no reason why a rape conception should have the right to remain if the victim does not want it to. The simple fact is that fetus was put there when the rapist ejeculated. I imagine that would be the absolute worst part of the rape so while that pregnancy is still there the rape is not over and is a continued physical violation. When a woman is raped her immediate impulse is to wash herself for hours afterwards.. yet she's not allowed to wash out [ie. surgically remove] the remnants of his imposed sperm? That would be like forever banning her from bathing afterwards.

Apologies for the graphic details.. i have just noticed prolifers [in general] white washing the brutality of rape by making it about "punnishing the innocent". NO. It's about helping victims who have been traumatised.. it has nothing to do with a victim getting vengence.

While I am amazed at victims who are able to continue with a rape pregnancies to term.. I don't think ones that don't should be condemned as being immoral.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by riley]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
While I am amazed at victims who are able to continue with a rape pregnancies to term.. I don't think ones that don't should be condemned as being immoral.


Where did I condemn a rape victim as being immoral? It probably isn't a good idea for a rape victim to go full term with a pregnancy anyways for physical and psychological health reasons. A rape victim will probably commit suicide or do something very stupid that will affect the health of themselves and the baby if they are forced to term. There is no solution to this as of this time. This is why I stated the issue as being "tough".

But when there is a solution, remember the child has to pay the ultimate price for a situation that isn't his fault.

My problem are the mothers that abort babies because they can't afford them, don't want to afford them, don't like that they aren't perfect, don't like their sex, etc. There are alternatives so that the woman is not burdened with rearing the baby and yet the baby is allowed to have its right to life.

My point about rape kids is to just point out that they are still being denied the right to life through no fault of his/her own.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by riley
Im sure rape victims don't base their decision on 'making someone pay'. It's not the fetus' fault but that certainly doesn't morally justify making her carry and give birth to it.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by riley]


Thats why I said its a tough question.

I am just speaking on behalf of the person who doesn't have a voice in the whole situation.

..which of course means ignoring the rape victim's voice.

I see no reason why a rape conception should have the right to remain if the victim does not want it to. The simple fact is that fetus was put there when the rapist ejeculated. I imagine that would be the absolute worst part of the rape so while that pregnancy is still there the rape is not over and is a continued physical violation. When a woman is raped her immediate impulse is to wash hersef for hours afterwards.. yet she's not allowed to wash out [ie. surgically remove] the remnants of his imposed sperm? That would be like forever banning her from bathing afterwards.

Apologies for the graphic details.. i have just noticed prolifers [in general] white washing the brutality of rape by making it about "punnishing the innocent". NO. It's about helping victims who have been traumatised.. it has nothing to do with a victim getting vengence.

While I am amazed at victims who are able to continue with a rape pregnancies to term.. I don't think ones that don't should be condemned as being immoral.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by riley]


Excellent point. Unfortunately it is possible for a man to force himself on a woman and on top of that she can also be impregnated against her will. If I were in that situation there is absolutely no way I'd keep it. What really disgusts me is that catholics believe emergency contraception for rape victims is sinful. I guess it goes against "God's Will".



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 





..which of course means ignoring the rape victim's voice.


Not entirely Mister wiley sir.How does murdering an innocent child and offering it up to evil lessen the blow of being raped? Now the por woman had to live with being a killer as well as being raped. You just worsened her trauma. How horrible to force women to murcer their babies by you feminazi propagandizing. Perhaps we can arrange for a quick adoption so the rape victim does not have to care for the child.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I just love it when Men think they have the right to speak for women.

I have my own voice - thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I don't think so. A quick adoption doesn't change the fact that the poor woman has to lugg around what the rapist left behind for nine months and than go through the pain of childbirth all for something she had no choice in conceiving. I'd say that's more traumatic. Anyway I think the first thing a rape victim should do (along with a police report) is get access to emergency contraception.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I think that one point not addressed in that OP article includes the fact that the Federal Government defines a "person" as being a corporate entity in itself...This is why it's common practice to print a new child's name on the Birth Certificate in all capital letters. It's a function that serves "color of law" instead of serving Natural Law. You can get more information on this "legalistic trickery" to deprive human beings of their Natural Rights in this thread.

In a nutshell, by declaring that a child becomes a "person" at the moment of conception, you waive that child's Rights & turn it into "property of the state" at that same time.

Another consequence is that the mother loses all Rights to "self-determination" at the moment of conception too...Which is why such a measure would automatically be Unconstitutional & should never become an Amendment. As an Amendment, it would be upholding "color of law" as superior to Natural Law.


[edit on 1-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Good Post - MidnightDStroyer

Natural Law and Color of Law. Gonna have to go study up on that.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Remember the Natural Law is defined by God. It says inalienable rights endowed by our creator life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The firtst natural right is life. LIFE LIFE



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
Remember the Natural Law is defined by God.

And every part of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights were written in accordance with the Laws of Nature as set Forth by the Creator. To seek such measures that turn children into "state property is a violation of Natural Law.

The Constitution was to delegate certain responsibilities to various Branches & Offices to the government, but more importantly to limit what the government can do. The Bill of Rights were written with the expressed knowledge of Human Rights under the Laws of Nature & also specified that the government is forbidden to touch those Rights. By seeking an "official Amendment" that would impose any additional definition or commit violation of these Rights is a violation of the Natural Law. The attempt to involve the government in this issue is also a violation of Natural Law.

Since each State Constitution must also abide by the Federal Constitution, this is true at both State & Federal levels.



[edit on 1-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
 


No, abortion is NOT murder in any way, shape or form...Sorry to disappoint Rev...

As has already been pointed out to you, it is a medical procedure, nothing more and nothing less



Hmmmmm - A medical procedure? I love the twist on the words. Lets see, a living fetus who has a heart beat actually has its heart stopped and is clinically put to death by a ............... medical procedure. If its that simple why not change the penal from Murder in the First Degree to Medical Procedure in the First Degree. Let me guess - your Pro Abortion right? I'm sorry, I forgot to twist the words - Pro Choice?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
Not entirely Mister wiley sir.

My name is Riley not Wiley and I'm a woman not a Mister.

How does murdering an innocent child

The term murder means malice as motivation. For you to make that judgment is in fact very unchristian.. not to mention willfiully ignorant and presumptious. Unless you've been a rape victim who's had to have an abortion I suggest you keep your judgements on them to yourself.

and offering it up to evil lessen the blow of being raped? Now the por woman had to live with being a killer as well as being raped.

No.. she'd still be a victim not a killer.

You just worsened her trauma.

Nonsense.

How horrible to force women to murcer their babies by you feminazi propagandizing.

Please do not start with namecalling. Read my last post.. I did not at all advocate forcing abortion on rape victims. The point is NOT violating a womans rights.. seems you're all for it.

Perhaps we can arrange for a quick adoption so the rape victim does not have to care for the child.

A "quick" adoption? You are still expecting her to carry the pregnancy AGAINST HER WILL. Are you at all familar with the concept of free will Reverend? It's right at the beggining of your bible. What right do you have to say a woman isn't entitled to it?

[edit on 1-6-2008 by riley]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Another point I think I should make is this:
It's Natural Law that over-populating an environment will result in Nature reducing that population...Trying to enforce unnatural "legal" measures that contribute to over-population violates Nature's Laws too.

Humanity is already over-populated to the point that Earth's resources are straining near to the buckling point already...I don't it'll be much longer before Nature exacts a natural balance. But to try to use the government to enforce such a blasphemy against God's Laws of Nature not only violates His Law, but puts it in the hands of government...Governments, by definition, are not an extension of Natural Law, but an invention of men.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join