reply to post by mizzu
Even though I agree it is wrong I believe many who go through with this have no idea of the gravity of what they are doing. Tragically many only come
to grasp this later on, when it is too late.
At that point compassion is in order, BIG TIME. In fact even someone who is in the process of choosing such a drastic course of action deserves a
great deal of understanding. Who of us can claim not to have made mistakes?
Over 40 Million Dead Babies - Will Either Obama Or McCain Stop The American Abortion Holocaust?, page 6
privacy
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 11:15 AM by Heike
According to the available data, most Americans support abortion rights. That majority gets significantly bigger when Americans are asked whether women impregnated by a rapist should be legally able to terminate their pregnancy.
Source
By what right does the minority decide what is right or wrong for the majority? Murder is wrong; everyone agrees on that, usually even the people who have committed it. Therefore we have laws against murder. When the same overwhelming majority of people agree that abortion is wrong, there may be valid reason to make it against the law. That situation does not currently exist.
Secondly, one exception does not a movement make. The majority of anti-abortionists want to allow abortions for rape and incest victims, proving once again that their true agenda is not just the life of an unborn child.
Your references to God in previous posts lead me to believe that your religious beliefs have something to do with your stance on this issue. Fortunately, America also has freedom of religion and you have no more right to impose your religious beliefs on others than you do your concept of morality. It is this very arrogance and self-righteousness on the part of many religious followers that motivates me to speak and act against their agendas. Just because your God tells you that abortion is wrong does not in any way give you the right to decide that for me. In America you may not force me, or anyone, to accept or worship your God, or the concepts of right and wrong which are dictated by your God and your religion.
How can anyone be a functioning adult and not understand that right and wrong are not black and white absolutes? I believe that taking young children to church and indoctrinating them with the fear of being condemned to hell for their misdeeds is wrong. Aren't you glad that you can't be forced to conduct your life according to my concepts of right and wrong? Then please stop trying to force me to live by yours.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:03 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by Heike
I mentioned God specifically in response to mental modulator mentioning Him (2:49pm, previous page) and the Church specifically in response to Sleuth mentioning it (3:18pm, previous page).
I do not hide my faith - it is visible in my signature. However with respect to this issue there are plenty of people who do not share my faith who, for different reasons, would agree with my stance either in full or in part. I have at no point made reference to the Bible or its teaching with respect to the abortion issue. As such you have no grounds for trying to refute what I have said on the basis of my faith.
Trumpeting key words and phrases such as 'America', 'freedom of religion', 'impose your religious beliefs/your concept of morality' is nothing more than sound-biting. They have absolutely no connexion to what I have said other than that you wish to engage in an ad hominem attack.
Extraordinary. I have just been saying things like
You seem so fixed on stereotypes that you cannot see what I have actually said. It does not make for a constructive debate.
Nobody, least of all me has even hinted at such a thing. I am engaging in legitimate debate over whether the unborn child deserves legal protection. There is no escaping the fact that many aspects of the law have a deeply moral dimension. Medical ethics have a very justifiable place in the legal framework of any civilized nation.
Trying to simply shout down someone whose views differ from your own on the basis that you do not share their faith comes across as bigotry. Meaningful debate is impossible unless those involved accept each other for who they are and simply weigh the merits of the arguments put forward.
Your references to God in previous posts lead me to believe that your religious beliefs have something to do with your stance on this issue.
I mentioned God specifically in response to mental modulator mentioning Him (2:49pm, previous page) and the Church specifically in response to Sleuth mentioning it (3:18pm, previous page).
I do not hide my faith - it is visible in my signature. However with respect to this issue there are plenty of people who do not share my faith who, for different reasons, would agree with my stance either in full or in part. I have at no point made reference to the Bible or its teaching with respect to the abortion issue. As such you have no grounds for trying to refute what I have said on the basis of my faith.
Fortunately, America also has freedom of religion and you have no more right to impose your religious beliefs on others than you do your concept of morality.
Trumpeting key words and phrases such as 'America', 'freedom of religion', 'impose your religious beliefs/your concept of morality' is nothing more than sound-biting. They have absolutely no connexion to what I have said other than that you wish to engage in an ad hominem attack.
It is this very arrogance and self-righteousness on the part of many religious followers that motivates me to speak and act against their agendas.
Extraordinary. I have just been saying things like
In fact even someone who is in the process of choosing such a drastic course of action deserves a great deal of understanding. Who of us can claim not to have made mistakes?
You seem so fixed on stereotypes that you cannot see what I have actually said. It does not make for a constructive debate.
In America you may not force me, or anyone, to accept or worship your God, or the concepts of right and wrong which are dictated by your God and your religion.
Nobody, least of all me has even hinted at such a thing. I am engaging in legitimate debate over whether the unborn child deserves legal protection. There is no escaping the fact that many aspects of the law have a deeply moral dimension. Medical ethics have a very justifiable place in the legal framework of any civilized nation.
Trying to simply shout down someone whose views differ from your own on the basis that you do not share their faith comes across as bigotry. Meaningful debate is impossible unless those involved accept each other for who they are and simply weigh the merits of the arguments put forward.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:14 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by xresistx
No-one would deny the horror of such situations. They are unspeakably devastating.
I would just like to say that killing any resultant child is not the solution in the eyes of all. While some accept abortion as a legitimate solution there are others who would deny it can ever be a solution. There are countless couples longing to adopt a child they are themselves unable to have. I, and many beside me, believe that the wonderful gift of a child to such a couple brings wonderful things to the child, the new parents, and even the mother - who knows that her child, though unwanted, will be cared for. I contrast this with a vision of a mangled baby and feel a deep conviction that the former solution is preferable.
I simply desire that those who have not come across this approach come to appreciate that there is another way. Another choice.
ever been raped by a family member (i was not) ? to deny abortions to those girls/women who have been would be absolutely horrifying.
No-one would deny the horror of such situations. They are unspeakably devastating.
I would just like to say that killing any resultant child is not the solution in the eyes of all. While some accept abortion as a legitimate solution there are others who would deny it can ever be a solution. There are countless couples longing to adopt a child they are themselves unable to have. I, and many beside me, believe that the wonderful gift of a child to such a couple brings wonderful things to the child, the new parents, and even the mother - who knows that her child, though unwanted, will be cared for. I contrast this with a vision of a mangled baby and feel a deep conviction that the former solution is preferable.
I simply desire that those who have not come across this approach come to appreciate that there is another way. Another choice.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:14 PM by pause4thought
(double post)
[edit on 1/9/08 by pause4thought]
[edit on 1/9/08 by pause4thought]
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:32 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by chickenshoes
An organ is not a human being. A vulnerable human being capable of feeling pain.
I have previously pointed out that an unborn child is a genetically separate individual. He/she is dependent on the mother, but not part of her body, as many unthinkingly argue.
An organ, on the other hand, is.
An organ is not a human being. A vulnerable human being capable of feeling pain.
I have previously pointed out that an unborn child is a genetically separate individual. He/she is dependent on the mother, but not part of her body, as many unthinkingly argue.
An organ, on the other hand, is.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:45 PM by chickenshoes
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by chickenshoes
An organ is not a human being. A vulnerable human being capable of feeling pain.
I have previously pointed out that an unborn child is a genetically separate individual. He/she is dependent on the mother, but not part of her body, as many unthinkingly argue.
An organ, on the other hand, is.
The point is that you cannot successfully use the argument that women who have an unwanted pregnancy have some sort of "moral obligation" to provide couples looking to adopt with a child.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 01:50 PM by Heike
reply to post by pause4thought
Okay. Let's stick carefully to what you actually said instead of what I have inferred from your comments. Fair enough?
No. Many hundreds of millions of children were never born due to the legalization of abortion. They never had a life to lose. To say otherwise is your opinion, your interpretation of the issue. The majority of Americans do not agree, as shown by opinion polls and surveys.
A truly free society has laws which reflect the beliefs that everyone can agree on, not what a few people think is right. As long as a significant portion of the adult population do not believe something is wrong, it should not be made law. We all agree that murder is wrong; we do not all agree that abortion is wrong.
So the question becomes, according to you, is the unborn fetus an individual, and is abortion murder? You believe that it is; many other people - in fact the majority of people - do not agree. How does that make you right? You are the minority. How, in a free society, can you justify that your minority opinion should be made law?
(edit to fix quotes)
[edit on 1-9-2008 by Heike]
Okay. Let's stick carefully to what you actually said instead of what I have inferred from your comments. Fair enough?
Many hundreds of millions of children have lost their lives due to the legalization of abortion. I therefore see the balance of suffering differently.
No. Many hundreds of millions of children were never born due to the legalization of abortion. They never had a life to lose. To say otherwise is your opinion, your interpretation of the issue. The majority of Americans do not agree, as shown by opinion polls and surveys.
I beg to differ. A truly free society does not do away with law - which inevitably sometimes has dictates which go against the consciences of some citizens. The most obvious example is that to my mind legal abortion constitutes a legally-sanctioned holocaust.
A truly free society has laws which reflect the beliefs that everyone can agree on, not what a few people think is right. As long as a significant portion of the adult population do not believe something is wrong, it should not be made law. We all agree that murder is wrong; we do not all agree that abortion is wrong.
It is not a matter of imposing beliefs on others. It is a matter of applying the universally-held belief that it is morally wrong to kill individuals.
So the question becomes, according to you, is the unborn fetus an individual, and is abortion murder? You believe that it is; many other people - in fact the majority of people - do not agree. How does that make you right? You are the minority. How, in a free society, can you justify that your minority opinion should be made law?
(edit to fix quotes)
[edit on 1-9-2008 by Heike]
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 02:00 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by chickenshoes
I see where you are coming from. I'd argue it's more a 'moral obligation' not to kill if you must put it in those terms, although I actually see it more in terms of a moral obligation to care for the unborn child.
Providing couples looking to adopt with a child is more a case of doing something truly beautiful in response to an awful dilemma. Something that could bring life-long good to all concerned and a degree of closure where there might otherwise be trauma and regret.
The point is that you cannot successfully use the argument that women who have an unwanted pregnancy have some sort of "moral obligation" to provide couples looking to adopt with a child.
I see where you are coming from. I'd argue it's more a 'moral obligation' not to kill if you must put it in those terms, although I actually see it more in terms of a moral obligation to care for the unborn child.
Providing couples looking to adopt with a child is more a case of doing something truly beautiful in response to an awful dilemma. Something that could bring life-long good to all concerned and a degree of closure where there might otherwise be trauma and regret.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 02:32 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by Heike
Hi Heike. Thanks for not taking umbrage at my challenge. I can see we're back to debate. Thanks.
I think the first sentence is a little careless, but I'm not going to come down hard because it could imply that everyone has to agree. I'm certain you mean 'that the majority can agree on'. As to the second sentence forgive me if I'm not quite so generous. A significant proportion of the adult population in the US does not believe it is wrong to protect the unborn child in law, so by that logic abortion should be illegal.
This, I would argue is central to all laws that are heavily impacted by moral issues.
A society/civilization is grounded in principles. Unless it is able to cope with the fact that opinions/beliefs fluctuate it will have no seams to hold it together.
At what point does a moral belief necessitate a change in law? 51%? 55%? 60%? ...and on it goes. What if the percentages reverse every decade? Should the law flip back and forth?
This is a deeply philosophical as well as moral debate. I would argue that a society cannot hold together if it prefers fluctuating majorities to foundational principles with respect to its legal framework. Just for argument's sake, let's say at some future point 55% of society decides stealing is not wrong if a person's income falls below a certain level. Should the statute books be changed until the balance changes again? What if 55% becomes 75%? I would have to maintain that such an approach inevitably leads to the disintegration of society. Norms that go beyond fluctuating minorities/majorities hold us together. They afford protection to the vulnerable under any circumstances.
So yes, in response to your comment, I do believe the issue revolves around whether the unborn child is an individual. Anatomically, genetically, psychologically.
Perhaps the best I can hope for is that those who share your views will come to appreciate that those who share my views see it that way. In speaking out strongly against the practice of abortion we are arguing for what we see as the inalienable rights of an individual. They trump opinion polls every time.
It is not a matter of imposing one's view. It is a matter of defending the dignity and right to life of all children, whether born or unborn.
Can we at least end with some measure of mutual understanding and respect?
A truly free society has laws which reflect the beliefs that everyone can agree on, not what a few people think is right. As long as a significant portion of the adult population do not believe something is wrong, it should not be made law.
Hi Heike. Thanks for not taking umbrage at my challenge. I can see we're back to debate. Thanks.
I think the first sentence is a little careless, but I'm not going to come down hard because it could imply that everyone has to agree. I'm certain you mean 'that the majority can agree on'. As to the second sentence forgive me if I'm not quite so generous. A significant proportion of the adult population in the US does not believe it is wrong to protect the unborn child in law, so by that logic abortion should be illegal.
So the question becomes, according to you, is the unborn fetus an individual, and is abortion murder? You believe that it is; many other people - in fact the majority of people - do not agree. How does that make you right? You are the minority. How, in a free society, can you justify that your minority opinion should be made law?
This, I would argue is central to all laws that are heavily impacted by moral issues.
A society/civilization is grounded in principles. Unless it is able to cope with the fact that opinions/beliefs fluctuate it will have no seams to hold it together.
At what point does a moral belief necessitate a change in law? 51%? 55%? 60%? ...and on it goes. What if the percentages reverse every decade? Should the law flip back and forth?
This is a deeply philosophical as well as moral debate. I would argue that a society cannot hold together if it prefers fluctuating majorities to foundational principles with respect to its legal framework. Just for argument's sake, let's say at some future point 55% of society decides stealing is not wrong if a person's income falls below a certain level. Should the statute books be changed until the balance changes again? What if 55% becomes 75%? I would have to maintain that such an approach inevitably leads to the disintegration of society. Norms that go beyond fluctuating minorities/majorities hold us together. They afford protection to the vulnerable under any circumstances.
So yes, in response to your comment, I do believe the issue revolves around whether the unborn child is an individual. Anatomically, genetically, psychologically.
Perhaps the best I can hope for is that those who share your views will come to appreciate that those who share my views see it that way. In speaking out strongly against the practice of abortion we are arguing for what we see as the inalienable rights of an individual. They trump opinion polls every time.
It is not a matter of imposing one's view. It is a matter of defending the dignity and right to life of all children, whether born or unborn.
Can we at least end with some measure of mutual understanding and respect?
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 03:08 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
I have to reply that you are missing a glaring issue: if you deny that a baby is an individual because it cannot live on its own, then all vulnerable, dependent individuals are, well, "not individuals". By this logic infants and the sick and the elderly and infirm are not individuals either. They too can just be done away with if convenient. Surely that is morally repugnant and reprehensible.
Society cannot hold together on such a basis.
I have to reply that you are missing a glaring issue: if you deny that a baby is an individual because it cannot live on its own, then all vulnerable, dependent individuals are, well, "not individuals". By this logic infants and the sick and the elderly and infirm are not individuals either. They too can just be done away with if convenient. Surely that is morally repugnant and reprehensible.
Society cannot hold together on such a basis.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 03:13 PM by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
I have to reply that you are missing a glaring issue: if you deny that a baby is an individual because it cannot live on its own, then all vulnerable, dependent individuals are, well, "not individuals". By this logic infants and the sick and the elderly and infirm are not individuals either. They too can just be done away with if convenient. Surely that is morally repugnant and reprehensible.
Society cannot hold together on such a basis.
You are absolutely stretching here. There is a big difference between being weak and needing assistance to survive, and not being in any way a viable, living being.
As I said before, in the stages where the cells would be aborted, it cannot eat, breath, drink, etc on its own. Not because it's too weak. Because it does not have a functioning system. No amount of assistance whatsoever could help it survive.
And as far as the "convenience" argument, I wont even get into that. To even suggest that abortion is about "convenience" just shows your lack of experience with the subject.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 04:04 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
I have to deal with this first.
These are not cells, they are babies (shown at 24 weeks below):
Source: www.nlm.nih.gov...
Source: www.funonthenet.in...
...aborted in their tens, hundreds of thousands in the US alone, every year.
Oh but we are talking about living beings. Don't engage in deception on this issue. Living beings that can react to noise, music, kick (from around 16-20 weeks) and even suck their thumbs at 12 weeks (source: www.nrlc.org...). Shown at 20 weeks in the ultrasound picture below.
Source: www.the20weekscampaign.org...
Source:www.everysquareinch.com...
A newborn is wholly dependent on others for the continuation of life, as are the seriously ill and the elderly who are infirm. The fact that independent life is not possible does not remove individuality or the fundamental right to life and dignity. The analogy is strong.
No, it shows you wish to avoid the reality that nowadays this is not at all an unusual reason for abortion. My reference to this was tangental, but if you wish to push it I will pursue it. At the same time I am fully aware that many abortions are the result of health-related issues, albeit with a very great variety in the severity of the conditions. (I know of at least one case in the UK where it was performed on the grounds of a (repairable) cleft palate, for example.
There is no getting away from the fact that unborn children are being aborted on the basis of many details of the reality having been withheld, and sometimes on very flimsy grounds, even within the framework of the law as it currently stands.
I still maintain, however that the crux of the matter is simple. Are these babies individuals or not?
We may disagree on the answer, but the question is very real.
As I said before, in the stages where the cells would be aborted, it cannot eat, breath, drink, etc on its own.
I have to deal with this first.
These are not cells, they are babies (shown at 24 weeks below):
Source: www.nlm.nih.gov...
Source: www.funonthenet.in...
...aborted in their tens, hundreds of thousands in the US alone, every year.
There is a big difference between being weak and needing assistance to survive, and not being in any way a viable, living being.
Oh but we are talking about living beings. Don't engage in deception on this issue. Living beings that can react to noise, music, kick (from around 16-20 weeks) and even suck their thumbs at 12 weeks (source: www.nrlc.org...). Shown at 20 weeks in the ultrasound picture below.
Source: www.the20weekscampaign.org...
Source:www.everysquareinch.com...
A newborn is wholly dependent on others for the continuation of life, as are the seriously ill and the elderly who are infirm. The fact that independent life is not possible does not remove individuality or the fundamental right to life and dignity. The analogy is strong.
And as far as the "convenience" argument, I wont even get into that. To even suggest that abortion is about "convenience" just shows your lack of experience with the subject.
No, it shows you wish to avoid the reality that nowadays this is not at all an unusual reason for abortion. My reference to this was tangental, but if you wish to push it I will pursue it. At the same time I am fully aware that many abortions are the result of health-related issues, albeit with a very great variety in the severity of the conditions. (I know of at least one case in the UK where it was performed on the grounds of a (repairable) cleft palate, for example.
There is no getting away from the fact that unborn children are being aborted on the basis of many details of the reality having been withheld, and sometimes on very flimsy grounds, even within the framework of the law as it currently stands.
I still maintain, however that the crux of the matter is simple. Are these babies individuals or not?
We may disagree on the answer, but the question is very real.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 04:33 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by Heike
Heike, the law is not framed in that way. It is not 'murder, etc., is against the law'. It is endless books and cases that define myriads of nuances. As such no legal system is based on 100% agreement. That is why I assumed you were referring to majorities (which is a more realistic argument). When it comes to medical ethics and the law we are talking issues that tax the brains of some of the most able thinkers on the planet. Many people would be lost even trying to untangle the issues for debate in the first place.
Framing the law has nothing to do with 100% consensus. It has to do with those who have been entrusted with responsibility putting together a framework to protect people from harm.
Your personal story is far too deep for me to attempt a quick reply, and I must stop at this point. All I can do is say that two wrongs never make a right.
I can only point you to my reply to Sleuth at the bottom of p.5.
The solution in such situations is genuine care, counseling (including advice on the avenue of adoption, which may have provided you with a much better start in life, Heike,) and generous practical support, including accommodation if necessary. It is available from organizations in the UK, and I expect it is also available in other countries.
Thank you to you and to Sleuth for being so open. You have increased my awareness of how 'there, but for the grace of God, go I' and how important it is to be pro-active in supporting those who find themselves in terrible predicaments.
God bless.
in a free society no law should be imposed unless everyone agrees to it. I think if you snagged 100 random people and said "we're going to form a new society and we need to decide what our laws should be," you could achieve 100% consensus on murder, thievery, robbery, etc.
Heike, the law is not framed in that way. It is not 'murder, etc., is against the law'. It is endless books and cases that define myriads of nuances. As such no legal system is based on 100% agreement. That is why I assumed you were referring to majorities (which is a more realistic argument). When it comes to medical ethics and the law we are talking issues that tax the brains of some of the most able thinkers on the planet. Many people would be lost even trying to untangle the issues for debate in the first place.
Framing the law has nothing to do with 100% consensus. It has to do with those who have been entrusted with responsibility putting together a framework to protect people from harm.
Your personal story is far too deep for me to attempt a quick reply, and I must stop at this point. All I can do is say that two wrongs never make a right.
I can only point you to my reply to Sleuth at the bottom of p.5.
some women will be so desperate not to have the child that they will suicide, and the life of the mother will be lost as well as the baby.
The solution in such situations is genuine care, counseling (including advice on the avenue of adoption, which may have provided you with a much better start in life, Heike,) and generous practical support, including accommodation if necessary. It is available from organizations in the UK, and I expect it is also available in other countries.
Thank you to you and to Sleuth for being so open. You have increased my awareness of how 'there, but for the grace of God, go I' and how important it is to be pro-active in supporting those who find themselves in terrible predicaments.
God bless.
reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:16 PM by Aleksander
reply to post by MandM
I believe that the right to choose is paramount to everything. You take that away then what do you have? Slavery! The issue is not about abortion it is about the right to choose and the pro-lifers move to take that choice away. This should be a non issue as there are real problems people could be trying to fix instead of taking away someones choice. I just have a hard time trying to figure out where people get off telling others what to do when most people have enough of there own problems... The only thing i can see is their so high up on their moral Pedistools that they feel the almighty right to preach and tell others how to live. This should not be a deciding issue on the president, how to make this country better and get people in a better situation should be what matters.
It sickens me that people will not vote for someone just because they are not abortion haters. It's the same with drugs, unless your making trouble for others then this to should be a non issue. Let people and there family's worry about these kinda of morality issues and take that extra energy to worry about your own actions and consequences.
Vote for someone because there right for the job, vote for someone because they have the nations best interests at heart and can lead the nation as a whole into the future, not because they don't take your moral high ground and feel they know better then everyone else.
I believe that the right to choose is paramount to everything. You take that away then what do you have? Slavery! The issue is not about abortion it is about the right to choose and the pro-lifers move to take that choice away. This should be a non issue as there are real problems people could be trying to fix instead of taking away someones choice. I just have a hard time trying to figure out where people get off telling others what to do when most people have enough of there own problems... The only thing i can see is their so high up on their moral Pedistools that they feel the almighty right to preach and tell others how to live. This should not be a deciding issue on the president, how to make this country better and get people in a better situation should be what matters.
It sickens me that people will not vote for someone just because they are not abortion haters. It's the same with drugs, unless your making trouble for others then this to should be a non issue. Let people and there family's worry about these kinda of morality issues and take that extra energy to worry about your own actions and consequences.
Vote for someone because there right for the job, vote for someone because they have the nations best interests at heart and can lead the nation as a whole into the future, not because they don't take your moral high ground and feel they know better then everyone else.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
President Obama stepping on the constitution ! (link to picture)
Politicians & People, Posted 4 minutes ago
Politicians & People, Posted 4 minutes ago
Palestinians barred from Dead Sea beaches to 'appease Israeli settlers'
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 minutes ago
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 minutes ago
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 30 minutes ago
US Political Madness, Posted 30 minutes ago
Many parents 'better off on the dole' after tax credit changes.
Other Current Events, Posted 1 hours ago
Other Current Events, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Iran to announce "very important" nuclear achievements
Middle East Issues, Posted 14 hours ago, 18 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 14 hours ago, 18 flags
Occupy Wall street, we are witnessing social revolution.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
The Scale of the Universe- Amazing, Controllable Flash Animation!
Fragile Earth, Posted 10 hours ago, 15 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 10 hours ago, 15 flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 12 hours ago, 12 flags
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 12 hours ago, 12 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 12 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 84 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 84 replies
Catholic Bishops: Obama's Solution 'Is Unacceptable'
Breaking Political News, Posted 16 hours ago, 77 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 16 hours ago, 77 replies
Iran to announce "very important" nuclear achievements
Middle East Issues, Posted 14 hours ago, 52 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 14 hours ago, 52 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 6 hours ago, 49 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 6 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.375 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.375 seconds
