Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas, page 12


Pages: <<  9    10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 04:02 PM by asmeone2
reply to post by maybereal11



Thank you that was the point I have been trying to make from the beginnign of this thread.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant here, because the wording of this law was so poor that it restricted almost any kind of birth control.

If Obama or the next president wants to put in another abortion-funding ban, fine, i just want it to specify that the funding is off-limits for medical abortions only, and not penalize people for merely discussing abortion or leave the definition of abortion ambiguous.

Given the situation in many of these countries, which has already been detailed here, I beleive it is indirect murder to push an abstinence-only agenda rather than properly equip these people to take care of their health.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by asmeone2]


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 04:51 PM by C0le
How many teens singly handedly murder a hundred million or so potential babies everyday without thought?

pun intended.

Seriously, the whole miracle of making a baby deal is a joke, There is no miracle here, Sperm + egg = baby, It's that simple there's nothing special about it, every female has the ability to give birth unless they have health issues, it's not some magical thing that can't be reproduced and only happens once in a lifetime...

P + Vagee = baby

Now fundamentalists are to judge mental, first it's not any of your business what someone else chooses to do with their body. Second, Why are the right wing Christians always the first to bang the drums or war and thus condoning the murder of fully developed human beings who are self aware. Yet are also the first to ridicule, judge and force their fundamentalist views on any woman who decides she's not ready do bring a child into this world? And at the time the woman makes this decision that "potential" child will be nothing more than a small blob of goo covered flesh that doesn't even know it exists?


Now I fully understand nothing will change the mind of a fundamentalist right wing Christian, they want to have their cake and eat it, well so long as their not the ones who have to feed, clothe, and raise it...

However understand this, these are your moral values, Not everyone else's.
You have no right to force your morals and your values on others, Nor can you ever through you forced compliance, change a persons character.

I've found over my life that Christians live in a world with padded walls, They shelter their children from anything they deem "evil" when if they truly had "faith" in their religion or there god then they should be able t place their child in any test of evil and know that those children will pass that test...
Not only that but they also try to force blue laws and such down our throats, you can't force goodwill if you do then it isn't goodwill.

God placed the Tree of Knowledge in Eden, He didn't have to, he could have never put it there and Adam and Eve and their children could have lived a sinless life, but he placed that tree there to test them, He told them never to eat from it, but he never took away their ability to eat from it, free will, choice, Even God himself never attempted to force compliance, So who exactly are you to tell others what choices they can and cannot make?


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 08:09 PM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by Unknown Truth



Did you know there are some species of fish that rape the mouths of other species in order to procreate?

The animal world is a lot weirder than some give it credit for.

Here is what I find interesting... Every time someone religious or religiously against something states "This or that isn't natural or good", the rational folks come in and throw examples of things that are in nature and happen all the time.

Then the rhetort is, "Human beings aren't animals!"

I've come to the conclusion that Religious people think that Nature only consists of Humans, and the rest of God's creatures don't matter.

Why?

Because Reality hurts their case for arguments!



[edit on 23-1-2009 by TheColdDragon]



reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 08:16 PM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by saint4God



Saint...

Fiscal/Social disadvantage causes more misery than abortion does.

Have you done research on the studies of how Abortion legality affects state by state well being and success?

Or how it affects social problems such as crime and poverty?


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 08:33 PM by TheColdDragon
Originally posted by Notroh est
well with that type of rationale you can disregard just about every evil man has committed in all of human history


Yes, you can. Because evil is a concept existant to moral absolutists. There is no perfect human. Christ told you that. Listen to Jeebus.


The rape cases, the disadvantaged cases, the mothers that could possibly die… so out of the billion and half (and more) abortion cases what is the approximate percentage of those cases do you think? 5% 10% 20% on grounds of compassion
I find it very difficult to see how more than 50 million woman are raped or cannot give birth every year


Well, you have to consider statutory rape laws or other such situations... and the fact that Women tend to be abusing their power over men in the current era we live in. I personally think the numbers are questionable as well, but then it depends on your definition of what Rape is.


This was after all the argument that allowed abortion to be instated into western nations, on compassionate grounds but a billion plus abortions later surely this argument has proven itself void


As I stated to Saint, you need to look at the demographics that abortion affects. In particular, you should look at Crime incidence in states or nations which forbid it. It is a complicated issue, not black and white.


Pro lifers only care about the fetuses and then don’t give a s@#t after that about anyone… where does this stupid pathetic slander have any grounds for argument?? What an imaginary argument that is


No, it isn't. Conservative Christians tend to be some of the most devout people against social welfare programs for adults, for unwed mothers, and tend to be the first to rail about the destruction of family values in america, the gays, and anyone else that doesn't fall into their milieu. On top of that, they tend to be the staunchest supporters of a militant government which generally tends to mean suffering for other countries, as well as deaths of American soldiers and increased malaise for the future.


(in western nations) look around your own communities, who is giving help to the homeless and poor, who is giving help to the elderly and dying, mental health support and also helping the poor girls that suffer from the mental health issues that come from having abortions


Mental health issues which would be far reduced if our culture didn't shove Christian soul theology and guilt onto the decision of abortion.

NOT ABSENT. Reduced.


(in third world nations) missionaries, schools, hospitals, farming and infrastructure
Christians are trying to build a better world instead of promoting death as an answer to hardship
Get a dose of reality


Really? You're going with christian works in other countries? Missionaries cause a lot of harm too. They tend to be the sort who want to "CIVILIZE" cultures, bring them modern amenities and education.... they tend to be the people who contribute to untenable population explosions in cultures that had been at good balance for centuries or millenia...the road to hell is paved with what?

Aside from that, there are also histories of Missionaries helping only those who would support what the missionaries were doing in trying to bring god to the godless heathens.

Another complicated topic, but the simple comments you've made are cardboard compared to the complicated issues that plague them.


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 09:47 PM by paxnatus
reply to post byC0le

"I fully understand nothing will change the mind of a fundamentalist right wing Christian, they want to have their cake and eat it, well so long as their not the ones who have to feed, clothe, and raise it... However understand this, these are your moral values, Not everyone else's. You have no right to force your morals and your values on others, Nor can you ever through you forced compliance, change a persons character."

But you think you have the right to force your morals and your values on everyone who is against your beliefs? Please, for arguments sake, explain the difference. I think it is. assinine to expect me to personally pay for something that I abhor.

Are those countries willing to give me money to help raise my autistic son, here in the States? My new president isn't going to do a thing to help improve the availability
Of services for the special needs children.

He is asking me to help end life, all I'm trying to do is provide quality of life. Yet while we are so financially strapped in the U.S., this is one of Obama's highest priorities.

What character?

[edit on 01/12/2009 by paxnatus]


reply posted on 23-1-2009 @ 09:58 PM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by paxnatus



If you don't like it, you can run for office and then misappropriate funds that people don't want you to use to put forward an agenda of your own.

You can never please everyone. Providing funding to present options, even if they are options that YOU despise, is good. Options are good. Less options means less freedom.
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^