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.

 

Vatican attacks US abortion move

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by coleyk
reply to post by Mdv2
 


You want it to be allowed to be a choice someone makes for themselves? fine, let it be a choice, want them to be allowed to choose to have an abortion if they wish...fine, they can choose abortion...let them also pay for it them damn selves..why should the american people have to pay for someone else's "mistake"?


Ever considered that there's also something like incest and rape? No. I guessed so.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by Mdv2
 


I am Christian, but non Catholic. I rather dislike Catholics...


I am anti-abortion though...I see it a murder and should only be used to prevent the suffering of the baby if it is to be born with some terrible deffect.

And why shouldn't I spread my views out, everybody else does. Other Christians put adverts on buses, atheists put adverts on buses. America tries to force democracy in Iraq, America fought against communism in foreign places.

This world is based around making your opinion known, and doing your best to make your opinion be what happens.


That is the most reasonable post on here.

But don't you realize that we are in a war? Unless you go into seclusion with a group of people who share your opinions, then you will always encounter opposition to your opinions. And, rightfully so I argue, those who are most passionate about their opinions will oppose you to the point of arguing your opinion invalid and obsolete, in a sense.

Now, I agree with your opinion on abortion. I have grown passionate enough over the years on this issue that I would even support forcing my opinion on others (aka, legislating it). The life of an unborn child is too great to be left up to choice, and if I could sign the bill into law that makes it illegal to have an abortion (at least in the highest majority of cases), I would.

Don't forget, this is a war. Whether you like it, or even accept it, you are on a battleground. But remember what Paul stated in Ephesians 6:12...

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

...While we should love our brothers and sisters, even or enemies, we should never love, but always passionately stand against, any of the wicked or misguided opinions that they hold. On such grounds we are at war - we always have been, and to the end of this age we will be.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by walman]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by walman

Unless you go into seclusion with a group of people who share your opinions, then you will always encounter opposition to your opinions. And, rightfully so I argue, those who are most passionate about their opinions will oppose you to the point of arguing your opinion invalid and obsolete, in a sense.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by walman]


Have all the opinions you want - - just leave my rights alone.

. . . and because - I believe in an energy soul - an eternal consciousness - physical is a creation. I believe the soul chooses its hosts. If the host is not ready - then the soul simply chooses another host. There is no death in consciousness. MY belief. Keep yours out of my government and my right to choose within my belief.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Before it is born it is not it's own sentient being,

How do you know?



How do you know a cow is not sentient?
Sentient:
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

My point is I don't think sentience is the right term is this case, the matter of whether or not the living being is aware of it's own mortality more aptly aplies.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddy420
 


Alright then, I understand your point. My point is that, before birth, it is not it's own SEPARATE being. It is part of the mother because it is growing inside her. Everything growing inside her is HER property and she can do what she wants with it.

EDIT: Which is all beyond the point. Regardless of anyone's opinion on abortion, no one should take away a woman's right to choose.

[edit on 1/27/09 by TasteTheMagick]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Buddy420
 



EDIT: Which is all beyond the point. Regardless of anyone's opinion on abortion, no one should take away a woman's right to choose.

[edit on 1/27/09 by TasteTheMagick]


But can you see that is a one sided argument? Fathers also fit into this womens and baby rights argument. They currently have no legal rights in this issue yet are held responsible for financially supporting a woman who makes a choice of life. On the ohter side of the coin, what if the father wants to have a child? No, too bad. It's not your choice.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Everything growing inside her is HER property and she can do what she wants with it.


Everything growing on a southerner's plantation in 1853 was HIS property and he could do whatever he wants with it. How dare we take his rights away. Those people living off that plantation were dependent upon him for survival. Without master, they'd perish therefore he has the right to say who lives and who dies. Is this what we're saying?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brian2384
But can you see that is a one sided argument? Fathers also fit into this womens and baby rights argument. They currently have no legal rights in this issue yet are held responsible for financially supporting a woman who makes a choice of life. On the ohter side of the coin, what if the father wants to have a child? No, too bad. It's not your choice.


Fathers don't have to grow something inside of them for 9 months. If the woman makes the choice of life, it makes sense that the father has to hold some of the financial responsibility. It is now a whole child and half his. If the father wants to have a child, then I think he can discuss it with the woman he got pregnant.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
If the woman makes the choice of life, it makes sense that the father has to hold some of the financial responsibility. It is now a whole child and half his.


Okay, if she decides to keep the baby, he's fiscally responsible. If she decides to abort he has no say. I've heard of some double-standards in my life before, but this one is the cake taker.

Half a child is his? Which half, the upper or lower? The left or the right? Very Solomon's Law way of splitting things down the middle. If someone's relationship/marriage really works this way, I'm confident it won't last long.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hmmmmmm - men's rights regarding women's reproduction - - can't say I'm particularly moved in that direction.

Perhaps when man makes a Federal law of Mandatory DNA Paternity testing - paid for by tax money. And Federal Mandatory financial support or jail.

I might reconsider.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Okay, if she decides to keep the baby, he's fiscally responsible. She she decides to abort he has no say. I've heard of some double-standards in my life before, but this one is the cake taker.

Half a child is his? Which half, the upper or lower? The left or the right? Very Solomon's Law way of splitting things down the middle. If someone's relationship/marriage really works this way, I'm confident it won't last long.


How is this a double standard. A man does NOT have to ever grow something inside of him for 9 months. If she decides to keep the baby (a decision that he CAN be involved in) then he holds HALF the responsibility because he is half of the child, I never said to split the child in half. If she decides to abort, they can have all the discussions about it they like, but it's ULTIMATELY the woman's choice because she's the one with something growing in one of her organs.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Everything growing inside her is HER property and she can do what she wants with it.


Everything growing on a southerner's plantation in 1853 was HIS property and he could do whatever he wants with it. How dare we take his rights away. Those people living off that plantation were dependent upon him for survival. Without master, they'd perish therefore he has the right to say who lives and who dies. Is this what we're saying?


You analogy makes no sense at all.

You are trying to compare non-viable to viable.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
How is this a double standard.


Well let's see...HALF of HIS DNA is involved in that baby.



During the formation of gametes, the number of chromosomes is reduced by half, and returned to the full amount when the two gametes fuse during fertilization.
www.emc.maricopa.edu...



Each human cell (aside from red blood cells and gametes) contains a full set of 46 chromosomes. Clearly havoc would result if a sperm and egg cell each containing 46 human chromosomes were to fuse! Not only would the resulting offspring have 98 chromosomes in each cell but the number would keep on doubling with each successive generation. For this reason a process other than mitosis which produces cells with a diploid number of chromosomes is necessary to produce the sperm and egg cells.

The process by which the chromosome number is halved and chromosomes are sorted and packaged to be passed on to an organism’s offspring is called meiosis.

Each of the resulting reproductive cells, or gametes (sperm and egg), has only a single set of 22 autosomes plus a single sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. A cell with a single chromosome set is called a haploid cell.

By means of sexual intercourse, a sperm cell carrying one 23 chromosome set from the father reaches and fuses with an egg cell carrying a corresponding set of 23 chromosomes from the mother.

The resulting fertilized egg, or zygote, contains the two haploid sets of chromosomes bearing genes originating in both the maternal and paternal family lines.
- www.contexo.info...

That baby isn't HERS it is THEIRS. Plural. She cannot separate her half any more than he can separate his half due to genetic recombination and destruction of viability, therefore the whole baby belongs to them both.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Years ago I was watching the Phil Donohue show. On this day there was a panel of 5 men (including Phil) sitting side by side on a stage.

During the discussion - Phil literally roles out of his chair unto the floor laughing uncontrollably.

After he composes himself - he turns around looking at the men. He says: do you not see how ridiculous this is? Look at yourselves. 4 old gray haired men sitting side-by-side debating what women have a right to do with their bodies.

Thank you Phil.

Yes! Absolutely - it is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You analogy makes no sense at all.


The master is the woman in this case, the plantation is the woman's body. The workers/residents are the baby, the food on the planation is the blood supply of the fetus. When creating a metaphor or parallel there always runs the risk of being taken literally and missing the point. The master has a stake upon his rights (which is an infringement upon the rights of others) just as the woman is claiming a stake upon her rights (which is an infringment upon the rights of others). Both involve controlling other people, one involves babies, the other involves older individuals.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Annee
You analogy makes no sense at all.


The master is the woman in this case, the plantation is the woman's body. The workers/residents are the baby, the food on the planation is the blood supply of the fetus. When creating a metaphor or parallel there always runs the risk of being taken literally and missing the point. The master has a stake upon his rights (which is an infringement upon the rights of others) just as the woman is claiming a stake upon her rights (which is an infringment upon the rights of others). Both involve controlling other people, one involves babies, the other involves older individuals.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]


I know what you are saying.

It still makes no sense to me - - - because you are using something that already exists in the physical - viable.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God


That baby isn't HERS it is THEIRS. Plural. She cannot separate her half any more than he can separate his half due to genetic recombination and destruction of viability, therefore the whole baby belongs to them both.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]


There is no theirs - - unless both agree and take responsibility - legally by court of law.

You want to step in and have government legislate a woman's birth right.

NO way - - you want THEIRS. Then government can first step in and make DNA Paternity testing mandatory - - for all those children already here and walking around.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It still makes no sense to me - - - because you are using something that already exists in the physical - viable.


Everything I'd mentioned in 1853 also existed in the physical - viable. If you'd prefer to use a modern example, we can say your company owns you and can kill you because they provide your food by paycheck. You're an individual, but are dependent on them. In the same way a baby is an individual but is dependent on its mother. They don't have that right to do so because of your right to be an individual no matter how much money you draw from them. Likewise a baby is an individual and has rights entitlement as one who has a separate heart, separate body, etc. Perhaps this too will still make no sense, but perhaps someday it will. The final assessment is then: because someone is dependent on you does not give you the right to terminate them.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Yes, I believe that "bad jobs" would be commonplace if funding is cut or stopped completely. I was still in Primary school (your equivalent to junior school ?) in the late 60s and did not even know about abortion back then.

I really wish that some women did not have to make the choice to abort but I understand that they all have personal circumstances that makes it a logical choice for them at the time.

I do believe Obama should be cleaning up America's backyard first and money should be allocated for American women. I think that funding should be to equip clinics but the patient should have to pay something, I do not think abortions should be free.


take care all
res







[edit on 27-1-2009 by resistancia]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
That baby isn't HERS it is THEIRS. Plural. She cannot separate her half any more than he can separate his half due to genetic recombination and destruction of viability, therefore the whole baby belongs to them both.


Yes, the whole baby belongs to them both. AFTER it is born. Before it is born the baby is the sole property of the mother because it is growing in one of her organs. There's no way around that. No one can tell anyone what to do with anything that's growing inside them.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join