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.

 

Abortion will be covered in Obama's plan

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


But we're dealing with a third party here. The life of an unborn person.

Don't they have a voice in the matter? When is someone going to speak up for them?


I'll speak up for them and say that a child should only be dragged screaming into this world if it is into a home where they will be loved, cared for and provided for in a manner befitting of the wonderful creature they can become with time.

No one should be allowed to protest outside an abortion clinic or pass anti-choice legislation unless they adopt and provide for the children forced into this world because their birth mother didn't have access to an abortion.

If you feel that it is your place to doom a child to a lifetime where their ill-prepared parents forever blame them for every economic hardship that befalls the family, fine. If you want a mother to see the eyes of her rapist everytime she looks at her son, fine. If you want to force children to grow up knowing that their mother died giving birth to them, you have fun with that.

As for me, I much prefer a world in which the only children who are born are wanted, loved and cared for.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt

I'll speak up for them and say that a child should only be dragged screaming into this world if it is into a home where they will be loved, cared for and provided for in a manner befitting of the wonderful creature they can become with time.


Yeah, if they can't, kill them. Easy.




No one should be allowed to protest outside an abortion clinic or pass anti-choice legislation unless they adopt and provide for the children forced into this world because their birth mother didn't have access to an abortion.


Then no one should protest the war unless they've fought. Makes no sense.





If you feel that it is your place to doom a child to a lifetime where their ill-prepared parents forever blame them for every economic hardship that befalls the family, fine. If you want a mother to see the eyes of her rapist everytime she looks at her son, fine. If you want to force children to grow up knowing that their mother died giving birth to them, you have fun with that.


Where did you read that life was easy? Where did you read that it was easy being a parent or a child growing up? *god* I wish everything was easy. I wish that we didn't have to make hard choices. But we do. Life sucks sometimes.




As for me, I much prefer a world in which the only children who are born are wanted, loved and cared for.


Small town you want to live in, huh? I wish we lived in a world where we didn't kill our babies.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
There are a few things I can agree with democrats, and that is their stance on abortions and dead babies (stem cell research that is).

One thing I see happening in the future if we allow abortions to become casual is the idea that there will be a new generation of "baby" farming, where abortions are supported for stem cells.

I feel the further in the future we go, the less ethics will play a role in our every day decisions. Or, the idea that ethics will change to the opposite of what they are now, resulting in a "if it makes life easier, do it" stance.

Rant off!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
ok here is what i am not understanding... abortions can only be carried out up to 3 months pregnant, after that its too late. most people who know they are pregnant get an abortion within the first month anyways.

the fetus isnt a human baby by that point yet. its literally not hurting the fetus at all because it hasnt developed yet.

so saying that abortions kill babies is like trying to tell me that everytime a man ejaculates he is killing millions of would-be babies.

your arguments are not valid. just because something has the potential to be a baby.. doesnt mean it already is one. thus, you are doing no harm.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by calihan_12
so saying that abortions kill babies is like trying to tell me that everytime a man ejaculates he is killing millions of would-be babies.




I am soooo using that in my next pro-choice/pro-life argument.

If you don't mind of course...ha



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

Originally posted by calihan_12
so saying that abortions kill babies is like trying to tell me that everytime a man ejaculates he is killing millions of would-be babies.




I am soooo using that in my next pro-choice/pro-life argument.

If you don't mind of course...ha


haha, please do.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I disagree with the premise that this is a black and white issue. I never did care much one way or the other. I'm male. I've no uterus or any chance of ever giving birth. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never have any kind of qualification to tell any woman what to do with her reproductive organs. I think everyone should just butt out and leave them the dignity of deciding what to do with their own bodies.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
If they so-called "health" plans cover Viagra, they sure should cover Abortion.
Why should men get all the favors?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
So you rather have 2 ruined lives than one not ruined one?


I just wanted to interject that you just made at least three logical fallacies in that one statement.

You are supposing what an individual's feelings will be after the fact. She may be glad post-birth that she didn't abort the child. Perhaps the fear (not to mention change in hormones) would have spawned her making a hasty decision that she would regret later? What if she gives the child up for adoption and the child goes to rich, loving parents that can pay for tap dance, soccer, horseback riding and an Ivy League education?

This is a complex issue and should be treated as such without the use of logical fallacies. There are many important points on both sides that need to be addressed by a society as well as the individual. Talking them over, be it the future potential for eugenics, even in the case of countries like Russia--who will be alive to support the country? There are societies with negative population growth.

Conversely, if you take this decision away from a parent (they are a parent until the abortion is concluded) what is next? What are the limits of the state? I think if abortion is legal (and it is) then so should drugs. It is your body, your choice what you do with it. Prosecute the drug related crime as you do with alcohol.

There is a scene in Gladiator where they have Marcus Aurelius talk to Maximus about his legacy. How, he asked, would history remember him? A great leader, a great thinker...a tyrant?

How will we be remembered by society in the future? It is anti-evolutionary as we are unnaturally de-selecting from the population. Miscarriages are Nature's way of deselection, but abortion is purposeful. What about the types of people being selected? Mostly the poor. Will we lose our sense of empathy?

Or will we see it as a step in the path to total Civil Liberty?

It is a complicated debate even with "spirituality" removed from it, at least we can all agree that it is not so cut and dry and willful fallacies be removed from the dialog.

Yes?


[edit on 9-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori


Conversely, if you take this decision away from a parent (they are a parent until the abortion is concluded) what is next? What are the limits of the state? I think if abortion is legal (and it is) then so should drugs. It is your body, your choice what you do with it. Prosecute the drug related crime as you do with alcohol.

There is a scene in Gladiator where they have Marcus Aurelius talk to Maximus about his legacy. How, he asked, would history remember him? A great leader, a great thinker...a tyrant?



well, personally i think drugs should be legalized. i mean... people who use drugs are going to use them anyways, legal or not. with drugs not legal it just creates more crime. the way i see it : if someone wants to do something, it is THEIR body. i dont see how anyone has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies. if they screw up their life, well, that was their choice. we cant make those choices for other people. its just not right. we should be in control of our own bodies.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Ooh, abortion. The great polarizing non-issue. I wasn't for the the healthcare plan. But now how can I be against it? If someone wants an abortion it effects me in no way. If you don't like it start an adoption agency. The problem I have with public healthcare is it will be administered by bureaucrats. American ones. Scary thought.Do you recall your last visit to the DMV? Shudder to think.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

How will we be remembered by society in the future? It is anti-evolutionary as we are unnaturally de-selecting from the population. Miscarriages are Nature's way of deselection, but abortion is purposeful. What about the types of people being selected? Mostly the poor. Will we lose our sense of empathy?

Or will we see it as a step in the path to total Civil Liberty?

It is a complicated debate even with "spirituality" removed from it, at least we can all agree that it is not so cut and dry and willful fallacies be removed from the dialog.

Yes?


We will be remembered as a cruel, selfish society that cares nothing of its young, only of our hedonistic nature.
We will be known as a society that let the killings of babies go on while stuffing our faces with microwave goodies, decrying how tough our lives our when we can't twitter for an hour. Or bemoan our fate when our cable goes out when "dancing with the stars" is on.
We will be known as small minded people who can't see farther into the future than our next big mac.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by calihan_12
 


Well, I'm with Ron Paul on this issue or should I say these issues as I mentioned drugs, too.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by A Fortiori

How will we be remembered by society in the future? It is anti-evolutionary as we are unnaturally de-selecting from the population. Miscarriages are Nature's way of deselection, but abortion is purposeful. What about the types of people being selected? Mostly the poor. Will we lose our sense of empathy?

Or will we see it as a step in the path to total Civil Liberty?

It is a complicated debate even with "spirituality" removed from it, at least we can all agree that it is not so cut and dry and willful fallacies be removed from the dialog.

Yes?


We will be remembered as a cruel, selfish society that cares nothing of its young, only of our hedonistic nature.
We will be known as a society that let the killings of babies go on while stuffing our faces with microwave goodies, decrying how tough our lives our when we can't twitter for an hour. Or bemoan our fate when our cable goes out when "dancing with the stars" is on.
We will be known as small minded people who can't see farther into the future than our next big mac.


I do think that we have become a cruel "how does it affect me" society, and I think we have outgrown ourselves. We have technology without wisdom, we have excess and very little self control. We give ourselves godlike powers and show that we lack the godlike wisdom to go with it. Empathy seems to be only for those we agree with. Right or Left..this is blatantly true. What was good for Bush is not good for Obama, what is good for Obama was not good for Bush. They've both been labeled "Nazis" without any of us walking a mile in their presidential shoes.

Ethics and morality have been replaced with personal desire. Yes, we can! is our rallying cry, but often we forget to ask if we should. There is a scene in Jurassic Park (yes, also a movie buff) where Ian Malcom said that scientists were so busy seeing whether they could do something or not that they forgot to ask if they should.

Our friend from Canada said that eugenics is another issue entirely--it is only a separate issue now. If we do not think a. to possible extensions of a technology or power we are near doomed to make poor decisions.

Now, Benevolent Heretic I can absolutely respect as she stated quite clearly that even if abortion wiped out every homosexual on the planet she would still be fine with it. She has thought it all the way through to the end and worst case scenario and still believes and justifies her own opinion.

We should, in my opinion, all do this.

Would we like a world without children with Downs Syndrome? Would the world be better off three hundred years from now with only healthy people? Would we be better off without alcoholics or drug addicts? What about those whose bodies are a ticking time bomb for cancer? We can do a DNA test for that? Do we end it in the womb and save them the trouble?

Some like Nietzsche would say: Yes, because that (supermen and superwomen) is to benefit society.

I believe in an eternal soul so for me I believe born or not the soul lives. These are all questions I am still processing--the fact that I think we're doomed is playing into the formulation of my opinion, but...I'm still thinking it over.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I agree it's a complex issue, and you have to look at the actual case. Blanket statements will always fall short, the actuall situation needs to be looked at. But we can't do that here.

Another question to mikerusselus:
Is an early miscarriage a death?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



Hard to follow an act like that.


This whole"non-issue" as someone stated, is a non-issue because of our lack of values and morals. When we start making it an issue again, making people look at the problem instead of them staring at their iphone, then we might be able to have an intelligent discourse on this issue.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I agree it's a complex issue, and you have to look at the actual case. Blanket statements will always fall short, the actuall situation needs to be looked at. But we can't do that here.

Another question to mikerusselus:
Is an early miscarriage a death?


Yes. Same as a heart attack is in a fetus thats a little older. Say, 50 to 60 years.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Yes. Same as a heart attack is in a fetus thats a little older. Say, 50 to 60 years.


According to this statement, someone who has been born and has lived to age 50/60 is still a fetus to you? I think we now know what the problem here is; you have no idea what you're talking about.

lmgtfy.com...

Now try again please, without the strawmen.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


I'm trying to equate a person that may be only months old, to a person that is 50 years old.

To me, they are both people.

To others,(you?) one is a person, the other, something you are allowed to kill.

Heck, they lock you up for killing puppies, but it's ok to kill a human baby that is still in the womb.

-sad, sad world-



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I would agree, killing human babies is wrong and immoral. However, a fetus or a zygote are not babies.

One is a person who was born and has an age. We go not give out children ages based on the date of conception, because they are not born babies yet. Not even close. A fetus or zygote that is still in the womb is not a 'baby', it is still flesh that is part of the mother.

Otherwise, this just brings us back to this gem: "Masturbation/menstruation=the killing of babies in the (male/female) womb"



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join