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.
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Loken68
I believe this is just a misunderstanding. The poster was just telling me that he/she viewed a fetus as where life begins at conception and we were just having a debate about the idea. I just wanted to get back on to the topic about discussing why people cared more about the issue of the unborn, whereas, I think that our utmost goal in life, at least for now should be protecting what we have and making things the best possible for the future. We should cherish our freedoms, and, make it even better for the unborn. That's all I was saying in that little debate there.
Why do people care more about liberties of the unborn than that of our own?
How can these people continue to fight for the liberty of the unborn while watching everyone else around them lose their own liberty? Why do we elect these people into office while they continue to destroy the constitution and disrespect the founding fathers? This boggles my mind.
It's not a false premise from the get-go.
A lot of these people who claim to support the life of the unborn care more about the unborn than our own life.
What do you say about all the people who support abortion and also support capital murder?
Perhaps the two idea aren't mutually exclusive, but, it does seem that there is a larger proportion of people in the United states here that tend to support the rights of the unborn moreso than of our own.
Don't you think this God would be more concerned about our actions on Earth more than what we do to only things that have a potential life?
And your second assumption is false, in the early days many babies died because we didn't have medical procedures to have successful operations on mothers, and, now we do, and I don't think we had the same stuff going on then out in the open.
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
It's not a false premise from the get-go.
It's your opinion. I gave you contrary evidence you chose to ignore. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, then it's just your opinion.
I see no evidence that people that are pro-life just magically forget about the rest of the human race. There is plenty of compassion for people outside of the womb.
A lot of the advocates for the pro-life movement also have other similar causes that they support - such as protecting the poor, feeding the hungry, etc.
Most people are not so one dimensional as to have only a single social issue that they support.
I'd say they are misguided.
Really, you would have to ask someone that holds these beliefs.
If you are referring to people being politically active, taking initiative to vote, stopping legislation, rallying around politics, etc., then I would agree with you in the sense that most Americans are not particularly fond of politics. Most Americans just want to support their family, raise their kids, have a decent job, and go to church on Sunday.
There are a lot of people that are disaffected by our current politics - Hence, the apathy that you describe.
No. I think God is terribly offended by abortion, as well as all of the other problems in our culture. Certainly, God is also concerned with our actions on Earth - That's why He gave us the Ten Commandments, after all.
Maybe you're not watching the same news channels I have for the past decade. Between 911, Katrina, tsunamis, record earthquakes, volcanoes in Iceland, oil spills, flooding in Nashville, etc., you would have to be particularly unaware to not notice that God is not too happy with the human race right now.
Don't you at all find it strange that Mother Nature has gone berserk? I personally believe that there is a theological basis for these strange happenings in our natural environment.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Loken68
I believe this is just a misunderstanding. The poster was just telling me that he/she viewed a fetus as where life begins at conception and we were just having a debate about the idea. I just wanted to get back on to the topic about discussing why people cared more about the issue of the unborn, whereas, I think that our utmost goal in life, at least for now should be protecting what we have and making things the best possible for the future. We should cherish our freedoms, and, make it even better for the unborn. That's all I was saying in that little debate there.
Riddle me this, oh wise and understander of many things!
What kind of life are we searching for on Mars?
Microscopic life.
How big is a fetus? Is it made of organic material? Is there DNA?
It is interesting to me that we would be careful not to hurt any life on Mars if it were found - but that we would willingly kill off our own kin.
What do I know.
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I've never understood why so many people can put so much effort towards a discussion about whether unborn people have rights rather than talking about actual living people ourselves. Heck. Unborn people have more rights than we do. They have a right to life. Can we say that about any of us? No we can't.
According to other people everyone else has a right to die and there are people that hold these Christian values but would rather see nothing more than to see everyone submit themselves to the military and submit themselves to die for the valor of their country. How can these people continue to fight for the liberty of the unborn while watching everyone else around them lose their own liberty? Why do we elect these people into office while they continue to destroy the constitution and disrespect the founding fathers? This boggles my mind.
[edit on 10-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]
001) From Dayton Women's Health Center, Iowa: "Mary was rushed to the hospital after her abortion due to profuse bleeding. The attending physicians discovered 'the entire front of her uterus was blown away.' After the surgeon removed the damaged uterus, they explored her abdominal cavity. Behind her liver they found the decapitated head of a 24 week old pre-born child."
002) Researcher George Grant says, "'There are a lot more complications out there than anyone seems to care to believe,' says Dean. 'It is a national health disaster'" George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1984) 66.
004) Researcher Doug Scott says, "Dr. Beverly McMillen, a former abortionist from Jackson, Mississippi, notes that Planned Parenthood claims of few complications are unreliable. 'Planned Parenthood clinics, and free-standing abortion clinics like them, claim they have an untarnished record of no complications from their abortion procedures, but what they don't know is that I'm the practitioner who sees their complications. These women don't go back to the clinic where they've had a bad experience. They show up in my office or in my emergency room with their bleeding or with their infections or with their retained placenta, needing another D&C.'" "A Close Look at Planned Parenthood," Focus on the Family radio program, 27-27 October 1989, quoted in Douglas R. Scott, Inside Planned Parenthood, (Grand Rapid, MI: Frontlines Publishing, 1990) 86. They show up in my office, or in my emergency room with their bleeding or with their infections or with their retained placenta . . .
006) "'Infection is the main cause of death associated with legal abortion in the United States.' (D. A. Grimes & W. Cates, "Complications from Legally-Induced Abortion: A Review," Ob Gyn Survey, 1979, 177-91, quoted in Saltenberger, 29.) Infection was the leading cause of abortion-related deaths of 104 women in a CDC report. (A. M. Kimball et al., "Deaths caused by Pulmonary Thromboembolism After Legally Induced Abortion, " American Journal Ob & Gyn, 15 September 1978, 169-74, quoted in Saltenberger 29.) In another study 'documented incomplete abortion caused each of the four deaths from infection.'" D. A. Grimes, et al., "Comparative Risk of Death from Legally Induced Abortion in Hospitals and Non- Hospital Facilities," Ob & Gyn, March 1978, 323-26, quoted in Saltenberger, 29."
010) From a David Reardon flyer of 1986:
"47% Of women in a study stated that they had suffered one or more physical complications following their abortions.
31% Of these stated the complication was very minor and 26% Said it was of a moderate nature, and 35% Said it was very severe.
Of short-term complications: 15% Reported post-operative hemorrhage and 9% Reported infection. Post-operative infections are frequently the result of an incomplete abortion and must be treated by a second operation.
Of long-term, delayed complications: 6% Required a total hysterectomy 8% Reported total or partial blockage of fallopian tubes 6% Got cervical cancer 22% Later had a miscarriage of a wanted child 8% Were diagnosed as suffering from cervical incompetence" (These were random samples, not a poll of all the women.)
012) "According to renowned obstetrician and gynecologist Matthew Bulfin, the reason that . . .estimated figures are so skewed is that Planned Parenthood and the various other agencies that measure maternal complication rates are 'missing vital input for their mortality and morbidity studies by not seeking information from the physicians who see the complications from legal abortions--emergency room physicians and the obstetricians and gynecologists in private practice. The physicians who do the abortions, and the clinics and centers where abortions are done should not be the only sources from which complication statistics are derived.'" Matthew J. J. Bulfin, "Complications of Legal Abortion: A Perspective from Private Practice," quoted in George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, (Highland Books, 1998) 84.
013) "The so-called 'freestanding clinics,' which do over 90% of all abortions in the U.S., are often little better than back-alley operations that have been legalized . . . .' Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecological emergencies . . .encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under reporting and disregard women's reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment.'" Iffy, "Second trimester Abortions," JAMA, 4 February 1983, 588, quoted in Willke, 98, 99.
014) Researcher David Reardon says about abortion for fetal handicap: "In addition, since eugenic abortions are almost always late-term, the physical risks of abortion are many times higher than for childbirth. In fact, the odds that a forty-year-old woman will suffer a severe complication from abortion are more than twice as great as the odds that she will have a child with Down's syndrome." Dr. Hymie Gordon, letter on amniocentesis in Primum Non Nocere, newsletter published by The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, September 1980, 4-6, quoted in DRABSNM, 236. (Down's babies are found mostly in wombs of these 'older' women.)
025) "In a study of 1000 women who had abortions in Stockholm, Sweden in 1987, 5.4% were reported to have complications in the form of infection, bleeding or incomplete abortion, fever at over 38 degrees centigrade (1.6%). About one-half (2.8%) were re-admitted to the hospital." G. Fried, E. Ostlund, C. Ullberg, M. Bygdeman" Somatic Complications and Contraceptive Techniques Following Legal Abortion, " Acta Obstet Scand., 68 (1989): 515-521.
029) "Induced first-trimester abortion is a procedure which removes the conceptus from the uterine cavity before the end of the twelfth gestational week counted from the first day of the last menstrual period. The surgical field, consisting of the vagina, endocervix, and uterine cavity is contaminated because even meticulous surgical scrub cannot sterilize the endocervix. Consequently, postoperative infection must be expected in a number of women." Lars Heisterberg, "Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Following Induced First-Trimester Abortion," Danish Medical Bulletin, 35(1) (February 1988), 64-75, quoted in N.G. Osborne and R.C. Wright, "Effect of preoperative scrub on the bacterial flora of the endocervix and vagina," Obstetrics and Gynecology 50:148-151(1977).
002) "The most serious psychological damages that occur can be lumped under the condition known as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is a part of a larger class of disorders called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The PAS victim, through the process of denial, blocks the natural grieving process of the death of her child and often denies her own responsibility in the abortion. The denial or suppression blocks the healing process and the possibility of forgiveness for herself and the others who have been involved in her decision and her abortion. The trauma often manifests itself as a breakdown of function in the psychological, physical, or spiritual areas." J. Denton Collins, M.A., M.F.C.C. MK19363, quoted in Kogut, The Facts of Pro-Life, n.p 61.
003) "Dr. Vincent Rue, a clinical psychologist, likened abortion victims to "walking time bombs" and said that little is heard of PAS problems because there is a massive denial among professionals.
004) "One doctor reports, 'Since abortion was legalized I have seen hundreds of patients who have had the operation. Approximately 10% expressed very little or no concern . . . Among the other 90% there were all shades of distress, anxiety, heartache and remorse.'" E. A. Quay, "Doctors Note Serious Side Effects on Women Following Abortion," The Wanderer, 16 November 1978, quoted in Saltenberger, 136.
007) "Up to 43% of 500 women studied showed immediate negative response; the long-term negative response was as great as 50%. Up to 10% of women develop serious psychiatric complications." C. M. Friedman, et al., "The Decision-Making Process and the Outcome of Therapeutic Abortion, "American Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 1332-7, quoted in Saltenberger, 145.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
"All life is sacred," a man roars out in fury while carrying a sign with "Death Penalty for illegal immigrants" and a shirt with "God bless our troops and operation Iraq" embroidered in gems and sparkles.
Our society doesn't work on a moral code, we think it does, but it doesn't. We are find with death and killing, as long as its for a productive purpose in our society.
In our culture, and in most culture, as it has been since before Moses, homicide falls into two different categories: productive and unproductive.
The execution of a murderer, or criminal, is considered, in our society (the United States) as a productive homicide. You are eliminating somebody who is disruptive to our society.
Kills committed by a soldier in combat is considered productive, because it is state sanctioned and for a cause.
The question about abortion, isn't about whether life starts at conception or not. It's really about and always has been about whether the death of a fetus is a productive or unproductive thing for society.
It's murky, the water isn't clear, because both sides had merit. But let's acknowledge what is really about, and stop arguing about things that don't matter.
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You said, "we" are fine. I hope that means you are referring to society in general and not your actual beliefs.
I do not believe that homicide is right for any reason what-so-ever. I do not believe that we are right in killing anyone at all.
Why do so many pro-lifers favor war and the national security state? It's not my opinion that they do. it's a fact.
Most of these people that are pro-life are the same people beating the war drums for war with Iran. Or can't you not tell that the same people crying about Obama for killing babies are the same ones criticizing him for (which isn't true anyways) gutting the military?
That's true. But a lot of them are also corporate pigs.
Then we should say that most pro-lifers are misguided. As I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of these people believe.
Right. That's kind of what I'm saying. People who are pro-life need to put the same effort into protecting our nation's civil liberties. Imagine the kind of awakening force we could have if all of these people put their efforts into actually protecting the constitution, and, upholding freedom and liberty.
This God of yours doesn't command humans to go to war with other nations.
All of these actions are made by humans, unless you want to say that this God of yours is bringing these things down on humanity for punishment.
National disasters don't prove that this God is angry at people. National disasters have existed through the beginning of time.
No I don't find it strange at all. I believe that the problems can be blamed on humans tampering with the environment, and, natural weather patterns. It's all scientific and has nothing to do with religion.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You said, "we" are fine. I hope that means you are referring to society in general and not your actual beliefs.
I do not believe that homicide is right for any reason what-so-ever. I do not believe that we are right in killing anyone at all.
So if a thief were to come into your home, and decided he wished to rape your wife or daughter, and then murder them, with you, you would not commit homicide upon such an individual, because you feel you have no right to do so?
Homicide is by definition the killing of one person by another. Homicide can be justified (acts of self defense, actions of war, state executions) or unjustified (murder, manslaughter etc)
So, what would you do? Kill the man? or let him rape your love ones and kill them all with you?