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.

 

So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
... end your own life. End your own "suffering" in the process.

... and this from a self-proclaimed Christian "pro-lifer" ...


And before you say "you haven't had to make the choice, you don't know, you've never been in my shoes blah blah blah.." Yes I have, my ex-girlfriend MURDERED my child 3 years ago against my pleads and tears because his life was deemed to be incompatible with her partying lifestyle.

Perhaps she just didn't want a continuing relationship with a guy who tells women he disagrees with to kill themselves.
Sex has consequences and you are adult enough to know that. Perhaps, if she didn't want a baby and you didn't the resulting foetus removed, you should not have got her pregnant.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Are you nuts? That statement was HYPERBOLE written to show Anne the absurdity of her rationality when taken to it's logical outcome.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Laws change ALL the time.
Abortion was never murder in U.S. even when it was illegal. Not a small point.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Laws are not a moral authority.

The type of government we have is one that conforms to the seperation of Church and State via civil religion and has stated morality cannot be the sole basis for the law.

You most certainly have that right to protest against it, but you will have to bring more to the table than "I think it's murder" for there to be a compelling reason.

People don't want just the right to make this moral choice for themselves (they clearly and undeniably have that), but they want to make a moral choice for someone else - it doesn't work that way (morality cannot be the sole basis for the law).

So what other reason do pro-lifers have? Like I said they try and bring next reasons such as mental illness.

---

btw you do know abortion was not murder for most of Catholic history. At one point it wasn't even manslaughter. The bible doesn't mention the word abortion at all and the Jews who are notorious for keeping tradition allow it/

. . laws change so does morality.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I believe this argument is redundant. Because I chose be pro choice or if I chose to be pro life, I am still CHOOSING so by default I am pro choice and this argument is about as annoying as my god is better than your argument.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Actually this is a rather silly basis for morality seeing how suffering is not only an unavoidable fact of life (that nature herself relativizes, hence "spoiled brat" syndrome), but suffering is in fact part and parcel with human growth. The exercise phrase "no pain, no gain" is in fact an expression of a deeper reality of life. People who have gone through a lot tend to have much more character and personality, and not necessarily evil or criminal as long as they still received some love in their youth (which is possible even in the worst of conditions).

A morality of "it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer" applied in practice would produce a civilization of adult-sized children (actually that would explain a lot these days). And one of "Better no child than suffering child. Period." applied would cause human extinction.



WHAT? What the hell are you talking about?

A starving child is a "spoiled brat"? The basics of life - - - is not coddling.

Man! Talk about making excuses.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Just taking your "morality" to their logical conclusions. Don't blame me if you don't like the outcome.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by Annee
 

Just taking your "morality" to their logical conclusions. Don't blame me if you don't like the outcome.


Its YOUR outcome.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by Annee
 

Just taking your "morality" to their logical conclusions. Don't blame me if you don't like the outcome.


Quite frankly, sir, the last person anyone should be taking moral advice from is someone attacking the freedoms of their own people on a public forum. If you do not like abortion, then don't do it. If a woman decides that a child would tear apart the lives of her and her family, that is her choice, and thank God it would never be yours. I would much rather a child not starve than have a new one brought into the world and starve, you claim that suffering is just part of life and children should deal with it; "no pain, no gain". Yes, I'm sure you would have made an excellent father...


Even logically speaking, an average of 4% of all conceived fetuses in the world have been aborted by decision of the mother in the past 10 years. It is a pretty effective means of population control, and don't think for a second we aren't running out of resources to keep supplying for our children. Throw in the 7% sexually active gay numbers and by now we would most definitely all have nothing to live off of; it would be interesting to see what your reaction to your girlfriend would be if those were the circumstances and she had told you she was going to "take care of it". You have some serious hangups, and I suggest you stop condemning people that have more educated opinions than you because you are embarrassing yourself and coming off very immature. You clearly have no idea how much a child can tear apart a young couples life. It's a shame you can't handle your opinions without, quite literally, screaming bloody murder. As for your girlfriend, there is obviously more to the story than that and nobody is buying your crap for a second. Did you consider that she was maybe having the abortion because she simply didn't want to have a child with YOU? Or is that what this is really all about in the first place.. hmm...


edit on 9-9-2010 by Brood because: oops



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I know im going to go to hell for this but i think some people do not deserve to have kids and some people should be held down and forced to get abortions. As a christian i should be more loving but as a christian i know some are doing satans work by having more evil children to offset the good children to bad children ratio. I think there should be some kind of Christian based Eugenics system



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice????

Who are you to even think that you are able to judge about a baby's life??
If you DON'T want a baby use proper protection or keep you legs closed in the first place !!



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice????

Who are you to even think that you are able to judge about a baby's life??
If you DON'T want a baby use proper protection or keep you legs closed in the first place !!


Having sex is a very natural process, and it is actually pretty unhealthy for men to not be sexually active or masturbate regularly. I there is a God, he certainly has a sense of humor.

Adversely,


Originally posted by Hellas
Who are you to even think that you are able to judge about a baby's life??

Who are you to say what a woman should do with her body? At the point of the abortion, it is more a part of her body than it is its own being. It has no emotions or pain indicators, it will not have any idea that it even ever existed.


Originally posted by Hellas
If you DON'T want a baby use proper protection or keep you legs closed in the first place !!

Do you really think that a topic like this hasn't matured enough to be beyond such presumptions?
What if the woman is the victim of rape?
What if the security of the protection they use is compromised?
What if the life provided for the child would be less than adequate?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Hellas
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice????

Who are you to even think that you are able to judge about a baby's life??
If you DON'T want a baby use proper protection or keep you legs closed in the first place !!


Having sex is a very natural process, and it is actually pretty unhealthy for men to not be sexually active or masturbate regularly. I there is a God, he certainly has a sense of humor.

Adversely,


Originally posted by Hellas
Who are you to even think that you are able to judge about a baby's life??

Who are you to say what a woman should do with her body? At the point of the abortion, it is more a part of her body than it is its own being. It has no emotions or pain indicators, it will not have any idea that it even ever existed.


Originally posted by Hellas
If you DON'T want a baby use proper protection or keep you legs closed in the first place !!

Do you really think that a topic like this hasn't matured enough to be beyond such presumptions?
What if the woman is the victim of rape?
What if the security of the protection they use is compromised?
What if the life provided for the child would be less than adequate?


Add what if the unborn has a severe defect.

Pro-lifers are such an fun group to debate with. Besides what pro-lifers fail to realize is that consent to sex is not a contract to carry any resulting pregnancy to term.

Sex is not negligent and carries no obligation to become pregnant and stay pregnant. The unwanted embryo starts the process of embedding in the uterine lining. It uses special methods for avoiding the immunity responses. Additionally the woman's body caused a situation which only benefited the fertilized egg - by bringing it into existence.

If fertilization is neither illegal nor negligent, no (legal) obligations of the actors can be derived from it. Which is why IVF clinics have no obligation to store fertilized eggs indefinitely until a host is available (like the pope said they should).

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. There is a risk that pregnancy might result - should anyone become pregnant for whatever reason (contraception failed, forgot to take pill, rape etc) they have no legal obligation to continue that pregnancy against their will.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


AMEN, preach that.

And to the person who said it wasn't healthy for a man to not have sex... I went almost 19 straight years without sex growing up, and I did just fine.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
 

You are speaking from YOUR belief.

Yes, he is, we all are.


Fortunately laws are not made because of "belief"
.
ummm yes they are...

Gawd - - - I am SO SICK of the word MORAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously - ever since Bush took office - - the word MORAL has become an overused convenient repetitive mantra.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

“Now, "more perfect", "justice", "common" (in the sense of distribution), "general welfare", and "blessings of liberty", as well as the forms and limits of "liberty" itself, are moral concepts, as are the proper balance among them and the interpretation of "domestic tranquility" (in trying to determine individual rights versus keeping social order, preventing crime, and capturing and prosecuting criminals). Most of the major purposes of the Constitution are to help us be law-abiding so that we are a better country, not just an orderly or merely obedient or efficient country. Hence, it would be remiss, and wrong, to make laws or to try to interpret laws in court (written under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution, and deriving their legal authority ultimately from it) without any regard to their moral meaning, moral significance, or moral consequences insofar as these impact justice, liberty, general welfare, the common defense, and domestic tranquility.”

www.garlikov.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OceanStone
 


Yes, someone understands at least in this day and age...

Now the next question is, "What is the moral compass?" Is it arbitrary, where everyone gets to decide whats right for them and only them? I hope not, because then a person can decide it's morally right to shoot all the white children at their local elementary school.

What is the moral compass then?? What has stood the test of time and never changed??? I'm certain a simple "Thou shalt not murder" is self-explanatory and simple to agree upon by all.

Do you guys know Hitler thought he was a very moral person because he rarely used swear words??




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else because I have no idea what half your post is talking about. I was just sniping at the notion that morality means keeping children free from suffering.




edit on 9-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
This all reminds me of my favorite part of the Bible... In the New Testament... You know that one story about the time that Jesus went all demogogue and totalitarian and ran around shoving the law of Moses down peoples throats and lashing out at anyone who dared disagree with him. Then he took over the whole country and forced every single person to live by his law and his rules without exception...

You know the one!

Remember that story?




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

This all reminds me of my favorite part of the Bible... In the New Testament... You know that one story about the time that Jesus went all demogogue and totalitarian and ran around shoving the law of Moses down peoples throats and lashing out at anyone who dared disagree with him. Then he took over the whole country and forced every single person to live by his law and his rules without exception...

You know the one!

Remember that story?



Sorry, I've seen the error of my ways by your straw man.

Okay, I'm for killing babies now. And while we're at it, let's kill the elderly also because they suffer at old age oftentimes too.





edit on 9-9-2010 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 

Actually I think the first paragraph does warrant a reply as it does seem to refer to something I posted. I have no idea to whom the second paragraph is addressed so I will not address it.



Originally posted by Brood
Quite frankly, sir, the last person anyone should be taking moral advice from is someone attacking the freedoms of their own people on a public forum.

Please cite where I have done that in this thread.



Originally posted by Brood
If you do not like abortion, then don't do it.

If you read the thread, you would know that is ultimately my take on the abortion issue as well.



Originally posted by Brood
If a woman decides that a child would tear apart the lives of her and her family

Then the woman should abort.



Originally posted by Brood
that is her choice, and thank God it would never be yours.

Of course it wouldn't. Your "thank God" histrionics have me wondering though: what exactly are you insinuating here? Can you be more explicit?



Originally posted by Brood
I would much rather a child not starve than have a new one brought into the world and starve, you claim that suffering is just part of life and children should deal with it; "no pain, no gain".

Yes, that is my claim. I stand by it. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that suffering can be eliminated from life. I see much more indeed for the pessimistic opinion that life is just a big ball of pain with some joy thrown in just for grins. YMMV, of course.

You talk about it like it's a bad thing, without debating it. I never much cared for the "you are wrong because your opinion outrages me" style of argumentation.



Originally posted by Brood
Yes, I'm sure you would have made an excellent father...

Thanks, I expect I will too, when that day comes.



edit on 9-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer
 


Everyone is pro-life and pro-choice, both labels are utterly stupid. These labels are used to try and avoid the word abortion.


As far as i'm concerned a woman should not be forced to endure a pregnancy which can/will have negtive effects on her body and mind if she does not want the child. This is conditional upon when she aborts because obviously very late abortions should not be accepted (unless there is a clear medical reason). If abortion is banned then you will see more children in state care and more backstreet abortions that end up killing both the woman and the baby.

However if abortion is allowed then i think it's time men had some rights. That being if they don't want the child and the woman does then the woman needs to accept responsibility for it. I know that's an unpopular view but it seems wrong for one person to take a decision that will effect both of their lives forever without the other party having input.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join