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: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Lets just start at roe v wade 1973.

Aborted baby then would be 37 years old.
There would be an aditional 28 million adults in USA population.
Plus their offspring which would add another 28 million children.

All aborted babies since 1992 would still be children under 18 yo.
That woul add to the current population of children in USA as 30 more million.


So there would be an approximate 90 million more in USA.

Take the current 280 million fat, overweight, eat too much
population currently in UAS and ration their food to a required
amount, and I think you would still have food left over to send to Africa.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by slugger9787
 




Thirty million bicycles, school, employed teachers, and eventually taxpayers to pay for health care.


Why do you think that aborted children would pay more to the system than they would take? Given that they were aborted, their parents clearly thought that they would be unable (or unwanting) to take care of them properly. Therefore its more likely that there would be more asocials and unsuccessfull people among them than population average. So i the end, they would likely take more from the health care and social benefits system than would they pay into.


Probably would pay for more things than illegal immigrants are paying for right now.
The military would be full of these unwanted emaciated street urchins.
Obama would have a mass of people to put to work for his community service corp.
Plus they would all speaka english.
Also in USA there are 1.5 million couples looking to adopt and 1.5 million abortions each year.
Explain that to me.

Here is a big picture idea:
We would put in prison someone who was found to do to animals what Dr. does to baby humans.

And in the final analysis, your opinion of abortion is really just what comes out of your heart, and no one can see into your heart, though others can know the truth of your heart because the mouth speaks from the overflowing of what is in the heart.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer
 




Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?


Actually, pro-common sense will do just fine, thank you.

I would prefer abortion to be an avenue only of last resort. Not a first one for those who don't have enough responsibility to use any of the abundant forms of birth control. Even the so-called morning after pill is more often an - 'Oops, did I have sex last night?' - way of covering up for poor personal habits.

Abortion should be available, however, under certain circumstances that are the result of rape, incest and mother's health. And let's not quibble over 'mother's health' and 'mother's life'. If health is being threatened in a serious way, even if not mortally, there should be no question.

But again, we should be responsible enough NOT to use abortion as a form of birth control for an out-of-control libido.

As much as I despise any kind of overbearing (big brother) government, it almost makes me wish for some form of sex licensing... like, getting a decal for your genitals after you've learned how to use them responsibly.

*sigh*

Unfortunately, neither the choice or life camps have any interest in negotiating a common sense, middle ground resolution to this issue. It's an all or nothing deal for these two extremist armies.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'm pro-choice.

No man or woman has the God given right to decide over another woman's body. Abortion is between doctor and patient.

Strange how these anti-abortionists have a strong opinion on abortion and go as far as demonstrating with placards outside abortion clinics but they do NOTHING to lift a finger to help young kids on the streets and even go so far as to turn a blind eye to domestic violence and/or child abuse. I am also yet to find one single anti-abortionist volunteering to help out in institutions or homecare children with disabilities let alone help out in rape crisis centres.

I have no time for anti-abortionists. They worry about an unborn fetus but show no empathy for the suffering of LIVE kids or women in need.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 




I have no time for anti-abortionists.


And they have no time for you. That's why neither hard-headed, extremist mob will ever find a way to solve the problem. I'm right, you're wrong and I just don't have time for you.

Lovely.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by bluemirage5
 




I have no time for anti-abortionists.


And they have no time for you. That's why neither hard-headed, extremist mob will ever find a way to solve the problem. I'm right, you're wrong and I just don't have time for you.

Lovely.


Excellent point, and I have to agree. Cooler heads have to prevail if we're ever going to solve our problems. If most agree that abortion is a problem, then logically, we need to calm down first.

To clarify from my perspective, being against extremism doesn't necessarily mean we must trade in our convictions for some watered-down version, not at all. But it could mean that with a bit of respect for the adversary, honestly trying to see where they're coming from, maybe solutions (even partial ones) might become clear.

Add to this a small willingness to address the biggest part of the problems we face first, and our path might become clearer still.

Perhaps it's time to pull out the scalpel, and try and identify the thing about this issue that is the most repugnant to BOTH sides. I think I've seen wide agreement already that irresponsible sexual behavior is not acceptable. If so, then what's the logical next step?

JR



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


spoken as if you know every pro life persons personal calendars and community service records.
Can you please share with me how you got to this height of being able to know all this information about all these prolife people's habits and avocations?

Are you asupreme being who can see and know everyones personal lives.
If you are i think it is high time you came out of the closet so we could worship you correctly.

I would like to see a survey asking pro death and pro life humans if they are glad their mother choose pro life in their particular cirrcumstance.



edit on 14-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: mispelled word



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I really don't care for the false dialectic here. Pro-life is a disingenuous term, and pro-choice is even worse. The first implies an across the board advocacy for "life," which isn't the case as these folks generally support the death penalty and tend also to support our wars without reservation. The second term is especially troublesome because unless you call it "female choice" you're straight up lying. Men have no after-the-fact reproductive "choice" either in terms of the reproduction itself, or the inherent financial burden. (And are criminally liable for refusing to financially support a woman's "choice." It is not a decision between "life" and "choice" but rather "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." Clear and simple labeling technique. The pro-choice labeling is offensive to me personally, as a man, because a true "pro-choice" position would allow men a "choice" as well. Not whether or not a woman has an abortion, but whether or not "he" is responsible for "her" choices.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
c'mon let's be honest
it's pro life
or
pro baby murder



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Pro-life or pro-choice?

I'm a bloke, our opinion doesn't count in this. This decision is purely for the ladies.

If they're ready and we're not, we lose, if we're ready and they're not, we lose.

If I was a woman, I would be pro-choice, but only if the pregnancy was spotted before concsiousness was active. When that moment is is the tricky part.

A very sensitive and personal topic, I don't think there can be any general concensus.

One of the many reasons I'm glad I'm a bloke.

Sendran.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


You be honest.
If you believe life begins at conception, then, okay, it's pro-female-baby-murder. But are you really, "pro-life?" I highly doubt it. Do you support the death penalty? Accept collateral damage as a necessary part of war? Accept the concept of war itself? "Pro-life" is far too broad a brush to honestly label your movement with. Yours is an "anti" movement and you may as well call yourselves "anti-abortion." But that sounds so negative, right? In comes the PR labeling machine, the Orwellian double-think marketing experts to tell us how to frame the question. I, for one, refuse their labeling, and see it for what it is; lies.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



abortion
kills
baby
humans ...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


the death penalty
and war
kills
adult
humans

are you protesting
these things
as well?

did you read my post at all
do you actually think you "replied"
to my post
at all?

why are we posting
as though
we were writing
a poem?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Well, I can't be pro-death and I can't be anti-choice. I got no answer for ya when ya ask me like that. A better question would be "Would you be for a law that forces a person to grow an alien implant in them?" Alien implants have feelings too.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Euthanasia is just down the road. Death Panels who will judge like God the ones whose "quality of life" as if it is up to them to decide! Even with those who have family who want to take care of their aging relatives will not be given a choice . These people already see themselves as gods.

A baby's heartbeat and umbilical / placenta are the means the baby creates in order to grow and sustain it. That heartbeat belongs to the baby and the enclosed circulatory system also belongs to the baby. It ceases being part of a woman's body.

A father's pain and grief over the killing of his child are forbidden emotions and should not be seen in public or anywhere else for that matter. Because it is forbidden, like the babies lives are forbidden. That baby deserves the assistance and love of her father. But do we ever even consider the grief and anguish men feel? The situation is totally out of their hands and they can't do anything at all to save their babies.

How cold-hearted must an abortionist be to do any of these "procedures" in their abortion chambers? Did you know that "partial-birth abortion" is just a normal delivery until the head is ready to come out the abortionist stabs scissors through the back of her skull, suctions out the brains then the skull collapses and they pull out a dead baby. A lot of these creepy abortionist habits lately seem to me a fondness for storing up to 30 dead babies in jars in a refrigerator. They have to be mentally ill, maybe from long years of killing babies.

At other places they do it differently. They just put the patient into labor, and after so long, a dead baby is born. But some survive and they are just left to die. You can get all of these facts online.
At one place the doctor brought to the nurse a set of twins! (how lucky) who were gasping for air because they were pretty far along in development. The nurse was sure they would use resucitation procedures because they were still alive. She was repulsed and sickened when the doc took them, smiling, and put them in a bucket of water to drown. She quit that hospital right after this happened. She now is totally pro-life.

After a D & C (dilation and curettage) or a suction killing which is different), the most often used, the abortionist has to take the "tissue" (baby's remains) which are always hidden from the mother, and "re-assemble the baby: head, 1st arm, torso, 2nd arm and two legs so that they know they got the whole body out"?

Abortion hurts women!

Most pro-lifers are pro life in every aspect of their lives. They simply do not believe that killing for any reason is OK. Thou shalt not kill .

And If an abortion is just tissue or a lump of some kind to be removed is not such a big deal than WHY BRING IT UP AT ALL?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



I know death penalty and war kills adult humans but since it had nothing to do with abortion, I didn't say anything.
No, I'm not protesting capital punishment although I don't think it's the right thing to do and would always vote against it.
My progressive representatives know how I feel about war even though my son is in the army
yet it also has nothing to do with abortion
but yes, they (my reps) also know I think abortion is Very rarely the right thing to do because
abortion kills baby humans.
I protest this because these children can't speak up for themselves.

Of course I read your post and thought I had replied just fine; hope this one is better.

I was posting the way I did because I didn't have much to say but needed to provide three lines



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 




Euthanasia is just down the road. Death Panels who will judge like God the ones whose "quality of life" as if it is up to them to decide! Even with those who have family who want to take care of their aging relatives will not be given a choice . These people already see themselves as gods.


Nice post. I'm glad you brought up euthanasia. This certainly "should" be a high-level societal concern, but it really doesn't seem to be. I guess if the slippery slope slips, in slow enough motion, maybe no one will catch on in time?

The Netherlands may be the canary in the coal mine on this one. Already it seems that the old are being prematurely terminated, in various ways, especially when a nice inheritance hangs in the balance.

Children working with doctors, arranging the killing of parents??

Why, that's almost as absurd as parents killing children with the assistance of doctors!

JR



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I'd say pro-choice.

Even if u ban abortions people will only go to shady doctors to have them.Risking their own lives.U'd think humans would have learned by now you can't force people to do something or not to do something just because you think it's wrong.Either u're against it or you're not.So,either u have an abortion or you live with the consiquences and responsibility of having a child.Some people just don't have the money to raise a child or might even be too immature to be parents.Can't blame them for that.We live in a society where ur worth as human being is measurred by the amount of money in ur bank account,and also how comfortably you live ur life.
Read an interesting book once called Freak Economics and they did a study that showed since abortions have been legalized that the crime rate in the US dropped.Makes sense in a way,because you have less kids growing up in dysfunctional homes.Raising a child,as far as I understand,is stressfull of u don't have the cash for it.you can debate about it all you want but in the end it all comes down to choice.It's horrible,I know.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 

OK yes thanks. I feel better.`



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 

Yes it's really insane nowadays the technology moves us backwards
towards even more killing.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join