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

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
As far as I'm concerned I am Pro Non Of My Business!!

that their choices are one THEY have to live with,


Peace, NRE.

yes the mother makes a choice she has to live with and the BABY has to DIE with.

What about if the tables were turned and a newly concieved baby could choose to abort its mother.
Then the arguements for pro abortion would crumble to ashes.
The baby in the womb has NO voice. NONE.
So I could care less about how much talking the ADULT side, with their anti life agenda, that gets in the way of my happiness, career, lifestyle, so lets just kill the baby mentality.

How callous and selfish.
The APA is considering eli=minating the diagnosis of NPD.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The #1 sign of narcissist is LACK OF EMPATHY.
They are in love with their own reflectiion. (PRIDE)
one of the seven deadly sins which is also the root of all other sins.

Her is what I hear the babies screaming silently
"ADOPTION, MOMMY PLEASE, that is a CHOICE I can LIVE with."

See and the mothers were babies in the womb once, and in spite of fears, hardships, their mommy made the choice for life, and now when it is their opportunity to afford to a less powerful human being, the right their mommy preserved for them, they take the NPD way out.

A minor in school cannot receive an aspirin without parental consent.

A minor cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent.

Yet these killers (such as Planned Parenthood) can perform an invasive surgical operation on a minor girl without parental consent!!!! As long as her parents don't know, Planned Parenthood does this operation on these girls, then sends them right back to (probably) an adult abuser! This cycle can go around and around for who knows how long? PP knows because they can get away with the crime of not reporting the age of the father! They know it's criminal when an older man has sex with a minor. This crime is rampant in this country since Roe v Wade made it available for them to cover their a$$ to play.
And the women and girls pay.
But no. They see it as more money to be made in the future. And they claim to be pro-woman??

Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the government and how are they allowed to proclaim themselves a .org ( non profit designation)??? Look it up for yourself. Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars in profit.

In scientific studies:
Monocell "A" procreaed by dividing itself in half.

Everything that the first generation cell A knows is passed on to the second generation CELL.

Now there are two cell "A" 's. They have identical knowledge.

first generation cell A dies and second generation cell A continues for six more generations. The sixth generation CELL A knows exactly what the first generation CELL A knew.

From the moment of conception ALL DATA is recorded in the fertilized egg. ALL information that this single cell knows and experiences is passed on to every other cell from then onthat divide and multiply.

Pain is not experienced in organs, pain is a cellular experience. A baby in the womb, no matter how tiny records and remembers ALL events, as they are remembered at the cellular level.

"Man qua man remains the same in primitive conditions as in technologically developed societies and does not advance to a higher level simply by the fact that he has learned to employ more highly developed tools. Human nature starts over from the beginning in every human being. Therefore there cannot be such a thing as a definitively new, advanced, and smooth-running society. Not only was this the hope of the grand ideologies, but it has been becoming more and more the general objective expected by all ever since hope in the hereafter was demolished. A definitively well-run society would presuppose the end of freedom. " -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

reply to post by Starbug3MY


social utopinanism.
the old way was atone and pay for your sins in the here instead of the hereafter,
reincarnation --pay for it the next life.
naturalist- what next life this is all there is
new age - we will be recreated in another astral plane
Maybe the mothers who choose abortion will get reincarnated into a helpless fetus in perpetuiy.

reply to post by slugger9787

Pain is not experienced in organs, pain is a cellular experience. A baby in the womb, no matter how tiny records and remembers ALL events, as they are remembered at the cellular level.

You need at least a primitive nervous system to experience pain. People do not feel or remember pain during surgeries, because pain is a brain experience. When there is no developed brain (fetus) or this mechanism is blocked (anesthesia), there is no pain.

reply to post by Maslo


their analytical mind is asleep, the conscious.
their pre conscious and subconscious mind is wide awake.
the memory of the pain is stored and present.

pain is equated with danger, threat to survival.

germs are not very big and avoid medicine toughly.
they emember what the medicine does, ie a threat to
their survival, and pass that on to the next generation of germs.

your analytical mind tells you that since it is asleep that pain is no registring, but it really is.

babies who have not developed analytical mind still avoid and recoil from life threatening events.
they avoid pain/death.

the cellular memory is what composes the analytical memory, and while in surgery they cannot completely put you o sleep----you would die.

reply to post by slugger9787


Pain is the result of triggering of specialised sensory neurons. When these neurons are not present or their function is disrupted, there is no pain. For example, brain itself does not contain these special neurons. As a result of this fact, brain tissue does not hurt. You can cut into your brain, and unless you hit an artery, vein, or the center of pain sense, you would not feel a thing.

reply to post by slugger9787



The legal choices and bodily functions of strangers are still none of your business.

Empathy?.. how about empathy for others private affairs & personal space?.. as in stay out of them.. lol How about arrogance?.. going around telling people what to do, how to live and which choices are best for THEM because YOU think so.. the height of arrogance... who decided the pro-life screed was "perfect" and anointed you folks to inject yourselves in the lives of total strangers to dispatch "proper" advice to live by? If I want advice.. I'll seek it..

Believe it or not there are those of us out there who tune out the agenda static of donation driven churches, flock captains donning ornate bathrobes and other assorted "leaders", so called... We are grown ups capable of guiding ourselves via independent decision making and find it annoying when total strangers belch-out generalized generic cliches...plus highly opinionated instructional diatribe about how the flock thinks we should live.

I tell people I'm "both" pro-life and choice. She's hot and I want a kid: pro-life. If it's a 2am skank who looks beaten with a bag of nickles: pro-choice 1st possible appointment. When she's a stranger.. the in's and out's of her vagina politics are none of my business.

reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer


I am a man too and share your concern for telling people what to do with their bodies. As a civil-libertarian, I considered it my obligation to be pro-choice for a long time. I no longer feel that pressure.

The fact is, no matter which side of the issue you fall on, abortion is fundamentally different then every other medical procedure because it is, by definition, the termination of a possible human life. You'd think that fact alone would be enough to bring civility and moderation on the issue. Sadly it doesn't.

America doesn't have an 'abortion debate.' We have a shouting match that at its best vaguely resembles a debate. Never the less, I am pro-life, even though I refuse to enter into debates on the subject.

In my view the entire issue comes down to whether or not the fetus is a human life deserving of rights. If it is, then the mother's rights absent serious threat of death cannot trump those rights. And when I say serious threat of death, I mean just that, not the mere possibility of death. And yes, while science and medicine are not perfect we can distinguish a more dangerous pregnancy from the normal pregnancy. I believe abortions should be allowed in cases of medical necessity. Medical necessity is not a fuzz word; its means the need to treat a diagnosable condition other than pregnancy of course.

I believe this because the fetus is scientifically a distinct human life. Much like the romans and catholics believed that a sperm contained all the information necessary to make a human, and thus treated women's role in reproduction as inferior to men's - the idea that the growing child is a 'part' of the mother is ridiculous. It has its own distinct DNA, its own distinct genome, separate parents, separate traits and potential. The fact that the fetus relies on the mother's body for nourishment is just part of life. Its how all human beings begin. This, to me, is enough trigger basic legal rights.

Finally, I'd like to argue the this view is going to eventually be the mainstream whether people like it or not. Our understanding of human development, prenatal care, and the rights of the unborn has grown tremendously since Roe v. Wade. As we experiment with genetics and learn just how much separate potential is locked inside of a growing fetus people are coming to the realization that the way people understood the pre-infant stages of development in the early 1970s is antiquated. Already states are passing laws that can punish a criminal for the wrongful death of the unborn.

The reason I refuse, and will still refuse to debate anyone on this issue is because, like I said: there is no debate. I'm not saying 'i'm right and you're wrong.' I fully understand the consequences of what I'm saying. Absent the legal right to abortion more women will seek illegal abortions and will die. That of course is a tragedy. But what prochoicers neglect is that if you've come to the decision, in your own mind, that the unborn are also distinct human lives then the greater tragedy is completely unfettered abortion on demand. Similarly prolifers tend to completely ignore how hard of a personal choice it is to have an abortion. I have many friends who have underwent the procedure. The prolifers like to demonize the women and doctors as if we all have divine knowledge that abortion is 'evil.'

What I mean when I say "there is no debate" is that both sides completely neglect the other side's assumptions about; 1. what the fetus is; 2. the reality of who is getting abortions and for what reasons; 3. etc etc etc. I'm tired.

Basically there are about 50 assumptions that go into forming either a pro-life or pro-choice view. The very last question is 'is abortion a right?' People tend to discount the opposition's answer to the final question because of their 50 prior assumptions and back and forth and back and forth, and what we end up with is dead abortion doctors and women wearing t-shirts proclaiming 'i had an abortion!' Both are disgusting.

reply to post by Starbug3MY


Excellent choice of topic on this one. What's always amazed me about the prochoice movement is their inability to fathom even reasonable regulations on the issue. They remind me deeply, of gun-nuts who oppose absolutely any regulation of fire arms. Where I come from there's actually a law that shields a minor's parents from suing an abortion doctor for malpractice...ARE YOU KIDDING? Even if you are the most rabid prochoice person you should be able to support a basic legal right that almost every single other patient/decedent's family enjoys. If I ever switch back over to being pro-choice, I'm going to make it a point to be reasonable enough to support those reasonable regulations as vocally as possible.

Originally posted by govtflu
reply to post by slugger9787

 

all People of Good Will
On the Value and Inviolability of
Human Life

Upon the recognition of this right, every human
community and the political community itself are founded.

The theory of human rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the
human person, unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to
domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to
equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at
least perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of these
presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who, like the
unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social structure, or for
anyone who appears completely at the mercy of others and radically
dependent on them, and can only communicate through the silent
language of a profound sharing of affection.

In this case it is force which
becomes the criterion for choice and action in interpersonal relations and
in social life. But this is the exact opposite of what a State ruled by law, as
a community in which the "reasons of force" are replaced by the "force of
reason".

ther level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn
affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a
notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way

There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized:
freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the
destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its
essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate
itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most
obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the
foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no
longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own
choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and
changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of
conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be
considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the
ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the
mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It
would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always
been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has
demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the
programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual
person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from
fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities
requires time -- a rather lengthy time -- to find its place and to be in a
position to act".57 Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be
56

ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research
on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the
use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of
a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?".

As a post-Catholic I still have the opinion of PRO-LIFE. I just can't believe this ' a woman has the right to decide for her own body." stuff. The man is the FATHER and has part of the right to decide as well. The woman didn't create a new soul by herself and so has no right to decide that outcome by herself.

reply to post by AidanK


...and if the father is a rapist?...
You see, it's not as black and white, catholic, Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi (or in other words, simplistic) as you painted there, neighbour.

For the record, I am pro-choice and at this stage will continue to be.

reply to post by aorAki


so the father comits a crime and the baby life is ended because of that
cool let guilty go free and punish the innocent.
how would you feel about capital punishment for someone who is actually innocent?

or releasing Charles Manson from prison?

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by aorAki

 

so the father comits a crime and the baby life is ended because of that
cool let guilty go free and punish the innocent.
how would you feel about capital punishment for someone who is actually innocent?

or releasing Charles Manson from prison?

Yeah, I never understood the position of some pro-lifers, who are pro-choice in case of rape. Either early human embryo needs to be protected, or it does not. There is no other option.

reply to post by slugger9787


Babies in the womb cannot make sentences. Man, if you attach yourself to the anti-abortionist crowd you will have to deal with some extreme ignorance.

reply to post by earthdude

I know they cannot speak in a sentence, someone else has to do that for them, someone like me, or another pro life adult.

yes i know --- neither can a person in a coma, a severe MR child, or an extremely intoxicated woman.

the instant of conception is the primary beginning of a brand new person.
the right to life is the primary right that all other rights originate from.
PRIMARY-right to life
SECONDARY-speech, religion, associations, innocence.
TERTIARY-search, trial, due process, property, possessions,

Remove the primary right tolife and the foundation upon which CIVILIZED society is built, CRUMBLES.

Immediately following fertilization of an egg by a sperm, you only have to ask yourself one question.

IS IT ALIVE?

If it is alive then you only have to ask yourself one question.

IS IT HUMAN?

If it is human then you only have to ask yourself one question.

DOES IT POSSESS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE?

If is possesses that world wide human right, then the conclusion can only be that
ABORTION DENIES this PRIMARY RIGHT TO A FELLOW HUMAN BEING.

They knew abortion was killing a human several thousand years ago.
They were not stupid back then.

reply to post by slugger9787


Just to be sure, do you support abortion in case of incest or rape?

reply to post by slugger9787

I agree with you completely. Abortion is a terrible thing. I just have a problem with the law stepping in.