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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Pro choice.

But you people that use abortion as your form of birth contol are just fat, lazy apes.......




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
 


Who gave you the "right of choice" to end an innocent human's life? And don't say "the US Supreme Court", they are NOT a moral authority.

Last time I checked God said "Thou shalt not murder."



You are speaking from YOUR belief.

Fortunately laws are not made because of "belief".

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.

How about this - - - it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer. There should be a moratorium on all reproduction - until those already born are cared for properly. Now that's Moral.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You bring up another very important point: Many kids are born into very bad homes where the parents could really care less for the welfare of the child! But at least they are alive and kicking, I guess.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
So even if I believe that abortion is wrong, and it is made illeagal, you are still able to freely make the choice that gets you pregnant or not.

I think we are forgetting that important point. Abortion is the end result of poor choices.


Uh huh. I was going through a divorce. Divorces can be very emotional and difficult. My husband and I had a cry fest - which lead to having our last sexual encounter. Yes - I was on the pill. But I have an illness. The next day I threw up. Apparently I also threw up the pill.

What exactly was the poor choice I made? Having an illness that causes me to throw up? Or having one last extremely emotional moment with my still husband?

I suppose I could have canceled the divorce. But when a father is jealous of his own children - - and your 4 year old asks: "Why does daddy hate me?" - - - I chose the welfare of my children. Also the reason for the abortion - - the welfare of my 2 living children.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Kailassa
This world has too many people in it.
This is a problem for which there is a proven solution; educate women and the birth rate drops.

Thank you for your very informative post.
My hobby is social anthropology. Did you know in cultures where the woman is dominate - - the birth rate is lower?


Thank you, I find all your posts interesting too.

No, I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Would you consider making a thread about such cultures?

By the way, someone very close too me had an abortion for a similar reason to yours. She was a single mum with a pre-school daughter, and had just got herself off the pension and back to work when she was date-raped by a "gay" friend she had trusted. She's very maternal and hated having to abort, but adoption was not an option as that could leave her daughter wondering if she was going to be given away next.

So you have my empathy, as I know the emotional pain, and know how necessary it is in our segmented, adult-oriented society that a mum makes sure she can care for the child(ren) she has before having more.

It's so easy for some to say, "well if a woman doesn't want babies, she shouldn't have sex," but, on a case by case basis, it's not so black and white at all.
And birth control does not always work and adoption is not always an option.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
100% Pro-life, 40 Million abortions annually is nasty fact of life (or death). The mass genocide of the unwanted unborn.

It's a topic most want to avoid.




edit on 8-9-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Who gave you the "right of choice" to end an innocent human's life? And don't say "the US Supreme Court", they are NOT a moral authority.


First, we must define human person's life. Can the fetus, having no consciousness, no functioning brain (no personality, nothing which separates humans (and even animals!) from other multicellular organisms like plants) be considered human person? I think not. Till development of separate consciousness, its only another tissue of the mothers body.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




How about this - - - it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer. There should be a moratorium on all reproduction - until those already born are cared for properly. Now that's Moral.


I cannot agree more with your point. Better no child than suffering child. Period.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
100% Pro-life, 40 Million abortions annually is nasty fact of life. The mass genocide of the unwanted unborn.

It's a topic most want to avoid.



I don't want to avoid it.

40 million less on this planet is a good thing. I don't consider that a nasty fact at all.

Again - - - genocide is YOUR belief. You can believe what you want - - - as long as you leave my rights alone.

OH - - and don't go off on the baby's rights. That also fits into your belief - - - which I am not interested in.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I am a man, I am pro-choice for women's choice. basically meaning if a woman wants an abortion she has the right to get it, basically don't tred on your neighbors lawn. likewise if a woman doesn't want an abortion, she shouldn't get one.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
100% Pro-life, 40 Million abortions annually is nasty fact of life (or death). The mass genocide of the unwanted unborn.

It's a topic most want to avoid.




edit on 8-9-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



Genocide implies human beings. Since, to my best understanding, fetuses cannot be considered human beings, there is no genocide.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
100% Pro-life, 40 Million abortions annually is nasty fact of life (or death). The mass genocide of the unwanted unborn.

It's a topic most want to avoid.

A topic pro-lifers want to avoid is how they rationalize IVF and humanities biggest killer (spontaneous abortions) since many of them regard conception the point at which a "baby" exists. I haven't seen anyone picketing outside an IVBF clinic, but when the opportunity comes to tell a woman she is a murderer and going to hell they'd be all up with those billboards.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Would you consider making a thread about such cultures?


I am unfortunately at this time not able to monitor a thread.

I'm the prime caretaker of my 2 year old grandson who's father died of Leukemia before he was a month old.

And the emotional support and stability of my daughter - - - who works long hours in production (when she works).

Ya do what ya gotta do. As you well know.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
 


Who gave you the "right of choice" to end an innocent human's life? And don't say "the US Supreme Court", they are NOT a moral authority.

Last time I checked God said "Thou shalt not murder."

Abortions isn't murder. The law defines what murder is, which abortion isn't in the U.S. even when it was illegal.

You may feel abortion is a "moral crime", but laws and morals are not always good partners. After all, some individual notions about what is "good" may not actually be legal.

The contention is that abortion is/isn't murder is still personal opinion and morality cannot be the sole basis of law in the US. Laws and morals often correlate and many times they do not.

Anti-abortionists' moral objection to abortion relies on the belief that the z/e/f is an actual person and should be offered legal protection as those born. This position has consistently failed to win support and undermine the legal provision of abortion. So it seems that opponents to abortion have to turn to other means to further their cause such as mental illness. I'd say nothing short of a direct link, proof positive that any and all abortions directly leads to physical or emotional damage in every case, without exception, will do.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
100% Pro-life, 40 Million abortions annually is nasty fact of life (or death). The mass genocide of the unwanted unborn.

It's a topic most want to avoid.




edit on 8-9-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



Don't worry, you're America, you don't even care about genocide until the Japanese bomb you, even if the rest of the world is on board. I'm glad you're all of the sudden so willing to stand up for victims of genocide even though they feel no pain or emotion, yet you're too busy waging wars for NO REASON WHATSOEVER to help other countries deal with the REAL GENOCIDE going on RIGHT NOW. That, right there, is God's will.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


How about this - - - it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer. There should be a moratorium on all reproduction - until those already born are cared for properly. Now that's Moral.


I cannot agree more with your point. Better no child than suffering child. Period.

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.




edit on 8-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee
 


Who gave you the "right of choice" to end an innocent human's life? And don't say "the US Supreme Court", they are NOT a moral authority.

Last time I checked God said "Thou shalt not murder."



You are speaking from YOUR belief.

Fortunately laws are not made because of "belief".

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.

How about this - - - it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer. There should be a moratorium on all reproduction - until those already born are cared for properly. Now that's Moral.


That's all arbitrary I'm afraid. What is the standard for murder of the innocent? What is the standard for a child who is "suffering". What is your "moral" compass?

I have a pretty simple moral compass: never murder an innocent life under any circumstances. You don't have the "moral" authority to determine what kind of life is permissible and not! You don't have the "moral" authority to decide for another if life is worth living or not! If life is so hard, and there is too much suffering in it for you to let a life live and decide for ITSELF [snip]
"Pro Choice" my ass. It's murder of the innocent, and you had better seek forgiveness from God for shedding innocent blood. Abortion is the modern day practice of parents sacrificing their children to Moloch. It's the exact same evil spirit. Dress it up in whatever flowery mask words you want to, it's still state-sanctioned infanticide.

*pukes*

Added: 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.


edit on 8-9-2010 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)






edit on 8/9/10 by masqua because: Removed uncivil comment



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Annee
 




How about this - - - it is IMMORAL to let any living breathing child suffer. There should be a moratorium on all reproduction - until those already born are cared for properly. Now that's Moral.


I cannot agree more with your point. Better no child than suffering child. Period.


So can a rich family decide it's better for a child to be murdered who would grow up in a poor family because to them it will "suffer"? What is the moral compass for "suffering"?

If a family makes more than $500 USD they are in the top 95% of income gathering families on the globe. How do YOU define "suffering" when it's a completely arbitrary term. What is "suffering" to one person may not be "suffering" to another.

What is YOUR moral compass? And who decided you get to be God and determine when life ends?????



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If abortion for any reason what-so-ever, if the woman pregnant doesn't want the human life she carries, is okay. How about asking yourself this question. What about you? If, when your mother was pregnant with you and didn't want you, what it have been okay with her to kill you? Are you grateful that you have been given a chance to live your life when you were too small and helpless to make any choices on your own in regard to the matter?

People justify to themselves that they can abort an unborn baby because it is not yet what? Alive? If a single-cell microorganism is considered life, isn't when an egg conceived considered life?

Is it okay to take away another human's life?

If you answer yes. Is it okay to take away the life of an innocent victim who has done nothing wrong to deserve to die?

People are familiar with the term, "eye for eye." It is a Biblical term. It actually comes from God's viewpoint of what happens to an unborn child. The context from the term of "eye for an eye" "tooth for a tooth" comes from the law concerning someone who hits a pregnant woman and makes her abort her unborn child:


(Exodus 21:22-25) . . .“And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul,  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

Notice under God's perfect law of justice the unborn baby had just as much a right to life as the male who made it abort. If during that abortion it lost an eye the person who made it abort would forfeit his eye, if it lost a tooth, the person who made it loose its tooth would forfeit a tooth. If it lost its life, its soul, then the person who murdered that baby would under the requirement of justice have to forfeit his soul.

So if you believe in justice, in all things being equal. If a person was to murder an innocent child, under God's perfect law of justice that person should also forfeit their life.

As long as people can get away with murdering other people with impunity, and actually have the support of an entire society, can there really be justice?

In ancient times in the land of Canaan, people served wicked and evil gods who demanded child sacrifice. And indeed child sacrifice was rampant. Today people would think such acts of barbarity sick and inhuman and they would be right. Yet they themselves in the guise of modern "morals" excuse away the crime of killing human life performing modern-day child sacrifices by the tens of millions.

It is a backward society that allows such barbarity. Just as surely as it was written would happen to the morality of the people:

(Isaiah 5:20) . . .Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


And the conclusion of the matter can be summed up in this proverb:

(Proverbs 30:12, 14) . . .There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes but that has not been washed from its own excrement...There is a generation whose teeth are swords and whose jawbones are slaughtering knives, to eat up the afflicted ones off the earth and the poor ones from among mankind.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 



Abortions isn't murder. The law defines what murder is, which abortion isn't in the U.S. even when it was illegal.


The "law" is not a moral authority. laws change depending on the culture. In Arab cultures it's legal to murder your children. In our own countries it was legal to keep and beat slaves and prevent women from voting. Laws change ALL the time.

Laws are not a moral authority.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join