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.

 

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 30
40
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Let’s not forget, this thread is about the Murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, that is what some of you are defending no matter what clever logic you use. We are talking about murder.


And no matter what, it's still the right of the mother to decide if it is right or not, not you. When are you going to realise that no matter what YOU think, they over rule it because it's they're right. You do understand what a right is correct? It's a privelege and it isn't stripped from the moment that baby is concieved to the moment it is born. Unfortunately, it is YOU who will have to live with the knowledge that it exists. It is the MOTHER who will have to live with the decision she made.


Now Last night when I went to my bed this thread was at about 11 pages, it’s now at 28 so I am not going to reply to everyone but I have had a skim of the past view pages and will try to address as many of the points as I can.


Understandable.


The 3 main arguments against as I see it are the “rape scenario”, eugenics and that it is the woman’s right. All three I covered in the first few pages of this thread, the first two do not justify the murder of an innocent child, the third is unfair as the human rights of the mother are taking precedence over the human rights of the child. These views may disgust you, what should disgust you more is the killing of kids because they are a incontinence for their promiscuous amoral parents.


The first and second scenario, along WITH the third, all justify the RIGHT for the human supporting the actual life-system of the baby to decide whether or not she wants to have it or not. Here's one way you're probably not wanting to look at it, but in the respect of debate, perhaps you should:

The mother's vital system, her organs, her very heartbeat support the life of the child when it is within the womb. There is no if and's or but's. That baby's life soley depends on her living to live itself. Typically, if the mom dies, the baby dies very shortly after, especially if it has not developed the proper organs to be self-sufficient for whatever time it would take to perform a post-mordom c-section. And even then, the child may not live outside the womb for very long. The point? If it is a PART of the MOTHER'S BODY, they have the RIGHT to take whatever action they want.


The use of the word genocide in the OP has been brought up quite allot, I find it funny that you supposedly intelligent people have to all run to the same website to quote me a definition, but couldn’t give me the definition of the top of your heads. To me genocide is the organised mass murder of a specific group in society that is being discriminated against in some way because of their cultural, religious or ethnic origin but in addition to this their age. A mass cull of the over 85’s for the purposes of population control would be called genocide, you all know it. As such I think it is reasonable to call the murder of 200,000 children genocide. If you don’t like that, if that does not fit in perfectly form the definition you have had to look up on your online dictionary tough, to me this acceptance and defence of mass abortion is just the same as defending the Rwanda genocide.


We all looked up the definition to Genocide because the way you were using it, was irregular. You're going to blame us for that? The definition you use is merely an opinion of what you want GENOCIDE to mean in your views. Hey, no problem. You say toe-may-toe, i say toe-mah-toe. In the end we still have to spell it "tomato".

The mass cull of seniors over the age of 85? Hah... no offense but do you know most people don't make it past 75 nowadays? But on a serious note: Yes, that would be genocide. And I don't condone that. But here's where I'm going to blow your mind.

"Genocide is the collective 'slaughtering' of a certain group" (I'm using my own words just for you) correct? So, let me ask you, did these mothers all get together, over some crumpets and tea, and decide they were all going to collectively bring their fetus's life to an end? Nooooo....

Each one had their own circumstances, their own experience, their own reasoning, their own ideology, their own story as to why they went through with this. Your mindset is that these mothers have horns and love to slaughter innocent babies and fetuses and do it groups as sick club activity. "Hey gals! Let's go get abortions!!! YAAAAYY!!!" .... seriously sir, think realistically... You have to treat each case individually, not just label it mass geneocide because it's happening more than you like.


Quite a few people have pointed out that i am a man, well done. Does that mean I should have any less say in whether my kids life or die during the first 24 weeks of their lives? All of you liberals are all defenders of equality, where is the equality in arguing that because I am a man I have less of a say in the matter as you women. Also me being Scottish has nothing to do with any of this, why some of you have pointed out my nationality is beyond me.


I don't enjoy that a woman on tv has censoring over her breasts when walking around topless, while a man comes on, hairy chest, and sometimes manboobs, and it's all comedy... Where's the equality there? She has breasts and nipples just like a man... but they're blurred and manboobs arent't? ... but you know what? That's society my friend and if you can't tolerate what society has created, then that's a personal issue, not a justification to feel like you know what a woman goes through, even if you are a man.

And yes, why anyone would point out your nationality is beyond me as well. Sorry you had to endure useless information from people who thought you being Scottish had anything to do with the situation.


Some people have rightly pointed out that for abortion to become illegal firstly the adoption system would have to be fixed. Also rightly pointed out is that a ban in abortion would not eliminate abortion all together, there would be illegal abortions. I would point out however that the number of children murdered would still fall, and that the state and society would not be funding and defending this murder as they are now, those getting and carrying out the abortions would be sentenced just like any other child killer.


If abortion becomes illegal, then you'll have your way, but until then, you should perhaps be out joining local protest teams and adding awareness to the public on your statistics, and I have to ask, what if you're met with the same debate on a public street or when you hand someone your pamphlet? Will you debate with them? Will you take the time to show your dedication to the cause? Or will you just look for the next person who won't disagree with you? How will you feel when abortions are illegalized, and you walk pass a dark alley one day and see some women crying in pain because she's having her baby right there in the alley, so she can toss it out like trash or as you stated earlier "a dog". She has to walk around all bloodied up probably unable to walk straight in the first place, and it will be because someone like you decided she couldn't do it in a safe hospital environment. What will you say? "Serves her right because she shouldn't have opened her legs?"






again people, please remember we are talking about the mass genocide of our children.


Again sir, please remember we are talking about an individually-controlled situation of a per-person basis-related topic on abortion. NOT GENOCIDE.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Shikamaru because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


So you don’t even view a un born child as a living entity, well it is a living entity, it is not a it, it is a human being with a heartbeat. Following your line of thought the child could be killed at anytime during pregnancy. You disgust me you child killing defender.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 





but let's go to the "taking precedence over the human rights of the child" first..... since you seem to be suggesting that the child's human rights should be taking precedence over that of the mother, and well quite frankly, any and all the other children who may already be dependent on her for their daily needs!


Not all human rights are equal. The most basic is the right to life, the others are after that. Thats why not providing urgent health help while able to is illegal (the right to life of one person supercedes the right to comfort, quality of life or freedom to act as one wants of another person, thats also why we have welfare - the right to live and health supercedes others right to property etc etc.. many examples are like this..).

IF the fetus was considered human person, abortion (which would in essence be killing by "not providing urgent health help while able to") would have to be illegal. Even in case of rape (psychological damage to one person is preferable to physiological damage, or killing of another person.).

The ONLY argument that will stand to scrutiny and is compatible with human rights is that fetus is NOT a person, therefore human rights do not apply to it. Thats what prochoice advocates should target. All others are in essence trying to justify murder by bringing out less important human rights than basic human right to life (and ALL other human rights are less imporant, so it does not matter which one you bring out). Only when the life of the mother is in danger can this justification be used, and all other abortions would have to be illegal.


edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by gaiagirl
An abortion can be the saddest day in a woman's life. What if a singe mother, who wants her baby and loves it, has to terminate the prepnancy or risk losing all her children because she can't take care of anything of them? Can you possiby imagine her agony?


No reason to kill it, she could give it up for adoption or leave it a hospital or fire station where it would be cared for.


Originally posted by gaiagirl
Would YOU take them in and support them if mom lost her job or coudn't find one after the baby was born and she has three other children to take care of?


Where are you talking about, the third world? We all support such cases through taxation and welfare programs.


Originally posted by gaiagirl
Woud you hire legal counsel for her because she had to steal food to feed a family she can't support due to the fact threre is not enough state assistance or she ony makes min. wage or can'e afford a babysitter to work? Maybe you would, but most would not.


There are all kinds of free legal services out there, subsidized or free daycare, help from family etc. etc. etc.


Originally posted by gaiagirl
Did you know that the highest number of homeless peope are chidren?


Where is that? In what country?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


So you don’t even view a un born child as a living entity, well it is a living entity, it is not a it, it is a human being with a heartbeat. Following your line of thought the child could be killed at anytime during pregnancy. You disgust me you child killing defender.


But, what is the correct and reasoned response to murder. As I said earlier to you, but you havn't answered:

"The question arrises, if you are so opposed to abortion, what have you done to rescue the babies?

If you were in Germany in 1944 and down the street from you was a concentration camp. If you were aware that every day hundreds of people were being gassed and burnt in ovens? Would you respond to this murder by writing a note and placing it on a wall in the public square for others to view? Lamenting murder resolves nothing either on a public wall or a web site. Murder requires action."



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


ah...yes, but in the minds of so many anti-abortionists....
there will always be the chance that the mother will survive, even if the mother has a whole crew of medical professionals saying otherwise....
just like the guy holding the gun just might miss...it is in the realm of possibilities.
but well, let's looks at what you said about our responsibility to save lives...
okay, I am walking down the street holding the hands of two young children. and low and behold, a car goes and runs over a nun....
okay, are you telling me that I should risk bringing those two kids that are holding my hand and venture out into the heavy traffic, even after those two kids just watched some maniac run down someone, to help the guy??? or should I let go of their hands, desert them, and venture in myself???

all the risks need to be taken seriously!!! minimizing the number of people that would actually fit the profiles I present amd downplaying the risks of pregnancy gives me the impression that they are not!!
and, well, how much are people willing to sacrifice to see to it that those children are taking care of?? you are expecting that women to risk a heck of alot, and to be honest I have known some anti-abortionist who have put their money, their energy, their resources up to help those who are affected. they are too few and far between though. but...what about you???



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
as far as welfare being the answer......
not in all cases...
I have signed myself out of the hospital because me being there left my husband with three kids to tend to, he asked welfare for help, they couldn't help him, said he made too much money to get any help....suggested that he leave them at some summer program (where they weren't legally responsible to even ensure that the kids stay there....) while he worked...

and, there was no way we could have afforded childcare!!!

so, well, what can I say, like I said, at least here in the US, there's a proverty that even the "poor" don't see or experience!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The more abortions the better. Try to keep it in the first trimester though.
We should just stop over-valuing human life, and this debate would be much easier.
People die and are born all the time.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Let’s not forget, this thread is about the Murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, that is what some of you are defending no matter what clever logic you use. We are talking about murder.

Now Last night when I went to my bed this thread was at about 11 pages, it’s now at 28 so I am not going to reply to everyone but I have had a skim of the past view pages and will try to address as many of the points as I can.

The 3 main arguments against as I see it are the “rape scenario”, eugenics and that it is the woman’s right. All three I covered in the first few pages of this thread, the first two do not justify the murder of an innocent child, the third is unfair as the human rights of the mother are taking precedence over the human rights of the child. These views may disgust you, what should disgust you more is the killing of kids because they are a incontinence for their promiscuous amoral parents.

The use of the word genocide in the OP has been brought up quite allot, I find it funny that you supposedly intelligent people have to all run to the same website to quote me a definition, but couldn’t give me the definition of the top of your heads. To me genocide is the organised mass murder of a specific group in society that is being discriminated against in some way because of their cultural, religious or ethnic origin but in addition to this their age. A mass cull of the over 85’s for the purposes of population control would be called genocide, you all know it. As such I think it is reasonable to call the murder of 200,000 children genocide. If you don’t like that, if that does not fit in perfectly form the definition you have had to look up on your online dictionary tough, to me this acceptance and defence of mass abortion is just the same as defending the Rwanda genocide.

Quite a few people have pointed out that i am a man, well done. Does that mean I should have any less say in whether my kids life or die during the first 24 weeks of their lives? All of you liberals are all defenders of equality, where is the equality in arguing that because I am a man I have less of a say in the matter as you women. Also me being Scottish has nothing to do with any of this, why some of you have pointed out my nationality is beyond me.

Some people have rightly pointed out that for abortion to become illegal firstly the adoption system would have to be fixed. Also rightly pointed out is that a ban in abortion would not eliminate abortion all together, there would be illegal abortions. I would point out however that the number of children murdered would still fall, and that the state and society would not be funding and defending this murder as they are now, those getting and carrying out the abortions would be sentenced just like any other child killer.

Again people, please remember we are talking about the mass genocide of our children.


Stop calling it genocide dude. You sound ridiculous.

Also, if you cared so passionately about the subject you wouldn't 'skim past a couple of pages' (jn other words ignoring what people have to say on the matter) simply to post more provocative drivel.

Your ignorance has been ever present, and you've just all but outright admitted how ignorant and uninterested in the subject you are.

You are just out for a reaction, nothing more, nothing less.
edit on 24/2/11 by ALadInsane because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/2/11 by ALadInsane because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Squat
The more abortions the better. Try to keep it in the first trimester though.
We should just stop over-valuing human life, and this debate would be much easier.
People die and are born all the time.


Quite true.

So when will you be exiting existance?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


The example you cited is just a matter of judging probabilities, and does not invalidate my argument (the probability of the nun dying vs. the probability of your children running after you into the traffic etc..). Just like the risk pregnancies could be aborted even then (probability of two people, mother and a child dying vs. one people dying, only the child).



you are expecting that women to risk a heck of alot, and to be honest I have known some anti-abortionist who have put their money, their energy, their resources up to help those who are affected. they are too few and far between though. but...what about you???


Normal pregnancy of a healthy woman is not so risky as to justify murder on the grounds of threatening her life.
I am not an antiabortionist, I am prochoice (at least in the first three months of development, after that I am more or less prolife), but I am pointing out that this argument of human rights of the mother is fallacious. Prochoice people should concentrate on showing that a fetus or embryo is not a person, instead of premising it is and then trying to justify murder by rights of the mother. That is just putting munitions into the hands of the prolife movement. You cannot justify murder using quality of life arguments.


edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Here we go again! It's as if the world has been stuck in a King-esque, repetitive version of Hell since Roe V. Wade. People need to understand what the issue here really is. It is not about deciding at what point a fetus is alive or what the definition of murder is. This is about the freedom to excercise the liberty to make decisions for ones-self. I don't agree with abortion and certainly would never participate, however, I also feel just as strongly that it is not my place to make these decisions for other people. The irony is that the majority of the anti-abortionists are Christians or of some similiar ilk and you'd think they would be the first to shrug and say, "It's in God's hands," or some other such nonsense. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR ME, NOR I, YOU.
edit on 24-2-2011 by KM1000 because: added the word "me" after "for" in the last sentence



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


You disgust me you child killing defender.


Fellow ATSers, I say we cease to post on this thread and give it any more bumps that kevinunknown so clearly craves. He chooses his arguments extremely carefully, ignores the most coherent, and simply pops up every now and then to give his post a bump, and to make nasty little comments like the one above in order to spur on those who angrily oppose his 'beliefs'. I use that term loosely as I don't truly think he holds much stock in what he is actually saying. It's all for attention and to cause upset of one group or another (a read of his signature line post that he promotes is enough to reveal that).

I'm officially done with the the thread. He chooses not to discuss, but to preach and not to engage healthily, but to insult and provoke.

Please don't give him any more of your time.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ALadInsane
 


No, sorry, I recognise this as being abortion, I do not need to google for a definition of the word to know what genocide is, this is the mass murder of the unwanted children of our society, a clearly identifiable group that is being murdered every day.

If you support the murder of these children to me you are no better than those who do the killing.

This is not about reaction. This is about murder that you are defending.

A child can survive outside of the womb at 21 weeks, in the UK a child can be murdered in cold blood with the backing and funding of the state at 24 weeks. This is wrong. My conscious is clear.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

and, I am just pointing out....
that not all women are healthy, and even some healthy women will have complications.....
and if the quality of life issues compromise the mother's ability to properly take care of her present obligations, well, it can generate into a life or death issue!!! or lead to her children being taken away and put into foster care...of which, well, foster care, by what I hear, isn't that great!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 

if the family of that child has no insurance, very little money, ya know, just enough to not qualify to medicaid...just how long would that 21 week child live outside of her womb??? or would the medical profession give up rather quickly because they know that the bill will go unpaid??? and, well, what's the percentage of 21 week old babies that survive out of the womb??? it the chance of them surviving really worth the cost of the care?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Fox Molder
 


So you don’t even view a un born child as a living entity, well it is a living entity, it is not a it, it is a human being with a heartbeat. Following your line of thought the child could be killed at anytime during pregnancy. You disgust me you child killing defender.


I am pro choice and view that unborn fetus as a fetus and not a baby. Now...That being said, if a woman chooses to abort at 5 months and over, I would have to hope that it would be for a medical reason that would either be threatening to the mother's and or the fetus or would make the future baby live in a condition that no one would willingly want to live in regardless if said situation is mental, physical or environmental.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ALadInsane
 


Your argument is basically you disagree with me so your going to flame me for it. I don’t know what it is you keep going on about my cravings for attention, could it be that your jealous that no one cares about you fear mongering threads about terrorism (something that thread showed you know nothing about)

Your responses are just personal attacks because you didn’t like how I ousted you as a fear monger and educated you on why you were so wrong. Since then you have tried to flame all my threads, and you have failed.

Murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, this has nothing to do with me getting attention.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


This thread is specific to the UK, and in the UK that is not a issue.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join