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

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dawnstar

 

The failure of government gives no right to the taking of life.

reply to post by Fox Molder

 

ha! The choice of have sex has the risk of a child. You cannot deny that. It's its biological function. Redefining much? That is why we have protection. Your choice is there.

True, I can't deny it, you are absolutely right but truthfully no one refrains from having sex and most will take precautionary measures to net get pregnant but as we all know there are infinite variables that are factors in the decision to bare child or abort the pregnancy and some of those factors are absolutely validated reasons. I am with those that stand up and say that abortion is not birth control but I also know from life's experience that those that can not "afford" of have the capabilities to raise a a child that was not planned tend to not raise that child in a favorable environment.


Death is a result of being born. Live is a sexually transmitted disease resulting in death.
If you are going to die in the end, why can't you die before it even begins?

well, like I said, here in Virginia, it looks like it's quite possible that most of the abortion clinics will be shut down, the conservatives are trying to defund family planning, and well.....
if you want my opionion, if all those ladies out there who want to be able to chose how many kids they have, when they have them, and well, the right to abort them if they find the need to, well....
got to tell ya, if all those women who wanted to keep those rights, we to just sit down with their partner and explain to them ya, know, no birth control method is 100% effective, and they are starting to block access to affordable birth control and pregnancy always comes with risk, and if things get out of hand, it's quite possible that my right to protect myself will be blocked, well, I just see sex as too risky, so we aren't gonna do that anymore.......

I bet all this anti-abortion bit would just fade away...
I also bet there would be more rapes .....
thus, more people entitled to those abortions, because of rape....

Originally posted by Fox Molder
Death is a result of being born. Live is a sexually transmitted disease resulting in death.
If you are going to die in the end, why can't you die before it even begins?

One of the worst lines of thought ever. Seriously?

Face it, we'd all like to think that humans excercise wisdom when it comes to sex and reproduction. But we don't. Abortions, for the most part, exist because people can't live with the consequences of their actions. So, should these people be given the right to reproduce when clearly they don't want to or at a point in their life which makes them incapable of raising a child? I say, 'no', they shouldn't be given that right.

In my opinion, it would the moral obligation of society to tell these people that your right to reproduce is removed until you can show society that you raise a child responsibly.

Originally posted by Signals
I'd like to add that the Pro Life movement will continue to grow in numbers.

It's inevitable, the Pro Choice parents have killed the kids that they would have raised as Pro Choice.

War of attrition.

That never crossed my mind, interesting.

One undebatable truth here, is that those on the 'Pro-Life' end of the discussion are the only ones who treat this subject like it's a Black and White issue, which is it not. This is in almost all cases because they are blinded by Religion or their emotions, and neither of those things should come into play when having a serious discussion.

Originally posted by Jack Squat
One undebatable truth here, is that those on the 'Pro-Life' end of the discussion are the only ones who treat this subject like it's a Black and White issue, which is it not. This is in almost all cases because they are blinded by Religion or their emotions, and neither of those things should come into play when having a serious discussion.

You're joking right?

I see many on the pro-life side saying that abortion should be allowed in some cases. Very few on the pro-choice side will give any ground at all... her choice and that is that, no matter what the reason - can't get much more black and white.

Originally posted by Jack Squat
One undebatable truth here, is that those on the 'Pro-Life' end of the discussion are the only ones who treat this subject like it's a Black and White issue, which is it not. This is in almost all cases because they are blinded by Religion or their emotions, and neither of those things should come into play when having a serious discussion.

Oh, s'cuse us, we don't know Jack Squat.

We weren't familiar with your "rules of discussion".

Bernard Nathanson, Abortionist Turned Pro-Life Champion, Dies at 84

The timeliness and synchronicity, of his death, speaks volumes in light of this topic.

Wednesday, 23 February

Bernard Nathanson, Abortionist Turned Pro-Life Champion, Dies at 84
Wednesday, 23 February 2011 15:04


He was a prosperous abortionist and an influential force early in the movement to legalize abortion in America. But as Dr. Bernard Nathanson was brought face to face with the truth of what was happening when he helped women “terminate” their pregnancies, he had no choice but to abandon his “pro choice” platform and spend the rest of his days fighting for the unborn. On February 21, at the age of 84, Dr. Nathanson completed his life’s mission and met his creator. The cause of death was cancer, said his wife Christine.
Nathanson helped found the infamous National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America) in 1969, and estimated he had performed some 75,000 abortions before he quit in 1979 after becoming increasingly uneasy about the possibility that he was, in fact, guilty of murder.

The New York Times reported that in a 1974 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, Nathanson “described his growing moral and medical qualms about abortion,” writing that he was “deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

he was “deeply troubled by his my own increasing certainty that he had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths


“For the first time, we could really see the human fetus, measure it, observe it, watch it, and indeed bond with it and love it,” he recalled in his 1996 book The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind. “I began to do that.”

For some time he sat in total silence. And then he said, “Joe, do you realize what I have to face some day — 75,000 lives on my conscience? If I would admit outright the horror of what I was doing, I could not live with it. Someday I will face my judge with all those lives on my conscience. It’s almost too difficult to admit what I have done, so I have to approach my conversion in a way that will help me keep my sanity.”

I could see in his face that he was sincere — that his role as an abortionist and abortion promoter weighed on him more than he could express — and the only feeling I had for him was compassion. From that time on, we became good friends.

www.thenewamerican.com...

How can a women feel the movement of life in the womb and say it isn't alive,

One day in the future, mankind may very well look at this point in history, and declare us, barbarians.

reply to post by romanmel


SevenBeans is right. I have seen and heard many pro-life folks who accept abortion in the case of rape or incest. And, I have heard many times from the pro-choice camp not one thing against abortion. They always use the "a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body" reason.

I say remove the ability to reproduce until such time a person or persons can show that they want to and are capable or raising a child, and a majority of the arguments for abortion go away.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I do believe that the quickening doesn't occur till the 5th or 6 month.....
I also believe that most abortions occur before anything is felt.....

reply to post by dawnstar


Yes, I do have a right to tell the "whore" not to. Because again., Right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the law of the land. her pursuit of happiness for financial gain does not invalidate life as a result. Life is the highest priority. When that life produced threatens another life, it has no right to that life in legal terms.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


would solve the "I don't want to pay child support, she tricked me" problem also...
just sterilize the boys and the girls soon after birth, (reversable of course), and well, the gov't can decide just who should or shouldn't have kids, and depending on the current need for population replenishment, some can have their sterilization reversed! make it hard and difficult to get approval, so well, only those who really want to have a kid will got through it to get one....

but, then you risk having most everyone deciding not to have kids, and a falling population, so well...what do we do then, force some to have kids???

reply to post by Gorman91

so....just where does a gov't that raises up armies and sends them around the world to kill thousand stand in your mix????

what about her right to be able to walk, her right to be able to see.....
does she have those, I mean, it might be kind of hard to be happy, if one can't get out of bed while three kids are screaming and tearing each other apart in the other room while fighting for the last morsels of food!!!
and what about the right that those kids have....don't they deserve to have a healthy mother is such a disability could be avoided?

reply to post by VI0811



Ok, so up until now, I haven't created an account have just lurked these forums for almost a year. This thread however required me to say something. To the author of this post.... Are you honestly insinuating that because of potential problems in the adoption process which could result in an "unpleasant experience" to a potential adoptive couple, it makes it better to just end the life of a child? It's people like you that allow the hollow, soulless, attitude in this country that is contributing to issues like the demoralization and dehumanization of the people, and a myriad of other issues resulting from our desire to eliminate anything "inconvenient", or "unpleasant" from our everyday lives. Even at the expense of another human life.

The fact that this is even a debated subject in a "civilized" world sickens me...The fact that people like yourself think : Well.. adoptive couples could have a financial burden and potential emotional trauma....sooo uh... I guess its better just to eliminate the "problem" is disturbing. And no, I can't personally support all these children but there comes a point where financial feasibility have to take a backseat to the most basic of human rights LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If people don't WAKE UP soon, and take a stand against the MURDER of our countries children, how can we ever expect to effectively govern ourselves in any kind of environment that is at all deserving of the gift of human life? Regarding the issue of "reasons" for abortion in certain instances , rape, incest, danger to the mother, etc. how does the atrocity of one act condone another? Is it that childs fault? oh wait, you people in your infinite wisdom seem to assert that that CHILD isnt really a human being deserving of basic human rights in the womb, so tell me oh wise ones, when EXACTLY is that baby a human life?

Since those in favor of the choice of abortion want so desperately to play God, I encourage you, go ahead and do so, because you will find that God doesn't like competition, and in the end all those who stood by and watched this happen will have to answer to a power that doesn't care about your convenient faux truth that you use to justify atrocity, and in the end will truly show you the meaning of justice.

OK. I don't beleive a featus as any kind of right. It hasn't come into the world yet and can't live with out the mother. I think it's totally up to the her and if she feels that she needs to discus it with her partner and need to have his/her approval then so be it. I don't beleive it should be used as birth control. It's not genocide...that's just ignorant to advertisse it as such. And as far as rape goes, I think the abortion should be encouraged. Why spread rapist genes around. Bottom line, you hate abortions, shut up and let women make their own dicisions.

I think that abortion is a choice to be made by the mother or father or both. I don't think its the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancies, but do understand how it can be used to assist some who believe they are not fit to be parents. Some situations I think can be expectable.
if the mother was raped and doesn't want the child
If the parents are ill with viral/bacterial infections that can spread to unborn causing harm
If perhaps the female is too young to become a mother -adoption I think works best for these situations-, unless she is so young that her body isn't able to produce the hormonal balance to conceive a safe and healthy baby
And though based on maturity level of parents, if both parents see unfit to bring forth their creation due to whatever personal reasons.

Now I do not think its the best option since some can do adoption. But to some adoption can seem really discomforting when considering birthing the child and giving it away. So I feel it depends on the situation at hand.

I think there should be global guidelines for performing abortions because it seems the age of the fetus at 24 weeks is too far developed TO ME AT LEAST to be trying to destroy. I'm saying if the parent or parents knew they where gonna get rid of the seed then why wait so far. I am not saying that the destruction of a 4 week to 6 week fetus is any less of an issue but after so many weeks there are more sensory locations to feel pain and who knows if the developed fetus can feel after these sensors or developed. With that I feel the babies at that stage are too far to be tampered with and shouldn't be.

Again abortion is a very sensitive situation and its understood that every situation has its own unique attributes that guide the decisions. But after so many weeks it should be illegal to perform.

Now to compare it to genocide OP I can see your point but I related genocide more less to wars between groups. With the sole intent of killing off another particular group. Abortion is sensitive it involves more emotion and strength if its decided to be done. So I don't feel the two topics in the OP are the same. 1 is an intentional death sentences placed on a group by another group. The other is a social/health issue related to bad decision making, unwanted encounters, maturity levels and just plain bad judgment. Again I see the OP point that the numbers are alarming........

Be well

reply to post by Fox Molder


Financial situations are null for right to life.

When questioning life, the only thing that is related is will it end another life. Nothing more, nothing less. The additional question is was liberty terminated in its formation. If the liberty of another was, then the life that comes from a result is as well, in legal terms. personally I'm against all of it. But my personal opinion cannot govern law. only cold hard logic. It's a flow graph. Life is the most important. Liberty the second question. And the pursuit of happiness a subsidiary element to consider.
You have a life. Did it come about as an act of perusing happiness and in perfect liberty. If so, it has a right to life. However, is this perfectly legitimate act of liberty and pursuit of happiness results in the life being threatened, then legally it is understandable to end it. I'm not going to say its right under any case. I'm just saying it's understandable. In the same way killing a gunman before he can shoot up a bunch of people is not right, bur rather, understandable to preserve the lives of those who wold be gunned down. A much more preferable method would be his capture and rehabilitation. In as much as the most preferred situation would be the capturing and removal of that baby and allowing it to rehabilitate outside the womb, but this is not always an option.

thus we have an object-oriented design of law. The best method possible. pro choice cam about when two people decided to have sex and understand the risk. They decided that enough precautions were taken. Then they decided to have it. If they were retarded and decided to go ahead and do it live without any protection, they have no right to terminate that life. If it was rape, then liberty was forfeited for another's pursuit of happiness. Thus the life as a result has no legal protection to be born. Again, this is subjective logic-based law. No morals, f them. No religion, remove it. Simple. precisely designed logical laws.

reply to post by dawnstar


Stop that at once is where it stands. A government's highest priority is the protection of its people and following the laws of society. of them, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, the fact that this government has failed miserably does not nullify the laws that govern it nor the right to life. To do so is called barbarianism.

reply to post by kevinunknown


The primary issue here is not "your personal opinion" of what should, or should not be offered to others. The main issue should be whether another person's "choice," or "free will" is being infringed upon by the restrictive and short-sided opinions of someone like yourself. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Plain and simple.

The minute you decide to infringe upon the free will of others, you are in gross contradiction with Universal Law. This whole thread is nothing more than a sensationalist attempt to divide one person's belief against another so that said author can get his daily dose of "adversity" in which he feeds. I have been following ATS for a long time before joining and have seen many of the threads created by "kevinunknown." All of Kevin's threads are created with the sole purpose of promoting division and anger. The question is, are you going to bite on this nonsense, or are you going to save your intellect and knowledge for a thread of conscience and substance?

Again, the real issue is NOT abortion. The REAL issue is "FREE CHOICE," which seems to be something that Kevinunknown is quite against. His last major gem of a thread involved the idea of taking away U.S. citizens' choices and RIGHTS of gun ownership. Mr. Kevinunknown doesn't even live in America. In fact, he lives in the UK where rights are being stomped upon regularly, but somehow he believes he should have a voice in how American laws should operate. If you were an American Kevin, you would have that right...until then, you should keep your borderline fascist views in the UK where they prevail.

Once you lobby against CHOICE, there will be a day when a law is created that will infringe upon your OWN free will.

reply to post by SevenBeans



Admitting that there is an element of choice that needs to be considered eliminates the "black and white" aspect from the equation. It's not as simple as right and wrong.