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: 35
40
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Actualy, it should be her choice to have it done or not. In that respect, yes it is black and white. But the reasons to have it done is not so black and white. What ever the reason, I do beleive it is their choice and only their choice. Not yours, not the government, not her neigbours, her choice, it's her body. I will say again though. It should not be used as birth control. But then again it's not my choice.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RustyCage
 
a tumor is technically alive also, and well, you seem to be saying that the mother should be forced to risk death since the baby is "innocent"...
tell ya what, you ever get a tumor, I don't expect any of my taxmoney going to killing that poor, defenseless turmor either!!!

everyone, has a god given right to protect their health and well being, from the maniac with a knife, from a the tumor...(as long as he can pay for the medical care), and well, from a pregnancy if need be!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
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???


Soon after birth is too soon medically speaking. And, as I have stated many, many times before, it wouldn't entirely be the government's decision. Reproduction right is based on an individual or individuals requesting the right to reversal. At such time, the candidates would undergo examination (physical, emotional, mental) and case study to determine if they are ready.

Save for the physical examination, this is what most prospective adoptive parents already go through.

The standards should be fair and not so discreminating to prevent people from having a child who really want one.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Squat
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.


I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.

You either believe it should be legal for a woman to abort no matter what the reason, never, or only in certain circumstances.

It seems to me the pro-life side tends to be more "only in certain circumstances" while the pro-choice side seems to be more "legal no matter what."

I see hardly anyone saying that it should always be banned no matter what.


edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Seeing that we are all Gods and we can all decide I guess that this subject is now irrelevant !

Pro-Life or Pro-choice we as humans either have those rights or we don't.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


I dunno man (woman?), I haven't talked with EVERY Pro-lifer and Pro-choicer in the world, but I haven't met too many Pro-life people who are willing to give any ground. Hell, there's enough of them that are against contraceptives and the morning after pill, and that says something.

I've also never seen a Pro-choice billboard, but I've seen plenty Pro-life billboards forcing their beliefs in my face.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I feel sorry for you if you honestly believe there is no differentiation between the life of a human and the life of a tumor... but then again ripping things out of context, and sweeping generalizations are generally a favored tactic of those grasping for justification in things which they know in their heart are wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Squat
I dunno man (woman?), I haven't talked with EVERY Pro-lifer and Pro-choicer in the world, but I haven't met too many Pro-life people who are willing to give any ground.


Well most of the pro-life people right on this thread seem to think that abortion should be allowed at least in some circumstances... most of the pro-choice people seem to think it should be allowed no matter what the reason for it is. Maybe you should pay more attention?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


IMHO it is a black and white issue, why not?

Either the fetus is a human person, then all human rights apply to it, and then the only thing where we can even begin to consider killing it is when it endangers anothers right to life. No abortion allowed in case of rape and incest, not even talking about more trivial reasons.

Or the fetus in not a human person, therefore no human rights apply to it (like unconscious animals or things), and we can allow abortion for whatever reason the owner of it (mother) deems sufficient.

I really see no middleground.

Prolifers which claim the fetus is a human person such as a born baby, but allow abortion in case of rape and incest are really hypocrites. You cannot kill a baby after birth because it is the result of rape.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Squat
 


I think it is. Killing is wrong. You have all the perfectly good preventiveness items out there. Countless choices. Failure to head them really puts you up against a wall. That wall divides black and white. You want to kill to get where you're going? You're going over that wall.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RustyCage
 



the differences aren't the point I am making, if they have on particular similarity......mainly, they can both cause the death of the person it's living in....well, they both have the same possible result....
death!!!
we, as a society, should be willing to put just as much value in the life of that mother as we do the person who has the tumor in such cases, and be willing to go the same extent to save them...
you chose to deny the women the medical care that she needs to survive a wayward abortion, then don't ask me to pitch in and pay for you if a tumor comes you way!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


I didn't read every page of this thread... I didn't read many in fact. This thread does not represent the general consensus among Pro-Lifers. In all reality, I'm sure many of the Pro-life folks on here probably conceded that there are instances when it's acceptable simply because they had no other way to refute the points made by Pro-choice people.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I haven't real all 30ish pages of this but I do want to give my own thoughts.

1) Every time a woman gets pregnant and chooses to go through child birth she is putting her life at risk. Child birth is tough on the body, can lead to a lot of complications, ie: Pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, anemia, PPD, back injury Gestational Diabetes...

2) I assume OP is male, It is my belief males do not have any say in abortion, why? Never will they experience child birth, never will they know the pain and complications that can happen during pregnancy. How can men make accurate decisions based off something so serious that they themselves cannot fully understand.

3) Religion should stay out of this debate. (plain and simple) Unless we all have a unified religion then there is no reason religion should be in the debate

4) Enough with these Stupid threads. We all know how they end Mods have to step in shut the topic down because the Pro-lifers and Pro-Choice, start with the mud slinging and stupidity.

5) this is the last I promise, Abortion isn't birth control in anyway. It is an added medical procedure for women who are not ready to have children. Some women need to work and their jobs prevent them from being able to get pregnant. As well children who have parents who don't teach them about safe sex or their school doesn't offer it, shouldn't be forced to go through the trauma of child birth. Finally Rape victims are fully entitled to an abortion, its not their fault they got raped, and why should they have to deal with the consequences. That's just throwing salt on the wounds.

My thoughts,
Xiamara



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


If you think killing is wrong, then you better not step on an ant, blow your nose, or masturbate, because insects, germs and organisms are alive too. A life is a life right?

Sorry, but life isn't that simple and abortion is a far more complicated subject than right and wrong.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Jack Squat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Prolifers which claim the fetus is a human person such as a born baby, but allow abortion in case of rape and incest are really hypocrites. You cannot kill a baby after birth because it is the result of rape.


It isn't necessary to say that the unborn deserve exactly the same ethical consideration as a born baby, in order to place restrictions on ending the unborn's life.

A brand new human life (unborn) is not either (a) a useless lump of cells akin to a parasite or tumor or (b) an entity which deserves exactly the same ethical consideration as a fully sentient human being.

That is a false choice, the unborn human life should not be given exactly the same ethical considerations as either of those things (because it's different).
edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Squat
I didn't read every page of this thread... I didn't read many in fact. This thread does not represent the general consensus among Pro-Lifers. In all reality, I'm sure many of the Pro-life folks on here probably conceded that there are instances when it's acceptable simply because they had no other way to refute the points made by Pro-choice people.


Or they might just think that a mother should in fact have the right to abort to save her life for example (?)... yup, I think that's it.
edit on 24-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


So you say that the fetus or embryo is an entity which does not deserve full human rights, yet deserves some of them, its kind of half-human when it comes to inalienable human rights. Which rights it then deserves, which dont, and why?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


In some cases yes.
But that actually says something as well. If it's okay to abort in the instance that giving birth will kill the mom, then Pro-lifers are admitting that when it comes down to it, a born human is more valuable than an unborn human.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


it's a lump of cells, a big question mark, has great potential, but even in the best of circumstances might never make it the nine months and get to see the world! it could become the next mozart, or the next hitler, or, well, it could become something rather similar to a tumor and sap the life out of the host!
yes, those cells could become a human being, but many don't make it that far, naturally, it's just the potential...and in some cases, those cells could become a murderer, even before it's born, thus ensuring that it never makes it into the world!

and well, a century ago or so, many more women died in childbirth in my country, probably yours also. it's always attributed to the improvements in healthcare. but one of those improvements is the ability to detect problems before they become life threatening and take measures (abort) to prevent death....
so, well, anyone care to take a guess as to how many more childbirth deaths there would be without abortion???



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Squat
 


If all you are doing is stepping on ants, and masturbating, then yes. You are crushing life as if it is nothing, and indeed, with purpose to its destruction. indeed that is wrong. Life is indeed that simple. Human life even simpler: We're human. We have a right.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join