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

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Sadly, that does happen. Some women I'm sure might not have known they were pregnant.

I can't judge anyone else's actions. Who am I to say if it is right or wrong?

Other people's choices about abortion do not affect my life.

edit on 25-2-2011 by worlds_away because: (no reason given)

Who are you to say if it is right or wrong for someone to kill a one week old baby???


That is sick.


But you demonstrate why most people decide to run away from the thread rather than answers my questions...most people aren't willing to put out there that they are ok with killing babies. And that is where my questions will lead to.

I give you credit for answering...but it is disturbing that you are ok with someone killing a one week old baby...absolutely disgusting.

Obviously I’d rather it was left at a church or hospital. What I said was “who am I to judge someone who kills their baby”. I really try hard to not judge other people’s actions when I cannot understand them.

If you we’re looking for an answer about whether I am ok with killing babies, I’m pretty sure I answered that on page 4ish.

And furthermore, look back over your posts and you will see why people left this thread. Some of them were “absolutely disgusting”.

Alright, I am new to ATS. I do not want to make enemies, but this topic seems to be of the kind that can attract them. I have read up to page 14, and then skipped to the last page to see if anyone provided an answer to this simple question: If the man does not want to take responsibility, but the woman wants to keep the baby, why should the man have to pay? It does not seem that anyone has provided a satisfactory answer thus far (up to page 14, anyways).
One particular poster continually brought up the point that it is legally a woman's unilateral choice whether or not she gets to keep the baby, so if she decides to keep the baby, why should the man have to pay? I know that it takes both the man and the woman to create the baby, but it is also within both of their powers to use contraception or to choose not to have sex at all. And then, in the other situation, if the woman wants to abort, but the man wants to keep the baby, the woman is, again, making the unilateral choice.
Why should the man not have a say? It is the woman's body, of course, and this can (in some viewpoints) be said to negate the man's desire to keep the baby. However, one scenario should not be allowed unless both are allowed. If a woman is allowed to abort the baby against the man's will, then the man should be allowed to abandon his responsibility (although that is not a nice thing to do, and something that would not happen in a "perfect" world).
If both scenarios are not allowed, then no one can logically say that men and women have "equal" rights. There is no emotion involved in this argument at all, only logic (except for the part where I mentioned the "perfect" world, that is just my opinion). I would really like for someone to answer my question. Thank You.

Originally posted by MindSpin
And another one runs away without answering ANY of my questions.


I understand...if you answer my questions...your positions becomes indefensible.


I would hope some could show a little honesty instead of just claiming victory and running away.


If you would like...we could go to the formal debate forum to have this conversation. I've asked others as well...no takers yet.

Again, where did anybody claim "victory"? Seriously, it's clear, for all to see, that nobody has done that. There is no victory to be claimed on an online discussion forum, we're just here to voice our opinions. The real victory was achieved with Roe vs. Wade. You're team lost. Now all you can do is spend all of your time, not with your (supposed) wife and kids, but on a conspiracy forum pushing your beliefs in an arrogant and off putting manner. Don't you see how sad you truly are? Go back and look at just the past few pages, as you accuse others of being obsessed.

In all actuality, you're the one who's claiming victory. Declaring others are "running away" because they are tired of going round and round with an arrogant little internet man who pretends to be interested in hearing opposing views, but obviously isn't. There is nothing anybody can say, that will change your mind. That's obvious. You seem to just want an argument, but most of us have better things to do. You truly are the troll under the bridge on this thread, I'm sure others will pass through though, and engage you for a while, but will probably "run away" when they realize they've been corralled into an endless back and forth.

Running away now. You're # 1, champ.

Originally posted by grahag
I'm sorry, this isn't a debate. I can't continue any longer. I've explained my position multiple times and as simplistic terms as I'm able.

I agree with you 100% ......... that's why i left this thread sometime ago ........I beiieve this

is what is known as 'trolling'???

I am sure that every other woman on this thread will join me in commiserating with

MRS. MINDSET for she must be well controlled and down trodden and I'm sure all our

sympathies are with her

Originally posted by 44247844
If a woman is allowed to abort the baby against the man's will, then the man should be allowed to abandon his responsibility (although that is not a nice thing to do, and something that would not happen in a "perfect" world).

Well, perhaps soon science will make it possible for the man to carry the child himself...

en.wikipedia.org...

Doctors say ectopic implantation is plausible in males, they just haven't done any human trials, since it's dangerous. Perhaps some of the anti-choice males on this thread can put their money where their mouth is, and volunteer to carry a child like a male seahorse. Maybe that will pave the way for men to have more of a choice when it comes to abortion...

Welcome to ATS.

That is interesting, 27jd. If this is ever fully implemented, I am sure that it will cause a lot of other abortion issues. However, if you do not mind, could you give me your opinion of the answer to the question that I posed? Thank You for the welcome, and Thank You for your response.

Originally posted by 44247844
However, if you do not mind, could you give me your opinion of the answer to the question that I posed?

Well, that's a really tough question. I'm honestly on the fence about it. As men, we tend to be the ones who instigate sex, and make all kinds of promises and profess our undying love for a woman, until they give us what we're after. Then we can just walk away scott free, leaving them with the lifetime committment to burden on their own? Perhaps one compromise would be, if a man gets a woman pregnant, and wants to "opt out" legally early in the pregnancy, he should undergo a mandated vasectomy and sign away any visitation rights or decision making in the raising of the child. Since again, men can and often do go around spreading their seed all over with different women (it's in our biology), and when he walks away, those women and children become the burden of the taxpayer receiving welfare. How is that fair to society as a whole?

Alright, 27jd, thank you for your honest opinion. However, depending on your's and other's sensibilities, people may begin to get offended at this point. Believe me when I say that this is not intentional, and I am simply taking points that other people have made in the 14 pages that I read and re-stating them to play as many sides as possible (although I will likely seem biased since some of the points were coming from people who obviously have their own view).
Although one can say that men "instigate" sex most of the time, unless it is rape, it is still entirely the woman's decision whether or not they choose to have sex. I believe a previous poster (a woman, I believe) was taking offense to the fact that some people were responding in a manner that made it seem like women were incapable of making their own decisions (not only about abortion, but about deciding whether or not to have sex).
Now, about the point that you made about a mandatory vasectomy. Someone who is "pro-choice" (not that I am saying that you are or are not "pro-choice") may or may not find that this type of law sits well with them. However, it would not be logical for someone who is "pro-choice" to stand for this type of law. However, humans are obviously emotional creatures, so I can see how someone could feel one way about one subject and another way about a very similar subject.
As to my thoughts on the subject, I believe that your idea seems to be a good one, although I believe that it would violate the Constitution of the US, and may violate other laws in place in other countries. Of course, even in the event that such a law were made legal, implementation would be another problem (although that is besides the point). However, I would appreciate any other opinions that others would have as to the answer to my question. Thank You.

reply to post by eletheia


He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I wouldn't choose abortion if I was a woman, BUT, I would never say that someone else couldn't do it as long as they were within the confines of the law. It's not murder and it's definitely not genocide, but it is the killing of a fetus. Hard to mistake where I stand, but I appreciate the support.

reply to post by 44247844


You're right, it's a tough call. If everybody were able to just act responsibly, we wouldn't be having these discussions. But, of course that isn't the way it is. The irony is, poverty stricken people that have no way to support children, seem to have the most of them. The men end up in prison, dead, or just walk out, and the women become dependent on state welfare and actually live well on social handouts, abuse the system getting food stamps, cash assistance, grants, etc. and blow it all on expensive food, and items for themselves (not their children), while those of us who work foot the bill with our taxes. There are so many angles and variables when it comes to irresponsible people having children, but in the end, our society collectively pays the price. Things can't continue the way they are...

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

I'm guessing that in that case not only is he screwed, but OUR relationship as well.

Yes...if my girlfriend killed my child...I would say the relationship is over.

In fact...if I knew my girlfreind killed her own child previously...the relationship is over. Why would I want to date someone who kills their own child???

Would you date her if she had a child, say a infant or toddler?

What would be a good abortion?

Originally posted by WhateverHappens
What would be a good abortion?

Well if a child were horrifically damaged in it's development, to the point there is little chance it would survive and the mothers life was in clear danger i would consider that a good abortion.

reply to post by MindSpin


MindSpin you speak of people running away but that isn't what is happening, they simply get tired of typing the same thing over and over, like myself i replied to you, answered your questions and you basically repeated the same questions as a reply. So then i had to type the same replies just in a different way.

It gets very tiresome and is ultimately pointless to continue with such a person.

One issue that has been sidestepped by all the pro-lifers...
That of enforced pregnancy.

Mindspin thinks that once a woman is pregnant that her body is no longer her own.
That she absolutely must carry to term.

I'd like to know how he concluded that the fetus has a right to enslave its host.

He obviously believes in Slavery.
Since he gives her no alternative, this is Enforced Slavery, which is an act of Violence.
He violates her human rights.
And it is a violation of International Law.

Originally posted by OhZone
One issue that has been sidestepped by all the pro-lifers...
That of enforced pregnancy.

Mindspin thinks that once a woman is pregnant that her body is no longer her own.
That she absolutely must carry to term.

I'd like to know how he concluded that the fetus has a right to enslave its host.

He obviously believes in Slavery.
Since he gives her no alternative, this is Enforced Slavery, which is an act of Violence.
He violates her human rights.
And it is a violation of International Law.

Oh my, the world truly has gone mad.
However did we get to the point where a pregnant woman is some one who has been enslaved by an alien host?

Originally posted by 44247844
Alright, I am new to ATS. I do not want to make enemies, but this topic seems to be of the kind that can attract them. I have read up to page 14, and then skipped to the last page to see if anyone provided an answer to this simple question: If the man does not want to take responsibility, but the woman wants to keep the baby, why should the man have to pay? It does not seem that anyone has provided a satisfactory answer thus far (up to page 14, anyways).

I'm guessing "We the people". . . decided that's it's either the biological father or the taxpayer.

They decided the taxpayer shouldn't pay of course.

Your question is about child support though not about abortion.

One particular poster continually brought up the point that it is legally a woman's unilateral choice whether or not she gets to keep the baby, so if she decides to keep the baby, why should the man have to pay?

The woman can decide to not chase him for child support. I think.

Why should the man not have a say? It is the woman's body, of course, and this can (in some viewpoints) be said to negate the man's desire to keep the baby. However, one scenario should not be allowed unless both are allowed.

Thing is certain laws trump other laws.

Pregnant womans Bodily integrity > .Father's "right" (which doesn't exist) to tell to abort or not to abort.

For example a woman cannot be forced to undergo an operation she refuses to even if it might mean the death of her unborn.

Womans bodily integrity > Unborn's bodily integrity.

On the face of it the man is getting the short end of the stick. But by the same token of allowing him to have a say to abort or not to abort would trump her bodily integrity.

---

How many pro-lifers want fathers to have a say in pregnancies? I bet only the ones who think the only "say" he has is the one that correlates to their agenda. . . amirite? yes, I am.

Originally posted by geekyone
However did we get to the point where a pregnant woman is some one who has been enslaved by an alien host?

The point was always there.

Removing the rights of privacy involved in abortion is basically a proposition that

- a womans body can be invaded without her consent

- and she has no say in the matter being denied the ability to make her own decisions regarding the use of her own body

- her specific objections being ignored and disregarded.

Kind of like if we took you and injected an alien inside your body, then legally prevented you from having it removed. . . kind of what happens to rape victims who get pregnant and then denied an abortion. Make sense?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by MindSpin

 

MindSpin you speak of people running away but that isn't what is happening, they simply get tired of typing the same thing over and over, like myself i replied to you, answered your questions and you basically repeated the same questions as a reply. So then i had to type the same replies just in a different way.

It gets very tiresome and is ultimately pointless to continue with such a person.

Oh so true - - and exactly.

I already told MindSpin - - he's crossing the line into bullying.

He doesn't debate - - - he swings a big Bully Hammer - - with some kind of thought he's going to wear down opposition - - until they agree with him.

Nope. Said what I had to say. Don't need to repeat it.