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: 66
40
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
And never did I say all life was precious to me...I fully admit that human life takes precedence over all other life. But for some reason...you keep trying to create that Strawman that I think all life should be treated the same.


No. I'm simply pointing out that not all of us share your feeling that human life takes precedence over all other life. You keep trying to create the strawman that everybody else is creating strawmen. Do you have any idea how many times you've used that cliche in this thread? I've lost count.



The way that you will willingly ignore science to desperately hang on to your indefensible argument is humorous to watch...please continue.


No, I'm truly done with you. You're not the judge, you're a troll, and I'm done feeding you. The law agrees with those of us who feel a woman has the right to choose. I declare victory.

edit on 28-2-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The only way I will ever take a stand to deny a woman an abortion is if she was a willing participant in the act and in the sole event that she is in full control of her capabilities and capacities, ie if she dropped her pants and was penetrated willingly then she must keep the kid but if her pants were ripped off of her against her will she should have every right to get one.


What about birth control failure?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


You would rather see a kid killed than abandoned at a train station? How crazy is that? Just because the kid may not seem to have a bright future, let's kill him.

So if I'm a teacher and I see that one of my kids is not bright and does not have a chance at a great life in the future I should recommend them being put down? Weird line of thought here. Some of you people sound programmed or something.

So many important people have come from NOTHING. Some of the greatest people that have had a positive influence in my life had deplorable living conditions in their youth. I am so happy that they weren't killed before they were born just because they were going to have a hard childhood.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


If the regiment failed but she did willingly take it prior and it failed to work then she should be entitled to recieve the "Morning after" regiment if she wishes. Same stance also applies to a break in a condom.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
If the regiment failed but she did willingly take it prior and it failed to work then she should be entitled to recieve the "Morning after" regiment if she wishes. Same stance also applies to a break in a condom.


Oral contraceptive failure isn't as obvious as a broken condom. A woman wouldn't know it failed until her first missed period. The morning after regiment wouldn't work for that...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by abaraikenshi

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by abaraikenshi
Subject: Woman doesn't want to have the baby.

Answers:

1. Woman goes on a self-destructive streak to try and terminate baby, by means of alcohol, drugs, physical abuse, but as a result of karma, (or whatever superstitious force you happen to believe in) the baby comes out retarded and his/her quality of life is below any of us?

2. Woman goes to the abortion clinic where the baby is then aborted and she moves on with her life.


Clearly the only options...


Of course there are other options, genius...Coincidentally, there just MAY...and I'm going out on a hunch here, MAY be a woman who does NOT want to go through the child birthing stage in their life which leaves but 1 choice, can you guess it!?! *Flaps arms wildly through the air* tada! Abortion! Telling her she can put it up for adoption wouldn't hold any merit if she didn't want to go through with the pregnancy.

Besides, some speculate that being pregnant and having the baby after 9 long, grueling months could be worse emotionally than to abort it.


Asking someone which they would prefer out of those 2 options is like saying that some one is suicidal would you prefer them to A, shoot themselves or B take poison?

Obviously the answer is neither, go and help them.

Also abortion does not mean that you don't have to go through childbirth as some methods cause you to go through labour and deliver the (dead) baby.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



No. I'm simply pointing out that not all of us share your feeling that human life takes precedence over all other life. You keep trying to create the strawman that everybody else is creating strawmen. Do you have any idea how many times you've used that cliche in this thread? I've lost count.


Do you know how many times you have tried to use a strawman?

First you came in trying to paint me and others as religious extremeist...even though we never brought up religion. You built up your strawman of claiming we are religous extremist and you took down that strawman in the exact same posts.

Example, your very first words in this thread...directed to me:

Normally, religious fanatic, anti-choicers (not "pro-life" since most support war and the death penalty) are unable to keep their opinions and condemnation to themselves. It's physically impossible for them. But, as time marches on and the masses move away from religious extremism, their influence diminishes further and further, and they get louder and louder in their death throes. Just ignore them.


And then over and over and over. Remember...you were the one to bring up religion in this discussion...none of us who are arguing against abortion. Think of that...and then read these quotes and try to understand how this is a strawman.


You may be trying to dance around it, but I'm quite sure you're a religious extremist.



Yeah, quite sure. You haven't stated that you're not religious.



your position comes from religious indoctrination, no matter how much you try and deny it. Show me one non-religious poster here who is arguing on the anti-choice side



because you've been told what to think probably your entire life. If you feel human life is superior, fine. Good for you, don't have an abortion. Your god will smile upon you.



I'll let you religious extremists yell at your screen some more.



You sir, are full of fail.



No, I'm truly done with you. You're not the judge, you're a troll, and I'm done feeding you. The law agrees with those of us who feel a woman has the right to choose. I declare victory.


Some of us don't always agree that the law is correct.

Neither did slaves.

Neither did women when they couldn't vote.

Neither did blacks during the civil rights fight.


Being in agreement of the law, doesn't mean that you are correct.


Somehow I doubt you are "done with me"....



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by abaraikenshi
 





...and I'm going out on a hunch here, MAY be a woman who does NOT want to go through the child birthing stage in their life which leaves but 1 choice, can you guess it!?!


hm.. caesarean section?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Yet I bet most of the anti-abortion lot couldn't give a rats tail when their governments blow up a school in the middle of some country they've never heard of... So hypocritical and self righteous.


Are you just saying that to help the Pro-Lifers? I mean, it was such an obvious generalization, associating two totally different issues. Why? Because you find your argument more sound if you can connect the one opposing your side to something sinister such as blowing up a middle school?

What kind of hate/bitterness do you have to possess in order to accuse people of that? I could point out the same ironies about Pro-Choice people even though they would not be true. Here... let me give it a shot (I'll even try to sound like the religious biggot you try to paint us all as):

"Ah say, uh, ah say uh! Them Pro-Choicers wanna kill other people when they're young and strip their rights away yet they lobby and fight for the rights of algae in a pond that's being drained! Good laaaawd, they must all be heartless bureaucrats who want to make my children either dead or gay!"

See? Not fair, is it? Nor is it true. I know the word "strawman" is getting thrown around a lot but so are the straw man arguments. It's not like the word is just fun to say.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
It seems to me that this whole argument boils down to a couple of things.
Firstly, abortion is wrong if you are religious.
Secondly, abortion is wrong if you subscribe to the myth that human life is sacred, which sort of ties into the first point.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is, nobody sets out to get pregnant just so they can abort a fetus.
Every woman that has an abortion does so because they believe they are doing the "right" thing.
Thats about all there is to the whole argument.
I'm sorry to annoy anyone, but there is no eveidence that human life is any more "sacred" than any other living entity, be it a cow, pig, mushroom, sunflower, sheep, ebola virus or tumor.

If you think that sounds heartless, just imagine frightening an uneducated pregnant woman from a third world country with full blown aids into going full term with her baby, just so the baby can suffer before it dies, rather than terminating it before it had to suffer, now that's heartless.

Just my tuppence worth.

Peace.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 



The only way I will ever take a stand to deny a woman an abortion is if she was a willing participant in the act and in the sole event that she is in full control of her capabilities and capacities, ie if she dropped her pants and was penetrated willingly then she must keep the kid but if her pants were ripped off of her against her will she should have every right to get one.


So in 98% of the cases of abortion...you are against it...right?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I honestly don't think those that are using these types of arguments understand exactly why it is fallacious and is a strawman argument.

So many have been used...that as we point them out it sounds like we are just throwing the term around...but as you pointed out...so are the strawmen.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 



Every woman that has an abortion does so because they believe they are doing the "right" thing.


The right thing for who?

For herself or for her unborn child?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 



Every woman that has an abortion does so because they believe they are doing the "right" thing.


The right thing for who?

For herself or for her unborn child?


Maybe both, either, or.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 


I think it is dishonest to claim to know what is best for an unborn child.

No one can see the future...no one can determine what type of life that child will have.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 


I think it is dishonest to claim to know what is best for an unborn child.

No one can see the future...no one can determine what type of life that child will have.


It would depend on the circumstances on each individual case, If you know the fetus is going to suffer if it goes full term, then it is kinder to abort it.
I am curious as to why you refer to it as a child, I was under the understanding that it would be a fetus that is aborted, not a child.
A potential life is not the same as a life, if that was the case, every bout of onanism, or wet dream would be murder. So would the use of contraception.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 



It would depend on the circumstances on each individual case, If you know the fetus is going to suffer if it goes full term, then it is kinder to abort it.


And how do you determine if it is going to "suffer" for it's entire life? Are you psychic???

Are you at least willing to admit that allowing abortion to be legal has created a system where the majority of abortions done are used as a form of birth control?




I am curious as to why you refer to it as a child, I was under the understanding that it would be a fetus that is aborted, not a child.
A potential life is not the same as a life, if that was the case, every bout of onanism, or wet dream would be murder. So would the use of contraception.


Unborn child is a completely fine definition...I didn't say "child"...either way...it is semantics. If you like, and it makes you feel better about supporting killing it...I'll call it a fetus so you don't have to feel the guilt of supporting the killing of a child.

You're "potential for life" argument is invalid as stated by the definitions of life used in Biology.

Once fertilization occurs...it is biological life. You can't dispute this...it is scientific fact. Others in this thread have tried to dispute it...and then have had to eventually cave and agree that yes...that is the beginning of biological life.

They then move on to more philosophical discussions of when is it a "person"...which to me is just as valid as claiming the fetus is God's creation. So I leave them to discuss it with their counterparts...the religous folks. Personally subjective philosophy vs personally subjective philosophy. And laugh as they insult each others version of personal philosophy.

A sperm is "alive" in the sense that my blood cells or any cell in my body is alive. They are part of a whole...they continually die and divide. Since they are part of the whole, they are not a distinct "life" of themselves.

Let's stick with science shall we...and the biological definitions of life and the beginning of life...which is fertilization.
edit on 28-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


I don't understand your crusade here, are you attempting to change my opinion?
I'll save you the bother, you wont.
I was raised a Catholic, and have wrestled with this issue.
I have come to the conclusion there is nothing sacred about human life, not any more sacred than any other living being or organism and I don't get all gooey about it.
If a woman gets pregnant, and for her to carry that fetus to full term will cause her physical and/or psychological distress, she should have the right to terminate.

IMO, If a fetus goes full term and is born, then to kill it then would be pretty much wrong, unless it was suffering.
To terminate it before it's born, I don't have an issue with if there is good reason, ie, deformed to the point of living in constant pain, disabled to the point that it will never be able to care for it's self, if it's got an incurable disease and it will suffer etc etc.
I also believe strongly about euthanasia, does that make me immoral?
Do any of the above constitute as murder?
If so, then yes, I do condone murder.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NonKonphormist
 



I don't understand your crusade here, are you attempting to change my opinion?
I'll save you the bother, you wont.
I was raised a Catholic, and have wrestled with this issue.
I have come to the conclusion there is nothing sacred about human life, not any more sacred than any other living being or organism and I don't get all gooey about it.
If a woman gets pregnant, and for her to carry that fetus to full term will cause her physical and/or psychological distress, she should have the right to terminate.


I don't care if you change your opinion...as long as you have to continue to twist and turn to try to justify your position.

So you don't think there is anything sacred or special about human life....and you think that if a women thinks something will cause her physical or psychological distress...that she whould be able to kill it???

So a woman can kill her newborn infant if she then decides that it is causing her distress? Remember..there is nothing special about human life according to you.

How about if a man feels a woman is causing him distress...kill her? Or what if a man feels his child...or unborn "fetus" is causing him distress....kill it?

Now you are going to have to come back here and try to justify why you think that human life IS special once outside the womb...but not inside the womb...even though you just said that you don't think human life is sacred.

Or are you really a psychotic murderer that would kill another human just because they distress you?


IMO, If a fetus goes full term and is born, then to kill it then would be pretty much wrong, unless it was suffering.


Yikes...it's ok to kill a newborn baby if it is "suffering"??? You have a scary thought system.

But why do you say it would be "wrong"...when you just said that human life isn't "sacred"???


I also believe strongly about euthanasia, does that make me immoral?
Do any of the above constitute as murder?
If so, then yes, I do condone murder.


Ok...I guess that pretty much says it all.

Do you condone murder if you would happen to be the victim??? Or would you then at least say murder is wrong?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by 27jd
 


If the regiment failed but she did willingly take it prior and it failed to work then she should be entitled to recieve the "Morning after" regiment if she wishes. Same stance also applies to a break in a condom.


If the regiment used one condom, I'd expect it to break.

However I'd be surprised if the next day the woman concerned was wishing for the "Morning after" regiment.
Surely, by then, a battalion or mechanised brigade would be sufficient.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join