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: 71
40
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
Nope, making money.


Wow, that sure is some masterful multitasking you got going on there. Ranting and working. You really do BOTH those things? Neat. After this post I will see if I am able to do two things at once as well. You seem to think that makes you special? But, no saving children?

But you never know...a child or two could have been saved...I have no way to measure that.


You mean by accident? Well who the hell cares. You did argue that accidentally killing the child is bad compared to intentionally doing it so your maybe accidentally saving a kid means....what?


I don't know...like I said...there is no way to measure that. There is a distinct possibility that my work has saved a childs life...there is just no way to know.


Please tell use what aspect of what you are doing at work is helping to prevent abortions or save children. I am really interested. If you are really actively doing something like that then you certainly deserve credit for it and perhaps my judgement has been a bit hasty.

Do tell.



It does speak for itself, it says I am an incredibly talented and dedicated person who can handle multiple responsibilities at one time and has a passion for his beliefs.


Considering we already established that your post history demonstrates a very clearly obsessive one track mind I am not sure why you feel that is worth bragging about. You can do your actual job and think about abortion. Two whole things. Amazing.



You gotta know how to spin things...hence my name
I can work on your resume if you'd like me too...I'm sure I can spruce it up a little.


Oh no thank you. I am not really interested in using such deceptive techniques for really any reason. It does beg the question why do it here. When the result of your actions is not fewer abortions but just online anger and it stems from admitted deceptiveness, what is the real purpose of all this?

I feel pretty safe in saying you actually have a different agenda driving you other than the actual concern for unborn children. That is just my opinion though. All I have are these 100 something pages of abortion thread posts to work with though.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



I would like to add, aside from the fact that trying to discuss this with you, Mindspin, is much like a broken carousel ride, many of us do not have 14 hours a day to spend on ATS. Many do not have a fraction of that time. Many people get up from their computers and contribute to LIFE. As well, many of us just do not find the topic of Abortion so much fun to discuss ALL DAY, EVERY DAY; especially with MEN desperatetly grasping to fantasy view of a world where women only have abortions because they are amoral sluts and your penis is defenseless against against them


Well you could stop bringing up ridiculous scenarios and just get down to proving my argument wrong...is that too much to ask?

And you are right...not all abortions are done by amoral sluts....only 98% of them


You can try to insult me all you want...my work isn't engaging enough to keep me entertained...I need to multitask to keep busy...ATS allows me to do that.


Wikipedia is never 100% credible as a source because it is not a source just like a library is not a source. Any good high school teacher should explain "citations" to you. Ask around. Do not take this the wrong way. I just really feel like you might actually be able to get somewhere on this with at least a little information to play with.


Good thing I haven't been using Wikipedia as my references....the "medical student" has.

Maybe you should pay attention and try to keep up.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by 44247844
 


Just want to mention - - that since I believe everything is energy - - that we are "energy beings" - - and physical is a thought creation. I have to put myself into - - what is an unnatural mindset for me - - to discuss this from a physical realm others believe is real. I hope that makes sense to you.



So if you truly believe we are "energy beings"...then you should have no problem with murder...right?

Rape and violence also really shouldn't be an issue...anything physical shouldn't matter to "energy beigns"...right?


I don't waste my time with bullies.

I will give you this one response. Everything is about INTENT.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by geekyone
 


We got to this point because they have run out of arguments.

So they fall back on sensationalism.


Actually, you brought us here. You keep arguing about the unborn child's rights and the father's rights but you have done your very best to dismiss any rights the MOTHER has. So can you please lay out the heiarchy for us?

From rights most deserving of respect, you would rank Baby, Father, Mother?
Help me out.


Sorry...but once again...you are wrong. Go back and read the thread...you are starting to look really really silly.

I've been desperately trying to keep the discussion on scientific fact...it's the pro-choice crowd that has been trying to shift it.

I haven't been talking about the babies, fathers or mothers rights....just all humans rights.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by MindSpin
But I gave you a scenario of a women killing her one week old baby...

If you can't make a judgement on that...that is just very disturbing.


Aren't you supposed to be playing the part of a Christian?


Um...no.

I am coming from a purely scientific point of view...like I said...read the thread...get your facts straight.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



Wow, that sure is some masterful multitasking you got going on there. Ranting and working. You really do BOTH those things? Neat. After this post I will see if I am able to do two things at once as well. You seem to think that makes you special? But, no saving children?


Like I said...it is illegal for me to attempt to save a child.


You mean by accident? Well who the hell cares. You did argue that accidentally killing the child is bad compared to intentionally doing it so your maybe accidentally saving a kid means....what?


Nah...not by accident...but it just isn't something that I could measure. I don't expect you to understand...I am being intentionally cryptic.


Please tell use what aspect of what you are doing at work is helping to prevent abortions or save children. I am really interested. If you are really actively doing something like that then you certainly deserve credit for it and perhaps my judgement has been a bit hasty.

Do tell.


Prevent abortion....nothing at all...my work doesn't involve that.

The potential of saving a child's life...it may...there is no way of knowing. But sorry...you don't get details of my personal life.


Considering we already established that your post history demonstrates a very clearly obsessive one track mind I am not sure why you feel that is worth bragging about. You can do your actual job and think about abortion. Two whole things. Amazing.


Amazing...I agree



Oh no thank you. I am not really interested in using such deceptive techniques for really any reason. It does beg the question why do it here. When the result of your actions is not fewer abortions but just online anger and it stems from admitted deceptiveness, what is the real purpose of all this?

I feel pretty safe in saying you actually have a different agenda driving you other than the actual concern for unborn children. That is just my opinion though. All I have are these 100 something pages of abortion thread posts to work with though.


It's not deception...it's creativity


It's better than not saying what you mean


100 pages??? nah...that would be at least 2000 posts...I don't even have that many posts.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by 44247844
 


Just want to mention - - that since I believe everything is energy - - that we are "energy beings" - - and physical is a thought creation. I have to put myself into - - what is an unnatural mindset for me - - to discuss this from a physical realm others believe is real. I hope that makes sense to you.



So if you truly believe we are "energy beings"...then you should have no problem with murder...right?

Rape and violence also really shouldn't be an issue...anything physical shouldn't matter to "energy beigns"...right?


I don't waste my time with bullies.

I will give you this one response. Everything is about INTENT.



You never answered what gives me leverage to be a bully. All "bullies" need leverage...some sort of unfair advantage...what is mine???


Intent is an easy way of dodging responsibility. But I guess that if you INTENT is to make life better for one of your children, killing the other one would be ok...right?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Would you be willing to judge a man who killed a baby (?) or is it just when women do it that you try hard not to judge?


I am curious if you have any numbers so that we can compare

Woman who have abortions against the father's wishes
Vs.
Men who abondon their children.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo
 


Apes have no potential to cure cancer or build cities. That mass of cells do. Please do not try to use my own claims against me when you don't even agree with the basis of the claim, that being potentiality.


Apes have no potential to build nuclear weapons, wage global wars, or destroy the entire planet. That mass of cells does.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Third trimester abortions are not something the average pregnant woman would want. You get attached to your foetus in more ways than one, as it grows and you hear its heartbeat and feel it kicking.

However they should be legal in certain circumstances, such as when a doctor decides continued pregnancy is endangering the mother's life or will seriously affect her long-term health.

At the third trimester, an emergency C-section is a valid alternative to an abortion. At that point, with medical attention, the baby can survive or at least have a fighting chance.

So I don't believe there are any reasons for a third trimester abortion.

It's a question as to what the mother's state of health can cope with.
I'm sure any parent or doctor would choose a caesarean in the third trimester when that's a viable alternative.




Ethically, this is similar to separating cojoined twins when one knows the separation will or may kill one, but it's known that the cojoined twins will not be capable of a healthy life together.

Both situations are tragedies, but the decision must be left to qualified doctors and the parents.

The separating of cojoined twins is no different than any surgery...there is always a risk the patient may die...always.

I don't know of any cases of cojoined twins where a decision is made to outright kill one of them to allow the other one live. I may be wrong, but I don't think that is ethical or legal.

Of course it's ethical and legal, and happens much more often than we hear about.
When the twins are sharing one brain or one heart, and the circulatory or excretory system cannot keep both alive, standard medical practise is that the least viable of the twins is sacrificed so the other may live.


A case of particular interest was that of Mary and Jodie, two conjoined twins from Malta who were separated by court order in Great Britain over the religious objections of their parents, Michaelangelo and Rina Attard. The surgery took place in November, 2000, at St Mary's Hospital in Manchester. The operation was controversial because it was certain that the weaker twin, Mary, would die as a result of the procedure. (The twins were attached at the lower abdomen and spine; Jodie's heart and lungs supplied both of their bodies.) However, if the operation had not taken place, it was certain that both twins would die.


These cases get little media attention because of the tragedy involved. The media prefers medical stories with happy endings.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
I haven't looked at this thread for a while. Has anybody attempted to answer your question directly or have they just continued to change reality by proxy of semantics?


Lou Sarah?
Is that you?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Well it just so happens that the 'offspring' growing inside the woman is not solely hers....if it was solely hers...then the man should not have to pay support.


It seems this argument has shifted to women should not get abortions or men should not have to pay child support?

That seems like an interesting moral scale to go by.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 

I'm in awe, Sinnthia.

You've managed to stay calm and logical while arguing against the most illogical, hate-filled, ignorant stupidity I've ever encountered on ATS.

Congrats.

Sadly, the thread title says it all. Some silly misogynists hate women and want to label any that refuse to be enslaved by traditional roles as murderers. They even call girls murderers for having the temerity to expel the waste residue a rapist has left behind. From their attitudes, I expect they'd like to see all women raped and having to raise their rapist's babies.

If no women had abortions they'd just find another excuse to hate women.

I'm thankful that the men I know are decent people who don't share this insanity.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaGremlin
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.


How many adopted children do you have so far?
What could you be doing outside of ATS to provide for more orphans?

How many children have all the "pro-life" posters on this thread adopted?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
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.


I cannot help but find it odd that in both the abortion threads we have cross paths in, you have arguments that rely solely on you altering reality and the definition of words in order to provoke emotional responses rather than find a rational common ground with which to discuss.

I have to wonder if that is intentional.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
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?



Against it no as it is not up to us humans to pass judgement upon another. Ultimately it is not up to you or I to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body and to deny her a way out if one is available to them.

Psy close attention to this part as this determines my stance on this topic :

Consensual Sex is defined legally as two consenting adults being both in the right frame of mind and not under the influence of narcotics, alcohol or external influence (this includes the placing of a date rape drug or other sedative meant to inhibit someone's intuition) engaging in a sexual encounter.

Some could say and actually walk on that if one partner is inebriated, intoxicated that the individual cannot legally consent to sex.

In matters of forced rape and incest a female should be allowed to have an abortion as she was not a willing participant in the act.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by Annee
 


"Sacred" means whatever you want it to mean.


My Hudoo sky monster tells me that Coca-Cola is "sacred." He also informs me that the majority of anti-abortionists are secretly trying to take down the Coca-Cola corporation. It seems pretty clear that it is my sky monster given duty to protect said soft drink at all costs. This may not sound pretty but who am I to question what my sky monster claims is sacred?

You would do the same, right?
I know you will understand when the end times come and its soon. My sky monster gave me a calendar and we sit and laugh about how your sky monster won't tell you when he is supposed to come back.

Personal definitions of words make everything more fun.

I can do this. Abortion is an individual right because mallet toaster of the last kind of cruchy forward blue frogs.

Yeah, refute that.

I hope I am not the only one that sees how much of the supposed "pro-life" argument relies on the most malleable definitions you can find.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin


You know what.

This hurts to say but...

Great point. I mean, the first 60 pages or so, you really did not have me wanting to even relate to you but when you put it like this....well what can one say. I wanted to say
but then I realized all I really could say was
and be like
but now that you have said, and I quote

Originally posted by MindSpin


I am so totally like


Case closed I would say. I wanted to laugh at all the hours wasted online ranting about your personal feelings on an issue you could actively do something real about but suddenly, it all makes more sense than anything ever has.

Bravo, good sir. You have completely converted me with your overwhelming grasp of the kind of superrior logoic that a serf such as myself could only dream to gaze up to.

Cheetah blood? Adonis DNA? I get it.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Actually Apes have the same potential to do those things. I never said animals do not deserve life. But they are no us. And so take second priority. A species self comes first. And integration into where it is its primary concern. As an individualistic species with social bonds, each individual with the same potential has the same rights. Humans are humans basically. Not apes.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by MindSpin
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.


I cannot help but find it odd that in both the abortion threads we have cross paths in, you have arguments that rely solely on you altering reality and the definition of words in order to provoke emotional responses rather than find a rational common ground with which to discuss.

I have to wonder if that is intentional.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



My argument is based soley on biological science.

You seem to ignore that topic like the plague.

pro-choicers are the ones that need to use semantics and twisting of definitions to suppress their guilt. This is why they fight so desperatly to de-humanize a fetus. They call it a "clump of cells", a parasite, something akin to a tumor.

But the refust to call it a human life...they refuse to admit the biological fact that they are killing a human life.


As do you...continue with your twisting and dancing...it is amusing. My conscience is clear...I have no need to distort definitions.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join