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: 77
40
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

IM, you pm'd me earlier and I've been writing this reply.
However, after writing it I realised it was too big for a pm, so I'm posting it instead.


Sorry, I've been unable to reply before this.

I've read through the thread again, and nowhere did Sinnthia say all men were rapists. So naturally she got pretty upset when it was said she had been saying that. The thread itself is pretty upsetting to any woman who has been personally affected by the issues being discussed. Having people wanting to ban abortion and saying a woman should be forced to gestate and birth a rapist's baby, and that there is no reason a foetus should be aborted just to save the life of the mother is really terrible for a woman to hear.

I can tell you there are women replying to threads like this on ATS who have been raped, who have had people trying to prevent them having abortions. There are plenty of oldies like me who were around when abortions were illegal, and had people close to us damaged or killed by illegal abortions.

As for my own experience, an aunt, married and with young children, died when her husband left her after getting her pregnant again, and she couldn't look after the children and manage another baby, so she tried to abort it.

I had one hell of a childhood, being the fifth child an unhappy woman with a violent husband had in 6 years. Yes, she used birth control all the time. Some people are just frightfully fertile. I grew up abused and hated, and had it firmly impressed on me I'd had no right to survive the many things my mother did during pregnancy to cause an abortion.

I was raped and pregnant at 12, (incest) and given tablets to "commit suicide" so the family would not be shamed. There were no legal abortions back then. Luckily I miscarried as I was standing there obediently with tablets and water in hand. - probably shock, but I thought it was a miracle.

At 18 I was pregnant, despite using contraception, and could not get an abortion. So I refused to eat drink or sleep, knowing I may well kill myself, because I could not bear to be pregnant at that stage. Of course I ended up unconscious and haemorrhaging and nearly died.

At 27 I was giving birth to my 3rd child, and the doctor realised the baby's heartbeat was stopping and the cervix had not even begun to dilate. He believed baby's rights come first, and, having got my husband's agreement, decided the baby would not live long enough to survive a caesarean, so I was given drugs to force the labour and made to push, despite them believing that would kill me. Can you imagine what it's like to be helpless and in agony, hearing a couple of men decide to put you through unbelievable torture in order to save the baby and leave you to die? I felt like I was being torn in two as my unopened womb split like an orange, and it was like watching a spurting fire-hose from between my legs as the doctor and the wall behind him were drenched in pulsing crimson.

Knowing drugs have very little effect on me, I persuaded a reluctant nurse to give me far more of a drug to close the womb than is recommended, and I'm pretty tough. The doctor agreed because he was sure I'd die anyway, and this way he could blame the poor nurse.

You might think that's not relevant to abortion, but the disdain for women behind the anti-abortionists leads many, especially Catholics and fundamentalists, to refuse to save the mother's life when a choice has to be made in order to save one or the other. It's official Vatican policy that an abortion is not allowed even in the event of an ectopic pregnancy, and there are several countries where this is law.

Perhaps now you'll better understand why some women are not particularly interested in hearing men debate abortion. No man has had the experience of unwanted pregnancy, or felt the horror of having a thing growing inside you when you are not ready for it. No man has experienced the social stigma of being single and pregnant or being an unwed mother. No man has had to give birth to an unwanted child.

Only a very small percentage of fathers ever become single dads.

The silliest aspect of anti-abortionist beliefs is that many are based of their misperception of the bible. As any religious Jew can tell you, the Torah not only does not forbid abortion, it indicates "person-hood" as taking place 30 days after birth, and even outlines a procedure by which the priest, on request from the husband, gives a pregnant woman a drink which causes an abortion if she has been unfaithful.


Numbers 5

“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD.
....
here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
....
He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.
....
after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry,


As Gorman demonstrated when he was arguing against abortion and I spoke of my experiences raising my three children on my own, and he then attacked me with venom, saying he hated me* and my children should be taken from me, and as other anti-abortionists keep demonstrating when they attack woman who are not completely chaste as sluts and whores, these arguments are being powered by hatred, contempt, and a wish to control and punish women.


*

reply to post by Gorman91
I am judgemental of you. I judge you unfit and illogical. And I hate you for that.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

reply to post by eletheia

I can well imagine a doctor saying that.............I well remember saying to the midwife

whilst giving birth for the third time "Why do we always kid ourselves that it's not as bad as

it is" And i still went on to have another !

Ain't nature wonderful if it didn't give us birth 'amnesia' humanity would die out.

Forgetfulness can be a great blessing.

But there is also the fact that childbirth is much easier for some women that others, and some of those women like to sneer at women who have long, hard labours, believing they're making a fuss about nothing.

(I have a spare bitcher-in-law, just in case you want someone like that.)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

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...


There is a certain chemical that was recently identified and isolated that only releases once a female is pregnant that prepares the body for the pregnancy and tests of this chemical are already being developed which should see real world application in a couple of years once perfected. Within 24 hours of after fetrilization of the egg does it release and is in the bloodstream by the begining of Day 3 a full 4 days before the end of the first week which in most cases is the definitive indicator.

BTW, a pharmacist has no legal ground to deny a female the "Morning After" regiment based upon spirutual beleifs as that is a Federal law and no state can usurp it.
edit on 4-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by 27jd

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...


There is a certain chemical that was recently identified and isolated that only releases once a female is pregnant that prepares the body for the pregnancy and tests of this chemical are already being developed which should see real world application in a couple of years once perfected. Within 24 hours of after fetrilization of the egg does it release and is in the bloodstream by the begining of Day 3 a full 4 days before the end of the first week which in most cases is the definitive indicator.

Most women on the pill are taking it because they are engaging in sex frequently.
A married women having sex most nights can't go testing each day to see if the pill has failed.

What's needed is nail polish which changes colour in response to certain hormones.


Actually, that might be possible one day.
Can't you imagine, during a busy day at work, the boss comes up and says, Lily, I've got something important to tell you. Your fingernails have each developed a red line. Will you be requiring maternity leave in November?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
It is impossible to attack this problem piece by piece so I have dealt with the topic in depth in the form of an essay called The Pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy. I have tried to be comprehensive as succinctly as possible, and for the sake of brevity have passed over certain facets of the debate. If you find it to be lacking in any particular facet of the discussion, or if there are arguments not considered or addressed, then please send me a PM so that I may corroborate these areas. Please take the time to check it out and share your thoughts, objections, criticisms, or suggestions!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
When subjects such as this come up and are debated it is never lost on me that those that attempt to take the moral high ground - Animal welfare, Pro life etc - are quick to condone any punishment they deem appropriate against their fellow humans simply for holding an alternative view to their disingenuous ramblings.
Hypocrites, bigots and emotional leeches all of them that attach themselves to the latest headline cause sucking it dry in attempt to fill their vacuous lives.
Any offence was sincerely meant.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Don't flatter yourself MindSpin, your ego is out of hand.. it's the internet and no one knows what you are trying to compensate for. I would defend my views against anyone wishing to argue them, you just happen to be the most eager to defend your anti-choice point of view in this thread, and so far are the first to respond directly to my posts. I hate to respond to you because you are just begging for attention, had I realized that soon enough I probably wouldn't have. I just want to set the record straight that you're not any more special than anyone else on here, just more irritating.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Don't flatter yourself MindSpin, your ego is out of hand.. it's the internet and no one knows what you are trying to compensate for. I would defend my views against anyone wishing to argue them, you just happen to be the most eager to defend your anti-choice point of view in this thread, and so far are the first to respond directly to my posts. I hate to respond to you because you are just begging for attention, had I realized that soon enough I probably wouldn't have. I just want to set the record straight that you're not any more special than anyone else on here, just more irritating.


my right to choose to extend my fist ends at your nose. What is the matter; can't formulate any reasonable responses so you are forced to resort to petty childish name calling, straw men arguments, and appeals to emotion instead of rational?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I sympathise with all of that and i have stated several times now that those calling women whores, or other such things just because they have had, or support abortion are being utterly unfair and their insults are disgusting. Of course you are debating religious extremists and they think anyone who has sex before marriage is a slut, man or woman. So i don't think it's a specific woman hatred, it's just this is a topic abuot abortion so it's understandable why they're targetting women only. If it was simply a topic about sex then men would also be getting a bashing with the moral stick.

However despite all you posted I believe everyones opinion should be treated with equal validity as long as they stay within certain limits. Obviously commenting on an experience you haven't had makes no sense, so a man cannot talk about the experience of an abortion with any authority (although if he's witnessed one he can give his experience of that), but he can still give perfectly sound arguments about the issue as a whole. Like for example deciding when a fetus should come under the protection of law.

As for the rape comment, it was more about the "every woman is vulnerable to rape, they just need the opportunity", that to me is suggesting all men are potential rapists if just given the chance. You must surely see how open that phrase is to interpretation.
edit on 5-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Kailassa
 

I sympathise with all of that and i have stated several times now that those calling women whores, or other such things just because they have had, or support abortion are being utterly unfair and their insults are disgusting. Of course you are debating religious extremists and they think anyone who has sex before marriage is a slut, man or woman. So i don't think it's a specific woman hatred, it's just this is a topic abuot abortion so it's understandable why they're targetting women only. If it was simply a topic about sex then men would also be getting a bashing with the moral stick.

You've got to be kidding.
I've seen plenty of posts on child-support, welfare and abortion where the man reserves the right to have indiscriminate sex but still uses foul insults to describe women who screw or who end up pregnant.
Haven't you learned? Women who screw are sluts. Men who screw are studs. - That's sarcasm, by the way.

Also, I can guarantee that, if men were the ones who underwent pregnancy, there would be far fewer men opposing abortion.


However despite all you posted I believe everyones opinion should be treated with equal validity as long as they stay within certain limits. Obviously commenting on an experience you haven't had makes no sense, so a man cannot talk about the experience of an abortion with any authority (although if he's witnessed one he can give his experience of that), but he can still give perfectly sound arguments about the issue as a whole. Like for example deciding when a fetus should come under the protection of law.

As long as you not only have not had, but also can never have, the experience which shows how pregnancy and childbirth change your life forever, your opinion about when a mother should lose her right to end a pregnancy is worth less than the opinion of a person who actually knows the implications of this decision.


As for the rape comment, it was more about the "every woman is vulnerable to rape, they just need the opportunity", that to me is suggesting all men are potential rapists if just given the chance. You must surely see how open that phrase is to interpretation.

If that phrase is so open to interpretation, then why did you make it up?

I thought you were a decent guy, IM, until I read this post. You are making out those words in quotes came from Sinnthia, whereas she has never once in this thread made that statement.
In fact, Sinnthia has never once, in this thread, used rape and opportunity in the one paragraph. She has never even made a statement with a similar meaning to the one you've faked here.

What's your motivation for making up a lie about an ATS member like this? Why is it so important for you to smear someone's reputation you have to post lies to do so?

Frankly, IM, I'm disgusted.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
You've got to be kidding.
I've seen plenty of posts on child-support, welfare and abortion where the man reserves the right to have indiscriminate sex but still uses foul insults to describe women who screw or who end up pregnant.
Haven't you learned? Women who screw are sluts. Men who screw are studs. - That's sarcasm, by the way.

Also, I can guarantee that, if men were the ones who underwent pregnancy, there would be far fewer men opposing abortion.


It's really neither here nor there because i agree the insults are uncalled for, unfair and need to stop.


Originally posted by Kailassa
As long as you not only have not had, but also can never have, the experience which shows how pregnancy and childbirth change your life forever, your opinion about when a mother should lose her right to end a pregnancy is worth less than the opinion of a person who actually knows the implications of this decision.


So the scientists, many of whom are men that helped research when a child develops a certain level of sentience shouldn't be listened to? And the laws which were built that legally allow abortion were also often worked on by men, if we are to say their opinion means less then we should scrap those laws and have them completely rewritten by women only.

Sorry but your argument doesn't hold water. The opinions of men and women should always be given the same respect, the ones who make the most sense should then be acted upon. It makes perfect sense for women to have control of their own bodies, so i support abortion.

I would also point out that child birth often changes a fathers life forever as well, even if it's simply a massive financial burden and being chased after by government agencies.


Originally posted by Kailassa
If that phrase is so open to interpretation, then why did you make it up?

I thought you were a decent guy, IM, until I read this post. You are making out those words in quotes came from Sinnthia, whereas she has never once in this thread made that statement.
In fact, Sinnthia has never once, in this thread, used rape and opportunity in the one paragraph. She has never even made a statement with a similar meaning to the one you've faked here.

What's your motivation for making up a lie about an ATS member like this? Why is it so important for you to smear someone's reputation you have to post lies to do so?

Frankly, IM, I'm disgusted.


I am a decent guy, after having many debates with you to suddenly change your opinion seems a little extreme and deeply unfair. Having gone through her posts again I'm unable to find the post i was on about, it's possible i've read something of someone elses and confused it with hers, or i've simply misread something entirely. That doesn't make me a bad guy, it means i may have made a mistake.

I'm sorry for that mistake, but it's out of order to say i faked anything or i'm trying to smear is unfair, especially when you consider how long i've been on this website and have never lied about anyone. To do it now would be utterly out of character. Mistake yes, lie no.

edit on 5-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Kailassa
You've got to be kidding.
I've seen plenty of posts on child-support, welfare and abortion where the man reserves the right to have indiscriminate sex but still uses foul insults to describe women who screw or who end up pregnant.
Haven't you learned? Women who screw are sluts. Men who screw are studs. - That's sarcasm, by the way.

Also, I can guarantee that, if men were the ones who underwent pregnancy, there would be far fewer men opposing abortion.

It's really neither here nor there because i agree the insults are uncalled for, unfair and need to stop.

You're dismissing the relevance of the misogyny driving much of the abortion debate just because you agree it's uncalled for?
I'm not suggesting you're a misogynist, but I am saying understanding the root source of much of the anti-abortion movement is vital to the debate.

The two legs of the anti-abortion movement are the Christian fundamentalists and the Catholics. Both groups, traditionally blame the "fall of man" onto Eve and the forbidden fruit, and believe a scripture in which god ejects mankind from Eden, and curses women for all time to suffer in childbirth for Eve's wrongdoing. Many fundamentalist churches even teach that it was because of Eve that man is "no longer" immortal.

Put together a childhood indoctrination into these beliefs
and a frustrated man who finds women won't look up to an indoctrinated bigot and ignore him instead,
and who can't freely release his sexual frustration without a woman because he's also been indoctrinated into believing masturbation is a sin,
and bitterly blames women for his frustration and loneliness,
and who sees women partying and having a good time ...
and you have a misogynist who is ready to hurt women however he can.

Sure, it's neither here not there to you, but you don't have to live with the consequences of this misogyny.



Originally posted by Kailassa
If that phrase is so open to interpretation, then why did you make it up?

I thought you were a decent guy, IM, until I read this post. You are making out those words in quotes came from Sinnthia, whereas she has never once in this thread made that statement.
In fact, Sinnthia has never once, in this thread, used rape and opportunity in the one paragraph. She has never even made a statement with a similar meaning to the one you've faked here.

What's your motivation for making up a lie about an ATS member like this? Why is it so important for you to smear someone's reputation you have to post lies to do so?

Frankly, IM, I'm disgusted.

I am a decent guy, after having many debates with you to suddenly change your opinion seems a little extreme and deeply unfair. Having gone through her posts again I'm unable to find the post i was on about, it's possible i've read something of someone elses and confused it with hers, or i've simply misread something entirely. That doesn't make me a bad guy, it means i may have made a mistake.

I'm sorry for that mistake, but it's out of order to say i faked anything or i'm trying to smear is unfair, especially when you consider how long i've been on this website and have never lied about anyone. To do it now would be utterly out of character. Mistake yes, lie no.

There are some mistakes you can't afford to make, online, IM, but at least you've apologised. Perhaps you should be apologising to Synnthia though, not me.

Think how upset you felt, feeling you were wrongly accused, and realise how upset someone else is going to be when you say they've said something awful that they never said. One just can't afford to put words in quotes and attribute them to someone without double checking. And I'd already told you she had not been suggesting all men were potential rapists.
(That's why it looked like you'd done this on purpose.)

Anyway, we all live and learn, and I'm sure it's a mistake you won't make again.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
It's really neither here nor there because i agree the insults are uncalled for, unfair and need to stop.
You're dismissing the relevance of the misogyny driving much of the abortion debate just because you agree it's uncalled for?
I'm not suggesting you're a misogynist, but I am saying understanding the root source of much of the anti-abortion movement is vital to the debate


I dismiss it because the debate should be done on facts rather than attacking what you consider to be the motive of a group.


Originally posted by Kailassa
The two legs of the anti-abortion movement are the Christian fundamentalists and the Catholics. Both groups, traditionally blame the "fall of man" onto Eve and the forbidden fruit, and believe a scripture in which god ejects mankind from Eden, and curses women for all time to suffer in childbirth for Eve's wrongdoing. Many fundamentalist churches even teach that it was because of Eve that man is "no longer" immortal.


Really? Only two legs? Because there are secular organisations against abortion you know.

secularprolife.org...

It's unfair to make out it's simply a religious argument or about hating women. To me that's as bad a tactic as the people who call women whores because they support abortion.


Originally posted by Kailassa
Put together a childhood indoctrination into these beliefs
and a frustrated man who finds women won't look up to an indoctrinated bigot and ignore him instead,
and who can't freely release his sexual frustration without a woman because he's also been indoctrinated into believing masturbation is a sin,
and bitterly blames women for his frustration and loneliness,
and who sees women partying and having a good time ...
and you have a misogynist who is ready to hurt women however he can.

Sure, it's neither here not there to you, but you don't have to live with the consequences of this misogyny.


You are painting with a far to broad brush. I'm happy to agree that some of these people are women hating, religious nut bags but there are plenty of people who are secular and don't hate women that are against abortion for one reason or another. I don't agree with them but it's not right to simply use one generalisation and apply it to a whole group as a way of damaging their argument.

And again we see you talking about men when the anti-abortion movement has a ton of women in it who are as vocal as the men are. If someone posts something in this thread again where they directly insult women thn feel free to pull them up on it, but don't speculate on the entire groups motives, it's simply not a good way to go about the issue.

Abortion is legal and i somehow doubt they will ever get it changed. The only time i believe abortion should become illegal is if one day we work out how to grow a child outside the womb. When that happens we could take the fetus and develop it outside the woman and maybe both groups will get their way. But that's a theoretical future i know




Originally posted by Kailassa
There are some mistakes you can't afford to make, online, IM, but at least you've apologised. Perhaps you should be apologising to Synnthia though, not me.


The apology was to her and to say someone can't afford to make a mistake online is a little harsh don't you think. I've been here five years and never misquoted someone before, it's just one of those things.

Posting when exhausted probably wasn't the greatest idea i've ever had.
edit on 6-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I am pro choice. I think the only moral issues would lie within the doctors and the couple deciding on it. If that is murder or genocide, then masturbation might as well be too. ITS THEIR BODY ITS THEIR CHOICE.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by heavymetalgolfer
I am pro choice. I think the only moral issues would lie within the doctors and the couple deciding on it. If that is murder or genocide, then masturbation might as well be too. ITS THEIR BODY ITS THEIR CHOICE.

actually it isn't their body and that can be quite obviously shown by the unique DNA. If the placenta doesn't form properly the developing baby will be attacked by the mother immune system, as it is a foreign body. Next flimsy argument...

every argument in this thread I have dealt with here
edit on 8-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


You understand that some tumors don't share DNA with the person they are growing in right? So by your logic this tumor must be allowed to grow and kill the host, unique DNA means unique protection!

Oh and what about the HIV virus? That thing hides in the immune system, it doesn't get attacked and so we must protect it, unique DNA afterall!

What utter nonsense.

It is their body, their uterus, their placenta (although maybe you can argue joint possession on that one), their blood supply, their kidneys and liver that deal with the toxins, their brain that deals with the hormones. It is most certainly the womans body that suffers the burden even in the early months.
edit on 8-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



It is most certainly the womans body that suffers the burden even in the early months.


It's a shame some women see it as a burden.


Just a sign of what is wrong with our society...the ability to give life...seen as a burden.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



It is most certainly the womans body that suffers the burden even in the early months.


It's a shame some women see it as a burden.


Just a sign of what is wrong with our society...the ability to give life...seen as a burden.


I'm a man so i can't speak of the emotional burden some women may consider it being but you are trying to spin what i said, which lets face it is your track record and something you are proud of.

I was talking about the physical burden, pregnancy deeply affects a woman in a physical way, from stretch marks to genuine life threatening problems. I meant it in the very strict biological sense, which i know you are fond of



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


You understand that some tumors don't share DNA with the person they are growing in right? So by your logic this tumor must be allowed to grow and kill the host, unique DNA means unique protection!

Oh and what about the HIV virus? That thing hides in the immune system, it doesn't get attacked and so we must protect it, unique DNA afterall!

What utter nonsense.

It is their body, their uterus, their placenta (although maybe you can argue joint possession on that one), their blood supply, their kidneys and liver that deal with the toxins, their brain that deals with the hormones. It is most certainly the woman's body that suffers the burden even in the early months.
edit on 8-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)


This is a conflation of the issue. These sort of stretches in logic and denying of facts is clear indication that this self-serving logic is just a rationalization of an issue in such a way that suits pre-determined conclusions. It is the DNA of this unique Human Being which proves that the termination of this life is not the same as cutting off the piece of the mothers body, as it is not her body or life that is terminated by the abortion, but the life of her child; isn't that what abortion is after all? A tumor is not a human being clearly, as a tumor is the case of something gone wrong. The unfolding of a human life, and especially in the delicate stages in question, is quite the opposite; it is not something gone terribly wrong, but something which against all odds is going miraculously right! To call pregnancy a burden is like making the woman a victim of some tragedy, but it is really the result of her choice to engage in sexual intercourse. If people are absolutely unwilling to be open to the possibility of conception and responsibilities of child rearing, then why in the world are they having sex? Isn't the primary purpose of sexual intercourse reproduction?Because that's what I learned in my biology class.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Oh, I know exactly what you were saying...and my statement stands.

The fact is some women are so selfish and vain that stretch marks trumps the ability to give life.


It's funny that these women don't realize that life is short, and beauty (or self percieved beauty) is even shorter. And stretch marks or not...their skin will become old and wrinkled if they are lucky to live that long.


I guess it would be easy for me to be of the mindset that as a society we are better off if selfish flesh bags don't reproduce and abort their babies...but I am of the thinking that good can come from bad. And that even if a baby has a horrible excuse for a mother who is so selfish that they think about stretch marks before protecting their own offspring, that baby still should have the chance to live it's life to the fullest without it's own mother murdering it.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join