ATS Street View: 11: Abortion and Racism in New York City

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Yea apparently you did not read what I wrote before. Tell you what. Get back to me when you do.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 




The general rule on the subject, though I do not necessarily agree with is that if fetus was not conceived through the acts of a rape, such as normal consensual intercourse, the fetus has rights but a fetus conceived through the acts of rape does not. The mother did not have the say so whether she could have intercourse or not in a rape, therefore that right and decision was taken away from her therefore the rights of the fetus are removed. If a woman had consensual intercourse, then her rights were not violated and neither should the fetus’ rights.


Yes, I understand, but I find this stance highly illogical. Why should we treat two of THE SAME things, having THE SAME qualities in the present fundamentally differently, just because something was different in the past about the way they were conceived?

Suddenly, human DNA is no longer enough for life to acquire human rights? Another, pure arbitrary criterion (not being conceived by an act of rape), which, contrary to my criterion (sentience) is not even relevant to the quality of the fetus in question at the present, is added? The whole beauty of pro-life argument, if it even had some (the simplicity of it - human DNA life is protected by human rights, non-human DNA is not) is instantly gone.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I dont think that people realize that making abortion illegal would be taking away our freedom of choice. So what choices will we lose next? What other freedoms will we lose? Once the boulder starts rolling down the hill theres no stopping it.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Did I miss who was behind the billboard? Did they agree to have it taken down, or was it forced, did the billboard owner pull the plug, etc.?

As far as the concept, even though obviously offensive to lots of people, it might be sound from the point of view of freedom of speech. If the message was to show "who" the abortion victim is (typically), then that message came through well enough, regardless if we agree or disagree with that message.

Sort of reminds me of the recent aggregate typical inhabitant of the planet, when they factor in all the numbers, and come out with an Asian face. Maybe this little girl puts a face on the abortion stats, although I have no idea how "scientific" they might have been about this composite. Definitely pulling for emotion though.

I think StormDancer brought up the issue that there is evidence that blacks are being targeted by abortion, and certainly Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood with that in mind. Whether we like it or not. If that's the case, then this ad could just be a bit of "fighting back". Doesn't Planned Parenthood have ads all over the place?

JR



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


This was explained to you. perhaps you should read before posting.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Perhaps you should step off your high horse and finally justify with LOGIC how you can reconcile two statements that are in direct conflict, and simply cannot both be true at the same time:
1. embryos and fetuses have full human rights
2. embryos and fetuses can be murdered if they were conceived during rape (even if they are obviously innocent, and are not threatening anyones life - the ONLY two situations murder can be argued to be legal - when preventing threat to another life, and as a punishment for horrible crime such as murder (even rape does not qualify) )



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Justice: restoration of things before the event X.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




Justice: restoration of things before the event X.


But not at the cost of infringing upon basic human rights of other innocent people (thus commting further crime). Otherwise it would be perfectly OK to force other people (for example taxpayers) to pay for every stolen property - the things must be restored to the status before the stealing event, even at the cost of rights of innocent people.

So no, justice is NOT restoration of things before the event X at all costs. Only at the cost of the one who commited the crime (if possible). Thief pays for stolen property, but not his neighbour, even if the thief cannot pay. Then, the property is simply not returned (restoration has not been accomplished).



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That sounds dumb. The government operates to benefit the people. It uses its funds from the people to restore the people to a standard. Ergo, the stolen property should be replaced by the government.

Justice is the restoration of things before event X.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


So are you saying if someone stole 10 000 dollars from me, I can legally go to your house and steal your 10 000 dollars (or how many you have) to restore things back? And the police should not have a right, or duty to stop me? Now THAT sounds dumb.

And that is exactly what you are proposing: Infringing upon basic human right of innocent human should be legal, to restore things back after a crime.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Isn’t it amazing how a whole group of people can be so deluded? TPTB have convinced the black community that to notify them that their group is being subjected to cultural genocide is somehow “offensive and objectionable”. Not only that, but that community then celebrates their own extermination by banning the truthful message. How absolutely tragic for them.

The interviewer incorrectly said government funds for Planned Parenthood were “kept separate” from their abortuary business. Planned Parenthood has claimed this for years, yet no such “separation of funds” has been shown to exist. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s #1 abortuary owner. Of course, they provide NO services or funds for adoption (the alternative to killing babies). They put their money where their "heart" is.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was a strong believer in eugenics (elimination of undesirables from society), as was practiced in Nazi Germany. Her organization once paid black ministers to travel the south promoting sterilization amongst black women. Is this where you really want your tax dollars to go?
edit on 9-3-2011 by romanmel because: typo



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 



While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely. www.abortionno.org...




Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion, in 1920. www.rferl.org...

Lenin (Bolshevik) tried to make Russian society communist:
Banned religion, destroyed churches and killed priests. A Labour Law gave workers an 8-hour day, unemployment pay and pensions. There was a huge campaign to teach everyone to read. Education: Science was encouraged, and useless subjects like Latin and History were banned. Free love, divorce and abortion were allowed. = different morality and style of life. www.johndclare.net...

For many women, the most common method of birth control remains a Soviet-era holdover: abortion.
"Young women who think that having an abortion is an easy thing are wrong," Latypova tells RFE/RL's Tatar-Bashkir Service. "An abortion is not only an operation. It's a deep psychological trauma for a woman. This is an operation that causes a woman physical and moral pain. I don't think it's the right decision."

September 24, 2005
Mother Russia now sees more abortions than babies bornBy her 50th birthday, Russia’s population could have halved, based on current trends.. By Russian standards, she is lucky to have made it even this far: last year, there were 1.6 million registered abortions in Russia and 1.5 million births..“The situation is critical,” said Vladimir Kulakov, deputy head of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and an adviser to President Putin on the demographic crisis. “The most important thing for every nation is to have confidence in its future.”..Russia’s population has been in decline since 1992 ..Mr Putin raised the issue in April, calling it a “national crisis”, but the Government has yet to respond. Mr Putin is now under pressure to dip into the Stabilisation Fund, designed to save excess oil revenues, to arrest the population decline. www.timesonline.co.uk...

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women. It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation..Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide? www.abortiontv.com


55 million, Second World War (20C); 40 million, under Mao Zedong (20C); 40 million, Mongol Conquests(13C); 36 million, An Lushan Revolt(8C); 25 million, Fall of the Ming Dynasty(17C); 20 million, Taiping Rebellion(19C); 20 million, toll of American Indians, (15C-19C), 20 million, under Joseph Stalin(20C); 19 million, Mideast Slave Trade(7C-19C); 18 million, Atlantic Slave Trade(15C-); 17 million, Islamic Conquest of India(14C-15C); 17 million, British India(19C); 15 million, First World War(20C); 9 million, Russian Civil War(20C); 9 million, Hindu Thuggee cult killings(13C-19C); 8 million, Fall of Rome(3C-5C); 8 million, Congo Free State(19C – 20C); 7 million, Thirty Years War(17C); 5 million, Russia's Time of Troubles(16C-17C), 4 million, Napoleonic Wars(19C); 3 million, Chinese Civil War(20C); 3 million, French Wars of Religion(16C).

Taken all together, we have 401 million deaths over nearly 2000 years of war and barbarism. Just for the sake of argument, let’s add another 10%, or 40 million, to cover margins of error, and other wars. This would bring our total to 441 million deaths over the last 20 centuries.

Now, what about abortion? At the low end of the Guttmacher scale, even if we ignore all abortions done prior to 1980 when accurate numbers are a little more difficult to ascertain, abortion accounts for more than twice the number of deaths by war! In just the last 25 years, the ghastly toll for abortion has totaled over 900 million dead babies. Taking the more probable mean average, the toll rises to well over 1 billion babies; or nearly three times the amount of deaths due to war. www.covenantnews.com...


Sir Albert Lilley, widely considered the "Father of Fetology", and unabashedly pro-life (as anyone with his vast knowledge of fetal development should be) makes some remarkable statements about fetal pain..By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organization like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prepared to extend to animals.


"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
www.prolife.com


When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.

98% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, or the mother's life


For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
It´s the same as if you want to judge a abortion when you know your child would be disabled (sorry this was the direct translation from german) and it would suffer its whole life. Whats the right thing to do? "Hope the best" and when the baby has to live every day with pain / operations (=pain) from the start, would your heart bleed because you love it and you do not want your child to suffer, so that you truly wish it would never be born, because you love it? This would be the greatest nightmare on earth to me.

About the raped womens:
If you see it from their side, is it their right? Because they have to educate the child, grow it up, be a good parent etc.. Could you imagine to see your child and know it was "forced" to you? This would be terrible for (i think most) mothers and the child because when to mother is "biased" how can the child get unbiased love?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No, now you are pretty much twisting things, and considering you lost the abortion debate, no doubt you have to stretch your straws out there with unrelated things. But I'll answer it anyway. The government's role is to use the money you pay in taxes to benefit the nation as a whole. Taxes are part of the social contract that you pay the government to improve your home. What the government does to go about keeping this standard is in the hands of the vote. YOU do not have a right to steal because you were stolen from, and to say that speaks volumes to your desperation to try and make me wrong, but in fact all you are doing is making yourself a fool.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


i don't understand the problem with abortion and birth control.. the world population needs to fall dramatically anyway..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Save the world...

Make abortion mandatory for all racist couples.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
why is this topic on ATS?

this sounds like something that would be on MSM .



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I just want to know who that beautiful girl is doing the interviews? She is lovely.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




YOU do not have a right to steal because you were stolen from


Yet you say woman has a right to murder because she was raped. (all without government intervention, so you are again using false analogy, my analogy with direct stealing is more accurate to women murdering innocent embryos with human rights). Dont you see the double-standard?

Your twists and straws trying to justify the logically impossible (legally murdering innocent humans threatening noone, yet claiming basic human rights apply to them) are really amusing.

edit on 9/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Sure you can say that. But you never said how. Classic diversion tactic, say you're wrong, then say some random logical fallacy and assume that's sufficient. Nay sir. You have not proven your claim. I award you no points, and you must start over.

Fact is simple. Justice is restoration of things before event x. In some cases, murder is the only solution for justice. I do not agree to the death penalty, nor do I agree with the basic tenures of this logic. But logic is as logic does. Life from rape has no rights because it is unjust. Clearly I have no right to say that you don't have a choice when you never did. In other cases, you did have a choice, thus the choice for abortion is invalid.

It's quite simple. And your need to divert to non-related fields in order to keep the debate going for the sake of keeping the debate going is pathetic. Simply put, admit you are wrong and have no case.





top topics
 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join