Free Speech: Ex Had Abortion Against His Will, page 3

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:07 PM

link

reply to post by Rockpuck

Im sure it is only equaled by your disgust for the detachment to human life people who abandon their children show. Or people show when we bomb and kill children and innocent civilians in various countries.

I find it strange that people care so much more for unborn children than they do for the born children of the world. They moan, they cry, they pity themselves as "sub human and abused" when a large portion of these children at least ONE parent doesnt want would end up roaming the streets, or in foster care, and these same sensitive souls sobbing over aborted fetuses would be foaming at the mouth for the death penalty for these kids when they end up criminals because no one wanted them, and cared for them, and they ended up lashing out at the society which wanted them born, and then totally turned their backs on them afterward.

edit on 7-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

snowen20

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:17 PM

link

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Rockpuck

Im sure it is only equaled by your disgust for the detachment to human life people who abandon their children show. Or people show when we bomb and kill children and innocent civilians in various countries.

I'm sure it is that same exact disgust. Exactly the same in fact.

Rockpuck

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:21 PM

link

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Im sure it is only equaled by your disgust for the detachment to human life people who abandon their children show. Or people show when we bomb and kill children and innocent civilians in various countries.

Really? .. I mean honestly, that's the straw man you want to toss at me?
There was an abundance of rebuttals at your disposal.. "since we kill babies in war it's ok to kill babies at home" not the best choice.

Or, for that matter, that it's better to be dead as a child than suffer a life of neglect or poverty. Because no one's ever raised themselves from such precarious circumstances.

So as I say.. the detachment of emotion regarding abortions disgusts me.

And so does your response.

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:22 PM

link

Originally posted by snowen20

Thank God I left that insane country behind and went to a place that while far more destitute has an abundance of cooler and more prevailing minds.
edit on 7-6-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

Im glad you left America too. And I hope you gave up your citizenship as well.

Only people who actually want to be here should be. Although I wouldnt let those who chose to run off calling us insane back in the door.

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:23 PM

link

reply to post by Rockpuck

So, in other words, you do care more about the poor little unborn babies than the ones already born we blow to bits for next to nothing.

And just so you know, its only a "straw man" if I argue that YOU said it. And I wasnt. It was my response to what you said. Learn your fallacies if you want to toss them around.

edit on 7-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Rockpuck

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:27 PM

link

Having an abortion should be a hard thing.. if it's not a hard thing to do for you, there is something seriously messed up with your head. It should be spoken of as something tragic, a lesson learned, the circumstances were dire..

You shouldn't, as many Progressives do, talking about it with the same air as one would use when discussing the weather.. or trip to the grocery store..

Liberals who tout abortions as not only necessary to .. erm .. "protect a woman's property rights of the fetus" (wtf) but encourage it as a means to regulate ones life. The end result is many women getting abortions, whether they truly need it or not, and walking away with severe emotional damage. Because unlike you, they were not cold hearted bastards. When you don't talk about the emotional aftereffects the damage caused is often far worse than the financial burden of the child it's self.

So all I would ask is that it not be spoken of flippantly like it's nothing of major concern..

Rockpuck

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:28 PM

link

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

So, in other words, you do care more about the poor little unborn babies than the ones already born we blow to bits for next to nothing.

Strawman fallacy.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Get an education before you step up to the plate.

neo96

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:31 PM

link

reply to post by Rockpuck

in the past decade of war

abortions for that decade have killed more people than war has.

jessejamesxx

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:37 PM

link

You shouldn't be able to accuse anyone of murder, if it isn't true. If you think someone is guilty of murder, call the police.

gabby2011

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:37 PM

link

Somehow I feel the anti abortionists might have had a hand in him deciding to do this. They can be very ruthless.

pikypiky

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:38 PM

link

The guy should have kept his private matters to himself without having to resort to broadcasting his sentiments on a public billboard. It's not free speech when being unethical to the point of dragging people into the mud.

As for the abortion, he has 50% of the choice. But the woman's body is 100% hers with 10% or so belonging to the child (by weight). Now whether or not she had a miscarriage, we don't know for certain.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:39 PM

link

Please! We don't need another abortion thread...

Here's an interesting take on the story, comparing Fred Phelps and his Free Speech to this case.

More Like Abuse than Free Speech

If Westboro can do it, asserts Holmes, so can Fultz.

Though both cases certainly involve offensive and distasteful speech, the similarity stops there. The Fultz case is different from the Westboro case on almost every count. Let's have a look.

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:41 PM

link

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Having an abortion should be a hard thing.. if it's not a hard thing to do for you, there is something seriously messed up with your head. It should be spoken of as something tragic, a lesson learned, the circumstances were dire..

Or, you should have enough sexual self control and intelligence to PREVENT your getting pregnant, or getting someone who doesnt want to be pregnant pregnant. I would not be involved in an abortion. Because I know how babies are made, and how to avoid that.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You shouldn't, as many Progressives do, talking about it with the same air as one would use when discussing the weather.. or trip to the grocery store..

Why not? We talk about bombing children like that. Your assertion that abortion differs somehow fundamentally from killing children "in war" is silly, and meaningless. I cant sympathize with the arguments you liberals toss around about abortions because you have no moral or logical consistency.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Liberals who tout abortions as not only necessary to .. erm .. "protect a woman's property rights of the fetus" (wtf) but encourage it as a means to regulate ones life.

Now THATS a straw man. I never said that. At all. You were throwing a pity party about husbands and fathers being subhuman and I merely pointed out, that it has nothing to do with the status of the husband or father. It has everything to do with that fact that the property rights to a womans body do not transfer or alter in any way upon marriage in the US. Therefore, if, like you your post, a woman has a right to abort when single, she also does when married. Because it remains HER body, married or single. And that is the legal basis for her right to abort.

You may find people discussing abortion distasteful, but your sheer emotionalism and lack of reason I find just plain annoying. Not to mention all the name calling, and insinuations.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Because unlike you, they were not cold hearted bastards. When you don't talk about the emotional aftereffects the damage caused is often far worse than the financial burden of the child it's self.

Like that name calling and insinuation. I never had to walk away like a "cold hearted bastard." Again, because I know how babies are made, and how to prevent them. And having been in foster care, and seen the real suffering real live human children go through, I knew better than to have an unplanned pregnancy.

Its up to people to choose their sex partners wisely. Not just smash body parts together, spurt, and THEN consider whether the other person shares their values, or wants what they do in life.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
So all I would ask is that it not be spoken of flippantly like it's nothing of major concern..

You can ask all you want. I listen to people talk about killing innocent humans all the time on ATS, in unprovoked conflict, and I listen to them justify it in all sorts of ways, and you dont hear me whining about it, even though I find it disgusting. I will take the "right to life" arguments seriously when the people putting them forth demonstrate a sincere and consistent care for human life. Until then, its just hypocrisy in my opinion.

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:49 PM

link

Originally posted by Rockpuck

So, in other words, you do care more about the poor little unborn babies than the ones already born we blow to bits for next to nothing.

Strawman fallacy.

I have an education. In philosophy. And I do know my fallacies. And that, was an opportunity for you to rebut. Which, I might add, you never did. You keep popping at my statement, trying to call it a straw man, but what you dont do is say, "yes, it is just as wrong to kill born children as it is to kill unborn children."

You would rather focus the argument on me to avoid that.

So, direct question, do you care as much when we blow up, shoot, burn to death, etc., born children as you do when unborn babies are aborted?

< crickets >

< crickets >

< crickets >

You do realize you can only legitimately accuse someone of misrepresenting your opinion if indeed it is a misrepresentation.

Do you argue passionately and emotionally like you do here about aborted fetuses when in threads discussing children killed in war?

< crickets >

And if not, why should we take your emotionalism seriously at all?

edit on 7-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

burdman30ott6

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM

link

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
It's not his body that would have to carry the child if it was an abortion. Until a man can carry a child inside them they should shut up, it is not their decision.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

...Yet it would have been his wallet that would have had to carry the child's cost of living for the next 18 years had she not had an abortion. In my opinion, the law in this country sucks eggs. Half of our laws are based on some archaic bullcrap that relegates the woman back to the weak, unable to care for herself status they experienced 100 years ago and the other half of the law empowers them above the man and presumes all men are pigs. Absolute crap.

Allow me to expand on this concept for those of you unaware of the father's rights movement.
The law states that carrying a baby to term is solely at the discretion of the woman. The man cannot have any legal say in the matter whatsoever as it is her "right" to choose (as legislated from the SCOTUS bench in Roe V. Wade.)
The law also treats the act of procreation via sexual relations in an extremely conservative Christian manner, almost presuming that the only physical gratification & bebenfit recieved from the act is enjoyed by the man. God forbid that we legally acknowledge the female orgasm and the fact that today, in modern society, both men & women actually enjoy having sex and do it for mutual gratification.
Finally, the law assumes that a woman is unable to provide for her children herself and, in almost all cases, mandates the man gives up a sizeable chunk of his income each month (whether he wanted the child or not) and traps him in an impossible situation of being imprisoned if he cannot pay the court ordered child support, jailing him until he can pay the back due (plus all the extra he will owe from his time behind bars.) This is an irresovable situation for virtually anyone, as you usally do not make money while in prison, yet the law states you will stay in prison until you magically produce the amount owed. ENTRAPMENT, pure and simple.

This is not a defense of so-called dead-beat dads. Personally, I am opposed to abortion and believe that it is a prime example of how debased the USA has become as a society that it even exists. I also consider it to be sexual discrimination that the man is removed entirely from the decision, yet is fully exposed to the consequences of the decision, regardless of his feelings on the matter. I also support this man's freedom of expression via this billboard IF the woman in question did, in fact, have an abortion. Just as it is popular to suggest a man who doesn't want kids should keep his pants on, a woman who doesn't want kids should keep her legs closed. Instead, too many view a trip to the abortion clinic as a reasonable and valid option rather than taking personal responsibility for the little life they just helped to create.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 7-6-2011 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM

link

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I also consider it to be sexual discrimination that the man is removed entirely from the decision, yet is fully exposed to the consequences of the decision, regardless of his feelings on the matter.

I have long argued that to even the score to some degree, men should be allowed a "legal abortion" that allows them, within a set period of time (equal to the time limit in which a woman can legally and safely obtain an abortion) to legally "abort" the child and bear no further financial or legal responsibility for it.

Unfortunately, it will be up to science to come up with a way to allow the fetus to be transferred to the males body for hosting for the gestation period in order to have the baby his female partner did not want.

Kali74

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:54 PM

link

reply to post by burdman30ott6

You have some valid points, however...
I do believe this woman has a right to privacy. What if she should come to harm by the unwanted attention? As for the rest of your post, are men not aware of the laws in this country regarding a woman right to choose, or his legal obligations should a child be born? Of course I believe that two consenting people should discuss the what if's before they ever have sex, but should that fail to happen, men should be fully aware they have no say in the matter and proceed with caution.

gabby2011

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:15 PM

link

reply to post by burdman30ott6

While I agree that the woman does have the power..the man also has the power to communicate that if she does get pregnant ..that he absolutely wants that child.

You also fail to mention how many men have intimidated ,and coerced women into having abortions , when the women did not want to. The men that don't want to have children should consider that as well..but I think you may have made that point.

On a side note..was the picture in the billboard of a black baby??..if not..it sort of allures to that, which seems to point the finger at black woman, which I think is rather racist.

edit on 7-6-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

Illusionsaregrander

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM

link

reply to post by gabby2011

I think the baby is "black" because its a "shadow" or a "ghost" not that the mother was black. Its a black silhouette to show it as missing. I dont think race is an issue here at all.

burdman30ott6

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:24 PM

link

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by burdman30ott6

You have some valid points, however...
I do believe this woman has a right to privacy. What if she should come to harm by the unwanted attention? As for the rest of your post, are men not aware of the laws in this country regarding a woman right to choose, or his legal obligations should a child be born? Of course I believe that two consenting people should discuss the what if's before they ever have sex, but should that fail to happen, men should be fully aware they have no say in the matter and proceed with caution.

1. To me, the "unwanted attention" pales in comparison to the tragedy of yet another aborted baby. (Again, this is assuming the woman actually had an abortion, not a miscarriage. If the woman suffered a miscarriage, then the man is trash.)

2. My point is the law is unfair. To take examples from history related to your concept that "men know the law", African Americans knew the law in regards to "Separate but equal," women knew the law in regards to their voting rights prior to sufferage, and speakeasy patrons knew the law in regards to alcohol prohibition in the 20s. The fact that these were the laws did not change the fact that they were unfair and ridiculous overreaches by the lawmakers and the court system. Rosa Parks was a hero because she decided to sit in the front of the bus, the US needs a hero to stand up and loudly declare that equality should exist in regards to abortion & life.