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.

 

So called "pro-lifers" cut food aid for poor single mothers, children and infants

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
Do you consider a person with a physical or mental hanicap that is totally dependent on another person to care for them, without rights too?


No. The life of the person you describe is not COMPLETELY dependent on another person. They are alive and anyone can take care of them if they need it. There's a big difference between needing CARE and one's very life (breathing) being completely dependent on another.

In other words, remove a fetus from it's incubator and it dies. It is COMPLETELY dependent for its very LIFE.

Does that make sense?
.
edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jerryznv
Do you consider a person with a physical or mental hanicap that is totally dependent on another person to care for them, without rights too?


No. The life of the person you describe is not COMPLETELY dependent on another person. They are alive and anyone can take care of them if they need it. There's a big difference between needing CARE and one's very life (breathing) being completely dependent on another.

In other words, remove a fetus from it's incubator and it dies. It is COMPLETELY dependent for its very LIFE.

Does that make sense?
.
edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


I understand what you are saying...but...here is my point: A fetus can be incubated if it is unable to survive in the mothers womb...we have heard of a second trimester fetus (although it is a child) suviving and thriving in incubation just fine...developing into a completely normal child.

So with that being said, artificial reperation is provided for many adults unable to breath on their own too, stroke victims often need complete medical assistance to survive without any recognizable brain function (aside from minimal activity...much like a fetus), and yet they have rights. Same thing here...take away their breathing and feeding devices and they die...I don't see the correlation your trying to make!

Because the fetus has no choice it is not a viable life...or because it is dependent on incubation (for a short period of time) for survival, that it (he/she in my opinion) does not have a right to life?

No I am sorry that does not make sense to me.
edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Its all about politics,liberals being able to deliver on the dim/lib Golder Promise"A womans right to choose"....it can be couched in any other verbal way you want,but thats the bottom line....



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




The life of the person you describe is not COMPLETELY dependent on another person. They are alive and anyone can take care of them if they need it. There's a big difference between needing CARE and one's very life (breathing) being completely dependent on another.


Does it mean if someone somehow is completely dependent on another person (for example by requiring something from the blood of concrete another person to live), he is no longer a person and can be killed?

The dependence pro-choice argument is not good at all. Brainwaves or sentience argument is far better.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg

Originally posted by Homedawg
It can be saved by tombambi simply ordering our troops home.....3 wars to choose from.....withdarw troops from any 2 within 48 hrs,which he has the power to do,and all that lovely money can be spent feeding welfare drones for years.....so its up to the dim leadership now
So why isnt the dim leadership toeing up on the line and freeing up all that lovely money?...It cant be the republicans....they arent in power....the wars could end tomorrow if the dim leadership wanted it to....lets hear it from dim supporters...why dont they end the wars?...
I love the way dim/libs ignore talking points that show their entire line of argument is false



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Does it mean if someone somehow is completely dependent on another person (for example by requiring something from the blood of concrete another person to live), he is no longer a person and can be killed?


I have no idea what this question means. The blood of concrete?

But I think the answer is that if someone needs blood to live and another person VOLUNTEERS it, then that's fine, but no one should be FORCED by law to provide it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

First, thank you for such a well-thought and articulated post.


No Problem. (Unless that sentence is just code for 'annoyingly long'!) There have been many threads which left me wanting to punch my monitor out over all the name calling and nonsense, and then I'd get to one of your posts and be calmed by the polite and thought-provoking comment! So, thank you.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Keep in mind I'm talking about those listed in the OP. The lawmakers. The politicians.


Ah, this makes sense.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, citizens? I think the motivations for their opinions run the gamut. They are pro-life for religious, social, cultural and yes, political reasons. I totally support people having and expressing their opinions on abortion. It's when the law gets involved that I have something to say.


Ah ha! That seems very similar to what I have seen as well. I suppose my earlier post was really just me finally realizing that for all the people I had taken issue with, and assumed that their opinion was based on faulty ground, there are also several more with an opinion different from mine, yet also coming from a place that I can understand and respect. I don't know if I have really put that in words to myself on this particular issue, and it is an issue I have been strongly vocal about in the past... so it was interesting to find myself thinking about it in that way.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.


I guess here is where I disagree with you. I do believe they have basic human rights, but I also believe that there are some situations where someone is going to lose their rights. There are many situations like that... prisons, nursing homes, even elderly losing the license to drive a vehicle. In these situations we must make the decisions that make most sense to us, and hopefully we can use logic to decide. Which is why I am for the legal right to abortion, for the reasons I stated before. Of course, I'd be down with giving basic rights to all animals too, so what do I know!



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

There are many things worse than death.


Exactly! Like Public Speaking!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
These types who call themselves pro-life are not for life, these conservative republican tea party types are pro-death and pro-slavery.

Look how they always vote to outsource jobs; vote for phony free trade bills; vote never to rein in corporate thieves; cut programs for the poor and middle class; lower taxes for the rich; force woman to have unwanted babies; vote to go to war; vote always to raise the defense budget.

Add all that up and it equals death and destruction for ordinary human beings and the coddling of the rich and powerful.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





But I think the answer is that if someone needs blood to live and another person VOLUNTEERS it, then that's fine, but no one should be FORCED by law to provide it.


I think this is more double talk...the use of FORCE (there I emphasized it too)...is exactly what the OP's thread is all about, and I am sure you caught that.

I am forced to pay taxes, now we could debate that I am not forced to, but in reality if I don't then you can certainly bet I will be forced to go to a federal prison for a short stay until I decided to comply, but that is not the debate. I am forced to pay taxes, and if my taxes are paying for abortions at any level, federal,state or otherwise, I am essentially being forced to pay for abortions.

I don't have a box on my IRS forms to exclude my taxes from abortions, and those that support it, so what say do I have about using force to make people do what they should have a right to opt out of. I should not have to be forced into paying for abortions, but I am!

If your argument is that a woman should not be forced into carrying a child that she does not want to then I argue that I should not be forced into paying for an abortion that I don't want to. Now who is being forced to do what?
Pro-choicer's have won and a woman is free to get an abortion anytime she want to, I however am stuck with footing the bill in the long run when more of my tax paying dollars are funneled to support abortions.


edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 





These types who call themselves pro-life are not for life, these conservative republican tea party types are pro-death and pro-slavery.


Just for the record...I am not a Republican!

Discernment is key here, I am a pro-life supporter and do not promote death or slavery.

Careful not to lump pro-lifers into your own political bashing party.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Does it mean if someone somehow is completely dependent on another person (for example by requiring something from the blood of concrete another person to live), he is no longer a person and can be killed?


Let me try this again. For clarity.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.


Whether or not an unborn child has rights is arguable. They may have rights and they may not. It's a matter of each person's opinion. But the woman's rights are incontrovertible. They are the ones that must be protected and respected.

If Bob, the plumber, depend on others for his life (blood donations or an organ) he has the RIGHT to those things. But only if they are available, usually because someone volunteered or donated to the situation. I could not support the government forcing people to donate organs, give blood or otherwise give of their very person, and risk their life, to make sure Bob stays alive.

That is what making abortion illegal is doing. And I don't support it for Bob and I don't support it for a fetus. If Bob has to die because no compatible person is willing to donate a kidney, I don't believe in forcing them to.

And aside from all of that, Bob is a PERSON. Not a fetus. And has the same rights as every other person. So, no. It's not OK to kill him.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




But I think the answer is that if someone needs blood to live and another person VOLUNTEERS it, then that's fine, but no one should be FORCED by law to provide it.




If Bob, the plumber, depend on others for his life (blood donations or an organ) he has the RIGHT to those things. But only if they are available, usually because someone volunteered or donated to the situation. I could not support the government forcing people to donate organs, give blood or otherwise give of their very person, and risk their life, to make sure Bob stays alive.


Well, I disagree. It depends on the level of risk, we cannot make absolute judgements like that for all lifesaving situations. Donating an organ should not be forced, that is a risky procedure, and we have some organs multiplied for a reason.
But I think if there was no other option, it would moral to force healthy people for example to give blood to save anothers life, even if they disagreed. Just like it is moral to outlaw not providing urgent help while you are able to and it wont endanger you much (but you only do not want to).

I dont know if risk of pregnancy is so great that it justifies letting other person die, probably not, if the woman is healthy. So its not so clear that healthy woman should not be forced to carry child at least to the outside viability age, assuming it is a person.

There must be another criterion than mere viability without the mother for me to justify abortion.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

reply to post by jerryznv
 

I am forced to pay taxes, and if my taxes are paying for abortions at any level, federal,state or otherwise, I am essentially being forced to pay for abortions.


First, paying taxes so you can enjoy the benefits of living in a society and a community, is not in the same realm as carrying another growing being inside your very person for 9 months and then going through an agonizing and life-threatening event to birth it from your body, only to spend the next 18+ years responsible for that life, his schooling, his outlook on life, his actions, and making sure he grows to be a responsible citizen...

Secondly, how many people do you know that pay taxes for ONLY what they support? Can I see a show of hands? How many people here pay taxes ONLY for programs that they approve of? Are you all OK with paying for these wars? Should I get a check box on my taxes so that none of my money goes toward the military industrial complex?

edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Whether or not an unborn child has rights is arguable. They may have rights and they may not. It's a matter of each person's opinion. But the woman's rights are incontrovertible. They are the ones that must be protected and respected.


It is not arguable whether an unborn child has rights, at least not in a court of law, as it has already been decided!


The federal “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” (more commonly known as “Laci and Conner’s Law”) as well as the laws of 36 states2 recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of criminal violence and treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide. In addition, twenty-two
states3 define non-fatal assaults on unborn children as criminal offenses. Thus, it is clear that
recognizing the unborn as “others” for purposes of the “defense of others” theory in no way
diverges from approaches taken by the states in other areas of criminal law.

LINK

Depending on how it fits into your pro-choice argument has been the issue for decades...abortion should be legal because it is the woman that should have the choice and her rights must be protected first, but then introduce a fetus as the victim of a crime and we have a living person...In some cases more than one and a person who commits a violent act that causes death to an unborn fetus (child) then manslaughter law apply.

Seems to me that pro-life supporters are pretty clear on what life is, and it depends on how it fits into your agenda, then pro-choice supporters pick and choose when life is considered life.

Either way...my tax dollars should not pay for abortions, which is my point!
edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...


Whatever though...if your pro-life then you have an argument, if your pro-choice you have an argument, too many issues (like I said ealier) and too much to debate.
edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Whenever a budget is cut, the sob stories come out. This is how government agencies survive!

We can't cut project "X", puppies will starve, mothers will go hungry, babies will die.

Whatever happened to private agencies? Whatever happened to developing a plan for yourself?

Why is there this CONSTANT NEED for government agencies and their programs?

Just more shrill crying to maintain the status quo.

Apologies if this, my sentiment, has been said already.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Donating an organ should not be forced, that is a risky procedure, and we have some organs multiplied for a reason.


I understand that you disagree with me and that's cool.
But childbirth is also a risky procedure.



But I think if there was no other option, it would moral to force healthy people for example to give blood to save anothers life, even if they disagreed.


Oh, my God! We do disagree... Heavens. To me, that is an extreme violation of the very right to my own person and goes against everything I hold dear. I'm serious. That's scary to me. But you have every right to your opinion on it.

edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

reply to post by jerryznv
 

It is not arguable whether an unborn child has rights, at least not in a court of law, as it has already been decided!


There is nothing in there about an unborn child's rights. Only the woman's rights. And the unborn child's status as a victim if criminal violence is involved.



Seems to me that pro-life supporters are pretty clear on what life is, and it depends on how it fits into your agenda, then pro-choice supporters pick and choose when life is considered life.


It might surprise you to find out that I do not support abortion at all. I think life begins at conception and if I were to become pregnant, I would not CHOOSE to have an abortion unless it threatened my life. But I would still choose. And I want that choice for every woman.

Edit: I apologize to the OP for going so far off topic. This really should be about cutting food aid for the poor single mothers, children and infants.

.
edit on 6/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




To me, that is an extreme violation of the very right to my own person and goes against everything I hold dear.


Well, why is then not providing urgent help when being able to a crime? Its the same situation - you can save anothers life without endangering your life or health, you wont do it - crime.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Secondly, how many people do you know that pay taxes for ONLY what they support? Can I see a show of hands? How many people here pay taxes ONLY for programs that they approve of? Are you all OK with paying for these wars? Should I get a check box on my taxes so that none of my money goes toward the military industrial complex?


Nobody pays taxes for only what they support...you have nailed it. Not one person is okay with the way are tax dollars are thrown to wasted efforts and programs that make no sense.

Yes you should get a tax box so that none of your money goes to the military if you don't support it. Why would that be silly...because it has never happened...don't you understand that your not supposed to have a say in where you taxes go, that way you can't complain.

Just keep paying your taxes and not worrying about how they are used, and just know that it does not matter. I hardly think that my taxes are supporting the lifestyle that I am provided and prefer to think that my job and income provides those things...to be honest I don't know what my taxes pay for anymore...maybe boat trips to dump imaginary dead bodies...who knows?

My government does not provide me one single thing...I am offered no safety and security by my military...I get just the opposite....wars, and more wars. I am not living on any assistance programs...but I am sure paying for them...your right...I don't get to decided where my money goes and it is a shame.




edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   


You all know the "pro-lifers" in congress and among our state governments? The ones that insist upon telling woman what to do and what not to do with their bodies? The ones that support the idea of forcing raped woman to go through with the pain pregnancy? The ones that insist upon making a woman's womb the property of the state and federal government? Yes, the "pro-lifers" who apparently do this all out of respect for the sanctity of life, but wait, what's this?


The questions posed by the OP do not make me think this is off topic at all.

I think a lot of questions are asked and there are several answers.

But if I am off topic then I also will apologize.

Edit: Actually I am just going to go away...my opinion is out there on the table, and there are just too many arguable points for me to carry on. Carry on with the pro-life, republican tea party bashing discussion!
edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join