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: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I really want to answer this, but I have no idea what crime that is.


Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

My government does not provide me one single thing...


Do you drive on the roads? Visit national parks? Ever call the police? If your house were on fire, what would you do? Ever been to a museum? Have you or your family ever depended on medical research? Or 'first responders'?

Not one single thing, huh?

Look. I agree with you that taxes suck. Just because I support choice doesn't mean I support the tax system.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




I really want to answer this, but I have no idea what crime that is.


Imagine someone is drowning, and you can save him by throwing a lifebuoy from a boat, and you wont do it. Dont know about US, but you will certainly end in jail if you did this here. The same is when witnessing an accident alone and not calling an ambulance. If you are a doctor, you also get prosecuted if you did not at least tried to give first aid. Also hospitals cannot refuse by law to perform lifesaving care even if you dont have means to pay.
When it comes to parents and children, which is relevant to the question at hand, it is even more strict - not trying to save your child in danger while you are perfectly able to would certainly be prosecuted as gross parental negligence, if not child abuse or killing by negligence. This may not be the case with people that are not in your care, assuming you are not a doctor and its not something simple like calling an ambulance or throwing a lifebuoy.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Food for thought: imagine a siamese twins connected in such a way that one is able to live independently, but the other would die if separated.

Does the first one have an unilateral right to have the separation performed, and thus kill the other?

Also note that having a siamese twin connected to you for whole life is a much bigger inconvenience and risk than few months of pregnancy and a child birth/caesarean section.
edit on 19/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


For me, I tend to yes as the answer. But if the siamese twin was connected just for few months, and after that it would somehow develop enough for it to live independently (analogy with pregnancy), my answer would be no.
edit on 19/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


bull pucky

the "we can no longer afford it" is a BIG LIE in its own class

ask those lawmakers about CAFR

[video] CAFR The Biggest Game in Town www.abovetopsecret.com...

[UPDATE] Biggest Game In Town !! CAFR www.abovetopsecret.com...

CAFRs: The Biggest Secret $60 trillion invested by US government www.abovetopsecret.com...

The One Thing they will not discuss, CAFR...www.abovetopsecret.com...


the money is there on a separate set of books they are not telling the people about


the nation as a whole has over 64 trillion dollars in stocks, bonds and other investments that is kept secret from the people,more than enough to pay the nations debt and balance a budget.

and of course like those lawmakers when confronted with CAFR
i expect you to either ignore me or feign ignorance.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   


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


Just to add, I consider human body to be just the "hardware" on which human consciousness runs, and the consciousness itself is the person. So for me, there is no special right to human body. It is surely very important privately owned asset for every person, but ultimately, it is not much different than a house or money in the bank, and in some cases its use can be restricted to protect the basic rights of others. Late-term abortions, pregnant drinking or drug use etc. are definately reasons when it needs to be done, IMHO.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


you do realize this is all to do with hypocrisy and Xtianity being a death cult?

lose the respect, or you'll be a victim too

these women are "sinners" and they, and their children of sin should suffer,
and any aid given should be given by churches,
the better to guilt-trip/indoctrinate the child into being soldier/fodder for Xtianity.

federal assistance could be an impediment to fanatics of a doctrine shown by history to be nothing more than a bloodstained banner raised to the concept of dominion.

this is just the usual "All god's chillun got shoes" -mouthing trash that has been a major player in subverting the nation since day one.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Well, I don't know of such a law in the US. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In either case, the victims in your scenario are PEOPLE, not unborn and dependent fetuses.


Originally posted by Maslo
Food for thought: imagine a siamese twins connected in such a way that one is able to live independently, but the other would die if separated.

Does the first one have an unilateral right to have the separation performed, and thus kill the other?


My own personal opinion would be no. They are both born people and have rights, among them, the right to life. But I do not know the law regarding conjoined twins.


Originally posted by Maslo
Just to add, I consider human body to be just the "hardware" on which human consciousness runs, and the consciousness itself is the person.


I actually agree with you, but we are talking about the physical world and not spirituality. For all we know, the body is all we have.



So for me, there is no special right to human body. It is surely very important privately owned asset for every person, but ultimately, it is not much different than a house or money in the bank, and in some cases its use can be restricted to protect the basic rights of others.


I understand your point, but setting aside the metaphysical for a moment, we need our bodies to live. Take away my body and you take my life. My body IS me. Or at the very least, it's mine. And no one else has any rights to it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 






"despisers of the body are not bridges to the superman" -Nietzsche


oh my,
you have just given yourself away as anti-life and a potential mass murderer



the Pro-lifers are really just Anti-Lifers seeing black as white per the rules of Bizzarro-World





"They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.
"They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth—and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.
-this is john galt speaking
-atlas shrugged
Ayn Rand



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




In either case, the victims in your scenario are PEOPLE, not unborn and dependent fetuses.


So there is some other important distinction between the fetus and a baby than being dependent? Because they ARE dependent just like a fetus at the moment on the help of others to live, so its the same.



They are both born people and have rights, among them, the right to life.


So why fetus does not have this right? Its equally dependent. There must be some other quality than dependence to make the distinction then.



I actually agree with you, but we are talking about the physical world and not spirituality.


No, you didnt get me. I was not talking about spirituality, I am a materialist.I am saying that the reason why we protect human body is only because we want to protect material human consciousness inside (if mind uploading becomes possible, we may not protect it anymore). So protecting the body from something which will not kill or limit the consciousness inside (such as taking blood) and while doing so causing another consciousness to die defeats the whole ultimate purpose of body protection.



Take away my body and you take my life. My body IS me. Or at the very least, it's mine. And no one else has any rights to it.


This is the same as libertarian argument against basic welfare payed from theft (taxes). Just as they think they have a right to refuse material help which will not harm them much to those who would die without it, you think you can refuse something which will not harm you (and you are ultimately your counsciousness, everything else is just a "property" of it - taking blood will not harm you) to those who would die without it.

Whats the difference? A little pain? Thats not enough. Both taken excess wealth of the rich and excess blood from your body are not very needed for you or the rich (I would say taking excess wealth from the rich harms them even more than taking blood from healthy person. If I had to choose between paying taxes and giving blood sometimes, I would probably choose the latter
).



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


What? I am pro-choice (until the 4th month, when sentience develops). I am just criticizing the dependence criterion, which I find quite insufficient to justify pro-choice position.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
So there is some other important distinction between the fetus and a baby than being dependent?


Yes, as I said, born people are people and therefore their rights are protected. The difference between an unborn child and a born child is that one is a person. The Constitution of the US protects the rights of people.



So why fetus does not have this right?


Because it has not yet attained personhood, by being born.


Originally posted by Maslo
I am just criticizing the dependence criterion, which I find quite insufficient to justify pro-choice position.


By the way, my pro-choice position isn't justified by the dependence criterion.
I'm just stating my opinion about the legal rights of the fetus. I don't know much about law, but I figure the reason that fetuses don't have specified rights is something like that.

As I said before, I don't support or like abortion. The only justification for ME for getting an abortion is that my life is threatened (and that happened to me). Even if I was raped by a horrible goon, the resulting fetus is innocent and I would do all I could to give it every chance to live. And I would keep it and love it, too.


My justification for being pro-choice is freedom. Each person's freedom to make choices about their life, including reproduction.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




The difference between an unborn child and a born child is that one is a person.
Because it has not yet attained personhood, by being born.


Does it mean you would be OK with late term abortions being legal?



My justification for being pro-choice is freedom.


Well, even the most pro-choice liberal must agree that there is a cutoff when the freedom to kill the fetus/child must be restricted by the law (either after appearance of brain waves, or after outside viability, or at least after being born). I just dont think current law criterion, which is outside viability, is moral or logical.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Does it mean you would be OK with late term abortions being legal?


Yes. I believe all abortion should be legal.



Well, even the most pro-choice liberal must agree that there is a cutoff when the freedom to kill the fetus/child must be restricted by the law (either after appearance of brain waves, or after outside viability, or at least after being born).


I am not a liberal. I am not a Democrat. My views span the spectrum of political belief, most of the time coming down on the side of individual freedom.



I just dont think current law criterion, which is outside viability, is moral or logical.


I understand. I don't believe in applying my personal restrictions, morals or values to others.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Yes. I believe all abortion should be legal.


Now allow me to Oh, my God! You would be OK with late term abortion being legal? Thats no different than killing a newborn (because baby in the third trimester IS identical in every quality to newborn, just is not born yet). That's scary to me. But you have every right to your opinion on it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


For me, it comes down to government interference in our lives. If the government interfered and told me that I had to give blood, or that I couldn't have an abortion, it's the same thing. My body is mine. The government has no place in the conduct of my personal life.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Exactly!!!! Pro-lifers wallow in ignorance and talk about saving "babies". But "babies" are not aborted. A fetus is not a baby. And all later abortion is regulated under Roe v. Wade. In fact, many of those hideous photos they carry around are of abortions that were performed only because the mother was going to die. These hideous people want women to be incubators ... nothing more.

But watch out once that baby is born. Then it's no food, health care or shelter because we don't wanna be Socialists. And then at 18 it's off to illegal wars to protect the oil.

There is NOTHING as morally barren as a "pro-lifer". Nothing.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Why is it so difficult for people to get the concept that when you choose to have sex is when your choice occurs, not afterward. Even though that is not really what we are after in this case, people are just choosing to pick on pro-life or pro-choice.

Pro-life attached to republicanism is not 100% correct but in general does happen frequently. The problem I have with everyone here thinking that republicans are abandoning those that are having these children is that children do not come out of thin air, they require responsibility and commitment and it is not the responsibility of the government to raise or support your child it is the two people that create that child (or with any god of your choice). People think they are entitled to so much, in this country you are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuing happiness. These things do not entitle you to money, sex, schools, ETC let alone equal schools and equal money and equal food. What you get in the US is the blessing to work hard and achieve whatever you can in your life (save government interference). You do not (or should not) get a meal ticket and medical care or anything else that people think they are entitled.

People in america have no idea what poor is, our poor people can have cable TV and be fat because governement has enabled them to do so because of the compassion of others that do not want to see homelessness and starvation. Out of sight and out of mind. People do not understand the costs of such social endeavors. Those providing must significantly outnumber those receiving and the list of those receiving increases over time, it happens in EVERY socialist socienty ever made (see Eurpean and US).


edit on 19-6-2011 by wirefire99 because: Spelling / Grammar is not my forte



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


The point is, however, cuts were made to public school funding. Cuts are being made to poor women with children, all over the country. Womb patrol; the GOP wants to ban birth control too. Where are the jobs they promised?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


That plus, every time a man masturbates and ejaculates, he is "spilling seed" that could be a potential life.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


So, banning birth control helps this how?

www.politifact.com...
edit on 19-6-2011 by aero56 because: link



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join