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.

 

Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill T

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Miss Sile
 




Where is the cut off point?


IMHO it should be when the fetus becomes sentient, which is in 5th month of fetal development.

Being alive and having human DNA is not what makes us valuable. Our mind is what makes us valuable. No mind, no victim, no crime. Just like killing braindead (but biologically alive) humans is allowed (hospitals use the brain death definition as definition of death of a person, not biological death - death of all cells). Otherwise transplantations would have to be banned.
edit on 24/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
And then you have this dingle berry. Yes it is about religion and apparently it is god's will that you were raped so nothing should be done.

Don't you anti choice people see the evil of this at all.

thinkprogress.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


A friends 16 year old daughter is due in March. She is keeping the baby. She is repeating the same cycle as her mother. This girl can barely take care of herself let alone a child. However Mom loves babies and will now have a baby to take care of (dispite her protests to the contrary). They are not pursueing the father of this child for any monetary support.

Dad walks free.

Young mother will now have a child and the odds are greatly against her ever doing much to improve her station in life.

I understand what Obama has said.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 
Its just to bad that humans can't be responsable for there actions without killing someone but at the same time a woman has the right to deal with there own body's and mistakes.Great way to go at a problem like an unwanted pregnancie.

The idea that a president defends Roe V.Wade by using his daughters as examples for success by being able to lay anyone anytime and have lawfull access to getting rid of there mistakes speaks volums to this clowns mentality and lack of respect for his daughters and there moral standards.

Another epic fail by this failure of all failures, now he is using his kids on the campaign, you know the ones that were of limits to all others.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline

The idea that a president defends Roe V.Wade by using his daughters as examples for success by being able to lay anyone anytime and have lawfull access to getting rid of there mistakes speaks volums to this clowns mentality and lack of respect for his daughters and there moral standards.

, now he is using his kids on the campaign, you know the ones that were of limits to all others.

Your hatred has blinded you and your comprehension.
He speaks of the "daughters" of America , to have the same chance to aspire, as the "sons" of America.
Obama must have sons now too, in your delusional world.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I can't stand Obama but I completely agree with you. No one should be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Neopan100
 




Motherhood is not for everyone..abortion should STAY SAFE AND LEGAL!


If motherhood is not for everyone maybe they should practice the art of abstinence.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 
If motherhood is not for everyone how about all men abstaining from sex unless they want a child ? That would solve most of the problems of unwanted pregnancies in one step. Some US citizens will do there utmost to resist Government intrusions into their lives (if that is what they wish no one should criticize their choice) going so far as to live "off the grid" and declare themselves a "freeman" so they do not have to participate in Federal and State taxes, policies and laws but when it comes to the issue of abortion they suddenly and inexplicably advocate more Government intrusion in a women's body.

There are lots of ways to procure an abortion (and these have been practiced for thousands of years) not just a medical termination and once the knowledge is in the public domain it can't be "unlearned" so the ongoing debate is a smokescreen, women will continue to abort unwanted pregnancies whether it is legal, government sanctioned, religiously acceptable or not. Men and anti abortion female supporters can shout and foot stamp all they want nothing and no one can take away the easy obtainable knowledge of how to end a pregnancy. I think it just makes them mad that they are literally impotent when they try and force their beliefs on others.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Of course Obama said this... it is part of the Dog and Pony show. BOTH parties intend to make Abortion an issue.

For starters, almost EVERY GOP Candidate has signed the anti abortion pledge
Anti Abortion Pledge

Even Ron Paul signed it, however as you will see in the linked article, he is surrounded by questions because he believes you can not use the 14th Amendment to override the 10th Amendment.

Gingrich made some type of statement recently, which I am having trouble finding now, in which he said something to the effect of the Abortion issue is one of the biggest issues facing our country today.

This is all part of keeping voters distracted. They will put the abortion issue front and center and make it a big deal because as long as the sheep are arguing over the right to life, they will be far too distracted to discuss the REAL issues that are important to this country, such as the economy, our fiat money, The Fed, and our failed foreign policy. Instead we will argue over what people can do with their own bodies. A subject that does not effect your day to day life in any way shape or form. If I run out and have an abortion tomorrow, it will not effect your life in any way. The bailouts do, our foreign policy does, The Fed does, the IRS does, our fiat money does, but instead of focusing on those issues which do effect your life directly, we are going to argue about abortion?

It's all part of the game. Don't fall for it!



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Funny, isn't it.
The party that has the political ideology that wants to ban all abortions is the same party that wants to lessen the social services provided these unfit and unready mothers.

How can an entire political party be based firmly on illogical thinking.

Personally, I think you should only be able to give an opinion as an anti-abortionist if you have 2 or more adopted children..else, stfu

and yes, life starts at sentience. however, I deem that point when there is a fully working nervous system developed (typically at the end of the first trimester...3 months). Anything before that is little more than a growth, anything after that is arguably a lifeform and should require extra measures based on case by case senarios...such as finding some major defect that will limit the fetus's life outside the womb or the like.

but before...its a growth..a mass of replicating cells...about equal to a lifeform as a fungus



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul
Do cancer cells grow into a baby if left to grow at their own accord? Do parts of the cancer cell turn into arms and legs? Do cancer cells have a brain and a heart?



It seems we will continue to disagree, but I will point out that in your posts you acknowledge that there is a difference between cell division and an actual "baby" ...you speak of "grow into" or "turn into" which implicitly acknowledges that the time of conception does not constitute a "Baby" but rather a biological material that will "grow into" a baby, and I have not disagreed there, where we disagree is "when".

I used the tumor example to simply show that your claim of "cell division" as being a suffcient characteristic to define human life was inadequate. I did not liken Babies to cancer as you seem to want to imply for rhetorical convenience?
edit on 24-1-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If motherhood is not for everyone maybe they should practice the art of abstinence.


Maybe they should. And maybe that should be THEIR decision.
Maybe they should be FREE to choose.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Even Ron Paul signed it, however as you will see in the linked article, he is surrounded by questions because he believes you can not use the 14th Amendment to override the 10th Amendment.


Yes, he believes in using the 10th to override the 14th. States shouldn't have the right to decide a woman's personal medical decisions.

Ron Paul wants abortion to be illegal. He wants government to interfere in this VERY personal choice. He supports legislation that restricts abortion. It's all part of HIS game. Don't fall for it!


Instead we will argue over what people can do with their own bodies. A subject that does not effect your day to day life in any way shape or form.


It affects millions of people's lives every day. 24 states enacted 92 abortion restrictions in 2011. Women are being affected by the strong arm of the government every day.



If I run out and have an abortion tomorrow, it will not effect your life in any way.


True. But if these whack-os are successful and make abortion illegal (or allow states to make abortion illegal), it's going to affect MANY lives.

I agree with you that we have MANY more important issues to address, but as long as the anti-choice army is in full attack, it's important that we stand strong and fight for free choice.

.
edit on 1/24/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MrWendal
Even Ron Paul signed it, however as you will see in the linked article, he is surrounded by questions because he believes you can not use the 14th Amendment to override the 10th Amendment.


Yes, he believes in using the 10th to override the 14th. States shouldn't have the right to decide a woman's personal medical decisions.

Ron Paul wants abortion to be illegal. He wants government to interfere in this VERY personal choice. He supports legislation that restricts abortion. It's all part of HIS game. Don't fall for it!



Actually, from what I've seen, once again Ron Paul won't even commit one way or another but will let States choose whether they should ban or not -

www.bbc.co.uk...

Which would lead to an interesting situation wouldn't it? I'm very much pro choice myself, I wonder if that would drive abortion back into the back streets or make it a profit earner for States that decide not to ban?


edit on 24-1-2012 by something wicked because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
It doesn't matter whether or not abortion is legal or illegal; whether it is made legal or outlawed does not prevent women from having abortions, it just makes them seek out less conventional approaches such as coathangers, baseball bats, drug & alcohol abuse, etc. to rid themselves of the baby. Provided abortion is made legal the woman can at least go about it in a practical, medical manner.

Those arguing over the morality of abortion seem to miss this point, as if by making it illegal people will suddenly lose all desire to abort unwanted fetuses. This is simply not the case, women who want abortions will get abortions; they have throughout history.

Personally, I am pro-abortion; I think we need less people in this world, not more. Our population is growing at an exponential rate, so much that overpopulation is quickly becoming a major threat to our survival in the future. If we don't begin to limit the number of children each family can have until we reduce the world population to at most 2 billion (or even less), we're going to quickly run out of room and resources.

Let's think rationally here; take a step back and try to look at my argument logically, not emotionally. More people are being born than are dying every day, our resources are limited, our space is limited. The quality of life diminishes as our quantity increases, so we need to find a balance between the two.

Eugenics and genetic modification/stem cell research would be much more effective ways of finding the "next Einstein." The argument that the more babies we have the higher our chances of creating decent, intelligent, human beings is entirely flawed. In this age the idiots yield idiots, the rich yield brats, the poor yield the damned.

Enforcing eugenics would be another problem altogether; I don't think sterilization or forced abortion should be on the list of options, but a nonviolent approach may be to force birth control. I would not be comfortable with this for it would be a major of infringement of our liberties, but I can also understand that there will come a time when we will have to resort to drastic measures to further our species. A progressive, functioning society would not tolerate the retardation or contamination of its gene pool. This romanticized idea of the human race being impervious to extinction, coupled with a strong discomfort for change, and a "deal with it later" attitude, will inevitably lead to our downfall.

Sorry I went a bit off topic in this post, but I think it is relevant to what is being discussed. As discomforting as it may be, for the sake of our species and our planet, we need to start thinking of abortion and eugenics as bitter medicine. We can genetically engineer the next Einstein, we don't need to gamble for him by birthing another million babies into poverty stricken lives better left unlived.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I'm considered a die hard Ron Paul supporter and I feel the OP is in error.

If I had a 15 or 14 year old daughter who was "in love"or with a boy and she ended up getting pregnant through a series of teenage errors, why should she HAVE to rethink and reshape HER life around a mistake?

Yes, I said mistake. Unplanned pregnancies are mistakes.

And a 2 to 3 week pregnancy is a 'baby'. Bullcrap, there's NO medical evidence of that. The only 'evidence' is one person's feeling (Pro Lifer) against another (Pro Choice)....none of us know one way or another.

The thing that gets me heated about Pro Lifers is their willingness to have a young girl, poor woman, single woman with little means or education, take on the responsibility of a child to make them feel better about morality.

I know damn well if we men got pregnant and someone told us what to do with it, there would be a Global "screw you".

I can see it now "Sorry honey I know you planned to go to college but you're gonna have learn to change diapers and completely throw your motivation away on an unwanted child so me and your Mother won't have to feel guilt about you killing a 3 week old clump of cells we call "a baby".

It's all crap.

And I'll tell my HERO, Ron Paul, to his face, he's out to lunch on the issue.

Sorry but this is probably one of the ONLY issues I can agree with Obama on, and he's a lying murderous Corporate Warmongering Bailout Crony Scoundrel.


edit on 24-1-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
And I wanted to add a personal note.

I got an ex girlfriend pregnant when I was 17. We were both young and living together. The whole process was horrific and really scarred me for life.

BUT, I would not go back and change it. Me being a father at 17? Hahahahaha.

I was a complete WRECK all the way through my 20's. Fighting, drinking, anger, a short fuse, no money, living from stupid job to the next.

I would have damaged a child like nobody else could. I was freakin INSANE in my youth. I thought life was about fighting and screwing 'chicks'.

There is no way in HELL I would have had a positive impact on a child's life.

The thing with Pro Life types is, they NEVER want to think about the baby AFTER it's born. They assume EVERYONE is gainfully employed, educated, SANE, has a family backup, is mature, NOT on drugs, etc.

NO NO NO, there are MANY guys and girls out there as screwed up and crazy as I was.

Trust me, people like me in my youth do NOT need to be procreating.

Think about THAT moral choice before you make judgments on others.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Probably been said, got to page 9 and couldn't continue, but I'll state it anyway.

I'm pro-consistency. Prior to having kids, I didn't care, and I wanted government out of the way. After having my two boys, I don't know how in the # I could have ever thought of abortion being ok in any but the most severe circumstances. That said, I don't think I want any of the current politicians in the running (either side, president, congress, whatever) making that decision for anyone. A child is not a parasite, and the future outcome of the whole process does have bearing on the issue. But, there are plenty of hypotheticals which make me think a blanket ban on it is unwise, given the current level of governmental function we all enjoy, which is dismal.

That said, we need some consistency. If you say you want to ban abortions, that's 'cause you put some value on that life. Not that you think someone should, but that YOU do. Otherwise, you simply would not care. At the very least, you ascribe a moral value to that being's right to exist. You want government to step in and guard that right. Fair enough, we guard rights like that all the time.

But, most people who are for banning abortion are also for fewer social support programs. So, these people value that child prior to birth, but not enough to give up some more tax money so that child might have a chance at college with an affordable tuition. They don't want to fund rehab for that child's crack addict mother so that the child might know their mother's love. They don't even want tax money going to keep that child fed, if it involves feeding the "worthless" mother too. They expect people to observe the sanctity of life, but aren't willing to foot the bill for proper prenatal care, and don't bat an eyelash that we're currently 28th in the world for infant mortality, and a lot of that has to do with prematurity and low birth weight due to improper prenatal care. .

I know, I know....government can't be trusted to spend the money correctly. I get that. Why do you think they can make this decision then?

You can't have it both ways. I want to meet someone day that says "I know abortion is wrong, and I'd like to see it abolished. I'd also like to see funds go to supporting these children that would have been aborted under the old system after they're born." After all, the child's life is precious, right?

If you are for banning abortions, and you are for trimming social supports, you are wrong. Morally, logically, and pragmatically. It's not an opinion, it's not debatable. Your reasons for the ban also apply to the expansion of prenatal services, food programs, national health insurance, improving public education, and reducing the costs of higher ed. If you aren't, then you're saying that the unborn life has value, just not what comes out of your paycheck currently. If it is morally wrong to kill an unborn child, it's morally wrong to not pay for the preservation of that life post-delivery. In this case, it's not the mother who kills the child, it is you. Or rather, people who advocate and ram through a religious government agenda while trimming spending.

Or is it only a moral issue when the economic cost is zero?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



Originally posted by something wicked
Actually, from what I've seen, once again Ron Paul won't even commit one way or another but will let States choose whether they should ban or not -




Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[140] and "an unshakable foe of abortion" [141]


Every session he tries to get his Sanctity of Life Act passed, which states that life begins at conception and removes the protections of Roe v Wade completely. He also stated strong support for the new Texas law, which forces doctors to give abortion patients an unnecessary ultrasound, makes them review the results and force them to listen to the heartbeat 24 hours before the abortion.

Sounds like a comment one way or the other to me.


Source 1
Source 2



Which would lead to an interesting situation wouldn't it? I'm very much pro choice myself, I wonder if that would drive abortion back into the back streets or make it a profit earner for States that decide not to ban?


Considering the rise in abortion legislation by the states, I believe it would be a HUGH backward step to back-ally and botched abortions. 24 States, 92 Abortion Restrictions in 2011

.
edit on 1/24/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by lampsalot
My problem with the pro-abortion people is they use semantics and guilt tripping to justify their position, rather than real solid arguments.


It is not pro-abortion.

It is pro Right of Choice.


I don't use the terms pro-life and pro-choice because they are engineered to demonize the other side. I say pro-abortion and anti-abortion because it's simply stating what your position is without any euphemism. I know pro-abortion people don't LIKE abortion.


That really isn't correct.

Its Right of Choice. Its about the government giving woman the Rights to her own life and body.

Its supporting an individuals Right to make a choice regarding her life and body.

Many who support Right of individual Choice - - are anti-abortion (meaning they don't agree with it for themselves). It is not about abortion - - - but the Right of a woman to decide for herself.

Its the same as Gay Marriage. Many understand Equal Rights and support it on as a Right. Even if they themselves don't necessarily agree with it.




edit on 24-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join