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: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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.


Would be great if it didn't go against the instincts nutured through several million years of evolution. In a world where one on the greatest drives of life is to replicate one has to ponder the effectivness of such advice.




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

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.

Has nothing to do with hatred, has to to do with realism,you are implying hate, I was makeing comment on his statement and his epic fail makeing that statement, but I would not expect anything more from an Obama supporting liberal.

"daughters of America" is your spin and I have no idea where you got the "son's" idea. Is this really all you can do to defend Obama....................ya I guess it is.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.


Strongly agree and star.

I would not choose abortion under any circumstances. I am 100% anti-abortion and 100% pro-choice. It is not a decision that should be dictated by the government. Allowing the government pervue over reproductive decisions is beyond "over-reach" it is the ugly cousin of communism.

Imagining a world where the government is permited to make indivdual reproductive choices?.. it would not be entirely alien to imagine the idealogical pendulam swinging in a direction in the next century's population boom that the Christian right would not be so pleased about. In China right now there is 35% of the population that the government limits to one child per family.

I don't want a government making those decisions. Doesn't make me Pro-Abortion, I am Ant-Abortion...it makes me Pro-Choice...and any group that champions our "Liberty" should feel the same way.

This is where the committed will say that "Liberty" should not permit "murder" and we return to the intransient debate of when does Human Life begin...At Conception? At the Zygote? Brain Waves? That debate is interesting, but I am not comfortable having politicians or government dictate that scientific or spiritual discussion. We offer government that power and bad things follow IMO. Choice...I trust the people.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I can't even begin to assume what goes through someones head when they are considering abortion. I would like to think that for most women it is an issue that isn't taken lightly.

Its not always the fact that a woman just can't deal with the responsibility of having a child. I can understand the need for one if the birth will cause physical or emotional harm to the mother. Something like pregnancy as a result of rape, or some kind of complication(I'm not a medical doctor, so I don't know specifics).


The issue a lot of people have is the other side of it. Women who do it because they can't deal with the responsibility of raising a child, so they decide to opt out. We all have urges, but one of the things that separates us from wild beasts is self control. If your having sex, you should know that condoms or birth control aren't 100%. It shouldn't be an excuse. Same thing with poverty. Does being poor limit your ability to use common sense? Those kinds of abortions are disgusting. As are the women who get them, and the doctors who do them. It may or may not be murder, but it definitely is snuffing out a potential life. What if your mother decided to abort you for no legitimate reason? Whatever, you are free to choose. Just like everyone else is free to ridicule you for being a disgusting scumbag who doesn't value human life.


Anyway, this isn't something the government should have any say in unless you can 100% prove the murder thing. I think its funny how all these anti-government folks who post here think they should. Small government unless it suits you, am I right? This issue comes up every time elections get close. Partly to pander votes from the extremists on the left or right, and partly to distract us from more important things.
edit on 24-1-2012 by DarthOej because: Left something out, and didn't want to make anothe short post.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don't remember reading that killing unborn babies was a right as outlined in the constitution.

I guess that makes Obama a LIAR. Shocking.

I love how liberals maintain that it's a woman's 'right' to make 'choices' about her own body. I agree, but they need to go back a step or two when the woman made a 'choice' to have unprotected sex. Killing unborn babies is a crime, not a choice.


edit on 24-1-2012 by AwakeinNM because: Well I guess y'all know where I stand on that issue.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Did you read the 9th amendment?



The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The constitution doesn't HAVE to mention abortion.


And the 14th?



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If a woman gets pregnant, it is a private matter, not to be legislated by the state.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I love how liberals maintain that it's a woman's 'right' to make 'choices' about her own body. I agree, but they need to go back a step or two when the woman made a 'choice' to have unprotected sex.


So, they're free to make the choice... as long as it's the choice YOU want them to make?




Killing unborn babies is a crime, not a choice.


Um... no it's not a crime. It's legal.
It's called abortion and it's a medical procedure.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
"How Marxism Has Infiltrated the Catholic Church"


Christianity is considered a prime target in preparing the way for a “Marxized America,” since religion, as an independent center of societal values, stands in the way
of creating a new culture based on what is deceptively called “social justice” and
“change.” Religion, in the Gramsci view, is the foundation for the Western values of
individual liberty, private property, and the traditional family, and must be abolished in
order for the new communist society to emerge.



Obama accepted the challenge at Notre Dame because he wants to count American Catholics as one of these “progressive” groups. But knowing that his policies,
especially on abortion, are opposed to Catholic moral teaching, Obama, a master of
political double-speak, stepped up to the microphone at a Catholic institution and beguiled many Catholics when he called for an “open dialogue” of people with “open
hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in an effort to find “common ground.” His syrupy
words were designed to drive a gigantic political wedge in the Roman Catholic
community, dividing the mesmerized from those Catholics who stood steadfast with
Church doctrine and the teachings of the bishops
The Obama appearance was arranged by
the Rev. John I. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame,
in violation of a document published by the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that
Catholic institutions should not honor or provide a
platform to politicians who stand in opposition to
Catholic moral teaching on abortion and the “culture
of life.”
Jenkins has made common cause with those
backing Obama, who have a secular global agenda
that includes the establishment of global institutions
in direct competition with the Roman Catholic
Church. Jenkins is a board member of Millennium
Promise, an organization dedicated to fulfillment of
the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” for the
U.S. and the world. The cost of fulfilling the
Millennium Development Goals, which were
integrated into Obama’s Senate legislation called
the “Global Poverty Act,” was estimated at $845 billion.
.


George Weigel, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., called Obama’s foray to Notre Dame a “high stakes
‘political game.’” 14 Obama’s plea for “open dialogue” certainly will mollify many
Catholics and Christians unaware of the real nature of the “game” he is playing. While
he speaks soothing words from his teleprompter, however, his far-left political base
works at the same time to expand efforts to weaken the cultural and religious influence
of Catholicism and Christianity across America.


The nuclear family is a main target. Efforts are made to break a child away fromhis/her parents’ way of life and values through promotion of acceptance of abortion,
homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” unmarried adult living arrangements, and
sexualizing child behavior. Catholicism and Christianity, as shown in Europe’s fall into a
dark pit of socialism and secularism, also would have to be undermined in order to
transform American culture. Socialism and secularism are partners in “Marxizing the
inner man.” For the progressives-socialists-Marxists conducting the subversive drive
toward “social justice” in America, the values embodied in Catholicism and Christianity
stand in the way of their success and therefore must be destroyed.


source: www.usasurvival.org...
edit on 24-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Look, I'm an Atheist and I used to be strongly pro-choice, but there are some other factors to consider in this debate. For instance, riddle me this:

In our legal system, when someone assaults/murders a pregnant woman, the unborn 'child' can be considered a separate victim of the crime. The killer/assaulter, in effect, could be charged for assaulting/murdering two human beings.

So how would it follow, in that same legal system, that the mother has the right to 'murder' her child, just because it's hers? By that same logic, must not we also permit mothers to murder their children after they exit the womb with no consequences?

I honestly don't know when life begins, or should be defined to begin (I don't think I have nearly the required expertise to make that distinction). But what I do know is that our current system is absolutely inconsistent.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Couldn't agree more with you two..




Originally posted by windword
I applaud Obama for coming out, especially during an election cycle, to preserve the "right to choose" of women! OP, I couldn't disagree with you more. No one is trying to take away your right to give birth.

OP, you are looking at the world through rosey colored glasses. Not all women will make good moms, or will become better people for having given birth.





Originally posted by Neopan100
Motherhood is not for everyone..abortion should STAY SAFE AND LEGAL!

That said..I am a mother of two beautiful little girls--My husband and I were ready and willing and capable of having children and sharing our love. The adoption process is so complicated and very expensive..and there are many children that should not have been born..I would rather know that tissue was scraped from a womans uterus than to know that child be born in to a world of poverty, hate, hunger, sadness, ie...there are so many children that are unloved and abused..the thought of it breaks my heart.

flame if you must...but please don't take that right away from girls and women..because no matter what if the woman doesn't want the child she will find a way to dispose of it..safe or not.





People wanna hate Obama for any little thing.

He has guts to come out and defend this and he is absolutely right to do so.



edit on 24/1/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainIraq
 


MANY Doctors, scientists, and priests agree that new life begins at conception. Where the confusion comes in is the definition of a "viable fetus able to survive outside the wombP, and that is the definition used to determine whether a baby is considered to be valuable enough not to eliminate.

Ok, I edited my post to say that many agree.
edit on 24-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline

"daughters of America" is your spin and I have no idea where you got the "son's" idea. Is this really all you can do to defend Obama....................ya I guess it is.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Battleline because: (no reason given)

you say he was using his own daughters in his speech, and you have no idea where the "sons" came from.

Well, I'm not going to attack your Political views, as it is done commonly as if it bears any significance to this debate.

Perhaps you should read the OP, read what he said , before you "speak , and remove all doubt"



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


He doesn't have any guts, he is just following the script of the New World Order.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Yes, whatever happened to "LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Doctors, scientists, and priests all agree that new life begins at conception. Where the confusion comes in is the definition of a "viable fetus able to survive outside the wombP, and that is the definition used to determine whether a baby is considered to be valuable enough not to eliminate.



When does life begin? is a question that is often asked. It seems simple and straightforward, but it isn't. Defining life to begin with is hardly straightforward but for the purposes of this question we mean "human life", and more specifically we mean the life of an individual human being. Hence, this is more a question of "when does life begin" following fertilization rather than any other definition regarding abiogenesis. This question is crucial to a number of complex ethical debates regarding abortion, premature births and, at the other end of the spectrum, brain-dead patients. It is almost as complicated as defining life itself. rationalwiki.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CaptainIraq
 


Doctors, scientists, and priests all agree that new life begins at conception.


Source(s) please?



Where the confusion comes in is the definition of a "viable fetus able to survive outside the womb, and that is the definition used to determine whether a baby is considered to be valuable enough not to eliminate.


So just because it cannot survive on it's own, it isn't alive? I guess I should be able to walk into any hospital and smother someone on life support without consequence then?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


Liberals are the biggest guilt trippers of all. They expect us to adopt socialist policies to force redistribution of wealth, saying it is our responsibility to take care of all the poor, sick, unhealthy, starving people of the whole world. And then they show us pictures of starving 3rd world children and how dare any of us think we are entitled to our own paycheck?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainIraq
 


Dear Captain, I am pro-life and have membership in the National Right To Life association. I posted that as clarification of the position of the pro-choicers. See, I was careful to mention that even doctors and scientists acknowledge that life begins at conception. Please understand that the definition of being alive and being viable are not the same.

Here is one citation


" . . . every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
(E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book
Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm represents the beginning of a human being."
(Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th
edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1)
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary
circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”
(O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss,
1996, pp. 8)
“Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
(Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris and discoverer of the chromosome
pattern of Down syndrome)
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
(Professor Hymie Gordon - Mayo Clinic)

“I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the
time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances.
My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.”
(Dr. Landrum Shettles, obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.)
“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species
Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically,
by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt
that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and
the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is
born anencephalic – literally, without a brain.”
(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.)
Quote from: www.jfaweb.org
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a
human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this
point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to
Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.)



www.azrtl.org...

Hope that presents enough citation

Respectfully


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

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



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CaptainIraq
 


Dear Captain, I am pro-life and have membership in the National Right To Life association.



Oh wow... really?

Well folks, we can all go home now, we have an expert on hand to guide us.
Thanks very much, I see now how my opinion is not as valid or weighty as yours, I mean I'm just a regular joe with my own mind and thoughts and feelings... I can't compete with a paid member of some pro life group..

Man...

I didn't realise.

I humbly bow out...






posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by luccadeo
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.


Cant stand Obama - yet he is the only one that has the courage to say this. While the right is saying anything the base wants to hear.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join