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.

 

Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

page: 19
25
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





No, not at all. The government isn't about protection your rights, YOU are about protecting your rights. The more power you put in the government's hands, the less of it you have. For ANY subject.


Yes and that is the careful balance between individuals and government. But if you know anything about government, you'd know that you cannot 100% be an individual. That is called anarchy, and that does not work.




Well look, I'm not saying that I agree with senseless abortion. You should be made to keep your kid if there is no actual medical reason ( or otherwise) to ahve that done. What I'm saying is that the option NEEDS to be available to prevent some truly horrific and sad things from happening to women who feel like they have no way out.


Feeling like they have no way out and actually having no way out are two different things. Unless they've been raped or they're going to die from having a kid, I really don't have any pity on those so desperate to kill a life.




This would hardly ever be the case. There isn't a large group of women who have serial abortions for the sake of fun...or being permiscuous.


Most abortions are done because of women who simply do not want the responsibility. It is an overall misused option that really has no legal reason to exist beyond life threatening conditions and where one's rights were violated.




My point is, the whole idea of telling somebody NO you can't do that, because I said so, even though this decision affects nobody but yourself; is insane.


It's not just"because I said so". But what you described is exactly what "law" is.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





There you go. Government interference in the lives of private citizens.


If government exists, it does this.




Of course, sometimes the interference can be justified, for example interference to prevent murder, rape or stealing. But its still interference (which is a neutral word in this context).


No, this is a positive use of the word, because society deems murder and rape as bad things. In this case it is not interference. It is protecting.




The default state of things without government intervention in the matter is pro-choice. Just like default state of things without government intervention in the matter of drugs is all drugs being allowed.


And the choice to murder, to steel, to do anything.

The default state of things without government is called anarchy. And that default case means I can kill you because I feel like it. I can choose to do that without government. Doesn't mean I will. It means I can.

The default way of things without government isn't justification for anything. Without government, I can say you're a demon with aids. It's an outrageous statement. But it's my choice. after all, that's the default set of things without government.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by relpobre000
 





The thing about your pictures of dead babies is this: Most of them never lived. Most were amorphous biological matter that wouldn't have made it outside of the womb.


A baby is that when it's first born. Who gets to decide when it's no longer an amorphous biological matter or when it's lived? Even in or out the womb?

The only difference between a baby and a zygote is that it can kinda-sorta process what's happening. But even then it's only just barely. The human being does not become anything particularly interesting or unique until age 4 or something; whenever the ability to self-support and reason begins to manifest.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I agree. My original post was:



The only ones who want government intervention (government ban on something) are pro-lifers. No intervention means pro-choice, since thats the default state. Government restricts freedoms or leaves them alone, not gives them.


in response to notion that government intervention is what allows abortion (and presumably, without it it would not be allowed).

Of course it would be allowed, since without government there is anarchy, so everything is allowed.
Thats all.


edit on 27/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Yes and that is the careful balance between individuals and government. But if you know anything about government, you'd know that you cannot 100% be an individual. That is called anarchy, and that does not work.


I can't believe what I'm reading. Are you kidding? No, apparently not. Ok.

You are wrong. Yes you may have 100% individualism, it's called Libertarianism. Where the government's only job is to facilitate infrastructure and vital programs. That's it.

ETA: In hindsight, the above sounds rude; please forgive me, not my intend, just pationate about people's rights and government.

No law making, no oversight, none of this crap. Look up Common Law & the Magna Carta for further details on how your rights are being abused everyday.

And how would you know if anarchy doesn't work? We've never tried it. I dont' support that though, but Libertarianism is very close.



Feeling like they have no way out and actually having no way out are two different things. Unless they've been raped or they're going to die from having a kid, I really don't have any pity on those so desperate to kill a life.


It's also based on what your definition of life is. Myself, any time after the first 2 months, and it's murder. Baby got fingers? It's a life. Little pile of goop in a uterus prior to that? Not a life. Goop.



Most abortions are done because of women who simply do not want the responsibility. It is an overall misused option that really has no legal reason to exist beyond life threatening conditions and where one's rights were violated.


That's a personal opinion, there's no stats on why women get abortions. There is no reason for any law to exist actually. Considering the only real 3 laws that apply are the following:

1. Don't kill.
2. Don't cause significant Loss
3. Don't be dishonest in your dealings.

Everything else, is a violation of your God given human rights.



it's not just"because I said so". But what you described is exactly what "law" is.


And there lies the problem doesn't it. We've all decided to give up our personal freedoms for the sake of society and governance, yet at every turn both of those things screw us further into oblivion.

Time for a change no?

~Tenth
edit on 1/27/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think this is an argument of late-term vs. early term abortion. I wouldn't support a late term abortion as the child is already formed with functioning organ systems. Just because a child doesn't do anything 'particularly interesting' before the age of 4 doesn't mean I would support killing a 3 year old (at that point it is in fact murder).

But if you're against early term abortion you might as well be against masturbation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Not everything should have a choice. Ever see the movie Gamer? You could just as much have government sanctioned choice for death match Colosseum-like battles between criminals. But we don't have that choice. because we know people would abuse that choice.

Not everything deserves a choice. Especially abortion where it's just someone trying to undo their own mistake.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
There have been over 50 million abortions since 1973. Are you stating that the majority of these were for medical reasons?

Seems to me that over 1 million abortions a year is more of an epidemic of convenience than any reasons medical.



There aren't stats to fall back on, so I don't really have an answer for you. It does seem kind of excessive. And I'm not saying that frivolous abortions don't happen, they do.

But you can't punish all of society for the actions of a few. That's like saying I can't borrow money anymore because the US has racked up such a bill...

~Tenth



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I think this is an argument of late-term vs. early term abortion. I wouldn't support a late term abortion as the child is already formed with functioning organ systems. Just because a child doesn't do anything 'particularly interesting' before the age of 4 doesn't mean I would support killing a 3 year old (at that point it is in fact murder).

But if you're against early term abortion you might as well be against masturbation.


Silly argument.

If a person doesn't masterbate, a child will not develop in the testicles.

If a person doesn't abort then a child WILL develop.

Justification for avoiding responsibiliy is NOT a valid reason for abortion.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Not everything deserves a choice. Especially abortion where it's just someone trying to undo their own mistake.]


That's ignorant. Why is it up to you to decide whether a woman has access to clean and safe health care? Why do you get to say that the only reason people get abortions is because of their own mistakes?

The world is a little more complicated than all that and speaking in terms of black and whites is ignorant and misguided.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
There have been over 50 million abortions since 1973. Are you stating that the majority of these were for medical reasons?

Seems to me that over 1 million abortions a year is more of an epidemic of convenience than any reasons medical.



There aren't stats to fall back on, so I don't really have an answer for you. It does seem kind of excessive. And I'm not saying that frivolous abortions don't happen, they do.

But you can't punish all of society for the actions of a few. That's like saying I can't borrow money anymore because the US has racked up such a bill...

~Tenth


Getting people to start taking responsibility for their actions, to OWN their mistakes, to embrace their results of their actions. . . . is not a punishment.

It's called being grown up.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree, but banning abortion for everbody else is a silly idea.

I never stated we should not DENY abortion to most. We should. The option to get one should be there though.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Justification for avoiding responsibiliy is NOT a valid reason for abortion.


Good thing it's not up to you to decide though. You can't say that people who get abortions are simply 'avoiding responsibility' and if they are-- who are you to decide that it's not a valid reason?

A woman should have a right to do what they wish with their bodies and they surely don't need kooky blow-hards impressing their misguided beliefs on them.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by relpobre000
 


I don't see why. This argument that their is potential life in semen or egg is pretty preposterous. Semen and egg have only two biologically programmed roles: death, and merger. They do not have any other function.

Fertilized embryos have only one programmed role: to produce a human adult. There is no programmed death like sperm and egg. It is programmed to just keep developing until either some bodily chemistry causes it to be rejected or it gets forcibly removed And even then they will continue with their goal until resources run out and it dies.

In which case it's the difference between nature causing a tree to kill someone, and someone chopping a tree down with the desire to kill someone.

Point is, there is a human life there. Arguing about the human "person" is pointless because person has been used for every argument from slavery, to colonization, to genocide, to now abortion. After all, corporations are people, right? Wow, so the law must always be right with "persons"

Person as a concept does not exist. It was constructed to separate "them" and "us".

Unless you can show me why a baby just born has any unique quality to it and its brain, I see no reason why the brain matters in determining "personhood".

A baby can't support itself, can't feed itself, can't do anything. It's just as much a parasite outside as it was inside. And if "it can feel pain" is suppose to matter, why do cells have programmed responses to stimuli that threaten it? Seems like pain response to me. I don't see any reason not to call it pain, just because it isn't from a nervous system.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by relpobre000
 


I don't think it is acceptable to bring pain upon an 11 week old pre-born baby. If you do, I feel sorry for you.

If the truth matters I recommend you watch the documentary "The Silent Scream" (Warning - It is Disturbing Graphic)

I worked with single parent pregnant women for three years and I know there are always options other than abortion available to pregnant women - they just don't know it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus


By defending Roe vs. Wade, Obama upholds and advocates abortion, which is the same as destroying human
life. You see, this decision is more than a "woman's right to choose." It is the very words he chose, that speaks volumes about the President's integrity and moral values. To Obama, Pro Choice means not only that a
woman will not have to take responsibility if she was to get pregnant but she is free to commit murder if the pregnancy is inconvenient . After all, we would not want her to give up her dreams because she made a mistake.




Is a chicken egg a chicken? Is a seed a tree?

What is 'human life'? technically something is 'alive' in the womb, but is it a PERSON?

Commit murder? The legal definition of murder says you're in error. You can call it that, but the word has no standing.



After all, we would not want her to give up her dreams because she made a mistake.


Around 100,000 rapes per year. Countless drug addicted women pregnant. Countless women and girls with no family, job, education, home, poverty stricken.

Countless women who are mentally disturbed or imbalanced.

What about the child AFTER birth? Will you adopt? Will you donate to adoption centers?

Probably not. Stringent Pro Lifers usually only care about the child BEFORE it's breathing, and it's Mother is a Surrogate Heifer baby factory, only useful to procreate like a Queen Bee.

But hey, I guess it's logical to pay a lifetime penalty over a mistake, which happens in the millions per year.

ALTRUISM is a pretentious fraud and chaos usually follows "MORALITY"







edit on 27-1-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by relpobre000
 


Society gets to decide. Not me.

I say only for rape and threats to health because that's when a loss of two lives will incur if one lives, or where rights were violated.

It's not ignorant to say some things should not have a choice. Should I have the choice to be able to kill you just because I don't like you? I don't see why that choice should exist.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


So if a woman gets raped, it is her own mistake????



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Abortion should be legal in cases of incest or rape.

Abortion should be legal as long as there is no brain activity...not that I think anyone should go about doing this.

Abortion should be illegal once there is brain activity.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Probably not. Stringent Pro Lifers usually only care about the child BEFORE it's breathing, and it's Mother is a Surrogate Heifer baby factory, only useful to procreate like a Queen Bee.



At the height of Jacobitism in England, a physcian would be asked whether the mother or child came first if the delivery became complicated in anyway, their answer (assuming that they told the truth) would determine whether they were Catholic or Protestant. The same divide, it seems, still prevails in certain areas of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join