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.
Originally posted by Maslo
No difference between the two from this POV. Even omission bias fallacy (claiming that active killing of life is worse than passive killing, which is acceptable - I dont agree with that) wont help here, since both actions are active, and done with intent to negate the future person.
The woman has the egg, the man has the sperm. At no time during copulation does the egg leave the womans body. Where as the man's sperm does..Got my point yet? Wear a condom & let the women decide for themselves....
It must suck to be you! It must suck to be your female friends even more.... If I were you you I'd talk to someone about that vagina envy thing you have going on...It's a little weird.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
The Bible tells us in Exodus 4 if two men fight, and one hits another and kills him, the killer must be executed. If they hit a pregnant woman (this is the literal translation of the Hebrew) and kill her, it is also a capital crime. If the woman is not hurt, but the fetuses (plural in the original Hebrew) are lost (literally "and her children went out"), then the killer must pay a monetary fine. It is not a capital crime. This establishes the principle that a person does not become a person until birth for killing a fetus is not a capital crime. This is true even if the fetuses were twins (fetuses in plural). When we think first-degree murder as a capital crime, we must not think that abortion is the same type of thing. It is very wrong to say, as some do, the widespread practice of abortion is like a Holocaust. Read more: www.city-data.com...
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
There has to be rules in war otherwise atrocities like rape will ensue. I served in the Marine Corps and can tell that such a mentality would lead you to being shot at the first chance a superior had.
The days of total destruction during war times went out after World War II where hundreds of millions were killed based upon your called of ethics called Genocide.
Without rules in a war the war will rage on because of your actions against your enemies.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by andersensrm
You'd think that, but whenever I see a free flow of informed people, they tend to favor a pro life view that understands the issue of rape and life threatening pregnancies.
At the end of the day, people get pissed off when they see other people killing someone just because they don't want the responsibilities.
Anyone can have empathy for a rape victim or someone who may die. I don't know many people whom have empathy for a women who was a retard and didn't have protected sex. I certainly don't.edit on 31-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by andersensrm
I don't see why. This archaic belief that a broken home guarantees a broken child is just that. Archaic.
Plenty of the worse of humanity came from healthy households, and plenty of the best of humanity came from the worse households.
This isn't 1956. Just because you don't have a pretty mommy in a dress and a hansom daddy in a suit doesn't mean you're not going to succeed.