Ron Paul and Abortion " My thoughts" Please contribute, page 40

Pages: << 37 38 39 40 41 42 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 02:20 PM by Clearskies

Since you guys keep on about how pro-lifers don't care about IVF clinic embryos, I had to come back.
I, personally feel that if you can't have a baby and want one, YOU should take any money you would spend to grow embryos and adopt a child instead. Are your genes so superior that you can't stand the idea of a child without yours???? Adoption and fostering are needed, especially if you aren't a pedophile (as some are) or have mental problems, where you have or might abuse children or small animals! These discarded or orphaned children need someone with compassion and the income they need to live a normal life! IVF is a for-profit, unneeded, money racket. If G-d doesn't want you to have babies, then help the unfortunate.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 02:30 PM by selfharmonise

Originally posted by Clearskies
Since you guys keep on about how pro-lifers don't care about IVF clinic embryos, I had to come back.
I, personally feel that if you can't have a baby and want one, YOU should take any money you would spend to grow embryos and adopt a child instead. Are your genes so superior that you can't stand the idea of a child without yours???? Adoption and fostering are needed, especially if you aren't a pedophile (as some are) or have mental problems, where you have or might abuse children or small animals! These discarded or orphaned children need someone with compassion and the income they need to live a normal life! IVF is a for-profit, unneeded, money racket. If G-d doesn't want you to have babies, then help the unfortunate.

Am I meant to disagree with those points?

Because I don't.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 02:32 PM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

Women go to counsellors when and if they need to. Therefore the population group on which you base your opinions is unfairly skewed.

The women you see are not wholly representative of every woman who as had an abortion.

Just because I have met one Frenchman who was rude to me, does not make all French people rude.

I know women who have felt their circumstances forced them to choose abortion. They would make the same decision if faced with those circumstances again.

It does not keep them awake at night.

Neither should it.

How do you feel about discarded, fertilised embryos in ivf clinics?

5:1 says IVF clinics go ignored for about the 10th time in this thread.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 02:35 PM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise

Originally posted by Clearskies
Since you guys keep on about how pro-lifers don't care about IVF clinic embryos, I had to come back.
I, personally feel that if you can't have a baby and want one, YOU should take any money you would spend to grow embryos and adopt a child instead. Are your genes so superior that you can't stand the idea of a child without yours???? Adoption and fostering are needed, especially if you aren't a pedophile (as some are) or have mental problems, where you have or might abuse children or small animals! These discarded or orphaned children need someone with compassion and the income they need to live a normal life! IVF is a for-profit, unneeded, money racket. If G-d doesn't want you to have babies, then help the unfortunate.

Am I meant to disagree with those points?

Because I don't.

Likewise. I think adoption is good thing.

I also think that abortion is even better than adoption, given the miserable lives so many adopted kids are condemned to.

But I do agree...only the most selfish and hypocritical of human beings could possibly be against abortion but somehow for IVF clinics.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 02:37 PM by DrNotforhire

I actually really agree with Ron Paul on this one..

"Let the states decide" I think is what he said in the last debate...

It was spot on, but not only that who are we to dictate whats okay and whats not okay for a woman to do with her body? If it's outlawed then it would just go to a black market style of procedure...and we all know what happens there...

I really think RP had the best response on this.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 05:10 PM by sad_eyed_lady

reply to post by selfharmonise

How do you feel about discarded, fertilised embryos in ivf clinics?

I think it is tragic that we make life so cheap. Science play craps with human life.
Just because the technology is available, doesn't make it ethical. This isn't bad lettuce we are throwing in the garbage.

Why not lol at me? I have a conscience and believe there is nothing that God doesn't see.

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.

You can not get must more "least" than a fertilized embryo.

Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics?
www.theglobeandmail.com... -of-eugenics/article2294636/singlepage/

edit on 4/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: spelling

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 11:18 PM by selfharmonise

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

I barely use the expression lol. I would only use it to take the p@-^. And I am not doing that here.

It's annoying and lazy and overused. Lol should only be used ironically by those over the age of 12.

Unfortunately, I can't insert ironic smileys on the iPad whet I want them to be.

I also hate the way life is treated as cheap, but I also believe women should retain the right to choose to have an abortion.

With respect to abortion and ivf, you cannot have one rule for one aspect of reproductive medicine and a different one for the other.

We differ on the fundamental belief as to whether life begins at conception.

I do not believe it does, perhaps I would remember it if it did.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:45 AM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by selfharmonise

How do you feel about discarded, fertilised embryos in ivf clinics?

I think it is tragic that we make life so cheap. Science play craps with human life.
Just because the technology is available, doesn't make it ethical. This isn't bad lettuce we are throwing in the garbage.

Why not lol at me? I have a conscience and believe there is nothing that God doesn't see.

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.

You can not get must more "least" than a fertilized embryo.

Unnatural selection: Is evolving reproductive technology ushering in a new age of eugenics?
www.theglobeandmail.com... -of-eugenics/article2294636/singlepage/
edit on 4/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: spelling

So...in your opinion in vitro fertilization is "murder", correct?

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:51 AM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

I barely use the expression lol. I would only use it to take the p@-^. And I am not doing that here.

It's annoying and lazy and overused. Lol should only be used ironically by those over the age of 12.

Unfortunately, I can't insert ironic smileys on the iPad whet I want them to be.

I also hate the way life is treated as cheap, but I also believe women should retain the right to choose to have an abortion.

With respect to abortion and ivf, you cannot have one rule for one aspect of reproductive medicine and a different one for the other.

We differ on the fundamental belief as to whether life begins at conception.

I do not believe it does, perhaps I would remember it if it did.

Yes, Science at times treats life "cheaply"...usually due to a budgetary constraint put on them by their financial institution.

If we are "against life being treated cheaply" then we must ALSO be against the death penalty, warfare, poverty, private medical insurance, the Founding Fathers, organized religion of all sorts save Buddhism, and oil companies.

While this sounds perfectly fine to me...I can't help but notice that the lion's share of pro-lifer's do not tend to feel this way. Hence the hypocrisy.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 03:10 PM by yoyoyoyo

reply to post by milominderbinder

Your lucky a mod took out my statement... Because it showed the hypocrisy of you posting here... Your lucky. Be happy my friend.

We are all siblings on this rock. We should act like it.

Abortion is murder, We know you don't believe that.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 05:36 PM by yoyoyoyo

reply to post by selfharmonise

Perhaps you would remember it if it did...

What a jokester you are....

Are you serious? Do you remember being born or something???

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 06:59 PM by Zinky

Look man - Ron Paul is NOT going to be President. He's too old.

He can barely walk. He belongs in an old folks home if not a hospital.

His ideas will never work, either. State's rights? What is this, the Reconstruction era South?

We live in modern times. There are things like inter state and inter national commerce. You put his ideas into place and the entire US economy will grind to a halt. Non workable ideas. The man is clearly senile and barely functional.

As far as abortion - it seems to me that the OP is a Propagandist. I hope you understand that the ONLY reason Conservatives are against abortion is because they desperately want more people to prop up their economic pyramid schemes. And they especially want WHITE people.

Someone coughed up the "Rockefellers created Feminism, want to depopulate" blah blah blah blah crap here - this has a *small* kernel of truth in it but it's way off. Or has been spun for a breeding agenda. Which it actually *started* with ~

Certain people, moneyed interests among them, wanted the poor and impoverished to BREED LESS. Some were concerned over resources (yes, even 100 + years ago), others were concerned with losing their own power and money. They feared the Colored Hordes rising up and driving them out. They wanted *these people* to breed less and they wanted white people to breed more.

READ an actual book about Eugenics instead of some crackpot website.

You need to look beyond your own emotions and "religion". Make no mistake - these people you look to are NOT religious in ANY way. They don't care about you or anyone else or any religion. They simply USE religion as an emotional hook to sway the sheep's thinking.

You think they care if two men decide to go gay? They do not care about *that* - except that these men will not be producing children for their economic pyramid scheme.

So some woman didn't want to have kids with you. That's the issue, isn't it?

But forcing others to conform is not going to make up for anything that YOU lack. You are afraid to face yourself. You want others to conform and a 'system' to be in place - you think everything will be OK then. You are just afraid, like most Conservatives.

Like the Big Money fears uprisings of The Unwashed Masses - you fear that no one will want you unless they are *forced* to want you. Tied to you with a child. Then she can't leave, right? But - there's always divorce ~
Right when I mentioned that - you got scared again - right? I will wager that you are also against divorce.
You are ruled by fear, like most Conservatives.

Oh and as far as the topic at hand, as I was lead to believe would be the discussion - yes - Ron Paul needs to be 'aborted'. He's done. Time for the Old Folks Home.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:40 PM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by milominderbinder

Your lucky a mod took out my statement... Because it showed the hypocrisy of you posting here... Your lucky. Be happy my friend.

We are all siblings on this rock. We should act like it.

Abortion is murder, We know you don't believe that.

Would you like me to ask the mod to pretty-please reinsert it?

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:42 PM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by selfharmonise

Perhaps you would remember it if it did...

What a jokester you are....

Are you serious? Do you remember being born or something???

Once again...

All the subtleties of the English language appear to be lost on you. Selfharmonise is being sarcastically facetious.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 09:14 PM by milominderbinder

He can barely walk. He belongs in an old folks home if not a hospital.
His ideas will never work, either. State's rights? What is this, the Reconstruction era South?

The states already are responsible for their own criminal law, penal systems, highway departments, university systems, etc. While admittedly the "War of Northern Agression" crowd does give the state's rights perspective a bad name...there is some wisdom to it in a country as large and with as diverse of an economy as the United States.

Personally...I'm all for Roe v. Wade. However...being realist I also understand that you will never, ever, ever, ever, change the opinion in the bible-belt, barring large-scale demographic shift. So...why try? The worst that can happen in the case of abortion is that we can all go back to focusing on more important things and women who would like to have an abortion might have to jump on the interstate for a few hours. It's certainly not my ideal...but I'm a reasonable person and am willing to compromise if it's for the betterment of the country as a whole.

We live in modern times. There are things like inter state and inter national commerce. You put his ideas into place and the entire US economy will grind to a halt. Non workable ideas. The man is clearly senile and barely functional.

Ummm...the Federal government has had the power to control inter state [sic] and inter national [sic] commerce since 1789. To date...I have not heard anybody dispute this, least of all Ron Paul.

As far as abortion - it seems to me that the OP is a Propagandist.

That's giving the OP a bit too much credit if you ask me...but OK.

READ an actual book about Eugenics instead of some crackpot website.

Agreed. The eugenics movement has ALWAYS been about undermining minority power and the lower classes. In the '20's this meant CONTROLLING populations because we were still very much an agrararian society. In an agrararian or early-stage industrial economy more kids=more wealth/power in society. In a post-industrial and/or information based economy more kids = poverty. Hence the flipflop. The fascist-leaning elements of the United States have ALWAYS been trying to undermine the poor via their reproductive cycles one way or another.

You need to look beyond your own emotions and "religion". Make no mistake - these people you look to are NOT religious in ANY way. They don't care about you or anyone else or any religion. They simply USE religion as an emotional hook to sway the sheep's thinking.

Agreed. Religion has been little more than a control mechanism for a long, long time. It isn't coincidence that all the weird dietary restraints of religions tend to correspond to disease outbreaks in the food supplies in the archeological record. The Hindu's swore off beef right around the time some sort of mad cow-like disease swept through the Indian subcontinent. Same with outbreaks of parasites in pork in the middle east. Likewise...eating shellfish in a searing desert without refrigeration is pretty much ALWAYS a risky proposition.

You think they care if two men decide to go gay? They do not care about *that* - except that these men will not be producing children for their economic pyramid scheme.

Correct. And I personally think that abortion is also a huge distraction. Therefore, the faster we can remove it from being a "political issue" the better. If that means letting certain states decide for themselves...so be it. Quite frankly...we have bigger fish to fry.

But forcing others to conform is not going to make up for anything that YOU lack. You are afraid to face yourself. You want others to conform and a 'system' to be in place - you think everything will be OK then. You are just afraid, like most Conservatives.

Hence...the reason I'm voting for Ron Paul...the first Republican of any kind I have ever supported. By and large...he is into letting people make up their own minds far more than any other presidential candidate in my lifetime.

Oh and as far as the topic at hand, as I was lead to believe would be the discussion - yes - Ron Paul needs to be 'aborted'. He's done. Time for the Old Folks Home.

Really? Because mathematically speaking it's looking like if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination outright, it will at the very least be a brokered convention which slants the edge to Paul as well.

You forget...the dog and pony show of popular votes and who "won" each state is irrelevant in the Republican primaries. The only thing that matters is delegates...and Ron Paul is pulling in massive wins since Rick Asslube dropped out.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 11:28 PM by selfharmonise

reply to post by milominderbinder

Thanks.

Glad you picked up on it.

Whilst the cheap attitude some people have to life is against my personal belief system, I still believe abortion - early stage - is justified.

Whilst I have longed for a baby, and had many miscarriages, that's just the luck of my draw. I can't let it colour my thinking on abortion.

I am not a big believer in ivf. I think it's a bit unnecessary, and the downsides outweigh the benefits. However, it's a personal choice for someone to donate their eggs, so, I will not interfere.

Yoyoyo - did you read the article I linked to?

reply posted on 2-5-2012 @ 08:59 AM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by milominderbinder

Thanks.

Glad you picked up on it.

Whilst the cheap attitude some people have to life is against my personal belief system, I still believe abortion - early stage - is justified.

Whilst I have longed for a baby, and had many miscarriages, that's just the luck of my draw. I can't let it colour my thinking on abortion.

I am not a big believer in ivf. I think it's a bit unnecessary, and the downsides outweigh the benefits. However, it's a personal choice for someone to donate their eggs, so, I will not interfere.

Yoyoyo - did you read the article I linked to?

Precisely. One of the biggest reasons I'm pro-abortion is because WE DO treat life so cheaply...especially the very second it draws it's first breath. I don't want to stereotype...but a very large percentage of the pro-lifers who are so hell bent on giving an unborn child a "chance" are ALSO in favor of immediately turning their back on said child before the umbilical cord is even severed.

These same people don't give a sh&^t of that child has food, shelter, clothing, medical care, employed parents, a decent education, an environment not riddled with carcinogens and toxic chemicals, or any hope of upward mobility. Likewise...the lion's share of them JUST CAN'T WAIT to send that same "innocent little child" off to die in misguided wars waged under false pretenses and fueled by ignorance and religious fervor.

Screw it. If that's the "life" we are going to give these kids with the added benefit of not even their own mother and/or father even WANTING them...then death is a mercy in my opinion. They are the lucky ones.

Besides...ever notice how the incoherent religious "arguments" conflict with one another?
1. Pro-Lifer's more often than not "believe in the bible" and want to save "innocent lives".

2. The bible pretty clearly states in numerous places that humans are born inherently evil and tarnished as a by-product of the Original Sin, when a talking snake told a lady to eat an apple in the woods.

3. Thus...according to "the bible", said fetus is really nothing more than Satan's own seed and is destined for deepest, darkest pits of hell until such a time as they are either baptised or "accept their personal savior", depending upon which one of the 3,300+ specific christian cults really "know what god wants".

4. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a single instance of in utero baptismal rites nor of attempts at in utero evangelizing. Hence...the bible states that killing a fetus is killing one of Lucifer's own.

5. However...let's say "the bible" is dead wrong for a second and these people don't really have any understanding whatsoever of the religious text which they purport guides their decision making process and imagine that an unborn fetus REALLY is truly untarnished and as pure as the driven snow. Then...wouldn't that unborn child just be getting a straight ticket to "heaven"? I mean..."god" wouldn't torture innocent babies...right? So...what's wrong with sending babies to heaven? I thought that was where the angels, harps, and clouds were? Maybe that baby can even go play hopscotch with Jesus or something if he's not too busy.

That's not so bad...right?

Unless of course, "the bible" is nothing more than the mistranslations of the oral mythology of desert nomads from thousands and thousands of years ago which was subjected to another 2000 years of heavy editing and mass re-writes for the benefit of a rich and powerful ruling class.

Interestingly, I cannot help but note that the latter explanation would at least explain how the baptismal rites which were originally implemented by priests of Baphomet in pagan Carthage ever got all mixed up Judaic monotheism as well as probably shed some light on why modern day christians participate in the Druidic practice of bringing a tree into the house prior to the winter solstice.

But hey...what the hell do I know, right? I'm "evil" and haven't watched The Green Lantern.

reply posted on 2-5-2012 @ 09:26 AM by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by milominderbinder

Yoyoyo - did you read the article I linked to?

Oh...and I would wager that yoyo probably did not read the article and even if she did would claim that it's just one of the Boogeyman's Tricks that she was warned about the first time she started questioning what she believed.
Gotta watch out for the Boogeyman.

What else can you say about a religion in which one of there is actually a "demon" of inventions, discovery, and science named Belphagor and he's purportedly such a bad "demon" that he was crowned as one of the Seven Princes of Hell. Thus, according to Christian Theology...Thomas Edison was an unholy emissary of the Dark Lord.

Yet somehow we have billions and billions of people worldwide that apparently think this sort of thinking makes sense and we should look to it's wisdom in all of our affairs...some of them even as they read "the bible" by way of the incandescent light bulb while listening to recorded music.

Incredible...isn't it?

reply posted on 2-5-2012 @ 01:59 PM by yoyoyoyo

reply to post by milominderbinder

Why are you so pro-choice? I think that's a good question... What do you get out of others suffering?

I mean you are playing devils advocate with me... Supporting the wrong side over and over and over.

What do you get out of this? Why must you continue to preach for the killing of the unborn?

reply posted on 2-5-2012 @ 02:54 PM by Clearskies

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by milominderbinder

Yoyoyo - did you read the article I linked to?

Oh...and I would wager that yoyo probably did not read the article and even if she did would claim that it's just one of the Boogeyman's Tricks that she was warned about the first time she started questioning what she believed.
Gotta watch out for the Boogeyman.

What else can you say about a religion in which one of there is actually a "demon" of inventions, discovery, and science named Belphagor and he's purportedly such a bad "demon" that he was crowned as one of the Seven Princes of Hell. Thus, according to Christian Theology...Thomas Edison was an unholy emissary of the Dark Lord.

Yet somehow we have billions and billions of people worldwide that apparently think this sort of thinking makes sense and we should look to it's wisdom in all of our affairs...some of them even as they read "the bible" by way of the incandescent light bulb while listening to recorded music.

Incredible...isn't it?

So incredible that I haven't heard of it!
Seriously, you are very angry.

edit on 2-5-2012 by Clearskies because: (no reason given)