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.

 

Republican Party Approves Strict Anti-abortion Platform - No Exceptions

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


In my eyes simply saying "Read the Constitution" is a bit disingenuous and misleading. I suggest that people read the Constitution, all of the amendments, and the SCOTUS decisions involving both of the above.

My sentiments at least.

~Heff




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by lucid eyes
 


A zygote is not a child.


The GOP tried to introduce legislation that would protect that "life" even before conception


The second they outlaw killing sperm I'm screwed...as are 99.99999999999999999999% of all males


Exactly. What type of wording is involved and how far is the reach of such legislation?

I feel like a Libertarian or real Conservative by asking these questions. I feel like I should be yelling "smaller government.....you'll have my sperm when you scrape it off my cold dead..uh...keyboard? Paper towel?"


The real question is: If my gf gives me a handjob...is that accessory to murder?

I need to know because it wouldn't feel right to make her do it without telling her she might go to jail for life over it



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


In my eyes simply saying "Read the Constitution" is a bit disingenuous and misleading. I suggest that people read the Constitution, all of the amendments, and the SCOTUS decisions involving both of the above.

My sentiments at least.

~Heff


Fair enough. My point is simply that things like religious freedom and slavery are specifically outlined in the constitution, and therefore are not left up to the states, in opposition to the fact that the poster was using extreme examples to vilify abortion laws.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 





you take one mans words


Wasn't just one man, catch up. Wake up. Its not just Akin




why do you try so hard to justify the murder of children, then claim to hold the moral high ground?


A zygote is NOT a child. Spit on the ground, if that could split, it would be a zygote.




such as,


such as, its a woman's body, its HER decision. Between her and her god, no need to impose your morals on HER repoductive system.

So your against too much government, unless it suits your needs, your moral highground? Keep the government out of a womans fallopian tubes. Stop being a hypocrite.
edit on 22-8-2012 by ErEhWoN because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Wasn't trying to vilify abortion laws.

My point is, sometimes the SCOTUS has to make decisions the majority disagree with in order to protect the minority (womans right to vote, civil rights act, abortion, health care.....).

And those decisions supersede states rights. Or we would hae states that still allowed slavery.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Wasn't trying to vilify abortion laws.

My point is, sometimes the SCOTUS has to make decisions the majority disagree with in order to protect the minority (womans right to vote, civil rights act, abortion, health care.....).

And those decisions supersede states rights. Or we would hae states that still allowed slavery.


Absolutely. Which is the same point I was making. Certain things are outlined in the constitution to protect certain rights. Others are left up to the state.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
This would be good news if true, because it would mean the GOP finally has the balls to differentiate itself from the Dems. If you dont like it, vote for the Dems. Many people are getting disgusted of the Dems constant campaigning for Abortion and are looking for alternative, loving ways of relating to children.
edit on 21-8-2012 by lucid eyes because: (no reason given)


Differentiation is irrelevent and a dead end when it comes to political parties. They have the same masters, hence the cartoon showing a cow having to chose one of two paths to the same slaughterhouse. A vote for democrats or republicans is a vote for more control, fewer rights or freedoms and more debt slavery.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Given men have basically making the decision of law direction for decades, isn't it time to let women decide this issue.


Women are not any more a parent to their child than the father. If women have a 'right' to decide whether to let their child live or not, then men should not be obligated to support their children in any way i.e child support.


Supporters don't give a flying whatever about the kid, they just want it born to make them feel OK with some religious belief.


You don't have to be religious to be against the murder of an innocent being. You're basically making the false claim that people need religion to live morally.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by roadgravel
Given men have basically making the decision of law direction for decades, isn't it time to let women decide this issue.


Women are not any more a parent to their child than the father. If women have a 'right' to decide whether to let their child live or not, then men should not be obligated to support their children in any way i.e child support.


Supporters don't give a flying whatever about the kid, they just want it born to make them feel OK with some religious belief.


You don't have to be religious to be against the murder of an innocent being. You're basically making the false claim that people need religion to live morally.


while it is in the womb, they most certainly ARE. Or can men now carry babies too?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

while it is in the womb, they most certainly ARE. Or can men now carry babies too?


That's one of the dumbest notions I've ever heard. Location is not what determines parenthood. Genetics do. I wasn't any less my father's daughter in the womb than I am now. A child doesn't suddenly become both the child of the mother AND father as soon as it's born.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

while it is in the womb, they most certainly ARE. Or can men now carry babies too?


That's one of the dumbest notions I've ever heard. Location is not what determines parenthood. Genetics do. I wasn't any less my father's daughter in the womb than I am now. A child doesn't suddenly become both the child of the mother AND father as soon as it's born.


Ill come back with two simple questions: Can a fetus survive without the mother? Can a fetus survive without the father?

'Nuff said.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You don't have a point.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
 





Voters don't care about this crap at this moment. It's the economy and nothing more.


Beg to differ. This voter cares. And I know a whole mess of people who also care. Annoying when people tell me what I care about. Like either party is going to "fix" the economy.


Yes - - if you are not healthy or have access to health care in this economy - - you're screwed.

If jobs aren't sent over seas - - there's forced early retirement and jobs going to someone younger.

As far as abortion and the economy. Women may be choosing careers over children.

So YES - - it is about the economy.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You don't have a point.

so in other words, you wont answer because you know you're caught.

Fair enough.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You can't even explain how your point indicates your claim.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You can't even explain how your point indicates your claim.


why wont you answer? They are VERY simple questions.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 


Thats what I thought. Run away, run away.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I don't need to answer. Those aren't subjective questions. I've asked YOU to defend your point that carrying a child that depends on you for survival up to a certain point makes you more of a parent than the father.

TWO people gave life to that fetus.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I don't need to answer. Those aren't subjective questions. I've asked YOU to defend your point that carrying a child that depends on you for survival up to a certain point makes you more of a parent than the father.

TWO people gave life to that fetus.


Still dodging the question I see. Let me know when you stop hiding.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Can you not even understand what you're reading?! Your questions were RHETORICAL. They were not subjective, meaning one can't answer from an opinion. I acknowledged that by asking the questions, you were trying to make the point that carrying a fetus that relies on your sustenance makes you more of a parent than the father. I asked YOU to defend the point you were making by asking the questions...or can you not do it?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join