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.

 

Democrats Need To Rethink Abortion Issue

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
quote
Just a question.....are you willing to be the one that walks up to the two or three kids that the women has already brought into the world...who are depending on her to earn the money, buy the food, cook and clean, and change their dirty diapers and snotty noses.....and explain to them that gee, I was wrong I guess, and well, your mom was denied the proceedure and well, we didn't believe it was possible but it endangered her life. So, who is taking care of you now, because they now have another to care for...

Still no comment on the c-section bit.....
but well, what if someone becomes pregnant, and well, suddenly it is found that for some strange quirk, she isn't dialating enough....and yet, well, I know a person who just can't be put under.....it will kill them.

So, you give the unborn all these rights...live, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and well, it comes into the world as a girl.....are you gonna then take that right away when she becomes old enough to bear children. Since, well, it seems that women ARE THE ONLY ONES IN THIS COUNTRY that can have a surgical proceedure forced on them.....everyone else is covered by the "patient's bill of rights!"

[edit on 3-11-2004 by dawnstar]


My point is that the baby has been delivered all the way except the heat, thus the widest part the shoulders have been delivered, why does the baby have to be murdered? The delivery is 99.9 % complete. If the babyu is that far into this world I believe it can be finished. And there are options for those that cannot tolerate being put under.

And I will never, I mean Never tell anyone I was wrong on this issue. I wish people would look up the proceedure & read the details. It is awful! Many medical professionals have testified that there is absolutely no justification for this.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by rachlls]




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Cassie,

I agree that the Democrats need to rethink the abortion issue as well as any other moral or lifestyle issues. But not as you are saying. I believe what are we are seeing is a shift of the populace toward a stance of affinity to the republican "philosophy" of how these issues should be handled. What I mean by that, is that the Democratic approach to attacking these issues at the NATIONAL level seems to be rejected right now by the voting population. It appears that the Republican approach of attacking these issues at the STATE level is being better accepted.

What is surprising in these "lifestyle" and "moral" issues is that they get no where at the national, but make ground at the state and I can't help but notice that is a philosophical win for the republican doctrine.

Will the Democrats have to adjust their strategies to be paradoxical to their doctrine in order to make wins on these issues? (i.e. will they have to become much more active and aggressive at the state level and push away from trying to win their position at the national level?) This might actually be so...it may be the "when in Rome do as the Romans do" thingy. If the country is showing an affinity to the Republican philosophy of how the state to national system should work, then the Democrats may actually have to learn that game in order to make their wins.

Just a thought from a Republican watching. Look forward to reading your feedback.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think everyone would agree that if something is growing, it's alive.

From conception, cells begin dividing on their own. Therefore, the baby is alive.

Destroying anything that is growing is destroying life.

Is it really that hard to see?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
This election was about two topics and two topics only, Abortion and Gay marriage. I could give two flying flips over whether or not a pair of gay men or women want to get married. Noone else should either. It wont effect you as a person in any way shape or form. I don't believe in abortion. But I don't believe that everyone should be forced to follow my beliefs. I believe I will go to heaven, not because I forced others to live my way but because I told them you have a choice. Make whatever choice your going but be prepared to live with your actions.

The parts of this election that effect me directly are, The Economy, Jobs, Unemployement Rates, Education, The Budget, Foreign Policies, Health Care, Social Security.

In Every single One of these areas I disagree with what Bush Has done and What He's planning on doing.

In Bush's world, My Cost of living will increase, but I won't get a minimum wage increase to offset it. In fact 100's of Thousands of jobs have gone and will go to more foreign countries in his terms in office. Unemployment hasn't been any higher than it is under Bush's Term in Office. When The US Came into the Bush Term wwe had a Budget Surplus, Now we have an Enormous Budget Deficit. Bush's Foreign Policies are slowly isolating the US from countries that were our Allies. HealthCare cost are skyrocketing and Bush and his friends ("The Haves and the Have Mores"... His own words) are giddy with excitement over how much more they'll be making at our expense. I earn a decent wage, but even with my wife working we barely scrape by and save enough to pay our medical bills. My wife is currently pregnant with our third child. The Cost of gas will be over $2.50 a gallon with in 6 months and over $3 a gallon by this time next year. Every single thing will go up in price due to this. Bush's policies are put inplace to make the Top 1-2% wealthiest of people in the US wealthier and ensure that those in the bottom 50% stay there and even go further down.

Phae



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agitator


So is it responsible for us to force this baby to go through this.


[edit on 3-11-2004 by Agitator]


I hear what you're saying. But is it responsible for us to kill the baby in the womb in order not to force the baby to go through this? If it is ok to kill the fetus of an unwed mother because we don't want the baby to lead a miserable life, then we are sanctioning euthanasia.

So it's kind of like:

1) We euthanize the fetuses of the poor because they "can't feed and adequately take care of the baby"

2) We euthanize twice as many black babies than white babies (according to stats in a USA Today article)

3) We euthanize babies who are handicapped or deformed, giving the mother the option to do this after pre-natal tests; I believe this option is given to mothers who carry down syndrome children

Modern abortion techniques would have been a great hit in Germany circa 1938, no?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Cassie,

I agree that the Democrats need to rethink the abortion issue as well as any other moral or lifestyle issues. But not as you are saying. I believe what are we are seeing is a shift of the populace toward a stance of affinity to the republican "philosophy" of how these issues should be handled. What I mean by that, is that the Democratic approach to attacking these issues at the NATIONAL level seems to be rejected right now by the voting population. It appears that the Republican approach of attacking these issues at the STATE level is being better accepted.

What is surprising in these "lifestyle" and "moral" issues is that they get no where at the national, but make ground at the state and I can't help but notice that is a philosophical win for the republican doctrine.

Will the Democrats have to adjust their strategies to be paradoxical to their doctrine in order to make wins on these issues? (i.e. will they have to become much more active and aggressive at the state level and push away from trying to win their position at the national level?) This might actually be so...it may be the "when in Rome do as the Romans do" thingy. If the country is showing an affinity to the Republican philosophy of how the state to national system should work, then the Democrats may actually have to learn that game in order to make their wins.

Just a thought from a Republican watching. Look forward to reading your feedback.


I think the strategy you have outlined would benefit the Democrats--to an extent. I'm thinking in a bigger sense, though, like a televised debate between Presidential candidates. The way to have the Democratic candidate stopped cold is to ask him point-blank if he supports abortion. The candidate will pussyfoot around the issue but the gist of his answer would be "yes." And that "yes" will make up the minds of a sizeable # of religious voters. I realize that the same tactic can be used with asking the candidate if he supports gay rights, and that's unfortunate.

My more general problem with the Democrats is that pro-abortion has become an entrenched, unchangeable issue, one that many democrats and most liberals seem to cling to mindlessly with no ability to reexamine or compromise on. To me, the way liberals cling to the pro-abortion stance is just as irrational as the way the conservatives cling to the anti-gay stance. The difference is: the conservatives are not going around town banging drums about how "openminded" they are.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I'm with your logic completely. See, I firmly believe (and could be desparately wrong) that in the rank and file of the democratic common person they no more want to speak on a moral issue for the entire country thant the rank and file republican common person does.

We simply do not want to state a "national moral conscience" on these issues...unfortunately the parties insist on pretending that each of them have been given some mandate from us that they do.

No we don't...you're lying parties! We don't want you to say some national decision on this. If we want to have a popular vote on a moral issue in our state and effect a change on that level - okie dokie - but the national level loses the will the people on issues like this.

California most definitely does not hold the same majority moral leaning that Oklahoma does. Why would either state want to force their moral leaning on the other? I don't - and I garantee you a vast number of democrats don't.

These issues should never be spoken during a presidential election. The proper response to your question posed (whether it is abortion, or gay marriage, or whatever) should be - it doesn't matter how I feel about that, I'm not here to speak be the moral conscience of the people. I'm here to administer their government - which means serve, protect and be a good steward.

Both major parties have forgotten what the office was for as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Maybe a lot of people need to rethink their beliefs, but that should be every individual's to do, not the government's.

For example, I personally, have always and will continue to dedicate my life to protecting and defending the rights of all the creatures too small to speak up and defend themselves. This covers a broad range, but undoubtably children and animals. I am always going to refrain from consuming animal products, work my ass off to save animals from kill shelter fate, and be disgusted by abortion and strive to help women find an alternative.

I feel meat is MURDER. I have since I was a child, so I choose to never eat the stuff. I, however, understand that this is MY belief (and I am sure if it were a common religious belief, more would share it), and do not wish to enforce my beliefs on others. I know that a lot of people have a different view on animal exploitation, abuse and murder, and consider it their RIGHT and their CHOICE to eat meat and wear leather etc. I would never want the government to make anyone lose their rights and freedom of choice based on the moral beliefs of individuals like myself.

Abortion sickens me in the same way, but I will always be pro-choice, and hope that more and more people learn and fully understand methods to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The "Thing" inside a human woman at the time of conception is a human being. An elephant isn't gonna pop out of her, it's a human life. It's a woman's right to choose my foot. Why doesn't the human life inside of her have the right to choose?
Ronald Reagan said it best,,, " It would appear to me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born "



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Wow!!!! Five pages on this Abortion nonsense. None of you folks seem to get it at all. You all seem to be debating placebo stances on what the Abortion issue is all about.

Oh I am not about to debate all the nonsense emotional issues of which so many of you are obviously well versed...nor all the emotional baggage.

As for all the emotional baggage ...let me say this about that in the spirit of placebo..ism...that all you are debating.

Jerry????...Jerry....Jerry!!!! THe Jerry Springer Cheering section.


I used to get all involved in this issue in debates till one day and for some reason I woke up and discovered that this is a sugar pill..a shadow that our politicians and political partys keep us on as a treadmill such that we are totally ignorant of what the true reason for which the abortion buisness is about.

It is about Votes. Nothing else.

What is so astonishing to me is that many of the conservative elements of our people are so dumb they totally miss out on this line of thought while they are as emotional as the Jerry Springer Democrats. Astonishing. Both groups are chasing a shadow on this issue. Shadow boxing.

The abortion issue back before Roe Vs Wade was one in which the bulk of the public was not signing up on. The public didnt want and were not buying into it. It became necessary to bypass public opinion and get it passed through the Supreme Court. Typical standard democratic party technique.

What the democratic party strategy people realized was that there was a possiblity of getting a huge block of womens votes..especially in high electorial vote states by galvanizing women on a issue in which most women would immediately identify. Reproduction and reproductive rights.
This represented a huge block of gauranteed, precidtable, malliable, controllable votes. 'And they got these votes too. It got so sickening as a free pass across the political spectrum that you could not run for the office of dog catcher on anything but your stance on abortion. The democrats beat this litmus test into the ground for every office in the land. It got that stupid everywhere across this land. The issue was not whether a person was qualified for any office but..instead...what was their stance on aborition??

The same thing was done with civil rights for votes.

I am looking for another like or similar emotional placebo issue coming somewhere down the road in order to get the backing of illegal aliens...for votes. Just like in abortion and civil rights ...this will entail huge government giveaways and costs the taxpayers..millions..even billions in order to gaurantee these votes at public expense. And the public will be left debating and boxing at shadows ...just like on this thread.

It is about votes people.

The politicians dont care about the dead or the living as long as it will get them votes. As I stated ..the conservatives are so stupid they will debate a shadow ...rather than catch on to what is really happeing out here in the political climate. They are some kind of stupid on this one.

Ironically...what happened since the 1970s to change the minds of many women out here is not the pubic debate on abortion..but technology.

Sonograms/ultrasound...is what changed the minds of many women. When they see the heart beat and a photo of a unborn child..they subconsciously realize that this is a living creature in them..or their friends or kin.
It was a woman who clued me into this concept. I would never as a male have thought of this on my own. I am to this day...grateful to her for this knowlege and view.
Any woman of conscience seeing that sonogram will think long and hard about what is in the womb and come to realize that all this political rhetoric is alot of hot air. Many are not buying into this issue as did their mothers and grandmothers.

Nevertheless ..the democratic party saw this as a opportunity to parasite off the American public for votes on this issue and deliberately left the public debating shadows..and in thin air ...fighting each other while continuing for years to live well off the public using this new litmus test for public office.

You people are puppets on a string debating this issue...on both sides.

This is standard political technique..when it can be pulled off correctly. Get ready for another one down the road on one issue or another.

THe tell tail signs of this new up and coming litmus test will be huge emotional drama associated with it, huge advantage taken of the American public and purse/money transfers, and of course votes.
Buckle up America. You worked hard for this.

The Democrats dont need to rethink the Abortion Issue...they have already thought it through quite well.

America needs to start thinking outside of the emotional box and nonthinking into which they have been put. Cut the strings on thier minds and emotions and catch on to how dirty and phoney the political party system actually is and what they will do to deliberately to put the public on a string for votes.
Stop shadow boxing on phoney issues.

Orangetom

[edit on 23-2-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I agree with you on this one orangetom, it is just another divide and rule issue which shortcuts the thought processes and appeals directly to the emotions. However, it is easy to get emotions stirred when you look at the images of babies. This is one of the most powerful images any human can be shown. You can see this when you show baby images to children of most ages.

Civil rights, abortions, gender choice, disability, immigration... take your pick and you will find an oleaginous politician willing to 'fight' your corner.

Of course it is about votes.

Well done.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Hello Heronumber0,

How good to see your post again. Thanks for the well done.

You know I had not actually considered it in the light of "divide and conquer" but that is precisely what is being done. I thank you for this additional perspective.

I just sensed that there was a much bigger picture than what was being presented to the pubic and began to think it through. Once I stepped outside of the box so to speak it became obvoius.

It just irritated me to learn or awaken to the concept that I could be so easily put on a emotional string. To be seduced and made a drama queen over such a placebo issue. Somewhat like being hustled for my vote. Awareness of such leaves a bad taste in my senses. When I figured it out I pulled the string and got off the bus.
But this also left me very dubious about the integrity of the body politic. Since that time I have considered much of the intentions of the body politic akin to whoredom. The selling and trading of peoples souls.
This kind of things always works best if the host is never aware that it is even occuring. THe best seductions alway do.

Thanks for the additional perspective.

Orangetom



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
Abortion is the MURDER of an innocent child.


It just sucks GOD is so dumb he said it wasn't.

You know GOD right? That dude that made the JEWS write stuff down?

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

Since GOD is obviously an IDIOT. Let's do what KARL ROVE says. Vote McCain baby. He's kinda straight.


[edit on 24-2-2008 by RANT]

[edit on 24-2-2008 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Well Mr. Rant it says in the Bible, which I believe just may be the WORD of GOD
Exodus 21:22 which by the way the Jews follow the Old Testament as well

It reads; If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. and if any mischief follows, then thou shalt give a LIFE FOR a LIFE.

A life for a life rant. That would insist that GOD believes that it is a human LIFE in the womb.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Here are a few more for ya Rant
the first one I already listed, but figured I'd give it from another translation and elaborate a bit

Exodus 21
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

1) If a woman gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury--i.e. the baby lives without harm,
then a fine results to compensate for the assault.

2) If a woman gives birth prematurely, and the baby dies, then the assailant is to be given the death penalty. This point is HUGE!!! What God is saying here is that the value and worth of an adult man is equal to the value and worth of an unborn fetus who was young enough, or injured enough, to die. God equates the loss of an unborn baby as the loss of a life, for He says, "you are to take life for life,..." This point cannot be emphasized too strongly. God considers the unborn baby alive, and the loss of that life is considered murder. This murder is punishable with the death penalty. This verse demonstrates three truths:
a) The unborn's life is equivalent in value to an adult's life in God's sight
b) This also outlines God's Law against criminal feticide.
c) The killing of the unborn is murder

Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.


Job 31:15
Did not He who made me in the womb make them [Job's servants]?
Did not the Same One for us both within our mothers?

Psalm 51:5
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Judges 13:7
""But he said to me, 'You will conceive and give birth to a son.'"

Luke 1
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Exodus 1
15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"
19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."
20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.

looks like it is talking about partial birth abortion to me


just a few Biblical references for ya. But we can go the non Biblical route if you want to.
The point of this thread however is not to debate whether abortion is right or wrong, it's about the Democratic stand on abortion.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by MrNice
Abortion is the MURDER of an innocent child.


It just sucks GOD is so dumb he said it wasn't.

You know GOD right? That dude that made the JEWS write stuff down?

Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

Since GOD is obviously an IDIOT. Let's do what KARL ROVE says. Vote McCain baby. He's kinda straight.


[edit on 24-2-2008 by RANT]

[edit on 24-2-2008 by RANT]


RANT,

This is very intresting..very intrersting.

Halacha...Jewish Law...I thought Jewish Law was the Olde Testament. Not commentarys but the Olde Testament.

If Jewish Law justifys such...does that mean there is no seperation of church and state and we are once again on the puppet strings??

So the Jews have Halacha and Talmud..commentarys to tell them what the Olde Testament actually says. Then their wise men and philosophers can do exactly the opposite of what the Olde Testament says.

The Muslims have a similar pattern. Hadith...commentarys. Then the Muslim wise men and philosophers take action based on the wise men philosophys..including Fatwas or whatever is fashionable today.

Christians have this type of Talmud too. CLarence Larkin, Ironsides,Matthew Henry..all of them writing commentarys to say the Bible instructions say this..but dont say that.

YOu know RANT...this Abortion issue was entirely political and for political reasons.....ie...votes. By quoting the Hebrews...and Halacha...does that mean that there is no seperation of church and state??

YOu know politics itself is based on this kind of commentary. In like manner the nature of the workings and commentary is so seldom explained to the voters. The workings and philosophy behind it. One could say that politics is Talmudic too. As a matter of fact ...politics is entierly Talmudic in nature. ONce again ..when we become aware of this as a working philosophy we realize that there is actually no seperation of church and state. It is just that like the Talmud...much of the nature of the religion of politics is undefined to the public. In this manner you can have a dual system..without the bulk of the populace even being aware of it. A dual system is sometimes refered to by the name ..Feudalism. A system for insiders and a system for outsiders. That pretty much identifys politics.

Once again we find ourselves back to the lack of seperation of church and state..while claiming when convenient and expedient ...seperation of church and state. A very intresting dichotomy and duality.

All of this comes under man made wisdom religions...philosophy...love of wisdom. Some would call it gnostic wisdom...the religion of wise men and sophists. We are back to relgion again. What was that about seperation of church and state??

The problem historically has always been how to substitute one religion for another and then overlay it as if it was in fact the original religion.

If you know any Hebrew history at all Rant ...you would know that this is precisely the conduct done by the Hebrews over and over and over..and for which they were punnished ...seven times by captivity..for disobeying the Law of Moses ...Gods Law....and for which they were charged with keeping.

It is intresting to me to watch the leadership of any country trying to justify actions based on manmade philosophy. IF one can think past the next sound bite...of history...one learns that this is actually a very sophisticated attempt at counterfitting. Precisely what the Hebrews did ..over and over...and for which they were as stated..punnished seven times by captivity..and eventually lost the nation given to them by God.

Thanks for the counterfit Rant..it is very sophisticated. Well done.

As I said..and am implying..politics is often a counterfit religion too. Just like the Hebrew Pharisees.

Oh..one more very important thing RANT. If politics is in fact a disguised religion..just like the Hebrews... and a counterfit religion..and there is no seperation of church and state as claimed.....Please give me the name of the counterfit god of the body politic???? What is the name of the counterfit god to which the Hebrews were secretly trying to overlay on the Olde Testament as if it was the Olde Testament??

IF we can think past the next sound bite...we will find that there is nothing new under the sun going on here.

Orangetom

[edit on 24-2-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Yes, the abortion debate was politisized. My sister voted Republican (Reagan), until she had a daughter. To her, she knew that she did not want government involved in a personal/private decision made by her daughter.

Nonetheless, outlawing abortions would not keep women from having them. As one who is old enough to remember preRoevWade, I can tell you that females rich enough to travel out of the US for an abortion did so. Sisters, daughters, mothers who could not afford to travel resorted to abortionists in unsterile conditions or tried to abort by any means possible, inserting coat hangers, drinking concoctions, physical beatings.

God help us if we return to the day when a family comes home to a mother, daughter, sister bleeding to death on her bed or dying from infection.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join