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.

 

The Latest Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This doesn't really show pro-choice people are hypocrites at all. It just shows there are laws that don't make sense, of which there are many.




posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
This doesn't really show pro-choice people are hypocrites at all. It just shows there are laws that don't make sense, of which there are many.



Actually it does. The pro-choice argument (that life doesn't begin until birth) contradicts this law and many pro-choice supporters advocate for a murder charge against this man. If you want this man to face 'murder' charges then you admit the fetus is LIFE, which negates the pro-choice argument.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ghost375
This doesn't really show pro-choice people are hypocrites at all. It just shows there are laws that don't make sense, of which there are many.



Actually it does. The pro-choice argument (that life doesn't begin until birth) contradicts this law and many pro-choice supporters advocate for a murder charge against this man. If you want this man to face 'murder' charges then you admit the fetus is LIFE, which negates the pro-choice argument.


I'm pro-choice. As I've stated before, I know of NO pro-choice argument or stance that a life isn't extinguished during an abortion. I'll admit that life is extinguished through the use of "The Pill", and IUD or the Morning After Pill.

NOBODY is saying a fetus or a fertilized egg isn't a life!


edit on 18-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ghost375
This doesn't really show pro-choice people are hypocrites at all. It just shows there are laws that don't make sense, of which there are many.



Actually it does. The pro-choice argument (that life doesn't begin until birth) contradicts this law and many pro-choice supporters advocate for a murder charge against this man. If you want this man to face 'murder' charges then you admit the fetus is LIFE, which negates the pro-choice argument.


I'm pro-choice. As I've stated before, I know of NO pro-choice argument or stance that a life isn't extinguished during an abortion. I'll admit that life is extinguished through the use of "The Pill", and IUD or the Morning After Pill.

NOBODY is saying a fetus or a fertilized egg isn't a life!


edit on 18-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Then you have another hypocritical position to deal with. You believe this man should face murder charges yet you don't think a woman who chooses abortion should face murder charges.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No.



For the record, I don't think that the man should be charged with murder.




for most states the cut off for abortion is between 20-22 weeks. After that, I wouldn't protest the murder charge.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think you're so deep in attack mode that you're forgetting about the conversation!



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by seabag
 


No.



For the record, I don't think that the man should be charged with murder.




for most states the cut off for abortion is between 20-22 weeks. After that, I wouldn't protest the murder charge.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think you're so deep in attack mode that you're forgetting about the conversation!



Apparently so!


Sorry! My argument isn't with you. I hope the new North Dakota 6 week law makes it to the SCOTUS. If abortion can't be overturned I hope to at least see the ND law become the standard.


edit on 18-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


6 Weeks is too early. Most women don't know they're pregnant that early on.

What's the difference between the loss of life at 6 weeks, 12 weeks or 22 weeks?



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

men have zero say?......when a man ejaculates into a womans vagina, he's made his choice. as a 60 year old man, i would tell those guys to grow up, zip up, and think with the brain above your neck.


Consenting to sex no longer means consenting to parenthood. It's pro-choice feminists in general that need to grow up and stop acting so infantile. They allow a man into their birth canal and then play the victim if anyone insists that they own up to the consequences of their actions that they claim are being 'forced' on them. Women don't respect men who play the white knight...they will use you, but they don't respect you.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



I might be able to see this as hypocritical if the mother was intending to have an abortion. However, she wasn't. She fully intended to carry her pregnancy to term and give birth. For all we know, this mother could be staunchly pro-life, she may never even have considered abortion as an option.

So knowing this fact, it becomes murder. We can argue semantics all day long but the facts remain. She wanted this baby. He murdered it under false pretenses. He took away the life of her child. We could argue that it was his too but he wasn't carrying it in his body. She was. She made a decision about what she wanted to do with her body and her pregnancy and he wasn't happy about that. So he gave her a pill and MURDERED IT.

I don't know how to explain it any other way.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Of course your feelings matter but, it's not your body.

If I don't want to have kids can I force my husband to have a vasectomy against his will? NO, I can't, it's his body and I have no right to force anything upon it against his wishes. What I can do is take birth control, or insist he wear a condom. Just like if a man doesn't want to have a child, he can put on a condom or refuse sex.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by U4ea82

She wanted this baby.


Whether this baby was wanted or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not this man's actions was murder. The fact that women have the legal right to abort their 'clump of cells' establishes that human beings do NOT have the right to life during the fetal stage of their development. This man didn't violate the rights of anyone other than the woman in this case, as the fetus doesn't have the right to live.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



6 Weeks is too early. Most women don't know they're pregnant that early on.

That's your opinion. The legislators in ND disagree.




What's the difference between the loss of life at 6 weeks, 12 weeks or 22 weeks?


The difference between 6 weeks and 12 weeks is 6 weeks.

The difference between 6 weeks and 22 weeks is 16 weeks.


The difference is the 6 week limit would significantly reduce the number of abortions in this country each year, which is a good thing IMO.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by U4ea82
 



So knowing this fact, it becomes murder. We can argue semantics all day long but the facts remain. She wanted this baby. He murdered it under false pretenses. He took away the life of her child. We could argue that it was his too but he wasn't carrying it in his body. She was. She made a decision about what she wanted to do with her body and her pregnancy and he wasn't happy about that. So he gave her a pill and MURDERED IT.

It's murder no matter which one does it (the man or woman). The hypocrisy is the fact that murder by a woman is legal.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
The OP has a rock solid argument that no one can knock down with an intelligent answer. It isn't possible, because he is absolutely right.

So in this thread I have read babies compared to tapeworms, ants and herbs. Since when did we get such a sickening disregard for life?

For those that can't seem to grasp the difference between a 6 week BABY and a 22 week BABY, here you go:

7 week BABY



18 week BABY



You can call them a fetus, or tissue, or tapeworm or anything else that makes you feel better, but they sure as hell look like BABIES to me..and no one has the right to MURDER them.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by jimmyx
Consenting to sex no longer means consenting to parenthood.

Contraception isn't actually a new thing. Its been around for thousands of years in one way or another. Actually birth didn't actually mean consenting to parenthood around Ancient Rome. Infantcide used to not be so uncommon. We've come a long way and we should recognize that instead of pretending there was some golden age of awsum where men were men and angels sang our praises.


It's pro-choice feminists in general that need to grow up and stop acting so infantile. They allow a man into their birth canal and then play the victim if anyone insists that they own up to the consequences of their actions that they claim are being 'forced' on them.

The description you've given is so very narrow that I'm not sure who you're addressing. I don't believe every single 'pro-choice' person has an open highway into their birth canal whilst waving around the victim card. Both men and women should be aware of the possibilities when they're sexually active.


Women don't respect men who play the white knight...they will use you, but they don't respect you.

And this tag line just makes it even narrower and so ridiculously general.

You may have had bad experiences, but if the persons you're around don't respect you then maybe you're looking in wrong place, the wrong maturity level, or you need to rethink who you're white knighting around and the expectations you carry with that. This type of thing applies to both genders.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Contraception isn't actually a new thing.


I wasn't referring to contraception.
I was referring to the shift in our culture in regards to personal responsibility, including the 'pro-choice' movement.


The description you've given is so very narrow that I'm not sure who you're addressing.


"Pro-choice feminists in general".


Both men and women should be aware of the possibilities when they're sexually active.


I agree that they should acknowledge the consequences, but our current culture says that only men should be obligated to take responsibility for their sexual choices.


You may have had bad experiences, but if the persons you're around don't respect you then maybe you're looking in wrong place, the wrong maturity level, or you need to rethink who you're white knighting around and the expectations you carry with that. This type of thing applies to both genders.


I'm a (heterosexual) female, just for the record. I wasn't referring to myself as a former 'white knight'.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 



Originally posted by Charmed707
I wasn't referring to contraception.
I was referring to the shift in our culture in regards to personal responsibility, including the 'pro-choice' movement.


From my previous post:


Originally posted by Pinke
Actually birth didn't actually mean consenting to parenthood around Ancient Rome. Infantcide used to not be so uncommon. We've come a long way and we should recognize that instead of pretending there was some golden age of awsum where men were men and angels sang our praises.

We will agree to disagree but we’re actually making progress historically speaking. We just seem to have this idea that everything is coming tumbling down constantly and I don't believe its true.


"Pro-choice feminists in general".

Still an incredibly narrow band of people as far as I'm concerned. I don't meet very many of the pro-choice feminists you're describing. Different country maybe.


I agree that they should acknowledge the consequences, but our current culture says that only men should be obligated to take responsibility for their sexual choices.

I know where you’re coming from to some degree, but I do believe women are judged on their sexual choices regardless of rhetoric.

I'm aware of the single father rights etc ... and various other aspects. It's a complex topic, but I don't think the attitude you're stating is quite as wide spread as you might think.


I'm a (heterosexual) female, just for the record. I wasn't referring to myself as a former 'white knight'.

My response was mostly gender neutral. Friends or lovers; most of my friends are not how you describe, and I find that type of behaviour disturbing. (Though yes it does exist.)

Certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think generalizing like that does more harm than good and isn't so constructive.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

How did we go from a peace loving people who strive for freedom and decry human rights violations into a group of depraved individuals bickering over who does or doesn't have the "choice" to kill a baby.

WE are the problem....as usual.



IMO the problem started when certain groups (feminists and others) hijacked the issue
and made it into a battle of choice or no choice
when in reality the argument should focus on the overall well being of society
most people are concerned about who has the right to choose
no wonder there is so much bickering

speaking about the article
I think the law makers are in a very sticky situation
If they decide murder charges are not applicable
then how will they come out with a response that is harsh enough that others won't do this again
if they decide murder charges are applicable
then they will attract the anger of the pro-choice crowd

About the in-utero operation point raised before
I will give it a shot and explain why I think it is related to abortion
the action alone of operating a baby in utero is a contradiction to the pro-choice argument
because before a fetus is viable it is considered just part of the mothers body
however, why would you operate on the "mother's body" if the objective of the operation
is not to cure or treat the mother
I know it's kind of fuzzy but that's the best I can do right now to explain it



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by U4ea82
 



So knowing this fact, it becomes murder. We can argue semantics all day long but the facts remain. She wanted this baby. He murdered it under false pretenses. He took away the life of her child. We could argue that it was his too but he wasn't carrying it in his body. She was. She made a decision about what she wanted to do with her body and her pregnancy and he wasn't happy about that. So he gave her a pill and MURDERED IT.

It's murder no matter which one does it (the man or woman). The hypocrisy is the fact that murder by a woman is legal.


I know your blood pressure is obviously up over this topic, but if you want to come down to the level of sanity for a second you might do well to be informed of something key that you don't seem to get:

A woman cannot murder her unborn child, because murder is a legal classification. If the law doesn't consider killing a fetus murder, then it isn't murder. Period.

Beyond that, I have to agree that this is a rather ridiculous double standard, but my conclusion is pretty different than yours. In cases like this, charging a man with murder is utterly ridiculous, because what the man really killed is a fleshy growth on the inside of this woman's uterin wall. He did not kill a sentient creature by any stretch of the imagination; this is actually less of a crime than animal cruelty IMHO.

Furthermore, this crime was avoidable. What do you think his motive was? He didn't want the kid. Why not? most likely because he would have to pay for it.

I've said it before and I won't stop saying it until someone gives me a valid argument to the contrary -- if a man wants an abortion, and the woman wants to follow through the full term of her pregnancy, the father should be able to deny fatherhood and waive all child support payments. If that were the case, I honestly don't think we would have this problem to discuss right now.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





The difference is the 6 week limit would significantly reduce the number of abortions in this country each year, which is a good thing IMO


No it won't. Women of means will cross over to another state to have the procedure done, and poor women will resort to back alley abortionist or other home remedies.

What this restriction will do is guarantee the deaths of more pregnant women.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join