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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Well this is just downright silliness.

Abortion is legal. FORCED abortion is not.

Just the same as getting a vasectomy is legal. But if someone took a knife to your walnuts they'd be prosecuted.

CHOICE being the operative word here.
edit on 17-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Well thanks for clearing everything up!


If it's not MURDER to have an abortion because its not a life then it's not MURDER to do what this guy did.

Assault? Maybe!




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



There isn't a double standard with abortion.

Parental Rights do not kick in until you are a parent. You are not a parent until you have a child. You do not have a child until one is born.


BINGO!!!!!

If you don’t have a child until one was born then there WAS NO MURDER!

Thank you! I knew I would get it out of you!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



Your post is a clear cut example of willful ignorance.

The situation has been explained to you multiple times, and you ignore that which doesn't sit well with you and laud that with which you agree.


I was just about to say the same to you….until you finally came around!


It took a while but you walked into it!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



Your definition quote:

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations


Similar situation – Abortion

Principle one – A woman can have an abortion because the child is not considered a life.

Principle two – If a man forces a woman to have an abortion its murdering a child and the child is considered a life.


Keep dancing....



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



There isn't a double standard with abortion.

Parental Rights do not kick in until you are a parent. You are not a parent until you have a child. You do not have a child until one is born.


BINGO!!!!!

If you don’t have a child until one was born then there WAS NO MURDER!

Thank you! I knew I would get it out of you!





So you are NOW of the opinion that no murder happened here, because I have always been of that opinion.. but my opinion doesn't change the law as it is written, nor does it take away the charge of murder.
edit on 17-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



Your definition quote:

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations


Similar situation – Abortion

Principle one – A woman can have an abortion because the child is not considered a life.

Principle two – If a man forces a woman to have an abortion its murdering a child and the child is considered a life.


Keep dancing....


Allow me to correct that post for you.

Different situation - pregnancy

Principle one - A woman can have an abortion because the life is inside of HER body, therefore consenting to murder (abortion) which is allowed under the eyes of the law due to the ownership of HER body

Principle two - A man forces a woman to have an abortion, therefore murdering (aborting) the life she is carrying inside HER body, that body to which he has absolutely no legal right to.

Keep dancing....



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Well this is just downright silliness.

Abortion is legal. FORCED abortion is not.

Just the same as getting a vasectomy is legal. But if someone took a knife to your walnuts they'd be prosecuted.

CHOICE being the operative word here.
edit on 17-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Well thanks for clearing everything up!


If it's not MURDER to have an abortion because its not a life then it's not MURDER to do what this guy did.

Assault? Maybe!
So really, your issue is with the lawmakers in this particular state, not the pro-choice crowd.

Got it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Well this is just downright silliness.

Abortion is legal. FORCED abortion is not.

Just the same as getting a vasectomy is legal. But if someone took a knife to your walnuts they'd be prosecuted.

CHOICE being the operative word here.
edit on 17-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Well thanks for clearing everything up!


If it's not MURDER to have an abortion because its not a life then it's not MURDER to do what this guy did.

Assault? Maybe!
So really, your issue is with the lawmakers in this particular state, not the pro-choice crowd.

Got it.


His problem isnt even with lawmakers, it is with the prosecutor that decided that this law applies to this situation.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Abortion is murder, it's the taking of another's life.

And the consent to murder is allowed under the eyes of the law to only be that of the woman who is carrying said life inside of HER body. That life is inside of and a part of HER body, therefore she is the only one who has the legal right to make the decision to murder that life or not.

Murder is a harsh word and some people try to avoid the use, but it is what it is.

It still does not change the fact that the choice of abortion falls on the shoulders of the person carrying that life... and absolutely nobody else's.

These are the laws, and these laws are correct in how they should be defined and carried out.

It's a friggin' no brainer.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Abortion is murder, it's the taking of another's life.

And the consent to murder is allowed under the eyes of the law to only be that of the woman who is carrying said life inside of HER body. That life is inside of and a part of HER body, therefore she is the only one who has the legal right to make the decision to murder that life or not.

Murder is a harsh word and some people try to avoid the use, but it is what it is.

It still does not change the fact that the choice of abortion falls on the shoulders of the person carrying that life... and absolutely nobody else's.

These are the laws, and these laws are correct in how they should be defined and carried out.

It's a friggin' no brainer.


Even if fetal tissue were a viable human, Abortion isn't Murder. Murder is an exact legal term, and as such can be defined.

18 USC § 1111 - Murder

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).

As for the sake of this argument, abortion is the LEGAL taking of another's life, it cannot be considered Murder, unless, as has already been pointed out, it happens illegally, as is the case here.

The question is as it always is in these cases..

Was this tissue a viable life?

The answer is probably not.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


At the end of the day, it doesn't matter and it's all moot.

The point is:

Men are not legally held responsible for a child until it actually comes out of the woman's body... You don't see men paying child support from the moment of fertilization, do you ?

No.

Therefore, the laws ARE consistant in the fact that the only one given and allowed the responsibility of the embryo's life (or not) is that of the woman who is carrying it. Nobody else is legally obligated to the responsibility of that life until it actually comes out of the woman's body.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



So you are NOW of the opinion that no murder happened here, because I have always been of that opinion.. but my opinion doesn't change the law as it is written, nor does it take away the charge of murder.


NO, I already said I consider BOTH murder.

I was excited because you finally admitted they are the same whether the man or woman does it.

One step at a time!


At least now you see there is a double standard. The discussion of whether or not it's murder is a different debate.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





A woman who is pregnant with a WANTED child and one who is pregnant with an unwanted child.


Really? It is completely ridiculous to have something as serious as murder laws based on "feelings". There is a hypocritical double standard (which actually comes from pro-life lawmakers, but that is another matter), and the law as it is does not make sense. Murder is something that must or musnt be prosecuted independently of what people (relatives and anyone else) feels. Anything else is a mockery of justice.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



Different situation - pregnancy

But it’s NOT different – Who is expecting a child?? Just the woman??




Principle one - A woman can have an abortion because the life is inside of HER body, therefore consenting to murder (abortion) which is allowed under the eyes of the law due to the ownership of HER body

Principle two - A man forces a woman to have an abortion, therefore murdering (aborting) the life she is carrying inside HER body, that body to which he has absolutely no legal right to.

There you go…you believe a woman has a right to murder and a man has no right to murder.

It is a demonstration of extreme arrogance to assume that you have moral authority (regardless of the law) to take the life of a child just because you have a vagina. It’s also very arrogant to deny that same power to a man who is 50% responsible for the creation of the life of that child.

There is a double standard and you not only admit it, you try to justify it!






edit on 17-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



So you are NOW of the opinion that no murder happened here, because I have always been of that opinion.. but my opinion doesn't change the law as it is written, nor does it take away the charge of murder.


NO, I already said I consider BOTH murder.

I was excited because you finally admitted they are the same whether the man or woman does it.

One step at a time!


At least now you see there is a double standard. The discussion of whether or not it's murder is a different debate.



No double standard.

He's not pregnant too.
Just she is.

Therefore the man is NOT in the same situation.

You have no legal obligation to that life inside her, thus, you have no legal right to that life inside her.

Your legal obligation, therefore your legal right, does not come into play until that life exits her body.

You are not allowed a legal right without also taking on a legal obligation.

No double standard going on at here all.

The fact that you expect to be able to take on a legal right (abortion without consent) without also having to take on a legal obligation (child support upon fertilization) is where the REAL hypocrisy comes into play.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



So really, your issue is with the lawmakers in this particular state, not the pro-choice crowd.

Got it


Ummmm....both the ABORTION and the MURDER charge against this guy are based on federal laws.


My issue is with the double standard here; the legality of infanticide BUT ONLY when committed by the mother.

Maybe it’s because the feminists pushed the abortion issue harder than anyone that men are second class citizens with regard to abortion rights???



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



At the end of the day, it doesn't matter and it's all moot.

The point is:

Men are not legally held responsible for a child until it actually comes out of the woman's body... You don't see men paying child support from the moment of fertilization, do you ?

No.

Therefore, the laws ARE consistant in the fact that the only one given and allowed the responsibility of the embryo's life (or not) is that of the woman who is carrying it. Nobody else is legally obligated to the responsibility of that life until it actually comes out of the woman's body.


So because it’s legal I should just shut up??


OK then, tell that to the people who keep infringing on my second amendment rights because that is legal, too. They should just shut up and deal with it, right?



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by CranialSponge
 



At the end of the day, it doesn't matter and it's all moot.

The point is:

Men are not legally held responsible for a child until it actually comes out of the woman's body... You don't see men paying child support from the moment of fertilization, do you ?

No.

Therefore, the laws ARE consistant in the fact that the only one given and allowed the responsibility of the embryo's life (or not) is that of the woman who is carrying it. Nobody else is legally obligated to the responsibility of that life until it actually comes out of the woman's body.


So because it’s legal I should just shut up??


OK then, tell that to the people who keep infringing on my second amendment rights because that is legal, too. They should just shut up and deal with it, right?



Infringing on someone's second amendment rights needs a law to be enacted that changes the constitution. This requires someone to push through the changes to the laws before they can do so. It's up to you as a citizen of your country to stop the insanity of it all.

In the same manner, if you want the legal right to force the abortion of a pregnancy on someone else without having to take on the legal obligation of that same pregnancy, then you'll need to have those laws changed too.

The fact that you expect to get your cake and eat it too (with regards to when the man can have legal rights without legal obligation), is what really baffles me.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Let me bottom line my position for you, and you can do with it what you want. You will continue to believe what you are going to believe, and that is fine. All I am trying to do is inform you as to what you are actually upset about.

1. A woman was pregnant.
2. A man drugged her without her knowledge and ended her pregnancy.
3. A prosecutor decided to charge this man with murder.
4. A jury might actually get to hear this case and judge it by it's merits.
5. You claim this is a double standard because women can abort and it isn't called murder.
6. Murder is a legal term used to define unlawful killing.
7. Abortion is a legal term used to define lawful killing. (this is taking the POV that a fetus is alive)
8. Abortion does not fall under Murder, as it is a lawful act.

Your problem is some perceived double standard that doesn't exist. Who is afforded the double standard? Women? No. If a woman aborts another woman's pregnancy, she would be liable. Men? If men could get pregnant, they would be afforded the same protections. Your double standard argument falls flat because you are trying to use it in a microscopic context. When expanded it is easy to see that the double standard doesn't even exist.

Your outrage isn't even directed to where it should be directed. A man attacked a woman and ended her pregnancy against her will. I feel that this man should be punished to the fullest extent of our laws. How do you feel about him?

Abortion isn't on trial here. A man's actions are. Did he take a life? That is the only question to be answered. If it is yes, it was Murder under the law. If it is no, then he is innocent of Murder.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 



So you are NOW of the opinion that no murder happened here, because I have always been of that opinion.. but my opinion doesn't change the law as it is written, nor does it take away the charge of murder.


NO, I already said I consider BOTH murder.

I was excited because you finally admitted they are the same whether the man or woman does it.

One step at a time!


At least now you see there is a double standard. The discussion of whether or not it's murder is a different debate.



No double standard.

He's not pregnant too.
Just she is.

Therefore the man is NOT in the same situation.

You have no legal obligation to that life inside her, thus, you have no legal right to that life inside her.

Your legal obligation, therefore your legal right, does not come into play until that life exits her body.

You are not allowed a legal right without also taking on a legal obligation.

No double standard going on at here all.

The fact that you expect to be able to take on a legal right (abortion without consent) without also having to take on a legal obligation (child support upon fertilization) is where the REAL hypocrisy comes into play.


Of course there is a double standard there. The man has no legal choice in abortion or not abortion because it is her body unless she wants child support in which case it is his child. Obligations without choices are the very definition of injustice and exactly what pro choice people complain about, RE being forced to take a pregnancy to term.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join