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.

 

I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

page: 13
51
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
More and more, I am starting to think that the only solution is to force vasectomies and/or tubal ligations on all children before the age of puberty, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Only after age 21, should these young adults be allowed to have their procedures reversed. It would be even better to make them prove to some kind of official entity that they are capable of raising children physically, psychologically, and financially - much like what one has to go through to adopt - before they are allowed to breed.

Banning abortions didn't work. Allowing people the freedom to breed indiscriminately hasn't worked. Trying to force our children to be abstinent hasn't worked. Sex education in the schools hasn't worked. Guilt and fear promoted through religion hasn't worked. We've tried all the other solutions since the beginning of time, none of them have worked. So, we either just have to understand and accept the fact that sex will happen, unwanted pregnancies will happen, abortions will happen -- or we physically force people to be unable to breed until they prove they are ready. That's it - those are our two options.

I realize that this isn't really the topic of Charles' OP. But it is in a way, because it is illogical for the pro-lifers to think that by banning abortion, it will make all of this go away. It won't. It won't even make it better. It will make it worse.




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I looked it up last night and at the very least a woman can have her tubes tied under the new AHCA and insurance will have to cover it aside from some religouse institutions which doesn't make a lick of sense unless their goal is mass breeding.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by RealWoman
 

Dear RealWoman,

Would you help me out a little, I'm unclear about something.

Do you call holding the male accountable for his actions hostile?
I assume you mean, but I'm not sure, that a male's action is having sex with a woman. His accountability would be child support, or prison if the sex was not consensual.

The woman's action would be allowing sex, and her accountability would be what, exactly? If abortion is an option, she's accountable for making an appointment and having the procedure done, is that about it?


Do you call not bowing to patriarchal control hostile? If so, then yes, I'm hostile.
Your use of "patriarchal" also confuses me. If you're saying no male should have a say in society's laws on the subject, I have no sympathy for you, as I've explained earlier. Will you also say that straights should not have a voice in gay marriage issues? I suppose you would, but that's not what happens.

Why is it patriarchal to want to save the lives of millions of female children? Why does patriarchal even come into the discussion? We have a mechanism for passing laws, and we've had it for a long time. Why is it now, suddenly, proper to resist that law-making mechanism? Because it doesn't give you the results you want?

If I'm misinterpreting you, please clear it up for me. I don't want to have an erroneous understanding.

With respect,
Charles1952


Dear Charles, I bring up the patriarchal issue because women are still living under the oppressive thumb of the white male. Witness what the GOP did in Texas -- and who did it. Rich, right wing white males. Witness who makes the majority of the absurdly ignorant statements about reproduction. It is about control and punishing women for having sex.

So yes, given the backward thinking that is prevalent in today's discourse, I'm saying that males should have absolutely NO say in laws that impact a woman's body. Why should males even have a voice? As a woman, I do not want a male telling me what to do with my reproductive organs. Not my husband, not my father, not my brother, not my sons and certainly not strangers.

And if you want to extrapolate it out to gay marriage, then yes, straights should have NO say in laws targeting gay marriage. Gay marriage does not impact straight marriage in any way, so again, why should straights even be concerned with it?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

libertytoall

RealWoman

charles1952
reply to post by RealWoman
 

Dear RealWoman,


No, women are not idiots and they know what's best for their lives. And thousands of times a day, what's best is abortion.
But do they know what is best for their children? Apparently not, thousands of times a day.

With respect,
Charles1952



I don't even know how to respond to such patriarchal nonsense. Yes, women do know what's best for their children. That's one of the reasons women DO have abortions.


Death is what's best for a child? You're a serial killer.. I honestly can't imagine people like you actually exist. You've shown me today the world is in much worse a state than I previously thought. Disgraceful.. All abortion advocates and planned parenthood should be charged with murder for each innocent child they've murdered. It's indefensible the horrific and evil nature of people who support the killing of babies out of inconvenience.. You read about people like this when they leave babies in dumpsters because it's too much work.

I would love to see a law that requires a name to be given to a child as soon as a person finds out they're pregnant. That way when you go to get an abortion the doctor can ask you to say goodbye to Chris or they might say Jennifer is no longer alive and you're free to go.
edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


More misogynistic gibberish. This nonsensical thinking is exactly why males need zero say in a woman's reproductive system.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

libertytoall

RealWoman

charles1952
reply to post by RealWoman
 

Dear RealWoman,


No, women are not idiots and they know what's best for their lives. And thousands of times a day, what's best is abortion.
But do they know what is best for their children? Apparently not, thousands of times a day.
_javascript:icon('
')
With respect,
Charles1952



I don't even know how to respond to such patriarchal nonsense. Yes, women do know what's best for their children. That's one of the reasons women DO have abortions.


Death is what's best for a child? You're a serial killer.. I honestly can't imagine people like you actually exist. You've shown me today the world is in much worse a state than I previously thought. Disgraceful.. All abortion advocates and planned parenthood should be charged with murder for each innocent child they've murdered. It's indefensible the horrific and evil nature of people who support the killing of babies out of inconvenience.. You read about people like this when they leave babies in dumpsters because it's too much work.

I would love to see a law that requires a name to be given to a child as soon as a person finds out they're pregnant. That way when you go to get an abortion the doctor can ask you to say goodbye to Chris or they might say Jennifer is no longer alive and you're free to go.
edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)






Perhaps if they had, had an abortion when the foetus was still a 'potential baby' there

would have been no need to put the 'real baby' in a dumpster?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




There seem to be two arguments being made here.

1.) It's a woman's right, indeed, her God given right, to choose whether to kill the kid or use laws to protect it.
2.) The child is better off dead.

The idea that God wants us to kill our unborn has no support in Christianity, and was condemned as early as the 1st Century.


Charles, Charles, Charles, Tsk Tsk!

Christians, especially Catholics, don't have a patent on "God". My invocation of "God" should NOT be confused with any agreement on my part with the Christian God. But since you brought it up, you are either under the influence of the Catholic Kool Aid that you've been drinking or you're lying to yourself or to us or both. The Christian God is the same God of the Old Testament, and that God condones abortion, infanticide, plain old murder and much, much more!

Let's have a look at what Christian evangelical apologist, William Lane Craig, has to say about the infanticide that was condoned by the God of the Bible!


"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4).

[…] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives." www.theguardian.com...


"God knew that if those children were allowed to live, it would be the undoing of Israel"?! When the Catholics were confronted with the "heresy" of the Cathars, they besieged the city and killed every man, woman and child, saying "Let God figure out who's innocent and who's guilty"!

I'm sorry, but your God is NOT pro-life!


The idea that God wants death is so counter-intuitive as to be breathtaking. Further, it is not a right as humanity has understood rights, it is a claim.


Your God has sentenced all of humanity, in fact all life, to death, according to Catholic doctrine, because of the "original sin" of disobedience to God, taking and eating the forbidden fruit. Further, the Christian God has created hell for those that refuse to comply with their doctrine. This is the very same God who has promised to destroy the earth after allowing war after war, causing earthquakes, famines and diseases because of his angry wrath.

Is it better to give birth to a child that might grow up to be atheist, like my daughter, who, according to Christian doctrine, is bound for hell, or to send them back to God before they have the chance to sin and be condemned to hell for eternity?
Jesus said:

Mark 13:17
But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Mark 14:21
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.


Who betrays the "Son of man"? Unbelievers and heathen atheists?


The claim is that my desire to have a few months pregnancy-free is greater than your right to life (which is indeed a right).


This is an incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest statement! EVERYONE knows that the real work start after labor, and the job of being a parent lasts a lifetime!



Remember when the abortion movement started? The founder said that Black children were defective and hoped to stop the transmission of those genes.


No. I don't know that statement to be true. Perhaps your forgetting about the hundreds of cultures that killed children who were born with birth defects?

The "abortion movement" was about making existing abortion safe, affordable, accessible and legal. Margret Sanger was also all about getting birth control out there to every women, not just black women.

Thanks to Margret Sanger,

in 1965 The Supreme Court, in a landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut, ruled that the Connecticut law outlawing the use of contrapction was unconstitution, and for the first time in America a married woman could legally use birth control.

In 1972, The Supreme Court extended that ruling to cover unmarried women in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird. This began the "sexual revoltion" in America. For the first time in America, young and umarried people could engage in sex without the consequence of pregnancy. Outraged, the religious right wing began their campaign against sexuality, under the of guise morality, and their attack on birth control that continues to this day. www.abovetopsecret.com...


If the Catholic church had their way, they'd repeal those rulings and sustain the illegal status of birth control altogether!


Some of you may know that I am living off disability income. In the usual sense I don't have a productive life. Why not kill me? And what about the elderly in hospital? Kill all of them? Kill all children who are born with a defect discovered after birth? What happens when we find a gene and a test for homosexuality? Is that grounds for death? Do we subject all parents to psychological tests, and if we find one who may have a tendency for violence, kill the kid to prevent child abuse?


This argument takes the pro-choice stance into surreal, emotional hyperbole, and in no way represents the pro-choice goal, which is to allow women a choice when it comes to what happens to their body. On a personal note however, I do support a person's "right" to die with dignity, and I support assisted suicide.

As for the inconsistency with the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, Tell Congress to Repeal the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This act was opposed by pro-choicers, and they correctly prophesied that this law would be used to undermine a woman's right to choose, and to blame the pro-choice community of hypocrisy of a law that they never supported!



edit on 16-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
This women is my new hero!






posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Its tough making these decisions. I wish if I had no " consciousness " at the time that I would have been an aborted baby. I don't mean to sound so negative, but I just don't like life that much.

So its tough. Either bring unwanted kids in their millions into the world, leaving them potentially vulnerable or in orphanages or abort them early .

I also think that this all started with the 70s hippy era, as sex become acceptable before marriage.
edit on 16-9-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT

I just got a phone call from a dear friend. Her daughter has tried to have a child for several years. She's had three miscarriages. She was in the doctor's today to have a check on her fourth child. She is seven weeks along. The doctor couldn't find a heart beat.

NO BLASTED HEART BEAT. THE CHILD IS DEAD.

Can you imagine the pain and suffering and loss and despair? Tears all over the place.

THAT WAS A BABY. SHE KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, AND YOU KNOW IT.

None of this garbage about potential life. That's a lie. There was a baby there and now it's dead.

We can talk all we want forever. Women know the truth, admit it or not. This idea of killing, killing, killing. How can we live with it?

Zimmerman killed one person. An uproar for a year. Gosnell killed many children outside the mother, breathing and everything else, and we search our memories. Who is Gosnell again? I know I heard that name somewhere.

I hate this killing. Everybody says killing is bad. Except here. What are they thinking? Death, destruction, killing. There are so many who know we are killing thousands of people each day. This is ugly, stupid, wrong. You know it is. The truth is buried under slogans and lies and rationalizations and excuses and anything that will cover the truth.

I hate what were doing to each other. The child is precious. Katie would have given an arm for that child to grow and become hers. But you think it's no big deal. It's nothing important. Meaningless cells. Why not say the sky is green or the ocean is dry? Makes as much sense.

I hate that idea. I hate that killing. God, send it to Hell where it belongs. Death and destruction. I can't talk.

I've got to go and try to comfort some broken hearts suffering the death of their fourth child.

Pray for me and Katie.

I'll be back later.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


It doesn't have the same awareness and consciousness.

It was a " potential" baby. It wasn't a baby, it, died.

Yes, its sad but death is also part of life, weather we like it or not.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles, I am very sorry for your friend's loss. But you cannot blame miscarriages on the abortion issue. Miscarriages are God's doing. Do you have the courage to be angry with God for this? To curse your wonderful, loving God, who would put your friend through so much suffering, for apparently no good reason? And if you can rationalize it by saying that God MUST have had a good reason, then maybe abortions happen for good reasons as well. I would like to think that the soul who would have been in that body will come back, through someone else. The soul always finds a way ...



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

RealWoman

gottaknow
Pro choice and I sympathize for the father in this situation. I have never understood why the decision is up to the mother and that if she chooses to keep it, he is bound to a lifetime of payments.

While I don't agree with the way he went about it, he has little or no choice in today's world.
I believe if a woman conceives and wants to keep it and the man is on the side of abortion/doesn't want to support the baby, there should be a civil understanding that he is without responsibility if she decides to keep it. Too often, women use this power to trap a man and then live off the payments that he works to earn.


The male DOES have a choice... not have sex or personally take responsibility for the use of birth control. Rarely does the male take responsibility to protect himself, but he certainly howls when he has to deal with the result.

True the male often ends up paying child support, but again, it's his decision to whine rather than take responsibility - and look for more options - like 50 / 50 parenting. Try to get a single male to agree to that!

As far as living off of meager child support payments? ROFLMAO. Unless you're a billionaire, it does not happen. It's more misogynistic mythology spouted by the male who willingly threw away his responsibility in the situation.

Several times now I have witnessed you spouting off about the males responsibility. I think you said something like "They made their choice when they dropped their drawers" .
You do understand this applies to the woman as well, don't you? "Biology 101".....right?
I contend that the woman made the choice as well when she "dropped her drawers" and opened her thighs.
Unless raped women have control in any given sex act. It's simple biology. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen.
You say that the man gave up the right of property by dropping his drawers. Surely you see that the woman did so as well. You can't really be that shallow...........can you?


So what you've just said is that males have no responsibility in preventing an unwanted pregnancy and it's all the woman's fault. And how dare she not march to the male''s orders. LOL! Yeah, women are so over that. And that's what males can't handle. They can't control women anymore.

No what I said was that women and men both have a part to play. It's like YOU said, "biology 101“.
You are the one constantly trying to lay all the blame on the man.
I am not sure what kind of "men" you have been with or been around. But a real man, in my opinion, does not "control women". My wife has a mind of her own and trust me SHE USES IT.
I have brought my three boys up knowing that women should be respected.
It just amazes me that you could twist my post in such a way to fit your own perspective.
Fact: Men have just as much responsibility as women for using birth control. Sex (unless forced) is a mutual act.
Fact: Men produce the sperm, women produce AND CARRY the egg. Biology 101.
Fact: Both parties know their role before engaging in sexual activities and are aware of the possible out come.

My point, in short, is this: The roles have been set from the time you were in the womb. No amount of feminism will change it. If a man and woman have consensual sex then at that moment they BOTH made a choice. They BOTH knew their biological roles. If a pregnancy occurs because of that choice it should not be "offed" because both parties already made their choice and knew the roles they played.



You seem to be very hostile toward women. Why is that?

lol. Not women, I love women. Where would I be without them?
No RL I am not hostile towards women, only little girls trapped in women's bodies. I don't like the double standards that are applied. Most "women" who are very pro abortion want to blame the man for getting them pregnant, when in reality they played an equal roll.
I honestly and sincerely love and respect women. How could anyone who claims to be a man not?
You on the other hand seem VERY, VERY hostile towards men.........why is that?


Do you call holding the male accountable for his actions hostile? Do you call not bowing to patriarchal control hostile? If so, then yes, I'm hostile.
edit on 15-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)

I am not sure what you are babbling about here.........are you actually saying that killing an unwanted baby is a way of "holding the male accountable for his actions"?
What about the woman's actions? Who will hold them accountable? They knew what may happen just as much as the man did. You constantly apply a double standard.
As for the bit about "patriarchal control"...................I am not a doctor but it sounds like you have a bad case of "Testicular Envy".
Quad



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 
Charles,
Let them know they have many praying for them in their time of lose.
We had trouble two of our pregnancies but everything worked out in the end. I can't imagine what they are going through.
Quad



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




I'm sorry for the pain and despair you that young woman and her family are going
through ... and I understand.
But there are many types of pain in life and no one gets through life without it.
I mentioned earlier, that many years ago at the age of 21 years I lost my first born
daughter at the age of two and a half years and I know that pain and anguish. In my pain
I had wished she had died at birth, or I had miscarried. I had nurtured her for two and a half
years, and I thought that the pain would be less if that had happened. I know now that
that isn't true, just typing this is a 'kind' of pain...
However someone else's solution to their own problem, will not solve another's we all
have our own cross to bear.
My deepest sympathy to you all



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

FreedomEntered
reply to post by charles1952
 


It doesn't have the same awareness and consciousness.

It was a " potential" baby. It wasn't a baby, it, died.

Yes, its sad but death is also part of life, weather we like it or not.

How do you know it didn't and how exactly does a "potential baby" die?
The consciousness may come once it has it's own unique DNA. All because the rest of the body has not developed enough for it to communicate does not mean it is not there.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Charles I suggest the lady in question adopts.

I mean to keep on being hurt by multiple miscarriages is going to be painful.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

charles1952
There seem to be two arguments being made here.

2.) The child is better off dead.

Well then, why do those accused of murder do everything they can to avoid the death penalty, preferring a non-productive life in a cell? If they want to avoid the death penalty and accept a miserable life in prison, why do we say that the child should face the death penalty because of the chance that he will have an unhappy life? Who are we to make that decision for someone else?

Some of you may know that I am living off disability income. In the usual sense I don't have a productive life. Why not kill me? And what about the elderly in hospital? Kill all of them? Kill all children who are born with a defect discovered after birth? What happens when we find a gene and a test for homosexuality? Is that grounds for death? Do we subject all parents to psychological tests, and if we find one who may have a tendency for violence, kill the kid to prevent child abuse?



Being productive is not a valid way of valuing an individual at all since we can have all kinds of special needs and take care of all people without any problems if we remove the extreme greed issue and not allow it. And I do not say kill but just say no you are not gonna have a 100 times another persons income just because you can manipulate a worthless system. Change the rules of the system and the problem goes away.

And even a so call non productive material wise can be a very productive member of society by being a nice person to their fellow man. A person with developmental disability can give so much back to the people around them and make them think in other ways and make them grow as people.

The tendency for violence is another handicap that I would frankly agree that people with that disablement should be controlled and kept at watch if you birth them. No soul should harm another and the freedom of the ones who live in peace outways the right of the violent ones who have no control either on soul level or chemically in the body, to be free. With the right chemical intake or chakra training (that would also create the chemicals needed) a soul will be more at control of their actions even if they sometimes lose temper and the violence can be avoided.

About old people, allow the old ones who want to leave, to leave and the ones who are not ready to stay. There is no reason to force people to stay who do not want to stay, especially when they might be in pain both physically and mentally.

Homosexuality is part of the plan and meant as a test for some souls and is not a mistake. Many fail the test and judge them without walking in their shoes.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So how do the pro choicers, decide to go about allowing " potentially" aborted children to live?

Id like to see what practical ideas they have.

Because you can be sure there will be millions of orphans and nobody is offering any solutions that are practical.

Which is why abortions continue to happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




I just got a phone call from a dear friend. Her daughter has tried to have a child for several years. She's had three miscarriages. She was in the doctor's today to have a check on her fourth child. She is seven weeks along. The doctor couldn't find a heart beat.


Let's slow down a bit. A heart beat can't be detected until 6 weeks. Is it possible that the doctor may be incorrect about the fetal age? She hasn't miscarried yet, so there's still hope.

At any rate, we can't use one personal misfortune to control the behavior and lives of other individuals and their reproductive choices.


edit on 16-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RealWoman
 




Why should males even have a voice? As a woman, I do not want a male telling me what to do with my reproductive organs. Not my husband, not my father, not my brother, not my sons and certainly not strangers.


Ok agree.

Then you should also agree if the baby is born(because the mother wanted) but father did not want it. Why is the father dragged into this?

Both decided to have intercourse.

Why is one person's right(mother), affect another(Father)? why aren't these "oppressed mothers" speaking against double standard the law has? oh wait, free money.

Because Males do not want law telling them that they have to pay for the next 18 yrs because the mother decided to carry part of the male's organs.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join