Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The reason abortion can't be discussed rationally is that conservatives can't face all the death and destruction they wreak on the world so they use abortion as a smokescreen to pretend they care about life.

Notice how many conservatives out there crying about "life" and bringing life into the world never have children themselves (Rush is a good example).

I say if you aren't willing to do the work and expense to have children yourself then you have no right to try to force everyone else to.




posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

TinkerHaus
Why is it that when a woman chooses to have a child the father is by default responsible and should provide at the very least monetary support, but a father does not have the right to veto a mother's decision to have an abortion?

Why is it a woman's choice, and a woman's choice alone, when a man was 50% of the reason that spark of life took place?

How can these people reduce a life to a "mass of cells" and a father to nothing more than a sperm and money donor?

The older and wiser I get, the further from "pro-choice" I become.


Biology. Nothing more. Nothing less.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


I totally disagree. This isn't a conservative vs liberal issue this is a human issue.

The Libertarian in me wants to be pro-choice.

The human in me says abortion is murder.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

CB328
The reason abortion can't be discussed rationally is that conservatives can't face all the death and destruction they wreak on the world so they use abortion as a smokescreen to pretend they care about life.

Notice how many conservatives out there crying about "life" and bringing life into the world never have children themselves (Rush is a good example).

I say if you aren't willing to do the work and expense to have children yourself then you have no right to try to force everyone else to.

huh?
Of course you realize that if it were not for "liberal views" and policy we would not have so many single mothers or abortions.
It works both ways my friend. Point your finger if you must, just remeber you have three more pointing back at'cha.
Quad



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by RealWoman
 


Sexism nothing more nothing less.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Quadrivium

CB328
The reason abortion can't be discussed rationally is that conservatives can't face all the death and destruction they wreak on the world so they use abortion as a smokescreen to pretend they care about life.

Notice how many conservatives out there crying about "life" and bringing life into the world never have children themselves (Rush is a good example).

I say if you aren't willing to do the work and expense to have children yourself then you have no right to try to force everyone else to.

huh?
Of course you realize that if it were not for "liberal views" and policy we would not have so many single mothers or abortions.
It works both ways my friend. Point your finger if you must, just remeber you have three more pointing back at'cha.
Quad


This isn't accurate either. You totally ignore biology and you totally ignore changing norms in society such as increases in the age in which it was acceptable for girls to be married. You also fail to acknowledge more opportunity for women. Further there is nothing wrong with being a single mother nor is there anything wrong with having an abortion.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it? 


This part of your post, this one statement, should help open some eyes. Sadly though, I don't believe it will. If, in their mind they can justify murder, there is no reasoning with them.
Quad



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


There is an obvious contradiction in the law and the source of that is unfounded religious delusion.

A law passed by people who believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and signed by a president who believes god told him to start wars in Afghanistan does not make abortion murder.

Laws are repealed and altered as this one will someday.


edit on 14-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.


You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Human life is created the instant the sperm enters the egg and sparks life.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RealWoman
 


"Changing norms in society"? Well, there's people out there now that think that if you don't "like" your 2 year-old, you can off it -

There is truth - and it is black and white (not racial terms for those that think in the progressive terms)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

RealWoman

Quadrivium

CB328
The reason abortion can't be discussed rationally is that conservatives can't face all the death and destruction they wreak on the world so they use abortion as a smokescreen to pretend they care about life.

Notice how many conservatives out there crying about "life" and bringing life into the world never have children themselves (Rush is a good example).

I say if you aren't willing to do the work and expense to have children yourself then you have no right to try to force everyone else to.

huh?
Of course you realize that if it were not for "liberal views" and policy we would not have so many single mothers or abortions.
It works both ways my friend. Point your finger if you must, just remeber you have three more pointing back at'cha.
Quad


This isn't accurate either. You totally ignore biology and you totally ignore changing norms in society such as increases in the age in which it was acceptable for girls to be married. You also fail to acknowledge more opportunity for women. Further there is nothing wrong with being a single mother nor is there anything wrong with having an abortion.

Totally your opinion madam.
I am interested in your opinion of the post I replied to as well, if you would care to give it.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman
 


"Changing norms in society"? Well, there's people out there now that think that if you don't "like" your 2 year-old, you can off it -

There is truth - and it is black and white (not racial terms for those that think in the progressive terms)


You're stretching... and not making any sense doing it with the example. Who exactly are these "some people"?

Again, there is no such thing as truth. There is fact and there is belief. You believe what you want to believe for whatever you believe it, but don't call it truth and expect anyone else to accept it as fact.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.


You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Quadrivium

RealWoman

Quadrivium

CB328
The reason abortion can't be discussed rationally is that conservatives can't face all the death and destruction they wreak on the world so they use abortion as a smokescreen to pretend they care about life.

Notice how many conservatives out there crying about "life" and bringing life into the world never have children themselves (Rush is a good example).

I say if you aren't willing to do the work and expense to have children yourself then you have no right to try to force everyone else to.

huh?
Of course you realize that if it were not for "liberal views" and policy we would not have so many single mothers or abortions.
It works both ways my friend. Point your finger if you must, just remeber you have three more pointing back at'cha.
Quad


This isn't accurate either. You totally ignore biology and you totally ignore changing norms in society such as increases in the age in which it was acceptable for girls to be married. You also fail to acknowledge more opportunity for women. Further there is nothing wrong with being a single mother nor is there anything wrong with having an abortion.

Totally your opinion madam.
I am interested in your opinion of the post I replied to as well, if you would care to give it.


The endocrine system is what it is. That's not my opinion. Changing norms in society are historical facts. Again, not my opinion

Nothing wrong with being a single mother or an abortion, yes that is my opinion.

Which other post specifically are referring to that you would like for me to comment?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by RealWoman
 


Sunstien and Holdren in the obama administration if you want to do some research.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Quadrivium

RealWoman

charles1952
My apologies for being called away, but the thread is doing perfectly well without my added comments. (But I can't help myself.)

What struck me about this was my memory of all of the threads I've been in where there is much discussion about viability, stages of development, and when the child can be declared a human with the same right as everyone else has to life and protection.

I see now that all of that doesn't matter to abortionists or their argument. There is no time when a child has those protections. At six weeks (as in this case), a time when every discussion I've seen claims that the child is not a human, our laws say that it is a human (if the mother wants it to be) and is not if the mother doesn't want it to be. Stages of development have no meaning in that discussion.

The objections in this thread seem to be three-fold. That the rights of the mother take precedence, that unwanted children are not taken care of by pro-lifers, and that conservatives call for death in wars, but try to earn brownie points for being against death by abortion.

None of those are convincing, or even accurate, logically. But all of those objections miss my point.

There is no scientific standard, viability or anything else, that is used to determine whether a child is a human being with rights. His life or death is in the hands of one person without trial or appeal. Leaving aside for a moment whether abortion is right or wrong, I condemn it here because it is inconsistent, subject to the desire of the moment, a decision based only on the emotions of the moment, and which can change back and forth for no apparent reason.

Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.


You're right, the laws are inconsistent. The violence against unborn or whatever that nonsensical law is called is wrong. Absolutely wrong. I would not ever convict any one that charge.

This woman WANTED her child, are you saying it was ok for someone to kill it?


The crime is attacking the woman. The pregnancy is part of the woman. It IS wrong to charge someone twice for the same crime. If the woman wants to sue for damages, that is an entirely civil matter. And that BTW, is exactly how the bible treats the end forceble end of a planned pregnancy.
edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2013 by RealWoman because: clarity



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman
 


Sunstien and Holdren in the obama administration if you want to do some research.



Not really. It's late. Why don't you make it easy for me.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

RealWoman

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman
 


"Changing norms in society"? Well, there's people out there now that think that if you don't "like" your 2 year-old, you can off it -

There is truth - and it is black and white (not racial terms for those that think in the progressive terms)


You're stretching... and not making any sense doing it with the example. Who exactly are these "some people"?

Again, there is no such thing as truth. There is fact and there is belief. You believe what you want to believe for whatever you believe it, but don't call it truth and expect anyone else to accept it as fact.

It is a fact that your above comment applies to you as much as anyone. Your belief that an unborn baby is not human is just that.... a belief. Perhaps you telling yourself that it is a fact will help you sleep but in the end it is only your belief.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join