ATS Street View: 11: Abortion and Racism in New York City

reply to post by Maslo


It's murder that is understood. Like I said weeks ago. If you murder a gunman the second before he kills 50 people, it is understandably better that letting the 50 people die. It most certainly is not a contradiction. It's a civil agreement that this murder is understood. It is for a reason that is obvious.

I really have no right to deny a rape victim the right to abort a baby in the 8th month. I may feel it is wrong beyond words, but what right do I have? In many ways it is murder by passion and, again, a murder that is understood. But common sense says the born baby should be given up for adoption. Reason being is quite clear. It's murder.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


To me, if you are that desperate to kill your unborn child, there are bigger problems than the need to have an abortion.

reply to post by Gorman91


Saying that they are willing to kill the child is not true since many of them are not educated in knowing that it is a life inside of them to begin with.

A lot of times the mothers who are opting for abortion are not educated to the alternatives such as adoption options that are available after the birth. They are not informed that the thing that they are aborting is indeed a life form. Many times they are not informed of the health risks they can face down the road from having an abortion.

Having the above information could help deter these mothers from having the abortion without forcing them by law not to have one.


There are some that even after having all of the information will go through with the abortion, do to fear of their parents finding out; fear of what going through with the pregnancy would do to their body. Most of the women that would go through with the pregnancy would come from fear. If you are able to help these women with that fear, even fewer may still go through with the pregnancy. If the young girls are afraid of their parents finding out and what they may do, there may be a history of violence with the parents that may need to be looked into, and that may help those young girls make the choice to give birth and choose an adoption choice.

It is all about education and sitting down with the women to talk about each individual situation, which could help as well.

There will be still some that opt for an abortion, though the numbers should be diminished I think.

reply to post by AlienCarnage


This is true, we should not prosecute such people. At the same time, their choice cannot affect the law. The fact that a psychopath desires to kill should not necessitate a revival in gladiators. We should educate, but laws cannot be affected by the ignorant.

reply to post by Gorman91

It's murder that is understood. Like I said weeks ago. If you murder a gunman the second before he kills 50 people, it is understandably better that letting the 50 people die. It most certainly is not a contradiction. It's a civil agreement that this murder is understood. It is for a reason that is obvious.

Yes, you can kill someone ONLY if its required to prevent another murder, or save another human person, or health of another human person. (abortion in case of risk pregnancy). That includes killing in self-defense and in defense of others. The only thing justifying murder, or damaging others health is (threat of) another murder or another persons health damage.

None of these is the case when aborting human fetus conceived from rape, assuming normal pregnancy. So, false analogy.

I really have no right to deny a rape victim the right to abort a baby in the 8th month. I may feel it is wrong beyond words, but what right do I have?

The same right you have to protect another human person posessing the same human rights as you (as you claim the fetus fully posess) from murder. That includes stopping the mother with force, and certainly it includes banning and prosecuting medical assistance to said murder (abortion doctors).

In many ways it is murder by passion and, again, a murder that is understood.

Maybe understood, but not tolerated while can be stopped, or assisted. Even if sometimes murder by passion defense (temporary insanity) results in charges being dropped, the murderer is still subjected to trial, and the murder is certainly not tolerated by the state (in time when it can be prevented), much less assisted. And accomplices in clear thinking (abortion doctors) would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So again, false analogy.

You cannot justify legalized abortion for rape victims, and at the same time claim fetuses and embryos have full human rights as born human persons. That is simply NOT possible. You must either make abortion for rape victims illegal, or agree embryos and fetuses do not have human rights (are not persons before law). And if they do nt have human rights, they can be killed by human, even for example for economic reasons, with no penalty.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


I wish ATS would just report on theories and facts and conspiracies.

why is this topic on ATS?

let me explain what ATS stands for ....ABOVE TOP SECRET .....what about this topic is ABOVE TOP SECRET ? nothing . its an opinion .

Here we go again.

Other peoples business. Things will never change.

Everybody judging everybody on what they believe their morals should be.

reply to post by Maslo


In the case of a rape victim you have to look at what kind of mental state the child will have when they realize that they were conceived not from an act of love but instead from an act of violence. Sure it can be hidden from the child, but if they find out later, add being lied to on top of finding out about the way in which they were conceived. All of this can have serious mental repercussions on the child and later adult. Some would consider it best to spare the child from that kind of mental abuse instead of letting them go through that to potentially become a violent person as a result. Of course it could have the opposite effect and make them a more passionate caring person as a result, there is no way to know for certain however.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com



We have enough Government intrusion in our lives already.
Making something considered "immoral" by some, especially those who don't suffer from poverty, Illegal.

The taking of a life is also somewhat hypocritical for we don't seem to have a problem with killing people for their natural resources, namely OIL, over in the middle east do we ?

We as American citizens have a fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Government's role and the purpose of our system of laws is to guarantee our rights as individuals.
And NOT to encroach upon our fundamental rights of individuals.

If a fetus is unborn, and is still part of one's body. Then it is the right of the owner of that body to whatever she chooses and/or determine is the baby's fate.

And not that of the Government's.

Should we pay for this ?
No, other than rape victims who's rights have been infringed upon, it isn't our responsibility but that of the individual's and the Father's.

But by Making it Illegal, will only force women to resort to using coat hangers again and potentially bleeding to death as a result.

Which isn't exactly progress.

Originally posted by tonypazzohome

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
I thought New York is the most Liberal places on Earth? I mean you have Harlem, Chinatown, The Irish Community, etc

you think irish are liberal!? what?! they're the most brainwashed catholics on the planet.

That's very ignorant for you to say that. I am 100% Irish, I was a Catholic and I am faaaar from brainwashed.

Why don't you take a look in the mirror and stop judging the Irish.

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
"African American"??? ..... I don't see "European American" used anywhere to describe WHITE people. The vast majority of BLACK people in the USA have never even been to Africa, and neither have their parents.

That little bit is the only thing that pissed me off about the sign.

I am with you on this "term"!

I have wonderful friends - born and raised in Africa - and they are WHITE.

If they were to move to the US they would be Africian Americans....but being "black" when you are 3-4 generations away from Africian Descent -

I personally do Not know any Black Africian Americans.

I guess I am hmmm - what - Scot, English, Polish, Dutch American...

Back to the AD - It tickes me off....WHY does the "black" population WANT to be discriminated against?

reply to post by Maslo


Can't see why it's not. It's murder for justice. The spawn of a rapist. From a purely biological sense it's good for society. But it's wrong none the less. It's murder. But it's for the restoration of rights. Still you provide no reason for your statement. Why is it a wrong analogy?

Yep. You have to prosecute a murderer. But if it is found to be for just cause, based off what the jury says, then the understanding for the murder is met.

Again I fail to see why it is bad to prosecute them. Murder is big serious business.

yes I can justify it. You simply say I can't. Sorry pal, the logic is quite secure. It's murder. But it's murder for justice. Is the state murder of the rapist himself any different? If justice is defined by the restoration of things prior to the unjust act, then it's perfectly justifiable.

reply to post by Gorman91

Yep. You have to prosecute a murderer.

Again I fail to see why it is bad to prosecute them. Murder is big serious business.

Wait.. If you say woman after getting an abortion after rape should be prosecuted (but released on the grounds of temporary insanity), but abortion doctors performing the procedure, or anyone assisting her or knowing of her intent and dont stopping her should be convinced as murder accomplice and jailed (or executed) as such to the fullest extent of the law, then its a good analogy. But is this how do you want the abortion in case of rape to look?
Its effectivelly outlawing it, since unless the woman makes the abortion herself, and alone, noone would risk getting convinced of murder by helping her in any way, or even allowing her do it herself if he is around and can stop it.

So you are in fact saying abortion in case of rape should be outlawed. Wow.

reply to post by Maslo


yea, no. If she was raped, she has a right to justice. Twisting it because you can't find a whole in the logic elsewhere is failure on your part, not mine.

If they were smart they would had put more then 1 child on the poster. add caucasion, hispanic, asian and then no one complains

Originally posted by allisit
If they were smart they would had put more then 1 child on the poster. add caucasion, hispanic, asian and then no one complains

But that would not have stirred the pot, which I am more than certain was the real intent of the billboard. Even if statistics are on your side, anyone knowing how people react, knew that this would stir controversy, I doubt they were that ignorant in putting this sign up that they did not know that, but I could be wrong.

reply to post by Gorman91

yea, no. If she was raped, she has a right to justice.

Which would be fulfilled by jailing the one responsible for the crime - the rapist.

So this time you are saying fetus does not have human rights, since human rights forbid killing innocent persons which do not threaten others life (and the fetus is innocent, the rapist is the one responsible), so by allowing the fetus to be killed, you are acknowledging that human rights do not apply to it.

As I say, either human rights apply to the fetus, and abortion in case of rape must be illegal (assuming normal pregnancy), or abortion in case of rape is legal, but that means human rights do not apply to the fetus. There is no other option. Pick one.

Originally posted by allisit
If they were smart they would had put more then 1 child on the poster. add caucasion, hispanic, asian and then no one complains

Yes, I have seen the signs with Caucasian babies,

Maybe the sign was taken down so fast so the African Americans wouldn't have time to see the point it was trying to make , if you are poor and black or white and live in the hood, don't breed.

I live in the hood BTW.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Gorman91

 

yea, no. If she was raped, she has a right to justice.

Which would be fulfilled by jailing the one responsible for the crime - the rapist.

So this time you are saying fetus does not have human rights, since human rights forbid killing innocent persons which do not threaten others life (and the fetus is innocent, the rapist is the one responsible), so by allowing the fetus to be killed, you are acknowledging that human rights do not apply to it.

As I say, either human rights apply to the fetus, and abortion in case of rape must be illegal (assuming normal pregnancy), or abortion in case of rape is legal, but that means human rights do not apply to the fetus. There is no other option. Pick one.

The general rule on the subject, though I do not necessarily agree with is that if fetus was not conceived through the acts of a rape, such as normal consensual intercourse, the fetus has rights but a fetus conceived through the acts of rape does not. The mother did not have the say so whether she could have intercourse or not in a rape, therefore that right and decision was taken away from her therefore the rights of the fetus are removed. If a woman had consensual intercourse, then her rights were not violated and neither should the fetus’ rights.

Like I said I do not necessarily agree with the above, though I have heard this reasoning being used in the case of Rape.