Abortion is a gift from God

TDawgRex
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It really boils down to personal responsibility. I don't want a child (for personal reasons), so I take the means of protecting the girl from becoming impregnated. But it is a two way street. If I were to impregnate my girlfriend, then I have a responsibility as well. It's just not on her.

Of course. And that's why I'm all for lots and lots of education. The problem is, so many who come from irresponsible families end up being irresponsible themselves. It tends to carry down from generation to generation. That's why schools should be able to start sex education very early - catch 'em when they're young, and pound it into their brains over and over. Even then though, you're still going to have mistakes being made. It can happen to the best of us, as well as to the worst of us.

But I do find it odd that many who are pro-abortion are also extremely anti-gun. What's up with that? Where's the tolerance?

I don't have as much of a problem with ending a life that has never really started. With guns, you are ending a life that is here, and has been here, experienced life, and knows exactly what it is to lose it. I'm not against guns for home protection or for providing food for the family, although personally, I don't know if I could actually pull the trigger, even if my own life depended on it. Maybe I could, I don't know - never been in that situation (thank God).

And please don't say pro-abortion. It's just an insult that really isn't necessary, nor is it in any way true. No one (except the mentally ill) loves abortions.

beezzer
And the pro-abortion argument is valid?

If anything, it indicates a further lapse in morality.

Well, it isn't invalidated by the "god is against it" argument.

It is just one aspect of the whole issue.

kaylaluv
And please don't say pro-abortion. It's just an insult that really isn't necessary, nor is it in any way true. No one (except the mentally ill) loves abortions.

Good point. But how would would you put it? I understand that it is a hard personal decision. So we are left with either Pro or Anti in this instance.

I, on a personal level am against abortion. But who am I to judge those who are all for it? Even though I may disagree.

I think that this issue would be best served by education and some type of punishment for failing in personal responsibility.

Remember the phrase/curse that many a parent has uttered.

"I hope your kids are just like you."

reply to post by TDawgRex


I put it as pro-choice. It's a hard choice to make, no doubt, and it wouldn't be my personal choice (I am against abortion for myself) - but I am all for allowing each woman (or couple) to make that difficult choice on her/their own.

I find it sad but funny that it is a " God " thing . Not just a right or wrong thing. People hide behind women's rights , when in reality its a selfish convenience issue. Now this is the point where you come up 10 stories of how abortion saved the mothers life , but I don't come up with 1 million stories showing it would have been a inconvenience for the mom. Better off dead then #ty parents...Hmm


It should be put on a national ballot vote for women only ...

It amazes me that some of the same people that believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to murder her child, deny the right of a baker to choose whether or not to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Talk about Schizophrenic.

stargatetravels

Gryphon66
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

Manage your own life, and leave it to others to manage theirs
How is that complicated?

You are asking that of bigoted religious zealots, I am guessing your question is rhetorical.
These people cherry pick bible passages to suit their agenda or cause while discarding the majority.
Just for making this thread or posting against or for abortion is a sin, they are judging and persecuting folk.
I would rather there were no abortion but I will not judge or attack or picket clinics or those who undergo them.
These folks are in for a real shock when they get to them gates and I mean the judgers.

Hypocritical.
Those who are pro-infanticide have already judged it to be a 'good thing'.
They have already judged it to be 'acceptable'.
They have already judged it to be 'not murder'.


They have already made a judgement.

Therefore like all liberals who love to throw around scripture, particularly 'Do not judge', what they actually mean is it is fine for others to follow but never applicable to themselves.

imwilliam
It amazes me that some of the same people that believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to murder her child, deny the right of a baker to choose whether or not to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Talk about Schizophrenic.

The Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a person, or a citizen with rights, until they are born, or until they are "viable" to live outside the womb. A gay adult is a person/citizen living outside a womb with rights of personage that the fetus doesn't have yet. When the gay adult was a fetus, he didn't have citizen rights either. Really not schizophrenic at all.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't see anything wrong with what I read. The god of the Bible is not the only God to ever grace the imagination of humanity. The way I see it is some people have an extremely narrow perception regarding what their "creator" tolerates. The proof is right there in the last paragraph of the quote. Observe the hostility and bias. That person has already made up their mind on what abortion is and what their "creator" tolerates. The person quoted goes so far as to call this blasphemy. That alone proves the narrow-minded point of view of the critic.

Looked at from a different point of view I see this as an ultimate statement of free will and thought. Obviously Ault does not consider abortion the killing of "vulnerable & voiceless" children. She has made up her own mind on this subject, made peace with whatever higher powers she recognizes, and refuses to let herself be swayed by the perceptions of others. I have much respect for her.

beezzer

Bone75
reply to post by beezzer

 

She actually had the nerve to use the cross in her image too, so we all know whose God she's referring to. Absolutely disgusting.

If Muhammad was insulted like that, Muslims would go full Jihad on some b!+ches.

She would never insult Islam. That would be wrong and rude and impolite and politically incorrect.

Christians?

Nail them to a cross!

good enough for their god...

why not the followers?

Hey Kaylaluv,

The Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a person, or a citizen with rights, until they are born, or until they are "viable" to live outside the womb

Thanks for bringing that up. Perhaps you're unaware of the Unborn Victims Act of 2004. If I "kill" a fetus while committing any number of violent federal crimes, under that law, I'd be guilty of murder. This law has survived challenges based on Roe V Wade on numerous occasions in both State and Federal court.

Pro-abortion advocates lobbied against the passing of the Unborn Victims Act of 2004 because as John Kerry said:

"I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

In other words, too bad for you moms who loose their child during the commission of a violent federal crime, we dare not charge the culprit with murder because that might, somewhere down the line, be used to prevent us from murdering our own child if feel like it.

Not to worry though, the government is also schizophrenic. There is an exception in the law for abortion.

So, a woman can decide to murder her "fetus" via an abortion . . . because it isn't a person according to the law, but same day, same child, same mother, (perhaps on her way to have an abortion), and during the commission of a crime someone else kills the child . . . and presto chango its an unborn child and the criminal is a murder. Huh?

Sorry, the government, including the courts, don't have a cohesive stance on whether or not an unborn child is a child or not . . . they're schizophrenic as well.

A gay adult is a person/citizen living outside a womb with rights of personage . . .

As is a baker, even if he isn't gay! Even if he's a Christian baker! Shocking I know!

Now lets examine this, in order to secure the rights of a woman to choose whether or not to murder her child, you're willing to allow . . . well . . . the murder of children. Pro abortionists believe that the right of a mother "to choose" is important enough that it's worth allowing the sacrifice of over a million babies per year in the US. I don't agree, and that's putting it mildly, but ok.

Yet . . there are those of you that, while believing the above sacrifice is justified in the name of protecting a woman's right to choose . . . don't believe that the right of a baker to choose whether he's going to bake a cake for a gay wedding is worthy of crossing the street to another bakery. So I say again, Huh?

Really not schizophrenic at all.

Really? I thought labeling it "Schizophrenic" was a kindness on my part, there were other terms that came to mind, most of which didn't require me to look up the spelling for. Maybe I should have used those.

Beezzer you asked:

But why mock religion? Really? Do we have to hate on those that believe in God?

When you're faced with this kind of apparently nonsensical thinking you have to ask yourself if, at least for some people, the issue really is abortion. Are their feelings about abortion driving their hatred towards Christians or is their hatred for Christians, and more to the point God, driving their stance on abortion? I'm convinced that in some cases it's the latter. So for some people yes, the mocking of religion and the hatred towards those who believe in God is necessary. Their hatred towards God and those who believe in him is the only reason they're in the conversation to begin with.

reply to post by Trollsmustdie

When a mother to be wishes to abort life for what ever reason she also should be extinguished .

I haven't quite read through all of the replies, but I had to respond to this.

So you're telling me that if a mother finds out that her child has a birth defect, something life altering and debilitating, something like Anencephaly (the absence of a large part of the brain and skull), where the survival rate is absolutely abysmal

- one child that is currently living with the condition has no brain, only a brain stem. He cannot see, taste, hear, and will basically be in a vegetative state his entire life -

the mother should be killed for choosing to not bring that child into the world?


Abortion isn't all black and white, and it isn't always "murder".

reply to post by imwilliam

It amazes me that some of the same people that believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to murder her child, deny the right of a baker to choose whether or not to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Talk about Schizophrenic.

Yeah, I know. Kind of like some of the same people that are "pro-life" squeal about how many people in this country are living off of government subsidies and welfare. I think George Carlin sums it up fairly well...

Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f*****.

reply to post by beezzer

But why mock religion? Really? Do we have to hate on those that believe in God?

You don't know if she is mocking religion. You don't know her religious beliefs at all. She could very well believe in the Christian God, and she may also hold the opinion that to choose abortion can be a gift.

It doesn't appear to me that she is trying to force abortions on anyone, so what is the problem? She is stating an opinion, and using some of that freedom of speech that we love on this site.


By the way, I'm not a religious person and my tax dollars go to some of the public/state universities in my state as well, yet my university not only allowed, but invited, numerous religious figures to come and speak on our campus. It'd be great if we could have a say in exactly what our tax dollars support, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

reply to post by imwilliam

Their hatred towards God and those who believe in him is the only reason they're in the conversation to begin with.

Where does this thought that those who do not believe in or worship God must hate him? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Nonbelievers are not the only ones that believe abortion should be a choice, but it feels as if you're speaking directly about nonbelievers in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I am correct, why would someone hate something that they don't believe in? That would be like an adult having a hatred towards the Easter Bunny. Most people don't choose to be atheist because they hate God, they choose to be atheist because they have yet to find proof of an existence of a higher power or intelligent creator. There is no hate there.

Now, if you're talking about people that hate certain religious people or the idea of religion overall...well, that makes more sense. There are some people that do terrible things in the name of religion. But those people exist...and they're doing terrible things in the name of religion...so...the hate kind of makes sense then.

reply to post by jacktorrance

I haven't quite read through all of the replies, but I had to respond to this.

You haven't read all the post obviously.

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:33 AM link quote reply Does a society have more of a right to kill a person, for whatever reason, than a single person? reply to post by twfau No absolutely not. A person has no right to take someone else's life either. So I propose if they want to take life start with their own. For the record I personally don't agree with any life being taken what so ever. Our life is a gift. Our body is not ours to do with as we please but a means, a vessel for living a life only, On loan so to speak. We have use of it until death. the body returns to where it came from in every form of death. Ever if burnt it becomes ash that returns to the earth where it was formed from ( food, water the earth ). Some think they are entitled to more than they are.

Don't loose any sleep over it, I've jumped the gun in the past also.

Happy reading

kaylaluv

imwilliam
It amazes me that some of the same people that believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to murder her child, deny the right of a baker to choose whether or not to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Talk about Schizophrenic.

The Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a person, or a citizen with rights, until they are born, or until they are "viable" to live outside the womb. A gay adult is a person/citizen living outside a womb with rights of personage that the fetus doesn't have yet. When the gay adult was a fetus, he didn't have citizen rights either. Really not schizophrenic at all.

Just because court decided something doesn't make it right or the truth.

reply to post by Trollsmustdie

A person has no right to take someone else's life either. So I propose if they want to take life start with their own. For the record I personally don't agree with any life being taken what so ever. Our life is a gift.

No, I don't think I jumped the gun, and I appreciate you adding that quote, but all you did was once again state that if a person wants to end a life (in this case, an unborn fetus' life), then they should end their own first. That's pretty clear.

So again, the mother of the fetus that is going to be born without a brain..she too, should end her own life? Hmm..

reply to post by jacktorrance


Whatever!
Help yourself to a big plate of your right, your welcome.
Enjoy.

imwilliam

Thanks for bringing that up. Perhaps you're unaware of the Unborn Victims Act of 2004. If I "kill" a fetus while committing any number of violent federal crimes, under that law, I'd be guilty of murder. This law has survived challenges based on Roe V Wade on numerous occasions in both State and Federal court.

Pro-abortion advocates lobbied against the passing of the Unborn Victims Act of 2004 because as John Kerry said:

"I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

In other words, too bad for you moms who loose their child during the commission of a violent federal crime, we dare not charge the culprit with murder because that might, somewhere down the line, be used to prevent us from murdering our own child if feel like it.

Not to worry though, the government is also schizophrenic. There is an exception in the law for abortion.

So, a woman can decide to murder her "fetus" via an abortion . . . because it isn't a person according to the law, but same day, same child, same mother, (perhaps on her way to have an abortion), and during the commission of a crime someone else kills the child . . . and presto chango its an unborn child and the criminal is a murder. Huh?

Sorry, the government, including the courts, don't have a cohesive stance on whether or not an unborn child is a child or not . . . they're schizophrenic as well.

I agree, it does sound a little schizophrenic to not consider an abortion murder, but if someone else ends the fetus, they are charged with murder. That is why, like most pro-choicers, I do not agree with the Unborn Victims Act. I do however, feel that those who are not the mother SHOULD be charged with a crime for ending the fetus - just not charged with murder. To me, it would be like a person making the decision to take out one of their own kidneys. It's their decision - no crime there. But, if someone else kidnaps that same person, puts them under then takes their kidney, that IS a crime. Not a murder crime, but a crime nonetheless. It has to do with a person having the right to have a procedure done to their own body, but another person not having the right to force that procedure on someone else against their will.

Now lets examine this, in order to secure the rights of a woman to choose whether or not to murder her child, you're willing to allow . . . well . . . the murder of children. Pro abortionists believe that the right of a mother "to choose" is important enough that it's worth allowing the sacrifice of over a million babies per year in the US. I don't agree, and that's putting it mildly, but ok.

Yet . . there are those of you that, while believing the above sacrifice is justified in the name of protecting a woman's right to choose . . . don't believe that the right of a baker to choose whether he's going to bake a cake for a gay wedding is worthy of crossing the street to another bakery. So I say again, Huh?

Apples and oranges. What a woman does to her own body is her business, and her choice. The fetus is not considered to have a body of its own until it is born, or viable to live outside the womb. When it is inside the womb and dependent on its host, it is simply part of the woman's body, like one of her organs. If she wants to have it removed, she should be able to.

Discrimination is a totally different subject.