Gays rights vs Abortion rights.

So if a woman had a siamese twin who was alive would she have the right to shoot it?? I mean it is "her body" as all you folks say.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
On the contrary "WE THE PEOPLE" of the United States have allowed freedoms that enable such behavior.

To create the law that prevents the discrimination and criminalization of those who act
negatively towards the group, that is what the people, through elected officials.

Freedom transcends the idiocentric ideologies humans so like to create.

Babies are perfectly capable of choosing they know who is their mother and who is not.

Choosing and bonding are two completely different things.

Choosing is an aspect of conscience and sentience.
Bonding is an
aspect of natural instinct, no more spectacular than what ducklings do when they hatch.

Lets say hypothetically they cant choose, so just cause they cant choose its ok to kill them??

If it does not think, and can not survive outside a host body, and the host no longer wishes
to host it while in that state, than yes it is fine to remove it.

So if this is the case should we "abort" all mentally retarded people?

Mental retardation is not something that is always caused in the womb, so even if you did that,
there would still be mentally retarded individuals.




I don't have the patience or time to finish with the rest of this post.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Lets say hypothetically they cant choose, so just cause they cant choose its ok to kill them??

If it does not think, and can not survive outside a host body, and the host no longer wishes
to host it while in that state, than yes it is fine to remove it.


I don't have the patience or time to finish with the rest of this post.

A baby cannot survive much outside in teh real world without its mother also. Would it be ok to kill it then. What you are saying is absolutly horrible: Well it cant help itself, and it cant survive without me, so lets get rid of it.

Dont have the patience or choose to ignore the issue?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
A baby cannot survive much outside in the real world without its mother also. Would it be ok to kill it then. What you are saying is absolutly horrible: Well it cant help itself, and it cant survive without me, so lets get rid of it.

No, because the baby is independent of a host organism for it's basic biological continuation,
a baby and an embryo that can not survive outside of a host body are two completely separate things.

Dont have the patience or choose to ignore the issue?

If I had chosen to ignore the issue, I would not have responded at all.

Just curious - is "gay" the new "jew"?

This entire premise reeks of bigotry under the guise of psuedo-christianity.

I have several friends who are in loving relationships who would take the vows of the ceremony to heart and live their lives together in wedded bliss were it not for the fact that some people still cling so tightly to certain passages from the Bible without ever taking into consideration the overall point behind the whole book...

"Judge not, lest ye be."

"Love thy neighbor."

I never once saw any of Christs teachings include the words "...unless, of course - they're gay."

The Professional - Some advise:

The following has no intention of disrespect, only my honest assessment from your own words (you being new and all). If I had to venture a guess as to what you are, it would be one of the following:

1) A troll. Hate to say it but perhaps it's true. This is probably the least likely.

2) Someone who is either very young or very new to debate, especially the type we choose to employ on ATS. The type on ATS being logic driven, evidence required, and a heavy need for critical thinking.

3) Very biased, leading to a breakdown of logic or desire to debate, but rather shove ideas at people.

So, my advise is as follows, and you can take it or leave it at will.

A solid case is built on some type of structure, rather than random unconnected points. If off the cuff postings aren't your forte, I recommend writing them first, then read them to make sure they express what you mean, and also that they would make sense to anyone that doesn't know you, your views, etc.

Cite examples and documents that support your case, since most of what I have seen is nothing more than opinion (which is entirely open to conjecture).

While I agree with your stance on abortion, I disagree with your points on homosexuality.

Marriage is not a right of anyone, man/woman or man/man, and liberty would dictate that we need no permission from the government in order to be classified as we see fit, get married, or be recognized for the CONTRACTS we choose to employ (which is all marriage is from a legal perspective).

There is also no connection whatsoever between abortion and homosexuality, so even going down that road or defending it seems a bit silly to me.

One last point. No one is given any right. Ever. The only thing the government can do is LIMIT rights, as government only has 1 tool in it's toolbox...Force.

The idea was to limit government so that the limitations on personal rights (which seems redundant to me) was at an absolute minimum while protecting violations of other's rights by an individual.

To me, this would equate to NO need for permission, rules, regulations, or licenses for marriage of ANY kind, as it's not the purview of the government to conduct such limitations of simple civil contract law.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
A baby cannot survive much outside in the real world without its mother also. Would it be ok to kill it then. What you are saying is absolutly horrible: Well it cant help itself, and it cant survive without me, so lets get rid of it.

No, because the baby is independent of a host organism for it's basic biological continuation,
a baby and an embryo that can not survive outside of a host body are two completely separate things.

Dont have the patience or choose to ignore the issue?

If I had chosen to ignore the issue, I would not have responded at all.

Wrong. A baby needs maternal contact. We learned in pathology and this can result in "failure to thrive" A baby needs its mother in NON-Physical ways as well, it needs emotional contact as well.

The: National Institues of Health states that:
www.nlm.nih.gov...

"Maternal deprivation syndrome is a form of failure to thrive that is caused by neglect (intentional or unintentional)."

"Failure to thrive in children less than 2 years old is defined as failure to gain adequate weight, failure of linear growth, and failure to achieve some or all developmental milestones"

"Treatment of failure to thrive is a major undertaking which requires the input of a multidisciplinary team including physicians, nutritionists, social workers, behavioral specialists, and visiting nurses"

Note that the baby achieves poor growth with maternal deprivation. Yes this is a fact of life. The baby needs a mother outside the body.

Ok jethro, point taken. I may not be a good debater or whatever, but I have provided more links in my previous post.

"The idea was to limit government so that the limitations on personal rights (which seems redundant to me) was at an absolute minimum while protecting violations of other's rights by an individual.

To me, this would equate to NO need for permission, rules, regulations, or licenses for marriage of ANY kind, as it's not the purview of the government to conduct such limitations of simple civil "

My point in relation to abortion and "gay rights" is that gays have more rights than babies at this point. Arent we in America, "One nation, with liberty and justice for ALL"

[edit on 2-6-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

You're misinterpreting what I meant entirely, whether it's intentional or not is of no matter to me.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You're misinterpreting what I meant entirely, whether it's intentional or not is of no matter to me.

You said that a baby and embryo are two different things because one cannot live outside the mother's womb. I am countering and saying NO that is not true, a baby needs breastfeeding (physical) and love (emotional) support outside the womb as well.

The first days of breastfeeding (physical/biological) are the best for the infant because the mother's milk contains colostrum which contains many nutrients and immunoglobulins which confer protection to the infant.

Source:en.wikipedia.org...

I am fairly new to ATS also. But I am really lost. How did this thread get so heavy in to abortion, when the topic is gay rights.

Perhaps those of you who wish to talk about abortion, should start a new thread addressing that topic.

Originally posted by PORCUPINEPIE
I am fairly new to ATS also. But I am really lost. How did this thread get so heavy in to abortion, when the topic is gay rights.

Perhaps those of you who wish to talk about abortion, should start a new thread addressing that topic.

Should I rename it?

IMHO The OP is just trying to get ATS points by posting a divisive topic with no intention of explaining his/her views in an intelligent debate. I suggest we all just ignore this thread or ask the moderator to delete it. I am no censor, but when someone posts a topic like this and refuses to stick to the topic, provide any evidence, or even reason out an argument logically it is not worth the time or bandwidth.

Originally posted by j_kalin
IMHO The OP is just trying to get ATS points by posting a divisive topic with no intention of explaining his/her views in an intelligent debate. I suggest we all just ignore this thread or ask the moderator to delete it. I am no censor, but when someone posts a topic like this and refuses to stick to the topic, provide any evidence, or even reason out an argument logically it is not worth the time or bandwidth.

I have provided numerous citings and references for my argument. I have even renamed the thread to something more appropriate. Why dont you counter my views in a debate. Yes it is a divisive topic. Why you choose tell moderators to trash my thread? This is reality. I will admit im not the best debator, but im trying to provide links for my views, not trash links, university and government resources that are well informend.

I really don't know all the rules here, but common sense tells me yes, you should just start over.

Both subjects are of great interest, and very explosive, and I think that they should be seperate.

I think that gay people have a right to life, and to live in peace. But I agree with Grady on the marriage issue.

I am also anti-abortion, and could write pages on the subject. but lets get to a thread that is more appropriate for that discussion.

I will provide a counter to this argument that abortion seekers use: "A Fetus Is Not a Baby—It is Part of a Woman’s Body" Wrong a fetus needs a womans body. It is not part of the womans body because the fetus has different MHC class I and MHC class II protiens on cell surface. These proteins let the immune system of the body determine who is foreign in the body and who is not foreign. This is how the immune system recognizes self vs. non-self cells.

Source:
www.bio.davidson.edu...

Back to the main topic at hand. Gay rights. I dont believe that they should be allowed in a union because God says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
If gay people have rights and put their sinful "partner" on an insurance plan or such, why cant my friends brother put his own brother on his insurance plan??? This is ridiculous.

Talk to your insurer instead of moaning about pointless crap online. I'll save you the trouble and tell you that insurers are not enforcers of your religious ideals.

Why is it that gays are banning the nonsinful people as in australia from places. I say we ban all gays from everywhere except their houses.

So some thing happens with some gays in Australia and now the war is on? You assume all gay people think with one mind or something.
Should I assume all Christians are idiots like you?

Why is it that gays have a right to live and a small baby does not. Shame on you. What are we coming to.

Why is it the my gay brother get his ass beat and you don't?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Why should a gay person have the right to live and a baby not. It is forbidden to kill infants.

Why should you get decide who lives?
You are worse than Al-Qaeda and the Nazi's combined.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Well we have given gays the right to be gay.

Love is a human right.