Right To Life Historic Measure (that includes protection of every person from the time of fertilizat

Whether you agree with abortion rights or not, what it all really boils down to is the issue of autonomy. The very basic right to hold control over one's own body. If we start stripping away the right to control our own bodies, what other rights are we willing to give up?

Quite simply, if you are against abortion, don't have one. It is your body and choice.

That aside, I don't think the Colorado measure is ultimately going to stand up to scrutiny.

reply to post by DickieDee


That's a joke right?

Just want to be sure lol

Originally posted by josephine
One of the mose important rules i follow in life is "do unto others as you
would have them do unto you" . I think if more people were like this, the
world would be a much better place.

Agreed. Too bad everyone has a different opinion on exactly what that means.

We were all embryos. Arent we all so happy we werent aborted and
we made it out to experience life.
If you can be thankful your embryo wasnt aborted, how could
you agree its ok to do it to another.
Arent we all just grown embryos?

Yes. So are chickens, but vast numbers of people still eat eggs.

See, here's the problem, the anti-Abortion debate has more to do with regulating sex and personal freedom than it does with "saving the unborn". It's largely the same reason the PTB hate homosexuality.

There are those in this world who see how fast everything is changing. We live in exponential times. Now, some people see this and it scares the living heck out of them, so they do their best to try and slow it down.

Regulating sexual activity is one such way. Today the debate is about abortion. If the anti-abortionists get their way (which they won't, because the "public servants" they believe will help them invariably pay lip service for votes and promptly turn their backs once in office, just as they do to every other special-interest group with a societal axe to grind. Abortion is a "wedge issue" used to dupe the faithful into continually voting against their own economic best interests) then tomorrow the issue will be the legality of birth control. Should sex exist for any reason except procreation? Should condoms, diaphragms, the Pill, vasectomies, etc. be outlawed? Trust me, that debate is coming, if it's not here already. None of it is Constitutional because it crosses the Church/State separation, but that doesn't matter to some.

The point of it all is to regulate sex by ensuring it will always have a pregnancy risk, which not everyone wants to deal with. My fiancee and I do not want children. EVER. There are those who would consider our union blasphemous because we take steps against pregnancy. What we do in our own home is none of their business but that doesn't matter; regulating sex is the ultimate goal, because by regulating sexual activity society can to some degree be "stabilized" and the brakes put on its growth and evolution.

On an interpersonal, sexual level, it's the same strategy used by the economic Elite to "stabilize" society. Through high inflation, the falling dollar, net losses in real wages and higher prices, plus rampant unemployment, they control the upward mobility of the middle and lower classes. They live in an insulated world where "new blood" is both annoying to them and frightening as well; where those joining the "club" anew might bring a morality they're unfamiliar with (and may even be a threat to their own; the 50,000+ slaves imported into this country every year, largely for sexual slavery, are being bought and sold by SOMEONE, and I doubt it's someone who works for minimum wage at Wal-Mart--new players in the Elites' game might expose their crimes and wipe the board clean). In order for the Elite to continue in the manner they are accustomed to, they must hold society back, or else their Elite status is jeopardized.

Long story short: Abortion is a string used by the puppet masters to make you dance. There are plenty of issues far more important that you could be spending your precious time on, and that may garner more success.

Click here for more information.

Amazing! Now in the defense of abortion there are actually serious arguments making comparisons between humans and animals?

All other issues aside, does anyone really think that's a valid point?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Damn straight !!

If a law is passed which is supported by a minority, yet which affects a majority, then said law is useless...

It is very much a case of a minority pushing their view on a majority...

Now...

In this state instance, fine...If the majority accept the rule, then fine...

But eh, there is nothing to stop the bearer of said foetus under 24 weeks from venturing interstate to have the abortion she wants...no ?

The anti abortion crowd need to get a clue...I doubt you will find any nation on earth with an underpopulation problem...

If you do, make abortions illegal there...

Cos in most countries, overpopulation is or will be a problem near term...

Allowing women who carry fetuses under 24 weeks the guaranteed right to terminate their pregnancies as they choose will help to relieve this issue..

And, BTW, this is coming from someone who was born at 26 weeks in 1967 with many congenital disabilities !!!

So don't spin me this b/s that I haven't walked a mile in a pre-term pregnancy shoes...

K ?

Frankly, at the time, as it does now, it costs a veritable fortune to save severely early fetuses in proportion to the after birth disabilities they suffer, and the resulting costs on a lifetime basis they cost society...

As I said, this comes from a severely profoundly disabled person who was birthed early in the late 60's that shouldn't have been...

Peace

[removed quote of Mannered content]

I should probably report this post to the mods for T&C violations but there's no point.

I think Dick was being sarcastic. I've never even seen (him?) before so I have no indicators by which to judge the heartfelt honesty of his post.

On-topic, however:

How's that proof coming along? You know, the proof you're obligated to provide for your claims of "Molech" and this "Secret Satanic Warehouse"? And the Satanic origins of Medical Science that you claim is "Black Magic"? Proof? Please?

I have yet to see any of it, just more accusations and insults.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by _Phoenixwww.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


No joke dearest. There is no right to life. Human rights are religious bigotry. Theres NO God ~~~ its up to Science.

Science dictates:

n nature only One Right rules, which is no right, the right of the stronger, or violence. But violence is also in fact the highest source of right, in that without it no legislation is thinkable.

Friedrich Hellwald, Culturgeschichte in ihrer nat�rlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
Scientists at the toplevels today are in agreement with Molech to decieve the people into offering children to him. Many thousands of fetuses are shipped to a secret satanic warehouse in California and delivered to Molech himslef.

That's quite a claim. You surely have verifiable, documented evidence of this. It just seems so absurd. I would imagine any diety, evil or otherwise, would find a warehouse rather undignified.

Also, your description of scientists and medical professionals as agents of satan is painted rather broadly. One could easily say the same of politicians, intellectuals, or really anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is really quite baseless and without merit.

Nonetheless, I believe the Bible also says a little something about the topics of truth, dignity and honesty. I imagine if you hold any of these virtues close to heart, then you would not be making any baseless claims. Just saying.

Originally posted by Relentless
Amazing! Now in the defense of abortion there are actually serious arguments making comparisons between humans and animals?

All other issues aside, does anyone really think that's a valid point?

There ARE those, Myself included, who hold the belief that animals, as living things just like Us (Humans ARE Animals) deserve far more respect than we give them. Some, such as PETA, put them on the same level as Us, asserting that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Personally I believe animals are not necessarily our equals; that they DO have souls or "spirits" if you will, and that our relationship with them on this Earth is symbiotic and therefore they don't deserve to be abused mindlessly to grease the wheels of commerce. I still eat meat, because I believe in the cycle of life and that everything naturally eats something else, but I'm rather picky about where it comes from and avoid factory-farmed meat from animals held and raised in appallingly abusive condidtions.

I apologizwe if I am unfamilr with your traditions. It would endanger lives to reveal much. Just take it or leave it for now. i need to consider what is safe. It is in your interest to stay alive as well. To know too much about the wrong people... well I am afraid the NightHawk is a illuminati for almost certain. Well I should refrain until I make my Molech topic later. This is about abortion. Please stay tuned Ishall post on Molech and new medical treatments to cure atheism as well.

reply to post by Reverend SamuelTophatJack


Nighthawk is an "Illuminati" ??!!!!

Geez rev, please mail me some of what you're smokin ?

Nighthawk has posted some of the most salient points on this thread...For you to suggest Nighthawk is "Illuminati" is preposterous....

How about you go back to your flock and preach your views to them...

The internet isn't a place for people like you to spread your views...

Peace

reply to post by Rilence

Damn straight !!

Ok thanks you proved my point; morality is not relative. You believe a woman absolutely has the right to control her own body.

Or is morality only absolute for your pet causes?

When it doesn't suit your fancy it's relative again right?
Sorry. You can not have it both ways.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Rilence

 

hahaha thats really funny circular logic I would expect from a relativist.

I can tolerate anyone else's, as along as its not forced or shoved on anyone else, as religious types have an uncanny knack of doing...

So you are saying it is absolutely wrong to impose your beliefs on someone else?

Actualy, yes, it is absolutely wrong to impose your personal beliefe structure on everyone else. If someone wishes to find out about your god, they will research and ask. preaching to them, telling them they are going to burn for all eternity if they don't believe, and ostracising them if they don't, is no way to get people to join your club. Furthermore, it is more evil than whatever satanic figure youa re trying to fight against.

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
...well I am afraid the NightHawk is a illuminati for almost certain.

You've just registered as a member on this site today, and you can state almost for certain that another member is an Illuminati...

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
This is about abortion.

This thread is actually about a measure being introduced in Colorado. Abortion is merely a subtopic.

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
Please stay tuned Ishall post on Molech and new medical treatments to cure atheism as well.

Atheism is a personal belief, not a disease.

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack

Holy Moley. I'm almost at a loss as to where to start.

I apologizwe if I am unfamilr with your traditions. It would endanger lives to reveal much. Just take it or leave it for now.

No. You made outrageous claims that challenge the very nature of objective, fact-based reality. Again, put up or shut up. Proof. PROOF. PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i need to consider what is safe. It is in your interest to stay alive as well. To know too much about the wrong people...

This is a common cop-out for those who cannot back up extraordinary claims with solid evidence or sworn testimony. I've been expecting this very statement from the moment I demanded to see said evidence.

well I am afraid the NightHawk is a illuminati for almost certain.

If I was Illuminati I doubt I'd be working my derrierre off making less than $20K a year with no health insurance and facing a sizeable hill of debt. I also doubt I'd be here on a message board demanding proof from the likes of you.

Well I should refrain until I make my Molech topic later. This is about abortion. Please stay tuned Ishall post on Molech and new medical treatments to cure atheism as well.

No, you'll post it NOW, if you have any at all. Either you have proof or you don't. Your claims about Molech and "secret warehouses" and "black magic medicine" are directly relevant to this discussion--you must believe that, else you wouldn't have mentioned it.

You've trapped yourself. You made claims you are unable or unwilling to back up. If you cannot prove them, RIGHT NOW, you lose all credibility. And I don't for one blasted minute believe any of that "I know too much and it's dangerous" garbage. Hoaxers, loonies and pathological liars have used this claim for decades to try and wriggle out once they're in the "hot seat".

Come clean. NOW.

Edit to add: As an aside, your claim of "medical treatments to cure Atheism" sounds more like "black magic" than any accepted procedure of medical science.

Atheism is not a "sickness" or mental illness any more than intellectualism or liking the taste of chocolate, thus there can be no "medical" procedure to "cure" it (you cannot cure a malady that does not exist, despite what the pharmaceutical industry would have you believe).

For the record, I'm not even an Atheist. But I'm also not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or anything else you could really put much of a "label" on. I believe there is more to life and the universe besides crude matter, that energies exist we cannot yet measure scientifically but that can be sensed and manipulated through practiced force of will, and that no one "religion" or philosophy has a monopoly on spiritual reality.

If you think this makes me "insane", well, no more than someone who thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Grand Canyon was caused by the Great Flood. Probably far less, actually.


[edit on 5/31/2008 by The Nighthawk]

[edit on 5/31/2008 by The Nighthawk]

reply to post by Finn1916

Actualy, yes, it is absolutely wrong to impose your personal beliefe structure on everyone else.

Thank you I agree 100 percent!! I was arguing that morality is not relative. I am glad you guys see the light it truly is not. There absolute human rights!
The founding fathers of the US said the were endowed by our creator and inalienable rights. To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.I have never imposed my beliefs on anyone ever. That is for courts and police.

Abortion isn't pro-female. It's anti-female in a slick package. Every culture on the planet is patriarchal. The children most often aborted are female. As a result, cultures like China, India, Pakistan and several others, have been aborting their female population out of existence.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Abortion isn't pro-female. It's anti-female in a slick package. Every culture on the planet is patriarchal. The children most often aborted are female. As a result, cultures like China, India, Pakistan and several others, have been aborting their female population out of existence.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by undo]

You're suggesting a conspiracy by the nations of this planet to reduce the female population through abortion. Do you have proof to back up this claim? Especially the part about most abortions being of female fetuses?

Part of me wants to boycott this thread. The other can't let me rest until I have at least attempted to convey the following:

This 'argument' presented for the 'enjoyment' of whomever may find such things enjoyable, is little more than a masturbatory exercise in a tug of war which resides over a completely unresolvable conflict between those driven to impose their will on others, and those who will not even entertain the notion that the execution of their 'free will' might be manifesting itself in a manner contrary to their self-professed benevolent nature.

Their is no maxim available to 'invoke' on another human being regarding the morale nature of certain action (or inaction). Such 'strength' of argument is reserved between those who accept common axioms. Everything else is struggle between will. Quoting scriptural references is about as meaningful to the anti-lifer as conducting a spiritualistic seance is to the anti-choicer. Your argument is virtually devoid of mutually accepted 'common ground' so it is barely even worth the time to pursue it.

My understanding is that 'abortion' and 'child abandonment' has existed within the cultures of mankind since before writing was in style. I've seen no scripture truly address the practice directly, which might lead me to infer the issue was not of 'grand' concern to the ancients (like eating pork) and thus was NOT considered 'murder' even then.

Some of the people who conduct their lives as if their sexual organs had their own set of 'civil rights' are along the same lines as those sniffle their way to the doctor to solve their 'indiscretion' problem and then stand on their soap box and decry their right to 'have some fun'. Maybe the nascent human being growing inside is not worth saving TO YOU, perhaps you can believe that your not a person until you are removed from the womb, kicking, screaming, and pissing on people. When you DO have a child I would challenge you to look in that small persons face and think about when he or she was a 'cellular blob' and not feel a physical pang of remorse for what you wrought upon what could have been him or her.

This is a nowhere issue. This is not something you will be able to 'persuade' a non-believer to accept without their willing participation. You will not dissuade a true-believer from relenting in the pursuit of their self-proclaimed mission to 'rescue' without their having been doubt residing within their own reasoning mind. You can't PUT it there.

There, I said it. Thanks for at least reading it, if you had the patience.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Maxmars]