It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TV’s Big Brother was worth more than her unborn child’s life

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So I notice you use "activists" plural when your quotes use "she" singular. If I were doing my job, and in a sense I am a bit here, I would edit you. You can't have a headline that talks about a plural where only a singular is being used in the body.

You are also busy talking to two pro-life people here who are certainly not arguing against sex-education, only for the totality of it in all its facets - the fun and the ugly reality that can sometimes come with it.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Showing a video of an abortion is not from my perspective, it's the reality of a medical procedure.


Oh, so you're proposing that all women should be forced to watch abortion videos before having one themselves? Why? You said that they're already coming out of abortion tramatized, you want to make it worse now?

You don't think that they know what's going to happen? Most abortions take place with the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, are you going to have various videos for various stages of pregnancy? Do they still have to watch the video if they already have children?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Oh, there's the catchword..."safe". It's not always safe so that's rather misleading.

Giving birth is just about as safe. So I guess it's a wash.

It's a moot point, anyway. Americans have decided that it's okay for some people in society to die or be killed. Unborn babies, convicted criminals, soldiers fighting in non-wars, random people on the highways, old people in convalescent homes, etc. Everybody dies eventually, and usually in unpleasant ways.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So I notice you use "activists" plural when your quotes use "she" singular. If I were doing my job, and in a sense I am a bit here, I would edit you.


Take your complaints up with Huffington Post, its their headline.




You are also busy talking to two pro-life people here who are certainly not arguing against sex-education


Apparently, you've missed the strict "abstinence only" sex ed policies in many middle America states. Again, it isn't my article, I'm not the one talking, just citing.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Why Do Pro-Life Activists Oppose Sex Education?


She believes that contraception and sex ed increase the number of unintended pregnancies



She says she would never support sex ed because:

a) "The logic behind them is hypocritical. Assuming you're married, would your wife send you out of town on a business trip after slipping a condom in your suitcase and saying, "Honey, I want you to be faithful, but here's protection just in case you slip up..."?

b) Contraceptives are the root of abortion. "Contraceptive" means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.

c) Sex outside of marriage is a sin.... We do not say, don't murder but here's how in case you can't resist.... We do not say, don't commit adultery but here's how in case you can't resist. We have to resist the culture and think the same way about premarital sex."



Did you hear me at any time saying anything less than young men and young women having informed decisions?

And since when is your morality better than mine? That's the argument you always use. I believe I have stated all throughout this thread that it is a disservice to youth in preventing real knowledge of consequences.

Remember 1981-1985 about the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic and how DOCTORS kept advising people to use condoms and do not use shared needles? Do you remember that? But then people said "nope, not going to listen to doctors" and still kept on having unprotected sex and sharing needles and then suddenly innocent people and children were being exposed to it through blood transfusions.

Ryan White was the victim of AIDS transmitted from tainted blood because somebody REFUSED to use a condom even though the warnings were out there. Why do we have Surgeon General's advice on packs of cigarettes but not the allowance of videos about abortions or a real discussion about sex?

Who was the person who donated their tainted blood that killed Ryan White? Consequences, yes there are and there become innocent victims of people who won't take responsibility. Real education means you talk about the consequences.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy




Showing a video of an abortion is not from my perspective, it's the reality of a medical procedure.


Oh, so you're proposing that all women should be forced to watch abortion videos before having one themselves? Why? You said that they're already coming out of abortion tramatized, you want to make it worse now?

You don't think that they know what's going to happen? Most abortions take place with the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, are you going to have various videos for various stages of pregnancy? Do they still have to watch the video if they already have children?




Yes, I am. You finally caught on.

And no, they don't know what an abortion really entails. Yeah, that's just what Norma said. You should have read the quote.

And maybe if they watched it then they would know so it prevents trauma. This is about real education, not the flowery language they have been told for a long time. Get down to the nitty gritty, talk about it for what it is.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I understand how the term Anti-Abortion came to be Pro-Life, but I can't grasp how Pro-Abortion became Pro-Choice.

I consider myself to be Pro-Choice: Abortion is not a choice I would make for myself or one that I would recommend to anyone. However, I will stand firm as an Oak for a person's right to choose.

J



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No, I'll take it up with you. It's a deceptive article. He talks about activists plural while only citing parts of an exchange with activist singular. You can read that, surely, and realize that it doesn't jive.

Then he launches into territory on sin equivalence.

Oh, he does mention that he asks these question of his pro-life friends all the time, but as he never gives them a voice, presumably, they must not have given him the red meat responses he was looking for.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

What does anything that you have posted in your last two post have anything to do with woman being discussed in this thread? What kind of education would she benefit from.

As I said, if this is for real, and not just hoaxing us for ratings, her reason for choosing to have an abortion is no less valid than any other woman choosing her career over motherhood. We can't take choices away from people because we don't agree with their decisions.

This woman, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, is being used by the pro-life community to advance their agenda, and you're no different. You're using her just as much as she's using the media and Big Brother.

Your argument for education via forced videos and mandatory morality courses until people see things your way isn't going to dissuade this woman one little bit. So what's you point? You want to force people to believe that life begins at conception? You can't force your morality on others.

Be outraged all you want, this woman's choice is just as sacred as any other woman's choice, even if we disagree with her reasoning.


edit on 21-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyJae
I understand how the term Anti-Abortion came to be Pro-Life, but I can't grasp how Pro-Abortion became Pro-Choice.

I consider myself to be Pro-Choice: Abortion is not a choice I would make for myself or one that I would recommend to anyone. However, I will stand firm as an Oak for a person's right to choose.

J



People choose things all the time. We can't stop them in all cases.

But I would assume you don't let friends drive drunk, because that's also a choice. It's also a choice to go knock off a jewelry store or open fire in a theater and kill people. The choice to have a gun should also be defended, but it's not.

This thread is about the life choices of a woman in the UK, but why are people saying she is making wrong choices? Either all choices should be defended or none of them should be, because it makes us hypocrites when we say only certain choices are wrong, because certain people are making the choices.

Yes, it's her right to choose. Does it mean her choices are right? And if they are not right, then why not speak against them? But to take such a casual attitude about abortion is not the right course of action and what about all the women throughout history who had forced abortions and sterilizations?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

What does anything that you have posted in your last two post haYove anything to do with woman being discussed in this thread? What kind of education would she benefit from.

As I said, if this is for real, and not just hoaxing us for ratings, her reason for choosing to have an abortion is no less valid than any other woman choosing her career over motherhood. We can't take choices away from people because we don't agree with their decisions.

This woman, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, is being used by the pro-life community to advance their agenda, and you're no different. You're using her just as much as she's using the media and Big Brother.

Your argument for education via forced videos and mandatory morality courses until people see things your way isn't going to dissuade this woman one little bit. So what's you point? You want to force people to believe that life begins at conception? You can't force your morality on others.

Be outraged all you want, this woman's choice is just as sacred as any other woman's choice, even if we disagree with her reasoning.



Are you implying that I am a shill?

Yes, real education. What is wrong with educating? Who says I am outraged? You seem to be outraged because someone suggests youth should be educated.

It's my choice and right to say this, so why are you up in arms? Because it perhaps might make a lurking teenage girl who reads these threads now go and look for a video about abortion? Is that what you are afraid of, that perhaps I just might be heard and it might change a mind?

If a teenage girl is lurking, they've read two things...you saying to shut up about the truth and me saying they should know what it is. Why shut up about something real? But did you think maybe that there is a lurker also reading who may have had an abortion and not dealing with it very well because she was seduced by all the flowery language of the abortion rights side who never told her that one of the consequences just might be that she will have psychological problems because of it?

And what makes your morality better than mine?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!


Family Research Council fellow Pat Fagan, who eloquently explained his belief that contraception for single people should be outlawed since those who have sex outside of marriage should be punished for their actions.

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done. rhrealitycheck.org...


Contraceptives Are “Homicidal Drugs and Devices”



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Windy, I'm not disagreeing with the points you have made throughout this thread...not at all. I have been sitting here nodding my head with each post you've made. Education is key. Truth is essential.

I have a personal belief that the taking of innocent lives is murder. If a child, unborn or living, doesn't fit into the "innocent life" category I have no idea who would.

There are so many forms of contraceptives available that it boggles the mind. The number of unwanted pregnancies should be in sharp decline.

There are places for new mothers to "deposit" their unwanted babies without repercussions. There are many, many people who would be more than willing to adopt and love that unwanted child.

With all that being said, I still stand for a woman's right to choose. But I want that choice to be fully informed, fully considered, and the consequences to be fully understood. There are no do-overs in life.

I don't at all feel like I have clearly stated what I wanted to say. I hope I haven't made too big a mess of it.

J



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyJae
a reply to: WarminIndy

Windy, I'm not disagreeing with the points you have made throughout this thread...not at all. I have been sitting here nodding my head with each post you've made. Education is key. Truth is essential.

I have a personal belief that the taking of innocent lives is murder. If a child, unborn or living, doesn't fit into the "innocent life" category I have no idea who would.

There are so many forms of contraceptives available that it boggles the mind. The number of unwanted pregnancies should be in sharp decline.

There are places for new mothers to "deposit" their unwanted babies without repercussions. There are many, many people who would be more than willing to adopt and love that unwanted child.

With all that being said, I still stand for a woman's right to choose. But I want that choice to be fully informed, fully considered, and the consequences to be fully understood. There are no do-overs in life.

I don't at all feel like I have clearly stated what I wanted to say. I hope I haven't made too big a mess of it.

J



Thank you. That was very clear. You haven't made a mess of things at all. Sometimes things are lost in translation.

You are right, there are no do overs in life. I know that I can't stop people from making choices, but I can also say there are some choices that should be prevented. If a woman wants to have an abortion then she will find a way to do it, just like the lady who drank the concentrated vinegar because she read on the internet that it will induce a miscarriage.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Pro lifers are very dramatic in describing abortions ie. tearing the limbs
of a baby and so on. But in reality an abortion up to 3 months IS
just a matter of cells >>>>

# Three weeks after conception it is an embryo a tiny ball of cells
# At four weeks the and is the size of a poppy seed.
# At five weeks it is the size of a sesame seed
# At eight weeks it is 5/8th of an inch, and weighs 1/4 of an ounce
# At 10 weeks the embryo becomes a foetus
# At 12 weeks the foetus is just over 2 inches long and weighs 1/2 ounce

So small an underdeveloped enough for a straight forward suction
procedure, and totally unviable to survive as would be up to six months.

You stated you are left to deal with the resulting regrets of women who
have had abortions .... ce la vie ... There are always some who regret
decisions they have made but then you also have no idea of the vast
number of women to which it has been a boon in their own personal time
of need.

However the woman in the OP is just abusing the system in the same
way as she has already has with her breast augmentation surgery, as
a career move. And if the letter of the law is carried out her reason
is not a viable one for an abortion.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!


Family Research Council fellow Pat Fagan, who eloquently explained his belief that contraception for single people should be outlawed since those who have sex outside of marriage should be punished for their actions.

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done. rhrealitycheck.org...


Contraceptives Are “Homicidal Drugs and Devices”


Am I against contraception?

Has there been anything I have said against contraception? My goodness, there are people out there who should not procreate, but we aren't stopping them.

Child rapists should be castrated the first time. Is that too barbaric? But what about the moron women who have children and then live with a child rapist because it's all about having sex with whomever and whenever they want? That places her child in danger, but there are no laws about cohabiting with child rapists.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WarminIndy


Pro lifers are very dramatic in describing abortions ie. tearing the limbs
of a baby and so on. But in reality an abortion up to 3 months IS
just a matter of cells >>>>

# Three weeks after conception it is an embryo a tiny ball of cells
# At four weeks the and is the size of a poppy seed.
# At five weeks it is the size of a sesame seed
# At eight weeks it is 5/8th of an inch, and weighs 1/4 of an ounce
# At 10 weeks the embryo becomes a foetus
# At 12 weeks the foetus is just over 2 inches long and weighs 1/2 ounce

So small an underdeveloped enough for a straight forward suction
procedure, and totally unviable to survive as would be up to six months.

You stated you are left to deal with the resulting regrets of women who
have had abortions .... ce la vie ... There are always some who regret
decisions they have made but then you also have no idea of the vast
number of women to which it has been a boon in their own personal time
of need.

However the woman in the OP is just abusing the system in the same
way as she has already has with her breast augmentation surgery, as
a career move. And if the letter of the law is carried out her reason
is not a viable one for an abortion.


Good, tell that to women who have had miscarriages. To them it isn't just a bunch of cells.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
With all this talk of a mother's right to decide the fate of her unborn child, I have to wonder what rights that unborn child has had stripped away. I believe that life begins when the egg is fertilized. Does life have no rights?

The woman who is the topic of this thread doesn't deserve the attention her decision has garnered. The best thing that could happen would be for her to be forgotten...completely and forever. I worry for the children she has already birthed.

Thank you for a stimulating read. I've enjoyed reading both sides.

J

edit on 4/21/2014 by LadyJae because: formatted as reply to the thread as opposed to an individual poster



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Are you implying that I am a shill?


I'm implying that you're using this woman to assert your pro-life agenda.


Yes, real education. What is wrong with educating? Who says I am outraged? You seem to be outraged because someone suggests youth should be educated.


You're not advocating real education. You're advocating that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion should be forced to watch abortion videos, even though you've claimed that women walk away from abortion traumatized. This isn't education, it's punishment.


It's my choice and right to say this, so why are you up in arms? Because it perhaps might make a lurking teenage girl who reads these threads now go and look for a video about abortion? Is that what you are afraid of, that perhaps I just might be heard and it might change a mind?


I've been an advocate for free will. Free speech is part of free will. You're welcome to say what you want. I'm welcome to refute it. No one can stop you from yelling "fire" in a theater, but there will be consequences.


If a teenage girl is lurking, they've read two things...you saying to shut up about the truth and me saying they should know what it is. Why shut up about something real? But did you think maybe that there is a lurker also reading who may have had an abortion and not dealing with it very well because she was seduced by all the flowery language of the abortion rights side who never told her that one of the consequences just might be that she will have psychological problems because of it?


I'm not the person that you're making up in your head. I don't push abortion or spend my time worrying that some teenager won't have one! "Flowery language of the abortion"??? LOL Nobody ever said abortion was a walk in the park.


And what makes your morality better than mine?


Same question back on ya!



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

My goodness! You do have a hard following don't you? No need to get all personally offended about a post that wasn't even addressed to you!




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join