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.

 

Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Nope, not the 50's.

I think people were more civilized back then.

Seems to me that everyone has a right to voice their opinions. The fact that some would stifle the argument speaks loudly to their character.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




When the above was written, there was legislation pending to prevent 3rd trimester abortions. I am pretty sure that that bill has passed.



Then that bill would not only be inhumane, it would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that doctors, not politicians, dictate when viability is evident. 3rd trimester abortions will continue as long as the medical necessity exists.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Annee

Nope, not the 50's.

I think people were more civilized back then.

Seems to me that everyone has a right to voice their opinions. The fact that some would stifle the argument speaks loudly to their character.



Uh huh.

Like I wouldn't personally know what men could get away with prior to the Women's Rights movement.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The law in USA is viability or danger of the mother dying --- after 3rd trimester (about 5 months).

However, depends on the state.

If the fetus is determined to be so severely deformed/brain dead/or dead in womb that it would suffer outside the womb --- an abortion up till actual deliver date can be performed (again depending on state).

And rape and incest.

As I understand it from what I've been reading.
edit on 11-9-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




The law in USA is viability or danger of the mother dying --- after 3rd trimester (about 5 months).


Right. But in the event that the mother is in distress, and the fetus is viable, doctors will still try to deliver the baby, rather than kill it, if at all possible, and still save the mother. Even if it's a teeny tiny preemie, they'll try to save it.

Except, remember this case?


Catholic hospital says 'a fetus is not a person'
A Catholic hospital embroiled in a lawsuit involving the death of twin fetuses is arguing that they should not be held responsible for the death of the unborn children because "a fetus is not a person".

Jeremy Stodghill filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in District Court in Fremont County after his 31-year-old wife, Lori, seven months pregnant with twin boys, died of a blockage of the main artery of the lung at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City on New Year's Day 2006.

Stodghill's lawyer argued that her obstetrician, Pelham Staples, never made it to the hospital — even though on call for emergencies — and there was no attempt by any medical personnel to save the Stodghills' sons by cesarian section. The unborn children died in the womb.
- See more at: nomadicpolitics.blogspot.com...



edit on 11-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

With regards to rights.. you are absolutely correct. I have to retract my statement. My mind was on other things regarding the "more civilized" remark.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Agreed, with the exception that there is, apparently, dispute regarding when "viability" actually occurs.

Viability is one of those slippery concepts. How to prove it, since one child may be viable at 8 months, whereas another may take another 2 weeks or so. Look it up ... use google. You will see there are discussions about what exactly that means in terms of how to apply the ruling. Stay away from the biased crap, go right to the papers. Actual, legit, research.

I think the whole "viability" thing is just a way to justify murder and to calm the nightmares.

I have no problem with abortions where issues exist with the woman's health (severe, of course) or the child's health. Well...let's just say I understand. Taking a life is not, or should not be, without moral and ethical issues.

I fail to understand how people cannot see ethical issues in the murder of a child.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Annee

With regards to rights.. you are absolutely correct. I have to retract my statement. My mind was on other things regarding the "more civilized" remark.



Just so you know. I'm 69.

Define "civilized".

Is role playing civilized?

Is pretending everything is great to the outside world civilized? When behind closed doors there's abuse?

Is ripping babies away from Unmarried teens civilized?

The "good" about the "Good Old Days" is selective memory.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bbracken677
What you fail to realize is that 5 month old fetuses regularly survive and lead healthy productive lives.


Really? You got links for that? Back up your "REGULARLY SURVIVE". Oh, and what exactly does "survive" mean?

My grandson was born at 7 months weighing 3 pounds. He was in intensive care for nearly 2 months. He just barely made 5 pounds on Christmas Day -- so they let him go home.
(In a red stocking
)

Do you have any reality concept of what goes on with preemie babies?



Women wonder why men think they have a right to make decisions for them. Perhaps it's because many women engage in this "discussion" with men and create the impression for men that they do have a say in this topic. It's reached the point where I say those women deserve what they get.


So, as a woman I should just let men babble, thinking they are right about everything ---- to avoid what again?

Is this the 1950s?


WHen it comes to this subject, ignore them. You've already seen what happens when you discuss it with them.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
It took me about 20 minutes of my time to find these links.
Weather rare or not abortion bans in other countries do seem to cause unnecessary deaths of women!
It might be rare but it does happen. So what safeguards would you put into place to prevent these deaths?
By the way having as much access to birth control to women who know that there would be a problem in this country probably is preventing many!

www.theguardian.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

rhrealitycheck.org...

www.aljazeera.com...

failedmessiah.typepad.com... l

abcnews.go.com...

freethoughtblogs.com...

forums.thenest.com...

An interesting look at the past:
publishing.cdlib.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Just so you know, I am 60, and I retracted my statement. You do know what that means, right?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Nice job.

I don't believe I have seen anyone here advocate "banning" abortions. If there was, I missed it.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Annee

Just so you know, I am 60, and I retracted my statement. You do know what that means, right?



You retracted a specific part.

Women's rights.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




Agreed, with the exception that there is, apparently, dispute regarding when "viability" actually occurs.


As medical science get better and better, preemies lives are being saved earlier and more often.


Viability is one of those slippery concepts. How to prove it, since one child may be viable at 8 months, whereas another may take another 2 weeks or so. Look it up ... use google. You will see there are discussions about what exactly that means in terms of how to apply the ruling. Stay away from the biased crap, go right to the papers. Actual, legit, research.


If a fetus isn't viable at 8 months, another 2 weeks isn't going to fix the problem. This is why it must be doctors who evaluate viability, not politicians who are looking at a calenders, not sonograms.



I fail to understand how people cannot see ethical issues in the murder of a child.



I fail to understand how people cannot see ethical issues in the murder of a child.


Yes, that is evident. Every fertilized egg is sacred.



edit on 12-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If Obama continues on this course, the public will turn on him and the democratic party fast. And this will be something that will be exploited and used during the upcoming elections this year and in 2 years.

The issue here, is that should a religious organization, that is fully non profit be forced to violate one of the main tenants of its faith? The answer should and completely be no. The government should not be even be considering this action. The moment that the force such, it will open the door up to religious organizations to do political stuff.


forced to violate the "main tenants of it's faith"?....absolutely yes!....if someone is hired to do a job, you have to obey man-made law regarding that job, not some mythical beings, mythical thoughts....



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If Obama continues on this course, the public will turn on him and the democratic party fast. And this will be something that will be exploited and used during the upcoming elections this year and in 2 years.

The issue here, is that should a religious organization, that is fully non profit be forced to violate one of the main tenants of its faith? The answer should and completely be no. The government should not be even be considering this action. The moment that the force such, it will open the door up to religious organizations to do political stuff.


forced to violate the "main tenants of it's faith"?....absolutely yes!....if someone is hired to do a job, you have to obey man-made law regarding that job, not some mythical beings, mythical thoughts....


LOL. "forced to violate the "main tenants of it's faith"?"

In this case, the "sisters" feel violated that they must tell the DOH of their religious objections!

OH! THE HUMANITY!



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
N/M

I think I need to wake up first

edit on 12-9-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
So you are stating to enforce a law, that they violate a long standing law and tenant, that has been around for years. That you would see the wall of separation of church and state removed?

Mind you that if a person is hired, they fall under the auspices of the rules of the person or company that hired them. That means if said company were say a religious church, then as part of that agreement and contract, the employee has to follow at some level the guidelines that would be set out by the church. Even if the person disagrees with them.

You see Churches are the only group/organizations that can discriminate, and be protected by the law, where there can be no legal reprecussions. It is called the minister exclusion, a long standing law that protects ministers and other laypersons of a church. And as long as it does not violate criminal law, the government has along standing tradition of not getting involved in church affairs. And the moment that the governments interferes in the church and its policies, it opens the door for the church's to get into politics. Could you handle someone like Pat Robinson telling an elected official how to vote on a bill, or say a person in office having say a Bishop, or a minister who has even more radical views telling them? Or how about someone who is connected to the West Burough Baptist church voting and passing legislation like they want? Or would we be happy if say someone who was say a follower of Islam taking advice from a country like Iran? Or any number of other religious organizations?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




So you are stating to enforce a law, that they violate a long standing law and tenant, that has been around for years.


What law is that? What Christian law prohibits nuns from notifying government authorities of ones' objection to the law?

Christians have never been shy about telling others about their objections. Why are they now?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I was responding this quote, which I believe is yours:

-----------------------------------------------------

Funny how when abortion is mentioned, someone always has to pull a scenario from way out in left field as though that represents the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions are irresponsible women making irresponsible choices and enabled by the govt to commit murder to make their lives less complicated.
----------------------------------------------------

which was a response to my question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you suggest such a women if she was around in those circumstances do? Because it darned well seems like people would prefer she just stop taking the drugs (for the child's sake of course) and go off the deep end!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry you're gonna have to backtrack if you want more to refresh your memory!

I'm just trying to point out to you that it's not that far out in left field!!!

How do you know that the "majority of women are irresponsible women making irresponsible choices"??? You don't you can't!!!
Everything from antidepressants to seizure medications to inhalers for asthmatics poss a danger to a developing fetus! Gee if I was living in (I believe it is) mississippi I certainly wouldn't want to get pregnant if I had to rely on these medications! I'd be taking a chance of ending up in prison if I had a miscarriage! How many of those women had a doctor telling them straight up that if you carry it you have a chance of dying or or may end up with life long health problems? There is no way to know! How many of those women had the father of their child decide that they wanted nothing to do with it?

Which leads me to this question.
All those back alley abortions of years gone by. Who paid for them?? I mean according to many of those conservatives all those women were happy homemakers letting the man earn the bucks! They couldn't have.

Many of the countries those news stories I posted occurred in countries that had an exemption in their abortion bans regarding the danger to the mother. And yet women were allowed to die.. In some countries that are very catholic well they couldn't even see in their hearts to allow young rap victims not even 13 years old to have one even though medical professionals were stating quite clearly that the child's body just wasn't developed enough! So just how do you propose that we correctly weed out those irresponsible women while ensuring that those who have valid reasons still have access? It seems like many other countries including Ireland and Poland have not been able to!

But we aren't talking about aborting 8 month fetuses here are we? Not unless you have proof that the birth control that is typically carried by insurance policies is causing the death of 8 month fetuses! No we are talking about the supreme court granting a protection to some corporations' religious freedoms so they can deny those women who for whatever reason (and it could very well be a real medical reason!!) a coverage that women have had in their insurance plans since the 1980's!
Religious beliefs that quite frankly put's women under the yoke of the men to begin with!





edit on 12-9-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join