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.

 

Planned Parenthood is Not Selling Baby Parts, You @!#$ing Idiots

page: 15
47
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Yea, this controversy is getting ridiculous. Though it has CERTAINLY been an eye opening experience to show how susceptible to propaganda the right is.




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve




I just want them to stop killing all of the damned fetuses.

It would mean another 100,000 unwanted kids per year in the USA alone by not stopping the birth before the cells become a child or even a fetus in most case before they have pain and before they can experience misery!

These come first in my book plus the millions of abused and unwanted who do live with a parent. Add the starving kids around the world and their orphans.


There are over 120,000 orphans in America, while another 400,000 children live without permanent families




17,900,000 orphans who have lost both parents and are living in orphanages or on the streets and lack the care and attention required for healthy development.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLegend




Most women have severe regrets after abortions

You seem to do as you accuse trying to use emotions by misrepresenting facts.



But a new study suggests that only very rarely do women regret having an abortion.




"Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again," writes study author Brenda Major, PhD.

www.livescience.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: TheLegend

One: A "baby" is a newborn animal. In this case, human. Emphasis on the BORN part. A fetus is a human that has yet to be born.


So once they're sucked out of the womb, are they dead fetuses or dead babies?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Is a dead human still a human, or just a corpse?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
It's not that PP is doing abortions, it's that they profit from it and considering the mentality of the CEO of PP, there is very little restrain or moral-ethical barrier. What is 3% of doing these procedures in relation to their profit from it?

That's the big question - and if these 3% is the 95% that keeps PP afloat - well than there is a true issue, right?

How much abuse can you do with 3%?
edit on 31-7-2015 by flyandi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I guess it's up to you to decide which term suits you best.

If nobody gets abortion anymore, would you take all those 100,000 babies home to take care of them? Maybe you would prefer them to be with parents that couldn't afford or didn't want a baby in the first place? Or would you let people choose what they think is best for them?

Peace out



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee
Following that line of "reasoning" how about we take all the disadvantaged folks in the world, stick them all in a barn, and burn it down? HeLLo!!! We are not talking about stray puppies here!! These are HUMAN BEINGS!!!! Just because YOU deem them "unwanted" makes it OK to KILL them???



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: Char-Lee
Following that line of "reasoning" how about we take all the disadvantaged folks in the world, stick them all in a barn, and burn it down? HeLLo!!! We are not talking about stray puppies here!! These are HUMAN BEINGS!!!! Just because YOU deem them "unwanted" makes it OK to KILL them???


Once more I will state, the persons who decide to abort do NOT see the cell clump as a Human Being! YOU seem to see it that way...I don't they don't.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
remember this?


The harvesting of the unborn for consumer purposes

Canadian Official: Aborted Fetuses Sent to Oregon, Incinerated for Energy

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee
"Cell clumps," hunh? Is that kinda like "2/3 of a person"? THEREs the age old pattern: 1) dehumanise 2) kill.
Gotta dehumanize them so they can be killed, right?

edit on 31-7-2015 by olddognewtricks because: misspelled word



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

But it isn't human... It has the POTENTIAL to be human, but it isn't human yet. Do you call a seed a tree?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I saw a fully-formed human hand not a bunch of cells.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousRider

Your hand isn't a bunch of cells? Both of MY hands are a bunch of cells. What are you an extraterrestrial or something?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigwig22
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I guess it's up to you to decide which term suits you best.

If nobody gets abortion anymore, would you take all those 100,000 babies home to take care of them? Maybe you would prefer them to be with parents that couldn't afford or didn't want a baby in the first place? Or would you let people choose what they think is best for them?

Peace out

Easy there trigger. If you had read my previous postings you'd see I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp.

Maybe point that high-powered perception in a direction deserving of your derision?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

I believe you probably figured out my post was sarcastic, as you aren't calling me names but using my post as a platform to expand on the idea and represent reality. But just in case, it was in fact sarcasm and I don't have any issues with abortion if it means avoiding the likelihood that the child will grow up in terrible conditions or in foster care. Yeah it sucks but reality is we are all going to die one day, every single one of us.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyandi
It's not that PP is doing abortions, it's that they profit from it and considering the mentality of the CEO of PP, there is very little restrain or moral-ethical barrier. What is 3% of doing these procedures in relation to their profit from it?

That's the big question - and if these 3% is the 95% that keeps PP afloat - well than there is a true issue, right?

How much abuse can you do with 3%?


abuse?....since the only thing you got close to being right is the 3% part.....maybe an abuse of the truth....under law for years now....federal money CANNOT be used for abortions (Hyde amendment), the woman consents to the donation of fetal tissue, and the charges are to cover costs....like for instance, when you donate eyes, heart, blood, kidneys, etc....a charge is added to the person receiving that particular body part tissue, to cover the costs....why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Absolutely. The simple fact of the matter is that in the U.S.,the states with the highest levels of teen pregnancy are states with Abstinence Only Until Marriage as the focus of or a state mandate for their versions of sex education. Mississippi is a prime example of this with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. With 55 per 1000 or 5.5% of teen girls becoming pregnant. Compare that with the nations lowest, New Hampshire with 16 per 1000 or 1.6 percent of teen girls becoming pregnant in a state that teaches what is usually referred to as comprehensive sex education. One thing that seems to get lost in these debates and that I find to be equally as important, is that the abstinence only states also have the highest rates of STD's contrasted by comprehensive sex ed. states which have, again, the lowest rates of STD's. And again, Mississippi is the highest at one end of the spectrum and New Hampshire is the lowest at the other end of the spectrum. The more comprehensive the education involved, the lower the rates of both pregnancies and STD's. Teaching abstinence only until marriage has the highest rates of both. Prevention of both pregnancy and STD transmission is one of the highest priorities for PP. I understand the faux moral outrage but people really need to get on board with what PP is actually putting its resources into as opposed to the 3% of their total resources that involve abortions because prevention should be right up there or even a part of the education. The more empowered and educated people of any age or gender are, the less likely they are to be in a position where they see abortion as their only way out. It seems like a win for both sides of the equation.



I'm curious, where does the District of Columbia rank on those lists?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
Those people should not have had their lives taken to BEGIN with. That's why we are all getting so upset about this.

FETAL LIVES MATTER!!!!

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN!!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oops, i'm very sorry. I mixed you up with someone else based on your last comment.

You are right, you didn't deserve this reply at all. We are on the same page.

Peace out.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join