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.

 

Republicans think that latin American women with Zika should be denied abortions

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

This isn't an issue that involves anyone else but those directly involved. It would be like having a law voted on whether you can have a vasectomy or not.

You even say that you're for allowing the individual to choose for themselves. That's what I'm saying. Let people choose for themselves. You're not forcing them into anything or out of anything. It's up to them.

The Gov. isn't promoting it by simply making it available. Plus, it's not all abortion anyway. We are talking about making birth control available so that abortions hopefully won't be needed.


Everything is fine as long as the state does not fund it with tax payer funds and does not promote it with tax payer funds.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I'm with you there.

If they want to kill their children its not like we can stop them - heck I don't even know why we try. Its between them and God, not us and them.

We can think its sad all day long, but they don't have the same morals and its not up to us to give them morals.

I just don't want any of these women within a mile of any of my future children. Don't trust them as far as I can throw them.


hello, what makes a person? consciousness? when is a fetus officially a person? is a sperm in an egg a person?


When is a human officially a human?

A sperm is a human differentiated cell. An egg is a human differentiated cell. They are not a human because they are not genetically the same as a single human cell/zygote. That single human cell is a new human being. It is genetically the same as the adult human cell.

www.dnalc.org...

What separates a human from another organism?

Our genome.

What does science say that declares an organism "alive"?

A fetus eats,gives off heat, has moving parts and moves,it respirates(via oxygenated blood the umbilical coil) and grows. It's a living organism. It is genetically a unique human being separate from the mother or the father genetically.
edit on 12-2-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 12-2-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 12-2-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

Everything is fine as long as the state does not fund it with tax payer funds and does not promote it with tax payer funds.



The only time they fund it is for rape, incest or health of the mother and even then only in some states. I don't recall anyone promoting abortions anywhere. That would be kind of weird.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

Everything is fine as long as the state does not fund it with tax payer funds and does not promote it with tax payer funds.



The only time they fund it is for rape, incest or health of the mother and even then only in some states. I don't recall anyone promoting abortions anywhere. That would be kind of weird.


No.

No funding at all. The tax payer has not consented to the state using their funds in that matter.
Keep the state as far away as possible.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The thing with making a fetus protected by law like what you're talking about is that it's very common for a fetus or developing child to not make it full term. There are a million things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. When you have laws like that in place you always end up having cases where an innocent would be mother gets charged for murder by those who are trying to use it politically or something by saying it was her fault. Or you have a husband suing their wife or something because she has a miscarriage.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

No.

No funding at all. The tax payer has not consented to the state using their funds in that matter.
Keep the state as far away as possible.


Umm, no, lot's of people do consent to it actually. Many of which consent for more than just rape or health of mother. Why would you want to force a rape victim or a victim of incest to have that child??? Or make someone have a kid that was going to kill them in doing so??? That's just insane and cruel and sadistic.

Just because you don't consent doesn't mean that others feel the same way.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The thing with making a fetus protected by law like what you're talking about is that it's very common for a fetus or developing child to not make it full term. The child passed away. There are a million things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. true When you have laws like that in place you always end up having cases where an innocent would be mother gets charged for murder by those who are trying to use it politically or something by saying it was her fault.A lot of people see abortion as infant murder. Or you have a husband suing their wife or something because she has a miscarriage. The civil courts will/can determine if the suit is legitimate or not



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

The thing with making a fetus protected by law like what you're talking about is that it's very common for a fetus or developing child to not make it full term. The child passed away. There are a million things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. true When you have laws like that in place you always end up having cases where an innocent would be mother gets charged for murder by those who are trying to use it politically or something by saying it was her fault.A lot of people see abortion as infant murder. Or you have a husband suing their wife or something because she has a miscarriage. The civil courts will/can determine if the suit is legitimate or not


Well, I do believe the courts have already decided on this issue haven't they. You disagree with them on that so what makes you think they'll get it right by doing it that way which is way more complicated??



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

No.

No funding at all. The tax payer has not consented to the state using their funds in that matter.
Keep the state as far away as possible.


Umm, no, lot's of people do consent to it actually. Many of which consent for more than just rape or health of mother. Why would you want to force a rape victim or a victim of incest to have that child??? Or make someone have a kid that was going to kill them in doing so??? That's just insane and cruel and sadistic.

Just because you don't consent doesn't mean that others feel the same way.


That is the reason we have a functioning representative republic. No one person gets to unilaterally decree what is legal or illegal.

If a person does not support abortion but his/her taxes go to funding/promoting abortion why does his/her taxes goes to abortions that goes against his/her beliefs?

If a free society the anti-abortion tax payer should choose not have their tax money go to abortion. A person that is for abortion still has the option just not funded by the person who is against abortion.

No one gets to have their beliefs steamrolled over the others beliefs.

It is reasonable compromise.
edit on 12-2-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

You think you'd ever get anyone to want to fund stuff?? NO. People would be against everything including military spending, social everything, even roads and bridges because they'd just be cheap and greedy and think everyone else paying will make up for it.

The fact is we all pay for things we don't agree with. War is a major one. So it's not really possible to have a tax system set up that way.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Easy. Have the states determine if abortion gets state funding.

If everyone votes for it then the abortion clinics get state funding.

If everyone does not then the abortion clinics get no state funding.

Rational and fair to both the pro-choice and pro-life advocates.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: Kitana


Honestly, what I expect is simple common sense from people and self responsibility


I wish such a simple concept was not so far-fetched. The liberal agenda is pushing us away from common sense and self responsibility. People with common sense and self responsibility think for themselves and are generally not mindless sheep. That's bad for government. It is actually pretty sad when you really think about it.



I agree with you, it is very sad. I would like to see more of our youth learn critical thinking skills, at this point. But your correct, it's bad for government.

My cousin is a little younger than me and is for the liberal agenda. She posts these one sentence blurbs all the time without any thought beyond that sentence and with no research into the topic. Its absolutely mindless, but if I try to give her more insight and more information and ask her to give the whole picture some thought, she just ignores me because its more than a simple sentence.

I don't know if there is any hope for that, but it seems a difference in how we were raised honestly. She comes from a divorced family and a working mom and stays all the time on social media, whereas I came from two parents who stayed married, a mom who did not work and a dad who always made me think things through. I am on social media too, but not to the same extent.

Funny how we are from the same family, but turn out so different.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Here is the thing. We are throwing money into helping pharmaceutical companies find a cure for this virus. But what is the benefit to us? Why are we giving anything into this for a corporation to make a profit?

They will get the benefits of selling this vaccine, when we foot a portion of the bill. Where are the other countries donating to find a cure for this? Can Brazil not print up money they don't have just as easy as we can to help foot this bill?

By the way, the public debt in Brazil is 54.9%% of the GDP whereas here in America the public debt is 72% of the GDP as of 2014, and our debt has done nothing but go up since. www.nationmaster.com...

Will Americans be getting free vaccines once they find a cure? What exactly is the benefit to Americans, and where is everyone else who this affects?

We have to stop this pretense that we can save the entire world from any harm or ill to befall them! We can't afford it, it is bankrupting America and who will own America then?

Don't we have more pressing matters here in the United States than whether or not we can give money and assistance to pharmaceutical companies? Why do we not have enough money to replace every single water line in Flint? Are American problems not worthy of printing up dollars we don't have but somehow Latin American countries birth control and other considerations are?

If we cannot provide safe water lines for Americans, if we cannot provide enough jobs for Americans or enough help for our veterans, then I don't see why we have any business worrying about giving a Latin American woman any birth control or abortions (none of us impregnated her!) or any pharmaceutical company financial assistance so they can make more of a profit!



edit on 13-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
skipping this.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

outisde of the fact that these little unknown viruses always have a tendency of mutating and becoming worldwide pandemics....
I kind of agree with you on this. I'm more against the idea that we should spend all this money developing a vaccine, than I am with giving them a means of preventing pregnancy. And, I would be highly suspicious of the motives if they chose to invest all that money into a vaccine without also providing some aide in the family planning side. since the only danger that seems to be presenting itself is to the unbornfetus.
I do hope you've noticed, I have not yet once offered the option of promoting abortion in these countries, althuogh it might be an option if it hit's our country. That is because most of these countries are so overwhelmingly against abortions and I don't think it's our place to meddle in other countries to the extent that would be needed to change their laws. preventing the conception of children during this outbreak would be a much better way to go, and well leaving up to the mother as to make your own choices about how much risk the virus presents and if she feels that risk is large enough to delay childbirth till the risk decreases.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Most of these countries are in about the same financial position we are. Seriously, our financial position is no longer a good one.

I could see helping pharmaceutical companies if there was a benefit to the American people for helping such as free vaccines - and also if other countries were chipping in financially as well. But people who are in the same shape financially as we are crying woe is me, well to me, what about woe is us?

I cannot see providing any assistance with birth control, not from our government, not when we have serious situations in places like Flint with infrastructure that we apparently cannot afford to fix that affect the life and health of those living there.

I think things like that ought to be up to individual people - if they want to help with their own money, then fine, send them some money start a fund. But that is simply not the place of our government. It just isn't. It's the place of their own government to figure out how to care for their people.

And none of this is because I am against birth control/family planning. I am against spending money we simply don't have. I understand the ramifications of it, but our government "helping" provides little to no benefit to us here. We wont be getting cheaper or free vaccines for our efforts, and if our government did not help financially, these pharmaceutical companies would STILL find a way to create a vaccine, simply because its something they CAN make a profit on.

Its just good business sense for them, so helping or not helping won't change the facts, and it wont help the American people any more than not giving a dime. A governments first responsibility is to their own people. Let them look to their own governments, and stop looking to ours.


edit on 13-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Okay I see you there, I was going on memory of something and mistook it. You are correct in this point. Just thought I should say that outright.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

gee, are you married? have a girlfriend? be sure to inform them that you would rather have them die in childbirth than fund their abortion. already have kids? please inform them that you would rather they be motherless because mommy died in trying to give birth to their future younger sibling than to fund the care that would save her life.

as far as I am concerned if funding abortion is such a big issue with yous that you would force women to die instead of pitching in a few dimes of your taxpayer money to help her out if the need be, then it's time to pull all the money out of the healthcare system. It is you who have seemed to have lost common sense! Why should we spend billions in this country for everything from research and drug development to providing funds to these little countries halfway around the world, to building hospitals, training it's staff, providing equipment, and on and on....
if we ain't willing to save a women's life? and well, why should any women who sees the possibility to her needing such help in the future (ALL WOMEN except those who have passed child bearing age) want to fund your family's healthcare if you hit a valley in your life and happen to need help knowing that you would just say tough luck to them?

we don't have as many women dying in childbirth today as in the past for many reasons, we have a means to prevent pregnancy and therefore can space kids further apart, we get better midcal care while giving birth, we have enough knowledge that we often know beforehand that a future pregnancy could pose a life threatening threat to the women and she chooses to prevent pregnancy, and.... problems are detected early enough in pregnancy that it can be terminated so she doesn't have to take the risks!

like I said, billions are sent into this healthcare system, and throughout the years the gov't has played a major role in making it what it is today. and that safety net is there for all to meet their needs when it's needed...ALL THEIR NEEDS... if you are willing to let one segment of the population die refusing them funding for such a simple, far less expensive treatment than say heart surgery...
then it's time to face the face that we should have never invested so much money into this healthcare system, that far too many aren't getting the benefit of that investment, and stop spending tax money on it....... period!! let the danged doctors go back to taking chickens and eggs for their services instead of those nice salaries that they've been enjoying!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I am going to say something as I am young and married. I am against any of my money going to abortions, birth control or any family planning because I believe in individual responsibility.

I do believe that to the point that because of Obama care I don't carry insurance or buy into it. I pay my medical bills out of pocket. I have recently quit a job due to pregnancy, and the entire pregnancy, medical, hospital, is being paid for out of pocket.

I personally don't believe in national healthcare at all. I don't want it. I don't think it is part of a government's responsibility. I think there are a million ways not to get pregnant, and not to get sexually transmitted diseases. I was a virgin to the day I got married and so was my husband. We family planned and had self control in the most dangerous times of possible pregnancy. We took precautions not to get pregnant before we could afford it and I see absolutely no reason why the rest of America can't manage the same.

Seriously, it is about being responsible. Why should I pay for others to be irresponsible? Why should I pay for others lack of self control? If you cannot control yourself and take responsibility for yourself, why should I have to pay for it?

I understand all this well abstinence doesn't work is the name of the game, but it can work, and does work, when people have a little self control! My goodness for 10 dollars someone can buy a dildo, for nothing a man can jack off, for nothing a woman can masturbate - yet we are suddenly responsible for people who have zero self control? Really?

If they are that stupid maybe they deserve what they get! If they want to get on the pill, let them pay for it - its fairly cheap. If they want an abortion let them pay for it - even that is fairly cheap. If they cannot manage such simple things, why am I supposed to pay for it when it wasn't my mistake to begin with?
edit on 13-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

because the society you life in, the people who control that society, the big business that provide you products and services, decided a long time ago that is was more beneficial to provide the needs of the poor and sometimes the unresponsible, while causing many of the responsible to find themselves in the position where they were living well beneath the standard of living of those not responsible... providing an incentive for them to also give up the idea of being responsible, all the while, shipping jobs overseas, forcing wages down in this country, and raising prices on everything to boot! There will always be a segment of this population of really quite responsible people living below the standard of living granted to those poor, who are paying those taxes also, that help those poor people get whatever healthcare they need, while going without the things that they need to say healthy! because it benefits those who run things!

so, let's take the word "responsible" out of the equation because this country has no problem giving the unresponsible everything they need in life plus a few extras like free cell phones! And, one can only assume that they do this because they want the people to be unresponsible!!!!

my husband and me were responsible, all I got from that was of years of neglect when it came to healthcare and a disabilitity that causes me not to even get up and walk to another room in my house while people whined about how they should't have to pay the tab...

so, you are asking me why you should have to pay for their family planning services? gee, don't know but maybe if they can slow down the rate of their reproduction, gee they might go from the category of "unresponsible" to responsible. maybe because two incomes in many families have now become a necessity and well, in our economy, for many jobs, the childcare for a newborn far exceeds the wage that is earned. maybe because I know that your taxmoney will pay for that childcare for some of those who need the help, but for others, they will have to say no to that job, because well.....the childcare costs needed for them to take it will not only eat up all of their paycheck, but also a good part of the hubby's. so that some one who is "poor" and recieving assistance, hey not only do they get the childcare paid for, but they come out ahead financially still recieving mush of the assistance that they were getting before plus all of their paycheck!! gee.... don't know.....
how about the issue I was addressing in the post you responded to....
if taxmoney is being used to provide comfort and reassurance to some mother that her kid's runny nose is nothing to worry about, or for the second or third doctors to tell someone the same danged thing that the first did....that the only thing that will help that swollen eye to become unswollen is time, (both of which I know has happened from talking to the people), well, why the heck shouldn't it be used to save some kid's mommy from death via an abortion??

can you give me one clear reason why without resorting to portraying the women as being "irresponsible" and deserving of such a fate?

society seems to be more against helping responsible people who really don't need that much assistance, who if given that little bit assistance could continue on being responsible than they are to spending a massive amount of assistance to helping irresponsible people be even more irresponsible!

birth control, family planning, even abortion, at least is a tool for the poor to find a way out of poverty.




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join