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.

 

Democratic Party takes major stand for reproductive freedom

page: 20
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Exaggeration?...
Is it or is it not what HILLARY has said about "unborn persons" even hours before being born having no human rights?...

edit on Wed Jun 29 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hillary (not whatever cartoon character name you wads come up with) said "that is the law now, yes."

Is it her fault it is the law? Nope. Is it my fault or your fault? No. It is the Chaos Syndrome going on in this country right now.

That has nothing to do with your conflated slaughter-house extrapolation.
No one is doing (or wants to do!) those things.

How American Politics Went Insane

It happened gradually—and until the U.S. figures out how to treat the problem, it will only get worse.


This is "Chaos Syndrome"....it's nothing new. It's part of the natural cycle of human conflict and resolution.

Another story related to this


Republican leaders in particular ignored the economic concerns of a growing majority of their actual voters, even as the economy worsened for many of those voters. Instead, they pandered to their rich donors to fund their increasingly expensive campaigns, and then used the money they raised to redirect their voters' anxieties into anti-government identity politics, particularly through vitriolic anti-Obama, anti-Democrat messaging.

This toxic mix of fomented anger and continued disregard for voters' worsening economic circumstances created a tremendous opening for a Trump-like candidate, particularly after the 2008-'09 recession. Trump not only had the anti-establishment anger thing going for him but also uniquely offered the populist economic policies Republican voters actually preferred.

Meanwhile, in Congress, there has been some chaos lately, but again, it's been almost entirely with the Republicans. And again, as with the presidential nominating process, too much power provoked an inevitable backlash. Former House Speaker John Boehner was cast aside because enough rank-and-file members were so frustrated by their own sense of powerlessness that they revolted.


It is what it is.
If you all are able to adult, please read more about what it is that terrifies or perplexes or kerfuffles or confuses you.

I'm confused too! I'm trying really hard to find a balance.....
other people are interested in doing that, too. No matter how noisy the rabble become.




edit on 6/28/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
no one is having abortions hours before their birth though... except maybe those women I mentioned earlier, ya know, the ones the catholic hospitals are sitting on their arse waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop while the women is in pain and infection is spreading their bodies. even though they aren't developed enough to actually live outside the womb.


oh, and ya know what's selfish...
expecting those women to suffer, risking their lives, to protect you religious beliefs!



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
oh, and ya know what's selfish...
expecting those women to suffer, risking their lives, to protect you religious beliefs!



My comments is not whether there are women doing abortions when their babies are about to be born, but about the fact that Hillary believes unborn person has no human rights even at the day it is going to be born.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

She believes it is the law.
That's all.
If you think that's wrong, then write to your congress-people and Senators.....

If it is the law, it is the law.
She didn't make it the law.

If it is NOT the law, then you have a very legitimate case.....can you address that without resorting to asinine propaganda spin-machines? If you can demonstrate that it is not the law, then go you!



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


My comments is not whether there are women doing abortions when their babies are about to be born
....because you know that's not happening? Jeezy Wow I hope you know that's not happening.


but about the fact that Hillary believes unborn person has no human rights even at the day it is going to be born.
It Is The Law.

She believes it is the law.

Is it not the law?
Because: If it is the law, your rant here is impotent.

If it is not the law, please show us legitimate legislation and judiciary opinions that are remiss in acknowledging actual law......


edit on 6/28/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Whether it is the law or not doesn't make it right. How many authoritarian systems out there also had similar eugenics laws? Were they right because they were laws?

Tomorrow your "progressive" friends could come out with another "progressive law", just like for example:
There are "progressive doctors and scientists" who believe newborns have no human right since they have no personhood in the mind of such "progressives" and that parents should be able to murder their newborns if they desire even if they are perfectly healthy... So you are claiming that if such a law is passed "it is alright because it is the law"?...


edit on 28-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: changing comment to stay on topic.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
no one is having abortions hours before their birth though... except maybe those women I mentioned earlier, ya know, the ones the catholic hospitals are sitting on their arse waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop while the women is in pain and infection is spreading their bodies. even though they aren't developed enough to actually live outside the womb.


oh, and ya know what's selfish...
expecting those women to suffer, risking their lives, to protect you religious beliefs!


Humm, i wonder if you feel guilty at all about all those women whose abortion made them infertile, or killed them. Or about the women who had/have secondary infertility for 2-15 years after an abortion or by PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease) which an induced abortion can also cause.

I wonder if you feel guilty for the women who became infertile after an abortion or more because the top of the cervix and the uterus can scar after induced abortions.

I wonder if you feel guilty at all about supporting people like the Gates on "reproductive health of women around the world" when it is known that money from the Gates foundation, alongside the Rockefellers, and other elititst's money and your tax dollars had/have been used to force infertility and abortions to women and men in third world countries...

Pretty certain you do not feel guilty about any of the above.

BTW, I am not even Catholic... However, if a woman decides she will risk her life for her child's who are you to deny them this?

If you want to have an abortion that's fine. However, do not demand for others to pay for them either directly or inderectly like the Obama administration did by making insurance companies charge Americans $1 each to be used for abortions.


edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

for those who have no idea what I am talking about here..

www.forbes.com...




Humm, i wonder if you feel guilty at all about all those women whose abortion made them infertile, or killed them. Or about the women who had/have secondary infertility for 2-15 years after an abortion or by PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease) which an induced abortion can also cause.





A first-trimester abortion is one of the safest medical procedures and carries minimal risk—less than 0.05%—of major complications that might need hospital care.[9]

• Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.[10]

• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and UK governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.[10]

• Leading experts have concluded that among women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single first-trimester abortion than if they carry the pregnancy to term.[11]

• The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 0.3 for every 100,000 abortions at or before eight weeks to 6.7 per 100,000 at 18 weeks or later.[12]

www.guttmacher.org...


so passing stupid laws that only serve to make it more difficult to obtain and abortion in a timely manner seems to kind of increase the risk to women instead or "protecting women's health".

and, ya know what else causes infertility? catholic hospitals who instead of giving a women a medical abortion will instead wait around till giving the embryo time to compromise the fullopian tube, it also increases the risk of sudden death!






I wonder if you feel guilty at all about supporting people like the Gates on "reproductive health of women around the world" when it is known that money from the Gates foundation, alongside the Rockefellers, and other elititst's money and your tax dollars had/have been used to force infertility and abortions to women and men in third world countries...


I am pretty sure that "we can't insure birth control, it's against our religion" hobby lobby has done far more to support the forcing of infertility and abortions on women than I ever could. after all they've been buying a large portion of their products from chinese companies, of which the chinese gov't depend on to enforce their one child policy!!



BTW, I am not even Catholic... However, if a woman decides she will risk her life for her child's who are you to deny them this?


no, I am insisting that she be given the choice, not you, or a bunch of crazy lawmakers, or a bunch of catholic bishops while you, the crazy lawmakers, and bunch of catholic bishops seem to want want to take that choice from her and force her to take the risk.




If you want to have an abortion that's fine. However, do not demand for others to pay for them either directly or inderectly like the Obama administration did by making insurance companies charge Americans $1 each to be used for abortions.


www.washingtonpost.com...

that's kind of like me saying that our taxpayer money is funding the torture of patients in catholic hospitals, isn't it?
I mean, in both cases, if you actually could label the dollars you pay in tax and track them down to their destination, a very small percentage if any of those dollars would actually find their way to an abortion clinic, or to a women who had been forced to endure excessive pain because of the dear bishops catholic beliefs.
at least obamacare has restrictions in place that is supposed to prevent it from happening, they don't do squat when it comes to the catholic hospitals!

and, I really think that I am pretty safe to assume that you would extend that same comment over to all the hormonal birth control methods that are available since you see the morning after pill as causing abortions, and it works in basically the same was as those other hormonal methods. so even if we managed to convince you that no tax money is providing money for abortions, it wouldn't matter to you because it would still be providing birth control.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
What?

Wait - so now you're not talking about healthy babies being killed within hours of birth, (because clearly that is not happening) and
you're not talking about what Hillary wants to do (because she didn't say she wants to do that...no one wants to do that!....all she said what that it is simply right now the law that an unborn child doesn't have "legal rights")....

so now you're talking about whether a law makes something moral? No. Laws do not dictate morality.

I'm not "claiming" any of those things. You are the one making all the "claims" and they are being dismantled one by one....

and no one (except the ethics experts in your journal) is talking about infanticide OF HEALTHY BABIES becoming legal. That's a sick thing to even suggest, and it certainly did not come from me. Your understanding of the "progressive" platform is entirely lacking in any sort of basis in reality.

Such a law would never be passed, so it's a stupid premise. Murdering one's living, breathing, healthy, normal, conscious child as a convenience is not okay. That's why NO ONE IS DOING THAT. And NO ONE IS TRYING TO MAKE IT OKAY.

That article is talking about a hypothetical ethical argument. It is not a bill being argued through any legislature. It is a thought experiment for people who are staying neutral and looking at where to draw the line. The journal said they would also publish an article presenting the other side if it was presented. It's a discussion they are having.
About humans and life and death and medicine and helplessness....
Personally, I am against a lifetime of protracted and complicated support of a life. I'm also against circumcision, and refused to allow my son to be "given" one.

In the end, we are animals. Before medicine was so advanced, a deformed or severely disabled child could not be "saved" or "propped up". That is the natural way of selection. They were allowed and/or hastened to their death.

That is a fact. I think it is questionable whether humans should override Natural Selection. The other day, I met a gentleman who had with him an absolutely beautiful Australian Collie - utterly gorgeous, healthy dog. I greeted and admired the dog, and the man told me he and his wife had adopted (rescued) it - a healthy male who was an award-winning show dog until it was discovered he was sterile and could not sire puppies. The owners of this beautiful showdog were going to put him down. A supremely healthy, gorgeous, intelligent, well-behaved dog. Just because it was infertile.

THAT is not okay. Allowing a profoundly defect-ridden newborn ANYTHING to die is a sad thing to have to decide. Better it had been spared its suffering before it was aware of its surroundings. But if you want to discuss such a thing - what about still-births? What if medical treatment could resuscitate a still-born baby and insisted on it even if the baby was deformed, missing limbs, had only half of a brain, or no brain at all, or no face, or five eyes and only one ear and a half-formed parasitic twin embedded in it - if it was born dead - should it be revived at all costs?

I would say no.

If, on the other hand, a perfectly formed, healthy, strong baby has been strangled by its own umbilical cord during birth - and is born DEAD, should it be revived if possible like a drowning victim? Case by case basis - depending on the circumstances.

Should a parent be allowed to kill their newborn just because it irritates them? Of course not. You know it's not. I know it's not. Everyone knows it's not. That's why every country has places you can take an unwanted healthy baby and leave it to other carers.
Healthy babies can also be put up for adoption (and often are).

Now - let me ask you this: if someone told you that baby powder is made out of babies, would you believe it????????? YOU KNOW IT'S NOT. That's the same level of ridiculous that you are going on and on about - like some random conversation of dystopian hypothetical poets would have while sitting around smoking weed.

I personally think that excessive, complicated medical procedures and a lifetime of similar support to keep a non-verbal, non-viable newborn alive simply because "they can" is mistaken. Nature takes its course. We need to let it.






edit on 6/29/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: In4ormant

No, it can't reproduce, so one of the conditions for life isn't met. Therefore, it isn't technically "alive". It has and shares some characteristics of something "alive" but it doesn't meet all the criteria.

Irrespective of that, we kill living things all the time. Ever mow your lawn or cut down a tree? A tree can reproduce at the time you cut it down, a fetus cannot.

Tell me something that one can do that the other cannot?


What a terribly silly thing to say....

What about infertile people...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That post was a reply to: ElectricUniverse



edit on 6/29/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




HILLARY does states that the unborn have no rights, even those that are hours away from being born, and she states "we have to look at the life of the woman and health".


That is a fact. The unborn have no constitutional rights in America. It's in the US Constitution! We Americans value living, breathing autonomous people and their rights over potential humans.


That phrase shows right there that if a woman wants to kill her perfectly healthy baby hours before she/he is born it is the right of the woman to do so.


This is a bald face lie.
edit on Wed Jun 29 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Here is what the editor of the Journal said about the reaction that you and like-minded Blaze readers gave in comments:


The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.

What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

Julian Savulescu, Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics


See? It's not anything but a philosophical discussion about medical ethics. It isn't anyone promoting anything. It is nothing but a comment and question to be considered.

You lot who respond with death threats to a mere question provide evidence of how uneducated, unmeasured, hysterical, and fanatical you are. As a group, you're a menace. Reasoned argument is what is called for. But, if it makes you happy to have that vein in your forehead constantly throbbing about imagined horrors, no one can stop you.

If you want to be taken seriously, and heard, then calm yourself down!!!!
edit on 6/29/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

Excuse me, where did I say that abortion has to be regulated?...
Please, show me where I wrote this claim you apparently imply I am making...

Red herring much?...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Hillary (not whatever cartoon character name you wads come up with) said "that is the law now, yes."
...


Oh wow, really, resorting to insulting ATS members? Classy.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Is it her fault it is the law? Nope. Is it my fault or your fault? No. It is the Chaos Syndrome going on in this country right now.
...


She only sides with the laws she agrees with, and these laws are being "redefined" by left wingers all the time. Read below to understand why I am saying this...


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
That has nothing to do with your conflated slaughter-house extrapolation.
No one is doing (or wants to do!) those things.
...


When Roe Vs Wade was made the argument of the court was that women's right only covers the first two trimesters...

The court, with the statements of presiding Supreme court Judge Harry Blackmun, stated that the right of the woman was compelling in the first trimester, when abortion is seen as safer than childbirth. The court sided with women and their physicians who willingly would consider abortion.

On the second trimester, the court sided with the state to decide if abortion was viable...

On the third trimester, the court sided with the potential life of the child and the court decided that the State could intervene to save the potential life of the child...

[en.wikipedia.org...]Roe v. Wade[/url]

So you see neither, you nor HILLARY even know what Roe vs Wade was about, and what it covers...

Hillary is trying to use Roe vs Wade without even knowing what the judgement was from the Supreme Court, and instead she wants to claim that it covers "the right of the mother even on the day the child is to be born" which goes against the ruling made in Roe vs Wade...


edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.
]
edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and correct comment.

edit on Wed Jun 29 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
BTW, just as a side note, the woman mentioned as "Roe" in the case lied to authorities in Texas. Her name was also changed to "protect her privacy".

She claimed "under the advice of her friends" that she had to say she had been raped so that her abortion would be done in Texas. But she was never raped, and she testified to have lied about it. So this case started with a lie, and to this day, there are lies surrounding what the court decided as well.


edit on 29-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




On the second trimester, the court sided with the State to decide if abortion was viable... On the third trimester, the court sided with the potential life of the child and the court decided that the State could intervene to save the potential life of the child...


That's not what the Court said at all. The court said that abortion was always legal pre fetal viability. It doesn't matter if the enviable fetus is 6 weeks or 9 1/2 months.
edit on 29-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The court, with the statements of presiding Supreme court Judge Harry Blackmun, stated that the right of the woman was compelling in the first trimester, when abortion is seen as safer than childbirth. The court sided with women and their physicians who willingly would consider abortion.

On the second trimester, the court sided with the state to decide if abortion was viable...

On the third trimester, the court sided with the potential life of the child and the court decided that the State could intervene to save the potential life of the child...

Roe v. Wade

So you see neither, you nor HILLARY even know what Roe vs Wade was about, and what it covers...


Hillary is trying to use Roe vs Wade without even knowing what the judgement was from the Supreme Court, and instead she wants to claim that it covers "the right of the mother even on the day the child is to be born" which goes against the ruling made in Roe vs Wade...



LOL!!!!

Ah, dearest champion: that is comedic gold.



I graduated from high school in 1976. I was not a virgin, and I knew how to avoid pregnancy. Hillary is even older than I am. We know exactly what Roe v Wade was about.

Huge fail there, Electric......another preposterous argument.

"ElectricUniverse"
I'm going to shorthand your name to ElectrUn.


edit on Wed Jun 29 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join