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.

 

Live Feed Of The 44th Annual March for Life in DC

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It was a wonderful march! So very many young people were involved. a reply to: DBCowboy




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

That's not really workable, since her body is the only thing keeping that embryo/fetus alive. They are not two individual people until one of them is born.



Did you even write what you typed? You are contradicting yourself. "They" means more than one.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

That's not really workable, since her body is the only thing keeping that embryo/fetus alive. They are not two individual people until one of them is born.



Did you even write what you typed? You are contradicting yourself. "They" means more than one.


I understand it perfectly.

One person.

And a parasite.

Definition of parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Why Babies Aren't Actually Parasites


Of course, parasites have babies, and some free-living organisms have a parasitic early life stage. But the notion I seek to discredit here is that all babies are parasites of their parents and, particularly, that the human fetus is a parasite of its mother. This misconception has become distressingly common among my peers.

It distresses me because I love babies and I love parasites, so I think it's important to understand the distinction between them. In a nutshell: a parasite reduces the fitness of its host; a baby increases the fitness of its parents.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword

well they need to protect those men out there who might just not take no for an answer when their wives do what the pro-live people tell them to and keep their legs crossed!!!

I think you mean protect the women, when their husbands just won't take no for an answer. If that is the case the wife has a much bigger problem than a horny spouse.

There are a lot of alternatives though. Birth control pills, IUDs, birth control implants, condoms, Plan B (it is not an abortifacient), and there is always the vasectomy option.

I would never tell another woman what to do with her body. Her body, her choice. She is the one that will have to live with her decision. Personally, I feel abortion should never be the go to solution for an "oops!". Education, and personal responsibility to prevent the "oops!" should be the objective. But that is just my opinion and we all know what that is worth.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Since Margaret Sanger didn't endorse abortion, how do you suppose she intended to exterminate the negro?

She didn't. Your quote is taken out of context. Mrs Sanger was working with negro doctors and recruiting clergy, ministers, in order to help calm the black communities fears that their agenda was extermination through Jim Crow laws, when it was really sex education and birth control.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn



I think you mean protect the women, when their husbands just won't take no for an answer. If that is the case the wife has a much bigger problem than a horny spouse.


How is that accomplished with the decriminalization of domestic abuse? You mean women can now clobber their husbands who put the moves on them?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

And I bet you thought I'd never read that. You'd be wrong.

Because they are the same species. Exception type of jellyfish. Very fishy.

I think science is just being sensitive to the religious/pro lifers on this one. It happens.

I remember listening to a talk show where the scientist was explaing just that. How they have to be sensitive to the religious on how they word and present information.

edit on 27-1-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

we are talking about this:




Trump's second action that women should be concerned about? His proposed budget cuts, one of which would acutely affect women in America who are victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. According to The Hill, Trump's budget plan would eliminate grants bestowed by the Department of Justice office that specifically investigates crimes against women. In 2016, that office provided $480 million in aid.

Violence Against Women Grants were established in 1994 to prevent attacks on women and support victims through grants. Trump's proposal would cut federal funding for victims' transitional housing, legal aid, and criminal justice training on sexual violence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


he wants to cut the funding that helps our mythical abused women who kept her legs crossed against her husband's wishes.. thus, protecting men, and their divine right for sex on demand!



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
sad_eyed_lady

And I bet you thought I'd never read that. You'd be wrong.

Because they are the same species. Exception type of jellyfish. Very fishy.

And: "A baby increases the fitness of its parents." What?

I think science is just being sensitive to the religious/pro lifers on this one. It happens.

I remember listening to a talk show where the scientist was explaing just that. How they have to be sensitive to the religious on how they word and present information.

edit on 27-1-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

And I bet you thought I'd never read that. You'd be wrong.

Because they are the same species. Exception type of jellyfish. Very fishy.

I think science is just being sensitive to the religious/pro lifers on this one. It happens.

I remember listening to a talk show where the scientist was explaing just that. How they have to be sensitive to the religious on how they word and present information.


If you read it throughly you would have looked at the link in it (health benefits to mothers)

Fetuses can donate their stem cells to help heal their mothers' hearts



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
"A baby increases the fitness of its parents"....in some cases.

is the women happens to be diabetic, there's just as much a chance that the baby's presence will decrease the fitness of the parent..
and we have a variety of parasites in our body that seem to serve a beneficial purpose.

www.laboratoryequipment.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

And the comments.

So, what is a surrogate woman carrying another woman's fetus?

From comments:


Kat M: I am a professor of Biomedical Enhineering, and your arguments are weak at best. Now before I get flamed, I am not from the pro-choice camp trying to argue against life or anything like that, but I believe in sound arguments not ones that are simply trying to debunk for the sake of debunking. I teach my students to back their arguments up with citable facts. Additionally, I am currently happily pregnant with my first child (and going through all of the crappy symptoms as a result of this "parasitism").


edit on 27-1-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




I remember listening to a talk show where the scientist was explaing just that. How they have to be sensitive to the religious on how they word and present information.


Many in the movement believe our Savior is The Truth. We can handle the truth it's deception we don't buy. We've seen it with our eyes.

Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade tells her story:

“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”


liveactionnews.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady
a reply to: Annee




I remember listening to a talk show where the scientist was explaing just that. How they have to be sensitive to the religious on how they word and present information.


Many in the movement believe our Savior is The Truth. We can handle the truth it's deception we don't buy. We've seen it with our eyes.


I was raised Christian.

I evolved to Atheist.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

And the comments.

So, what is a surrogate woman carrying another woman's fetus?

From comments:


Kat M: I am a professor of Biomedical Enhineering, and your arguments are weak at best. Now before I get flamed, I am not from the pro-choice camp trying to argue against life or anything like that, but I believe in sound arguments not ones that are simply trying to debunk for the sake of debunking. I teach my students to back their arguments up with citable facts. Additionally, I am currently happily pregnant with my first child (and going through all of the crappy symptoms as a result of this "parasitism").



She acknowledged her parasite is a child. So much for storks.


edit on 1/27/2017 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

and the pro-life camp has never used deception as their tool....
riiiiigghht!
tell me why is it that when talking about abortion, the pro-lifers try so hard to caste women as stupid, unmarried young adults and teens that are just too loose with their bodies? are they not aware of the many, many couples that also find themselves with unwanted pregnancies, or even wanted pregnancies that went badly?
or are they trying to deceive us into visualizing the women who end up considering abortion as just irresponsible singles??



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

And the comments.

So, what is a surrogate woman carrying another woman's fetus?

From comments:


Kat M: I am a professor of Biomedical Enhineering, and your arguments are weak at best. Now before I get flamed, I am not from the pro-choice camp trying to argue against life or anything like that, but I believe in sound arguments not ones that are simply trying to debunk for the sake of debunking. I teach my students to back their arguments up with citable facts. Additionally, I am currently happily pregnant with my first child (and going through all of the crappy symptoms as a result of this "parasitism").



She acknowledged her parasite is a child.


You are reaching for straws.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

and the pro-life camp has never used deception as their tool....
riiiiigghht!
tell me why is it that when talking about abortion, the pro-lifers try so hard to caste women as stupid, unmarried young adults and teens that are just too loose with their bodies? are they not aware of the many, many couples that also find themselves with unwanted pregnancies, or even wanted pregnancies that went badly?
or are they trying to deceive us into visualizing the women who end up considering abortion as just irresponsible singles??




If people that call themselves pro-life do that they are not pro-love. I have gone to pro-life lectures and conferences and nobody ever talks against the mother. We believe education is key, but we don't call people stupid.

If you watched the March. You would see it was about loving the moms and their babies.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You list one instructor of biomedical engineering that never had to dismember a child from it's mothers womb or watch the procedure as part of their training.

This organization claims sound science in the medical profession who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to death:

Doctors for Life International

The whole difference between your ideology and mine is that I believe life is sacred and you don't.


edit on 1/27/2017 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join