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: 5
30
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady




They turned their face from God desiring to rule another and while it was turned unknown to them an imposter came on the scene to pretend he was their God. And his name was Satan.


maybe it's a verse in the bible that seems to say that they should be the head of their wife, or maybe it's a feeling that god is calling to lead a church, or maybe it's the fact that people are telling him that god had a appointed him to rule a country. so, they go, and they try grasp and use this authority that they believe that god has given them.. struggle for it, demand it... they are no longer focusing their attention god, allowing him to made the changes but rather, they are intent on bringing these changes into reality by themselves... they lose site of god and when they turn back around searching, they find instead something pretending to be that god, an impersonator, insisting that they need to just try harder, be more forceful... and eventually the god becomes more forceful to them, more demanding....




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady



The mother has a responsibility to the child. This applies to all consensual situations.


What about the woman's ability to consent, or not, to having an unwanted "child" to take hold and grow insider of her? Mistakes are made, but especially if pregnancy happens because of failed birth control, certainly, there was NO consent.



If you can't understand why it would violate someone conscience to pay for abortion through taxpayer funds.


This is an invalid argument, as the Hyde Amendment already protects you from having your tax payer dollars pay for abortions on demand. You know that isn't what you're fighting for. What you're fighting for is the reversal of woman's rights to reproductive choice. You want to force them to abide by your particular set of morals.


edit on 29-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

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.


If you consider a human being, in the womb, to be a parasite, I truly feel sorry for anyone under your care.

No, a human being, with unique DNA, isn't a "parasite". Way to show you have no basic concept of biology!


My grandkids love me.

Shall I repeat the definition of parasite?


The scientific definition is not the offspring of the organism. Learn some science.

I stand by my statement.



new topics
 
30
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join