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.

 

House passes 20 week abortion ban.

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Then you can work on taking the vote away from all these silly gals, can't ya?




posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Then you can work on taking the vote away from all these silly gals, can't ya?



Don't need to do that... somewhere between 45 and 50% (depending on which research poll you examine) of American women believe it should be illegal in at least some cases, a number which has been going up gradually. The fact that a staunchly pro-life candidate took over 40% of the female vote in 2016 shows those polls to be fairly accurate.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66
and oh ya, women should pay more in insurance for the pre-existing condition of being the world's baby makers, and they can pay for their birth control out of pocket, and oh ya, they can pay for a higher priced policy if they want to be covered for pregnancy!!







SAVE THE BAAABIES!!!!

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' FOR NO WOMANS BIRTH CONTROL.

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' TO KEEP UP OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS.


Ever heard of the concept of personal responsibility? As a quick reminder, you can't call abortion "taking personal responsibility anymore, either... Dems stripped that out of the discussion with their asinine "taking tax dollars away from Planned Parenthood denies abortions to women" argument.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




take me seriously on issues like this and those who do will eventually manage to right this wrong, which will lead us back to the days when abortion... ALL abortion, is illegal.


Good luck with that and your "Handmaiden's Tale" fantasy.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

have you even read my responses?? the gripe I have with this law is that it will leave women laying in hospital beds, or being sent home, with complications that is degrading of their health until their condition becomes a critical emergency situation where an abortion is necessary to save the women's life!! not only that, but it targets a group of pregnancies where these health complications are more likely to exist. complications in pregnancy does not discriminate, it will hit the responsible pregnant women as easily as it will the irresponsible women. and, not all women are so psychic that they can look into the future, see that their pregnancy will endanger their live given them enough foresight to know they want an abortion in their first trimester!!!
it goes beyond roe v wade, it goes beyond the parental rights of the father, it comes down to the basic belief that we all should have the right to protect our own lives and to have medical care that has our health and well being, our life as their primary concern.

for a bunch of people who think that their constitutional rights will be infringed on if the gov't passes any laws that might interfere with their ability to play with their modified semi auto rifles, your argument here is rather sickening!!
I am pretty sure that no civilian has ever died because they were denied the rush of firing off a hundred or so rounds in a minute or so...
but we are really very lucky that no women has died from the care they receive in the catholic hospitals. and this law would just about dictate much the same rules for any abortions (except for instances of rape) that are over 20 weeks...
sit, watch, treat the symptoms, but don't treat the cause of those symptoms till the heartbeat is gone or the patient is about to die.
your ramble might make sense if it wasn't for the fact that this law is targeting the group that is most likely to have wanted the baby to begin with or accepted it but have found valid medical reasons to seek an abortion.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
I think the argument was that taking tax money from planned parenthood was taking healthcare from women...
no federal tax dollars can legally be used by planned parenthood for abortions.
most of those tax dollars come in the form of reimbursement for services already provided that are allowed by the gov't.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




you can't call abortion "taking personal responsibility anymore, either... Dems stripped that out of the discussion with their asinine "taking tax dollars away from Planned Parenthood denies abortions to women" argument.


Why bother trying to converse with logic with this one and his out of touch with reality, asinine arguments?

The Bill won't pass anyway. It's all just dog and pony shows, while the Republicans "forget" to renew childrens' health care protection and look for ways to deny pregnant women health care.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66
and oh ya, women should pay more in insurance for the pre-existing condition of being the world's baby makers, and they can pay for their birth control out of pocket, and oh ya, they can pay for a higher priced policy if they want to be covered for pregnancy!!







SAVE THE BAAABIES!!!!

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' FOR NO WOMANS BIRTH CONTROL.

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' TO KEEP UP OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS.


Ever heard of the concept of personal responsibility? As a quick reminder, you can't call abortion "taking personal responsibility anymore, either... Dems stripped that out of the discussion with their asinine "taking tax dollars away from Planned Parenthood denies abortions to women" argument.


Have I heard of taking personal responsibility? Sure have, have you?

The other side of the coin is Minding Your Own Business. I don't "agree" with abortion either; in most cases it's a horrible choice ... but choice it is.

Advocates of making abortion "illegal" are in favor of taking a woman's responsibility and control away from her.

It just doesn't work like that in a free society maintained by the rule of law. It's not about our individual beliefs ... some believe that conception is the beginning of personhood, some when a child takes its first breath (and can live on its own outside the mother's body).

We have laws because we all believe different things. Law isn't about belief or feelings.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
If people want to extinguish their babies after 20 weeks who am I to argue with them? I'm a strong supporter of others ending their kids, it leaves less competition for my own kids to face.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Why don't we "put out of misery the ill, the disabled, the old, etC"?... After all, they suffer a lot as well...

Could you tell us "when does the life of another human being is important enough to try to save it"?...

Face it, the majority of abortions are not done because the human fetus will be born deformed and in a lot of pain"...

According to those like you "human fetus" has no right to life whatsoever. So women, who have been led to believe that these "human lives" are "not really human" make decisions based on what planned parenthood tells them...

Do you forget the "quotas for abortions or abortion referrals" that nurses who used to do/help with abortions have spoken about?... Or the fact that they say Planned Parenthood do their darnest to convince every woman who goes there to abort?...







About the claim that they only do 3% abortions...





What was it that the NAZIS called it?...

"life unworthy of life" (in German: "Lebensunwertes Leben")

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
the majority of abortions aren't done after the 20 week period either, just a little over 1% if I am remembering right. where as the percentage ( at least from the stats that I am looking at this page) of abortions that are due to fetal health problems is 3%. Same with those that are due to problems with the health of the mother... 3%.
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

if the number of abortions due to problems with fetal development is too insignificant then the number of abortions that are done after the 20th week is just as if not more insignificant!!!

and quite frankly, if you wish for us to consider the fact that the unborn can feel pain just as any born child would, then when it comes to severe birth defects, you have to consider just how much pain a born child would have if those defects were left untreated as they more than likely would be prebirth, as well as the chance of survival once born. I fail to see the rational of insisting on the mother continuing risking her own life if it's a logical conclusion that ya, the unborn child might be in severe pain and there is no possible way that the child will survive once born.
you sound like those who wanted to keep the comatose lady alive, screaming about all the pain she would feel if her feeding tube was pulled, but never considering just how much pain she might have been feeling all those years as more and more of her brain deteriorated.

I would also seem inclined to believe that the majority of that small 1.3 percent of abortions that are done in after the 20 week mark also fall in that 6% that are due to either fetal health or the health of the mother. I just think that is a reasonable assumption considering the cost of the procedure and well... I think that most women would have decided earlier than that if they just didn't want to have a baby.

we are talking about an abortion law that only effects the abortions that are over that 20 wk mark, where fetal and mother's health might be a small percentage of all abortions done in this country, it's very possible that they may be the majority in that small group!



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
At the core of the anti-choice movement, so often marketed as "pro-life" is simply the pure need to control what others do: authoritarianism.

Consider the constellation of beliefs that almost always accompanies this position. Righteously following the death penalty as presented in the "eye for an eye" stance of the Bible. Allowing our law enforcement to use deadly force with impunity. Promoting the ever expanding actions of our wars around the world, including, the wide-scale destruction of civilians.

There is no reverence for "life" among most "pro-lifers."

A fertilized human egg (zygote) is microscopic.

From the moment of implantation, when the zygote attaches itself to the uterine wall (pregnancy), a woman's life is in danger, by a host of conditions BROUGHT ON by the pregnancy -- the very least of which is the suppression of her immune system.

Spontaneous abortion is common (30-50%) and occurs when the mother's body rejects the fetus. If we classify every fetus as "the unborn" then we will be accusing women of murder or at the least involuntary manslaughter multiple times over their lives in a process they have absolutely ZERO conscious control over.

I'd like to see someone explain that "the unborn" being destroyed and removed "naturally" is somehow different in spontaneous and induced abortions. You cannot use the dodge that it is different if an abortion is natural or intentional ... the "unborn" dies either way.

It is madness to assign the status of living personhood to gestational cells. Absolute madness.

There is NO situation that is comparable for a male human. None.

There is no way to legislate the matter aside from recognizing the total autonomy of a woman's body. Doing so does not approve of, mandate, or even accept abortion ... it is simply the only rational way we can deal with the matter on a equitable legal basis.
edit on 5-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 5-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66
and oh ya, women should pay more in insurance for the pre-existing condition of being the world's baby makers, and they can pay for their birth control out of pocket, and oh ya, they can pay for a higher priced policy if they want to be covered for pregnancy!!







SAVE THE BAAABIES!!!!

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' FOR NO WOMANS BIRTH CONTROL.

followed by

I AIN'T PAYIN' TO KEEP UP OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS.


Ever heard of the concept of personal responsibility? As a quick reminder, you can't call abortion "taking personal responsibility anymore, either... Dems stripped that out of the discussion with their asinine "taking tax dollars away from Planned Parenthood denies abortions to women" argument.


Wow, this is seriously what passes for debate here?

Handmaid's Tale is not a dystopia for some, but rather a goal to be achieved.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
This points to one of my issues with the anti-choice position.

From the OP's article at The Hill



The bill allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman and wouldn't penalize women for seeking to get abortions after 20 weeks.


This bill, lauded as "protection for the unborn" is nothing of the sort, rather, by defining fetuses as "unborn" all it actually does is codify acceptable murder.

The logic is ridiculously easy to follow:

1. From conception, a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person with the status of being "unborn."

2. If that "unborn" person was created as the result of rape or incest or if its presence in the body threatens the life of the host, then abortion is LEGAL.

3. Since abortion is murder therefore murder is legal as long as the justification for same is acceptable.




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


It ought to be cut down to about 7 weeks, or under 49 days.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Why? What's so significant about 7 weeks, or 49 days?


edit on 5-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Probably because 7^2 is some sort of numerological nonsense?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

You mean Millions more....



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

that would kind of eliminate some women the abortion option.
not everyone's cycle is that dependable, some might be more apt to think that their cycle is off and decide to wait a few weeks before they go for a pregnancy test not wishing to waste money on one.

and no abortion law should interfere with a doctor's ability to give what they deem as the best medical care to their patient.... regardless of the stage of that pregnancy! when complications rise up, it should be solely based on the decision of the women who hopefully has been well informed by the doctor as to the complication, the risks, and the possible outcomes.
this law falls far short on that one, it would interfere with the doctor's ability to provide the what he decides would be the best medical care, basically tying his hands till the complication progresses to the point where action would need to be take to save the life of the mother, even if it's determined that the fetus will not survived regardless.

I am sure that before this law was passed, which it probably won't be, it will be changed to include consideration for the women's health also, and maybe even consideration for fetal health. but, the fact that it seems to take the lawyers tapping the legislatures on their shoulders informing them that their law won't fly without consideration for the women's health sends me a very bad message...
either they don't really give a dang about how their stupid laws affect the pregnant women in this country, or they are just putting on a show hoping the prolife crowd will buy it and vote more republicans into congress and maybe gain a few more judges on the supreme court so they can have a successful law passed.

my guess it's the later really, after all wasn't a republican prolife congressman just found to have pressured his mistress to have an abortion? they like having the abortion option open just as much as anyone else does!!



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Why? What's so significant about 7 weeks, or 49 days?



Around when the spirit enters through the pineal gland.

It's just to be on the safe side.

Women would simply have to conduct pregnancy tests after sex.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join