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.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you know how babies are made?


The bill has nothing to do with an individuals sexuality.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

After the guy beating the anti abortion bell gets caught being a hypocrite.

They don't care about the mom or the baby. It's the moral idea (that happens to be wrong in practice) that matters.

More than the lives.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Ah right - so "pay me so I don't get pregnant and have abortions and if you don't pay me, all the consequences are your fault"
I don't think so.

The responsibility will be with the ones killing babies.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you know how babies are made?


The bill has nothing to do with an individuals sexuality.



This bill has everything to do with employers' opinion of the sexuality of their female employees.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It doesn't matter if your goal is to save babies.

Which it obviously is not.

It's to support ancient calvinistic ideas.

edit on 6-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: kaylaluv

After the guy beating the anti abortion bell gets caught being a hypocrite.

They don't care about the mom or the baby. It's the moral idea (that happens to be wrong in practice) that matters.

More than the lives.


What has the GOP politician got to do with it and who are 'they'?

Like I said - if you want to be immoral and kill babies, don't blame others for not paying you to stop.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Like I said if the end result is death than it doesn't matter which ancient idea you have.

You had a chance to save babies. It cost you 5 cents a year. Now the burden is on you.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you know how babies are made?


The bill has nothing to do with an individuals sexuality.



This bill has everything to do with employers' opinion of the sexuality of their female employees.



I think you better read it again.
It is about not forcing employers to pay for birth control as part of health coverage - no employee will have their sexuality affected in any way. They will simply be responsible for their own actions.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: StunPrix
It's like your entire life revolves around taxpayer funded birth control and abortion. Sad that your man hate is so pronounced you're willing to carve up your own child and advocate others do not the same as some kind of power play. Who hurt you? Maybe if you got a job instead of posting ok the internet you could afford to murder your own children?


Contraception isn't murder, dummy. That's how irrational the conservative platform is when it comes to abortion. They keep fighting tooth and nail against the things that are reducing the number of abortions.

Sad that you're too much of a myopic fool to realize that.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you know how babies are made?


The bill has nothing to do with an individuals sexuality.



This bill has everything to do with employers' opinion of the sexuality of their female employees.



I think you better read it again.
It is about not forcing employers to pay for birth control as part of health coverage - no employee will have their sexuality affected in any way. They will simply be responsible for their own actions.


Calvinism is dead man. Give it up. It's not 1902 anymore.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


That is simply incorrect.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Like I said if the end result is death than it doesn't matter which ancient idea you have.

You had a chance to save babies. It cost you 5 cents a year. Now the burden is on you.


What ancient idea is that? That one should be responsible for their own sexual reproduction and not ask other people to pay for the risks they take? Sounds like one of those ancient ideals that works perfectly today.

As for the end result of death as you call it, the responsibility still lies with the individual. As long as I am not the father in the end result, I am not responsible for someone having unprotected sex, getting pregnant and having an abortion. That's all on them.
edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Sometimes rules emerge from much higher places, with subtle hints as to why.

U.S. Fertility rate reaches a record low.

Not saying, but not knowing as well.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

the decision as to what kind of birth control a women should be using should be made between her and her doctor.... not by someone's elses moral values and costs. if the women has the family size she wants, then a tubal litigation would be the better alteranative expecially if she is an older women. for some it might be a better decision to go with an IUD.
everyone's body is different, and for some women, the cheap birth control pills might not be the best, matter of fact they might pose a significant health risks and should be avoided...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


That is simply incorrect.



How will someone's sexuality be affected by this?
edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

As a person who has seemingly far less hypocritical morals I think the 40 percent reduction in abortions is fantastic news.

Any actual spiritual person would seriously question if that is better for humanity than following a false moral self determination philosophy that doesn't work in reality.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

That stuff is covered here. I thought you had to pay for it in the States. Your insurance covers elective surgery?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


The question is if the opt out ends up killing babies or bearing children with inept parents was that freedom really worth it?

I don't think so and I think it's an impossible moral argument to defend.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Don't you know how babies are made?


The bill has nothing to do with an individuals sexuality.



This bill has everything to do with employers' opinion of the sexuality of their female employees.



I think you better read it again.
It is about not forcing employers to pay for birth control as part of health coverage - no employee will have their sexuality affected in any way. They will simply be responsible for their own actions.


Calvinism is dead man. Give it up. It's not 1902 anymore.


If you think Calvinism has anything to do with not paying for other people's birth control, then you may have your wires mixed - or have simply lost the ability to discuss the issue without launching into some grand theological war.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join