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 expected to cut Planned Parenthood funding

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

so are you suggesting that all this animosity against planned parenthood and abortion/birth control has more to do with the religious right's fear becoming a minority in their own country than it has to do with their concern of the fetuses?




posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infant (2) : an extremely young animal
b : the youngest of a group He is the baby of the family.

is this what you are asking?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Welcome to right wing America where a womans ability to chose what to do with her own body is supreressed by a group of men, but let’s go up buy a gun and shoot a room full of kids.
edit on 16-5-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

I saw an interesting quote that went something like

"Why is bacteria on Mars considered life, but an unborn child is not?"

I thought it was a pretty solid point.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

A baby is IN her body.
It may be part of her, but it is not her.
Takes two to tango, as well. That is not just HER baby.

The second part of your post doesn't deserve a response.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The apparent source of what you cite. Of course, it was one little effort. No different than Lenin. Funding, baby, funding.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Tekaran

Define "baby".


The start of life being created after conception within the womb.

Hopefully a little more clarified for you, even though it was pretty clear to begin with when talking about a "baby" and pregnant woman.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

I think you might be misunderstanding me.

My point is that there are quite a few folk in America who champion the rights of the individual but that only seems to go so far as the rights they believe in for the right kind of people.

I am not even saying abortion is right or wrong, just pointing out another little contradiction in the thinking of some Trump supporters


edit on 16-5-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

but we kill the harmful bacteria and viruses when they manage to enter our bodies and make us sick or at least try to, same with those harmful parasites. heck, we're humans, we will kill anything living thing that we find might be harmful to ourselves and those close to us.... even if they are little kids halfway around the world.. all we have to do is find enough reason to be fearful of them....
ya know, like those muslims who are working so hard to get into our country and take it over that was being discussed on this thread!!!



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Fair enough.
My point, is that the child, even though unborn, has those individual rights.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Fair enough.
My point, is that the child, even though unborn, has those individual rights.


And where do you factor in the rights of the woman then in this equation



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Fair enough.
My point, is that the child, even though unborn, has those individual rights.


And where do you factor in the rights of the woman then in this equation

Incubators don’t have rights/shouldn’t have gotten pregnant/had sex.

Anti abortionists can’t answer questions about bodily autonomy.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorthernLites

The Trump administration may take action to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood as a result of pressure from congressional Republicans and anti-abortion lobbyists. Opponents of abortion have launched an all-out campaign urging the administration to bring back Reagan-era abortion restrictions on federal family planning dollars that would target Planned Parenthood.

thehill.com...

PP was formed by Margaret Sanger, a racist and eugenics supporter, for the specific purpose of eliminating the Black race. Look it up.



There is no black race, only a human race consisting entirely of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. While Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, she wasn't a racist. She was more of the minds set that people with mental or physical disabilities needed to have their reproductive abilities curtailed. 100 years later, it's a cringe worthy thought process but in 1916 when she opened her first clinic ( for contraceptives and preventative care for destitute women trying to avoid compulsory motherhood ), that mindset was the rule, not the exception unfortunately. Regardless of her views on eugenics, it was based on race, it was based on physical and mental fitness and social status.


Plus, she didn't actually found PP in the way you're trying to make it seem. The organizations she founded eventually evolved into Planned Parenthood, but abortions weren't what she was working on. When she opened the first birth control clinic in the South, it was because she was an advocate for women's reproductive rights. The demographics of her work meant that she was focused on minority communities because that was where the most poverty stricken women with the least resources in obtaining medical care that could reduce unwanted pregnancies actually lived.

As for abortions, if you had read any primary source material instead of quote mining things from sites that make you feel all warm and gooey because of your confirmation biases, you would have found that what she actually said was that while abortions were sometimes necessary, they should be avoided and she was attempting to avoid unwanted pregnancies that would lead to back alley abortions by offering access to contraceptives.

Look it up


People who support PP are racists who want Black babies to die.


No... If that's the game you're playing then people who author threads with out citations or appropriate context want women to be forced to have babies they can't care for. Unless of course you're operating a foster home for neglected and downtrodden inner city children whose mothers didn't have access to contraceptives because you love the black race and want to save them all?


President Trump wants to defund PP because he cares about Black people


HAHAHA Thank you... I needed a good laugh this morning!

FYI... if you're making claims, the onus lies with you to support them with appropriate citations. It's poor form and not kosher with ATS T&C to tell other people to look up and support your claims.


The federal government is verboten by law from funding abortions. None of the federal money allotted for PP can be used or is used, for abortion procedures. It only funds access for impoverished women to be able to obtain basic medical care, checkups, STI testing, basic preventative care and contraception. Being a cheerleader for stripping that funding actually makes YOU the one who wants to kill little black babies because their 15 year old mother doesn't have access to basic medical care or the ability to protect herself from pregnancies. Ironic that you make up things about Sanger and imply that anyone who supports PP is a racist when it's you who champions all that you espouse as evil.
edit on 16-5-2018 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Fools

so are you suggesting that all this animosity against planned parenthood and abortion/birth control has more to do with the religious right's fear becoming a minority in their own country than it has to do with their concern of the fetuses?




That could be. The faith of Christianity has been lowered to accept abortion as fate. However, they will still try to nibble away at it. Alot of it is pure belief and nothing to do with population. But I would willingly believe that fear of a global Caliphate is somewhere under the hood.

I fear it, I would not want to live under its control.

Planned Parenthood is also opposed because it lies. It lies quite a bit. It also does have shady medical practices that for some reason are protected by the secular political class. I am really confused by the news I hear that they are not in compliance with state level medical certification in many places and for some reason that is always ignored - at the definite danger of any individual who walks through their doors seeking their services.

On a personal level, I am not sure if I care in a relative sense whether Planned Parenthood is given federal money or not. The left is crafty - the money will be diverted to some other place and then moved in where they want it to be. And more women will be hurt psychologically (at the least) for the rest of their lives. And our culture will have to deal with the manifestation of that pain in our families and in our relationships. As most of us already are but mostly unwilling to admit.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Women don't tell me how to treat my body, what right do I have to tell them what to do with theirs.

It's called freedom. Individual responsibility and mind your own business.

Even conservative women want the right to choose....
edit on 16-5-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world.... heck the nazis looked at american policies when they started their nightmare...

you can't have a eugenics program without some central control over who should be allowed to breed, who shouldn't. do you agree with that?
margaret sanger wasn't giving some central authority the power over who should be deciding this....
she was delivering the power to the ones who were bearing the babies!!! women... wealthy white women were already claiming that power by traveling to europe where it was legal to obtain it... those not so wealthy were kind of stuck with laws that prohibited such information to even be distributed. the women who chose her services did so of their own free will....
there's a massively big difference between the laws like Indiana's 1907 law and the work that sanger did....
and it is free will!!!

and, if you spend enough time reading through the posts on these boards you will soon learn that there are many it seems that still believe that a central power should have the ability to control who should or shouldn't be having babies.
me thinks that some one the right are all for selected breeding, they just object to who it is who is making the decisions at the present time... namely, the women who are, or aren't doing the breeding!



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Fools
The oddball thing is that now the west is all morally ok with abortion, the east (muslim peoples) are taking over because they do not get abortions - if they are true believers. So basically the social good of abortion will probably fail in the end because a religion refutes it and has more babies and soon becomes the majority.

Muslims aren't taking over in the west... That is just propaganda. Muslims still only make up around 1% of the total population in the US and 6% in Europe. Even with predicted growth rates neither of those percentages will exceed 10% any time soon.


It will happen. If policies do not change it will happen. You can pretend that it won't happen, but it will.

Lol. Great rebuttal. "It's going to happen. I have no data or basis to support this argument, but dammit my fears and insecurities tell me its true!"


Your own data proves it. In Europe, what was the muslim population in 1970? 1980? 1990? 2000? It is growing rapidly. European women have roughly 1 baby in their lifetime. Muslim women normally have at least 3. Simple arithmetic will get you numbers in 50 years that will make muslims in Europe a major block of the population.

In France the muslim population will more than double by 2050. While the native French population will actually decrease. The moderate forecast in France is that by 2050 about 12 percent of people in France will be muslim. Let's say it doubles again in 32 years. So by 2082, the population will be 24 percent muslim. At that time, France will begin to balkanize due to areas heavily populated by muslims declaring their areas separate from French law and under Sharia law. We will start to see this within 20 years in Europe if not sooner.

Here is one link, I suggest you perform your own searches though since the information is there to see if you just take the time to look for it.

www.thelocal.fr...
edit on 16-5-2018 by Fools because: linky



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

may I suggest that if you don't want muslims immigrating to your countries, you devout more time and resources into lifting up and making their own countries a more pleasant place to live than you do blowing their danged homes up with missiles???



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: NorthernLites

Why is it when you kill a pregnant woman they charge you with 2 homicides - the mother and baby? If you just kill the baby it is perfectly legal. The baby is not a person. If the baby isn't a person with legal rights how is it possible to be charged in the first case?


Because the mother and or father did not decide if they wanted the unborn human developing in them to die or not.
When people abort pregnancies it's because they don't want to bring someone into this world and have a terrible life, or for medical reasons, who knows there's hundreds of reasons. But at the end of the day it's the woman's body, it ultimately should be up to her and if the father is closely involved he should have a say as well.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: toms54

I saw an interesting quote that went something like

"Why is bacteria on Mars considered life, but an unborn child is not?"

I thought it was a pretty solid point.


It's a nonsensical strawman because that bacteria can survive on its own whereas a fetus is entirely dependent on the mothers womb for everything it needs to complete its development for at least the first 2/3 of gestation prior to birth. Miscarriages, which are a spontaneous abortion, occur very frequently in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and most women don't even know that they were pregnant let alone miscarried.

Should we punish those women for miscarrying? At what point do you consider a fetus to be life? The moment of gestation? when it develops eyes or a heartbeat can be detected? Or maybe when it's able to survive outside of the womb unaided by medical intervention? It's all pretty arbitrary with multiple overlapping grey areas depending on whether one is asking the question of a biologist, a mother, an Ob/Gyn, a nun or an evangelical Christian.

At which point is the fetus a clump of cells and at which point does it become a human being with rights when nobody can agree on these critical queries?




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join