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.

 

JUST IN: Trump defunds Planned Parenthood

page: 34
68
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So it would seem that if the pregnancy or the fetus pose harm to a woman's health (physically, mentally and emotionally) then the woman should be able to legally abort in self defense, just like war machines that legally kill in the name of defense (or self defense).

I know yous means every yous.




posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Or her means to provide for herself and family.
And how many times have people tried to justify war because "they threaten our way of life"...

But, I've been playing on this thread how many days, just centering on those instances where there's complications with the pregnancy and it does seem like at least a few seem to that the fetus should have rights that far outweighs that of the mother and her family members.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

Or her means to provide for herself and family.
And how many times have people tried to justify war because "they threaten our way of life"...

But, I've been playing on this thread how many days, just centering on those instances where there's complications with the pregnancy and it does seem like at least a few seem to that the fetus should have rights that far outweighs that of the mother and her family members.


I believe it leaves a woman as simply a reproductive end without any rights and that it unethical. Also known as ethical despotism and, in this case, punishes women to serve their beliefs.

We have been on this thread many days because it is such an important issue for women's rights and deserves the attention.



edit on 18CDT10America/Chicago037101031 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I just want to know at what age they plan on stripping those rights from the little girls. It has to be at an early age since the I think the youngest child to have ever given birth was something like six years old..



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Oh, and, I've read through those new rules a few times. Part of it seems to be to make family planning a family affair. They have it worded so that it sounds like its addressing just minors, but I am wondering if it could also be I interpreted to mean bringing the husband or sex partner into the picture.. which might have some good points, unless of course it leads down the path to women need their hubby's permission to get birth control.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

I just want to know at what age they plan on stripping those rights from the little girls. It has to be at an early age since the I think the youngest child to have ever given birth was something like six years old..


Good question.



Liberty is the right to do what the law permits. Montesquieu




No kingdom has shed more blood than the kingdom of Christ. Montesquieu



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

Or her means to provide for herself and family.
And how many times have people tried to justify war because "they threaten our way of life"...

But, I've been playing on this thread how many days, just centering on those instances where there's complications with the pregnancy and it does seem like at least a few seem to that the fetus should have rights that far outweighs that of the mother and her family members.


Be irresponsible and get pregnant. Then kill a child because you cant afford it?

Lolz🤪



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
Oh, and, I've read through those new rules a few times. Part of it seems to be to make family planning a family affair. They have it worded so that it sounds like its addressing just minors, but I am wondering if it could also be I interpreted to mean bringing the husband or sex partner into the picture.. which might have some good points, unless of course it leads down the path to women need their hubby's permission to get birth control.


Why would that be wrong? What if the woman lies and says she is on birth control but isnt? The father doesnt want to murder the baby but women's rights are the be all end all?

Lolz

🤪



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: tanstaafl

Medicare and Medicaid audits occur on a regular basis and are extremely thorough.

Yes, yes, yes - unless the auditors are in collusion.


If you actually believe they haven't "opened their books," then you have been blinded by Right Wing propaganda.

Or, I have some experience with how government actually works.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

No weigh the damage that could be done to your living breathing children who are depending you if the complications a pregnancy causes interfere too greatly that you fear you will not be able to fulfill those needs against the loss of a potential child being b purn into the world...
It seems you are making the same mistake that the gun rights accuse the left of doing...lumping everyone who gets pregnant as being irresponsible and using that as justification to take the tool away from everyone.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Think I said something about the women needing the husbands permission to get the birth control..

And, you fail to see anything wrong with that?



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Think I said something about the women needing the husbands permission to get the birth control..

And, you fail to see anything wrong with that?


Since when did a woman have to get a mans permsision to use birth control?
Why would anyone even bother answering your question on whether they see anything wrong with that when it's not reality?



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Think I said something about the women needing the husbands permission to get the birth control..

And, you fail to see anything wrong with that?


Since when did a woman have to get a mans permsision to use birth control?
Why would anyone even bother answering your question on whether they see anything wrong with that when it's not reality?


She was referring to making family planning a family affair, thereby including the partner in on that decision. Overreaching again, I see UKT.

Actually, if Trump and his Evanglical base have their way, women would not be allowed at all to use birth control.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

One of the Carolinas have an unenforceable abortion law on the books that allows women to obtain abortion up to a point, no problem. But I think it's around the point of viability that she needs two doctors to certify that the pregnancy is posing danger to her health or life.. but even when its certified that her health or life is at risk, all of the sudden she needs the permission of her husband to get it which she didn't need if it was at an earlier stage...
Just seems to me that the husband would lose much of his say about it once there's a couple doctors around saying, hey, there's a good possibility that she is gonna die!!

But, when I posted that, I thought that it took a supreme court case to throw out laws that did require a women have his perrmission to obtain the pill, but I couldn't find anything like that when I went back and looked so I may be wrong. It might have been laws that legalized the use of the pill for unmarried women... which didnt happen at the same time as it was legalized for married women..
Considering how these new rules allow title x recipients to avoid doing anything their conscious might tell them is wrong...or thay might just want to say they think is wrong... and still get title x funding which it appears there might be more availability of,
Along with the two historical facts above I think what I am saying if far less slippery of a slope than the idea that gun registration or banning weapons that gives the person the ability to spit out 20 or so bullets in less than a minute is gonna be so slippery we are gonna slide to the point where there are coming to take the poor hunters hunting rifle and leave him to starve to death.
edit on 25-8-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

No weigh the damage that could be done to your living breathing children who are depending you if the complications a pregnancy causes interfere too greatly that you fear you will not be able to fulfill those needs against the loss of a potential child being b purn into the world...
It seems you are making the same mistake that the gun rights accuse the left of doing...lumping everyone who gets pregnant as being irresponsible and using that as justification to take the tool away from everyone.


What if you have 3 kids and lose your job? Which child gets murdered in this scenario if times get tough? Do you draw straws or just pick your least favorite?

Lolz

You ain't making any sense lady

🤪



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Did I lose my job because the kid is making me so physically sick that I cannot function well enough to care for the kid? And, if by chance that was the case, odd as that would be, why wouldn't separating the child from the mother be a better solution?
edit on 25-8-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Did I lose my job because the kid is making me so physically sick that I cannot function well enough to care for the kid? And, if by chance that was the case, odd as that would be, why wouldn't separating the child from the mother be a better solution?


So like adoption?

Lol

Why are you so in favor of using abortion as birth control? That is a crazy platform to be behind lady....

But

🤪



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

I've been just sticking to cases where abortion would be used for valid medical reasons on this thread..
And, I dont believe adoption would be a suitable solution if the problem is a pregnancy complication is causing a debilitation that is severe enough that she cant physically lift her small child safely out of the crib they are in, or prepare a meal for them or herself, or it its gonna cause damage to internal organs that will impair her for the rest of her life, make her a candidate of a long term hospitalization, or possibly kill her.
Heck, women have been known to spend quite a bit of money at fertility clinics and had to make this kind of choice. The problem isnt that they dont want the kid, the problem is that the pregnancy is harming them physically..



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TemplarLoyalty
a reply to: Fallingdown "won't hurt Trump in the least". Pretty hard to hurt a President who hasn't risen above a 43% approval rate since he took office. lmao.



Wow that’s a completely original statement !

Thanks for the new and interesting take on things .
edit on 25-8-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 05:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
68
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join