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.

 

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I have to agree that it seems strange she would be putting herself at risk of getting pregnant if she knew she didn't want kids and stuff, but yeah.....BABIES ARE GROSS!
They really are....




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
You often hear about the psychological problems that abortion could cause a women, and well, personally I don't think the problems aren't as widespread as is claimed. But, I kind of get the feeling that this person may have had some problems after her abortion, and well, the green thing is just her way to justify the act to herself maybe?

[edit on 24-11-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I think you might have hit the nail squarely on the head.

It's perhaps her way of justifying a decision that has 'shocked' her.




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
is there still an ignore feature on ATS? This thread is a great example of a prime candidate for such a feature. I did a search, and all I saw were complaints about having an ignore button from a couple of years ago.

Consider this a complaint that it's now missing.


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Ignore is at the bottom of the user's mini profile. Below their point count. Note there is a 10 user limit though. Which totally sucks.



 


Originally posted by masqua
What I can't understand is why, with all the products out there to prevent pregnancy and coupled with her 'green stance', she got pregnant in the first place.

I guess hemp condoms break.

Psychological trauma wouldn't surprise me. I've seen girls get really, really screwed up in their 20s because of an abortion they had when they were 16. And this woman's first marriage ended for some reason. I doubt it was because they "grew apart."



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
she won't kill animals (vegetarian) BUT SHE WILL KILL HER OWN BABY?????

WHATS WRONG WITH HER?! *yells in frustration at the total stupidity of her logic*

who values animal life over human life?



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I've flipped front to cover on my "HANDBOOK FOR EARTHLY EXISTENCE" and I don't see it stated anywhere that females are obligated to procreate during their time on this planet.

*over and out*



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 



As opposed to the 50% failure rate anyways?

It wouldn't be because of the horrible examples set by the nuclear generation would it?

If they are running around at 15 the problem was there long before the abortion.


This is one silly girl saying something stupid, who, like the PP said could be using it as an excuse.

She should of given the baby up for adoption because that would of been like recycling.


[edit on 24-11-2007 by nixie_nox]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GENERAL EYES
 


It doesn't... Not even remotely. What is the point of discussion is here "militancy" regarding her decision. Untold millions have forgone the act of procreation, yet there is a need to report on this person? An agenda is afoot here... An agenda that I have a great disdain for. The "Green movement" smacks of fundamentalism and "they" seem all to eager to tell others how to live... Maybe there is a reason they called it "Soylent Green."



Harry Harrison Monkeys, not just for the Stainless Steel rat anymore...



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Anybody who says that there is an over population problem on Earth needs to take a road trip straight through the middle of the United States and then up to Alaska. The technology is within our reach to feed a population of hundreds of billions without destroying the planet. I'm not saying that we should reach that level, what I am saying is that the situation isn't so dangerous that we need to begin worshiping death.

Doesn't it also seem wrong that an individual who thinks it's evil or bad to have a child, goes ahead and has sex? I mean these people are preaching the virtues of nature so by their own logic having sex for pleasure is unnatural. These people are so deluded, they're ignorance makes them hypocrites. If you're willing to have sex you should accept the fact that you might produce a child, despite all of the birth control methods in the world (minus surgery). But these people who don't think anybody should have children have an ethical obligation to refrain from having sex.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by elusivetruth
she won't kill animals (vegetarian) BUT SHE WILL KILL HER OWN BABY?????

WHATS WRONG WITH HER?! *yells in frustration at the total stupidity of her logic*

who values animal life over human life?

The answer to your question is people with different values. Just because you think your values are right doesn't mean that they are right. Different things are important to different people.

Maybe I think people who watch football instead of reading a book are stupid. That doesn't make me right. It just makes me different. It also makes me a judgmental horse's a**.

Stop judging people using your own values. Life doesn't work that way and it's one of the reasons we can't come together as a species.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


i don't want to hear your moral relativism bs. moral relativism = being able to justify anything that is wrong because people have 'different values'.

i believe in the sanctity of human life, and i have a right to judge anyone as immoral who does not believe that human life is precious and to be valued and not murdered.

the reason why our species cannot come together is because we do not value human life, we go to war, we murder our own children. we are barbaric.


back to the original thread:
i have to say this article portrays people who have lots of children as eco destroyers. it's fine not to have children, but to kill your own child, and use some lame excuse about saving the environment...well thats being liberal for you.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by elusivetruth
 

All you've proven with your response is that you're an intolerant, judgmental creature who could care less about a woman's right to control her own body.

The Vatican loves people like you. You keep mankind from advancing.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
All you've proven with your response is that you're an intolerant, judgmental creature who could care less about a woman's right to control her own body.

The Vatican loves people like you. You keep mankind from advancing.

What's wrong with you? Relative morality is one thing, but simple human value is something so concrete that it's simply a matter of good and evil. You can hide behind the whole relativism bull#, but disregard for humanity and human life is an idiotic and downright evil thing. It's the fruit of two hatreds - the hatred for the self and the hatred for others, and the latter is derived from the former.

Idiots and and anti-humans keep humanity from advancing. Those of us who take pride in ourselves and our logic move it forward.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mirthful Me
 


Funny I just said this to my boss today. People in general should have to have a home study done prior to being able to concieve. Most people I see who have children, and I see tons of them because of the type of business I am in, shouldn't own a dog, let alone be allowed to raise a child.

This woman made a decision...good for her....even crazy people are allow to make their own decisions when their medication is working properly



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 

Frankly, men will never understand life from a woman's perspective. That's your handicap in this sort of discussion. You hate it that this is a topic where you cannot prevail because your part of the bargain is a minor contribution to a complex process. What galls you is that you can't do it without us, but we can do it without you.

We have the power now and we're not letting go of it. Get used to it.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Frankly, men will never understand life from a woman's perspective. That's your handicap in this sort of discussion. You hate it that this is a topic where you cannot prevail because your part of the bargain is a minor contribution to a complex process. What galls you is that you can't do it without us, but we can do it without you.

We have the power now and we're not letting go of it. Get used to it.

I think it's less that I can't see it from your perspective and more that I try to use logic. What the hell are you talking about?


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Even if we had the opportunity, we simply wouldn't have the time...

Let me plow my proverbial tractor into the chicken coop of this small, hopefully short lived debacle.

Something goes from being alive to not being alive. The interpretation of that fact and its implications, or lack of implications, is subjective morality.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
While I think the reasons are a little cracked, I don't see the problem here. This is like freedom of speech in a way. The right to be a mother. It goes both ways. Just because you have the freedom to speak your mind does not mean you are required to if you choose not to. Isn't it logical by extension that she can exercise her right to NOT be a mother?

As for population control via male depletion, your logic is flawed.
A male can sire hundreds of kids, and can cause pregnencys at least daily as long as his sperm count stays high enough. He can impregnate multiple females in a day. A woman on teh other hand can "take' a hundred males in a day but can only get pregnant by one, and then is out of the running for 9 months. During that time, the male can go off an impregnate more females. So, if you want to control population, you have to start at the female side of things. taking a male out of the gene pool does nothing, since there can easily be another male to take his place. The female side is the limiting factor.Seeing as that could easily cut into my chances of a date on friday night, I'd be against it, but if they want to sterilize themselves, well, their choice for their reasons to their own body.


I agree though, forcing it on others is wrong, encouraging others to see it your way and supporting them in that is fine though.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
the idea that abortion indicates a lesser valuing of human life, and thus, a civilization more prone to barbarity is flawed!
for throughout human civilization, more often than not, abortion was considered a no no, herbalists were burned at the stake as witches, not because they did good by handing out remedies to cure peoples sicknesses, but only because there was one concoction that they might of handed out.....something to induce abortion!!! I'm sorry, but burning people at the stake is a pretty barbaric thing to do for me!! so isn't enslaving people, and throughout humanity's existance, they have been doing that one also. never mattered weather or not the women were given the choice to end a pregnacy or not. matter of fact, this is probably why abortion was considered such a no no....the women were the property of the men, any offspring she might have been carrying were the property of men,.....and how dare her deprive the man of his property!

many of the native american tribes didn't have this taboo, and the women would, out of compassion for the new life, postpone it's arrival into our world if there wasn't a good harvest or there was a war in progress....or when the white man came to try and tried to enslave them..their reasoning was that it would be cruel to bring a new life into the world if it wasn't free, or if it was just gonna starve, ect.

and where, may I ask is this value of life, after the child is born, when it would really matter in many children's lives? we don't seem to have a problem dropping bombs on the children in third world nations, we don't seem to have a problem fighting to take their food stamps, their health care away from them. or when we pile a ton of debt onto them and their children? the child next door of you could be hungry...would you care?

this lady was only 16 when she made this decision, for all you know, her father gave her a choice between abortion, or homelessness....
but look at all the judgements made against her....


[edit on 25-11-2007 by dawnstar]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join