Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 09:30 AM by ObamasLoveChild
Personally I find the 'Christianization' of our government to be among the most frightening legacy of the Bush admin. I just picked up Doubt is Their Product by David Michaels. Fantastic read for those of you interested in just how deep the corporatization of our government ran with Bush 2. In it he gives several examples of Bush 2's rabid Abstinence campaign. quote "Early in the Bush admin., the CDC pulled a fact sheet on proper condom use from it's website. It replaced....with one that stressed condom failure rates and promoted abstinence" "In 2005 the federal govt. spent $170 million on abstinence programs, more than double what was spent in 2001(although $100 million less than the pres. had requested.)" Perhaps the most frightening example was the outright lies of the National Cancer Institute. "In 2002 the NCI posted information on it's website that promoted the totally unsupported theory that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer." They were forced to remove it, but come on people!! There is a reason for church and state separation. We have all of these fantastic personal freedoms; to be for and against many issues, to speak our opinion of, etc. If we stomp on our constitution anymore, it will be as futile as your screams from inside those camps.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ObamasLoveChild] I truly did not mean for this to read like an ad for a book- I apologize. I did mean what I wrote however.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ObamasLoveChild]


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 10:47 AM by kattraxx
reply to post by sylph hugger



Also, if the plan is to depopulate the world, why prevent birth control?


If you were in control of the wealth and power of the world-- who would you want to get rid of, and who would you want more of? My answer: you'd get rid of citizens dissatisfied with the status quo, and you'd probably want to keep the easily-duped breeders of cheap labor.


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 03:14 PM by LostNemesis
reply to post by deltaboy



What in the world??? You think you people shouldn't have the right to decide they don't want a kid? Honestly the world would be a better place if my mom DID abort me. But I was no 'accident', and honestly, this doesn't affect me either, since I got fixxed shortly having my first and only child.

And I don't see how a couple acknowledging that they don't want kids, impedes on ANYONE'S rights. Not the unborn, and not the idiots that voted for bush.

I hope that birth control really never is abolished. People should not be forced to breed.


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 03:51 PM by burdman30ott6
reply to post by LostNemesis



Actually, there is a difference. The bill at least isn't defining physical barriers to fertilization as being abortificants. Only chemical or hormonal substances that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 04:44 PM by Johnmike
reply to post by dawnstar



This has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of pretty much all birth control. All this is talking about is hormonal contraceptives that abort a developing zygote. Pills which prevent a zygote from implanting, therefore chemically aborting the developing baby.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any forms abortion that prevent fertilization. At all.

All this is doing is defining chemical abortion as what it scientifically is. And again, complaining about this is nonsense.


And calling this "extremist" is absolutely political slander. Bull#.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Johnmike]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^