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.

 

Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Groups Providing Abortions Overseas

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Truth
 


It's cool with me. I was doing the same. I didn't mean "you" personally, I meant it merely in an objective situation. Simply stating why I support it.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Also just because you believe something to be wrong with all of your heart doesn’t mean you can protest the funding, even if it is partially made up from your tax dollars. I don’t support the war in the Middle East; some people don’t support social security. Just because you’re against it doesn’t mean you have a right to be taken off the taxing list. That’s not how a government operates; again this is not Obama’s fault.


I believe it is murder, infanticide. Knowing that how could it be wrong of me not to want my money used for this.

Why not have these programs paid for by those who don't believe the killing is wrong. We are not talking about getting a tummy tuck here. We are talking about the ending of another human life for convenience.

I'm not even suggesting that it be outlawed here. I'm only asking that those who believe it is morally wrong not be forced by the government to pay for it.

Planned Parenthood, a private company by the way, recently fought a law that would protect health care workers from being fired if they refused to participate in the killing of a child. My statement about that did not come out of the blue. They want them forced to participate in what they believe is murder. Exactly how reasonable is that?

Nobody is being fooled here. Everyone knows that abortion is principally used for a form of birth control as a convenience. To amorous to go to the store for a condom, who cares as the baby can just be killed later. I don't think that people in other countries are so dumb they don't know where babies come from. They will use this the same way.

Please, don't force me to help pay for the millions of babies being slaughtered. Please, let those who are for this pay for it themselves. There are plenty of you out there. Many of you are very rich. Please pull out your wallets and put your money where your mouth is.

What a bizarre world we live in. If I kill a wild animal I can go to jail. If I kill a baby, I'm doing the right thing.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynn112
I see a lot of people talking about choice. Well, IMO, we do all have a choice. Our choice is to have sex. If we have sex, pregnancy is just one of the possible outcomes of that choice. It does not matter if you use birth control, none of them are 100% effective and we are told that.
....



That is a nice sentiment, but please realize that most of these programs spend a lot of their dollars (attempting to) help woman in countries that are so dirt poor that they have no choice but to prostitute themselves.

They don't have the luxury of choosing not to have sex like we do. It is a choice between remaining "pure," and getting food in their mouths and in the mouths of any children they might have.

And to make it worse this often happens where AIDS is rampant. They more than anyone need the BC--we might not have the power to fix their country's situation but at least we can help protect their health. Yet some people who put religious beliefs before human life would attempt to withhold even condoms from them.

That is why I think it is criminal to instate and abuse legislation like this.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I wonder if it has anything to do with what this thread is talking about.


I believe in a woman's right to choose.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Meh, it is well known that republican mostly care only about unborn babies. Over population is a real problem in africa. So OMG dont have an abortion! Its much more better to have a baby and have it starve to death a few years after, its the christian way!

And never mind that abstinance only program do not work. Or that people desperate enough will try to perform it on themself with often dire result.

ATS look more and more like freerepublic, what with the abundance of people that would still see Obama as the anti-christ no matter what he would do.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Why not have these programs paid for by those who don't believe the killing is wrong.


I don’t have a problem with that but this is an unrealistic ideal currently. It is simply not how government funding works. I wish I didn’t have to contribute financially to the wars, but currently I don’t have that choice. I was simply pointing out that this is not Obama’s fault or others in Washington; this is the way it has worked for a long time. If you wish to complain about it then you have every right to try and have this reformed, to reach out and protest and lobby politicians.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Please, don't force me to help pay for the millions of babies being slaughtered.


Again, this is not just funding abortion. This funding is important to educate those regions, to save people from unplanned pregnancies and STDs.

Again, I’m not forcing you; the government is because this is the way funding works. I don’t have a problem with you protesting this; I’m simply telling people blaming Obama about the reality of the situation.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Here is the irony, several posters think this decision is wonderful and fully support Obama or think these poor people in these countries don't have a chance at a better life without this opportunity. Some may even think this is our duty; since we the West have so much. That we should "spread the wealth"around.

Forget for a moment the hard core stance we have taken on abortion. Let's look at the bigger picture. Are the same people who support the lift of this ban, the ones who are "embarassed to be an American?", or the ones who call the U.S. "War mongers"? or the ones who call the soilders murderer's.? How come, regardless of the issue you have with this ban, the "murdering, busy body, bullying U. S. Is ALWAYS the first country to bail somebody out? Not with just dollars, but anything else they would need? So is the United States still the same "bad guy"? I mean how can we be? Most here have proclaimed they think this is the best thing since'sliced bread'.So which is it, U.S. killers or saviors?

Just something to think about.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 



So which is it, U.S. killers or saviors?


They're both. It's hard for a huge superpower to not be both the "good" and the "bad" guy. Nothing is black and white, everything is grey. Obama is helping to restore the "savior" side already. With Bush and Congress' wars and Bush's mentality America was indeed becoming the "killers". That's simply my opinion, it's not one I care to debate and I'm sure many have good reasons for disagreeing with me.

A good country has those in it who are willing to admit when it has done wrong and when shame is necessary; that's the only way we'll ever evolve into a better nation.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


If you read back over the thread you will see that most of us who said "This is good" prefaced that with "I wish the money would stay here though..."



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


A fetus does not know if its existence. It doesn't have thoughts. It doesn't remember. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't say, "Oh, I hope I am born".

Do you eat meat? Murderer.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by paxnatus
 


A fetus does not know if its existence. It doesn't have thoughts. It doesn't remember. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't say, "Oh, I hope I am born".

Do you eat meat? Murderer.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Irish M1ck]





[edit on 22/1/2009 by n0b0DY]

[edit on 22/1/2009 by n0b0DY]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
To all supporters of abortion
Picture your first memory, the faces of those who loved and cared for you, the first moments you experienced the feelings, trials and triumphs that come with being alive
Pain and comfort, need and want, worry and security
Fear of dying, fear of losing loved ones, frustration and anger, despair and helplessness,
Consolation,
finding meaning, adversity, overcoming adversity, forgiveness, joy, happiness, first kiss, first date, first time you admired the stars the mountains the valleys the ocean,
hope, beauty, love… life.
Imagine every day you have ever lived, imagine every thought you have conceived, every breath you have breathed, every dream you have dreamt, and all the time you have spent wastefully or sparingly
Now imagine it gone. Darkness, blackness, the cold steel scraping you from life, the heat of the incinerator wiping your existence from this earth, forgotten, denied, unloved, unwanted, no more.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 



Now imagine it gone.


Why? That’s not what a fetus experiences. They are never aware of what you speak of. Imagining being aborted is a moot point. You were not aborted, you are alive. To compare a life to one that will never take place is a poor comparison. I support abortion in the beginning of a pregnancy, when the fetus can not survive outside of the womb. At that point they are much closer to none existence than being a baby.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
So a new born baby can survive without its mother, outside of the fetus?
A new born has no memory and is completely dependent on its mother, what’s the difference between destroying a new born and a fetus? Apart from you can see it hear it and it now has an emotional attachment

I’m simply saying you should imagine if your life was aborted, and that what you experience is what an aborted life would experience if unmolested
It is an unnatural elimination of life, a choice is made and a life wiped from providence
Would you have any protest if this happened to you? I surely would, I wouldn’t care if I was born in Zimbabwe with aids and cholera in a fly ridden swamp, and died shortly after, life is the most precious gift we have been given not free choice! I would rather have lived and experienced, then to have never lived at all



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


And what about all of the kids not born because of condoms?

reply to post by n0b0DY
 


Oh, did you have a different opinion?

At least have the balls to put the image up.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I think condoms are a bit different to scraping a fetus from a mother’s womb

If a life has been conceived and a person or persons choice to unnaturally destroy that life
This constitutes abortion

… id rather not divulge on the act of using a condom, but it is clearly different to destroying a conceived life and off topic



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


Not really. Both abortion and condoms do what people most often complain about: they deny life, they take away the ability to live, and they keep the potential person from having a say.

It's not like once the sperm hits the egg it becomes a person who is thinking, feeling, wishing, hoping, loving, hating, etc. It's still just a bunch of cells waiting to grow into a person.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The difference is that the aborted fetus is a bunch of cells that is already life
Not potential
Just because it’s small and doesn’t cry mummy doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
It does exist



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


Yeah, but isn't it the potential that is what causes all of the ruckus? No one cries about any other loss of life. No one cares about a plant dying or a cow being slaughtered.

It's not the "life", its the potential for life that everyone cares about.

Neither the fetus nor the baby that never got formed due to birth control have any idea that they exist, that they could exist, or that they might not exist.

And I just can't buy it. Why is it that the people who want every possible life to be born are the first who will leave it at the doorstep hungry, with no education, and no public aid? Pro-lifers want to add 20,000 new babies into the world, but aren't willing to fork out a dime to help bring those babies up (and you know those are the babies that are going to need that money the most).

It's like George Carlin said, "they're all in favor of the unborn, but once you're born, 'you're on your own' (shows middle finger)."

"Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months, after that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear about you, know nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no food stamps, no school lunch, no nothing.

If you are pre-born, you are fine, if you are pre-school, you're #$#*$@"

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Irish M1ck]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join