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.

 

Vatican attacks US abortion move

page: 23
9
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The tax allocations were covered in previous posts.

I believe there are ways of exempting tax allocations because of religious belief - but I'm not positive.

Did I have any choice but to support Bush campaigning for his second term on tax payers money? I don't think so.

Perhaps churches need to start paying taxes - if they are going to stick their nose in politics and right of choice.




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Obviously - at my age - I came from an era of back alley abortions - women disowned by their parents - young women sent to homes and forced to give up their babies - etc. Also the Women's Liberation movement. I was once threatened with firing because I had a run in my nylons and didn't have a spare pair in my desk. Yes it was legal to fire a woman for almost any reason. When it comes to the Rights of Women - - I am a strong advocate and have paid my dues. This does not make me a man hater or radical.

It does make me say: "Men - its your turn"


You post represents a very interesting conundrum here with your answer for past discriminations and prejudices to do the same to the unborn and males.

May I ask a question?

What does a young male today owe to women for past issues that they had no part of, and what are women owed who also had not lived the experiences you have? As example, I was 13 in 1973, so I’m not sure what it is I owe to those who experienced past wrongs in their lives no matter what it was. Do you?

Statistics is a great tool, and with well over 30 years of collection we have a lot of it. Take your statement of “back alley abortions” that puts a picture of some gross back sweatshop with a guy holding a coat hanger in everyone's head. This is propaganda at it finest, for the majority of doctors that did illegal abortion prior to 1973 were the same people who did legal ones after that date.

The difference is in the cost; in they are mainly free now for many, and so pre and post 1973 abortion procedures were the same and so were the complications with legality not making them any safer. With this we also see the argument of health, rape, fetus development etc all seem to be the first choice when people argue for abortions, when in fact all of these reasons only represent 7% of why women have them.




[edit on 1-2-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

No. The argument is that a woman should have the choice because the fetus is growing in one of her organs. It has nothing to do with having a happy or successful life. It has everything to do with the fact that being pregnant means 9 months of carrying the child...and then having to spend 18 years raising the child.


Sucks to be responsible for your own actions....



Many times this is by herself because the man wants to run off or doesn't want to assume responsibility.


You like to use the words "many" "a lot" etc in your argument like they are emperical data....


Well I find a man who does not support a child just as bad as the mother who aborts it since both are responsible for the life and future life of the child.

So you have no problem then if a womam wants to keep a child and the dad doesn't then the dad should be able to have zero responsibility of the child? It seems in your logic both should have the choice.




Besides, if that's your argument. Many women get post-pardum depression after having a baby.


If with your own unbiased research it showed that abortions produce more mental illness problems than birth would you switch to my side of the argument in that abortions hurt society?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


My research is not biased. You seem to have difficulty separating an already existing, fully developed human being that's been born into the world with a fetus who is not yet developed and property of the mother.

Men don't have a choice in the matter, it's not their bodies that have to grow the fetus. Men can complain all they like but they will never be able to control a woman's uterus.

I will never change my side of the argument because even if I don't want to have an abortion or I think it's wrong for me, other women should be able to decide for themselves.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick


Men don't have a choice in the matter, it's not their bodies that have to grow the fetus. Men can complain all they like but they will never be able to control a woman's uterus.


So answer my question in should the man have a choice in supporting the child or not if he doesn't want it but the mother does?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No, once again...the man can not decide what to do with a fetus...that is the property of the mother. The man is responsible if this fetus becomes an actual, fully developed person that can live without being attached to the mother. After it is born, the child is the responsibility of the parents...before, being attached to the mother's uterus, it is only hers.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The tax allocations were covered in previous posts.

I believe there are ways of exempting tax allocations because of religious belief - but I'm not positive.

Did I have any choice but to support Bush campaigning for his second term on tax payers money? I don't think so.

Perhaps churches need to start paying taxes - if they are going to stick their nose in politics and right of choice.


I don't know whether it has anything to do with my religious belief or not. I simply hate globalists like Obama who wants to export abortion around the world in what I guess now is no longer a decision above his "Pay Grade" which tells me when I think about it , that now that he is President, he assumes he is God this time. Speaking of God, just what the hell do you think the Church is? a Building ? or is it those people called Tax paying Christians, you liberal baby killers keep trying to keep out of Politics by using the separation powers?

Religious "Folk" vote their collective concience sweetheart and their aint NO wall to separate that. If you don't like it MOVE to another country.

Bush never took a dime from you for his campaign unless you offered it and speaking of Presidents on this Super Bowl Sunday




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


No, once again...the man can not decide what to do with a fetus...that is the property of the mother. The man is responsible if this fetus becomes an actual, fully developed person that can live without being attached to the mother. After it is born, the child is the responsibility of the parents...before, being attached to the mother's uterus, it is only hers.


NO! This logic about getting past the labia seeing the light of day magically making you Person is BS! Do your homework Killer!

www.justanswer.com...

What makes you say it isn't a person when what you would do would make you a monster

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I'm not a killer, nor a monster. Once you detach from your mother you are your own separate being. Until then you are using her as a host until you can live without an umbilical cord. A woman has jurisdiction over her own uterus.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Ya know, I would rather see our tax dollars spent on having people like you, annie, mv2 and don spayed and neutered if all you can do is come to threads like this saying you are for choice when you can't even admit the truth when you are spitting out infront of all us. How stupid do you think people are. YOU want YOUR opinion to be the defacto decision on Birth Control and you want us to pay for it OTHERWISE WHY ARGUE .

At least I know why I am here, and that is so some young girl that may be on the precipice of commiting murder

DOESN'T LISTEN TO THE VAINITY AND SELFISH DELUSIONS OF YOUR MAJIK LOJIK



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I never said that everyone should always get abortions, I said that a woman should be able to decide what to do with her own uterus and the things therein. If you can not provide for a child, you shouldn't be having one.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 




No, once again ...the man can not decide what to do with a fetus ...that is the property of the mother. The man is responsible if this fetus becomes an actual, fully developed person that can live without being attached to the mother. After it is born, the child is the responsibility of the parents ...before, being attached to the mother's uterus, it is only hers.



I really liked the post which described for the man how to wear a bag (or pillowcase) around his neck for 270 days and add 8 oz to it every week until he took a strong laxative (purgative) to experience just a little bit of the task involved in being pregnant.

Actually, like child support, if the putative father will admit his responsibility despite the lack of “benefit of clergy” he is liable for all the costs associated with the pregnancy from day 1. But paying money is not equal to the Right of Choice which is the woman’s alone. If he refuses to come forward, or is unknown to the mother, then upon the birth of the child - or even a late term miscarriage - so that DNA can be collected, his bill will be back dated.

I don’t know if these ‘Facts of Life’ are taught in Middle School or not but they should be. It might - I say might - deter some young men?

Although I think it is the very height of social irresponsibility to have a child you cannot afford - mother and father - nevertheless, it is not the child’s fault. Unlike the Holy Writ which recommends the sins of the father pass to the 3rd and 4th generation, I think the baby is deserving of society’s help including money. Right away. The French once paid $100 a month to the actual custodian of every child up to about age 16. Of course, I would not give the R&Fs a dime! Rich and famous.

While we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, we can help the young single mother have a better life for her and her infant. It is to our advantage to do this. Republicans and Born Again Christians do not see it this way. They are punitive in their outlook on life, maybe because they are themselves the biggest of sinners? There is good psychological research pointing in that direction.

I love your posts, Ms T/T/M. Stay strong!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

No. The argument is that a woman should have the choice because the fetus is growing in one of her organs. It has nothing to do with having a happy or successful life. It has everything to do with the fact that being pregnant means 9 months of carrying the child...and then having to spend 18 years raising the child.


Sucks to be responsible for your own actions....


OUCH!!! hee hee

And THAT is the Bottom line Majik,, GROW UP! Life sometimes is NOT fair and the Government doesn't make happieness an entitlement and telling us your body shouldn't be doing EXACTLY what it is not only desiged to do after you do what you do, BUT IS SUPPOSED TO do when you are a female of our species, is asinine. You want to think your body is yours and yours alone?? Too bad you didn't have the presence of mind to take yourself out of this life when you were infecting YOUR mom eh?

Bet ya feel real guilty about that too don't ya babykiller



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


It is clear that you are going to continue your outlandish claims. My body is mine and mine alone, just like every other woman's. And seeing as how it doesn't need to be said again, read donwhite's post for my opinion.

It's MY choice to do whatever I want with MY uterus. You can complain about that all you like but you'll never have charge of my personal organ.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



Actually, like child support, if the putative father will admit his responsibility despite the lack of “benefit of clergy” he is liable for all the costs associated with the pregnancy from day 1. But paying money is not equal to the Right of Choice which is the woman’s alone. If he refuses to come forward, or is unknown to the mother, then upon the birth of the child - or even a late term miscarriage - so that DNA can be collected, his bill will be back dated.

I don’t know if these ‘Facts of Life’ are taught in Middle School or not but they should be. It might - I say might - deter some young men?

Although I think it is the very height of social irresponsibility to have a child you cannot afford - mother and father - nevertheless, it is not the child’s fault. Unlike the Holy Writ which recommends the sins of the father pass to the 3rd and 4th generation, I think the baby is deserving of society’s help including money. Right away. The French once paid $100 a month to the actual custodian of every child up to about age 16. Of course, I would not give the R&Fs a dime! Rich and famous.

While we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, we can help the young single mother have a better life for her and her infant. It is to our advantage to do this. Republicans and Born Again Christians do not see it this way. They are punitive in their outlook on life, maybe because they are themselves the biggest of sinners? There is good psychological research pointing in that direction.

I love your posts, Ms T/T/M. Stay strong!


Well their is much I can agree with here but your take on Biology and the wearing the 20lbs sack of flour is NOT even close to being accurate, in fact as we have seen in all physical areas of life when creatures adapt, this too is taken into account during pregancy and the females body starts comensating for the increased load gradually and ever sp perfectly placed just where its is best suited for her center of gravity including the increased muscle density to augment the extra weight. Regardless of that however is that NO such sympathy is given to those who eat to obese levels when it it there own gluttony that has caused this and THEY are responsible for their own actions so they sufer the consequences. If you do something to bring about the fact that something or someone else is brought into the the equation you know may be dependeant on you whether inside or outside that baby is dependant for a long time so this argument about it being unqualified to be a person because it is dependant is BS. The day majik wants to think that is what we are about is the day WE START FINDING EXCUSES TO KILL ALL HANDICAPPED ALL ELDERLY ALL UNEDUCATED AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I'm not a killer, nor a monster. Once you detach from your mother you are your own separate being. Until then you are using her as a host until you can live without an umbilical cord. A woman has jurisdiction over her own uterus.


See you are without excuse Majik because while you go on spewing your logical fallacies to rationalize guilt free sex without contemplating the ramifications and responsibilities, you display that you understood all long that YOU KNOW that what you do may be the cause for someones dependance upon it and one whose very life depends on it.

SO YES YOU ARE GUILTY OF PRE MEDITATED MURDER AND YOU USE SLICK SILLY SEMANTICS TO HIDE IT but none of us are fooled by this ignorant sophsitry

IPSO FACTO!



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


This is stupid. I am not guilty of premeditated murder. You're not making any sense. Until a child is born, it is not a separate life form from the mother. Moreover, people shouldn't be forced to bring children into this world that they can not afford. You can have your opinion that it's murder, but you can't legislate that opinion to apply to me or anyone else.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick


It's MY choice to do whatever I want with MY uterus. You can complain about that all you like but you'll never have charge of my personal organ.


Eee gads,, girl, to think I'd want to have anything to do with your "personal organ" and the type of person who allegedly owns it,,,

Someone, please,

shoot me



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Aermacchi, do you get as riled up over the killing that goes on in war?
You could do the world a favor if you and others of your mind would protest war with the same zeal.

So now that Obama is “exporting abortion” around the world, and you object to it; tell me what do you think about just spending that money sterilizing all these people instead?
That way abortion could be eliminated and no babies would be getting killed.

Here is another thought for you, and actually I think it is a good idea myself.
This would be for those seeking abortions who are past the 4th month.
Persuade them to wait till the 27the week; and then induce labor or do caesarian if necessary, to deliver a live baby. That way the woman sort of gets to have her cake and eat it too. If she has serious remorse about giving up the child she still has a chance to get it back.

Now of course you do realize that there is a waiting list for white babies, so they would never become a problem. However what would your plans for the non-white babies be? I’d like to see your thoughts on this.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Why do you insist on taking my words out of context? No one can tell any woman what to do with her uterus. Just like no one could legislate what men do with their penis.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join