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 Reverse Bush Abortion Regulation

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Another fear mongering revelation courtesy of fox news. I notice most people now find it reason to get their information off neocon mouthpiece broadcasters.... what has ATS come to where we need to get our information off fox news for petes sakes?

I think this is good... however I believe ultimately the choice of abortion should be left up to the hospitals themselves. If doctors do not want to perform what the job requires them to your happy to leave to another hospital or a catholic or christian centered hospital. As the prior member said, if we are going to cater to one persons religious belief the next you know they will demand other things like not allowing gays equal treatment etc.

I believe abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest, however it appears the fox news fringe makes this out to be "no aborition or abortion" so you know what Ill stick with abortion. I understand God put us on this earth to make the wrong or right decisions by ourselves, just like God gave us the opportunity to choose whether we are religious or not. The Government has nothing to do with our personal and moral beliefs, and the founding fathers specifically stated seperation of church and state. The constitutional wacko fringe should know this by now.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I am very, very against it (abortion). It is sanctioning irresponsible behavior.
You want to have sex for fun - use contraception. If the child is conceived, killing it is also part of the fun?

Very bad thing to do. But, perhaps it is good business for some?


Telling people how they should behave always works, eh?

What is your solution to the issue of unwanted pregnancies in the event that everyone fails to do as they "should?"



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I believe abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest, however it appears the fox news fringe makes this out to be "no aborition or abortion" so you know what Ill stick with abortion. I understand God put us on this earth to make the wrong or right decisions by ourselves, just like God gave us the opportunity to choose whether we are religious or not. The Government has nothing to do with our personal and moral beliefs, and the founding fathers specifically stated seperation of church and state. The constitutional wacko fringe should know this by now.


Why should abortion be OK in any setting if one believes the fetus of possessing a human soul? That makes no sense to me, since the source of the fetus is no fault of the fetus itself, and if you believe you are somehow killing a human, why would it matter the circumstances of its arrival?

Far better to use God's benchmark, stating that the soul enters at first breath. Otherwise we commit the extreme sin of forcing a fetus to first breath only to abandon it to a future most likely to contain abuse and neglect. And that is on our heads.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorRusso
I don't see this as a "is the fetus a soul!" religious issue...

...I see this for what it really is is, Obama's attempt at killing white people off.

White people are the only people that can afford abortions and the only people that get them. Look at your average black family or mexican family they usually have at least 3 kids minimum. They don't get abortions.

But white women do. This is why Obama is pushing abortion so hard, he knows the facts. The current white birth rate is only 1.4 which means the white population shrinks by 60% every single generation. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that two people creating only one baby is subtraction, not addition. But meanwhile, the mexican families who have 5 or 6 kids are more than tripling their population each generations.

Obama knows that if abortion becomes more popular, the people who do it most (white people) will have an even lower birthrate than the already abysmally low birthrate that it is now.


Current trend puts the extinction of white/caucasion people at around the year 2300, when Obama is done you can bet your money it will be shortened to the year 2100 which is in our children's lifetimes!




[edit on 27-2-2009 by ProfessorRusso]


I'm sorry but this is an abysmal post.

You can look up for yourself that non-White ethnicities have about 40% of all abortions. That's already a big margine, but take into acount that these demographics you mentioned are also more likely to be prohibited from an abortion by religion or lack of insurace. And I will say this,. PC be damned, because they get more welfare for each kid they pop out and because with US laws as they are, provide an excuse to stay in the country legally.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Why should abortion be OK in any setting if one believes the fetus of possessing a human soul?


The argument for where life begins can go either way. We can argue the fetus has a soul to the point where another person can argue that "protected sex" is not allowing sperm to carry on their natural work and then we can outlaw protective sex while we're at it. Nobody, no one group can make the decision where life begins... that can only be left to the individual herself.

And if that individual does not think it is OK that individual is free to leave that job and free to express his or her opinion. Welcome to the land of the free where we dont restrict freedom to that of the rightwing fringe.

God put us on this earth to make decisions for ourselves, to decide whats wrong or right. God put us on this earth to decide whether we want to be religious or not.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
God put us on this earth to make decisions for ourselves, to decide whats wrong or right. God put us on this earth to decide whether we want to be religious or not.


Yes, we could argue the question of when a fetus becomes human. I am just rather perplexed as to why people who claim that it is human (has a soul) at conception in conflict with what their God has already given as the benchmark.

As for God... I have no dogma and believe that "God" genetically engineered us to be helpers and we were usurped into slavery by his half-brother. (I believe The Terra Papers are as close to the truth as we have).

So I personally would disagree with your statement above. And in fact, I think that the faction that took over from the "creator Gods" want us not to "make decisions for ourselves, to decide whats wrong or right," so much as believe what they tell us of some things, and believe one side of many things they tell us to divide and conquer us.

That's just me personally, of course.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by ProfessorRusso
I don't see this as a "is the fetus a soul!" religious issue...

...I see this for what it really is is, Obama's attempt at killing white people off.

White people are the only people that can afford abortions and the only people that get them. Look at your average black family or mexican family they usually have at least 3 kids minimum. They don't get abortions.

But white women do. This is why Obama is pushing abortion so hard, he knows the facts. The current white birth rate is only 1.4 which means the white population shrinks by 60% every single generation. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that two people creating only one baby is subtraction, not addition. But meanwhile, the mexican families who have 5 or 6 kids are more than tripling their population each generations.

Obama knows that if abortion becomes more popular, the people who do it most (white people) will have an even lower birthrate than the already abysmally low birthrate that it is now.


Current trend puts the extinction of white/caucasion people at around the year 2300, when Obama is done you can bet your money it will be shortened to the year 2100 which is in our children's lifetimes!




[edit on 27-2-2009 by ProfessorRusso]


I'm sorry but this is an abysmal post.

You can look up for yourself that non-White ethnicities have about 40% of all abortions. That's already a big margine, but take into acount that these demographics you mentioned are also more likely to be prohibited from an abortion by religion or lack of insurace. And I will say this,. PC be damned, because they get more welfare for each kid they pop out and because with US laws as they are, provide an excuse to stay in the country legally.


So that's ALL the other races combined that account for 40%, vs only the one race (white) which is 60%? My point is proven, then.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorRusso
 


NO it isn't because of the two socioeconomic points I brought up.

ANd, proportionally speaking to how many white vs. other ethnicities you have--it is about correct.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I am very, very against it (abortion). It is sanctioning irresponsible behavior.
You want to have sex for fun - use contraception. If the child is conceived, killing it is also part of the fun?

Very bad thing to do. But, perhaps it is good business for some?


Telling people how they should behave always works, eh?

What is your solution to the issue of unwanted pregnancies in the event that everyone fails to do as they "should?"


What is unwanted pregnancy?
The one preceded by crime? Rape?
You see, there are many things to take care before we come to "unwanted pregnancy" and I don't see that the measures taken by the society are doing any good, on the contrary.

So, this is why I recommend "responsible behavior", so people will not do stupid things anymore. If you consider that as "telling people how to behave", I think you have a serious problem discerning between arbitrary and responsible behavior.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Comparing fetus and baby reminds me of another comparison table and discussion from our history: Do black people have soul like white people?

This is a very dangerous and very bad line of thought to follow.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This should be the motto for "Pro-life" people.

LIFE IS FULL OF CHOICES...AS LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH US.

While pro life supports the birth of the fetus,

Pro choice supports the birth of the fetus and the abortion process.

All we need is more people in this world who criminalize and degrade society.

I imagine most abortions are already from teenagers/young adults with no real way of paying for the kid. That leads to misfortune, but that is not primarily what the topic is about.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
What is unwanted pregnancy?


Any pregnancy the woman wants to abort.


The one preceded by crime? Rape?


Sometimes, yes.


You see, there are many things to take care before we come to "unwanted pregnancy" and I don't see that the measures taken by the society are doing any good, on the contrary.


What things must we take care of?


So, this is why I recommend "responsible behavior", so people will not do stupid things anymore. If you consider that as "telling people how to behave", I think you have a serious problem discerning between arbitrary and responsible behavior.


People have been recommending "responsible behavior" since time immemorial. Does the suggestion always work? No. People are known for acting in the moment, without inhibition of thoughts on what is the most "responsible" choice.

And yes... Suggesting anything as being "responsible" is an underhanded way of trying to tell them what to do. How you deem that thinking there is an effort to tell people how to behave by defining what is "responsible" is equivalent to being incapable of discerning between arbitrary behavior and responsible behavior is beyond me.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Im pro-choice and think this is a good decision.Shouldn't have happened in the first place.Doctors should treat everyone equally or not be doctors at all.Next thing you know they will be refusing to treat gay people or black people because it affects their consciences..


That's a complete apples and oranges comparison.

One procedure involves TREATING people, upholding the Hypocratic oath to do no harm.

The other procedure involves TERMINATION of a life, which is clearly against the religion and/or personal beliefs of some people. Forcing them to do these procedures is a BAD idea, especially in a time when there is a massive shortage of health care professionals. This decision may just make a few more health care professionals leave the profession, opting to do the the right thing, as far as they are concerned, and find another job that will let them sleep at night.

Reversing this legislation is not only immoral, it's reckless!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Another fear mongering revelation courtesy of fox news. I notice most people now find it reason to get their information off neocon mouthpiece broadcasters.... what has ATS come to where we need to get our information off fox news for petes sakes?


The only reason you despise Fox News is because it doesn't play ball and kiss the butts of the liberal left like all the other media branches do. God forbid there should be a balance of coverage out there. We wouldn't want a diversity of opinions and people being presented with all of the facts now would we? We certainly don't a news agency that refuses to bow down before your president! :shk:

Pathetic.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Responsible behavior takes in consideration that the result of "having fun" may end as premeditated murder. That is my point.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Responsible behavior takes in consideration that the result of "having fun" may end as premeditated murder. That is my point.


And my point is that it is "murder" depending on your views. I cannot murder a sheep or cow - because they have no human soul. If God(s) has told me that the soul does not enter until first breath, only if I kill what has taken first breath is it murder. As I see it.

You may choose some other point to make your definition on, but the only "evidence" we have about when it is "murder" and when it is not is in the many scriptures worldwide.

So until abortion can be proven "murder," your benchmark (conception, I presume) is just as valid as mine (first breath) - except that I can point to scripture from the Christian God, as well as several others. You are merely presuming it is murder.

On top of that, I believe that all anti-choicers that are instrumental in forcing any fetus to its first breath should be required to raise and love all those they forced into this world to stem the more heinous crime of abandonment into the hands of those who do not want the now ensouled child, those who most often neglect and abuse such children.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


And you are free to determine what is a valid proof?
You even call God to help you!
What arrogance, just to satisfy your basic need to be irresponsible.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


And you are free to determine what is a valid proof?


ROFL! I did not say I had "proof," now did I? How bleeding disingenuous!


You even call God to help you!


I made no call to God. I merely pointed out that not only the Christian God but many others ALREADY GAVE US SOMETHING WE CAN USE. Not as "proof," darling. As evidence of a benchmark. More of that disingenuous creppola, dear?


What arrogance, just to satisfy your basic need to be irresponsible.


Excuse me? You just point out where *I* said I wanted to be irresponsible. In fact, please point out where I referenced myself at all (except to own opinions). I mean, how rude of you!

Arrogance seems more to belong on your side of things and colors your view, perhaps. Arrogance breeds disingenuousness.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Darling, you are looking for an excuse to justify what you are doing.
That is irresponsible behavior.
Responsible behavior is accepting consequences on your person, not projecting them on someone else, with or without a justification provided.

It is irresponsible to do things which will result in someone else's death. And looking for confirmation in the Bible or Anatomical atlas doesn't change that fact.

You're not sure "when" life begins, that should be enough not to do it.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Darling, you are looking for an excuse to justify what you are doing.
That is irresponsible behavior.


No, I'm not (and what am I doing...?). I'm trying to find a stance that takes in all the facts - the words attributed to Gods, as well as the very ugly, evil and heinous act of forcing a soul into the world and abandoning it.

Anti-choicers seem to feel that their responsibility to that soul ends at first breath. When nothing could be further from the truth.

But you can accuse me all you want. Doesn't make it so.


Responsible behavior is accepting consequences on your person, not projecting them on someone else, with or without a justification provided.


Huh? I am struggling to see the point of this statement. If I were to have an abortion, I would accept the consequences, no problem. I would not be projecting them on anyone. I would have my justifications, too. (See above.) Responsible behavior implies doing the best one can for all involved.


It is irresponsible to do things which will result in someone else's death. And looking for confirmation in the Bible or Anatomical atlas doesn't change that fact.


You prove that a fetus is a viable human and I will accept that aborting the development of the vessel is "killing someone."


You're not sure "when" life begins, that should be enough not to do it.


Why? Actually... Personally, I AM sure. But I can hold no one else to it. It has to do with the moment I heard my daughter take her first breath. I felt her hovering nearby until that point and could feel her enter with that breath.

But you can place your benchmark for your own pregnancies. You will never have the CHOICE of keeping the fetus until birth removed from you. Just don't tell me my benchmark isn't good enough for me.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join