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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


When someone kills a pregnant woman, it's a double murder, isn't it?

So how come you can decide to kill the embryo and it is not to be considered murder?

I know that there is a time limit to till when a woman can perform abortion, but that's pretty arbitrary, isn't it?

Therefore, first breath isn't the decisive event.

Besides, can getting pregnant really be an "accident"?
We all know how babies are made, so I don't see ignorance as excuse.
Change of plans, economical reasons, practical reasons - that is premeditation.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by DangerDeath]




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Instead of arguing "where life begins", which is something none of us can know (so must each decide for ourselves), I think we need to look at the regulations Bush put in place and Obama is rescinding. From the OP source:



Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.

The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.


So, health care professionals CAN refuse to do abortions for moral reasons. Obama supports that.

What Bush did was to threaten to cut off federal monies to institutions that didn't protect "moral objectors".

But that means that hospitals could refuse to give vaccinations, transfusions, family planning advice and birth control on the grounds of "moral objections" and still receive federal funding. That's what Obama is wanting to stop.

Federal law ALREADY protects doctors who refuse to do abortions. It's the other procedures (like blood transfusions) that Obama is concerned about. How would you like take your child into the emergency room of a federally funded hospital and have them tell you that the hospital refuses to give a transfusion because they morally object to it? And they are protected by the government?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
When someone kills a pregnant woman, it's a double murder, isn't it?


It shouldn't be, but it is. And here's why. That woman was planning to have a child. It was a potential part of her family. And someone took it without permission.

A woman who has an abortion does NOT intend for it to be her child in the future. She gives her permission.



Besides, can getting pregnant really be an "accident"?


Absolutely. That's like saying if you get in your car and drive downtown and someone hits you, that it's somehow not an accident. You know how car crashes happen. If you didn't want to get hit, you shouldn't have gotten in your car. You could have prevented it. That's ridiculous.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


When someone kills a pregnant woman, it's a double murder, isn't it?


To those who define it as such, I guess so. To those who would define it otherwise...not so much, eh?


So how come you can decide to kill the embryo and it is not to be considered murder?


Because I'm one that would not claim that the killing of a pregnant woman is a "double murder." That was easy to answer.


I know that there is a time limit to till when a woman can perform abortion, but that's pretty arbitrary, isn't it?


I guess so. For me, however, no matter how barbaric a "partial birth abortion" seems, i would call it procrastination and not murder - unless the vessel has taken first breath.


Therefore, first breath isn't the decisive event.


Only if you choose to believe it is not. Frankly, I do.


Besides, can getting pregnant really be an "accident"?


Absolutely. I have known people who got pregnant because the condom broke. I have even met one who was on the pill and got pregnant. Some rely on the rhythm method and made a mistake in calculation. That too was accidental.

And there is also ignorance. Some have believed one cannot get pregnant on the first time. And sometimes it is not an accident, in that the male lied and convinced the woman there was no way a pregnancy would result.

Sure, some lose their rational side in the heat of passion, but really, who hasn't? (In general - not speaking just of pregnancy.) So are we to saddle them with an infant they do not want? More to the point... Are we to force that fetus to first breath and then abandon the resulting child to neglect, abuse and poverty (as is the case most often)?

Anyway, yes. Many pregnancies are accidents.


We all know how babies are made, so I don't see ignorance as excuse.


Oh, it most assuredly could be. See above. Between bad information and the propensity of some males to lie... Ignorance can easily come into play.


Change of plans, economical reasons, practical reasons - that is premeditation.


Premeditation of what? Of saying, "OMG. I can't support this life! If someone offers to give the eventual baby some kind of life, then I can justify keeping this pregnanciy. If not, I cannot justify putting anyone through what they would experience coming into this situation." ?

And you really haven't addressed your responsibility for any you would force into this world.

Please. Do that now and justify why you are not responsible should you have a hand in forcing a birth.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Amaterasu]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Absolutely. I have known people who got pregnant because the condom broke. I have even met one who was on the pill and got pregnant. Some rely on the rhythm method and made a mistake in calculation. That too was accidental.


The "accident" here relates to condom, not to conception.
It is not accident if a woman gets pregnant when the egg meets the sperm.
This is all twisted to suit your idea.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So, accidental pregnancies never happen? Every conception is meant to be?

That seems to be what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


To tell you the truth if people have moral issues while working in the line of work the chose then my friend these people are in the wrong line of work.

Either that or they are in the line of work the are with moral issues following personal agendas linked to groups that back their so call moral issues.

I am Glad hat Obama will reverse Bush Abortion regulations.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Yes, that is what I am saying.

The problem is whether it fits into one's plans or not. That's why I say abortion is irresponsible. Only because of that. It has nothing to do with accident.

I didn't even question the value of life as such. For some people life is sacred, but if you look carefully around yourself you will notice that life devours life without any restraint in respect to sacredness.

It is a problem of responsible behavior, just that.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So you follow the same doctrine as the American Life League (ALL).

A radical antiabortion group that seems to think that when it comes to fetuses women have no rights over their bodies.


Mission

American Life League, which claims to have 300,000 members, aims to persuade Americans and Catholics about its views on abortion, birth control and euthanasia. ALL is involved with issues pertaining to the sanctity of life, with an emphasis on abortion. American Life League describes itself as "pro-life—without exception, without compromise, without apology." ALL's mission is to end all forms of abortion without any exceptions for the life and health of the woman, rape, incest, fetal abnormality, viability, or IVF. According to its president, "Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life."


en.wikipedia.org...

With this people and their way of thinking in the name of God we don't need terrorist.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


No, I don't even know about this organization.

I am saying, and I'm gonna use a parable here:

The fact that wood burns is not an accident. The accident is if you put it to fire unintentionally, by mistake, or some other unwanted reason.

It doesn't mean that the wood is responsible for picking on fire. It is still your responsibility because you caused it to burn.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I have stressed personal responsibility in my posts, because I know that it is the most sensitive and decisive issue in one's personal development.

It is very interesting to observe to what extent people are ready go to avoid being responsible.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


You are entitled to your opinion and I won't argue over it.

But, accidents happen. 2 people can take all the precautions in the world, and an accidental pregnancy can occur. It isn't planned, it isn't wanted, it isn't needed, and for the two people involved, it is an accident.

While I don't see abortion as a form of birth control, it is an option that should be available to women who want or need it. I am all for that choice.

As to Obama's reversing of Bush's "moral objection" regulation.....I don't believe that a doctor should have to perform an abortion if he/she does not want to. But, I do believe that the doctor should refer a patient to a doctor that will perform the abortion. I also believe that doctors, especially OBGyns, should not be allowed to deny women, married or not, birth control.

As for pharmacists.....give out the medications that people have scripts for. Give out the morning after pill. People don't go to the pharmacist for moral judgements.

If you have a moral objection to parts of your job, maybe it isn't the right job for you. JMO...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
The fact that wood burns is not an accident. The accident is if you put it to fire unintentionally, by mistake, or some other unwanted reason.

It doesn't mean that the wood is responsible for picking on fire. It is still your responsibility because you caused it to burn.



Yes, it's your responsibility that the wood is on fire. And isn't the next responsible thing to put the fire out? Or is it responsible to let the accident go unchecked and just sit there and watch the house burn down?

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
It is very interesting to observe to what extent people are ready go to avoid being responsible.


No one is avoiding responsibility. You have made the judgment that abortion is irresponsible. I'm just wondering why you think it is. Depending on the circumstances, it can be the most responsible thing to do.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 
er

Tell me about it, my second child is a prime example of this, accidents do happen.

I was on the pill for one year and half when my doctor decided that the dose was to high so he changed to a lower dose pill.

One month later I found out I was expecting again. This was not god's miracle it was a doctors divine intervention.


The plans to space my pregnacies to 4 years apart went out of the door.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


I am sure you are not and that your personal opinions is your choice. that group I am talking about has become very vocal and they has been pushing their views in the form of bills that already three states has been looking into.

Thankfully Colorado's voters gave them a slap on their face when they voted against one the antiabortion bills in that state during the last general elections.

Still they are working and working hard on other states.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Yes, it's your responsibility that the wood is on fire. And isn't the next responsible thing to put the fire out? Or is it responsible to let the accident go unchecked and just sit there and watch the house burn down?


That is another issue. Not all fires are dangerous.
Are you saying that all accidental conception should be treated by abortion?




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Of course not.

But, it isn't an option that should be taken off the table, either.....or villified or demonized, for that matter.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


How politics is involved in solution of this problem is another matter. I'm sure that in politics there are no moral or honest reasons. And I am against all dogmatic or indoctrinating solutions being imposed on people.

I hope you're happily enjoying unrestrained development of your "accident".



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Well he is now 22 years of age, I had him as I was already married to a very loving husband and already had a child now 25.

Thankfully I am still marry to the same loving husband but while I am lucky many out there are not.

Circumstances should never be ignore when issues of abortion become part of somebody's life choices.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join