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.

 

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
Human anatomy does not decide adoption rights. People do. And unfortunately, the majority of people seem to take it upon themselves to judge innocent, loving individuals, just like you are doing right now.

Dude, firstly calm down
the mere tone in your posts shows that you are only giving emotional responses and not logical ones.

Human anatomy decides whether you can reproduce or not, yes it does.

You cannot have it both ways, be gay and have kids.
It's one or the other.


Originally posted by ninecrimes
How DARE you group every gay person together and tell them they cannot do something because they like something you do not. If that's not hate, I don't know what is.

It's not hate, it's the decision they decided to make.


Originally posted by ninecrimes
Also, you have failed to answer my question about gays being unfit parents.

I never said gays would be unfit parents
I did however say that a kid with gay parents will of course be subject to so much horrendous bullying at school, and the parents will definately have challenges that a hetero couple would not.

That reality also singles them out, not me.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by ModernAcademia]




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Well maybe we should let drug addicts adopt children too. I mean it is just their lifestyle choice and we shouldnt discriminate. Lets all learn to love and tolerate those around us.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


Hahahahaha!!! Think deeper? When did anyone say they hated gays? Maybe I missed that post so please show me and I will retract my response. If you can't show me that, then your last response is a sign that you are ignorant of those that don't drink from the same flavor-aide trough. Good hunting.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
Well maybe we should let drug addicts adopt children too. I mean it is just their lifestyle choice and we shouldnt discriminate. Lets all learn to love and tolerate those around us.


You just compared gays to drug addicts.

Do I really need to say why that is inappropriate?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Dude, only one of those are my posts..... The others I didn't say. Where did those "quotes" come from. Try again bro.

This one:

Originally posted by Roadblockx
That would make you anti-tolerant, would it not? See how easy labels can be assigned? I'm not trying to call you out, just trying to get you to think before you begin calling someone "hateful".

Wasn't intended for you.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


Compared them only in the FACT that they are both LIFESTYLE CHOICES. I am not saying gays are more likely to be drug addicts then their straight counterparts.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I also find it funny that the two bigots preaching anti-gay adoption BS keep calling each other "bro" and "dude".

It's all becoming more clear to me, now.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


So obviously we won't be staying on topic here ANYTIME soon.
Perhaps you should take the good fight elsewhere, as most of us here are probably just participating in a discussion and have little if any emotional attachment to some of the issues being presented. You are obviously extremely emotionally invested in this topic, so perhaps you should start a NEW topic all about gay rights? This topic is supposed to be about abortion and we just wasted a whole page with your incessant badgering.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Dude, only one of those are my posts..... The others I didn't say. Where did those "quotes" come from. Try again bro.


I know i know
looks like I have some editing to do

my bad



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
I also find it funny that the two bigots preaching anti-gay adoption BS keep calling each other "bro" and "dude".

It's all becoming more clear to me, now.

Deny ignorance.


At first I thought you were just not getting it by accident but now I think you just left your blinders on. I'm not anti-gay adoption. You can't show me one post that said I was. You are more then free to leave the discussion if you continue to post lies. Your ignorance is at max.

Also, please expand about the enlightenment that has become so clear based on the use of bro and dude. I am curious what conclusion a person who has been preaching not to judge or hate came up with.... We are all waiting...
The exit is to your right.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


So obviously we won't be staying on topic here ANYTIME soon.
Perhaps you should take the good fight elsewhere, as most of us here are probably just participating in a discussion and have little if any emotional attachment to some of the issues being presented. You are obviously extremely emotionally invested in this topic, so perhaps you should start a NEW topic all about gay rights? This topic is supposed to be about abortion and we just wasted a whole page with your incessant badgering.


It takes two to tango, buddy. You actually jumped in midway through.

And anyways, I replied to someone, I did not just jump in here with my guns blazing.

Think more before posting, please.

Also, I am not "emotionally attached" to anything. I am not gay so I don't even need to worry about "their rights"... my problem is with bigots like yourself.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


So obviously we won't be staying on topic here ANYTIME soon.
Perhaps you should take the good fight elsewhere, as most of us here are probably just participating in a discussion and have little if any emotional attachment to some of the issues being presented. You are obviously extremely emotionally invested in this topic, so perhaps you should start a NEW topic all about gay rights? This topic is supposed to be about abortion and we just wasted a whole page with your incessant badgering.


No kidding. Can you block those posts that hijack a discussion? I am willing to give my points away to make it happen.


I will try again, for the fourth time, to start the discussion over. If you don't post on topic, I will ask that a mod get involved. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Okay so back on the abortion topic
I don't really mind if it's only for rape victims
I can say that's fair with difficulty

as the article states that's where it is right now

I hope this funding will be very restrictive.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Agreed. Abortion shouldn't be the norm. It should be the exclusion. Where did I see that the existing reasons for the grip and rip are: rape, health of mom and incest? Those seem pretty legit reasons.

Also, the father HAS to have a say in it since he will be liable for expenses if the mom decides to have the baby.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I'd just like to say that even though the discussion went a bit off-topic, it did start on-topic and was just carried off through a couple dozen replies... it happens


No hard feelings- of course.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Either cover abortion and birth control or cover the medical problems stemming from cheap blackmarket abortions, plus childcare for single parents, plus put more money into education, plus throw a couple trillion bucks into welfare.

Then we'll be in good shape.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
I'd just like to say that even though the discussion went a bit off-topic, it did start on-topic and was just carried off through a couple dozen replies... it happens


No hard feelings- of course.


Nothing but good times on here. No hard feelings (from me) and I welcome "healthy and interesting" debate anytime. It's very easy to get drawn into a subject that you feel adamant about (even if it is 1000 miles from the original topic)!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
There are simply too many children in need of adoption to deny any two semi-competent people the right to adopt a child...

Honestly it would be cool if more wealthy single people adopted more kids...

---

Not covering abortions would cause more problems and prevent very little abortions if any...



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I think at a bare minimum, this criteria should be met (not sure which are currently in place):

-If the child has a sibling(s) also up for adoption, they go together
-Income should be at least $40k a year and have medical benefits
-No felonies and no domestic abuse/violent crime history (including anything against a child) for either adopting partner

Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I don't get it. If abortion is wrong because you're killing an innocent human life, regardless at what stage it is in human development, then how can you justify saying it's okay in certain situations? The whole argument is based on the morality of ending a human life, so how can you say on one hand it's wrong because the zygote/fetus is a human, and on the other say it's okay because what happened to the mother was unfortunate or it puts her life in danger?

Isn't that something akin to eugenics?

Personally, I believe it is the woman's ultimate right to do with her body as she wishes. By far most abortions occur in an early stage of development, and very, very few are carried out late term.

Regardless of whether or not you believe abortion is right or wrong, for the woman, it isn't an easy choice to make and whatever the outcome of her decision, she will live with the consequences for the rest of her life.

As far as the government footing the bill? Well, from the government's perspective, it's a lot more cost effective to subsidize the abortion than to subsidize 70-100 years of a person. I know it's a brutally cold way to look at it, but I guess that's how it works.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join