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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


lol.. Ron Paul was not invited to a major Republican primary (ah I forget which state) so he held his own debate next door.. he attracted a much larger crowd. He didn't get any media attention what so ever.'

There is nothing that says specific parties must debate together, or cannot debate. They are private entities. 3rd parties often debate amongst themselves without inviting the two major parties.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   




I have no "chip" on my shoulder except for those that don't take responsibility for their own actions. Whether those actions were made when they were drunk, high or otherwise, there are still consequences. Why would you allow someone that made a decision a way to kill a baby?

Not sure what religion you are talking about but please stop making assumptions. I don't even need to include a link to explain how DUMB making assumptions are.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I am not naive enough to assume the majority of American are aligned with Libertarian ideologies.. these are, for the most part, radical right-wing beliefs (even though most of our social choices are Liberal, for instance, I am pro-choice)


Radical right-wing?
Oh please
Wanting to stick to the constitution like super-glue is hardly radical right wing.

Secondly, Dr. Paul is smart, he's putting endorsing potential congressmen with libertarian values.

Thridly, look at this
TODAY



He's a smart man this RP, he knows how to plant 'seeds'



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Good point. I didn't know that about the 3rd parties. Is that because the other parties don't allow the smaller 3rd parties?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
There is nothing that says specific parties must debate together, or cannot debate. They are private entities. 3rd parties often debate amongst themselves without inviting the two major parties.


It's not that they must debate together
It's about coverage
Only the 2 party system gets national coverage
And in the U.S. it's often the most popular that wins

Also 3rd parties not inviting two major parties is because major parties would NEVER come, because that means that TV News Cameras would follow, and major parties would NOT want that.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


SOB! He's a doctor? I should really read more about this character.

By the way, flag this thread so we can broaden the reach of ATS'ers and possible bring in some new ideas.
And maybe those that are after name calling baby fights will disappear?


I am going to watch a couple of quick youtube vid's that someone nicely U2U'd me. Be back in a second.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


"Why would you allow someone that made a decision a way to kill a baby?"

Why do you feel it is your duty, or right, to judge what other people do with their bodies?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Rockpuck
There is nothing that says specific parties must debate together, or cannot debate. They are private entities. 3rd parties often debate amongst themselves without inviting the two major parties.


It's not that they must debate together
It's about coverage
Only the 2 party system gets national coverage
And in the U.S. it's often the most popular that wins

Also 3rd parties not inviting two major parties is because major parties would NEVER come, because that means that TV News Cameras would follow, and major parties would NOT want that.


I would be thrilled to see someone like RP meet up with another prez candidate and in front of the cameras ask them to debate. The MSM has kept us from seeing what these jokers really are doing. When employees of the MSM leave their news agency so they can join the BHO Spread the Love Us Tour (SLUT), you know there are problems. I'm not talking about one or two people in the mailroom of the MSM leaving, reporters/managers leaving.

MSM =



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


How many times are you going to keep baiting me into a name calling battle with you?? I know, I will respond with x message and you will write a half-page response about me being Hitler or some other related BS.

No way. I'm done trying to debate with you. It is never a debate. At least the other poster that has similar ideas as you hasn't gone pyscho on this thread.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


Seems you're the only one name-calling, here... I just asked a simple question:

This thread is about government funding of abortions, and you keep dragging it into a discussion about how you think people just shouldn't be allowed to abort their babies, period.

Well, if you're going to shift the topic, at least be willing to back up your fanatical "formulas" with some real context.

My question stands, why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx



"Seriously? What are you using two accounts. I didn't say I was reporting on you. You were the only one that took it that way. Call it how you see it...."


You're having a bit of trouble comprehending the sentences, here is what I said,


continue insulting me and then bravely proclaiming that you've alerted the mods on other member's behavior. Hypocrisy makes a cozy bedfellow, no?


Apparently you're not "seeing it" very clearly.



"No, tell me how long it takes. I work for a state's prosecutor's office so you must know better then I do. Please elaborate....."


Oh, well I'm a judge. Isn't the internet fun? Trials can take awhile, everyone knows that. Nice job avoiding the statement that a simple blood test and rape kit can solve the problem a lot easier than a trial. A simple, "Hey, you're right about that" would do.



"Don't generalize. A condom breaking isn't a stupid decision obviously. Her sleeping with a sleezeball IS a stupid decision. If she knew that she could get "preg" by this guy and know he won't be around, then yes, she is making a stupid decision."


So explain, a sleazeball is someone who sleeps with someone else without the intent to procreate? Hoorah for the moral authority!



"Again, you sit on the sidelines and talk about how everyone elses ideas are wrong or don't work. Your method is "grip and rip" it all. Everyone can come through the drive-thru, have it ripped out and dumped in the trash. So tell me then, unless you would rather follow the pattern of name calling or other means of staying away from a direct question, should there be a time in the development of the child that an abortion shouldn't be allowed? 2 weeks, 2 months, 9 months?"


Oh, that's rich. It's completely obvious that you completely glossed over my previous posts about how an abortion isn't an easy choice to make. I never said anything about "grip and rip", you're just jumping to conclusions about my beliefs because you're so gun-ho blinded by your ideology.

When do I believe an abortion shouldn't be allowed? Well, as I've stated over and over on this thread, the woman is 100% responsible for the fetus that is inside her body. If something happens at 8 and a half months and the mother must abort the fetus for her own safety, then so be it. I support the current ruling of Roe v. Wade, which protects abortion procedures during the first and second trimester.


"That isn't a very true statement. I am saying if she is preg by no fault of her own, then that is different then a 17 year old sleeping around and getting preg. If you don't see the difference, you should probably find another thread."


And you still don't see at all how it boils down to how you see the fetus? C'mon, your previous question was obviously baiting me to see where I would draw the line with abortion. It all comes down to how you view the fetus and what becomes a "human being" in your eyes. It's not about irresponsible mothers, it's about what the fetus is. If it wasn't about the fetus, then it wouldn't matter when she got the abortion, would it?



Not sure what religion you are talking about but please stop making assumptions. I don't even need to include a link to explain how DUMB making assumptions are.



And again, you say to stop the bickering, and you end in an ad hom insult. Unfortunately you have yet to grasp the meaning and continue to go off on a tangent. But please, continue. It's only helping me!


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


So, following your logic, here is a list of people that shouldn't be allowed to adopt...

Anyone with any kind of physical deformity, or any characteristic considered to be out of the ordinary, because their child might possibly be teased, bullied, etc.
This includes:
Gigantism or Dwarfism
Anyone with an odd voice or accent
Someone who has been disfigured in an accident
People with many visible tattoos or piercings
People with Tourette syndrome
People with a funny last name
People that dress weird (goth, punk, hippie, etc)

Ridiculous. The possibility that a child might be teased is no reason to prevent a couple from adopting a child.
Children that come from a completely normal, average family are teased all the time! It's just one of those unpleasant experiences of childhood, that will probably always be around.

Also, are you saying if you're infertile, not physically capable of reproducing, just like gay people, you shouldn't be able to adopt?


As far as the original topic concerning abortion...
I don't see what the problem is. It really should be covered in all cases, simply because there are cases of incest or rape that cannot be proven, or it may go unreported for whatever reason. These women shouldn't be punished further, imo.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ninecrimes
 


There is no right answer for you that I or anyone else can offer up. For you, there is only one answer and since my views (and a few other posters on here) don't match up, you will view those with too much emotion making anykind of healthy debate impossible. So again, I ask you, since you aren't willing to debate but instead want a hate exchange, please stop asking for answers to your questions.

If I am wrong and those here want to debate with you, go ahead. But I would guess they are as tired of this overblown, over emotional discussion that you are looking for and will instead choose other ways to exchange ideas. Let's see who is right....



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
My question stands, why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?


ummm, because killing a baby is illegal?????

The lack of respect that society has for life now is exaclty what allows abortion, and it very much is a factor in humanty's current violent behaviorisms.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ninecrimes
My question stands, why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?


ummm, because killing a baby is illegal?????

The lack of respect that society has for life now is exaclty what allows abortion, and it very much is a factor in humanty's current violent behaviorisms.


You're right, killing a baby is illegal.

However, you can legally terminate

a zygote
a blastocyst
an embryo
a fetus

That's of the top of my head, I may be missing a few stages.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


Ok. I'll call your bluff. I can send an email from my state issued email account. Wanna send one from your "judge's" email account? Pick a third party and send your email to them. Unless you want to, don't claim to be something you're not.

As for the other items you listed, refer to my post to your partner ninecrimes. You both are just trolling around looking for threads to blast those that have a different idea then yours. Instead of debating them, you flood the thread with rambles and rants about how the killing of something growing is ok and should be paid for by the government. You don't debate you spread hate. There is no place for that and I am done repeating my points to you and ninecrimes. If you don't like my points, that's fine. Great. Move on to the next thread and start your rants over again.

The rest of us would like to discuss something more indepth then why it is ok to kill and have the government pay for it. If you would like the last word, please proceed with doing so. Then let the rest of us move on.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ninecrimes
My question stands, why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?


ummm, because killing a baby is illegal?????

The lack of respect that society has for life now is exaclty what allows abortion, and it very much is a factor in humanty's current violent behaviorisms.


You're right, killing a baby is illegal.

However, you can legally terminate

a zygote
a blastocyst
an embryo
a fetus

That's of the top of my head, I may be missing a few stages.


Great. You are all about the killing of those that are living. Super. Donate your time to those clinics and be proud of what you are doing.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I wonder if assisted suicide is covered under the BHO policy. Any idea?

****BTW****

Did you see that they are pulling RP videos off of Youtube???

Youtube removes videos


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ninecrimes
My question stands, why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?


ummm, because killing a baby is illegal?????

The lack of respect that society has for life now is exaclty what allows abortion, and it very much is a factor in humanty's current violent behaviorisms.


You're right, killing a baby is illegal.

However, you can legally terminate

a zygote
a blastocyst
an embryo
a fetus

That's of the top of my head, I may be missing a few stages.


Great. You are all about the killing of those that are living. Super. Donate your time to those clinics and be proud of what you are doing.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]


This is exactly what I mean... you'll go off on these little rants, but you'll lie through your teeth the entire time, contributing NOTHIGN to the conversation but insults to both the topic subscribers and their intelligence.

So, now that we've established that we're not talking about killing babies, my question still stands:

Why do you feel like you, or anyone else, has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to/with their own body?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx
I wonder if assisted suicide is covered under the BHO policy. Any idea?

****BTW****

Did you see that they are pulling RP videos off of Youtube???

Youtube removes videos


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]


Stop derailing the topic and try to stick to the topic at hand, please.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join