It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So called "pro-lifers" cut food aid for poor single mothers, children and infants

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Phenomium

from what I've seen, the men are really dropping the ball also....
let's just sterialize everyone, there is such a thing as test tube babies now days!!!
since, well, it appears that americans in general can no longer be accountable for their decisions when it comes to their sexual relations!!!

with genetics we can make them better, faster, smarter, healthier, superhuman!!
we can pick the best moms to raise them through infancy, then the gov't schools can take over....
super kids, learning only what the gov't deems appropriate for the little tykes!!!
and then at adulthood, well, they will be finely trained workers (or soldiers)!!!

don't like my idea??? well then grow up people!!!! freedom comes with an abundance of responsibility!! and once we abandon that responsibility, well, the freedoms seem to fade out of existence!

It still takes a man to give the seed for those test tubes ....let's not forget that. Without men......we cease to exist...without women...the same. We are co-dependant no matter how much a woman claims to not need men.
Men could say the same about women.
We have maturbation the same as women and when it's all said and done......the man got what he wanted, his release.
There is also no shortage of women who are willing to have sex with men for money who couldn't care less about politics or a woman's political point of view. they want money...the men give it to them....both are happy.
Afterall, when you get married or go on a date, a man not doing the same? Trading money for sex? Just in a legally accepted manner, that's the only difference.
So make no mistake about it...................without the male seed...there are no test tube babies or super-genes that will create a human being. You still need us whether you like us or not. The alternative is extinction of all women AND men.
To steralize all people......that is just genocide.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

That is because many pro-lifers are "in" to save fetuses and score one with "god" once the child is born the burden falls on the unwilling mothers, the tax payer and the welfare system.

edit on 20-6-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Exactly. And when you read the article, it is shown that not only is aid to the poor being cut, but all corners of the government are being cut.

Does not matter if all corners of government is been cut, if you're a pro-lifer, if you well and truly believe in the sanctity of life, you would not be cutting corners around your beliefs. Get it?

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This is not a matter of wanting people to "pop out kids"! It is a matter that when you have sex and get preggie, it's time to take responsibility and not just kill your unborn because it's a bit inconvenient.

Now, here's where I always have to slap my head and laugh. Having an abortion is "taking responsibility." What would strike me as being irresponsible is having a child that you cannot provide care for.

Your position reeks of the old "pregnancy is god's way of punishing sluts" mentality. Which is, basically, the crux of the pro-life position; they want women to be "punished" by being forced to have the child - which also goes a long way towards explaining the same pro-lifer's position against any prenatal or postnatal services. Also why they have such a tendency towards opposing birth control.

Sexuality is a sin, and pregnancy is god's vengeance. Birth control and abortion thus challenge the authority of god, and we can't have that, now can we?

You sound a bit like the Prez though, you don't want people to be "punished with babies". But somehow the pro-Choice think that tax payers must pay the financial price for other people's mistakes in paying for both their abortions and the care of their "mistakes" from cradle to grave.

Are you aware of what an immensely miniscule share of this cost you pay? I assure you, you don't even notice it. However about a third of your net taxes go towards killing people in "warfare." Where's your concern for that?

Of course, dropping bombs on Arabs is only in keeping with god's will, unlike allowing mothers to make informed choices about their uteruses.

This is what we call the Nanny State, and Mussolini called it "Totalitarianism".

Is it still Godwin if we talk about Mussolini?

I'm afraid not, friend. You have no idea what either a "nanny state" or "totalitarianism" is, and you should not use either term until you have a proper understanding.

What you're looking for is the "Welfare state" - this is the concept that the government of a state provides for the common welfare of the citizens of that state. This is, of course, the primary function of any government.

And it may surprise you to know, but allowing women self-determination of their own bodies is quite beneficial to our society.Just ask Norway; Abortion is completely legal there, can be completely subsidized by the government if the woman needs it to be, and know what? Norway's doing just fine.

A totalitarian state, by contrast, is the one where government forces the opinions of a minority upon the rights of the whole; your position, in other words.
edit on 20/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Phenomium
Afterall, when you get married or go on a date, a man not doing the same? Trading money for sex? Just in a legally accepted manner, that's the only difference.

it's a bit off topic, but no. When you go on a date, you are not trading anything for sex. See, sex is not a guarantee. Either party can say "no." What a date is is you and another person going out to enjoy each others' company. Traditionally the bill goes to the male of the party, due to the whole "chivalry" thing, but that's not always the case.

Anyone who feels that paying the bill for a dinner and movie entitles them to sex is a creep. and probably doesn't get many second dates. Probably not so many first ones, either.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Chett
I am staying out of the abortion debate this time, it always just goes round and round.
Pro-choice people rant a lot about 'rape victims' - just once I would like to see some stats on that to go with it.

Stats? You need states to prove the existing of rape victims who go for abortions? Really? This isn't a numbers game, this is about the rights of every individual. If you feel confortable with telling a rape victim, a child, that she'll be charged by the government over a choie, I really question your mind set.

Well that is the card that always comes out - As far as I know most pro-lifers make exceptions for things like rape and incest - but I still wonder just how often someone winds up pregnant from being raped -
The simple fact is that everytime this subject comes up people use the same arguments and a lot of personal insults and no one ever budges - we get nowhere. Putting in some facts instead of a lot of emotion would give some actual intelligent discussion a chance.
And for the record I don't think the gov. has any business in the issue - it should be between a woman, her doctor and in some cases the father.

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Now, here's where I always have to slap my head and laugh. Having an abortion is "taking responsibility." What would strike me as being irresponsible is having a child that you cannot provide care for.

This. Thousand times this. I have never understood the notion about "taking responsibility" prolifers talk about. Why do you think having abortion is not taking responsibility? Having abortion when unable to provide for the child properly is more responsible than having it.

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Phenomium
You just made my point.
Selfishness. It's all about you right? The child has no choice.

A fetus is not a child, neither do the rights of a fetus trump the decision of a woman, you've got your own definition, that's fine. If a woman has been raped or molested she should not be forced to carry on the rapists child, period. It's selfish to insist that the woman suffer because of your personal "morals", stay the hell out and mind your own business. Her suffering need not be furthered by what moral and religious nonsense you got going on.

Everyone desearves the same chance regardless of how YOU personally feel about a situation.

If my mother was raped and she a made choice, I would understand, most definately. But then again who knows? You'd forced a daughter of yours to have the child if she was molested right? really? Even if she didn't want to go through that pain? You'd force here? And you want to talk to me about selfishness?

when it comes to the mother playing GOD and deciding whether the child should live or die.

To make a point about playing God, we have the power to do what we want with our bodies, government doesn't have the power to dictate otherwise, christianity is a religious practiced freely by different people. If all men collectively decided to get vasectomies, would this be playing God? What about the birth pill? Taking those pills is playing God? Wearing a condom is playing God?

Are you the moral police? Where do you get off telling people what they must and must not do morally? tend to your own, mind your own damn business.

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:18 AM
reply to post by Phenomium

never said we didn't need men in the world.....
the plan I laid out, mostly joking, would alleviate men and women from those irratating outcomes that sexual relations often produce, like pregnacy, parenthood, child support, ect....
would it be genocide, not in our immediate future, since we do have the technology to still artificially produce children. although, if you are one with foresight, I can see why you would think this idea as a little insane!! I mean, what happens if the technology is lost??
but our political leaders don't have foresight, and they sometimes do seem to be a bit insane...
I would never want them to ban abortions, since there is genuine need for them. but, I have to say.....freedom is often times lost when the responsibility that comes with those freedoms is shirked.
you can blame the women, or the men all you want, isn't gonna matter, both are usually at fault to some extent. if men and women can't get their act together and it continues to cause societal and financial chaos, which it is now, sooner or later the gov't is gonna have to step in (if the gov't lasts long enough) and start cutting those freedoms.
men are hoping that it's the women's freedoms that are cut, but well,
there's this other possibility.....
one in which would benefit the gov't even more, they get two productive workers and much more control over the breeding and the upbringing of the kids!!!

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:33 AM
All other arguments aside,if you cut out all the special programs for unwed mothers,welfare queens,whatever,the borthrate among those groups would drop more free rents and utilities checks,no ebt cards,no childcare assistance,education grants...oh yeah...Ive worked the Section 8 projects...I know where the drive to breed coms from...just cut it all more from this day forward

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in