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.

 

Ron Paul and Abortion " My thoughts" Please contribute

page: 35
9
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
I came across this by googling Rockefeller/ Russo

I hope it helps ...

“The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young.”[1]

By David J. Stewart

Truth is stranger than fiction. The average American only knows what they were taught in a heathen public school system as a youth; and what they've learned ever since from the lying mainstream newsmedia, brainwashing movies, demonic music, and corrupt television programming.


Thanks I needed a good laugh. Blaming feminism for that?

Really alot of crazies out there.


Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


Ok which medical conditions are those, I gave you a * for bringing up some of Ron Paul's talking points.

How many of those 50 million abortions that have past already do you think we're for a medical reason...

I'd think it's around the 1% mark...


About statistics about rape and medical reasons. . . no one is claiming they're the majority of cases. But you don't say you can't do this or that because you're in that percent, that's not even a reason.

woman - "Oh, it's very rare condition but I'm gonna die because so and so. . . "

doctor - "sorry you're in the 1% *shrugs*"




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Iwww.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income...


I happened across this article and found it quite informative.
It is actually saying taxpayers are helping to remove human life
from women's uteruses




www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income-come...



by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/5/12 11:46 AM



It is difficult to track, however, an exact amount of change in the government funding between 2009 and 2010, since prior to 2010 Planned Parenthood was hiding its Medicaid income by co-mingling it with other clinic income under that “clinic income” heading. What we do know is that the abortion giant received a total of 487.4 million dollars in government revenue in 2010. That’s $1.3 million dollars per day, each and every day of the year, for a total of almost a half billion dollars,” it adds. “Planned Parenthood’s growing reliance on government funding is truly its Achilles heel. Cutting substantial amounts of government funding will result in its collapse. The current breakdown of its revenue includes 31 percent non-government clinic revenue, 21 percent private contributions and bequests, 2 percent “other,” and 46.5 percent government funding.”

sadly ljb



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Killing someone for greed is murder. Precisely the reason I advocate euthanasia & abortion as the individuals making those decisions on behalf of the suffering (who are unable to speak for themselves) do not profit in any way. Likewise, I think that everyone who has ever been employed by an insurance company and was in any way involved in labeling someone's life threatening disease a "pre-existing condition" or refusing to cover a better treatment option because it was "experimental" (i.e. more expensive) ought to stand trial for murder.

Similarly, by using this "greed=murder" rationale, any individual who has ever profited in any way from the petroleum industry whether as an oil executive, shareholder, gas station owner, refinery worker, grease monkey on an oil derrick, or even had money in a 401K or mutual fund which at any time held securities in an oil company ought also to be charged. First degree murder charges for all the oil execs and talking heads who claim that there "aren't any health risks" to oil disasters such as those found in Gulf or in Ecuador, and lesser charges such as manslaughter/accessory to murder for people who simply work in these organizations pushing papers at the corporate office, right?

If you agree that abortion eases suffering...then wouldn't you just want to make sure that there isn't undue incentive for people to profit off it? After all...if abortions were extremely, extremely, lucrative then certain unscrupulous Dr.'s might persuade women to have them against their better judgement solely for the purpose of lining their pockets, right?

Well...the best way to make sure that nobody is profiting from abortions is to make them legal, accessible, and fully socialized at fixed government rates, right? Everybody knows that Dr.'s and health care systems don't make sh&%t when the governments picking up the tab...right?

If you outlaw them...then you've created a black market just like the failed policies of Prohibition and the War on Drugs. When we think about "black market" we always start talking about the back-alley coat hanger abortions...but what Dr.'s who agree to do it off the books for a big stack of cash? Might a Dr. who is facing $250,000 in student loans and another $100K per year in malpractice insurance be tempted to counter the $1,000 back-alley option with a $5,000 professionally performed, sterile, and safe option right in his basement? If the Dr. was greedy/desperate enough...might they not falsely tell women that their fetus has Down Syndrome in the hopes of pocketing another $5K real quick?

In the grander scheme of things...this is precisely why absolutist Kantian moral philosophy has not once built a coherent argument for it's existence. Especially when involving issues which feature a religious aspect to the debate. "Thou shalt not kill"...but God and Saints kill all the time. "God is omnipotent, all-knowing, and infallible"...yet he screwed up humanity so bad the first time around he went on a genocidal rampage with flood waters. "Suicide is a sin"...yet the same all-knowing, all-powerful, and purportedly infallible God proves this untrue when he orders his son (who is really also himself) to allow himself to crucified, despite having the foreknowledge, ability, & power to stop it from happening.

Thus...if "God is truly infallible" then God has also illustrated that killing is oftentimes justified if done for the "greater good". While I don't believe in "God"...I do believe in the greater good argument. Hypothetically speaking, if a sniper could have put a bullet between Hitler's a year or two earlier...it probably would have been a "justified" killing, right? If you feel that this is true because of the saving of the lives alone then I suppose it would be quite similar to the argument against abortion.

However...I don't think the "lives saved" are really that important. What I find FAR MORE important is the suffering it would have prevented or alleviated. If you were a Jew in 1940's Germany would you have rather taken a quick bullet between the eyes...or survived Mengle's medical experiments and was "rescued" while weighing all of 70lbs or so? Sure...your still "alive"...but you will experience nightmares, depression, and psychological torment until you do finally die. The only motivation I could see for WANTING to live through that would be in order to prevent suffering from those who loved me such as my wife & kids or some such thing. The difference being...these are people who WANT ME AROUND and it would HURT THEM IF I WASN'T. Abortion is the polar opposite. They get to suffer knowing full well that nobody even wants them around anyways.

What's the point? I'd take the 'ol bullet between the eyes 10 out of 10 times...especially if it was all mercifully over before I was fully developed. Take it from a guy who wasn't wanted as kid himself & who is also part of a whole GENERATION of unwanted kids.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

It is difficult to track, however, an exact amount of change in the government funding between 2009 and 2010, since prior to 2010 Planned Parenthood was hiding its Medicaid income by co-mingling it with other clinic income under that “clinic income” heading. What we do know is that the abortion giant received a total of 487.4 million dollars in government revenue in 2010. That’s $1.3 million dollars per day, each and every day of the year, for a total of almost a half billion dollars,” it adds. “Planned Parenthood’s growing reliance on government funding is truly its Achilles heel. Cutting substantial amounts of government funding will result in its collapse. The current breakdown of its revenue includes 31 percent non-government clinic revenue, 21 percent private contributions and bequests, 2 percent “other,” and 46.5 percent government funding.”

sadly ljb


Wow! That's all? We only spend the equivalent of one-half of a Stealth bomber per year in order prevent the needless suffering of roughly 1.2 million innocent children per year?!? PLUS we can don't have to build as many prisons to hold all those impoverished, unwanted, children raised either by parents who don't want them, can't support them, a government-run facility, or some combination thereof?

Here I was thinking that we spent an appreciable amount of money on this effort and I was still all for it on both humanitarian grounds as well as the sheer pragmatism of it all.

I'm going to write my Congressman and ask them to please quadruple the funding for this effort right away.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by yoyoyoyo
 


personal choice.. either for good or bad.. we eventually answer for our decisions.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


I guess that's a way of putting it, but shouldn't we advocate the right choice since we can.

The right choice being not terminating a life...

I mean are we intentionally being poisoned so we can't rationalize what seems to be a simple decision.

They put aluminum in your anti-perisperent, helps you develop alzheimers and cancer... Also fluoridating our water so we are more dosile and easier to control....



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Iwww.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income...


I happened across this article and found it quite informative.
It is actually saying taxpayers are helping to remove human life
from women's uteruses




www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income-come...



by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/5/12 11:46 AM



It is difficult to track, however, an exact amount of change in the government funding between 2009 and 2010, since prior to 2010 Planned Parenthood was hiding its Medicaid income by co-mingling it with other clinic income under that “clinic income” heading. What we do know is that the abortion giant received a total of 487.4 million dollars in government revenue in 2010. That’s $1.3 million dollars per day, each and every day of the year, for a total of almost a half billion dollars,” it adds. “Planned Parenthood’s growing reliance on government funding is truly its Achilles heel. Cutting substantial amounts of government funding will result in its collapse. The current breakdown of its revenue includes 31 percent non-government clinic revenue, 21 percent private contributions and bequests, 2 percent “other,” and 46.5 percent government funding.”

sadly ljb


It's grown into a monster supported by our government. A killing machine.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Hi self and vix
Could you two please expound upon the points in the article.
May be we can find some common ground???
thanks ljb
edit on 4/16/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by yoyoyoyo
 


I tried two long post that didn't work

I went through a lot of info that I am not typing again.
What I was trying to say wold have boiled down to something like this,
Lighten up a little, you will never stop abortion. But if you address it like Ron
you will reach and HELP more folks. This difficult human experiment is in full bloom and we need to consolidate, in order to address it meaning fully.
It is good to disagree. ljb



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


It's hard to find common ground with people that believe it is their right to end another's life just because it isn't wanted when there is people that would be willing to adopt...

And then on top of that will refer to human life as parasitic... I mean come on. We all want to help each other, It's in our DNA. Listen to chaplin!




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


It's hard to find common ground with people that believe it is their right to end another's life just because it isn't wanted when there is people that would be willing to adopt...

And then on top of that will refer to human life as parasitic... I mean come on. We all want to help each other, It's in our DNA. Listen to chaplin!




PASSION IS HUMAN, with out it, we would not be here trying to understant it.
peace



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


I'm glad you had a good laugh, Now seriously do you really think there isn't someone on top of the food chain sort to speak calling the shots?


Rothschild Quote
“‘Let us control the money of a country and we care not who makes its laws.’ This is the maxim of the house of Rothschilds, and is the foundation principle of European banks. If a country and its people are mortgaged for the assessed value of their property, and the bankers control the money, the bondholders and not the people own that country. It makes no difference whether you call it a republic or a monarchy.”

– Financial writer Daniel T. Gushing, testifying before the House and Senate Subcommittees on Banking and Currency, 1914



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Hi self and vix
Could you two please expound upon the points in the article.
May be we can find some common ground???
thanks ljb
edit on 4/16/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)


I don't need to.

I would counsel people to check out www.henrymakow.com.

That should let people make their own minds up about the source of the ideas expounded.
edit on 17-4-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Hi self and vix
Could you two please expound upon the points in the article.
May be we can find some common ground???
thanks ljb


I'd contend that the article, like all things originating with Makow, is biased against women. When he described me as a closeted lesbian apologist whore of the NWO who was incapable of comprehending that I was directly responsible for the woes facing society, I lost what little respect I had for the madman. (An abridged and sanitized version of what he actually wrote to me in his email)

Anyway...


"The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family."


Feminism isn't about destroying families, but rather about empowering women to be able to take control of their own lives. If society is suffering because of state brainwashing, I'd say that the people putting out the propaganda are the problem, not the women of the world. Marriage and relationship failures happen, and yes they do result in family destabilization, however it takes TWO people to enter a relationship, and both are equally capable of being at fault. In Makow's perfect world we would be cast back 100 years, without a voice, without representation, and with no role in life except to greet our husbands with open legs. In his opinion, by virtue of having a vagina, our rightful role in modern society is one of submission because we're too ignorant to make our own decisions, and because we require male "guidance" to prevent society from imploding.

Control over other parties isn't the answer, and placing the blame for NWO complicity solely on the women of the world is disrespectful and untrue. People love to imply that we're going extinct and that men need to sow their oats in order to ensure the preservation of our modern society, but a world population of 7 billion people (and growing) disputes those assertions. I think it's all just a ploy by men to get laid more often, but again, that's only a personal opinion lacking verifiable evidence to back my claim.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   


I can't find valid statistic from Planned Parenthood for years past 2008, but I can't see how, with all closing of clinics and backlash against PP from right wing radicals and the killing of Dr. Tiller, that these figures could have risen substantially. As you can see, only 3% of PP services are actual abortions.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


Hi vix
It is refreshing to be able to discuss this very sensitive subject.
I am sorry for your experience with Marko. I really know nothing about him.
I was just trying to illustrate some reasons why abortion can and may be part of a plot to destabilize wealthy European based countries

I can see why anyone would or could take exceptions with the way Feminism is portrayed.
The hidden goal.
I think what the author has that confused with, is the destabilizing nature of government sponsored population control.
If men are victims or even think they are, Then I might add that many, many women are also.
Most just are not aware that they are.
I tried to explain the following to yoyo in another post but the computer kept rejecting it.
I was good friends with a guy back in the day.
His dad was one of the developers of the "Pill". We would often discuss it's potential.
It was not on the market at the time. These were days of back ally horrifying abortions and girls that would leave the neighborhood for weeks or months for unknown reasons.- (the reasons were babies)
Many went up for adoption.
The major point I would like to make here is how the 'Pill" alone can play a major role in the totality of Population Control.
First it is just only one tinny little pill 21 days a month or so. Not much to see here.
But if you add the cumulative amounts of artificial estrogen to the bodies of women and the environment for 50 years or so. Well that's something to consider. Add to it the abusive use of hormone therapy,
agricultural applications with live stock. You have a recipe for social disaster right there.
A little of what I am getting at here is this.
Americans have used un-natural amount of estrogen for half a century.
That's like having a large portion of the women of that society in false pregnancy for that duration.
Who has studied the unknowns here???? The effects??? Why should tax payers be forced to pay for the distribution of those 'pills'. Does government know? Does government care? Does Feminism know AND care?? Here is a question about the subject. Who do you expect to pay for your social security when you retire??? Who do you expect to defend the country you live in??
Remember the influx of immigrants loyalties are mostly still toward their home countries.
Again thank you for the tempered discussion. I look forward to learning you thoughts.
the best ljb



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The major point I would like to make here is how the 'Pill" alone can play a major role in the totality of Population Control.
First it is just only one tinny little pill 21 days a month or so. Not much to see here.
But if you add the cumulative amounts of artificial estrogen to the bodies of women and the environment for 50 years or so. Well that's something to consider. Add to it the abusive use of hormone therapy,
agricultural applications with live stock. You have a recipe for social disaster right there.
A little of what I am getting at here is this.
Americans have used un-natural amount of estrogen for half a century.
That's like having a large portion of the women of that society in false pregnancy for that duration.
Who has studied the unknowns here???? The effects??? Why should tax payers be forced to pay for the distribution of those 'pills'. Does government know? Does government care? Does Feminism know AND care?? Here is a question about the subject. Who do you expect to pay for your social security when you retire??? Who do you expect to defend the country you live in??
Remember the influx of immigrants loyalties are mostly still toward their home countries.
Again thank you for the tempered discussion. I look forward to learning you thoughts.
the best ljb


I tend to believe that birth control, in general, has helped women to focus on things other than procreation.

In contrast to days long past, our modern society makes it hard for people to survive on a single income, and allowing women to focus their energies on careers and higher education has facilitated our ability to better provide for our families when the time is right. It's not that we're not choosing to settle and marry, but rather allowing us to choose to do so when circumstances are best to ensure responsible parenting.

There are many who question the advantage of birth control, but I think that if we can control reproduction until the time is right, rather than simply "deal with it" when a condom breaks, we will be much better prepared to raise those kids as they deserve to be raised. That, in my opinion, is what responsible parenting is all about. The price that we pay is negligible when compared to that benefit.

What makes me sick is the modern push to limit coverage of contraceptives. Many proponents of the pro-life initiative support insurance coverage for stuff like Viagra to help guys get us pregnant, yet when it come to protecting ourselves, they make the claim that it's OUR problem and our sole responsibility. When we get pregnant, they then blame us for being irresponsible, and demand that they have the right to dictate what our choices are. It's insane, and absolutely unfair to women.

Few will disagree that men, in general, have a much higher sex drive than women. Feed him a Viagra, and he has the potential to be an unrelenting monster in search of satisfying his carnal needs. Most aren't swayed by a womans objections or concerns, he wants it now, and the hounding won't cease until he sows his oats. If we as a society are going to promote this, shouldn't we at least give his partner the protection she deserves?

As far as providing for us in the future, I feel it to be irresponsible to rely on anyone, including the government, to provide for us. the scam currently known as social security needs to be totally overhauled or scrapped altogether, and a system be put into place that allows and encourages meaningful self contribution towards retirement. As far as security, which I assume relates to the military and defense, there are plenty of people to provide it. Again, despite stereotypes, both men and women can, and do serve. These are mine.

Bring on the dissenting opinions... I'm ready.



edit on 4/17/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 

hi vix
Fire proof maybe. I got to take a break from this madness.
I will get back to you after a long walk.
later ljb



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by votan
 


I guess that's a way of putting it, but shouldn't we advocate the right choice since we can.

The right choice being not terminating a life...

I mean are we intentionally being poisoned so we can't rationalize what seems to be a simple decision.

They put aluminum in your anti-perisperent, helps you develop alzheimers and cancer... Also fluoridating our water so we are more dosile and easier to control....


Again...why are you so sure that terminating a life is inherently evil? You already more or less stated the opposite several times over. You made an exception for warfare because you perceive it to be for the greater good.

You agreed that being born to unwanted parents is tantamount to needless suffering.

Your "god" has a track record for endorsing all sorts of killings and suicides in the name of the greater good...purportedly even his own son.

So...what's really the problem? I just don't get it.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


It's hard to find common ground with people that believe it is their right to end another's life just because it isn't wanted when there is people that would be willing to adopt...

And then on top of that will refer to human life as parasitic... I mean come on. We all want to help each other, It's in our DNA. Listen to chaplin!





Yeah...but adoption sucks.

My wife and a cousin of mine were both adopted...to "good" families with the white picket fence and all. Both have stated multiple times that they would rather have been aborted than being adopted.

Neither one EVER felt like they "belonged". Despite the best efforts of the parents...it was always clear to both of them that they preferred their own biological children.

...and let's not forget that the there are a HELL of a lot of unadopted kids out there. You always hear about these big "waiting lists" for adoption...but if that were true there would be no orphanages or foster families...would there?

Civilization has never really had a good way with dealing with unwanted children.

Isn't it time we stopped making these innocent children suffer their entire lifetimes just so we can feel better about ourselves or somehow more noble while we simply ignore the realities of being raised in "the system"?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join