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.

 

Abortion - Free Will and Responsibility of Women, NOT Mankind

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GideonFaith

I think you have the wrong person about taxes. Maybe sweetliberty??


No matter. I only responded to the post. Guess you jumped in there somewhere.

My body - - MY Free Will and Responsibility - - - NOT anyone else.


OK, then. Yes, it is your body, your free will and responsibility, no one else. Since, you said it, not me, you should have to pay for your own abortions. It's not my body, my free will, my responsibility, just you, so pay up if you need one, cause no one else which also includes TAXPAYERS. IMHO If you are the age you say you are, then I hate to tell you this, you shouldn't have to worry about having abortions anymore anyway.




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


There's a lot a things that taxpayer money goes to that many object to. Unfortunately, we often don't have a say in how tax dollars are spent.

If you think that certain types of birth control should not be sponsored by insurance, because they cause spontaneous abortion, or that a woman shouldn't use medical insurance for a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, you are in the minority.
edit on 10-11-2012 by windword because: OCD Spelling



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


There's a lot a things that taxpayer money goes to that many object to. Unfortunately, we often don't have a say in how tax dollars are spent.

If you think that certain types of birth control should not be sponsored by insurance, because they cause spontaneous abortion, or that a woman shouldn't use medical insurance for a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, you are in the minority.
edit on 10-11-2012 by windword because: OCD Spelling


I think anyone who lives in the USA knows that the taxpayers money goes to places that most of us do not agree upon. I don't know what this has to do with anything I posted. You can stop putting words in my mouth because I NEVER said birth control should not be sponsored by insurance. I don't what you mean about birth control causing spontaneous abortions, unless the person taking it doesn't take it properly. Then maybe they need to seek other forms of birth control. Now with that being said, I don't agree with insurance or the government paying for abortions. Because abortions are still murders, not matter when they are performed. If you think I am in the minority, then you haven't researched enough.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GideonFaith
 





Because abortions are still murders, not matter when they are performed. If you think I am in the minority, then you haven't researched enough.


See, this is problem with the pro-life argument. If you believe that life begins at conception, and that all life is sacred, then many forms of birth control would violate those morals.


Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.”
www.epm.org...


It would be disingenuous for a pro-life individual to support any form of birth control that results in abortion. Therefore, the birth control methods that the majority of women use today would come under scrutiny and would be banned by pro-life legislation.

This is the root of the opposition's argument against the GOP's platform on the "Personage Amendment." It places the primal urges associated with human biology and reproduction above the free will of the individual woman, placing the rights of the unborn above her own sovereignty. This is where the pro-life community is in the minority.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GideonFaith
 





Because abortions are still murders, not matter when they are performed. If you think I am in the minority, then you haven't researched enough.


See, this is problem with the pro-life argument. If you believe that life begins at conception, and that all life is sacred, then many forms of birth control would violate those morals.


Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.”
www.epm.org...


It would be disingenuous for a pro-life individual to support any form of birth control that results in abortion. Therefore, the birth control methods that the majority of women use today would come under scrutiny and would be banned by pro-life legislation.

This is the root of the opposition's argument against the GOP's platform on the "Personage Amendment." It places the primal urges associated with human biology and reproduction above the free will of the individual woman, placing the rights of the unborn above her own sovereignty. This is where the pro-life community is in the minority.


I see what you are saying about birth control. There are still forms of birth control that can be used to keep this from happening. I also think that women should be asking the hard questions to their Dr. instead of just give me something to take. Women have now the mind set of give me something now, quick fixes that in the end is usually wrong. No questions asked. There are many women who would want to be on the birth control to cause an abortion, if they were to get pregnant. There are many scenarios to this.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GideonFaith
 


Contraception, such as condoms, diaphragms, and spermicidal foams and jellies require the forethought of preparation, education and availability.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could enforce a law saying that all rapists must use a condom!

We need a better avenue to contraception before we can consider outlawing any and all abortion.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
See, this is problem with the pro-life argument. If you believe that life begins at conception, and that all life is sacred, then many forms of birth control would violate those morals.

It would be disingenuous for a pro-life individual to support any form of birth control that results in abortion. Therefore, the birth control methods that the majority of women use today would come under scrutiny and would be banned by pro-life legislation.

This is the root of the opposition's argument against the GOP's platform on the "Personage Amendment." It places the primal urges associated with human biology and reproduction above the free will of the individual woman, placing the rights of the unborn above her own sovereignty. This is where the pro-life community is in the minority.


Thanks for your arguments. However, I beg to differ. You are linking 2 issues into 1 - birth control insurance and women's rights into as you termed it yourself by your own opinion 'Personage Amendment'.

Birth control insurance is a flexible commodity arrangement between insurers and clients. It can be strucked out if the need is there, or be added in if it can help the poor whom may not have the means to pay for it, in order to save a life, paid by subscibers of that insurance.

Life - is far more important and precious than rigid dogmas in order that mankind progresses and evolve. Furthermore, insurance do not indulge in frivolity, but only the necessary. For those who seek for condoms or male vasectomy, they do not cost much, but if paid by insurance, will be because of a human weakness, a weakness we flawed mortal humans only have perhaps in other forms.

No human is perfect. Moral weakness in its various forms will only hinder mankind, but as long as acknowledge it and take proactive steps to correct it, it can be eradicated, over time, no matter how long it takes as long as the will is there.

Education is the key. Bans are only inviting more, in their instrisinc human nature, to partake in forbidden fruits and human condemnation with no lesson being learnt through hearts and mind, which rules mankind.

A woman's right is inviolate, for she too, is a child of our common Creator, given free will which no mortal can take away, and is her choice, right and responsibility over the critical issue of abortions - a case of life and death involving the mother or child, or even both, over and above other non critical issues which society can determine, but not over abortion.

So, please do not lump everything as one, for the sake of clarity so that all may freely make informed choices.
edit on 10-11-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Thanks for your arguments. However, I beg to differ. You are linking 2 issues into 1 - birth control insurance and women's rights into as you termed it yourself by your own opinion 'Personage Amendment'.


How are they 2 different issues?



Birth control insurance is a flexible commodity arrangement between insurers and clients. It can be strucked out if the need is there, or be added in if it can help the poor whom may not have the means to pay for it, in order to save a life, paid by subscibers of that insurance.


A commodity that causes abortion.



Life - is far more important and precious than rigid dogmas in order that mankind progresses and evolve.


Says you and your opinion, as progress steamrolls the sanctity of life in favor of the quality of some lives.



Furthermore, insurance do not indulge in frivolity, but only the necessary. For those who seek for condoms, they do not cost much, but if paid by insurance, will be because of a human weakness, a weakness we flawed mortal humans only have perhaps in other forms.


Contraception IS a necessity. Condoms are not always trustworthy.



A woman's right is involiate, for she too, is a child of our common Creator, given free will which no mortal can take away, and is her choice, right and responsibility over the critical issue of abortions - a case of life and death, over and above other non critical issues which society can determine, but not over abortion.


I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a woman DOES have the right to choose abortion, and society doesn't have the right to dictate her choices for her?



So, please do not lump everything as one, for the sake of clarity so that all may freely make informed choices.


Many forms of contraception cause abortions. People who are morally opposed to having to chip in to a fund that also provides for abortions are hypocritical if they endorse these certain types of birth control.

How much more clarity do you need?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Contraception IS a necessity. Condoms are not always trustworthy.


Did you know there is a male contraceptive that has been shelved for years - - due to lack of interest?

In test studies men rejected the idea.

They didn't think it was their responsibility. They didn't want to damage themselves with chemicals. And various other reasons.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I know.

I think that many men measure their worth according to their virility.


Good thing most women don't measure their worth according to their fertility, or we would have an even bigger population problem than we do now.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Annee
 


I know.

I think that many men measure their worth according to their virility.


Good thing most women don't measure their worth according to their fertility, or we would have an even bigger population problem than we do now.


Yes.

My hobby is social/cultural anthropology.

In societies where women are dominant - - there are fewer births. And abortion is often practiced.

Planned parenthood and education need to be funded and supported world wide - - - to try to change that virility belief and give women more confidence and power over their bodies.

Unfortunately - - culture is the hardest thing in the world to change.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Many forms of contraception cause abortions. People who are morally opposed to having to chip in to a fund that also provides for abortions are hypocritical if they endorse these certain types of birth control.



If you hate the religious faithfuls, but if one day you happened to see one of them, obviously of religion by their religous accoutermens worn, lying on the ground in need of help, would you help her or just walk on by?

Unless you are a misanthrope, you will most certainly help her. But are you being hypocritical?

Similarly, people who are morally opposed to having chip into insurance pool that covers abortion except for certain types of birth control, would they be hypocritical as you loudly proclaimed, if they do so only out of human charity for the misinformed, the poor, and the needy?

Equally, if people who are morally opposed to having chip into insurance pool that covers including abortions, and whom will fight tooth and nail against paying for such insurance, had they exhibited the famed christian charity towards the misinformed, the poor, and the needy, to save lives?

Also, would pro-choice supporters object to women with pre-abortion problems be given paid psychological help by professionals or charitable religious institutions first before doing anything, as well as these women studying into the social enviroment of the society they are living in?

Abortion issue is far more complex to mainstream religious faithfuls than atheists can presume, which to atheists or gnostics, is cut and dried, and it is best left to those of religious faiths to search their heart amongst their own over the issue, discuss share and find the right path out.
edit on 10-11-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





If you hate the religious faithfuls,


I don't hate the religious faithfuls. I hate religious doctrine and dogma being forced onto me or anyone else.



but if day you happened to see one of them, obviously of religion by their religous accoutermens worn, lying on the ground in need of help, would you help her or just walk on by?

Unless you are a misanthrope, you will most certainly help her. But are you being hypocritical?


If someone is in need of help and I can provide that help, I wouldn't ask them about their beliefs before hand. I have no criteria for the kinds of people I am willing to help in the kind of tragic scenario that you present.



Similarly, people who are morally opposed to having chip into insurance pool that covers abortion except for certain types of birth control, would they be hypocritical as you loudly proclaimed, if they do so only out of human charity for the misinformed, the poor, and the needy?

Equally, if people who are morally opposed to having chip into insurance pool that covers including abortions, and whom will fight tooth and nail against paying for such insurance, had they exhibited the famed christian charity towards the misinformed, the poor, and the needy, to save lives?


Charity has no place in insurance benefits. Things are either covered or they're not. As it stands, the Affordable Care act required that birth control, even those contraceptive methods that cause abortions, is required to be covered. People shouldn't have to go to a church charity to get contraception. They should be able to see a regular doctor, who specializes in such things, to get the proper, healthiest form of contraception that is available. Not only those kinds deemed appropriate by religious folk.



Abortion issue is far more complex than atheists can presume, which to them is cut and dried, and it is best left to those of religious faiths to search their heart over the issue, discuss and share.


LOL! Oh my! All this circular logic and holier than thou stuff is making my pretty little head spin! It's too much for this non-atheist to handle!

I may not believe in your god, but I'm not an atheist. Although, I have no problem with atheism and would support atheism before I support the biblical god of the Old Testament and the god of book of Revelation.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Thanks for showing where you truly stand and believe in.

I wish you all the best in your life, and may you find happiness in what you seek or do not seek for.

Cheers, to a fellow human despite our differences.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Abortion issue is far more complex to mainstream religious faithfuls than atheists can presume, which to atheists or gnostics, is cut and dried, and it is best left to those of religious faiths to search their heart amongst their own over the issue, discuss share and find the right path out.


Should we leave any and all moral issues to the church to decide on the behalf of everyone?

If I need advice on how to stone someone to death or what price I should seek for my future daughters to sell into marriage, I will ask the church.

Religion stays out of state matters if it wants to keep its tax exemptions. I'm pretty sure women don't want to be told again by a church how to be.
edit on 11/10/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Abortion is a religious Issue?
Ummm I think not.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 


Not switching the subject, I'm expanding on the "primal" theme.


Fine... I'll bite.

But first I'd like you to clear up whether or not you acknowledge a primal instinct against abortion.



I've already said that the first primal act in the bible was murder.


First let me remind you that I'm not a Christian.
(you guys don't know how to deal with someone like me do you?)


A Christian will tell you that the first primal act in the bible was murder because that's how they learned the story in Sunday school.

A logical person with some real world experience, who has actually read the book for him or herself, will tell you that the first primal act in the Bible was LOVE.

If I'm not mistaken, murder and rape didn't come along until after Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

But then again...

Neither did sex or babies. We weren't supposed to do that.

But then again...

God gave Adam and Eve reproductive organs...

But then again...

See why I'm not a Christian?



Further, I have established that if rape is a primal act, which it is, then abortion is also primal.


You haven't established anything.
We obviously have a difference of opinion on what's considered primal and what isn't.
Does a rapist knows he's doing something wrong? I would imagine most do, and that's not primal...
that's evil.
That's why we throw these people in jail.
But what if he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong? Well we have a word for that too...
Its called crazy, and that's why we have mental institutions.
Rapists defy their primal instincts by willfully commiting an act that their soul tells them is wrong.



Abortion is the cure to the victimization of primal forces.


Not true. Abortion is a product of evil just like rape.
Two wrongs don't make a right.



You need to understand that birth control itself is a form of abortion. The pill and the IUD, as well as some other forms of birth control cause spontaneous abortion and make the uterus a hostile environment.

Birth control is a causative intention to prevent new life. It is an attempt to overthrow the laws of biology. And again I'll state it, "Biology is NOT God."


I do not endorse any form of birth control that damages a fertilized egg. If you can prevent conception, I say go for it.


P. S. I'm not a republican either. You guys are gonna have to come up with some new talking points.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 








Further, I have established that if rape is a primal act, which it is, then abortion is also primal.


You haven't established anything.


First, let me clarify. What I meant to have said is that I felt that I had established MY POSITION that I believe rape is a primal act, and so is abortion.

I can see why you're not a Christian, neither am I.

I don't see that "love" was the first act. Creation may have been a hobby that GOD loved, but no discernible act of love is mentioned in the Genesis creation story, IMHO.

Before Cain murdered Able there was cursing and sorrow, to be sure. But I still contend that Able's murder was the first primal act.

I don't know, maybe sex between Adam and Eve was primal.....?


edit on 10-11-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 






Abortion is the cure to the victimization of primal forces.



Not true. Abortion is a product of evil just like rape.
Two wrongs don't make a right.


So what's your solution, forcing the rape victim to carry the rapist child to term? Doesn't that make 3 wrongs?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


What would be wrong with that? There is always adoption, right?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join