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.

 

The Left Viciously Attacks Texas Gov. Rick Perry After He Calls Second Special Session

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by introV
 


The problems with this bill isn't the 20 week limit. Most reasonable people will agree that there has to be a limit in this regard usually that point falls between 20-24 weeks. The problems are requiring Ambulatory Surgical centers, first it would shutter all but 5 of the existing centers. It is complete overkill for the level of the procedure and unnecessary. Both in terms of floor space and all the other upgrades that would be required. It would be like requiring dentists to have one to pull your teeth or your personal doctor to have one to set a cast, put in stitches, or any number of minor procedures they don't need one for. An abortion is a huge personal decision, but a relatively minor medical procedure.

The next problem is requiring the doctor to be also work at a hospital. Which doesn't sound all that horrible until you realize that most hospitals are private hospitals and can just simply not allow doctors that perform abortions to work there. Then add to the list a requirement that any follow up prescriptions must be administered by the doctor. How would you feel if you had to go see your doctor every time you needed to take a pill?

I would like to finish by stating yes I understand there were other bills up for consideration in this special session. This particular bill however was put on the agenda to take advantage of the special session rules because it wouldn't have passed in the normal legislative session.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Shimri
 


To bad you still don't understand all = every single one. As for the rest it's the internet and for all i know you are really a Chinese Transvestite hooker. And you don't have to mention religion it is quite clear by your own admission you wish to push your moral code on everyone else. You don't have to be a religious nut to be that way, it is however the flavor they usually come in.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 





Abortions are a necessary evil ve


Seriously?

Thats like saying there are bad people in the world so they get to spy on everyone 'it's a necessary evil'

Which would not fly so don't expect that to fly here.

insert noun here are a necessary evil is still evil,



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   


If you take away choice from women what good does that do? It simply creates more unwanted kids


That's how you get republicans voters, duh. How else will they get millions of uneducated people to vote them into office?

That's the whole reason for the entire "life" movement, to create an entire nation of poor, ignorant slaves.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


I know too.

I agree with you. 20 weeks is a fair cut off point.
Too bad that's not what this bill is really about.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ThinkingCap
 





Abortions are a necessary evil ve


Seriously?

Thats like saying there are bad people in the world so they get to spy on everyone 'it's a necessary evil'

Which would not fly so don't expect that to fly here.

insert noun here are a necessary evil is still evil,



Grow up! Of course abortion is necessary. What is your solution? Really? No, I'm serious!


edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Thank you for the civil response. It's refreshing, really is.

It's those kind of responses that we need, so we can get somewhere on issues instead of ad hominem style arguments.

I might not agree 100% with you, but it restores a tiny bit of faith people might be able to talk these things out.
Can we hug? lol jk
edit on 26-6-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



If you take away choice from women what good does that do? It simply creates more unwanted kids


That's how you get republicans voters, duh. How else will they get millions of uneducated people to vote them into office?

That's the whole reason for the entire "life" movement, to create an entire nation of poor, ignorant slaves.


The whole reason behind the entire 'life' movement is aimed at giving that potential person the same chance LIFE as its mother had instead of just murdering it because it's 'inconvenient',
edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





Grow up! Of course abortion is necessary. What is your solution? Really? No, I'm serious!


What?

Someone who doesn't support the murder of a defenseless human being 'needs to grow up' ?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So you have no solution AND you are out of touch with the problem. Mkay



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by neo96
 


So you have no solution AND you are out of touch with the problem. Mkay


Murder is a solution?

Out of touch hardly.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

First of all I think you're confusing fetuses with babies.


Where have I heard this before.

Oh yes, from those who support eugenics.

"I think you are confusing "Untermenschen" with "Mensch""

"I think you are confusing "N****r" with "Person"

Bigots always invent and reinvent terms that they can use to avoid describing that which they want to kill as human. But calling a Jew 'Untermenschen' does not make him any less human. Calling a black a "N****r" and calling a baby a 'fetus' does not make him/her any less human. Ironically, fetus originally means "the young while in the womb."


a fetus is a potential human being.


So were Jews. And Negroes. And Gypsies.

Funny enough, I never hear anyone ask how the fetus is doing. I never hear any jubilation over the fetus kicking, or cries of despair for losing a fetus.

No, we ask how is the baby doing? Oh the baby kicked! Oh, she lost her baby.


Stop confusing the two. I think we should give women the choice whether to let the fetus fully develop and give birth to it or to abort it.


Let's put it in normal terms and be honest. You think we should give women the choice to let their child fully develop or to kill the young human child in the womb.


Taking the choice away from them not only promotes clandestine abortion clinics


So let's legalize meth, since taking the choice away from meth-addicts only promotes clandestine meth labs.

It is their right to do meth, since it is their body, yes?


but it also leads to more unwanted children.


Who are you to decide this for people who have not yet even been born?

What gives you the right to declare another person's life so miserable it must be cut off just as it is beginning?


Conservatives love to bring up the rights of a fetus, but yet when it's born they don't care about it. No food stamps, no medicaid, no insurance. So who really are the hypocrites here?


To say that one cannot oppose abortion without being willing to adopt half a dozen children is like saying that one cannot support a war without offering oneself up to fight or that one cannot oppose slavery without being willing to feed and clothe many former slaves. To support the right to life, liberty and property of a person does not mean one must support them in other ways. An injustice is an injustice.



Speaking of hypocrisy, if a man impregnates a woman, then it is only right that he take responsibility for the baby. Right? Even if the father didn't want him/her, he should still pay child support to her meals, clothing etc. He chose to risk pregnancy, so he should take responsibility for the consequences.

So if a woman is impregnated, it is only right that she take responsibility for the baby. Even if she didn't want him/her, she should still provide meals, clothing etc. She chose to risk pregnancy, so she should take responsibility for the consequences.

True or false?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Shimri
 



No. You misread me. This bill is a sham to get more money for abortions while alienating the at risk and disenfranchised. They say it's about protecting women's health, but it's about making money.




edit on 26-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


The same could be said of the original legislation in 1972



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Still no solution from you? What is your position? Biological fate and forced births?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by neo96
 


Still no solution from you? What is your position? Biological fate and forced births?





MURDER is not a SOLUTION that is my position

If people don't want to get pregnant stop having sex rather simple.

Keep their pants zipped up, and yes that is asking too much from the instant gratification crowd because MURDER is their SOLUTION.
edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Chinese women have not much choice in the matter. They are forced to murder their children by edict of the state.

American women murder their children voluntarily. They now are seeking legal ways to murder their children after they are born even up to five years of age.

LINK
Liberal progressive feminists seeking ETHICISTS TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS’ AS NEWBORNS ‘ARE NOT PERSONS’


[Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion” as opposed to “infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

edit on 26-6-2013 by Guadeloupe because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2013 by Guadeloupe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Guadeloupe
 


Chinese women and American women have the same plight. They both want to have a choice.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by neo96
 


Still no solution from you? What is your position? Biological fate and forced births?





MURDER is not a SOLUTION that is my position

If people don't want to get pregnant stop having sex rather simple.

Keep their pants zipped up, and yes that is asking too much from the instant gratification crowd because MURDER is their SOLUTION.
edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Still not real solution! Just hyperbole about your personal morality.
Abstinence? Really? That's you solutions?

No solution is still not solution.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


If its not about the 20 weeks then whats the issue?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Well you know abstinence works so well. I mean let's take a look at Mississippi. Abstinence weighted sex ed classes, check. Strictest abortion laws on the books, check. Lowest rate of teen pregnancy in the country, che-- Wait a minute they have the worst teen pregnancy rate in the country. Looks like restricting abortion and preaching abstinence works really well. Next thing you know they will be wanting us to listen to unwed teen mothers on the virtues of abstinence know any?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join