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.

 

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

page: 13
42
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Yes now Texas whores are coming now empowered by passing the abortion bill under corruption tactics to keep pushing the agendas in order to stop all kind of birth control to call anything that stop pregnancy an abortion.

But rest assure this will keep going until it gets challenged in the supreme court as usual.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





The time to choose whether or not a child would be an inconvenient addition is before the clothes come off.


This is the statement that I was replying to. What about birth control that forces the expulsion of a fertilized egg or birth control failure? If a woman has decided that she doesn't want a child and uses birth control that fails, she has the right to seek a remedy through abortion, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





The time to choose whether or not a child would be an inconvenient addition is before the clothes come off.


This is the statement that I was replying to. What about birth control that forces the expulsion of a fertilized egg or birth control failure? If a woman has decided that she doesn't want a child and uses birth control that fails, she has the right to seek a remedy through abortion, in my opinion.


How is that an excuse to end life? People know well enough that birth control isn't 100% effective.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes now Texas whores are coming now empowered by passing the abortion bill under corruption tactics to keep pushing the agendas in order to stop all kind of birth control to call anything that stop pregnancy an abortion.

But rest assure this will keep going until it gets challenged in the supreme court as usual.


That's not at all what the bill is. It's to make 20 weeks the maximum, and to force abortion clinics to meet the same regulations that other surgical ambulatory facilities have to follow. This legislation is to prevent a similar house of horrors abortion clinic that was brought to national attention in Philadelphia with the Kermit Gosnell trial. And recently TX had it's own house of horrors clinic that rivaled that of Gosnell's.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So you want to punish a women for using birth control that failed by forcing her to have a child she doesn't want? What about birth control methods that prohibit implantation of a fertilized egg? Are they the same as abortion in your mind.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The bill in discussion requires clinics to have access to emergency facilities, while banning public hospital from entering into an agreement with a legal clinic that performs abortions. How is that working to protect women's health?





edit on 8-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So you want to punish a women for using birth control that failed by forcing her to have a child she doesn't want? What about birth control methods that prohibit implantation of a fertilized egg? Are they the same as abortion in your mind.


I'm not sympathetic of people who want to end life as a matter of convienence. Sorry if that offends you. And I previously said I'm not against birth control so why are you asking me about that yet again?

I mean , dear God it must have been like the bowl judgments of Revelation before the 1960's when abortion was legalized!
edit on 8-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The bill in discussion requires clinics to have access to emergency facilities, while banning public hospital from entering into an agreement with a legal clinic that performs abortions. How is that working to protect women's health?


Because it's to prevent facilities like the Gosnell clinic in Philly and a house of horrors clinic that rivaled that of Dr. Gosnell's in TX. Perhaps you didn't hear about that on the news either. I think a facility like that should meet the same federal regulations other surgical facilities have to meet. Especially the width of the hallways so a guerney can be wheeled down them in the event of an emergency.


edit on 8-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The bill in discussion requires clinics to have access to emergency facilities, while banning public hospital from entering into an agreement with a legal clinic that performs abortions. How is that working to protect women's health?


Because it's to prevent facilities like the Gosnell clinic in Philly and a house of horrors clinic that rivaled that of Dr. Gosnell's in TX. Perhaps you didn't hear about that on the news either. I think a facility like that should meet the same federal regulations other surgical facilities have to meet. Especially the width of the hallways so a guerney can be wheeled down them in the event of an emergency.


That's BS! Gosnell was performing illegal abortions. PERIOD! Forbidding public hospitals from treating patients that suffer complications from legal abortions isn't going to stop people like Gosnell.

This bill targets all Texas clinics and does nothing to stop Gosnell type people from continuing to break the law. This bill enables Grosnell type people to take advantage of desperate women who are alienated from legal serves because of this bill. The Texas bill will effect poor women and put them at risk, but not women of means.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So you want to punish a women for using birth control that failed by forcing her to have a child she doesn't want? What about birth control methods that prohibit implantation of a fertilized egg? Are they the same as abortion in your mind.


I'm not sympathetic of people who want to end life as a matter of convienence. Sorry if that offends you. And I previously said I'm not against birth control so why are you asking me about that yet again?


This thread is about birth control and how birth control effects the abortion issue. Did you even read the OP? Here's what the Supreme Court said about the necessity of abortion.


The "intimate relationships" facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions "necessary"
. ..................
Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.


Do you think that a fertilized egg is a sacred life? If so, you're against most types of birth control. If not, you're being hypocritical about what you define as life.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


My mother always said, "never argue with a fool" that is the same advise I gave my children, sometimes is always some people that will never learn to take other's people opinions or facts into consideration and will always argue regardless.

Thanks for trying to enlighten those that chose not to be.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Watch out Texas!

Wisconsin Abortion Law Signed By Gov. Scott Walker Blocked By Judge


U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the order following a hearing in a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services. It alleged the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.

The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement." He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother's health.

"Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," he said.


AAAH Sanity!



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


"Intruding ITSELF upon their lives". I'd really like to know how the infant did this to itself.

And I see what I stated, that abortions are ending the life of a human as a matter of convenience.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by windword
 


My mother always said, "never argue with a fool" that is the same advise I gave my children, sometimes is always some people that will never learn to take other's people opinions or facts into consideration and will always argue regardless.

Thanks for trying to enlighten those that chose not to be.


Well that's brilliant. BTW, it takes two to argue doesn't it? I guess I should accept other people's opinions with my mouth shut and be fine with them pissing on mine vocalized from the rooftops?

Gotcha, makes so much sense now.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Gosnel was doing far more than performing illegal abortions. His clinic was deplorable, he had several cats in the clinic to keep the rats at bay who were feeding on human corpses that didn't make it to the dumpster for some reason. I certainly see nothing wrong with reactionary legislation to prevent another Gosnell-like tragedy. Some of his patients were sick and one died. He was charged with 8 illegal abortions, but he faced over THREE HUNDRED other charges. And TX just recently found out that they had their own Gosnell down there who was doing the same thing.

Look Clinton said abortions should be legal, safe and rare. Obama recently said he supports the Clinton position. Abortions certainly are legal, now legislation is being aimed and making sure they are also safe and rare.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Some of his patients were sick and one died. He was charged with 8 illegal abortions, but he faced over THREE HUNDRED other charges.


That means he was operating illegally. Make as many laws as you want, but without oversight, people like Gosnell will persist. What good are all these extraneous additional regulations if they're not going provide oversight for the laws that they already have?

Making abortion and contraceptives more difficult to obtain isn't going to stop Gosnell type people from operating under the radar. Intimidating doctors, nurses and woman, putting up expensive and unnecessary obstacles isn't going to help anything, rather, it'll make things worse.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I'm not going to apologize for standing against murder. Which is what abortion is, the taking of life. And the reason given is convenience in most instances.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're still dodging the issue of the attempt to ban contraception on the basis that they interfere with the implantation of the fertilized egg. Methods like the Pill, the IUD, any hormonal contraception including the Morning After Pill are under attack by the religious right.


Do we want to make the pill illegal? Yes. Do we want to make the IUD illegal? Yes. The morning after pill? Yes. The patch? Yes. Anything that’s a human pesticide, they all have to be made illegal.
rhrealitycheck.org...


You have yet address the question of the value that you place of the fertilized egg in these terms. Are these birth control methods equal to abortion in your mind?

How do you define abortion?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Men, particularly of the right wing persuasion, want control over a woman's body and sexuality.

There is a reason why they are obsessed with 1776, they want to society to return to when they reigned supreme and unchallenged.


What a load of paranoid delusional beetle dung. An anti-abortionist is concerned with the death of the innocents, not the lives or genders of the offenders.





And thats exactly why their argument makes no sense.

Anti-abortion crowed care only for something yet to come into existance rather than someone who is already here and living.

A bunch of jokers.


If the baby didn't exist, you wouldn't be having an abortion.


And to be perfectly honest with you, I SHOULDN'T give a rat's azz about someone that would take the life of a child. Especially one that thinks its not the father's place to even discuss it.

Where's your sympathy for the man who came home to find his hormonally challenged wife sitting in a puddle of blood with a coat hanger in her hand? Where's HIS justice?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


That fact is, a woman is a living, breathing person, with inalienable rights. A fertilized egg, which is what we're talking about here, is not a person, and has no such rights. A baby is a born person. An egg, a zygote, an embryo and even a fetus are not yet born and not yet people/citizens and are not guaranteed rights as such.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join