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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Deflection.

So you are ok with a denial of a legislator exercising his 1st Amendment right to express his opinion in a law.

"It's fine for me, but not for thee" sort of thing. Nii-ice!




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol what I get a kick out of, is my natural role as a man is being denied here. I have no say in whether I can have a family today. None. apparently if a woman says she doesnt want the child, bamm, kill it, pop it out. Too bad Neph!
Isnt it bad enough we're only good for swattin bugs as it is? apparently not.

see post above, I rest my case.

Go ahead kill the kids.
all evil be damned!
edit on 4-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


Well perhaps instead of walking around thinking every woman should want to be your baby factory. You should consider finding one that actually wants to have your babies. But that would mean you had to actually show interest and care about what she wants in life right?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


well, if you notice..

the GMO corn is sterilizing everyone anyway.. with Epicyte's spermicidal corn now held by Monsanto who just purchased their very own hit squad..


A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto. source




so why fund the old antiquated way of eugenics when

a more sinister solution has been found?

everyone eats some form of corn based product..

so both men & women will become infertile..

it seems like a diversionary waste of effort look at it as "they're coming for your birth control!"..

(not that Women's rights aren't important!)

its more like.."checkmate"

and we need a congressional act to remove the corrupt protections already put into place..

and keep in mind Bill Gates just invested into Monsanto, his father hid the fact ran Planned Parenthood.
edit on 4-7-2013 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol what I get a kick out of, is my natural role as a man is being denied here. I have no say in whether I can have a family today. None. apparently if a woman says she doesnt want the child, bamm, kill it, pop it out. Too bad Neph!
Isnt it bad enough we're only good for swattin bugs as it is? apparently not.

see post above, I rest my case.

Go ahead kill the kids.
all evil be damned!
edit on 4-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


Well perhaps instead of walking around thinking every woman should want to be your baby factory. You should consider finding one that actually wants to have your babies. But that would mean you had to actually show interest and care about what she wants in life right?


and why are you so selective? To ignore everything Ive said and assume what you assume there. "YOU DONT KNOW MAI LIFE!"
From what little information you see here? You believe I just go and impregnate every pretty little thing I see on the street?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Dear Windword,

Since you believe in reincarnation and karma how can you justify birth control and abortion?

Isn't abortion and birth control in truth a conscious act of preventing souls from reincarnating into this world and thus keeping them from learning and ascending to the higher realms?

Isn't that the goal of the negative entities?

Do you think actively engaging in preventing the spiritual progress of others EVIL and grounds for reincarnation as a lower life form which ultimately prevents the progress of all life?

It is engaging in activities which bring about the greatest amount of bad karma . . .

How can you support such an evil practice?

Sincerely,
-FBB



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Look. Your trying to turn the issues of women's reproductive rights in a men vs women argument, It's not. This thread is about a group of people, in several states who are bypassing the regulations and definitions already in place by the Supreme Court and the American Medical Association, in favor of their opinions on a woman's reproductive role. And their decisions are are not only unconstitutional, but they put women's lives in danger.

Many of them have opinions based on erroneous facts, such as legitimate rape doesn't cause pregnancy, a fetus is viable at 6 weeks when the heart beat is detected, the pill causes abortions, women need vaginal ultra sound probes because they don't know what is going in their own bodies, or women are incapable of making sound decisions, etc.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


An uninvited soul forcing itself on an unwilling host is an evil and unholy alliance, in my opinion. A women is not obligated to house a body for the later habitation of an unwanted spirit. We're not at the whims of the wind anymore. Scientific advancement in controlling human biology is reflected in the evolution of the human spirit.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


An uninvited soul forcing itself on an unwilling host is an evil and unholy alliance, in my opinion. A women is not obligated to house a body for the later habitation of an unwanted spirit. We're not at the whims of the wind anymore. Scientific advancement in controlling human biology is reflected in the evolution of the human spirit.


The biological purpose of sex is for reproduction . . . . Scientific advancement has proven this beyond a doubt.

Engaging in the act of reproduction is more akin to you inviting the soul into your body.

This isn't like you were mysteriously impregnated, you took the D and are subsequently not holding up to your end of the deal.

You are lying to yourself and you know it.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by beezzer
 


Look. Your trying to turn the issues of women's reproductive rights in a men vs women argument, It's not. This thread is about a group of people, in several states who are bypassing the regulations and definitions already in place by the Supreme Court and the American Medical Association, in favor of their opinions on a woman's reproductive role. And their decisions are are not only unconstitutional, but they put women's lives in danger.

Many of them have opinions based on erroneous facts, such as legitimate rape doesn't cause pregnancy, a fetus is viable at 6 weeks when the heart beat is detected, the pill causes abortions, women need vaginal ultra sound probes because they don't know what is going in their own bodies, or women are incapable of making sound decisions, etc.


The 2d Amendment gives us the right to bear arms.

Yet states can and do interpret it differently, all within the realm of the law.

These legislators are simply interpreting the abortion laws differently than you are.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Olivine

Originally posted by Nephalim
reply to post by beezzer
 

lol what I get a kick out of, is my natural role as a man is being denied here. I have no say in whether I can have a family today. None. apparently if a woman says she doesnt want the child, bamm, kill it, pop it out. Too bad Neph!
Isnt it bad enough we're only good for swattin bugs as it is? apparently not.

see post above, I rest my case.

Go ahead kill the kids.
all evil be damned!
edit on 4-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)


It sounds to me like you should be certain that you only deposit your sperm into a woman ready to give birth to, and raise your child.
It is prudent to know the person you are making love to extremely well, isn't it? Especially if you are interested in having "a family"?


And when that woman who's hormones are all out of whack because of the pregnancy all of a sudden changes her mind... then what? "Be a man and suck it up" right?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword



Great post windword. Well written and sourced. Kudos.

The only argument one gets from "Individual Rights" folk on the Right on these subjects - is it's murder & a fetus has rights too.

Well most religions consider inidividual life to start at the first breath historically and so by religious reasons the argument doesn't make any sense.

And then there's this - if life, all life (regardless of color or economic status) is so precious, why is the Right so opposed to social service programs that help the poor and disinfranised?

My mechanic is near a family planning clinic, almost every day there are "anti-abortion" picketors outside. I regularly stop and ask these people if they are willing to take in these unwanted, drug-addicted, poor mothers and their FETUS. I get yelled at. Hypcrites.

I don't believe life starts at conception (or before - now that's just plan insane) but I don't insist that other people believe it nor do I think my definition should be law - why would other people want their opinion made into law? It's insanity.

A women has a right to control her own body, in the way she thinks best, period. She can make her own decision based on advise from trusted counselors and friends - but she has to live with the decision.

As to father's rights - I'll consider the point, if and only if, we legislate into law, full paternal financial support for children covering a period of twenty years from conception with the full backing of the courts regardless of circumstances or conception, birth and finances. That is what is being required of women - it must be legally required of the men as well without exception because there is no exception for mothers.

I'm not a fan of abortion personally. I think we should have enough self-honestly to be prepared for whatever we might do - that means contraception in most cases. However, mistakes do happen and abortions become necessary.

I say this all this from a position of experiencing in my life: 1) an abortion, 2) an ectopic pregnancy, 3) live birth with adoption and 4) live birth with raising the child to aduthood and beyond.

Of my four experiences with pregnancy the hardest was raising a child to adulthood - financially (on my own a large part of the way).

Emotionally - the hardest was giving up a child to adoption. It was the best option - I wasn't capable nor did I have any support to raise a child.

The Ectopic nearly killed me and the abortion was easiest but scary.

I think that this insistance on forcing others to submit to a certain code of behavior a sick form of projection by un-aware people.

This same people don't care how many people we kill on death row, or in drone attacks, or through poisoning our environment, or though lack of public health care, etc, etc. It's hypocracity plain and simple.

Minds, once closed, are minds wasted

Forgive my spelling errors. Thanks again for the well-done thread.




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





The 2d Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Yet states can and do interpret it differently, all within the realm of the law. These legislators are simply interpreting the abortion laws differently than you are.


My argument is that these lawmakers are rejecting the legal definitions and regulations that have been established by the American Medical Association and the Supreme Court, in favor their personal opinions.

Show me where my argument is wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

The biological purpose of sex is for reproduction . . . . Scientific advancement has proven this beyond a doubt.

Engaging in the act of reproduction is more akin to you inviting the soul into your body.

This isn't like you were mysteriously impregnated, you took the D and are subsequently not holding up to your end of the deal.

You are lying to yourself and you know it.


Human beings, not animals masquerading as humans, are more then biology. Much more.

I don't agree with you at all. Sex is more about psychological bonding then reproduction. Why else do a large percentage of men (and a growing number of women) think only of screwing something - anything without emotional, spiritual, physical regard to reproduction.

Since I don't agree with you - by your reasoning - I'm lying to myself.

Projection of a character defect (self-delusion) perhaps?
edit on 4-7-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





The biological purpose of sex is for reproduction . . . Scientific advancement has proven this beyond a doubt.


We can reproduce without sexually intimate intercourse these days. Sex as defined for purely biological reproduction is outdated as it is false. Sex is pleasurable, healthy, fun and a source of exercise and entertainment.



Engaging in the act of reproduction is more akin to you inviting the soul into your body


Speak for yourself.


Engaging in the act of reproduction is more akin to you inviting the soul into your body. This isn't like you were mysteriously impregnated, you took the D and are subsequently not holding up to your end of the deal. You are lying to yourself and you know it.


Please reread the above responses.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Use a condom, problem solved everyone!



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Dear Windword,

Since you believe in reincarnation and karma how can you justify birth control and abortion?

Isn't abortion and birth control in truth a conscious act of preventing souls from reincarnating into this world and thus keeping them from learning and ascending to the higher realms?

Isn't that the goal of the negative entities?

Do you think actively engaging in preventing the spiritual progress of others EVIL and grounds for reincarnation as a lower life form which ultimately prevents the progress of all life?

It is engaging in activities which bring about the greatest amount of bad karma . . .

How can you support such an evil practice?

Sincerely,
-FBB


Your reasoning isn't sound.

In terms of the doctrines of reincarnation and karma - by having children you are tying both yourself and any children futher into the cycle of death and rebirth. You will note that monastics of many religions don't reproduce - because phsyical reproduction increases attachment and the goal is decreasing attachment.

Reproduction is selfish for any number of reasons (we each have our own whether acknowledged or not). The goal of spritual growth is to be free of selfishness and attachment.

Personally, the doctrines I prefer, teach that incarnating souls pick their parents and circumstances. Therefore if a soul has a need to be here very briefly for some reason they just might choose a circumstance that would see them aborted before birth and hence fulfill their karma.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


No actually an egg must be fertilized for reproduction which is different from all the emotions and pseudonyms you are replacing the act with. Sex was designed for the the sperm and egg to meet.

You are supporting the prevention of this fertilization which has nothing to do with sex. You can add all the pretty words to make yourself feel better that you like, but you are denying SCIENCE.

Your support for preventing this fertilization is still the most EVIL thing according to your belief system as it actively engages in preventing the development of the soul for petty egotistical fear driven motives.

Do you understand the difference between sex and what you are supporting?

You are supporting the act of stopping souls from reincarnating. That is different then sex.

Enjoy your extreme delusions and enjoy your next life as a brood mare in a puppy factory



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
windword sorry to say this but the thread has been infiltrated by no only trolls but also obtuse agendas no often you can get an intelligent argument about women rights without somebody screaming murder of women eggs and fetuses, never about male eggs, but just woman.

Religion agendas has shifted the blame on women and while it always has been that way its actually taking foot again in this century, it seems that women rights are taking a step back in the country that supposedly promote freedom, but only for the special interest.

Is always the same with this type of topics, never change.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by beezzer
 





The 2d Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Yet states can and do interpret it differently, all within the realm of the law. These legislators are simply interpreting the abortion laws differently than you are.


My argument is that these lawmakers are rejecting the legal definitions and regulations that have been established by the American Medical Association and the Supreme Court, in favor their personal opinions.

Show me where my argument is wrong.


They are interpreting the legal definitions differently, not rejecting.

That is where you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by windword
 


Deflection.

So you are ok with a denial of a legislator exercising his 1st Amendment right to express his opinion in a law.

"It's fine for me, but not for thee" sort of thing. Nii-ice!


One doesn't 'express a personal opinion' in law. Well perhaps so, but that is not the intention of legislation.

The original intend of law was to protect individual people from power/money backed 'opinion'.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join