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.
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)
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
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?
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.
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.
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"?
Originally posted by windword
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!