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.

 

2012 US Spent 541 Million For Population Control - 1 Baby Killed Every 96 Seconds With Your Tax $

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

elouina


Black babies aborted: 15-16 million since 1973



Forward that data to the Tea Party.
Maybe this will change their stance on abortion.




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

rupertg

elouina


Black babies aborted: 15-16 million since 1973



Forward that data to the Tea Party.
Maybe this will change their stance on abortion.

*******************************************************************************************************************
You win!!!! With this comment you win the dumbest statement award of the year on ATS.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

chiefsmom


But how are we to know 100%? The government needs to get out of the abortion business.


Until a better solution is IN PLACE, this had better not happen. Would you like to see the "back alley" abortions come back? Because if you say yes, you know absolutely NOTHING about how bad they were. I had an older member of my family that has first hand experience with that.
The fact that she was on her death bed, managed to somehow survive, although with severe damage to her body, and still thought until she died that women should have a choice, in a CLEAN AND SAFE environment, sure made a statement for the women in our family.
edit on 14-1-2014 by chiefsmom because: clarify


Isn't this what hospitals are for? What would government not pushing abortions for population control and eugenics have to do with back alley abortions?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

FyreByrd

I just have to say this ... then I'll let you continue on your own *** way.

Are you willing to take in a crack baby, a fetal alcohol syndrome child? Raise them and pay for all the bills for 20 years and more?
And do it over and over? No - I didn't think so. It's easy to preach from your armchair but untill you have skin in the game, you have not credibility.

You don't want to see baby's killed (they aren't babies until they are born - they are fetuses). You just want endless lives ruined. You want endless drain on our collective resources to care for these children (and the women forced to bear them).

Hypocrite doesn't even come close to describing this, this evil.



What I always find striking is the lefts' love of the use of the term hypocrite. Here you are lambasting people for wanting to defend unborn fetuses/babies/blobs of flesh, because the undesirable ones are an "endless drain on our collective resources", yet you champion those that truly are a "endless drain on our collective resources", the eating and breeding individuals that are your party's constituents.

Maybe we should legalize multi-trimester abortions to get rid of the twenty and thirty-somethings out there that are an "endless drain on our collective resources".

If you are so worried about fiscal conservatism then you would be screaming for the sterilization or euthanizing of the adult undesirables that are nothing but a fetus factory, rather than defending the whole-sale genocide of minorities. After all, thanks to the cradle-to-grave welfare nation that we live in, these individuals have already shown through their actions to be more of a drain financially than any one of their aborted FAS or crack fetuses.


Hypocrite doesn't even come close to describing you, but the words that do are verboten due to ATS's TnC

edit on 14-1-2014 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

buster2010
reply to post by elouina
 





Yes, I am saying that they are trying to wipe out the poor and blacks. So you admit that you feel that is exactly what they are doing? And you think this is right?


Yes they are trying to wipe out the poor but to think they are trying to wipe out just the blacks is just plain crazy. And if you were to do some traveling around this country you would see there is no program to wipe out the blacks. I do not think that I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body that right is her's alone.


Did I ever say that a woman has no right to decide what to do with her body? I said that the government shouldn't be pushing eugenics and population control on the blacks AND poor. There is just no accurate way to measure how many poor people were affected. At least from what I surmised from internet searches.

You know I really thought Americans would stand up to this serious conflict of interest. In a sense, it is genocide. Your attitude is an example of why our government gets away with this.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the last thing the world needs is 8, 9, 10 billion people. The 7 billion or so we have is unsustainable and will lead to massive suffering and consequences we don't need more. We need to voluntarily choose to have smaller families worldwide. Since we aren't doing that , I say double, triple, octuple the amount of funding into preventing more pregnancies and yes even abortion. Abortion is preferable than watching kids starve to death. The party IS OVER!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


An embryo being a sanctified person from the point of fertilization is the sentiment that I was aiming my comment toward, not some isolated occurrences of viable infants being killed on their way out.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


An embryo being a sanctified person from the point of fertilization is the sentiment that I was aiming my comment toward, not some isolated occurrences of viable infants being killed on their way out.

******************************************************************************************************
that is my point....it is not some "isolated occurrence" ..... it is common practice.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


I thought it was hardly a common practice to abort a third-trimester pregnancy unless the baby was seriously deformed or if the mother's life were in danger.
Sorry if you still think my brain is small, though. 9_9



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


I thought it was hardly a common practice to abort a third-trimester pregnancy unless the baby was seriously deformed or if the mother's life were in danger.
Sorry if you still think my brain is small, though. 9_9

*****************************************************************************************
is over 11,000 late term abortions per year common enough?....or would you like to see more?
www.lifesitenews.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Readers interested in a less biased and politically-motivated discussion of Sanger may find one of many here (Margaret Sanger Papers Project)

From the linked article:



But the main vehicle used to metamorphose this feminist liberator into a Nazi is Sanger's limited and largely self-serving role in the short but spectacular rise of American eugenics – a movement that sought to apply the principles of genetics to improving the human race. By lifting passages from Sanger's writings on eugenics and sterilization while failing to provide the complete argument or proper context, and by linking her with notorious racists within the eugenics movement, debunkers of Sanger's achievements have given her a fiendish make-over.

Sanger was definitely a product of her time. Activism, advocating for change in the early years of 20th Century America was a much different proposition from today. The country in those days was a strictly-ordered affair in which white, monied, propertied men were the only social demographic that really had anything resembling "equal rights."

(This period is referred to by many today, sadly as "the good ol' days.)

Many people who are denied a voice resort to acts of violence. There is no excuse for the violence Sanger advocated early in the century. Terrorism then and now is a desperate and despicable act.

Let's put the early part of the American 20th Century in perspective however. In 1916 America, women were not citizens, they did not have the right to vote, in most States they could not own individual property, enter into contracts, and had no right to any money they might earn. Everything legally belonged to the men - husbands, fathers, brothers. They certainly had no rights to make decisions about their own bodies.

That is the reality of the world that Sanger faced. She was developing a aspect of the greater social movement that would ultimately bring equality to women. That would allow them *gasp* to be sexual beings and make choices about their body. That is what "birth control" means in this context. Stick a pen there.

As noted, anti-choice activists regularly claim that Sanger was deeply involved in Eugenics. That's not precisely correct, but here's some more actual history: so were most supposedly "enlightened" people at the time. The Rockefeller and Carnegie Trusts contributed heavily to "breeding and sterilization programs." Sadly, words like "unfit" and "undesirable" were standard vocabulary at the time. The US was an unabashedly racist country in the early 20th century. Google it.



By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.

Steven Selden. "Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families: Archival Resources and the History of the American Eugenics Movement, 1908-1930"


But, what did Sanger really think? Well, when the Nazis took American Eugenics and perfected the idea:



"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible," she wrote in 1933, "and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria."

(MS to Edith How-Martyn, May 21, 1933.)


Don't believe the hit job on Margaret Sanger without at least giving her a chance to speak for herself: (Margaret Sanger Papers Project)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


Driving the point in hard, much? Misconceptions aren't a crime.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Lipton

FyreByrd

I just have to say this ... then I'll let you continue on your own *** way.

Are you willing to take in a crack baby, a fetal alcohol syndrome child? Raise them and pay for all the bills for 20 years and more?
And do it over and over? No - I didn't think so. It's easy to preach from your armchair but untill you have skin in the game, you have not credibility.

You don't want to see baby's killed (they aren't babies until they are born - they are fetuses). You just want endless lives ruined. You want endless drain on our collective resources to care for these children (and the women forced to bear them).

Hypocrite doesn't even come close to describing this, this evil.



What I always find striking is the lefts' love of the use of the term hypocrite. Here you are lambasting people for wanting to defend unborn fetuses/babies/blobs of flesh, because the undesirable ones are an "endless drain on our collective resources", yet you champion those that truly are a "endless drain on our collective resources", the eating and breeding individuals that are your party's constituents.

Maybe we should legalize multi-trimester abortions to get rid of the twenty and thirty-somethings out there that are an "endless drain on our collective resources".

If you are so worried about fiscal conservatism then you would be screaming for the sterilization or euthanizing of the adult undesirables that are nothing but a fetus factory, rather than defending the whole-sale genocide of minorities. After all, thanks to the cradle-to-grave welfare nation that we live in, these individuals have already shown through their actions to be more of a drain financially than any one of their aborted FAS or crack fetuses.


Hypocrite doesn't even come close to describing you, but the words that do are verboten due to ATS's TnC

edit on 14-1-2014 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



Mwahahaha......better than I could have said it. I tried, but had to keep erasing my ban-worthy comments and finally gave up.




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

th3dudeabides
reply to post by elouina
 


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the last thing the world needs is 8, 9, 10 billion people. The 7 billion or so we have is unsustainable and will lead to massive suffering and consequences we don't need more. We need to voluntarily choose to have smaller families worldwide. Since we aren't doing that , I say double, triple, octuple the amount of funding into preventing more pregnancies and yes even abortion. Abortion is preferable than watching kids starve to death. The party IS OVER!



Oh....goodness. I think you should read, very carefully, what you just wrote. You are supporting genocide. Case-in-point proven.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


Driving the point in hard, much? Misconceptions aren't a crime.


true....sorry.....I am a little red in the face.....just I think many people who are all for abortion don't really know what kind of horrors are taking place behind those closed doors



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

UxoriousMagnus

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


I thought it was hardly a common practice to abort a third-trimester pregnancy unless the baby was seriously deformed or if the mother's life were in danger.
Sorry if you still think my brain is small, though. 9_9

*****************************************************************************************
is over 11,000 late term abortions per year common enough?....or would you like to see more?
www.lifesitenews.com...


Ask yourself: would an sensationalist, fear-mongering anti-choice website try to spin data or misrepresent it according to their own agenda?

What do reputable, scientifically-oriented reports have to say about late term abortions?

"The Guttmacher Institute has estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year." Statistical Reports on Abortion - Guttmacher

Roe v Wade requires that every one of these procedures is done in consult with a physician, and further that the fetus is not viable. Many of these are circumstances of a life-or-death decision for the mother if the fetus is carried to term.

Anti-choice Activists always present a completely one-sided (if not psychotic) view of a woman's right to choose.

When a woman exercises that right, it is not always frivolous, in fact, it is often excruciatingly traumatic for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy even in the early stages in which the fetus is basically a mass of cells.

To keep the numbers in perspective here, remember two facts:

Between 30 and 40 percent of all pregnancies NATURALLY terminate before gestational week 20.

A stillbirth occurs when a fetus dies in the uterus after week 20. In the US there are approximately 26,000 stillbirths each year.

It's not an easy question by any means, supporting a woman's right to choose does not mean supporting abortion. Period.
edit on 16Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:31:09 -060014p042014166 by Gryphon66 because: typos



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Gryphon66

UxoriousMagnus

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


I thought it was hardly a common practice to abort a third-trimester pregnancy unless the baby was seriously deformed or if the mother's life were in danger.
Sorry if you still think my brain is small, though. 9_9

*****************************************************************************************
is over 11,000 late term abortions per year common enough?....or would you like to see more?
www.lifesitenews.com...


Ask yourself: would an sensationalist, fear-mongering anti-choice website try to spin data or misrepresent it according to their own agenda?

What do reputable, scientifically-oriented reports have to say about late term abortions?

"The Guttmacher Institute has estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year." Statistical Reports on Abortion - Guttmacher

Roe v Wade requires that every one of these procedures is done in consult with a physician, and further that the fetus is not viable. Many of these are circumstances of a life-or-death decision for the mother if the fetus is carried to term.

Anti-choice Activists always present a completely one-sided (if not psychotic) view of a woman's right to choose.

When a woman exercises that right, it is not always frivolous, in fact, it is often excruciatingly traumatic for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy even in the early stages in which the fetus is basically a mass of cells.

To keep the numbers in perspective here, remember two facts:

Between 30 and 40 percent of all pregnancies NATURALLY terminate before gestational week 20.

A stillbirth occurs when a fetus dies in the uterus after week 20. In the US there are approximately 26,000 stillbirths each year.

It's not an easy question by any means, supporting a woman's right to choose does not mean supporting abortion. Period.
edit on 16Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:31:09 -060014p042014166 by Gryphon66 because: typos


********************************************************************
The site may be all "pro not murdering babies" but they were talking about the Congressional Budget report and the numbers they reflect.....but nice try.

Also....you love to mire the waters by stating how many births terminate on their own.....all life terminates on its own at some point.....it only becomes murder when you help that process along.....you are being intellectually dishonest and you know it



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
This is not a left vs right issue. It is not a conservative v. liberal issue. It is not a good v. evil issue. Grow up!

Does a woman have a right to make decisions about her body or not? That's the only question.

Excruciating decisions, heart-breaking decisions, but sometimes life-saving decisions ... like:

Karen Santorum, wife of anti-choice maven Rick Santorum, had a "procedure" to induce delivery late term TO SAVE HER LIFE. Yes, this is the same Rick who argues that no woman should have the choice to terminate under ANY circumstances. (Rick and Karen Santorum's Legal Abortion)

Anyone who wants to play with the word HYPOCRITE should probably start in that vicinity.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


It is not intellectually dishonest to say that abortion is abortion; removal of the fetus is removal of the fetus.

Sometimes nature does it; sometimes a medical procedure is required.

That can't be twisted to suit the anti-choice agenda.

Spontaneous abortion is a natural process, you can't debate it, you can't spin it, you can't lie about it. It's fact.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Gryphon66
This is not a left vs right issue. It is not a conservative v. liberal issue. It is not a good v. evil issue. Grow up!

Does a woman have a right to make decisions about her body or not? That's the only question.

Excruciating decisions, heart-breaking decisions, but sometimes life-saving decisions ... like:

Karen Santorum, wife of anti-choice maven Rick Santorum, had a "procedure" to induce delivery late term TO SAVE HER LIFE. Yes, this is the same Rick who argues that no woman should have the choice to terminate under ANY circumstances. (Rick and Karen Santorum's Legal Abortion)

Anyone who wants to play with the word HYPOCRITE should probably start in that vicinity.



who said it was right or left etc?
here are two things you can't bring up in abortion discussions.....rape/incest and mother is going to die if pregnancy isn't terminated. The reason you can't bring them up is no one is arguing those points and because statistically those two situations are considered anomalies.....meaning they happen so little compared to the overall number.

again....you are being intellectually dishonest
edit on 14-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join