Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[Anguille]

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother.

"Can", most likely it can. But is not yet doing so. Till it is, it is part of the woman's body.

Do you think fetuses at that stage should be removed from the woman's body and treated as if they were preemies? Then put out for adoption? Do you think that is possible to do to a woman without causing her worse harm than an abortion? Suppose the woman flat out does not want to give birth? Is there any justification in forcing her to do so?

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

Most do. This not news to me.

 

[Anguille]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

when she consents to sex

So a woman loses her rights to her body when she consents to sex. Sounds like punishment to me.

 

[Anguille]

What punishment? If she doesn't want a kid, then prevent the pregnancy in the first place. She may then sleep all over town if she wishes.

Since when do you get to exercise a right that infringes on another persons rights?

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

they are just lazy ignorant sluts..birth control is 98-99%... the dumb hoes just are not using any in most cases...because they are stupid ..drunk..or both...just face it

What form of birth control are you talking about that is 98 to 99% effective? IUDs and Depo-Provera cannot be used by all women, tubal ligation is generally considered irreversible. In any case there is always that 1% who use those methods but who still get pregnant because no form of birth control is infallible other than abstinance.

( I was wrong to include tubal ligation in my post above because apparently it's only 99% effective.)

Are you forgetting about the victims of rape and incest?

 

[AllieBaba]

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother.

"Can", most likely it can. But is not yet doing so. Till it is, it is part of the woman's body.

Do you think fetuses at that stage should be removed from the woman's body and treated as if they were preemies? Then put out for adoption? Do you think that is possible to do to a woman without causing her worse harm than an abortion? Suppose the woman flat out does not want to give birth? Is there any justification in forcing her to do so?

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

Most do. This not news to me.

However it has it's own heart, it's own nervous system, separate DNA, separate body...except for the umbilical cord.

How about when a woman decides when her baby is 6 weeks old that she just flat out doesn't want to be a mother? I guess it's okay then to kill the wee thing off.

 

[Care4all]

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother.

"Can", most likely it can. But is not yet doing so. Till it is, it is part of the woman's body.

Do you think fetuses at that stage should be removed from the woman's body and treated as if they were preemies? Then put out for adoption? Do you think that is possible to do to a woman without causing her worse harm than an abortion? Suppose the woman flat out does not want to give birth? Is there any justification in forcing her to do so?

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

Most do. This not news to me.

i think there is a period in which a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy which has been solidified by Roe v Wade, which is up to 12 weeks, and after that point I believe the individual states should ban abortions, unless for the health of a mother.

I think the woman has plenty of time within this federally protected period by Roe to make a choice on whether she can or can not see herself as a mother so NO ONE would be forcing anyone in to motherhood?

Personally, I think with the advances in Medical Science that is capable of showing us more and more a closeup of the stages by week of pregnancy along with pregnancy tests that can determine such earlier and earlier, that 12 weeks should legally be reduced to a shorter window period.



Care

 

[AllieBaba]

Abstinence or tubal ligation are the only 100% reliable methods for a woman not to prevent pregnancy. A woman simply cannot sleep all over town or even sleep just with her husband without risking pregnancy.

Since when does a fetus get to exercise a right which infringes on a pregnant woman's rights? Since never, is when. Fetuses have no rights.

when she consents to sex

So a woman loses her rights to her body when she consents to sex. Sounds like punishment to me.

No, a woman accepts the responsibility of another life when she gets pregnant. That's life. You get pregnant, voila, you are responsible for another life. You might not like it, but there you are. You don't get to just kill off the people you make but don't want to deal with.

Part of being an adult and making adult decisions. See, this is why we used to keep girls from having sex until they were married, and marrying them off young. A child in a two parent household with the support of extended families has a lot better chance of surviving.

And in the past it's always been considered the good and right thing to preserve life.

Not anymore. Now it's all about improving the race, eliminating the poor and dysfunctional and minority.

Or at least, according to Margaret Sanger and the Guttmacher Institute stats. Don't want those cretins and those minorities reproducing....but shhhh...send preachers in to tell them so they don't really know what the plan is.

Margaret Sanger, baby. You guys fell for it. What a bunch of mindless fetuses.

 

[Care4all]

when she consents to sex

So a woman loses her rights to her body when she consents to sex. Sounds like punishment to me.

No, a woman accepts the responsibility of another life when she gets pregnant. That's life. You get pregnant, voila, you are responsible for another life. You might not like it, but there you are. You don't get to just kill off the people you make but don't want to deal with.

Part of being an adult and making adult decisions. See, this is why we used to keep girls from having sex until they were married, and marrying them off young. A child in a two parent household with the support of extended families has a lot better chance of surviving.

And in the past it's always been considered the good and right thing to preserve life.

Not anymore. Now it's all about improving the race, eliminating the poor and dysfunctional and minority.

Or at least, according to Margaret Sanger and the Guttmacher Institute stats. Don't want those cretins and those minorities reproducing....but shhhh...send preachers in to tell them so they don't really know what the plan is.

Margaret Sanger, baby. You guys fell for it. What a bunch of mindless fetuses.

Margaret Sanger was a Conservative Allie....She had the major support of Republicans in our Senate, to get her funding.....to do the horrible eugenics projects.

to make it as though it is Liberals at fault and liberals who pushed Sanger's agenda is flat out wrong, and a rewriting of history. Prescott Bush was her biggest supporter in the Senate and he was a Republican....George Bush pushed to the hilt, programs to curb the births of the Chinese....so much so that he was nicknamed "Rubbers".

believe me, this is not a creation of the Liberals, to limit minority births.... they may have bought in to choice, but not for the same reason as the people who began these projects and goals of limiting minority births.

care

 

[AllieBaba]

"In 1960, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vowed that she would leave the United States forever if that well-known defender of reactionary conservatism, John F. Kennedy, were ever elected to the presidency. Margaret was a fervent Marxist, a radical feminist, and, despite comical denials posted on Planned Parenthood’s website, a rabid eugenicist. According to her New York Times obituary, dated September 7, 1966, Sanger specifically recommended the practice of birth control to prevent procreation among those of the poor prone to producing heritably ‘subnormal’ children, and, in the early years of the 20th Century, the masthead of her Feminist-Socialist magazine, The Woman Rebel, defiantly proclaimed “No Gods! No Masters!” to its readership."
The Red Contraceptionist-The history of Margaret Sanger, the mother of "birth control."


She wasn't a conservative. She was a Marxist. She opposed Kennedy because he OPPOSED THE USE OF BIRTH CONTROL and was anti-abortion (which shocked and amazed her). Not because he was a Democrat.

"During the 1960 presidential elections, Sanger was dismayed by candidate John F. Kennedy's position on birth control (Kennedy did not believe birth control should be a matter of government policy). She threatened to leave the country if Kennedy were elected, but evidently reconsidered after Kennedy won the election....
Sanger was also an avowed socialist, blaming the evils of contemporary capitalism for the unsatisfactory conditions of the young white working-class women."
Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know where you got the idea she was a conservative. Maybe you don't know what conservatism means?

 

[AllieBaba]

"She moved to New York City (1912) where she became active in the women's labor movement and the Socialist Party."
Margaret Sanger definition of Margaret Sanger in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

I dunno. Are socialists conservatives?

 

[AllieBaba]

So a woman loses her rights to her body when she consents to sex. Sounds like punishment to me.

No, a woman accepts the responsibility of another life when she gets pregnant. That's life. You get pregnant, voila, you are responsible for another life. You might not like it, but there you are. You don't get to just kill off the people you make but don't want to deal with.

Part of being an adult and making adult decisions. See, this is why we used to keep girls from having sex until they were married, and marrying them off young. A child in a two parent household with the support of extended families has a lot better chance of surviving.

And in the past it's always been considered the good and right thing to preserve life.

Not anymore. Now it's all about improving the race, eliminating the poor and dysfunctional and minority.

Or at least, according to Margaret Sanger and the Guttmacher Institute stats. Don't want those cretins and those minorities reproducing....but shhhh...send preachers in to tell them so they don't really know what the plan is.

Margaret Sanger, baby. You guys fell for it. What a bunch of mindless fetuses.

Margaret Sanger was a Conservative Allie....She had the major support of Republicans in our Senate, to get her funding.....to do the horrible eugenics projects.

to make it as though it is Liberals at fault and liberals who pushed Sanger's agenda is flat out wrong, and a rewriting of history. Prescott Bush was her biggest supporter in the Senate and he was a Republican....George Bush pushed to the hilt, programs to curb the births of the Chinese....so much so that he was nicknamed "Rubbers".

believe me, this is not a creation of the Liberals, to limit minority births.... they may have bought in to choice, but not for the same reason as the people who began these projects and goals of limiting minority births.

care

Aside from her never being a conservative, it is the liberals who have picked up the torch of eugenics. Read their posts and tell me that Ravi, Jillian and others who are rabid proponents of abortion don't think they should dictate who has babies, how many they should have, and what the characteristics of babies who are allowed to live, and their parents, should be. Go to the planned parenthood or guttmacher institute sites and listen to their drivel about how gosh, we don't really have stats but we just "know" the numbers intuitively....and gosh, abortions haven't really decreased like we thought they would, but by golly it would be so much worse if we didn't allow them....and yeah, blacks, minorities and the poor and overrepresented, but this is entirely incidental and has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is MARKETED towards them in warm fuzzy packaging as a cure for all their woes.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you really still peddaling this bullshit? I've posted the definition of fetus three times you twit. A fetus is a developing human.

Right retard. It is a developing human - not a human, but developing. Thanks for clearing that up..

HUMAN being the operative word here.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Out of one side of their mouth they say the government must not insert themselves,, out of the other side they say the government must pay for it.. oh the hypocrisy.

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic Willow.

What do the pro-choice advocates say about this?

I'm happy with Obama's decision to allow groups that discuss abortion as an option to be included in receiving international assistance. If it's already budgeted; I have no problem with these groups receiving it as well. However I don't argue with those that said earlier that we have a lot of problems in this country that the foreign aid could be going to instead. I agree that we should make sure our own citizens are taken care of first with any federal monies.

If the government has no business in a woman's uterus, as several on here have posted, then why is it ok for the government to put my tax money in a woman's uterus (thus, ripping out the unborn)?

 

[Zoom-boing]

well anguille, on this, we disagree....

there is a point, in which the foetus can survive outside of the womb without the mother.

"Can", most likely it can. But is not yet doing so. Till it is, it is part of the woman's body.

Do you think fetuses at that stage should be removed from the woman's body and treated as if they were preemies? Then put out for adoption? Do you think that is possible to do that to a woman without causing her worse harm than an abortion? Suppose the woman flat out does not want to give birth? Is there any justification in forcing her to do so?

i can assure you, when a woman miscarries at 5 or 6 months, she is devastated and mourning the loss of her baby.

Most do. This not news to me.

Really? Why was Scott Peterson convicted on two counts of murder if the unborn are part of the woman? When a woman has an abortion, tell me exactly what part of her body no longer exists and functions? Her arms? Her heart? Her skin? Everything is entact in a woman after an abortion; she can even go on and have children later. What part of the child is still entact? Nothing.

 

[Anguille]

Read their posts and tell me that Ravi, Jillian and others who are rabid proponents of abortion don't think they should dictate who has babies, how many they should have, and what the characteristics of babies who are allowed to live, and their parents, should be.

I have and they don't.

Nor do I.

Do you think throwing a tantrum will make you believable?

This is about freedom from government intervention and from being dictated to by fascist religious fanatics like yourself.

Abortion is a personal choice and though I would never impose one on you, I do think you should consider aborting some of your idiotic posts before popping them out.

 

[AllieBaba]

In the uteruses (uteri?) not only of American women..but the poor, oppressed and subjugated women abroad...

While at the same time refusing to challenge the governments which murder and brutalize them daily.

 

[AllieBaba]

Read their posts and tell me that Ravi, Jillian and others who are rabid proponents of abortion don't think they should dictate who has babies, how many they should have, and what the characteristics of babies who are allowed to live, and their parents, should be.

I have and they don't.

Nor do I.

Do you think throwing a tantrum will make you believable?

This is about freedom from government intervention and from being dictated to by fascist religious fanatics like yourself.

Abortion is a personal choice and though I would never impose one on you, I do think you should consider aborting some of your idiotic posts before popping them out.

No, it's about making murder palatable, so people like you get to pick and choose who has babies. Talk about fascist. That's pretty much the definition. Controlling the population using whatever means possible, including genocide.

And murder is never a personal choice. Know why? Because someone else is the one who has to be subjected to the choice.

Sex is a personal choice.
Suicide is a personal choice.

Sorry, killing your baby isn't.

 

[dilloduck]

Read their posts and tell me that Ravi, Jillian and others who are rabid proponents of abortion don't think they should dictate who has babies, how many they should have, and what the characteristics of babies who are allowed to live, and their parents, should be.

I have and they don't.

Nor do I.

Do you think throwing a tantrum will make you believable?

This is about freedom from government intervention and from being dictated to by fascist religious fanatics like yourself.

Abortion is a personal choice and though I would never impose one on you, I do think you should consider aborting some of your idiotic posts before popping them out.

Does this mean you won't have my baby ?

 

[AllieBaba]

It means that, as most pro-abortion eugenecists, she will deny that it is about dictating the types of babies who should be allowed to breathe.

Despite the posts that squawk "if you can't afford it, don't have it", or "those babies would just be criminals anyway" "people like that shouldn't breed" "each additional child just makes each child less valuable" or my personal fave: "Margaret Sanger was really a conservative".

 

[Zoom-boing]

A fetus isn't human? A fetus has no rights? Wrong.

Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Fetal Homicide Laws

 

[AllieBaba]

According to Anguille, fascists one and all.

The only good baby is a dead one, we all know that.