Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march

a reply to: UKTruth

That is because Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood as a whole. The Federal governments funds that support Planned Parenthood do not pay for abortions.

The two are linked. I explained why. Perhaps you will explain why the abortion process has no relationship to a woman's health.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

but they accepted the obligation, at least in SOME instances... expecting SOME of the taxpayers to give up money that would possibly help them get the same service or need that the gov't plans on using the money for to help the chosen few. so, a child's runny nose is placed on a higher pedestal as the taxpayer's need for insulin.. or some other very important thing that the taxpayer might die without.
well, what can I say, I think that birth control could be placed on the same level as that child's runny nose on that pedestal at least! in some instances much higher!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

That is because Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood as a whole. The Federal governments funds that support Planned Parenthood do not pay for abortions.

The two are linked. I explained why. Perhaps you will explain why the abortion process has no relationship to a woman's health.

Trumps position on PP is not the same as hard right Republicans. The women speaking at the march were attacking Trump.

As for abortion and health, generally speaking they are not at all related for obvious reasons. Pregnancy and health are intricately related. Abortion is an unnatural process that, in all but a minority of cases, is not performed to protect a womans health.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: seasonal

You know, it speaks loud and clear what these women want, they talk about "all the evils of men and capitalism" yet don't say a peep about women such as the "Ladies in White" in Cuba who get beaten up frequently by the types of socialist reforms these "militant women" are calling for... BTW, they are called "Ladies in White" because they wear white, not because they are white, many of these women are black. (Before somebody claims "that's white nationalism"...)

Or how about protesting for the right of women in places like China who are forced to abort by the socialist policies implemented by the CCP? Or the UN and UNFPA involvement in sending U.S. tax-payers dollars to fund countries like China to force abortion on Chinese women?

Of course, these same women do not condone the involvement of globalist progressive liberals like the Gates, Soros, the Rockefellers etc in forceful sterilizations and forceful abortions of women in third world countries.

That only happens because these "militant socialist women" are only interested in using "social justice" and "social reforms" to implement not only socialism, but the type of socialism found in Marxist and or Leninist countries, or other forms of socialism like Maoism, just as similar "militant women" have done in the past.

I am still reading through the comments here, I thought I'd start with this.

Why do we Leftists not protest these things in other countries? Because we do not live there and we are going to change a foreign government - how? Yes of course we have concerns about these things and believe it or not some people are actually working on these issues and people donate to them. I was reading about GW Bush's new book and it seems even he runs a foundation for health in Africa and to sponsor WOMEN to come to the US for education.

So yes we (and even Republicans!) care about these things but protesting these things, in the US (which some people actually do) - this is going to change the laws and conditions in foreign lands, how? The better bet is these foundations who help people there, and choosing leaders here who are willing to help others' situations too.

And as far as some of your other thoughts - you fear socialism, do you? I will guess that tax $ built the infrastructure that enables your net connection. Socialist policies absolutely have a place because this is good for the community. Socialism and Capitalism can exist together and neither need to be done to extremes. Even conservatives agree that big biz and Wall Street have gotten out of hand.

The Communists aren't coming for you, relax.

a reply to: UKTruth

At a Republican presidential debate in February, Trump acknowledged that Planned Parenthood "helps millions and millions of women" who go for services like breast and cervical-cancer screenings. However, he also said that he would defund it because a portion of its services go toward providing abortions.

Business Insider

It is absurd to say that an abortion is not related to women's health. It is a complex medical procedure.

I'm talking about facts, you're talking about your ideological belief.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Yes...So those Millions of women marching around the country recently must all be terrorists..


Lets round up women...

At no point did his post say what you have claimed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

At a Republican presidential debate in February, Trump acknowledged that Planned Parenthood "helps millions and millions of women" who go for services like breast and cervical-cancer screenings. However, he also said that he would defund it because a portion of its services go toward providing abortions.

Business Insider

It is absurd to say that an abortion is not related to women's health. It is a complex medical procedure.

I'm talking about facts, you're talking about your ideological belief.

Rubbish. Complex procedures do not mean something is related to health.
Women's health services should aim to keep women healthy. Seems obvious to say, but needs to be said.

Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, does nothing to sustain or improve a womans health, therefore abortions can not possibly be 'intricately linked' to women's health.
This has nothing to do with ideological beliefs. I am not for a wholesale ban on abortion.

As for Trump on PP, his position is clear. Get rid of the abortion practice and everything is good with PP. But, if they carry on abusing federal funds, then defund them. Seems sensible.

a reply to: UKTruth

A medical procedure involving sedation is not related to health? Your statement is absurd on its face.

You are using your own definition of "health" and the actual definition is much larger and includes the possibility for necessary abortion procedures for a woman.

You can't predict when and if an abortion would be needed (or wanted) in a woman's life.

You can play statistics, with the restriction of "life-threatening" as your guide ... but you can't predict the future.

Abortion and the right to have one are intricately linked to women's health as I've shown. All you have shown is that you don't believe that they are.

Belief is not fact.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

A medical procedure involving sedation is not related to health? Your statement is absurd on its face.

You are using your own definition of "health" and the actual definition is much larger and includes the possibility for abortion for a woman.

You can't predict when and if an abortion would be needed (or wanted) in a woman's life.

You can play statistics, with the restriction of "life-threatening" as your guide ... but you can't predict the future.

Abortion and the right to have one are intricately linked to women's health as I've shown. All you have shown is that you don't believe that they are.

Belief is not fact.

Breast enlargement involves sedation. I guess that must fall under womens health too then? Or maybe penis enlargement falls under mens health? Your definition of what should constitute the offerings of a health service is ridiculous.

Once again there are very very few cases of abortions that are performed to improve or sustain a womans health. That is what a health service funded by tax payers should do. It's not some bottomless pit of money that can be thrown at every medical procedure. Your statement that a women might in the future have a health problem relating to pregnancy and therefore abortions are linked to her health is one of the most absurd statements I have read on ATS. Maybe we should start giving AIDS drugs to everyone just in case they get AIDS. You know, to keep them healthy, just in case.

In rare occasions abortions need to performed to protect the health of a pregnant woman, but in no way can abortion be described as 'intricately' linked to health. You have shown nothing to back up your statement.

a reply to: UKTruth

Of course the procedure falls under the category of a woman's health if she has the operation. Have you seen any suggestions that Trump is going to get rid of breast enlargement? If not, your examples are specious and not really comparable to this discussion.

Now you're changing the parameters ... now you want to talk about "the offerings of a health service" which is not what we have talked about before which was merely "women's' health."

Once again, you can't predict the future and you can't know whether a woman will need an abortion to save her life or not. You can only talk about "the odds" as if her life is a horse you are betting on. How repulsive!

If you want to discuss what should be offered in a "national health service" that is a different conversation.

In this one, it is plain that an abortion procedure when needed or wanted DIRECTLY affects a woman's health as I've explained.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Of course the procedure falls under the category of a woman's health if she has the operation. Have you seen any suggestions that Trump is going to get rid of breast enlargement? If not, your examples are specious and not really comparable to this discussion.

Now you're changing the parameters ... now you want to talk about "the offerings of a health service" which is not what we have talked about before which was merely "women's' health."

Once again, you can't predict the future and you can't know whether a woman will need an abortion to save her life or not. You can only talk about "the odds" as if her life is a horse you are betting on. How repulsive!

If you want to discuss what should be offered in a "national health service" that is a different conversation.

In this one, it is plain that an abortion procedure when needed or wanted DIRECTLY affects a woman's health as I've explained.

Your posts are becoming more bizarre.
If you are advocating that some future complication to a pregnancy that may or may not occur means abortions help sustain womens health then you are too far gone to have a rationale conversation with. Perhaps every woman should get chemotherapy immediately just in case they get cancer? /facepalm.

Your 'needed or wanted' statement is nonsense. What a woman wants has nothing to do with her health. If an abortion is not required then it in no way relates to health.

a reply to: FalseMove
Because it doesn't work
Any where it's been implemented. It's also a bridge to commumism... Lenin and Marx both admitted it.
And besides that, is it really worth it to enslave ourselves to
A massive totalitarian authoritarian government?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Yes...So those Millions of women marching around the country recently must all be terrorists..


Lets round up women...

At no point did his post say what you have claimed.

Oh...then what is the point of the OP?

a reply to: UKTruth

ya it does.. just like any other elective surgery or medical procedure. just like tummy tucks and facelifts are.
if they weren't considered part of healthcare how come they have to be done by doctors who are usually specialists in the fields? a plastic surgeon might give facelifts and such, but he also might correct a few cleft pallets or restore the appearance of patients serverely burned. probably far fewer than any one planned parenthood does pap smears. but I betcha that in such instances, it would be covered by medicaid if the doctor was willing to be involved in the program.

a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps they're bizarre because you no longer see anything outside your ideology.

What I've said is obvious to any reasonable person.

Here, I'll break it down for you before I leave the conversation with you:

Women are the only humans that can currently get pregnant.

Pregnancy is physical strain on a woman's body and can often result in complications and permanent changes to her body.

In some cases, the pregnancy becomes directly dangerous to a woman's health.

You cannot predict when a woman may become pregnant, and you cannot predict when a pregnancy may become a health risk.

Since you can't predict those things (and neither can anyone per se) it is obvious that a woman must have access to the abortion procedure to insure her health.

Even in cases in which the termination of the pregnancy is a choice on the woman's part, the abortion itself is a medical procedure that involves or can threaten her health (for example if done outside a professional medical environment).

Abortion is always a matter of a woman's health. No abortion has ever been performed that didn't involve a threat, great or small, to a woman's health.

Clarification ended.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: gps777

I wonder just how many of those women who will strike on that day believed trump's words when he described his pussy grabbing habits? that right there would be reason for me to walk!!! "I don't even ask them, ha, ha"... "Just let me do it".. he, he!!! and then.... "Well, it's normal locker room talk, we hear it every day..." and "If women don't want to be exposed to such in the workplace, they should just find a job as a teacher!!"""

While your out there screeching with the rest of them dawnstar, think for a second that his repulsive "comment" a decade ago is worse than planting 4 bombs to kill innocent people that one detonated the other bombs were found and disposed of, which resulted in the deaths of 2 and injuring others, while your screeching for the right to kill unborn babies and paid for by all tax paying citizens that many women are against, that you follow the leaders of.

It doesn`t surprise me at all you think Trumps past comment is worse and that your not interested in these leaders in what they have "done" rather than "said", as you said earlier in the thread, while faking the moral high ground. Birds of a feather and all that, a woman's right to pro death.

But even if the law on abortions was taken away you still have free will to kill, nobody can stop that. Whether it be an unborn/born child
or anyone else. Its just not morally right to do so, for good reason.

Here`s a novel idea instead of murder or selfish irresponsibility on their behalf, use contraceptives, have the child and adopt the child to a responsible loving family or keep your legs shut and don`t screech your demands upon others and expect them not to fight when they are footing the bill.

it so nice to know that around half of this population think so little about women, their right to their own body's integrity that they would rally behind trump when this came out.

Get off your high horse you and those marching do not represent all women. Also there are oodles of video`s showing the mindset of those marching.

THERE WERE CHURCH LEADERS CLAIMING THAT GOD HAD CHOSEN THIS GUY TO LEAD THE COUNTRY!!

Yes I know and might be true, in the Bible God even used leaders that didn`t even believe in Him, Cyrus for example.

But what really matters here is that America needs a massive change for the better and Trump is stepping up to the plate, the globalists and elites don`t like that one bit, its interesting to watch and see how things work out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Are you suggesting that video is in any way a fair or non-biased report on facts? LOL.

Was it the dynamic cinematic style soundtrack that tipped you off?

No it was her balanced thoughtful insight to those marching and their ridiculous bleating, I love hearing intelligent women!

There are plenty more like her out there, not being lead like zombies.

originally posted by: gps777

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Are you suggesting that video is in any way a fair or non-biased report on facts? LOL.

Was it the dynamic cinematic style soundtrack that tipped you off?

No it was her balanced thoughtful insight to those marching and their ridiculous bleating, I love hearing intelligent women!

There are plenty more like her out there, not being lead like zombies.

Balanced insight?

It was a propaganda piece. You know it, I know it, everyone who watched knows it.

Again I will ask, what violence occurred at the Women's March?

And when you have the guts to answer that question, explain to us why this video conflated that event with others, particularly since you claim this is "balanced and thoughtful."

a reply to: Gryphon66


I know its purposefully hard for you but the clue was in the title of the video.

"The Women's March, the DC Riots: Hatred, Violence, Islam and the Left"

originally posted by: gps777
a reply to: Gryphon66


I know its purposefully hard for you but the clue was in the title of the video.

"The Women's March, the DC Riots: Hatred, Violence, Islam and the Left"

Attempting insults only demeans your argument.

The title is the issue.

One more time before I ignore you: What violence occurred at the Women's March on January 21, 2017?