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.

 

Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If we are talking about RU486, it does require a prescription.


I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

I just realized how ridiculous it is that I've been arguing a women's issue with a bunch of men, who don't hold the MEN responsible for the pregnancy at all. EVERY pregnancy requires a man and he's not even a part of this dialog. The women involved are stupid, irresponsible, lazy, etc. But the men aren't even mentioned.

What a waste of time and energy.


Buts that's not true. If a man wants the baby, he has no choice. If he does not want the baby, he has no choice. It's not his body after all. However, even if he did not want the child, he is held responsable for child support for the better part of two decades. He is held responsable without even a choice in the matter.


The way I look at it is: for eons, when a woman became pregnant and the man walked out on her ---- it was still her fault for: CHOOSING THE WRONG MAN.

If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses abortion with no consideration for the father --- guess what guys --- YOU CHOSE THE WRONG WOMAN.

There are fathers today raising their children from a woman who was not ready to be a mother. Those men CHOSE THE RIGHT WOMAN.




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It doesn't change the fact that you are extreme on this topic. An hour drive isn't that long. I know girls who have made an almost exact drive to have the same kind've abortion (pill). This mother has a decent job and the means to do that.

The problem is that she gave her daughter potentially dangerous drugs without physician oversight. She bought drugs from another country that are illegal in the US. It's really no different than her buying morphine pills online without a prescription.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If we are talking about RU486, it does require a prescription.


I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

I just realized how ridiculous it is that I've been arguing a women's issue with a bunch of men, who don't hold the MEN responsible for the pregnancy at all. EVERY pregnancy requires a man and he's not even a part of this dialog. The women involved are stupid, irresponsible, lazy, etc. But the men aren't even mentioned.

What a waste of time and energy.


Buts that's not true. If a man wants the baby, he has no choice. If he does not want the baby, he has no choice. It's not his body after all. However, even if he did not want the child, he is held responsable for child support for the better part of two decades. He is held responsable without even a choice in the matter.


The way I look at it is: for eons, when a woman became pregnant and the man walked out on her ---- it was still her fault for: CHOOSING THE WRONG MAN.

If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses abortion with no consideration for the father --- guess what guys --- YOU CHOSE THE WRONG WOMAN.

There are fathers today raising their children from a woman who was not ready to be a mother. Those men CHOSE THE RIGHT WOMAN.


Out laws should not be judged on whatever emotional mythos you have about eons ago, but on equal protection under the law. Accountability without choice is not equal protection under the law.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
There are ways of making sure you don't get pregnant, including but not limited to the unheard of and inhuman practice of abstinence.


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


The reality of life wrapped up in idealism.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If we are talking about RU486, it does require a prescription.


I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

I just realized how ridiculous it is that I've been arguing a women's issue with a bunch of men, who don't hold the MEN responsible for the pregnancy at all. EVERY pregnancy requires a man and he's not even a part of this dialog. The women involved are stupid, irresponsible, lazy, etc. But the men aren't even mentioned.

What a waste of time and energy.


Buts that's not true. If a man wants the baby, he has no choice. If he does not want the baby, he has no choice. It's not his body after all. However, even if he did not want the child, he is held responsable for child support for the better part of two decades. He is held responsable without even a choice in the matter.


The way I look at it is: for eons, when a woman became pregnant and the man walked out on her ---- it was still her fault for: CHOOSING THE WRONG MAN.

If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses abortion with no consideration for the father --- guess what guys --- YOU CHOSE THE WRONG WOMAN.

There are fathers today raising their children from a woman who was not ready to be a mother. Those men CHOSE THE RIGHT WOMAN.


Out laws should not be judged on whatever emotional mythos you have about eons ago, but on equal protection under the law. Accountability without choice is not equal protection under the law.


Make sure you pick the right woman.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No it's not untrue I looked into it.

This is why I hate discussing abortion. Libs are out of control on the issue. We are talking about an illegal back alley abortion here.

I completely support right to choose.. this woman and her daughter HAD THAT RIGHT and they had access to a clinic to have the procedure done, but the mother chose an illegal route and gave her daughter a secret back alley abortion and people are completely blinded by their politics.

It's why I love being level headed in the middle libertarian, but it's damn frustrating because I deal with the extremes on both sides.

I believe in the right to choose. Abortions for everyone for all I care, but this woman chose an illegal abortion performed by herself on her daughter (even if it was a pill she didn't have the knowledge a doctor prescribing may have had) rather than going to the abortion clinic an hour away.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Please provide your personal experience in regards to abortion and the fullness of what it entails.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

Well we know why you think how you do, my question, why did you decide to murder your unborn child???

Jaden


YOUR belief.

Not mine.


You said it was a spontaneous abortion.. why didn't you just define that instead of saying your belief not mine. This is getting a little weird.. it sounds like you support abortion but have never had one, but are implying you have to.. i don't know better relate?

A spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage not an abortion as the poster replying to you presumed.

This thread is getting too weird for me.

My final comment.. women should be able to have abortions. That said, a clinic being an hour away is not justification to perform illegal back alley abortions (even if it's with a pill and seems safe). I don't understand people who think a clinic an hour away is a problem because abortions generally aren't emergencies. People are arguing that the mom was somehow justified but she wasn't (even though I think the punishment was too harsh). She should have taken her daughter to the clinic an hour away rather than order a pill illegally. I am pro choice, but some of the people here are extreme. A clinic an hour away isn't that big of a deal, but I guess there should be one on every block?
edit on 10-9-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You're absolutely right...both the man AND the woman can choose many options to avoid pregnancy...abstinence the one that almost no one seems to consider for some reason???

I've NEVER used any type of birth control with my wife of 10 years (neither has she, no pill, no nothing) and we have had two children, BOTH, the first time we tried.

The man is held to a higher standard than women, they are chased for child support years later even when they didn't know that the woman was pregnant. They aren't (as of now) given ANY choice in whether the child is born or not, even if they want to keep it and the woman doesn't...

Like you said, it takes two to tango, my feelings are just that if it takes two to tango and you're going to hold both parties accountable, then both parties should have equal say in what happens.

disagreements on WHAT should occur should go towards life IMO, but I would be equally inclined to accept that no mutual agreement would mean ending the pregnancy (although, it should be decided prior to the start of the second trimester).

Jaden



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If we are talking about RU486, it does require a prescription.


I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

I just realized how ridiculous it is that I've been arguing a women's issue with a bunch of men, who don't hold the MEN responsible for the pregnancy at all. EVERY pregnancy requires a man and he's not even a part of this dialog. The women involved are stupid, irresponsible, lazy, etc. But the men aren't even mentioned.

What a waste of time and energy.


Buts that's not true. If a man wants the baby, he has no choice. If he does not want the baby, he has no choice. It's not his body after all. However, even if he did not want the child, he is held responsable for child support for the better part of two decades. He is held responsable without even a choice in the matter.


The way I look at it is: for eons, when a woman became pregnant and the man walked out on her ---- it was still her fault for: CHOOSING THE WRONG MAN.

If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses abortion with no consideration for the father --- guess what guys --- YOU CHOSE THE WRONG WOMAN.

There are fathers today raising their children from a woman who was not ready to be a mother. Those men CHOSE THE RIGHT WOMAN.


Out laws should not be judged on whatever emotional mythos you have about eons ago, but on equal protection under the law. Accountability without choice is not equal protection under the law.


Make sure you pick the right woman.


But that's illogical. That's like telling a battered woman "tough #--you should have picked the right man." Do you even have the remotest connection to the concept of logic in the slightest or are you 100% driven by irrational emotion?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

How fast do you drive that you can travel 75 miles in an hour? Besides, as was already pointed out, it's at least 3, maybe 4 150 mile trips, that most likely amounts to 3-4 days off from work and school. All because a bunch of busy bodies who want to stick their nose in other peoples business have managed to shut down clinics that do things that they don't agree with.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
accidental repost...

JAden
edit on 10-9-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Annee

Well we know why you think how you do, my question, why did you decide to murder your unborn child???

Jaden


YOUR belief.

Not mine.


You said it was a spontaneous abortion.. why didn't you just define that instead of saying your belief not mine. This is getting a little weird.. it sounds like you support abortion but have never had one, but are implying you have to.. i don't know better relate?

A spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage not an abortion as the poster replying to you presumed.


Oh, she's had one--it's almost like a right of passage in their house. Her, her daughter, free clinics, let the taxpayer save us from our decisions! Yay!



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You're absolutely right...both the man AND the woman can choose many options to avoid pregnancy...abstinence the one that almost no one seems to consider for some reason???

I've NEVER used any type of birth control with my wife of 10 years (neither has she, no pill, no nothing) and we have had two children, BOTH, the first time we tried.

The man is held to a higher standard than women, they are chased for child support years later even when they didn't know that the woman was pregnant. They aren't (as of now) given ANY choice in whether the child is born or not, even if they want to keep it and the woman doesn't...

Like you said, it takes two to tango, my feelings are just that if it takes two to tango and you're going to hold both parties accountable, then both parties should have equal say in what happens.

disagreements on WHAT should occur should go towards life IMO(with the dissenter having both no legal rights to the child and no legal obligation either), but I would be equally inclined to accept that no mutual agreement would mean ending the pregnancy (although, it should be decided prior to the start of the second trimester).

Jaden



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

That should be self evident...

Jaden



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Well.. the answer to that is 75 mph.

Many highways are 70-75 mph, but okay assume i'm wrong, i'll correct myself for you: An hour and 15 minutes is not that far to drive for an abortion. This mother had the option of driving her daughter an hour and 15 minutes but instead chose to give her daughter an illegal back alley abortion, endangering her daughters life/health, because either she wanted to keep it a secret or it was an inconvenience to her. Either way it is unjustified.


I support the right to choose, i'm just not psychotic. Why exactly are you arguing with me.. i am right.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I have no problem with abortions. I've never had a gf that had one because.. i've just been careful, but i have dated two girls that had had them previously.
I am pro choice because I am not a woman and I don't feel it's my place to really even have an opinion. This case is different because it's not about abortion being right and wrong, but the mom giving a dangerous illegal abortion when there was a clinic available to her.

The poster said her "abortion" was spontaneous though. That's not an abortion in the sense we are discussing, but a miscarriage.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: NavyDoc

I have no problem with abortions. I've never had a gf that had one because.. i've just been careful, but i have dated two girls that had had them previously.
I am pro choice because I am not a woman and I don't feel it's my place to really even have an opinion. This case is different because it's not about abortion being right and wrong, but the mom giving a dangerous illegal abortion when there was a clinic available to her.

The poster said her "abortion" was spontaneous though. That's not an abortion in the sense we are discussing, but a miscarriage.


I'm not anti abortion either, for the most part. What I am anti is anti people blaming others for their own bad decisions and insisting that others fund their bad decisions without accountability or recourse or input.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Do you have a source that she had closer clinics that were shut down by "busy bodies?"

Also you think 2-4 hour and 15 minute trips are such an inconvenience that the mom should risk her daughters health?! Do you not understand how ludicrous your argument is?

If someone I loved needed an abortion I would take the time and money it took to do it right to make sure they were healthy and safe. Some of you guys are insane and so caught up on the freedom that you dismiss the importance of safety. You sound like you would prefer a Gosnell on every corner rather than a couple trips an hour and 15 minutes away.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow




No it's not untrue I looked into it.


It is true. I looked into it better.


In reality, the guidelines for the ingredients in the abortion pill were released back in 2000, and doctors say they’re now extremely outdated. Women who want to end a pregnancy can safely and effectively take a much lower dosage than the FDA recommends, so that’s how doctors are administering the pill. And this dynamic is hardly specific to abortion. Drug companies don’t always go back to the FDA to complete the complicated and expensive process of re-lableing their products, even if the medical standards evolve, so it’s actually very common for doctors to follow an off-label protocol for prescribing medications.
That’s why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) both oppose these state laws. “

thinkprogress.org...



On ABC’s “This Week” Carol Tobias, the president of the National Right to Life, tried to make the argument that clinics are shuttering their doors because “they don’t want to meet even the minimum of safety and health regulations established for other surgical centers,” though it’s been established by health professionals that the new regulations, like the width requirements for doors and hallways, parking lot designs, and having admitting privileges to local hospitals, are excessive and unnecessary for a safe abortion. Dr. Barbara Levy of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said, in the clip shown to the show’s guest, that the new laws are “Absolutely about restricting access… it is not about safety.”

When “This Week” host Martha Raddatz pointed to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statements that these new regulations were not needed for patient safety,
bluenationreview.com...


TRAP Laws Gain Political Traction While Abortion Clinics—and the Women They Serve—Pay the Price




top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join