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.

 

Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677

First of all, your sources are biased pro-life sites that promote lies and bogus science.

For example:


Some time ago, Abby Johnson, former clinic director in the largest Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, addressed this issue by saying:
it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.


That is an blatant exaggeration, that's obviously covering a lie. "...not one was for medical reasons" C'mon! [eye roll]

There's no sense trying to communicate with someone whose only interest is spouting biased lies in order to to promote a bigoted agenda that generalized and slanders all women who seek abortions.

Late Abortions: Facts, Stories, and Ways to Help


It's always a mistake to discuss abortion with men. It creates the illusion that it's their business. Woman's body, woman's choice. Period.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
The Washington Post is a pro abortion entity? ok...I will accept your opinion there.

How about a paper, a study done regarding the reasons women get abortions including references, data etc? Does that suit you?

Or is that going to be biased as well? If I provide any DATA that supports my point I guess that, by definition, it is going to be biased? Really?




The top three reason categories cited in both studies were: 1) “Having a baby would dramatically change my life” (i.e., interfere with education, employment and abil- ity to take care of existing children and other depen- dents) (74% in 2004 and 78% in 1987), 2) “I can’t afford a baby now” (e.g., unmarried, student, can’t afford childcare or basic needs) (73% in 2004 and 69% in 1987), and 3) “I don’t want to be a single mother or am having relationship problems” (48% in 2004 and 52% in 1987). A sizeable proportion of women in 2004 and 1987 also reported having completed their childbearing (38% and 28%), not being ready for a/another child (32% and 36%), and not wanting people to know they had sex or became pregnant (25% and 33%). Considering all of the reasons women reported, the authors observed that the reasons described by the majority of women (74%) signaled a sense of emo- tional and financial responsibility to individuals other than themselves, including existing or future children, and were multi-dimensional. Greater weeks of gestation were found to be related with citing concerns about fetal health as reasons for abortion. The authors did not examine asso- ciations between weeks of gestation with some of the other more frequently mentioned reasons for abortion.


Gee, I do not freaking see one word in the above related to health issues. That is the lie, the agenda, the prevarication that is promoted as if that is the main driver for abortions. Bovine excrement.
Study

How about an article regarding the negative impact on women after abortion?

Psychology today (obviously biased)

How bout a 30 year long study? Think that is sufficient? Or is this Psych Paper also biased?
British Journal of Psychology

Here is data from a study. I will link the study and documentation at the end of the quotes:



Among the structured survey respon- dents, the two most common reasons were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now” (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2).
A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a de- sire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).*
Respondents wrote in a number of spe- cific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific con- cerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness. The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same pro- portion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child be- cause they were students or were planning to study. In the in-depth interviews, the three most frequently stat- ed reasons were the same as in the structured survey: the dramatic impact a baby would have on the women’s lives or the lives of their other children (32 of 38 respondents), financial concerns (28), and their current relationship or fear of single motherhood (21). Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy.


Source

From:Lawrence B. Finer is associate director for domestic research, Lori F. Frohwirth is research associate, Lindsay A. Dauphinee is research assistant, Susheela Singh is vice president for research and Ann M. Moore is senior research associate—all at the Guttmacher Institute, New York.

Now, I am sure that all the above papers and studies are biased and anti-abortion, or at least, you will claim so.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Ah yes, because men have nothing to do with procreation at all. The baby is none of our business. Unless the woman wants to squeeze the man for child support and for everything she can get. Right. Need to make up your collective minds which way it is.

And because a life is in the hands of a woman potentially making a choice to end that life, possibly to her own detriment mental and possibly physical health-wise.

Tell me, what are good reasons to kill a child?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Abortions pre-viability are not what I consider "late term" abortions, and they're legal, so it makes no difference the reason. A woman can choose to have an abortion up until the time of viability, period. What difference does it make to you whether the abortion takes place at 10 weeks or 22 weeks? It's an abortion, right?

However, birth defects and other issues can't be determined until after 20-22 weeks. So women who get the bad news that their fetus is serious distressed and/or non-viable need to have the option to abort at that later time.

The late term abortions that I'm referring to, are those that are past the time of "on demand" abortions. Those are done for reason that are always medical.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Always medical? I suppose I just have to take your word for that.

Please provide documentation, unimpeachable, not from pro choice sites. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


edit on 11-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Please prove that "sluts" are getting abortions at 8 months pregnant for recreation, which is what you implied in the first place.

None of sources back up you claim.
edit on 11-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

And for the record: There are statistics in at least one of the papers I linked for late term abortions.

Due to your rapid reply I would not hesitate to state that you did not follow a single link and read the paper, let alone read the data on late term.

Again: Medical reasons: equine and bovine excrement!

No doubt it may be moving that way due to legislation being passed the last couple of years, but if you honestly believe that all women getting late term abortions are doing so for a responsible reason, then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Tennessee.

Common sense, and human nature should tell you that, if nothing else.




edit on 11-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Aha! You cannot back up what you say with anything other than pro-choice material.

Nuff said.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm sorry, but as a woman, I seem to remember my husband being intimately involved in the process that led to our son. Why should I be the only one with a say in ending the results of that process?

It takes two to tango, and the tango leads to the tadpole.

Of course, if you are spontaneously undergoing parthenogenesis, of course it's all your choice.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: windword



Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics: There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc."


Source

That didn't take long. Where is yours?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




The study found that 80% of women seeking later abortion could be described by at least one of five characteristics:
1. Women raising children alone (47%)
2. Women with a history of substance use, heavy drinking, and/or depression (30%)
3. Women who experienced recent conflict or violence with their partner (24%)
4. Women who had trouble deciding what to do about the pregnancy followed by trouble accessing services (22%)
5. Women under age 20 who had never given birth (12%)


Research on Abortion Care

How about data from a pro choice site? Will you accept that?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677

Please prove that "sluts" are getting abortions at 8 months pregnant for recreation, which is what you implied in the first place.

None of sources back up you claim.


I got sources. I provided sources, including one from a pro choice website.

Where is your countering data?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677





Always medical? I suppose I just have to take your word for that.

Please provide documentation, unimpeachable, not from pro choice sites. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


What? You want proof that a woman ending her pregnancy at 8 months always does so for medical reasons?



And for the record: There are statistics in at least one of the papers I linked for late term abortions.


Then quote it. I'm not searching through your sites to prove your point for you. If you have data that suggests that women are getting abortions at 8 months pregnant, for recreation and NOT medical reasons, like you suggested, post it!

I don't care what the reason is that women are getting abortions pre-viability. It's their choice, and none of my business. I want to know why women are getting abortions at 8 months, and why doctors are giving them, which is what you suggested in the first place.



edit on 11-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
I already did. It is above this post. Obviously you choose to ignore it. I know you are not looking at any of the links and are most assuredly not reading them. This is pretty clear.

You made a claim, back it up. I backed up mine. In spades.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I looked at your sources, and I saw nothing there that addresses post-viability abortions ie: 8 months. If I missed it, then please post a quote.

You're the one who said that women were getting abortions at 8 months because of recreational, and not medical needs.

All those sources list the reason why women get abortions pre-viability. Are you moving the goal posts so that you can bash women for the reason they choose to terminate their pregnancy, or do you actually have a case where post-viable babies are being murdered by their mothers and doctors, for recreational purposes?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Sorry that you cannot accept late term data. How many months was not specified. But we all know what late term means, right?

You are the one making the absolutely ridiculous claim that ALL 8 month abortions are for medical reasons.

Prove it. I have provided link after link after link supporting my position.

Show me one, just one, credible non-pro-choice source backing up your claim. Show me one credible source that backs up your claim even partially. Show me one credible source that backs up your claim for any period in pregnancy, I will leave it up to you to choose. I just ask that it partially supports your position and that it be a credible non-biased source.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Oh, and late term is not "pre-viability". Sounds like justifying murder by virtue that the fetus cannot survive on it's own. Got news for you... a new born cannot survive on it's own, so killing a newborn must be ok then.
Um..I have 3 grandchildren and I am pretty sure that even a 6 month old cannot survive on it's own. (yes, that was sarcasm)

I guess it must be ok to murder a year old toddler, cause it too cannot survive on it's own. What you fail to realize is that 5 month old fetuses regularly survive and lead healthy productive lives. Sure glad mom didn't have me aborted, or my brother. Sure glad my wife didn't have our kids aborted. Sure glad my oldest daughter didn't have my grandkids aborted. What a waste and what a shame if they had been.

You started this by playing the little game early on. I do not like to play games, but when people put me in that position I will play.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: windword

Sorry that you cannot accept late term data. How many months was not specified. But we all know what late term means, right?



They're primarily talking late term abortion, third trimester, which is 5 months.

There is nothing in that article suggesting 8th month abortion, other than "20 weeks and later".

It is you who is choosing to designate "later" as an 8th month abortion.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.


So you pretty much have to accept the data for late term. Your statement regarding the reason for 8 month abortions being strictly for medical reasons is thereby, as previously stated, bovine excrement.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Ah, yes, as I posted immediately above, that data does not exist.

However, the late term information stands as inclusive. Funny how small the percentage of abortions committed late term is medical, and yet I should believe that every bit of that applies to 8 month? Hmm.. that makes no sense.

I provided data. I am awaiting countering data from credible sources to support the claim stated above, even in part. I will accept almost anything even suggesting that late term abortions are primarily due to medical reasons, as long as it is from a credible, non-pro-choice source.

I have yet to see a single link.

Something academic would be awesome! I do not see that happening though......



edit on 11-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join