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.

 

Pregnant Woman Perfectly Tells Off Anti-Abortion Protestors

page: 16
25
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Mhm. What people don't understand is that foster families get extra money from the government to house these children. And believe it or not, some of these people don't want more kids. They want the money. They clean up real nice for home visits and then destroy these kids.
Not saying all foster families are like this. But a lot are.



Precisely the point I was making.




posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I just want to add that I also think us men should have no real say on abortion.
We have no idea what it is lile to carry a child and it should be only women who make the laws and such on it.
I mean what right has a 56 year old male texan deciding laws about only women?.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I just want to add that I also think us men should have no real say on abortion.
We have no idea what it is lile to carry a child and it should be only women who make the laws and such on it.
I mean what right has a 56 year old male texan deciding laws about only women?.



Old men who are outsiders should have no say on it. Men in general who are outsiders should have no say. But I do think that the womans significant other should have a say in the decision to have an abortion. It isn't fair for just the woman to make that choice and leave her significant other in the dark about it.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Happened to me with my 2nd wife...she went behind my back because she knew I would want it but she was in her first year of uni.
I didn't blame her I understood.
Ues the other half can give her input but at the end of the day it is her choice.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Happened to me with my 2nd wife...she went behind my back because she knew I would want it but she was in her first year of uni.
I didn't blame her I understood.
Ues the other half can give her input but at the end of the day it is her choice.


I think I'll agree to disagree with you. I think if I were a guy, I would be very hurt if someone went behind my back and did something like that. But I also believe that big decisions should be made together. If you can't make those decisions together, you're not very united. The only time the other person shouldn't be included is when pregnancy is a result of rape. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Old men who are outsiders should have no say on it. Men in general who are outsiders should have no say. But I do think that the woman's significant other should have a say in the decision to have an abortion. It isn't fair for just the woman to make that choice and leave her significant other in the dark about it.




That is the ideal
However ..... my experience is more like this ....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Old men who are outsiders should have no say on it. Men in general who are outsiders should have no say. But I do think that the woman's significant other should have a say in the decision to have an abortion. It isn't fair for just the woman to make that choice and leave her significant other in the dark about it.




That is the ideal
However ..... my experience is more like this ....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ain't that the truth, lol.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Thanks to Dfairlite for making the last few pages interesting while injecting some critical thinking. Mindless rhetoric and logical gymnastics quickly exhaust what little patience I have.

For years I have tried to understand why a person would so rabidly fight for someone else' right to abort/terminate/kill their unborn child. I get why there is passion on the pro-life side; they believe they are fighting to stop murder. The motivations of the equally vocal abortionist crowd are not so obvious.

There are those who genuinely believe abortions are for the good of society (keeping population and poverty levels down, etc). That view is reasonable if unethical. Personally, I see abortion as a temporary and ineffective solution to population problems.

And then there are some who had an abortion in their younger years and proudly support the practice the rest of their lives. My grasp of psychology is somewhere between plebian and amatuer, but it seems to me that most who belong to that second group experience lifelong guilt over their choice to abort. They may get some sense of validation out of supporting the practice alongside others.

But the line I hear over and over from the most boisterous abortionists is "it's the woman's body, so it's her right to choose!" Not sure who planted that idea in society, but we hear it a lot. Scientifically speaking it has no basis in reality. Can a woman choose not to send an ova down her fallopian tube? Can a pregnant woman choose to have a miscarriage at will? Can she choose to force a premature birth...maybe if she claps her hands and hums loudly enough? There is actually not much choice in the matter, after the choice is made to have sex and accept the accompanying responsibilities.

Conception of a human life requires two people to make a series of choices leading up to fertilization. I have come to believe the abortionist movement is part of a greater trend in western society: rejection of personal responsibility. At this point I think it really is that simple. The hate and vociferousness from abortionists is a natural reaction to being confronted with the notion of personal sexual responsibility -- and their choice to eschew that responsibility.

Accidental pregnancies have always happened with regularity. In the past, people stepped up and provided the best possible life for that 'unwanted' child. Maybe the kid didn't get to eat caviar every night, but he/she was allowed to live.
edit on 8-12-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite




You get pregnant and abort it in the first two months, you purposely deprived a human child of life, aka murder.


By your logic, using birth control is depriving a human child of life.

Abortion isn't murder.

A 2 month old fetus isn't a child.


In some technicality it may be. ----------
A two month fetus isn't a child. A child isn't an a adolescent. An adolescent is not an adult. But they are all forms of human life.


An acorn isn't an oak tree. It's a potential oak tree.



However, you can't deprive someone of something they never had. I can't steal $5 from you if you never had $5. Once you have $5 I can commit the crime of theft and steal it. If you never had life I could not derived you if it. However, once you have life I can commit a crime and take it from you.


There is no "stealing" or taking of a life by refusing to be a host to an uninvited guest. A woman has no obligation, legally or morally, to carry and nurture a fertilized egg to term, whatsoever. Nobody is required to donate a body or a body part, or blood or fluids, no matter how righteous the cause.

a reply to: Dfairlite



Human life. Did I leave off the human part? Its not murder to kill a virus, but it is to kill a person. Why?


A fertilized egg is not a person. The main requirement of being defined as a person is "having been born" alive, and taking that "first breath".



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
A fertilized egg is not a person. The main requirement of being defined as a person is "having been born" alive, and taking that "first breath".


Only after taking first breath? Seriously??
So you would support legal abortion right up until birth?

Even a rudimentary understanding of the human life cycle is enough to show you life begins before leaving the womb. Moment of conception is debatable, but come on, man...

And progressives say the pro-life conservatives are ignorant of science...

Turns out ignorance is bliss when it comes to embracing abortion.
edit on 8-12-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Obviously it would have to be a slow transition off of the government programs to private charities. Private charities function on much less money than government "charity". So you can't really say that they wouldn't be able to do it, anymore than I can say that they would. It would be something we'd really have to research and implement properly.


You could let the free market handle it, but good luck getting enough donations to cover all the needed assistance. Private charities already exist and they aren't slowing down the growth of people getting on government assistance much at all. At the end of the day, many of your non-aborted babies will end up starving.


But let's try a different route, that which I suggested earlier. 100% taxpayer funded sterilization for anyone who wants it. Then there is no excuse whatsoever. Abortion can then be outlawed for the heinous crime against humanity that it is.


What about the people who don't opt for sterilization but also want to leave the option open for children at a later date, but when they get pregnant they aren't in a position to care for the child yet? Your scenario may reduce the number of abortions, but it certainly won't eliminate it. It's not like selfishness will disappear.


They have no excuse for abortion. They better head on over to their local charitable foundations for help raising that baby or put it up for adoption. And lots of education (first hand experience) on why sterilization is right for them!


Well you clearly don't know how reality works, because you are either advocating slow starvation after birth or a quick death before birth. You clearly don't understand how economics works, and this is a pretty simple observation. Though I think it is likely that you don't want to see it.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist




And then there are some who had an abortion in their younger years and proudly support the practice the rest of their lives. My grasp of psychology is somewhere between plebian and amatuer, but it seems to me that most who belong to that second group experience lifelong guilt over their choice to abort. They may get some sense of validation out of supporting the practice alongside others.


Women who take birth control, do so because they don't want to have child, now, maybe never. So when a scare or an unplanned pregnancy surprises women, they know what to do. The use Plan B right away, or they make arrangements to have a safe and accessible medical procedure to have the problem taken care of. Women who don't want children, typically don't torture themselves over their abortions.

What does happen, is they are forced to undergo "counseling" from pro-lifers that do everything in their power, pull out every trick in the book to shame and humiliate women seeking abortions. They appeal to guilt and emotional blackmail. They use bogus science and religion. Many women may need therapy after being wrung through the pro-life obstacle course in seeking to exercise their rights to NOT BE pregnant.



Conception of a human life requires two people to make a series of choices leading up to fertilization. I have come to believe the abortionist movement is part of a greater trend in western society: rejection of personal responsibility. At this point I think it really is that simple.


Nonsense. Abortion has been around forever. Forced abortion is condoned in the Old Testament of the Bible if a man has reason to believe the child might not be his. If the pregnant woman is a fornicator, an adulterer or an enemy, they killed them both. Its forbidden nowhere in its pages.

Abortion was used by the ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks and Chinese, to name a few ancient cultures. Where abortions failed or were to risky, there was infanticide. Heck, there was infanticide for blemishes, like birth marks or extra toes.



The hate and vociferousness from abortionists is a natural reaction to being confronted with the notion of personal sexual responsibility -- and their choice to eschew that responsibility.


I think that you have that totally backwards. The "hate and vociferousness" comes from those who seek take away women's autonomy and dictate morality. They are the ones who hate rights and freedoms that don't support their agenda, and want to shame and force women back to filthy, risky back alley abortions, like they deserve!

Forbidding women access to safe medical relief of an unwanted pregnancy can't be seen as anything but oppression and slavery.
edit on 8-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: windword
A fertilized egg is not a person. The main requirement of being defined as a person is "having been born" alive, and taking that "first breath".


Only after taking first breath? Seriously??
So you would support legal abortion right up until birth?

Even a rudimentary understanding of the human life cycle is enough to show you life begins before leaving the womb. Moment of conception is debatable, but come on, man...

And progressives say the pro-life conservatives are ignorant of science...

Turns out ignorance is bliss when it comes to embracing abortion.


I don't think it should be illegal. There are times when it has to be done to save the life of the mother. The Talmud has a section that instructs a midwife how to dismember a fetus that is endangering the life of the mother, WHILE SHE"S IN LABOR.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
Plenty of barbaric acts were practiced with varying regularity throughout history. That doesn't make them acceptable in today's world.

All I care to rebut.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

One of those being not respecting a woman's right to choose to have a baby or not if she gets pregnant.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Which numbers?

The total number of abortions reported in the U.S. is pretty easy to obtain from the CDC:

www.cdc.gov...

From the text: "A total of 765,651 abortions were reported to CDC for 2010".

The report goes on to acknowledges that this figure is low.

'"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because reporting requirements are established by the individual reporting areas (17), the collection of data varies, and CDC is unable to obtain the total number of abortions performed in the United States. During the period covered by this report, the total annual number of abortions recorded by CDC was 65%–69% of the number recorded by the Guttmacher Institute (12,59), which uses numerous active follow-up techniques to increase the completeness of the data obtained through its periodic national census of abortion providers (12)."

So the CDC only gets about 70% of total abortions reported. That makes the total figure a bit over 1 million. I rounded because it makes the math a good deal simpler.

So, we're back to 1 million total abortions

Now as for how many women didn't report health issues or rape as factors. The Guttmacher institute, the same group the CDC cites, recently put out this report. See table two for a list of self-reported reasons why women are choosing to have an abortion.

www.guttmacher.org...

Since the percentages don't add up to 100%, there's no way to exactly tell how many women are actually concerned over their health vs. physical issues with the fetus. I originally used another group's number of 14%, but let's take the highest possible percentage, which is 26% (which also includes the 1% who cite rape as a factor).

That's not very far off from my original estimate. This conservative estimate is around 750,000 abortions which have nothing to do with health reasons (even imaginary ones).

Now, you questioned ALL my figures, so let's go back to deaths caused by botched abortions. Now we're back to the CDC:

www.cdc.gov...

In 1973, there were 25 deaths due to legal abortions and 19 due to illegal ones. The total fatality rate of all illegal and non-illegal abortions from 1973 to 1977 was 2.09 per 100,000 abortions.

My original "estimate" was over 100 deaths per 100,000 abortions (I said 1,000 mothers out of 850,000 abortions)

So we can see that even if abortion becomes 50 times more lethal for the mother than it was during the 70's, my numbers still hold up.



After all this, I say again. The math (and math backed up by the CDC's numbers) shows that if there's even a 1% chance that abortion is murder, we gain more than we lose in terms of human life by outlawing it. 7,500 murders is worse than 2,000 murders.

I've posted this three times now. It's time for someone to answer the question, how sure are you that abortion is not murder? Cause if you say 99%, then we should ban it.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

I think that you have that totally backwards. The "hate and vociferousness" comes from those who seek take away women's autonomy and dictate morality. They are the ones who hate rights and freedoms that don't support their agenda, and want to shame and force women back to filthy, risky back alley abortions, like they deserve!
Forbidding women access to safe medical relief of an unwanted pregnancy can't be seen as anything but oppression and slavery.




Its at times like this I get the strong feeling that there's a certain

subsection of misogynistic people who are militant in the fact that

women who can enjoy sex must be punished.

If they are pregnant and didn't set out to be .... pregnancy is the

punishment *They WILL suffer* for their sins.


Some people are still in the *dark ages* LOL!!



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdubya

After all this, I say again. The math (and math backed up by the CDC's numbers) shows that if there's even a 1% chance that abortion is murder, we gain more than we lose in terms of human life by outlawing it. 7,500 murders is worse than 2,000 murders.
I've posted this three times now. It's time for someone to answer the question, how sure are you that abortion is not murder? Cause if you say 99%, then we should ban it.


Firstly *murder* is unlawful ... abortion is legal and is therefor not

unlawful.

Then it appears you are doing a head count of *murders*? using abortion

statistics.

That which has never lived cannot be *murdered*!?



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

So you think that there's a 0.00% chance that an abortion kills a living human being?

Just want to make myself clear here. You're arguing semantics, fine. Replace "murder" with "ends a human life".

Just answer the question, please.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sdubya

Murder involves killing a person. A fertilized egg, embryo, fetus isn't a person. Abortion isn't murder.




top topics



 
25
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join