It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I just want them to stop killing all of the damned fetuses.
There are over 120,000 orphans in America, while another 400,000 children live without permanent families
17,900,000 orphans who have lost both parents and are living in orphanages or on the streets and lack the care and attention required for healthy development.
Most women have severe regrets after abortions
But a new study suggests that only very rarely do women regret having an abortion.
"Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again," writes study author Brenda Major, PhD.
originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: Char-Lee
Following that line of "reasoning" how about we take all the disadvantaged folks in the world, stick them all in a barn, and burn it down? HeLLo!!! We are not talking about stray puppies here!! These are HUMAN BEINGS!!!! Just because YOU deem them "unwanted" makes it OK to KILL them???
Easy there trigger. If you had read my previous postings you'd see I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp.
originally posted by: bigwig22
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
I guess it's up to you to decide which term suits you best.
If nobody gets abortion anymore, would you take all those 100,000 babies home to take care of them? Maybe you would prefer them to be with parents that couldn't afford or didn't want a baby in the first place? Or would you let people choose what they think is best for them?
originally posted by: flyandi
It's not that PP is doing abortions, it's that they profit from it and considering the mentality of the CEO of PP, there is very little restrain or moral-ethical barrier. What is 3% of doing these procedures in relation to their profit from it?
That's the big question - and if these 3% is the 95% that keeps PP afloat - well than there is a true issue, right?
How much abuse can you do with 3%?
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Absolutely. The simple fact of the matter is that in the U.S.,the states with the highest levels of teen pregnancy are states with Abstinence Only Until Marriage as the focus of or a state mandate for their versions of sex education. Mississippi is a prime example of this with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. With 55 per 1000 or 5.5% of teen girls becoming pregnant. Compare that with the nations lowest, New Hampshire with 16 per 1000 or 1.6 percent of teen girls becoming pregnant in a state that teaches what is usually referred to as comprehensive sex education. One thing that seems to get lost in these debates and that I find to be equally as important, is that the abstinence only states also have the highest rates of STD's contrasted by comprehensive sex ed. states which have, again, the lowest rates of STD's. And again, Mississippi is the highest at one end of the spectrum and New Hampshire is the lowest at the other end of the spectrum. The more comprehensive the education involved, the lower the rates of both pregnancies and STD's. Teaching abstinence only until marriage has the highest rates of both. Prevention of both pregnancy and STD transmission is one of the highest priorities for PP. I understand the faux moral outrage but people really need to get on board with what PP is actually putting its resources into as opposed to the 3% of their total resources that involve abortions because prevention should be right up there or even a part of the education. The more empowered and educated people of any age or gender are, the less likely they are to be in a position where they see abortion as their only way out. It seems like a win for both sides of the equation.