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.

 

One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
dailycaller.com...
Im not a fan of the title of this article, but in told I had to use it in the thread title so there ya go:

So I realize that this source is biased and such but I think it raises a good question. At what point should it be illegal for a woman to get an abortion, if you (in general) think it should be illegal at all? In the article, the reporter went to ask pro choice protestor in front of the Supreme Court when they thought abortive should be illegal. Most seemed to get confused at the question, with most eventually saying it shouldn't be, according to the article. This got me wondering what their responses would be if asked directly if the protestors would support abortion at nine months, or even the 52nd trimester (Cartman's Mom anyone?) Or what the limit would and/or should be fire the pro choice crowd.

I know the topic of abortions has been done to death, here on ATS, but I would like to hear some responses, if y'all don't mind. Personally I am pro life, unless the fetus/baby directly threatens the mothers life, in which case I support her right to choose. As for a time limit, I think the national 21 months works. I'm really not sure, being a man who has never really had to think about this in the context of my own life.

Thanks ATS, can't wait to hear your responses, if you so choose to grace my thread


Have a great day and watch out for them SkyWendys
edit on 15-3-2016 by KingKelson because: (no reason given)



+23 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
This is why it's pro "choice". No ones decision to abort, adopt away, or keep their child should be based on other people's opinions of what's okay/not okay.

Personally, I couldn't dream of choosing to abort a fetus that looked like baby, but that's on me. If someone wished to, that should be a private choice. I really don't think many women are choosing a "Cartmans Mom", aborting a fetus at 52 weeks, good reference though.

I think all people, including doctors, should be able to make their own private choice.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson

Honestly if i'd know the child would be handicapped I would abort it.
And the same if I were a drug addict unable to care for it.
Or if it is a rape baby, I could never love.
There are many good reasons.
Preferably till the 12.week as long as it is still not a real baby.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson

I believe the choice should be that of the woman.


+20 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
My question would be

" If we use the absence of brain waves (or heartbeat) to declare death, then why wouldn't you use brain waves ( or a heartbeat) to declare life?"
edit on 15-3-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson

I hate when people use the term Pro Life or Pro Choice.

Because it implies that people who aren't Pro Life, are Pro Abortion, which isn't the case. No sane person wants there to be ANY kind of abortions if we can help it. It's just a matter of realizing that if there's no legal pathway to that procedure, you're just endangering the lives of women and young girls.

The question posed is a good one, and there's already well established law for dealing wit that.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
"52nd trimester" ??...that's 13 years...."national 21 months" ??....that's almost 2 years....to answer your question, it's up to the mother....let me ask you.....what sort of internal surgery would you like, where other people decide if you get it or not, without your permission????
it's the woman's body, she decides....not a mythical god, not a bible, and not another person.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Honestly if i'd know the child would be handicapped I would abort it.


This one we can argue on, but at the same, time I remember the undue pressure put on me to breast feed. I can well imagine the same pressure put on a woman who carries a child with a known or feared handicap to abort. Is that fair to her? Is she then making a "free" choice or one set up for her by society who thinks they are influencing her for the "greater good?"


And the same if I were a drug addict unable to care for it.
Or if it is a rape baby, I could never love.


These two are more selfish. They both center on you and your ability with no thought to the child. So what if you can't care for it or if you can't love it? Speaking as someone with a lot of adopted people in and around my family, there are other people in this world who would love to have the chance to take up that burden for you, so why punish the child for what you can't do?


There are many good reasons.


While I won't say there are no reasons for it to exist, I will say I think there are fewer of them than you do.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: KingKelson
At what point should it be illegal for a woman to get an abortion, if you (in general) think it should be illegal at all?



At what point?

At the point where republicans start to support birth control, expand sex education, increase funding for women's health clinics, support programs that financially assist single mothers, support paid maternity leave, and stop slut shaming.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
"52nd trimester" ??...that's 13 years...."national 21 months" ??....that's almost 2 years....to answer your question, it's up to the mother....let me ask you.....what sort of internal surgery would you like, where other people decide if you get it or not, without your permission????
it's the woman's body, she decides....not a mythical god, not a bible, and not another person.


Except it's not just her. There is also the baby to consider.

At what point do you think a baby becomes a being we ought to consider in this equation?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KingKelson
At what point should it be illegal for a woman to get an abortion, if you (in general) think it should be illegal at all?



At what point?

At the point where republicans start to support birth control, expand sex education, increase funding for women's health clinics, support programs that financially assist single mothers, support paid maternity leave, and stop slut shaming.





And yet, all those things have been done and we still don't see a drop in the rate of abortion. Stop blaming Republicans for everything wrong in your world.

You could kill all Republicans tomorrow, then you could kill all the Christiand, and people would still have a lot of abortions.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson

At no time should abortion be "illegal". I have no problem with regulations that protect a viable fetus, but a fetus that is threatening the life and/or well being of its mother, and is NOT viable or compatible with life outside the womb, should be able to be aborted at any stage necessary.

I also support euthanization of languishing newborns, who have no chance of survival and are doomed to a short painful life.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I do think late-term abortions for no good reason should be out-lawed, other than that, the mother should have full choice of what she wants to do with her body, she has the choice to consult with the father if she wants, but can just as easily do what she wants anyway.

Not to say, I think it is bad ethics to NOT consult with the father, but keep the government out of our vaginas, pleez



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: KingKelson

I hate when people use the term Pro Life or Pro Choice.

Because it implies that people who aren't Pro Life, are Pro Abortion, which isn't the case. No sane person wants there to be ANY kind of abortions if we can help it. It's just a matter of realizing that if there's no legal pathway to that procedure, you're just endangering the lives of women and young girls.

The question posed is a good one, and there's already well established law for dealing wit that.

~Tenth


100% agree with you, TTTP...I'm pro choice, but hate to hear that a woman had one.....no man can realize how much inner pain and sorrow, a woman goes through when she gets one.....the cavalier way some men speak about it, as if the woman is simply taking out the trash, makes me sick.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Is that fair to her? Is she then making a "free" choice or one set up for her by society who thinks they are influencing her for the "greater good?"


There's nothing fair about raising a child with a handicap. I've special needs folk in my family and I love them to death, but they all have relatively good quality of life. Personally, I would not abort for such reasons because I know I can deal with it, but not everybody can.

It's certainly worth it.

Your second point is entirely on point with my thinking, other than babies born with drug addictions, that's kinda selfish of us in a way. It's one of those things where society only cares about you until you are born and then you're just another crack addled baby that the system is likely to abuse.

There are very few reasons for abortion if you ask me, but all in all, still a necessary practice to have available in the 21st century.

~Tenth
edit on 3/15/2016 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What if a woman's rapist was mentally unstable, psychotic, a sociopath? Some would argue all rapists fall into this category. What if you carried the baby to term, it was adopted by a loving family, and then began to show these tendencies as well? I see your point about there being a lot of families who would love to have a child, and surely, a rapist could come from any two parents...by why chance it? Why let that rapists genes live on if a woman would rather have an abortion?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: KingKelson
My personal stance has always been that if the choice is made then it needs to happen ASAP. I don't think life begins at conception but don't think it begins once it leaves the womb. It talks about the first trimester in the article, maybe that is the point. I don't think the answers showed any discomfort, didn't watch any video associated with it tho. Can't really right now.

Have to agree with alot of the replies here, I would rather there be no abortions but making them illegal to make that happen is not the way to go. Also if the mothers life is in danger then late term is something to be talked about.
edit on thTue, 15 Mar 2016 12:32:19 -0500America/Chicago320161980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
it's up to the mother.

In Europe the widely accepted threshold is that is should be allowed up to 12-15 weeks, in some cases (e.g. when a very serious illness is detected in the child, or the mother might be in danger when she continues to carry) up to 20 weeks.

BTW: it's quite natural to have an abortion. Many mothers have had several! Almost a third, some even say half, of pregnancies end in an spontaneous abortion, some after a few days, some after a few weeks. Creating a new human being is a complex and error-prone process, and is aborted if something goes awry.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Not to say, I think it is bad ethics to NOT consult with the father, but keep the government out of our vaginas, pleez



OK. I keep seeing this.

You want the government out of your vagina, but at the same time, you want the government to pay for everything that goes on inside your vagina - free care, free birth control, free abortions, etc.

Do you not begin to see how these two positions are mutually exclusive? Your head should be exploding from the cognitive dissonance.

If you want to use your vagina as you see fit and not have it be anyone's business what goes on there ... then the simplest way to ensure that is to take full, including financial, responsibility for it, not demand that everyone else pay for what you want to do with it.

See, my taxes are now wrapped up in what goes on inside your vagina, just like yours are wrapped up inside what goes on inside mine. Believe you me, I never wanted anyone else to pay for what goes on inside my vagina. I happen to find the idea of the government and everyone else's money paying for what goes on there a bit creepy and was perfectly happy taking care of it myself, even if that meant I had to adjust my extracurricular bedroom activities accordingly.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I never said "free abortions", I don't think anyone does.

Free healthcare - yes, free birth control - yes (so you don't have to get an abortion...get it)

So NO, there is nothing exploding in my head, all makes perfect sense to me


KEEP THE GOVT OUT OF OUR VAGINAS!!!!!


edit on 15-3-2016 by veracity because: KEEP THE GOVT OUT OF OUR VAGINAS!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join