One Simple Question Makes Pro Choice Activists visibly uncomfortable

originally posted by: KingKelson
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:


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

As always, it should be a choice made by the pregnant woman.

Your OP seems to want a number. I would think 18 weeks for any reason and past that point there should be more and more restrictions as to why.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ketsuko

There are over 7billion people. And think about it in a collective evolutionary way, a handicapped child will always have a harder life and not all the opportunities you would want it to have.
Adoption always leaves a scar. We already have more than enough psychopaths, don't you think?
I know this sounds horribly harsh, but if you get a child that has no opportunity to be part of the elite, you give birth to misery.

The goal of life is not to meet some sort of set standard of external success. There are countess handicapped adults who are happy in life and adopted children are, on average, better off since their parents are proven to be fit for raising a child.

I am pro-choice but I certainly would never consider a pro-abortion stance like yours to be an ethical way forward for our society.

originally posted by: Peeple
But than again I am someone who would support euthanasia for everyone with an IQ below 120.
For the greater good, the planet and to avoid the devolution into mindless, ape like consumers.

Are you sure? I don't think the world needs more evil geniuses like me.

Shorey it was supposed to say 21 weeks. My bad. As for the 52nd trimester, it's a south park reference. 50 KINGKELSON points to the person who can name the episode and circumstances.!

a reply to: jimmyx

a reply to: KingKelson

Abortion - an extremely safe procedure, as far as surgical procedures go, becomes significantly more risky as the pregnancy progresses. Most abortions performed after 16 weeks are done so either because tragic fetal abnormalities have been detected, or because of risks to the mother's life. Complications and death rates increase the further along the pregnancy is:

Source for the below quotes

While all abortions pose physical and psychological risks for the woman, medical risks from abortion increase markedly as pregnancy progresses.[3] At 12-13 weeks gestation, the physical complication rate is 3 percent to 6 percent. The complication rate increases to 50 percent or higher as abortions are performed into the second trimester.

The risk of death is higher in later stages of pregnancy. A study of national data on abortion-related mortality from 1988 to 1997 found that at 13-15 weeks of gestation, the rate of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 per 100,000; at 16-20 weeks, the rate rose to 29.5 per 100,000; and at or after 21 weeks, the rate reached 76.6 deaths per 100,000

I guess my point being, the complication and death rate increases dramatically as time goes on, and so, taking the YES/NO out of the abortion question and timing thereof itself, these statistics alone should make abortion beyond 20 weeks for any reason other than medically necessary for the health of the mother or recent discovery of the non-viability of the fetus, a no-go based on medical ethics.

Yeah, I actually had the chance to sit and talk with an abortion supporter a couple of years ago. After one statement I changed her mind on the subject.

"The difference between a legal abortion and murder, is TIME."

Abort a baby at 3 months? Legal.

Purposely kill the baby as it emerges from the woman? Life in prison.

That statement can't be argued.

a reply to: KingKelson

For a segment of the population that wants freedom to do what they want and the government to keep their noses out their business.

They sure are for telling people how to live their lives, take their choices away and have the government be stick their noses in someones business when it comes to abortion.

Hypocritical.

originally posted by: matadoor
Yeah, I actually had the chance to sit and talk with an abortion supporter a couple of years ago. After one statement I changed her mind on the subject.

"The difference between a legal abortion and murder, is TIME."

Abort a baby at 3 months? Legal.

Purposely kill the baby as it emerges from the woman? Life in prison.

That statement can't be argued.

c'mon....time affects EVERYTHING!!

it's not a baby at 3 months, it's a growing fetus

a reply to: Abysha

No the goal of life is survival of the fittest. Just because humans found a way to become "social" humanists doesn't mean it is beneficial. Ever seen an adult handicapped antelope?
And then there is the point of most handicapped people having handicapped partners... So what will the next generation look like? Can you say where this will be going?
And isn't their happiness artificial, because they are outcasts of the normal social happiness scales?
Do they have access to good jobs? Money for trips abroad? Or anything else you and me would consider an essential happiness factor?

a reply to: matadoor

Doesn't change my mind. Or most people's, I imagine.

originally posted by: matadoor
Yeah, I actually had the chance to sit and talk with an abortion supporter a couple of years ago. After one statement I changed her mind on the subject.

"The difference between a legal abortion and murder, is TIME."

Abort a baby at 3 months? Legal.

Purposely kill the baby as it emerges from the woman? Life in prison.

That statement can't be argued.

This could be argued from the other side, as well. Here's something I've heard said:

Here’s a test:
I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding an embryo in the other.
I’m going to drop one. You chose which.
If you really truly believe an embryo is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.
Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.
Because you’re aware there’s a difference.
Now admit it

a reply to: KingKelson

In response to the OP,

No man, women, law, policy, order, or any authoritative action or figure,

Should EVER, EVER, tell a woman what she can or cant do with HER OWN body.

a reply to: KingKelson

They are right to not answer there and then, since what they are doing doesnt need that clarification. First protect peoples right to choose.

THEN figure out the specifics.

IMO, medical professionals need to come up with a response as to when the brain forms its complex structures and the baby starts to have autonomous movements.

I would say 3 1/2 months. After that, its iffy.

ALSO, and this is huge.....

States should decide. The federal government should not.

a reply to: avgguy

Love how there has been no response to this. Solid question.

a reply to: frostie

So Kevorkian was right?

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.

What are you talking about? Abortions are at an all time low nationally.
Abortion rate in the U.S. hits an all-time low, CDC reports

a reply to: Abysha

That is awesome. In going to use that if it's ok. Well I probably won't ever use it but it's good to keep in the back of the mind just in case. Thank you

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Abysha

No the goal of life is survival of the fittest. Just because humans found a way to become "social" humanists doesn't mean it is beneficial. Ever seen an adult handicapped antelope?
And then there is the point of most handicapped people having handicapped partners... So what will the next generation look like? Can you say where this will be going?
And isn't their happiness artificial, because they are outcasts of the normal social happiness scales?
Do they have access to good jobs? Money for trips abroad? Or anything else you and me would consider an essential happiness factor?

How about you take a survey. Go ask ten or more "handicapped people" why they haven't killed themselves.

Survival of the fittest has never been a goal; only a feature. "Survival" is survival. If people are alive and thriving, they are fit to survive.

If you can reduce your happiness down to simply not being handicapped, you live a stunted life.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ForteanOrgyes its strange to Americans as well for we have already discussed this but its coming up again and again and its insane!!!

I don't know about the US, but in the EU nobody is forced to have an abortion. So, nobody get his or her rights taken away by allowing abortions. Some point out that the child has rights too - indeed. But initially the "child" is just a lump of cells that is part of its mothers body and if the mother wants to, she can abort that child, at least up to say 15 weeks. It's not something mothers do lightheartedly, so they tend to avoid it if they can.

BTW: no, the father has no say in the matter. If he wants to have a say in the matter he should discuss it with the women - BEFORE he sires her. If they don't want children (yet) they should use anticonception and decide what to do when she gets pregnant still. Same goes for what to do when they want a child and it proves to be suffering from a severe defect. You should decide these matters BEFORE having sex.

And regardless: as the only one that is surely a parent - the mother decides.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: avgguy

Love how there has been no response to this. Solid question.

The question:

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?"

Ill take a crack at it.

These brain waves, and heartbeats have not fully developed into a person.

It is at the moment of birth when the Waves and beat when I determine life. (This is my opinion)

The fetus can not sustain a beat/waves on its own. It relies on the mother, along with the decision to abort or not.

originally posted by: ketsuko

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?

when it can viably function on it's own, without an umbilical cord.