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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Abortion tussle at debate was wow

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Only if the father signs papers to support and provide for the child for life or go to prison.


Have you ever heard of child support? No?




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

Only if the father signs papers to support and provide for the child for life or go to prison.


Have you ever heard of child support? No?



Have you ever tried to collect it?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"progressives, progressives, progressives....."

that law that I keep bringing up, as it stands one the books, now, as the legislators wrote it..considering the fact that this year, they wanted to extend it till probably someone piped up and said.....we can't enforce it! ... want to know, honestly what that is telling me about "conservatives, conservatives, conservatives"?

first, they don't trust the word of the mother and her doctor, no, a second doctor has to sign off attesting to the danger before they will allow it, but beyond that...
the husband has to have the final say....
it tells me that they place the husband rights to the child above the women's own right to life.
a pregnant women does not belong to herself, but rather she carries the property of the husband and until that property is delivered to him, he holds her fate in his hands!

as long as the child is an entity within the women's body, the women's rights trump the child's and she is the only one who should be in a position to opt to forfeit her rights... no one else.

there is a happy middle ground that I could accept, but looking at the laws that have been passed and attempted to be passed, I am sorry, but I don't think the pro-life is willing to accept the idea that only the women can decide weather a baby, who may have little chance of survival, is worth risking herself for and to force her to, and have the worst happen in my opinion would be a form of murder in itself.
so, I guess the pro-life will keep on getting laws passed that are shot down because they don't want to place any value on the mother, while hoping and praying that the right someone is put in as president so they can stack the supreme court with supremes that care less about justice and the pro-choice will continue on the opposite end of the sphere, since why should we venture halfway when yous will accept nothing less that a 100% ban anyways.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

lol... considering, child support should be half of what is costs to raise a kid, ya know half the cost of the extra you have to pay for larger housing, half the cost of the medical bills, half the cost of the food, the clothing, the school supplies. ect.....
I wonder just how many women have bothered trying to figure out just how much that half is, and comparing it to what they are getting? for alot of women that I know, they don't get nearly enough to cover half of the cost, if they are getting anything.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

lol... considering, child support should be half of what is costs to raise a kid, ya know half the cost of the extra you have to pay for larger housing, half the cost of the medical bills, half the cost of the food, the clothing, the school supplies. ect.....
I wonder just how many women have bothered trying to figure out just how much that half is, and comparing it to what they are getting? for alot of women that I know, they don't get nearly enough to cover half of the cost, if they are getting anything.



Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know (know of) several "dad's" working cash under the table - - - and claiming they can't pay child support because they can't find a job.

My ex-Canadian son-in-law - - - they yanked his drivers license, took his tax refund, and would have thrown him in jail if he'd been in Canada. They don't do that here in the states.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So you actually view a human fetus as "property of anyone"?...

BTW, the law says the states can decide. What each state decides is up to the voters of that state, it is not up to you alone.
edit on 21-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: dawnstar

So you actually view a human fetus as "property of anyone"?...

BTW, the law says the states can decide. What each state decides is up to the voters of that state, it is not up to you alone.


Up to the voters?

More like backroom shoved through at midnight by hand selected politicians.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The majority of abortions are not done to save a woman's life, but you keep trying to say it is... Then you go on to claim the pro-life movement don't want to place any value on the woman's life, yet another lie on your part. Not to mention that many people who are part of the "pro-life movement" are women... But of course, you don't care about the opinion of those women right?...

Then, there is the fact that the woman can decide up to the second trimester, yet you don't mention that and instead you want more... Once you get your way are you going to shoot for what other progressives want?... To give parents the ability to murder their newborns "as long as that newborn is an inconvenience"?...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I don't think I said I viewed the baby as anyone's property but rather accused the conservative lawmakers of so carolina as viewing it the property of the husband, since he seems to be the one with the power to decide which is more valued, his wife, or the baby she is carrying.




BTW, the law says the states can decide. What each state decides is up to the voters of that state, it is not up to you alone.


not exactly, it says that the states can regulate it, but their regulations have to protect the health of the mother.. period!!!



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

we're talking late term abortions here...
you're right, most of those are because problems within the baby are found severe enough that is can't survive outside of the womb.
the second most often reason is the health of the mother.
and yes, there are a few that are because of personal reasons, but the cost of the procedure is around $15,000, most of the personal reasons are done prior to that point...

trump claims that are ripping baby's out of the mothers womb in the last weeks of pregnancy... it would be very rare!!!




The only type of abortion that does happen after 24 weeks is for fetal anomalies. Most abortions for fetal anomalies happen before 24 weeks, but a very small percentage happen later than that. The abortions that take place later do so because it takes time to do the ultrasounds and genetic testing. Sometimes a fetal MRI may even be needed.

Sadly, some women are lied to by anti-abortion doctors in states with gestational age limits and get their genetic testing done on the late side because the doctor wants to try to take the possibility of an abortion off the table. I have personally heard of this happening.

However, even with the most on-the-ball OB-GYN, it can still be a race to get all the information and give a pregnant person time to think it over before 24 weeks. Sometimes the drastic nature of the problem isn’t fully realized until the pregnancy progresses. Other times a woman is carrying a fetus incompatible with life and thought she would go to term and let nature take its course, but then she realizes she just can’t. Who among us should judge those women?

When these procedures do happen, they could be an induction of labor, or some highly skilled providers can perform dilation and extraction procedures past 24 weeks. The closer to term (40 weeks), the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor. So at 36 or 37 weeks, in most situations, the doctor will simply induce labor and after delivery not resuscitate the baby. However, there are rare medical situations where that might not be advisable, so the option of a dilation and extraction allows women in these situations to avoid a C-section.

www.vox.com...


like the doctor said...
who among us should judge these women? if they didn't want the baby, they more than likely would have aborted BEFORE the price tag of the procedure got up to $15,000. no, they wanted the baby, but things just got too complicated for them, the baby wouldn't live if it made it to birth, the mother's health was be in too great of a risk.... ect. they are going through something I wouldn't wish on anyone!!!

and it doesn't matter what the majority of abortions are done because of.....
there are some that there is a valid medical reason for and out of all the abortions done, their need should not be ignored! so why center so much attention on late term abortion? the ones that have that valid medical need? I mean that south carolina law, as it stands now, if it wasn't for the supreme court, wouldn't require spousal approval for first or second term abortions, where there is a chance where negotiation between the father and mother would be fruitful, but just the third trimester, when there's complications involved, which according to their laws, is only legal if the mother's life or health is at risk, never mind a problem with the child that will make it unable to survive long anyways.
that, to me, tells me the true heart of the pro-life!! save the baby, no matter the cost!



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I've always wondered, where does the 'abortion' line end and the 'murder' line begin?
Or are they just the same thing?

Cause I can't think of anything worse than having your own flesh and blood killed...



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

There are a couple of mathematical equations used to determine child support.
I believe they vary from country to country, in your case they differ between states.

But there is supposedly 'sound math' behind child support calculations taking many factors into consideration.
edit on 22-10-2016 by GreenGunther because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I do have to wonder what "child support" has to do with "abortion"... I also wonder if in the minds of some apparently because some men decide to skip on their child support obligation that this should somehow give more right to the mother on the third trimester than to the new life that is growing inside them??



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
When I see pro life arguments, it almost always seems to stem from a position that is akin to saying that "abortion is primarily used like any other form of birth control" where an extremely uncaring, irresponsible woman says "it's ok! We'll just abort it! Problem solved!"

Well here's my experience with both abortion and non abortion as they have both affected my life.

3 years ago my wife was pregnant. This was not an accidental pregnancy, we actually wanted a child. It turned out to be an ectopic pregnancy, and considering my wife's size (a very tiny woman) and the particular circumstances of the ectopic pregnancy as well as other conditions my wife has meant that she and the baby would almost certainly die from the pregnancy, with a very high risk time being within the first trimester.

Thankfully, we had an option that not only was readily available, but was actually a free procedure (Canada). There were no protesters outside screaming at my wife and telling her she's a whore. There was no complications. It made it even better than all the doctors were women themselves. And my wife is alive today because of that availability.

Now here's the flip side. I'm adopted. I was born from a 15 year old girl nearly 30 years ago now. She was a very innocent, good girl, never did any drugs or drank and just accidentally got pregnant. She had the option to an abortion but instead went through with the birth and put me up for adoption because she could not afford to have a child and the father (who didn't know she was ever pregnant) was unstable.

I ended up being adopted by a family whom had inflicted horrible psychological damage to me throughout my childhood, and although they seem like nice people, I have a few psychological/neurological conditions they simply cannot care for properly. Now that's not to say that I would have rather my biological mother had an abortion, but we do see absolutely terrible stories coming from the adoption system (far worse than mine) and through the foster care system that have destroyed many lives.

If I was never adopted my mother wouldn't have been able to care for me adequately and I would have destroyed both of our lives if she had kept me herself. Which I would have never wanted to do and it would have been equally selfish and irresponsible of her to make a choice like that. In my opinion.

Anyway, just wanted to share



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

and like I said....
third trimester abortions,
many states have regulations on them, usually in consideration for the health of the mother, severe birth defects in the fetus, and occassionally rape.
south carolina's law has only health of the mother as a consideration.... but then it hands over that consideration, not for the mother to decide, but the father...

now, do you believe that the fact that it is actually the mother's life that is being affected severely in some of these cases gives her rights more weights than the baby's.....in the rare case that it becomes a choice between the two?

as for the severe defects, well...
my father used to tell me a story when I was a kid.
he served during world war two in india and one day him and some of his buddies were driving through one of the nearby villages, accidentally hit one of the villagers ancestors who chose to take the body of a cow for some reason. well, they were going to put this poor cow out of it's misery, but all the hindus in the village wouldn't allow it. all they could do was sit by and watch the poor thing suffer until it died on it's own.

if it's our beloved family pet that just got ran over by a car. you take her to the vet who tells you that there is nothing that can be done, we see it act an humane act to lovingly end the poor creatures pain.
heck we even decide to lovingly send healthy cats and kittens to the great beyond because we see them as in over abundance.

we do all this for our little furry friends, in love, to prevent their suffering.

but not with humans, no we make them suffer at the end of life, feel every moment of pain till the gladly see death come for them. or we drug them up so badly that the have no real experience of the time that they are here. then we complain about the cost of healthcare, when it's all that end of life, keep them alive and suffering as long as we can, that is the bulk of that healthcare.

and when overpopulation becomes a major problem in an area of the world, we see famines, or disease, or wars as the solution to the problem.

so, you want us to bring all these babies that are born aborted in the third trimester into the world regardless of the risk to the mother, or the defects to the babies? okay, but keep in mind that what I said about our little furry kittens and cats....... and humans.... when we see their numbers as being a problem, we tend to send them on their way anyways, often times in much more cruel ways.
before margaret sanger won the freedom to pass around information about how women could control their reproductive systems some, there were plenty of eugenicists in the world coming up with all kinds of schemes. they were considering sterilizing the blacks, the native americans, and the poor as the solution to the poverty that was all around them.
regardless of what you think of her, she has proven that when given the power, women can do the job in a much kinder way, no forced sterilizations, no work houses for children, and there hasn't really been that many genocides in the western nations since.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

A religious person who uses a curse word while quoting that something is "God's right"? Hardly.

But in any case, what about the right of the unborn child? Who protects his/her right to life? Who's life is more important? What human being has the right to end another human being's life?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: andersoncooper

who is more alive?
most abortions occur in the first trimester, when the baby isn't really self aware, while the mother may have a family depending on her, friends who care about her, bosses that rely on her.




What human being has the right to end another human being's life?


maybe you should ask the gov't that one, it seems they have no problem bombing those little babies to oblivion if it fits their agenda. and all they have to do is tell the public how the bad people in that land is gonna attack them, destroy their way of life, remove their freedom, possibly kill them, and a good portion of the populace will jump right on the bad wagon,... they have no problem bombing the crap out of people to protect their economy, their way of life, their freedom, and possibly their life.
same motivations as many women have when it comes to abortions.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

It's sad that your wife and you had to go through that. However, you yourself said the high risk was for the first trimester. What we are talking about here is the claim that having abortions in the third trimester is necessary to save women's lives, but that is not the truth. I will be posting the facts in another thread directly from a former abortion doctor and what the truth about third trimester abortion is, which is not what the "pro-abortioninsts" claim.

Here you go.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So you see, when pro-abortioninsts claim that "most third trimester abortions are done to save women's lives" they are lying to you.


edit on 22-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Ghost147
So you see, when pro-abortioninsts claim that "most third trimester abortions are done to save women's lives" they are lying to you.



I don't believe I've ever met a person who is "pro abortion". What I have met are people who believe that a woman should be able to have the option.

We see countries all over the world who forbid abortion, and that's not going to stop someone from doing it themselves in an extremely dangerous way.

I honestly know very little about either side of the argument, but I see far more advantages in having the option then forbidding it entirely.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: BlackProject
...
This is not sarcasm before anyone jumps to that conclusion, I do mean it. Its absurd how the government or anyone can tell a pregnant mother what she can or cannot do with her child.

More power to the rights of the women and her unborn.


That right there tells us everything we need to know... You are not even talking about human fetuses anymore, but "what a woman should be able to do with her child"... That statement right there shows how backwards, and inhuman the progressive mentality is. We know there are plenty of women who think they can drown their children, or kill them in some other way 'because they gave birth to them" and that's the problem with the abortion debate.

All progressives don't want to give rights to a human fetus even hours before they are born, and there are progressives already trying to make it legal for parents to be able to murder their new born babies even if they are perfectly healthy. Progressives have been slowly, throughout the years blurring the line between right and wrong, and trying to take the rights from other human beings that can't speak up...



Maybe my writing was not so inspected like I was writing a book friend, sorry about that. However I basically mean that a women has the right, should always have the right and continue to have the right to decide on what happens to her unborn child. However even that sentence is wrong, it is not a child its still in the womb. Not born, not child, not baby, not anything. If you want to bang your head on and on mixing horrible events with the right that women should be able to choose what they wish to do with their bodies, then go ahead. No one is listening because the vast majority of the world is rational realistic people who know that if there was babies born every moment a women was born regardless whether it was right or not, we would end up with an even more fu*ked world then we have now. Fact.

Adoption is flying out the roof more and more and children being lost to the system. People like you care so much about babies not born yet but once they are born, the same system you wish to create stick two very big fingers up at them and says. DEFEND YOURSELF. Mental.

Give this a watch, may teach you something.





top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join