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

Let us Re-visit Abortion, Here Are Some Proposals

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry
Is this another case of white guys telling women what to do with their bodies? How fortunate that they have your wisdom to fall back upon, being the frail ninnies that they are.




posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Those are excellent proposals, and if you could write that out in a way that would fit well with this piece of legislation, I am all for it.
a reply to: dawnstar
Excellent points, and I meant to factor in with the medical procedures. I was thinking anywhere from outright exemption, to mandatory birth for resources expended?? I left it out for now because I think we need to explore that more and come to a compromise somehow.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

And there is a flag planted inside that womb that happens to originate from the father. The Sperm that fertilized that egg, the genetic code. Would be nothing growing inside her womb if part of the fathers body was not already in there. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I take that as you are 100% against section 2. What are your thoughts on section 1??
edit on 11-14-2016 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I think a mother should have the right to abort their child at any stage of its development that requires a burden be placed on the mother for the child's survival. Why are we limiting ourselves to a fetus when discussing these moral implications?

There are plenty of mothers out there in very bad situations only made worse by the fact that they must care for their children. In these situations the health and wellbeing of the mother are directly impacted by the existence of their children and she out to have a right to end that burden as she sees fit.

As for an outsider looking in; I shouldn’t care what this mother does with her children. In fact her ability to abort her children is a net gain for me and my family. My children will face fewer competition for resources if some of their would be peers are no longer present. Society, and my tax burden to it, would witness an easin pressure as the most needy diminish in numbers.

edit on 14-11-2016 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant and failure to show merit or purpose.

Abortion in American History

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."

Relevance? Maybe that that entire wall of text that Grambler wrote is a complete fabrication.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

umm, I don't think I can justify adding that into this legislation, but thanks for playing???



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Holy crap! I had no idea it went back that far. Thanks for the info



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Those are excellent proposals, and if you could write that out in a way that would fit well with this piece of legislation, I am all for it.
a reply to: dawnstar
Excellent points, and I meant to factor in with the medical procedures. I was thinking anywhere from outright exemption, to mandatory birth for resources expended?? I left it out for now because I think we need to explore that more and come to a compromise somehow.


How about NOT defunding Planned Parenthood, a major outlet for contraception for low income women, and boost their access and education outreach?



a reply to: Hazardous1408

And there is a flag planted inside that womb that happens to originate from the father. The Sperm that fertilized that egg, the genetic code. Would be nothing growing inside her womb if part of the fathers body was not already in there. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.


That's like making a stew and using a neighbor's salt and pepper, and then they're claiming to now have ownership over that stew, even though you provided the pot, the meat and vegetables, and the stove and it's cooking on.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Abortion has always been. There are herbs that can be taken, and of course the more brutal way. Men have always known this but in general they didn't interfere in "women's business".

Who'd have thought men were more progressive about reproductive rights back in the dark ages?

It's not a states issue and it damn sure shouldn't be a religious issue. It is an individual woman's issue.
edit on 11/14/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword


That's like making a stew and using a neighbor's salt and pepper, and then they're claiming to now have ownership over that stew, even though you provided the pot, the meat and vegetables, and the stove and it's cooking on.


Pretty good analogy except you can make a stew without salt and pepper, you cant make a baby without a fathers sperm.
edit on 14-11-2016 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Section 1 seems more reasonable but I still don't want to lean authoritarian and decide for these women.

If they want 1 abortion per year or 12 I'm not going to judge or say it should be illegal.
Let God sort it out if it is a religious thing for you.

For me it's not, but it is slightly faith based, so I leave it up to the Lord.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

actually, I think it's factually incorrect to say that it's 50%. although the father might donate 50% of the dna, maybe....
it's very rare that any mitochondrial DNA would come from the father...
and well, one could say that if it wasn't for that mitochondrial DNA, that fertilized egg would not by any means be able to develop into a functional human being...


micro.magnet.fsu.edu...



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Holy crap! I had no idea it went back that far. Thanks for the info

There's a plant, Silphium, that went extinct in Roman times because of its contraceptive properties. I mean just think about it. If prostitution is always said to be the world's oldest profession, don't you think that women would be trying to figure out how to get rid of unwanted pregnancies during those thousands of years?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

True. But sperm can be purchased from a sperm bank. Salt IS a necessary ingredient for life. Without it, we would die.




edit on 14-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The science is beyond me and to be honest dawn, I don't base my opinion on the science anyways.

My own viewpoint comes from a lack of an authoritarian wont and a deep seeded need to live and let live.
But your point is valid.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

It is absolutely vital that all laws are created without concern for or respect to religious belief, and it is very important that you understand when I say that, that I myself am a Christian.

That is to say, that I believe in Jesus Christ, and he told me not to judge others, nor to seek dominion over them in even the slightest way. Therefore, my morality does not matter one bit, where the law is concerned. Nor does my opinion of the mindless, no strings rutting which produces so many children that families or single parents simply cannot afford to look after, or did not want.

Another thing... your suggestion above is very well laid out, in that it LOOKS like a thing which might appear on a statute somewhere... but it ignores one simple thing. If you want a law like that, you had BETTER have about five hundred percent more orphanages, foster homes, and an increase in homeless shelters too on the cards, because there are going to be an awful lot of kids out there with mothers who were TOTALLY unfit to rear children for one reason or another, and have now been forced to have a child that is guaranteed to have a HELL of a shoddy childhood, because of either resentment, destitution, or both.

Personally, I think your plan, regardless of how you word it, is not Christian in issue or ethic, because it seeks dominion over what another will and will not do. That is not our job as Christians, it is not our job to judge, nor to control. Gods judgement will come to those HE in his wisdom sees fit, we have no reason to try and preempt his judgement, to force things to be as we would have them or to make things hard for those who do not share our particular beliefs. We have only the right to comport OURSELVES in accordance with Christs message, no one else. Not our neighbours, and certainly not an entire portion of the human species.

And EVEN IF it were our job, which it is not (because conservative Christian is an oxymoron) it would have to be planned out with a hell of a lot more support at the back of it than just INSISTING that women have either lots of babies or no unprotected sex, because bringing kids into the world and just expecting their lives to be freaking amazing, with no financial backing, with no support network in the event of the psychological collapse of unprepared and improperly supported mothers, and absence of father figures/safe places to grow up/any of the things a child needs to grow up without crippling psychological problems of their own, is irresponsible and unrealistic in the extreme.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

Priests in the Old Testament used to decide and administer abortions if there was a question of infidelity.


Numbers 5
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: FauxMulder

Priests in the Old Testament used to decide and administer abortions if there was a question of infidelity.


Numbers 5
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.


To be honest that sounds more sinister than forced abortion...
It reads like a poisoning of the womb to prevent future pregnancies.

Yuck.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

there is no compromise on this...
if there is a risk of death or permanent lifelong injury to the mother....
no one but her can decide weather she should be taking that risk or not!!
and, the only ones qualified to make that determination is the doctors.
so, just where doesn't the father's opinion play out in this one?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Well that's not very Christian of them.

Seems rather dark and evil



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I can live with not defunding Planned Parenthood, if these proposals come into play, and planned parenthood does not have their physicians perform any abortions. I agree with you and Krazysh0t, but I feel that if anyone is receiving federal or state money, then they cannot perform any terminations of life.

Now if you or Krazy could write it out in a way that may fit into this legislation, I would like to add it in.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I conceded to that and struck it out, as well as agreed to funding other preventative measures. Other than that, I am 50/50 on the rest of your statements.
edit on 11-14-2016 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join