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

Women shouldn't be allowed abortion

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

ATTENTION PLEASE:



This is an emotional topic, so any uncivil or trollish posts will likely lead to a Posting Ban. Be forewarned, keep it civil!

Do not reply to this post.




posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
I've never understood why it's a more attractive proposition for women to have an abortion than to put the child up for adoption.




Throw a cinder block in a backpack and wear it over your stomach for 4 months. All the time. To bathe, to bed, no taking it off.

Then come back and make that statement.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's still a choice.
As for the man, he can't walk away. He is legally obliged to support his child.
Both a man and a woman have the choice initially to have unprotected sex (except in the case of rape)
Both need to take responsibility for their choices.


My friend accidentally became pregnant twice (first was failed condom, the second guy claimed to have had a vasectomy). Kept both babies (as the pro-lifers are advocating for) and has been in abject poverty ever since. Her sons are now 10 and 8. So, 18 years of uncollected child support. Not one effin dime.

And as for your 'unprotected sex' theory, 54% of abortions are due to failed contraception. When I had my baby, they tied my tubes, meaning they snipped out the largest section of fallopian tube possible and stitched the ends shut. There is STILL a chance I can get pregnant. And if I were to, the fetus would probably be in the wrong spot and I'd have to have an abortion to remove it.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If y'all really want to reduce abortions, just give out free IUD's:
Colorado Program
Teen pregnancies were down by 40% and abortions across the state were down by 42%!!!!!!!!! And what happened? The Republican politicians voted NOT to pick up where the grant left off.

So, if you're really against abortion you need to start a letter writing campaign to your representatives and tell them to implement a free IUD program in your area!



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
You're still screwing with nature to avoid it's consequences.



So now babies are 'consequences'. Got it! And I'm sure being punishment for his/her whore of a mom is going to make for a fantastic upbringing!

edit on 19-11-2016 by ladyvalkyrie because: fix quote



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
ABORTION IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
PREGNACY IS.

This is not about having porno theaters in your neighborhood.
No one has abortions for fun.
You need to stop it at its source.
Stop unwanted pregnancy and you stop abortion.


You would drastically reduce it, but not eliminate it. What happens if a woman thinks she's met the love of her life and when she tells him the blessed news he flips out and beats her? She should have the right to nope TF out at that point. And also if abnormalities are found and it would be more humane to abort.

But yes, you are correct that contraception with high success rates being readily available would decrease them by 54% (percentage of abortions due to failed birth control)
edit on 19-11-2016 by ladyvalkyrie because: abortion of an unwanted letter 'f'



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But you have to admit very late term abortions where the fetus was able to survive on its own is a grey area. It's not so clear cut as the fetus has no rights. It's difficult issue and I can see the other point of view. But I still think there is point where a women's right to choose is valid. Maybe the first 3 months. Although many pro-lifers say a 2 week old fetus is capable of understanding calculus. You would think science would be able to shed some light on the whole consciousness alive point in the pregnancy. Maybe measure brain waves or something.


FYI No one is having late term abortions for sh*ts and giggles. The only reason to have an abortion after 20 weeks is because 20 weeks is when they're able to do the gender reveal ultrasound and the fetus is big enough at that point to make out serious physiological anomalies. My babies were all planned and very much wanted, but if I had gone in on the 20th week and they found that the fetus was (for instance) missing its kidneys....I would totally have an abortion. Why would I want to go through all the pain and misery of the third trimester for a baby that wouldn't make it past birth?

I will repeat: NO ONE has a third trimester abortion of a viable healthy fetus.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
It is not her right, according to the law. There are restrictions around viability. So the woman's right argument as the final arbiter is and has always been nonsense, even when citing Roe vs Wade.


It all depends on the country (or state) you're in. Roe versus Wade and subsequent rulings have made clear that women should be allowed to decide for themselves that they want to have an abortion at least up to roughly the 23rd week. An extension of the 14th amendmend, methinks. US Law, you've gotta love it.

But rest assured: Roe vs Wade did NOT dctate that women HAVE to have an abortion. So, if your God, ethics, wisdom, control, values, habit or even a simple lack of hormones stands in the way of you shagging whomever indiscriminately - well, by all means, then don't.




We didn't get here through shagging indiscriminately because we couldn't help ourselves. What utter rubbish.


You're quite wrong there: yes, we did get here because our forefathers shagged indiscriminately. If they had put too much thought into it, the lion would have eaten them before they even could have sex...



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

By that logic, people should be allowed to terminate their toddlers--or to eat them...you know, if it makes financial sense.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarryJoy
It should be standard procedure that any abortion that is not due to rape...or any one that is due to rape and not done as expedienfly as possible ( Service provided free by government program and rape charges MUST be filed ) The woman must be made sterile. And when the "rapist" is caught ....they should be chemically castrated.


Man, if I had a mouth full of liquid I would have done a spit take. Abortion should be illegal, but forced sterilization is totes ok??? Wha?????

Plus, do you know how impossible it is to get a rape conviction? A woman can 100% be raped and still absolutely nothing will come of it, even if she reports it. Even if there's physical evidence. She says 'he raped me' he says 'it's consensual' and the whole thing is dropped even if SHE is the one telling the truth.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrieThe Republican politicians voted NOT to pick up where the grant left off.


It's actually quite weird - the same Republicans that are against abortions are also against birth control. And in favour of the death penalty and the right to bear arms. Yeah, pro-life and all that..



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Regardless, there has been over 1.4 billion abortions since 1980 worldwide.

Abortion Clock

This represents the greatest genocide in human history, the victims, "the unwanted unborn".
Only grown women can stop this now, society has progressed to the point that even if men want to stop it they can't.

This puts a massive obligation on womankind to end this genocide.


Oh jeez, the 'G' word.



gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/Submit
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
synonyms: mass murder, mass homicide, massacre; More


Not a genocide, dude.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Farlander
a reply to: Mandroid7

By that logic, people should be allowed to terminate their toddlers--or to eat them...you know, if it makes financial sense.


Be careful not to relay this to mr Trump!



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I used to be pro abortion but I heard someone describe it like this - 'If you were going to blow up a building and you were pretty sure that nobody was in it anymore but there was a chance that there might be still would you blow it up?'

Maybe an embryo has no life in it during the early stages but the truth is that we really don't know so it only makes sense to be cautious and not risk killing life. I hate most when mothers give up their child to a wealthier family for adoption reasoning that they would have a better life. Really they just can't be bothered to raise their child, even if you are poor the child can still be loved just as much, or even more by its real mother. These people are the worst imo.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Sure they do, it is called a C section. Happens all of the time, lot of people have C sections.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Farlander

This is devoid of logic. A fetus doesn't have an awareness of its surroundings, a personality, or any sense of emotional awareness.

The planet is becoming populated more quickly than it can support at the current rate. Poverty and hunger are rife. Finances are tight even in the world's richest countries. Forcing women to have babies because of your belief system is plain wrong.

Bringing a child into the world just for the hell of it to prove a point to yourself can be just as cruel. Nobody has the right to tell a woman she MUST have a baby. Absolutely nobody.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: omniEther
Majority of women who have abortion were not raped and/or did not commit incest.

They just didn't want their baby amd I have to say that's a thin line between first-degree pre-meditated murder

Civil rights are violated when people are deprived of their basic rights in a discriminatory fashion. Unborn children are deprived of life which is the most basic right of all simply based on their location their mother’s womb and their developmental status. This is discriminatory, inhuman, and cruel.

Unborn human beings are living, separate, and unique. From the moment of "fertilization" better known as conception. a new human life is in existence. Ending this life is not ending “potential.” It is ending a life.


I certainly think that the liability of people just becoming pregnant from normal relationships should be fixed, as it does allow people to just not have any form of responsibility. However, sometimes we have younger relationships that have no idea of consequences. This is not their fault, nor should it be put on them as such. Same to those attacked, same to those in abusive relationships and women left to defend for themselves. How can they plea their side of the story if the officials are going to just put it down to their own fault. In a world where its hard for the normal person to get the right law on their side, to not allow a women to choose her own fate could be the demise of a country. We already have overpopulation in certain areas of the world.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Op sounds like a bot post.

Supreme Court reinforced the right to choose and the majority still supports that.

Do what you want with your life, stay outta other people's.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: circuitsports

Lol, I'm not a bot and I am actually not against abortion, ATS is great I have been reading responses to my threads, I star posts from both sides of the arguements. I study psychology.

PM for other information to prevent off topic posts or thread drift.

,thanks




edit on 20-11-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

You call abortion "murder" and animal activists call hunting "murder".

Both groups are incorrect. These activities may be the moral equivalent of murder in your minds, but the legal definition is quite different. California uses my preferred definition. "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice." C.P.C. sec. 182

Do you see the operant words here? "Unlawful", and "with malice". The state may lawfully deprive a human being of life for certain crimes, and medical doctors may lawfully perform abortions if so licensed..

So, the intentional misuse of the word "murder" is a lame attempt to create hang wringing emotion in those who don't share your views. If you (and militant vegetarians) must promote moral confusion to make your case then your argument is flawed on its face.

If you believe you are morally superior to others then validate that without distorting the language. And then explain why your moral (or religious) beliefs should pre-empt those held by others when the constitution clearly states that is not to be. (Ist amendment)

Oh, by the way, don't eat that burger cause it's murder.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join