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.

 

Abortion By The Numbers

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Also I would like to point out that more than likely somewhere in my body cells can be found that don't have my DNA within them.

That is absolutely, completely, unequivocally false. Every single cell of your body has your DNA, or it will be rejected by your body as a foreign invader. That's why DNA is allowed as positive identification in a court of law.


It seems that the placenta doesn't catch as much as you think.
Everything from drugs, alcohol, and niccotine to DNA manages to pass thru it.

It is very efficient at exchanging nutrients with the mother's body, but it does not pass DNA. That statement tells me you do not even know what DNA is. That is a ridiculously laughable statement if you do.

Incidentally, many of those same chemicals (other than DNA, duh) are also passed to the child through breast milk. Once in the bloodstream, they don't restrict themselves to certain areas. If you drink alcohol, that alcohol is available to the 3,762nd cell from the right in your left big toe.


Should a living breathing kid be sacrificed because mom can no longer do the job that was earning the money for the medicine the kid needs to stay alive for the sake of a fetus just entering into the second trimester?

Are you arguing for paid maternity leave or abortion?

What happens in that same situation if the woman loses her job for some other reason? Same thing, except she doesn't have the option of killing a child. You are using fantastic examples to try and justify the killing of a human life where those fantastic conditions do not happen. There are government assistance programs, private charities, friends, relatives... yeah, times can get tough, but you don't get to just kill humans because times are tough. Both my children were born with government assistance, because we couldn't pay the medical bills. Was it hard? Yes! I had people in the family telling us to abort. I literally cut ties with them until after the child was a couple years old, at which time they thought they were the greatest things since sunshine.

Of course, I did remind them, this was the child you wanted us to kill. Out of earshot of the kids, of course... no sense in them knowing that their own kin wanted to kill them over money. And no, the relationship was never the same after that... for one thing, I wouldn't even let them talk about church in my presence, as they were supposedly very religious (when it was convenient, that is).

You're grasping at straws. There are very few good reasons to abort a pregnancy, and even when it is necessary, it is still the taking of a life and a sad thing to be mourned, not something to be celebrated. There's always a way to keep a family together. Maybe not a great way, maybe not a way that is lush with luxury and fine dining, but a way. We've become a nation of spoiled little brats who want everything our way, apparently to the point of not caring about the others around us. You may see that as a good thing, but I see it as a devolution back into animals. Worse, in some ways, because very few animals will kill their own healthy young. We do it because we want to get drunk and have sex again.

You mentioned you worked in the abortion industry earlier... maybe this is your way of avoiding the realization that you were being complicit in the killing of children. If so, put your mind at ease; ignorance can be forgiven easily. It's continuation of actions after knowing what the consequences are that is difficult to overlook.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I never mentioned working in the abortion industry. I was a screenprinter the closest we came to killing anything was locking the poor bird's who happened venture into the building for the night with the toxic fumes that would kill them. The fumes in the place killed birds in less than 15 hours I think its safe to say it's not a good environment for a pregnant lady to be in and well a coworker was told to get out of the environment By her doctor when she became pregnant. Luckily the shop got a nice new digital printer that needed to be kept out of that environment So she was trained to be it's operator.
My son had asthma pretty bad As a child, his medications cost close to $100 a pop. Before I started working that job I would end up having to keep him home till payday when the notices came from the school that his medicine needed to filled. That was the kinds of " luxuries" I was working for. Our shop didn't have the room for another digital printer or the need for one. If I had gotten pregnant I am pretty sure the choice would have been see ya later or poison the baby. I mean they weren't that accommodating to me when I hurt my foot and was stumbling around the shop. I probably wouldn't have aborted but I assure you that I would not have quit my job.
The idea that there is always someone that is willing to help just isn't supported by my experiences.
When I was pregnant with my third child And had trouble walking. All I got from the doctor was a lot of stop picking the kids up and sorry I have to run from my husband. When that ankle finally broke it took a call from a danged state legislator to convince the doctor to fix it and a sorry I got to run from my husband have the kids to fix you something to eat If you are hungry.
But no you are lying when you insinuate that I worked for an abortion industry. But you made it pretty danged clear that you don't give a darn about how a pregnancy might effect a women (short of threatening her life) or her family.
The only rights that matter are fetus rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

My lowest weight son weighed. Close to nine pounds when born the other two weighed over that. At least in my stomach my third son had a little bit of protection from the world and I had two free hands to lift my other kids up with.
Wth kind of question is that?? Jesus thanks a lot. Now I have the image of a one and a half year old kid running his riding toy over a long umbilical cord connecting me to a clump of cells I left in a plastic cup across the room while I am lifting my six month old out of the crib to feed!!!
Ya I am sure that will make things a whole lot better... If you want a bunch of neurotic sleep deprived women!!



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The ny state law does not legalize infantcide. Infantcide is illegal both in the state law as well as the federal law and an infant is an infant it doesn't matter how it came into the world!! But ya know what I am tired trying to point out where you are wrong on this. Go ahead and spread your lies. Here's hoping karma comes back on you and you find you self or someone close to you having to go through a useless surgery trying to transplant the egg that choose to plant itself into the fallopian tube instead of the uterus because some crazy legislator (there's at least one now) bought the lie that it's actually possible to do it.
I'm too old to have kids so any crazy laws based on the lies they pass won't affect me in the least bit and maybe I'll be gone before I have to worry about any daughter in laws.
Can you say the same?? I hope not. I want you get to see the world the lies you help spread creates.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




That is absolutely, completely, unequivocally false. Every single cell of your body has your DNA, or it will be rejected by your body as a foreign invader. That's why DNA is allowed as positive identification in a court of law.


That statement tells me you do not even know what DNA is.


Baby’s Cells Can Manipulate Mom’s Body for Decades www.smithsonianmag.com...



Mothers around the world say they feel like their children are still a part of them long after they've given birth. As it turns out, that is literally true. During pregnancy, cells from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's body, where they can become part of her tissues.

This cellular invasion means that mothers carry unique genetic material from their children’s bodies, creating what biologists call a microchimera, named after the legendary beasts made of different animals. The phenomenon is widespread among mammals, and scientists have proposed a number of theories for how it affects the mother, from better wound healing to higher risk of cancer.


Children’s cells live on in mothers www.sciencenews.org...’s-cells-live-mothers


Fetal cells are probably sprinkled throughout a mother’s brain. A study of women who had died in their 70s found that over half of the women had male DNA (a snippet from the Y chromosome) in their brains, presumably from when their sons were in the womb. Scientists often look for male DNA in women because it’s easier than distinguishing a daughter’s DNA from her mother’s. If DNA from daughters were included, the number of women with children’s cells in their brains would probably be even higher.


Women carry fetal DNA long after children’s birth geneticliteracyproject.org...


Although it was once thought that only mom’s cells could transfer across the placenta to deliver needed supplies to the fetus, we now know that fetal cells make the journey as well. Those fetal cells can be harbored in a mother’s tissues where they become incorporated, lasting decades after the birth. This likely means that every mother’s body contains both her own cells and genetics and tiny, but measurable amounts of her children’s cells and genomes.

edit on 4-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

For whatever its worth, it is extremely common to find DNA that isn't "you" inside of you. Beyond the flora/fauna you host, you have stuff like brain cells. They tend to change and adapt very rapidly, and it would not be uncommon to find a large portion of your brain doesn't contain your DNA.

The same with the bladder.

Wherever a PET scan tends to show activity in a healthy person, you see "chimera" cells crop up.

Beyond that there are other events (like Sookie referred to), with an addition to her entry being absorbed twins.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That gets awfully close to human trafficking... Furthermore, it's ripe for abuse.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

Your outrage says otherwise.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


I never mentioned working in the abortion industry. I was a screenprinter the closest we came to killing anything was locking the poor bird's who happened venture into the building for the night with the toxic fumes that would kill them.

Maybe I mixed you up with someone else, then. It's quite possible, as I keep having to rebut the same old tired (and false) arguments time after time. It seems no one reads before posting any more.

Anyway, if so, I apologize.

The thing is, you are talking about working conditions. That's really a separate issue. If the fumes where you worked were strong enough to endanger a pregnancy, the employer should be liable for placing a pregnant woman in that situation (liable as in manslaughter should there be a miscarriage) and also should not be able to fire a woman for becoming pregnant. You had a crappy job... a problem in itself, but certainly not a reason to kill someone.

We have many problems like the one you mention in this society, but we certainly won't solve any of them by making more. Your boss did not respect your life, as is obvious, so you're basically using his excuse against another. I say we need to respect all human life. You want to respect human life that is convenient.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm an engineer, not a doctor, so I cannot state unequivocally that your post is true or not. However, I do know this much:

Cells have a limited lifespan. During this lifespan, they divide (mitosis) during which time the DNA double helix splits and reforms as two new copies, one in each new cell. Any cell that does not undergo mitosis will die off; any cell which undergoes mitosis will result in two cells with identical (except for certain diseases) DNA. Therefore, while I can understand a cell migrating from the placenta into the uterus, I cannot comprehend how such a cell could function without either growing what would essentially be a tumor inside the mother or dying off.

It also begs the question... if a DNA sample from a mother can contain DNA from her child, then could the child be found guilty in court of something the mother did, based on DNA evidence? At this point in time, legally, DNA is considered irrefutable proof of identity. What you are telling me is that it is not irrefutable proof of identity. Another question would be, suppose a stem cell of the child's DNA were to migrate to, say the left femur of the mother and become a bone cell. Now suppose the mother is 5'-1" tall and the child will grow to 6'-3". That left femur is now based off DNA that regulates growth to a greater height than the mother's, which is the DNA of the right femur. Therefore, why does the left femur not grow longer than the right femur?

Let's just say I have many questions.

I need to research that phenomenon farther before I comment more on it. Until that time, however, I must stand by my assertion.

TheRedneck

edit on 6/4/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Your understanding is correct. Essentially.

But you get all manner of gene editing going on, especially in the brain.

When you talk about DNA from mucous membranes and skin, its pretty much 100% (barring medical oddities). They won't do DNA testing on brains.

Here is a nice article on the pregnancy changing DNA:

aeon.co...

Keep in mind: you and I still agree on the goal....abortion is an evil that humanity perpetrates on itself.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So, let's put a hypothetical in front of you. A bit long, but needs the context.


A 17 year old girl gets pregnant.

Straight "A" student, works hard, good moral base, really cares about her future, plans to be a Pediatrician and wants to make a difference in the world.

It was the last chance to relax and have fun before knuckling down for final year and exams. It was a good friend's parents house, who were away on holidays, a small group of girls having a sleepover, their boyfriend's with secret invites.

First time experimenting with alcohol, hormones, peer pressure, excitement, opportunity, adventure, exploration, testing personal bounds, young love, etc... the inevitable.

Not for not trying... they wore a condom, but their school is very conservative and their version of sex-ed is saying "... control your hormones, don't have sex, and you're bad if you do... oh and turn the lights off"... very productive... so didn't really know what they were doing. The unfortunate happens... condom gets a small tear... not noticed until 6 weeks later.

Boyfriend seemed nice, but probably not "the one" (freaked out, dumped her and won't talk to her since finding out about the pregnancy... called her a slut to class mates and said it was her fault for putting the condom on wrong)... definitely not "the one".

Moral implications aside, the practical realities for this girls' consideration are the mental and physical stress and risks involved with pregnancy. Additionally, her genetic heritage means women in her ancestry have a tendency for their hips to not widen until their early 20's and have statistically had issues with younger childbirths, meaning a natural childbirth will likely not be possible at her age, so there is the added risk of surgical delivery.

Many other factors involved, of course... but the girl has logically thought hard about her predicament, and has decided that for a number of reasons, including health, psychology, life progress, care of her reproductive system for future children, to name a few, that she doesn't have the capacity at this point in her life to adequately support, and bring to fruition this spark of life that has begun inside of her.

An unfortunate mistake, with some drastic consequences... She feels terrible about it all, but there will be no involvement from the a-hole immature father, she will be unable to financially support a child, her chances of becoming a doctor will be greatly reduced among many other factors. She has come to the moral position that no human should be forced to be the life-support machine for another human, even if one of those humans is completely innocent.

No matter how unpalatable you find it, or how inadequate you may find anther's personal reasoning for their choices, the unquestionable right here is the personal choice to not have your personal life force used be another being for it's personal growth and development, even if that means the death of that other entity.

So, she has stubbornly chosen to abort, regardless of what anyone has to say... even if you disagree with her.


Given her situation, now a few questions for you:
Would you really mark this girl a criminal for aborting?
If yes, what should her punishment be? ("I don't know" is not good enough... Can't cop out and leave it to others if you are advocating illegal abortions... otherwise butt out).
How would you force this girl to endure pregnancy if she really didn't want to?

Bonus question:
If the only way I can live is by tapping into one of your veins, you providing me with sustenance and entering a symbiotic relationship with you (sorry, it accidentally happened when we had that romantic dinner the other night)... if you cut that vein, and i die, are you a murderer?

edit on 4-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

sounds like you are excluding what is actually needed: real education.

My wife had her first child right when she was graduating and trying to start her life. It was hard for her. ONce we met, it was hard for us both. But we made it work, and made a fantastic man who is now teaching special ed kids in San Antonio (behaviorally challenged, not mentally challenged).



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not excluding at all.

Noted in my story as a conservative school not providing adequate education, in part leading to the situation I have outlined.

Bad sex ed, a common theme, even at the more liberal schools. The whole subject is tricky and taboo because 15 year olds having sex... in a lot of people's minds, any discussion with minors about sexual topics borders on the pedophilic.

However, even with the best education, mistakes like the above will still happen.

Then what?

ETA: Congratulations on your achievements, sounds like you persevered and have had a great outcome! In hindsight, you seem to have made good choices... but they were your "choices", and everyone has different reasoning and situations that effect those choices.
edit on 4-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

The only choice that matters is that first one: i choose to respect life.

Everything else kind of works itself out from there.

That said...my point is that I find it repulsive we would use abortion as a stand in for poor education.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Your understanding is correct. Essentially.

But you get all manner of gene editing going on, especially in the brain.

I also realized something else while considering this: after my recent surgery, I was given two units of whole blood. That did not come from me, and it contained blood cells that therefore did not have my DNA signature. Thus, I myself have someone else's DNA circulating in my blood stream. That is not an uncommon thing.

It brings up some quite interesting questions, though, as I pointed out. All of them concerning DNA and its role in human physiology, none concerning whether or not an unborn child is a part of the mother.


Keep in mind: you and I still agree on the goal....abortion is an evil that humanity perpetrates on itself.

Oh, I know. Until very recently we were in total agreement on abortion. The only thing that has changed is that I have had enough of the ridiculous arguments that would literally tear down the very fabric of society in exchange for sexual convenience.

When it comes to science, my mind is open as always.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Good on you! That's your choice, and a very clear moral statement that has the hidden silent judgement that if someone disagrees with you they are wrong... "only choice that matters"... in your opinion.

It's not a "stand in"... even with the best education... mistakes happen... Then what?
(You didn't answer this the first time... thought I'd try again).

I respect life too. The right of a life not to have to be the life support for another life, even if the denial of that life support means the death of a life. That's not a crime, it's a very difficult decision. No-one should be forced to physiologically support another being if they feel their body is of more importance, and you don't get to decide that for someone else, you have no idea what they feel like inside.

Choice over personal self.

Even if you don't like it, power of choice is not equal in the mother/zygote relationship... woman has the ultimate say whether the symbiotic relationship continues, even if you decide to be the voice for that unborn baby.

Good education and access to birth control can go a long way to avoiding the need to have to make that choice... but as stated, even then, there will be outliers, and mistakes will happen.

Then what?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Just wanted to chime in here on this thought, if you don't mind.



I respect life too. The right of a life not to have to be the life support for another life, even if the denial of that life support means the death of a life. That's not a crime, it's a very difficult decision.


Children in africa are dying every single day, from a myriad of ailments and circumstances. We allow them to die, we could probably prevent it, but we don't. This is considered not to be morally abhorrent to most people.

Put another way, imagine you're in a room with a big red button and you are instructed that every time you press it, a child in africa would die, but you get $100,000. It would be morally abhorrent to start smashing that button, right? What about pressing it just a few times? Also pretty bad, right?

Now imagine that you are put in the same room with the same button but instructed that regardless of pressing that button children in africa are dying every few seconds. It is no longer morally abhorrent to press the button is it? We all acknowledge that causing death through action, even if it makes your life easier or better is wrong, while death through inaction we are not responsible for.

Abortion is an action that in your own words takes a life. As the OP illustrates, this death is caused for the purpose of making your own life easier in 90% or more, of cases. It is impossible to get around this, as much as we may want to. The do nothing state of pregnancy is the creation and sustainment of life.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Then what?

Then the women who are forced to have the child may have a myriad of issues to deal with, such as psychological problems (depression, anxiety etc). It was found back in 1980 that U.S. women that go through with having the unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child are 2.6X more likely to experience psychological problems - that was back in 1980 when life wasn't as difficult as it is now.

What then?

A trip to the welfare office is basically her only route, and that seems to be the only help the government will give her at this point in time; with also a paltry amount of money for the child thrown in for the facade of government help. Do those government elite have any idea how much money it takes to raise a child:



According to the USDA report, single-parent families who made less than $59,200 spent an average of $172,200 on raising their child from birth to 17. Georgia's average monthly child care payment is $430 per month - a far cry from what is needed.


It is obvious that the woman's mental and emotional health is no concern here. Translate those serious health issues in how it will affect raising a child specifically the child's emotional and mental well-being.

www.thestreet.com...

I am pro-choice but also think government is sitting on their fatted behinds not being proactive by coming up with incentives in making single parents live's easier - instead of taking away a woman's right to choose - which is, right now, her constitutional right. And I believe that if incentives were in place for women have an easier time of it by having a child alone in this difficult crazy world, most would not have an abortion.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join