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: 15
22
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

Nothing else does matter.

I lost my last parent about a year and a half ago. I now live in her house, the same house I was raised in, that my father built with his own hands. Sometimes I look around and realize that without me, that house would have no meaning. Whoever lived there would not know or care about those who struggled and spent their lives creating it.

Then I look at my two kids... if not for them, why am I struggling? What is there to life? Money? I can't take that with me when I go. A home? It'll belong to someone I never knew if not for them. Possessions? Meaningless things that have no real value. But my kids... they will go on beyond me, and part of me will live through them. What I cherish in this life will go to them to be (hopefully) cherished more. Without them, nothing has meaning.

I wish I had had another... so did my wife... but it was not to be.

There is an old saying, that I think comes from the Bible: If you want to judge a man truthfully, look at his children. I hope I am judged that way after I am gone. I see others who may not like that type of judgement, but that's because they weren't able to raise the kids they had very well. And worst of all is the thought that there is nothing to judge one by after they are gone... it's like they never existed.

I pity those who never got the opportunity to have children. But those who squander that opportunity? They made their choice. And it wasn't a wise one.

Single Dad, eh? I bet that daughter would say you're an angel...

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

One of my big issues with this debate is the broader, global equality factors.

By making abortion illegal, inaccessible or exceedingly invasive and difficult through bureaucratic hoops, we are creating massive inequality between the wealthy and economically challenged.

It's fine to have puritan laws when you're rich enough to take a holiday in a "leftist" country where abortion is legal if needed (we have seen similar countless times throughout history)... but the poor in your own back garden will by crikey do what you say, not what you do... or be penalised for it!

The educated are also much better equipped at dealing with bureaucracy, so the issues are compounded even further.

You essentially have "moral" rich people telling poor people how to live. Wealthy, well-educated standards are being applied to uneducated sub-cultures, without any consideration of differences in moral development levels.

I would prefer having 70% of abortions for convenience, and be sure that none of the 30% slip through the cracks, than lose the life of even one unfortunate 30%er to bad bureaucracy.

I would like to see that 70% number drastically reduce, ideally to less than 10%, over a generational concerted effort of education and support for new mothers/families, especially in lower socioeconomic areas.

Abortion shouldn't be illegal, it should be the least desired and performed final option, through education and understanding.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

I never made out that father's have no say in the matter. I think they can and should, and the majority of cases of births/abortions they do.

I'm focusing on the instances where the father doesn't even want a say for many of my arguments.

You are a good example of moral fibre and perseverance, and it sounds like life has rewarded you for it... but not everyone has your grit and determination... or luck for that matter... and punishing them for not living up to your moral standards isn't the answer.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No?... Why did New Murder York take off the provision which forced abortionists to have a doctor present that will try to save newborns who survived abortions and were born alive?

Here let me help you figure out the TRUTH of this new Murder law in New Murder York.

Below you can see/read that the new law in New Murder York repealed section 4164 of public health law...


...
§ 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.
...

nyassembly.gov...

Here is a screenshot of that part of the new New Murder York law...



Here is what Section 4164 of formerly New York public health law stated...


New York Consolidated Laws, Public Health Law - PBH § 4164. Induced viable births



1. When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis.  When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.  The commissioner of health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to insure the health and safety of the mother and the viable child, in such instances.

2. Such child shall be accorded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.

3. The medical records of all life-sustaining efforts put forth for such a live aborted birth, their failure or success, shall be kept by attending physician.  All other vital statistics requirements in the public health law shall be complied with in regard to such aborted child.

4. In the event of the subsequent death of the aborted child, the disposal of the dead body shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

codes.findlaw.com...

Get it?... They removed that ENTIRE section of New York's public health law which was meant to save the life of NEWBORNS whom survive abortions and are born ALIVE...

What this means is that ANY and EVERY child that survives abortion can be denied ANY and ALL medical care which makes sure the LIVE newborn dies...

Why is it then that democrats blocked at least twice a bill which was written to save newborns who survive abortions?...

Why Did Senate Democrats Refuse to Protect Infants?




edit on 6-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add screenshot and add comment.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

"I don't." Good!

So now, what is her punishment if she does manage to self-abort?


... I can think of nothing more evil in this world that to wait until the child is conscious to kill it, but that's exactly what many argue for. They are able to do this because they say "it's not really alive" or "it's not a baby yet" or "it's part of me." Those are excuses to soothe a conscience that is screaming at them.

No. It is alive, it is human, and it is not one of the mother's organs. Admit that and we can talk, but otherwise you're just making the exact same excuses used by every baby-killer out there.


Not my argument at all.

I understand that in a sense it is alive, that it is indeed the beginning of a baby/human and that it's not part of but is in a symbiotic relationship with the woman.

I also understand that it's "aliveness" requires external fuel (it's not yet an independent alive), that it doesn't have even a spark of consciousness until at the very least 11 week point (it just hasn't biological formed the hardware for consciousness, so it's like the frame of a human, without the engine... no personality yet), and that the symbiotic relationship will have a net negative physiological effect on the woman (may be regained through endorphins long term, decades, if a happy parent/child relationship ensues... but not guaranteed).

I understand that it is often a matter of perspective.

My ideal (and i understand the reality will be a compromise) is readily available, non-profit abortions for anyone that wants one up to the end of first trimester. Long term federal funding into education and active campaigns to reduce the number of abortions for convenience, and positively teach why abortions are the least desirable option for both social and moral reasons. Support and education into use and availability of contraceptives on a national scale.

Beyond 1st trimester, legal but highly restricted, and the onus on the mother to show why an abortion is necessary. Again, more funding into supporting potential mothers through pregnancy at this stage to reduce the desire, educating them to support avenues for new mothers.

Finally, third trimester is strictly medical, or removed surgically at first viability if absolutely necessary.

Sound reasonable?



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Yes, it sounds reasonable... it is almost word for word what I would have posted a month ago. But, and here's the kicker, it is unreasonable to the pro-abortion crowd! To them, anything that restricts abortion in any way, right up until the time of birth, is an infringement on their 'right' to kill a baby. I'll admit I'm a bit slow at times; I spent years trying to present that reasonable argument, and being called everything from anti-woman to a male chauvinist pig for doing so. But I do tend to catch on eventually. There can be no progress, no actual discussion, no compromise as long as Roe vs. Wade exists for baby-killers to hide behind.

Take away their security blanket and I will bet good money that the narrative will change.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So you changed your view from a well reasoned approach to partisan politics, basically pushing the reset button, to spite a bunch of idiots with stupid opinions, who are also playing partisan politics? Who are likely just a very vocal minority?

Sounds like you've just helped to widen the gap because of a bunch of provocateurs.

It's funny, because I've essentially put forward that argument for decades too, and have never been called anti-woman or male chauvinist pig for doing so... must be in the approach?

Regardless... for me there is a palatable middle ground for everyone... we just all get so emotionally charged, and divided on the particulars (like Roe vs Wade, or "when is a baby a baby, or what is convenience to one, may be a need to another, etc.), that we forget that at the core we likely all want close to exactly the same thing... figure out what that is, shave off the few remaining differences, and you're left with core policy that everyone can agree on, rather than (to me) these bizarre 50/50 split decisions from our governing bodies (absolutely crazy!)... work harder, figure it out!

If you're not reaching 90/10 then you're not asking the right questions. It's easy to ask a 50/50 question, much harder to find the question that gets the 90/10 response.

Specifics, conflicts and disputes can then be worked out on a case-by-case basis once we have agreeable base policy.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere


So you changed your view from a well reasoned approach to partisan politics, basically pushing the reset button, to spite a bunch of idiots with stupid opinions, who are also playing partisan politics? Who are likely just a very vocal minority?

Not out of spite; more out of desperation. One cannot debate when one's opponent is unwilling to debate.

You say you have pushed the same agenda for decades. What good has it done? Has there been a single change? I'll help you out there... yes, there has. We now have New York and Virginia celebrating late-term abortion. Celebrating it! They celebrate the killing of babies who will otherwise be members of society in a few moments! And maybe you haven't been called anti-woman... to your face. But I'd wager good money you have been behind your back. Your opinion, my opinion, does not matter to the baby-killers. All that matters to them is they get to kill babies. We are simply not talking about rational people.


Specifics, conflicts and disputes can then be worked out on a case-by-case basis once we have agreeable base policy.

But that's the problem... what is that agreeable base policy? Right now the official policy, as per Roe vs. Wade, is that any woman can kill her baby at any time up until it exits the birth canal, for any reason whatsoever. One procedure... one... is banned, and there are easily substitutable alternatives to it that are more horrific.

That is not "agreeable base policy" for me. And that is why I will not relent... EVER... until one of two things happen: either Roe vs. Wade is overturned, or I no longer inhabit this planet. That's a promise.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I've read more logic between TheRedneck and Puzzlesphere in the last two pages of this thread than any media publication on this subject.

Great work guys, exactly what we need, some kind of compromise and objective reasoning.

I'm stubborn as a mule but this discussion has given me food for thought.

Still, i believe the current laws are too lax and open to abuse. This is human life we are discussing here, it shouldn't be so easily terminated purely at the whim of a mother. It must be justified and given the utmost consideration before even contemplating the idea of abortion.




edit on 7/6/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join