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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

Allow me to be blunt.

I see it as murder.

You don't.

Yeah, it's ####ing legal. Knock yourself out.

I find it disgusting.

You would not just sit idly by if you saw someone killing another person, would you?

You'd speak out, say something, wouldn't you?

Or would you be quiet and silent and obey all the f###asses that told you to shut up?


Line. Sand. Your side, my side. Your side, my side, your side, my side. (Farscape fans just chuckled)

Neither are budging from their sides. You have your beliefs, I have mine. They don't mesh, and never will. What do you think you're going to gain from the pissing match? The only thing I ever expect to accomplish is hoping to hear 'There! I said it!" and people shutting TF up about something that does not concern them. Good, you said it. Can we move on to the next soapbox now?


Could the narrative or social acceptance about pregnancy and abortion be changed to where it is considered the greatest sacrifice to have an unwanted baby and give it up for adoption?

Financial assistance given and free delivery and recovery medical attention guaranteed.

The Dad could be given the choice of taking the baby home and being the sole caretaker (no strings attached- let's say the Mom does not have to pay child support ever for her sacrifice). Mom can walk away and her soul be untainted with the killing of her child.

Disclaimer: this question does not apply to rape, incest, health of Mother.


Not likely. And I would stress that there's already over 400,000 kids in foster care. 20,000 age out annually, over 100,000 are waiting to be adopted, and about half the rest go back to their families. More to the point, for all the bitching and moaning and armchair supporting of adoption people do like it's their personal white knight special, only 2% of the US population sticks to their guns and actually does it. Also, when people DO adopt, they typically want babies. Not the older kids. Older kids are the average in foster care -- whole bunch of 8 year olds on average waiting and being passed up because Suzie wanted the cute newborn and not 7/8/9 year old Timmy.

In other words, adoption is far from a viable alternative until the problem of avoiding older children is solved and they no longer float through the system for years, or age out of it. The numbers alone prove that much. People would rather raise their own than someone else's, and barring that, a newborn. There aren't enough barren couples out there wanting kids of any age to make up that kind of slack.
edit on 6/2/2019 by Nyiah because: Reordered a sentence for clarity.

edit on 6/2/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/2/2019 by Nyiah because: Not doing good tonight on the typos...




posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

In my scenario it would be babies up for adoption. There are tons of US citizens who adopt from other countries; I would believe they would much rather adopt from the US.

Foster kids are a problem unto itself. Many don't want to take them on for fear of losing them after falling in love with them. True question for you to dig deep on: Should all of those foster kids have been aborted?

Goodnight, I have enjoyed the banter back and forth.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
a reply to: Nyiah

In my scenario it would be babies up for adoption. There are tons of US citizens who adopt from other countries; I would believe they would much rather adopt from the US.


The babies in your scenario are still displacing older kids every year your theoretical program is in place. And it's 600,000 new babies a year, as of 2018 (lowest number on record, IIR) if both numbers held and didn't go up or down at all, that's over 700,000 potential adoptees. In a country of 126 million households, and again of which 2% -- or 2.5 million, ever adopt domestically or foreign. Be aware that's a rough estimate, because I can't find anything that says clearly if that's the percentage for current numbers, or is representative of long-term ones. If it's the latter, it absolutely does not bode well for your idea because it equals a much smaller annual number of households committed to & following through on adoption, and a HUGE influx of new kids to place that likely will never be placed.

Kids from abroad make up a a quarter of current adoptions, I think, but even eliminating those would never open up enough willing homes for all those 700,000 unwanted new babies & foster kids waiting for adoption. And under your scenario and my assumption of stagnant foster care numbers, that 700,000 compounds every year. We'd eventually get to a point where nobody would want these new babies anymore because they already have all the kids they want. Again, don't count on others not considering adoption to suddenly step up, many (actually, evidently most) people flat out do not want to raise kids that aren't their genetic own. You can't change a mind on that one.


Foster kids are a problem unto itself. Many don't want to take them on for fear of losing them after falling in love with them. True question for you to dig deep on: Should all of those foster kids have been aborted?

Goodnight, I have enjoyed the banter back and forth.

The foster system is indeed a major problem. But we don't need to compound that problem with a much bigger one when existing kids already can't get adopted despite best efforts.

As to whether or not they should have been aborted, they're already on terra firma, let's deal with them first before we force much larger numbers of unwanted pregnancies into fruition for them to contend & compete with.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Dfairlite

As long as people can be convinced that an unborn human being is less than nothing, then abortions will continue to exist.

Sad.

*Walks away from thread because nothing will ever be settled in this*


Trouble is, as soon as the baby is born not one of these pro lifers give a damn about it anymore.

Once born, a life becomes meaningless on the U.S.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Are you against war are you a vegetarian?

Sorry to say, but if you're going to get all sciencey and biological humans are animals with wild imaginations, mammals. We slaughter billions of animals, and we waste their dead flesh when we are full of our gluttony to feed at restaurants, or when left overs at home spoil.
Destroy the planets ecosystems.
We start wars over substances and resources, power and greed.

And you're worried about a four week old fetus with half a brain stem flippers for feet and hands?

I get what you're saying, but banning abortions isnt the route to go. It's also been proven many times that it causes more problems for over population of unwanted children and leads to an impoverished population. You going to foot the bill for all these kids?

And you're also wrong about the murder thing its manslaughter at the most, unless it's a late term. But if abortion happens under your prohibition, charge the father as well. He shoulda pulled out or wrapped his junk.
edit on 3-6-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SilentSaturn

Exact;y... There is not one law that legislates what a man can do with his body.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SilentSaturn

Banning abortions never stopped abortions....
It just stops safe abortions.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Anyone other than the woman herself should not be telling her what she can or cannot do with her own body.
EVER

Period...



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Oh, great, another thread on abortion, with the same old tired arguments that don't hold water:
  • Abortion is about religion - great, then so is murder. It's in the Ten Commandments. Want to get rid of that law too? It's religious! From now on, I am just going to assume that anyone who uses that argument is in favor of ending a prohibition on murder.

  • It's not alive - yes, it is, by any and all definitions of life.

  • It's not human - yes, it is, by any and all definitions of genetic classification.

  • It's a part of the woman's body - nope, it's separate... has its own blood supply and genetic code. Medical science.

  • Only men are pro-life - Sorry, my wife is female. She is pro-life.

  • Men shouldn't be able to tell a woman what to do with her body - so you are OK with assisted suicide, legal prostitution, and illicit drug use? Those are all legal restrictions on what a woman can do with her body.

    And... women vote as well. Women helped elect the men who make the laws. Should women be prohibited from voting for men? Who is trying to tell women what they can do, again?

    And... exactly what percentage of the US Supreme Court was male when Roe vs. Wade was decided?

    And... who the HELL are you to decide that a law-abiding portion of society doesn't get to weigh in on a legal decision?

  • Sex is for fun - sure, I like it too. Everyone does. We like it so we do it, so we reproduce. Duh! I like to drive 100 mph; does that mean I should be able to do it without having a wreck and breaking my fool neck? Consequences exist. Live with it.

  • Contraception is abortion, too - no it is not. For every idiot you show me who thinks it is, I can show you 1000 who don't. That's a fringe position.

  • Once they're born, pro-lifers don't care about kids - BULL-FREAKIN'-CRAP! Do NOT go there with me! You're the one who wants to "just kill it."

  • It's legal, so it's OK - Sure, so when it was illegal it wasn't OK, then. Remember that when Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
And it will be overturned. You pro-abortionists want to use these fallacious arguments to try and defend the indefensible, when all most of the pro-lifers ever wanted was to stop late-term and partial-birth abortions? Well, we're now going to have to overturn that precious little decision to wake you up to the fact that you don't get to dictate right and wrong to others, while claiming that that is what is being done to you. You want a real debate? We can talk sentience and reduction of pain. You want to lose? Use the arguments above.

Never mind, you've already made your decision... and therefore, so have we.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Every single law determines what I can or cannot do with my body... including the one that says I cannot use my body to punch my wife.

Do you want that one repealed? Fair is fair.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dfairlite

Why did you think most women have abortions?

60% of women who have abortions already have children. 70% of all women getting abortions identify as Christians.


Also, abortion stats are historically low.


….from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).

www.cdc.gov...



100% of women and men in your scenario forget that sex isn't for fun, but for procreation... what the hell do they expect?




I bet you're a real ladies man eh.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ya know I do believe that partial birth abortions are banned according to federal law. Have been for quite some time.
As for late term abortions well now you are talking less about "abortions for convenience" And more about abortions done for legitimate medical reasons. These are the abortions where women are more prone to be sobbing their eyes out than to be "celebrating their abortions" .
If you want to end the "abortions for convenience" you need to target the early term abortions. If you want to defy medical wisdom and common sense then ya target the late term abortions.
And since that is when many of the abortions that involve babies who have severe genetic of developmental effects, good luck convincing anyone to adopt them which means that there's a good chance the taxpayer will be footing the bill for their overly expensive medical care.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Its still murder.

And your little scenarios...also wrong. We either value life or we dont. There is no middle ground.

Im also against euthanizing strays. I don't kill insects



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Ya know I do believe that partial birth abortions are banned according to federal law. Have been for quite some time.

Yes, according to the legal definition, which is:

In the U.S., a federal statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as any abortion in which the life of the fetus is terminated after having been extracted from the mother's body to a point "past the navel [of the fetus]" or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother" at the time the life is terminated.

But that does not ban the intentional ripping apart of the baby in the womb, then extracting it piece by bloody piece after contractions have started but before it exits to that legal point. That's what the problem is, and it is not even addressed in discussions like this. Why? Because it interfere's with someone's right to kill children in order to have sex without consequences or concerns.


As for late term abortions well now you are talking less about "abortions for convenience" And more about abortions done for legitimate medical reasons.

Not true.

So, why do these babies die? The Guttmacher Institute has looked at the reasons for late-term abortion, and the reasons are chilling. First, the top-line finding is clear: “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”


If you want to end the "abortions for convenience" you need to target the early term abortions. If you want to defy medical wisdom and common sense then ya target the late term abortions.

I want to stop women from carelessly ripping living, feeling children apart into itty-bitty bloody pieces because they woke up not feeling good about a pregnancy they should have either ended before the baby could feel pain or have prevented using easily-obtained methods. Why is that so damn hard to understand?


And since that is when many of the abortions that involve babies who have severe genetic of developmental effects, good luck convincing anyone to adopt them which means that there's a good chance the taxpayer will be footing the bill for their overly expensive medical care.

You have never seen a post by me where I complained about my tax dollars going to help children like that. There aren't any. You may have seen a post by me where I laud organizations who provide support for them. I've made several of those.

I also will say I find it unconscionable that you support ripping a child into pieces over helping them try to live a life, for purely financial reasons. And I thought conservatives were the money-grubbers?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Its still murder.


In your mind, maybe. But, no it's not, not legally.



And your little scenarios...also wrong. We either value life or we dont. There is no middle ground.


Who is this "we", you're talking about?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




But that does not ban the intentional ripping apart of the baby in the womb, then extracting it piece by bloody piece after contractions have started but before it exits to that legal point.


Most states have laws requires that doctors wait until there is no heart beat, before they extract the dead fetus. Because of the law that requires doctors to wait until there is no heart beat, some abortions fail, and there is a live birth.


edit on 3-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Which law is this? Abortion is not removing a dead child from the womb. Abortion is killing a living child while in the womb.

TheRedneck

edit on 6/3/2019 by TheRedneck because: chronic typo-itis attack.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You’ll be okay until the river catches on fire...


As for the “argument” of men shouldn’t be deciding things for women, should women not be deciding things for unborn children then?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I edited my post to reflect that most states have laws that require fetal demise, before performing late term abortions. I thought it had been including in the federal partial birth abortion ban, but I was wrong. Most medical associations, like the AMA have adopted this policy, due to the partial birth abortion ban.


Clinical response
In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions.

en.wikipedia.org...

I know this is the law in California, because I worked closely with neo-natal doing my grad work. It's too tedious for me to go through statutes, state by state looking for fetal demise regulations. So, believe me or not.



Abortion is not removing a dead child from the womb.


A big part of a safe abortion is getting the fetus out of the woman.


edit on 3-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

My point is that it makes no sense to require that the heartbeat stop before removing the dead body, if the law also allows one to stop the heartbeat. Stopping the heartbeat is the problem. And it's very easy to do, especially using these little gadgets:



Photos courtesy of www.abortioninstruments.com...

And there's plenty more photos at that site. These are the actual tools used to decapitate, rip apart, dismember, crush, and mangle a child. I don't think stopping the heartbeat is a major impediment to the procedure when the entire purpose of the procedure is to turn a living child into an assortment of organic parts.

TheRedneck

edit on 6/3/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join