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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sookiechacha

How about when we can grow them in a petri dish?


The whole right to choose will be moot in the near future anyways. We are coming quickly to the point that abortions will become antiquated outside of health reasons. Getting pregnant will not be a right, but will be a privilege as in you will need to apply for birth as the reproductive system will easily be turned off until you are approved to get pregnant.




posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

Ya right.
Getting women on iron and vitamins as early as possible is neonatal care as well as the periodic health checks they offered me till we managed to get the care from an ob that was referred to me because he would work us as far as the financial aspects which took a couple of months for the first one. Less time for the other two since I already had a relationshipwith the doctor.



If you disagree with my point, look it up instead of saying "ya right"



But my point was that I was pregnant in the 80s and at no point did the clinic I went to pressure me into an abortion. Most of the discussion centered on how to have a healthy baby and such. Don't really remember much talk about abortion really. Maybe because I was married and had my mind set as to what I wanted and didn't want.


I think a good number of factors play into it all. They still provide 40%+ of all abortions and over 50% of abortions are paid for my medicaid, so I think it safe to say most of their abortions are medicaid paid for. In my case both girls were single and there was almost no counselling as to what different directions they could go other than an abortion would be quick and easy.


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



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

yeah, men hate it when women go tell them to "F off, it's my body"....


Men hate it even more when they are told to pay 18 years of child support all based on only the mother's decision. Can I say F off, you choose to have the kid I didn't...lol



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

How many state's have Medicaid programs that pay for abortion? Pretty sure Virginia doesn't and don't think ny did either. But who knows we were in that group of people who were to rich to get help but too poor to live so what do I know. Even if I am wrong I doubt that it would cover 50 percent of the abortions. You are just taking it for granted that the majority of planned parenthood clients are able to be on Medicaid. Which isn't true especially if you are talking about abortion and weather the women is rich or poor she is gonna have a very limited number of providers to pick from and planned parenthood might be the only option she has.
Another thing I just remembered about the clinic in the 80s. They didn't offer abortions I don't believe.
Maybe that's why they didn't push them.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
I don't doubt that there is a hidden black market for fetus', but that doesn't discount the idea that woman should beable to choose and not have their decisions be decided by men.


Yet we are talking about distinct and completely different human beings from their mothers... We are not talking about "the arms of the mother, or the legs of the mother, or the brain and heart of the mother..." We are talking about a distinct human being which is separate from the mother and who has never done ANY harm to anyone...


Abstract

Pregnancy poses an immunological challenge because a genetically distinct (nonself) fetus must be supported within the pregnant female for the required gestational period.
...

Immune responses at the maternal-fetal interface

The immune system of the mother recognizes the unborn as a foreign body, and not as "part of a woman's body..."
If it wasn't for the placenta the mother's immune system would attack and kill the unborn every single time.

The placenta serves for many purposes during the pregnancy, and one of those purposes is to protect the unborn from the mother's immune system because the unborn are separate and distinct human beings that are not part of a woman's body...

The claim by the left that "the unborn are part of a woman's body" is false, it is pseudo-science which ignores human biology yet it is repeated ad nauseam by the left as if it was true...




edit on 3-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But they aren't separate, are they? I mean what happens in the women's body can directly affect the fetus and what happens with the fetus affects the women's body.
And the fetus may be innocent but that doesn't mean it is harmless. If you chose to debate me on this just think ectopic pregnancy for a few minutes.
Its not a matter of weather or not a fetus is genetically separate from the mother or that it is "innocent" but just how much sacrifice is reasonable to expect from a women and her family and just what option will cause the least amount of damage.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


But they aren't separate, are they? I mean what happens in the women's body can directly affect the fetus and what happens with the fetus affects the women's body.

Yes, they are separate. Unlike an organ or limb, the mother's bloodstream does not directly support the baby. That's what the placenta is there for: to allow nutrients and oxygen to transport from the mother's bloodstream to the baby's bloodstream.

Just because the child is dependent on the mother for support does not not mean it is a part of her body. It is not.


And the fetus may be innocent but that doesn't mean it is harmless. If you chose to debate me on this just think ectopic pregnancy for a few minutes.

An ectopic pregnancy? Where did you dig that argument up? We're not talking about situations that nedager the woman's life' even Alabama, which right now has the strictest anti-abortion law in the nation, recognizes medical necessity. You're trying to frame this debate as something that everyone agrees on to prove something that people do not agree with.


Its not a matter of weather or not a fetus is genetically separate from the mother or that it is "innocent" but just how much sacrifice is reasonable to expect from a women and her family and just what option will cause the least amount of damage.

Biology says it is reasonable to expect a 9-month sacrifice from the mother, ranging form no real sacrifice at first to substantial sacrifice toward the end. That's not what I say; it's not what the law says; it's not what anyone says. It's nature, and nature is bigger than either of us.

I also think you are discounting any damage to the baby and simply focusing on any inconvenience to the mother.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok I have a solution to the 78 percent of all abortions then, offer the mother 30K for adoption rights, of coarse adoptive parents have to pay. Only offer this when the mother is seriously thinking of aborting. She also has first right of refusal, so the deal is tentative, after all it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind and she just might when she holds her newborn for the first time. Give her a seven day window and then if she still wants to give it up proceed with the transaction.

Supply & Demand....and monetary motivation to keep a life and not kill it, with the added bonus that she can even keep it if she changes her mind.

Win/Win/Win for everybody, but most importantly the child that would have had it's life snuffed out.
edit on 3-6-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Accept adoption laws are geared to get the child to a blood relative so those laws would have to change first.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

But who knows we were in that group of people who were to rich to get help but too poor to live so what do I know. Even if I am wrong I doubt that it would cover 50 percent of the abortions. You are just taking it for granted that the majority of planned parenthood clients are able to be on Medicaid. Which isn't true especially if you are talking about abortion and weather the women is rich or poor she is gonna have a very limited number of providers to pick from and planned parenthood might be the only option she has.
Another thing I just remembered about the clinic in the 80s. They didn't offer abortions I don't believe.
Maybe that's why they didn't push them.


I didn't bring PP into this I said clinic...I don't remember which one but in CA they were free to the women.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

These numbers are accurate to date, from 2016 CDC data. No more than 10% of the abortions from that year were for the following reasons:

Health of Mother (physical and psychological)
Health of Child (this include birth defects and genetic diseases)
Rape
Incest

This means that 90% of the abortions were performed for other reasons (money, desire, convenience).

I think that's awful, but the legal argument for abortion is based on medical privacy. Up until the 24th week of pregnancy, the government doesn't recognize the fetus as a viable citizen. So, the mother's rights are paramount. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will open the door to other medical privacy legislation.

Don't want to get vaccinated, too bad, it's the law.
Don't want to take blood pressure meds (because of the side effects), too bad, it's the law.
Don't want to get gastric bypass surgery, too bad, it's the law.
Don't want to get a vasectomy, too bad, it's the law.

People say that those concepts are just hyperbole and that the government would never do that. I disagree.

If you want to push back viability to 21 weeks, that's doable. If you want to put a first trimester limit on abortions, that's doable. Even if you want to limit abortions to the 10% of non-convenience abortions, that's doable. But if you take away a woman's right to medical privacy, you take away all of our rights to medical privacy.

Roe v. Wade didn't legalize abortion. It set limits on the government's rights to control medical choice.

Don't drink the Kool-aid willingly.





posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Free abortion in the 80s in california? Ya. Maybe you just need to move out of crazy land?? If it was any other state I'd be tempted to accuse you of telling a story. But for some reason when it comes to California I almost find it believable.
By the way I checked Virginia's Medicaid policy. Unless there is a fetal abnormality, a health risk to the mother, or rape or incest Medicaid (federal or state) does not pay for abortion.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

Free abortion in the 80s in california? Ya. Maybe you just need to move out of crazy land?? If it was any other state I'd be tempted to accuse you of telling a story. But for some reason when it comes to California I almost find it believable.
By the way I checked Virginia's Medicaid policy. Unless there is a fetal abnormality, a health risk to the mother, or rape or incest Medicaid (federal or state) does not pay for abortion.



Spent 11 years there, never going back



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: LordAhriman

Ahhh, did I trigger you with the real reasons being so frivolous? My bad.


You didn't trigger s#it. I just don't care that women have abortions, or why they have them.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Unlike an organ or limb, the mother's bloodstream does not directly support the baby.


Unless she drinks alcohol, takes medications or does drugs, drinks coffee or caffeine laden soda, smokes cigarettes or weed, etc.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

Well?

Did you identify the human one?

Asking because I'm pretty sure her point went right over your head there.


Actually I'm pretty sure my point went way over your head.

Which of those is dehumanizing? Asking her if a pregnant woman has 2 hearts or showing me an illustration of 4 NOT identical embryos and telling me to find the human?

And what makes you think I didn't pick the right one... or that I even had to guess?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

But if they were separate as you claim then there shouldn't be any way for the fetus to endanger the mother should there? You can say they are separate individuals all you want but science says differently whenever a baby is born suffering from the complications from the mother's over consuption of alcohol or addicted to the drugs she was popping while she was pregnant. 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. Some might have the DNA of my oldest son. Some might have the DNA of my middle son. And some might have the DNA of my youngest. And within my oldest son cells can probably be found that have my DNA. In my middle son probably has some cells that have my DNA as well as cells that have his older brothers DNA. And my youngest well he probably has some cells with DNA from the three of us. 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.
And just what don't you understand when I say what causes the least damage? Obviously I am considering the fetus or there would only be one side of the equation with nothing to compare it to. So on one side of the equation you have how the pregnancy is expected to affect the mother and those who are dependent of her like her family and on the other side you have an unborn child who may be in the early stages of pregnancy or a later stage. And you would have to take into consideration all of it and decide which option would result in the least amount of harm. Or at least make an honest attempt to. Which would really violate the right to privacy if a judge or the like were the ones making the decision.
But if a pregnancy if causing enough havoc that a mother can no longer do those things that her living breathing children need her to do and she cannot get the support she needs, doesn't have anyone she can turn to for that help. 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? The child has friends, brothers or sisters, grandparents and parents that have grown quite attached to him. And ya maybe you are right and maybe someone would care enough to buy the medicine themselves...If they could afford to or maybe grandma might opt to buy his medicine instead of her own and die instead. Doesn't matter since the point I am making is that sometimes a pregnancy can have negative effects that ripple out and affect far more than just the mother and weather you want to acknowledge them or not she is gonna consider not only weather it posed a risk to her life but how it will effect those she cares about.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Let me ask you this... if women carried babies outside their bodies with nothing but an umbilical cord between them, no health risks, and no stretch marks... would you still approve of them killing those babies if they chose to do so?



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I have stated this in the past before all of this happened and states of murder like "New Murder York" implemented laws which allow infanticide. But like I have said/written in the past it won't end there. Next will be "after birth abortions: why should the baby live?" and making it legal to murder newborns, who were not subjected to abortions, and using "any excuse" to allow this insane "progressive idea" to become "legal."

There are already many left-wingers who are on board with the insane idea of "after birth abortions," and many more will continue to accept this insanity. Of course, there will always be some exceptions but when "lies" are repeated time and again, including by the left-wing mainstream media, a lot of people believe those lies and take them to heart.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
I don't doubt that there is a hidden black market for fetus', but that doesn't discount the idea that woman should beable to choose and not have their decisions be decided by men.


Women should be as appalled (if not more so) by this as men.
Whole industries revolve around aborting female babies.

I’m 100% pro choice but the celebration, jubilation and utter self righteous smugness exhibited by pro abortionists is sickening.

I differentiated pro choice and pro abortion as pro choicers don’t revel in the fact that an abortion is happening, it’s a necessary evil not something to party about


"celebration, jubilation, self-righteous smugness" ?????....is there is something wrong with you?...if not, then this language is just laughable




There you go, Celebration, jubilation and self righteous smugness.
For good measure they threw in lighting up a monument to those who died in 9/11 a bright pink.

There was nothing to celebrate with this decision regardless of where you stand on the issue, what sort of a person has a smile on their face when they sign a bill that is exclusively about killing unborn children?

You may have been amused by my choice of words but they were accurate



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join