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.

 

Women 'using web for abortions'

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

So what do you think about time limits?


As for time limits... In my view they are equally arbitrary. To be frank, I did not know I was pregnant with my daughter until I was 5 months along. I considered abortion only because, after 20 years of unsuccessful tries and no pregnancy (I had a few miscarriages early on) for 15 years, I had promised her father that IF I got pregnant (having sex without a condom), I would abort. Heh. Who would have expected?

He was the one who decided we would keep her. And now we are glad (joyously happy, in fact) that we did, but I can "see" the line in which we didn't, and having never known her, I have no clue what I did not have. But it is merely a different line, no "better" or "worse."

But back to the time limits... Like I said, I didn't know I was pregnant until 5 months along. Should I have been denied an abortion merely because I didn't know?

That is why I accept the words of "God" to the Hebrews. The soul enters the body at first breath.

And one would think the Christians would accept this, too. Their God said it. Heh. Go figure.




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu


He was the one who decided we would keep her. And now we are glad (joyously happy, in fact) that we did, but I can "see" the line in which we didn't, and having never known her, I have no clue what I did not have. But it is merely a different line, no "better" or "worse."

But back to the time limits... Like I said, I didn't know I was pregnant until 5 months along. Should I have been denied an abortion merely because I didn't know?

I'm glad you kept her, and that you love her.

Should you have been denied an abortion because you didn't know? In my opinion, possibly yes, but that is where I am not sure, the timings.

From the outside, you appear to be one body, yes women have the right to do as they like to "their" body. But on the inside, there is "another" body, connected to you, but not your body.....

That is why I think the time limit should be researched more and from the signs I have seen should at least be put down a few weeks.

They need to figure out exactly when the fetus changes from being part of your body and turning into "another" body, into another life. From what I have seen it all points to less than 24 weeks. But that is what they need to find out more about, which I'm sure they are doing.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Thank you for providiing the links. Now what to do with the information.

Can one look at serial killers and find issues from childhood? The answer seems obviously, "Yes."

Does it mean every person having such issues in childhood will become a serial killer? The answer is 'No'.


True, but my point was merely that a higher percentage of neglected and abused children result in "bad" personalities within society than those coming out of homes where they are loved and cherished. This stresses society. Fewer unwanted infants means fewer adults who are maladjusted.

And we might want to look at the world from a severely neglected or abused child... I suspect that a high percentage of suicides can be traced to neglect and abuse... This would suggest that the life we force them to have is not something they value (the ones who suicide). I could look around for studies on that, too, but I'm tired and will likely go do something else at the moment.

As for the sterilization stuff, I cannot believe that it is cheaper. Not by a long shot. And then who gets to decide whom to sterilize? I agree that this is not a sane social option.

So as far as I am concerned the sanest approach, the most freedom-supportive, the safest and most humane, is to allow legal abortions.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

That is why I accept the words of "God" to the Hebrews. The soul enters the body at first breath.

And one would think the Christians would accept this, too. Their God said it. Heh. Go figure.


Xian theology is far more complex than finding a text in the xian scriptures. There are also scriptures that say "From my mother's womb, you were my god." God saying "I knew you in the womb..." And so on.

Also, strictly speaking Hebrews isn't a text of things a deity is supposed to have said. It includes some of such material but it is mostly about trying to convince hebrew christians to remain christian and not go back to some form of hebrew religion. Interestingly, Hebrews may be the only New Testament text authored by a woman, but evangelicals don't entertain that idea.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It seems to me that the main reason a lot of people are here on ATS is because they are outraged at the idea that someone(s) is restricting their freedom to live as they choose, or even trying to limit their freedom.

Where does freedom stop? If I'm free, don't I get to decide where and how I will live, work, conduct my relationships, etc? Supposedly we draw the line at the point where my choices impact someone else's choices. A lame example, I don't have the 'freedom' to play my stereo at full blast at 2am if it prevents someone else from having the freedom to sleep at 2am.

Used to be, it was a man's business how he treated his wife and children and ran his family, and how he treated his animals and livestock. Somewhere we've decided that 'society' has an overriding responsibility to decide FOR a man what is proper treatment of his wife, children, animals, etc. And the line continues to change. Now I don't have the freedom to not wear my seat belt because it might cause someone else to have to pay higher insurance premiums. And I don't have the right to use tobacco because someone else might be affected by my 2nd hand smoke (as if they didn't have the freedom to walk away). I can't choose what kind of dog I want to own if I want to own a house because the insurance company considers certain breeds of dogs (pits, shepherds, rotties, wolf hybrids, etc.) high risk and won't insure me.

Can anyone see what I'm saying? It's about the point at which the majority chooses to take away the freedoms of the minority, and the reason given (moral or otherwise) is not really the issue.

I suspect that few of you would be willing to accept someone else controlling your life, and yet you can stand on 'moral' ground and be righteous about controlling someone else's life. We keep pushing that line, and we don't seem to see that as we change the point at which it is acceptable for us to make choices for someone else, regardless of the reason, we are also inevitably changing the point at which others may make choices for us. Every time we take a freedom away from someone else, we are potentially giving up that same freedom ourselves.

If one day the 'majority' of your society decides that limiting population growth is more important to the greater good than saving the lives of individual fetuses or babies, you could be forced to have an abortion, to murder your own child, and you'd have done it to yourself back when you decided it was ok to tell someone else that they can't kill their unborn child. Isn't that kind of how it is in China now?

Support a law that makes it illegal for me to have a pit bull, and some day I may be able to support a law that prevents you from having a cat. Tell me I can't own a gun, and someday I may be able to prevent you from having a car - after all, cars kill more people every day than guns do.

It is about choices, not lives. When you assume the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with THEIR child, you give up control of your own children whether you realize it or not. The same mindset that would make abortion illegal allows DHS to take children away from people who aren't raising their kids 'right.'

What it's REALLY about, in my opinion, is the extent to which we want to force other people to live according to what WE think is right. I don't know about you, but I don't live in a black-and-white world of absolute rights and wrongs, which means that right and wrong are subjective. If right and wrong are subjective, then what right do I have to decide what is right or wrong for any other person? No, I don't want people to be able to abuse their children or spouses, or even their dogs and horses for that matter, but when will we understand - or where did we lose the understanding - that giving other people the freedom we want for ourselves includes giving them the freedom to do things that we think are wrong, because they may view some of the things we want to do as wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
As for the sterilization stuff, I cannot believe that it is cheaper. Not by a long shot. And then who gets to decide whom to sterilize? I agree that this is not a sane social option.


The calculation is based on the idea that it is cheaper to do one complete hysterectomy than all the other attendant issues. And if the poor women or mentally challenged women should die during forced sterilisation, then no problem. Of course, there is a huge problem, but it is not hard to work out the cost analysis side in favour of forced sterlisation.

Oh the seductive power of eugenic theory...


[edit on 11/7/08 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by banyan
i do not think some of these women care about the morality of it, so why try to fight that battle with them? regulate safe and professional abortion procedures and make them available.

let the individual make that decision.



Just listen to how you sound.


I do not think some of these murders care about the morality of it, so why try to fight that battle with them? regulate safe and professional murder for the murders.

let the murders make that decision.


I believe a woman should be more careful and responsible before getting pregnant, I believe an innocent baby should not be punished for the selfishness of a mother who just wishes to terminate her pregnancy at her own convenience.

All life is a blessing and miracle and to just throw it away or terminate a baby like its a piece of garbage goes against all creation. I believe that a women will be ultimately faced with the law of attraction and what she chooses if it be against the creators plan will fall back on her eventually.

There is a spirit coming into every baby whether it's there already in the womb before birth or after it is the same to me, aborting a child is like throwing back a blessing into the face of God. That child could have chosen you or you chose that child before this lifetime, that child needed you and you frustrated the very plans of creation intended for yourself and for that child by terminating it's life.

Abortion to me is next to murdering someone in the flesh if not the same.
Life was not meant to have abortions and murders these two things are the greatest mistakes anyone can make and it appears many mix up the difference and justify a murder by saying it's ok to kill a baby in the womb but against the law to kill a man or a woman. All life is life one and the same.

I Strongly Stand Against Abortion,
Murder and Child Sacrificing in the
womb or out of it.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
I believe a woman should be more careful and responsible before getting pregnant, I believe an innocent baby should not be punished for the selfishness of a mother who just wishes to terminate her pregnancy at her own convenience.


Just listen to how you sound...

"I believe a woman (who cares about the man) should be forced to be more "careful" and "responsible" (by policing her sexual activity, one must presume...how else will this be forced?) before she gets pregnant. I believe a fetus that is NOT a baby (one must be born to be a baby) should not be eliminated, even if it will suffer greatly by neglect and abuse because it is unwanted, because, whatever the circumstances, my selfishness in imposing my ideas supercede others."

Hmmm. At least that's what *I* read.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
You all seem to be thinking in your own little bubbles.
"She should've closed her legs"
"She should've said no"
"They should have used a condom"

Think about what you're saying.
Condoms DON'T EXIST IN EVERY COUNTRY!
A woman saying no is A REASON FOR HER TO BE KILLED in some countries!

The world is not the way ALMOST ANYONE on this site lives through.
We represent a tiny fraction of the world.
We have access to medical help.
We have access to birth control (some of us. many teenagers are too scared to go out and get them, their parents might find it and do anything to them for even owning it)
We have a choice in what we do (some of us. some are so scared of the person they're with that they don't dare to speak up. some are in places they aren't allowed to say no)

Many countries where abortions are illegal are also countries which allow men to kill their wives for not obeying them.

Learn2Worldly.
Srsly.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I've had 2 children - one miscarriage - one abortion.

So who else here has had personal experience to comment on this subject?

I fully support "Right of Choice"

You have no clue of what is behind any individuals decision to abort.

If you don't want to - then don't. If you feel it is wrong - then don't.

DO NOT shove your belief's on me.
DO NOT interfere with my right to make that choice.
Stay out of my life.

. . . . and DO NOT - - pull the guilt trip - "what about the baby's rights". I believe in life at first breath - - not at conception.

If you believe something else - - then deal with it on your time.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Alright... I am a woman who has never been in this position, and normally I do not comment on subjects such as Abortion - as I believe it is none of my business if the woman chooses it, or not.


Originally Posted by budski
To me, this article underlines just how desperate some women are to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, despite the dangers posed.
It's time for the PTB to wake up in some parts of the world and recognise that women have the right to choose...


Agreed. When people are told what they can and can not do, they are likely to rebel. When abortion is Illegal, this is what happens. If a woman DOES NOT want to have her baby, then she won't. In her mind she has already decided that she will not have this baby, Psychologically, she is going to suffer and she will do what it takes to NOT have the baby: Taking a "Pill" from the INTERNET? Knitting Needles/Coat Hangers, etc. Do we really need this in today's day and age?


Originally Posted by Amaterasu
That time is "at first breath."


I believe "at first breath" too. However, I am not religious so bringing in the SOUL to debate, is where I bow out.

I will concede that there should be a time-limit. When it becomes a health risk, when it becomes physically harmful, etc..


Originally posted by RubyGloom
A woman's right, is to just say NO.


Sometimes, just sometimes, NO doesn't work too entirely well. Sometimes, it is Impossible to say no. I don't need to detail these instances.


I agree with abortion in only two instances..
Rape
Incest
All else is completely preventable.
All else is murder.


I disagree. It is not always completely preventable. What about when you have done all you can to ensure not getting pregnant?
Who are we to questions her motives? Is it really anyone's business?
Maybe she was raped.
Maybe she was in the heat of the moment.
Maybe there was a condom.
Maybe she used an IUD.
Maybe she was on the Pill.
Maybe she did everything in her power to avoid it...
Maybe, just maybe, she was part of that .00001% group, where all Methods of Birth Control have failed.

So when do WE say its okay?
She is forced into sexual intercourse and ends up pregnant?
When the Condom Breaks and she ends up pregnant?
In the heat of the Moment, neither person was thinking?
When the IUD fails to do its job?
When she takes the pill every day faithfully, but still ends up pregnant?

Is it our position to determine which scenario is acceptable and which isn't? Is it our responsibility to ask each woman when she comes into the hospital? Is it any of our business?


For a mother to just abort her child, because she does not want to be a mother, IS murderous in my mind. No mother should feel that way about her unborn.


What if the Mother is not READY to be a mother? Pscyhologically, Financially etc? What if she can NOT provide the best living conditions possible for the baby? What if she can NOT give the child the life they deserve? Adoption is probably the answer you came up with - But what if sometimes, this just isn't possible?

I believe that you are out of line in speculating how a person should feel. Feelings and Emotions are a result of the conditioning we've been exposed to growing up. How someone "Feels", or should/should not feel, isn't your place to criticize.


Originally Posted by Johnsky
People are people, they're not going to stop having sex because of your ideals.


Agreed. Humans don't have Sex for the sole purpose of Reproduction. Everytime people have sex, is it ONLY for the purpose of Creating a Life and not for the pleasure? So how about if there was a law “You can’t have sex, unless it is with the full intent to conceive a child”…? How would people like that? Oh that’s right, they wouldn’t – as it infringes on their rights as well.

Just some thoughts.

- Carrot



[edit on 7/12/2008 by CA_Orot]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Look at it this way my fellows, if a pregnancy is interrupted by way of miscarriage or stillbirth, why, that's just too darn bad if the parents were longing for a child... and everyone mourns...oh there goes the next Mozart...crap...now it so happens that when a pregnancy is interrupted by abortion - a choice made by one or both parents, the outrage gets hurled around. Why?

This to me is nonsense. Letting the fates dictate the outcome is considered moral and making a choice based on your circumstances is selfish and evil??

Are human beings not sovereign enough to choose whether or not they should be parents for themselves??

I know a gal who has a boyfriend in prison for murder...well, they manage to get it on somehow during visits...and she gets pregnant...has a miscarriage about 3-4 months in, she wanted that baby so bad, she kept the embryo in a mason jar.

That story put the whole abortion brouhaha to bed for me permanently.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Abortions a tricky issue and far to many people take hard line stances on it. Let's put this all into perspective with a short flowchart.

Teenage girl has a boyfriend, said girl is highly intelligent and hardworking.
On the night of the Prom, they do it. The condom, having sat in his wallet for two weeks, breaks.
A few weeks later, she realizes she's pregnant.
Being highly Christian, she refuses to abort, or give the child up for adoption.
The father soon leaves her, not wanting a child.
The parents, furious, force the daughter to begin paying for her own stuff, car payment, laundry, etc with no help.
Nine months later, the child is born prematurely.
Between carrying for her child, and work, she is unable to attend college.
Due to a lack of college education, she is denied high paying jobs.
Due to her child, she does not get married for some time.
The child grows up in an improvised home. What happens to him is hard to say.

Of course, this is a dramatization, any many women have overcome this in the past. However, this does happen. Granted, I highly advocate the adoption of newborns, but sometimes that just doesn't work. I was lucky enough to be adopted by a family who couldn't have children, as was a close friend of mine. Not everyone is so fortunate.

But please for christ sakes, if your going to have an abortion, do it as early as possible.

And, in my opinion, partial birth abortions are murder. What the hell kind of sadist has the baby's body pulled out, and then has the brain vacuumed out?

Either way, groups on both sides tend to make me angry. Republicans for blabbering about their gods feeling on the issue (which ironically, according to most interpretations, the child was destined to die anyways. Of course the less ignorant don't believe this of course). And the liberals constantly count it as a womens right. Even worse are some of the feminists who think it's some great thing.

Protection, Adoption, Sterilization (with sperm storage), Abstience, Anal, Oral, Masturbation. All ways that can help avoid an unwanted child.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
i blame the catholic church



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

As for time limits... In my view they are equally arbitrary. To be frank, I did not know I was pregnant with my daughter until I was 5 months along. That is why I accept the words of "God" to the Hebrews. The soul enters the body at first breath.


Yeah that is really stretching it and getting into some very very grey areas. They are viable at 6 months gestation, so your theory about “first breath” gets pretty tricky, cause given a chance they WILL take that first breath unless the doc is very quick to pierce their brains, or injects them with a lethal drug before they leave the birth canal.

For medical reasons I have no problem at all with late term abortions, but letting it grow and grow for whatever reason and then deciding late into the game, when it is moving and has a fully functional brain, and could be viable outside of the womb, well that is going a bit too far just because someone “doesn’t feel like having it”.

And actually late term abortions are rarely performed without a medical reason, the anti-abortionists like to exaggerate the stats on that a lot.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CA_Orot

Originally Posted by Amaterasu
That time is "at first breath."


I believe "at first breath" too. However, I am not religious so bringing in the SOUL to debate, is where I bow out.


Heh. I am as far from "religious" as there is. Spiritual, yes. Religious, no. I just think it's a good point to use to delineate.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
What a woman does with her body is no one's business. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.

No one tells a man what to do with his body. Failure to apply the same principle is a double-standard and won't be tolerated.

Keep your paws off my uterus and I'll keep my machete away from your testicles.

Thank you and have a nice day.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sleuth
What a woman does with her body is no one's business. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.

No one tells a man what to do with his body. Failure to apply the same principle is a double-standard and won't be tolerated.

Keep your paws off my uterus and I'll keep my machete away from your testicles.

Thank you and have a nice day.


Love it Sleuth.

. . . . and someone finally mentions a man.

It still takes two.

I'm gonna go off topic just a bit. Let's take care of those babies already born.

When you start fighting for mandatory paternal DNA testing and support - - - let me know and I'll join your campaign.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Amaterasu

As for time limits... In my view they are equally arbitrary. To be frank, I did not know I was pregnant with my daughter until I was 5 months along. That is why I accept the words of "God" to the Hebrews. The soul enters the body at first breath.


Yeah that is really stretching it and getting into some very very grey areas. They are viable at 6 months gestation, so your theory about “first breath” gets pretty tricky, cause given a chance they WILL take that first breath unless the doc is very quick to pierce their brains, or injects them with a lethal drug before they leave the birth canal.


Oh, don't get me wrong... I thing "partial birth" abortions, and even those at 6 months are barbaric - but NOT immoral - without a medical reason or, as in the event of someone I know that, because she was so heavy the doctor kept telling her she had a cyst (!), and she found out she was pregnant at 8 1/2 months! Good thing she had no issues with having a child. What if she absolutely had NOT wanted one?

What if at 7 months (for whatever reason it was done so late...), amniocentesis showed that the infant had severe Downs...? There's a pickle, too, for those who want abortion made illegal. I have an uncle whose first born has Downs, and though they chose to care for her at home and give her much love (she has done fairly well for that, but still is a drain), he admitted that had they done amnio, they would have aborted.

Yes, the lines are difficult, but I say it is, and should be kept, the choice of the woman whose body it is in.

[edit on 7/12/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu And we might want to look at the world from a severely neglected or abused child

As for the sterilization stuff, I cannot believe that it is cheaper. Not by a long shot. And then who gets to decide whom to sterilize? I agree that this is not a sane social option.


Suicide rates are not that high, however crime rates SURELY are very high in some areas and yes, the majority of thugs are the product of single parent homes, abuse, drug use, etc… There are a lot of drug babies out there, some in the system, some raised by grandparents with gov assistance or whatever, and their mothers often don’t just pop out one…but 3 or 4+ often with abortions inbetween live births.

Sterilization would be much cheaper in the long run. It costs the state a LOT of money to raise kids with gov assistance, or fostercare, provide Medicaid, later house them in prison, etc… Personally I think offering $5k cash to females that wish to be sterilized would be a GREAT deal, if they want they can reverse the procedure later on their own dime later.
The same could be offered to males (cash for a vasectomy), but somehow I suspect it would become a new cottage industry for guys to talk women into getting fixed, and males would get fixed at a much lower rate.

Many would take it, especially those with drug problems, or those with “babies daddies” who would love to see some cash roll in. Course there would be an uproar because SOME more than others would take advantage of the program and then there would be cries of racism etc…



[edit on 13-7-2008 by Sonya610]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join