It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Support Abortion? Watch this video and please defend your decisions...

page: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

1) Not talking about the PDF information.
2) Most certainly was not a fast acess site.
3) Clearskies has already refuted your information.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:25 PM

A friendly reminder...

This personal back and forth bickering has gone on long enough. Please stick to the issue at hand, which in this case happens to be abortion.

In short, stay on topic.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

1) Not talking about the PDF information.
2) Most certainly was not a fast acess site.
3) Clearskies has already refuted your information.

Clearskies did not refute all of my information. I said the reality of what happens to many unwanted children. That has in no way been refuted, but I enjoyed having a conversation with Clearskies about it and she did correct me on some things. Otherwise the rest of our discussions were opinion oriented and Clearskies was unable to read the pdf.

The PDF is easy to access and I'm fully willing to get you that information. Why not the PDF? It is not biased and it lists all sources for the information it presents. The pdf is the fast facts site. The other site takes more time, but does sum up what I've been saying on the first page.

Sorry maria_stardust, I did not see your latest post when I made this one.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:35 PM

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Where did that refute the information? In that post she clearly stated that she could not read the pdf. Then she stated her opinion on the information. She never refuted that studies show children are mistreated, she simply didn't agree that this was a valid reason for abortion.

Anyway we've been warned about this back and worth. If you are not going to respond to the question I asked then I don't feel the need to post the information from the pdf. You can easily read it and find the sources on the bottom.

If you decide to address the information in the links, instead of not supporting why you refuse to view them, then I'll come back to the discussion.


Edit: to give link to the pdf again

[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

We are going to get in trouble. Actually click the link already and see.
Enjoy your most liekly temperary yet another disenguine retreat.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

Meh, I'm not fussed about such videos, I've seen much much worse (thanks webbernet!). And I'm a guy, so I could never hope to assume how a woman feels or what she goes through in order to get to such an event. Medical, personal, maybe she was raped, who knows.

All I know is that it's the woman's choice to have an abortion. Not yours, not mine, not the govt, not a religious group, not 'God' or any other made up entity.

Her body, her choice.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by noonebutme

Your "made up entity" response tells me that you have no respect for the religious beliefs of others.
Too bad this is not a religious debate.
This is a debate about a humanitarian disaster.
That disaster can be labeled whatever you want.
But I don't believe it to be solely the choice of the woman. Otherwise, why would I care if people beat their children , or pets?
Don't say this doesn't relate. Many of us, and i mean at least half, see this "fetus" as a being capable of great things, and deserving of at least SOME protection. Equal in fact, to a human being.

But who cares, right?

With every passing day, I see the great country our ancestors built being torn down by the filth that is the liberal mentality.
I am sickened to the point of armed rebellion.
You are not my country-men.

You, who claim to be compassionate, and yet denounce the future of a living human, merely because it is inconvenient or "not my body".

You, who claim to know whats best for MY children, starting with condom education when my children are not yet 11.

You, the waste that let the T.V. raise your children, and quantify moral culpability based on what you are caught doing, not on what you actually do.

You are not my breathren anymore.
It matters not your religion, race, or background to me.
It only need matter that you, the one who bears such a horrid view of man's responsibility to one another, have chosen this path of your own free will.

I cannot wait.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

Say abortion is done away with. Say all these women who have abortions for whatever reasons are forced to have these children. Remember, most aren't using abortion as birth control; they have honest, based-in-reality reasons for ending their pregnancies.

Who is going to take care of these women and children?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:39 PM
As the late great Bill Hicks once said: "I wanna see you Pro-Lifers really committed to your cause; form a chain and lock arms around a graveyard!"

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by skeptic1


I know you to be intelligent. I have read many of your posts on other threads, and I am willing to accept that we don't see eye to eye on this issue.


I, and many others committed to the same cause, have given many of my own resources, time, etc., to the causes that benefit women in these same predicaments.
I cannot stress enough the need for one to do so, especially if one is going to attack others for their stance on the issue.

That would be like me claiming an environmentalist stance, and then buying chemical cleaners and not recycling.

Do you get me on this?


Removed personal attack on another ATS member

[edit on 31/3/09 by masqua]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

So, you would take several of them in (mother and child), support them, and raise them? Be responsible for both for as long as it took?

And, I am not taking the position of anyone else. I am asking a question of you. You are talking about the need for a fetus to have the same rights as a full grown human being. That's all well and good.

My point is who takes care of all the mothers and children when the fetus gains equal rights? Taxpayers? Charities? Society as a whole? We've seen how well that works out. It doesn't work.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

I'm sorry, but again I disagree.

I am a product of such help.

I am adopted, and at a much older age than is normal.

And yes, I have helped mothers for years. Whatever it takes, and whatever I can do.

So YES, I have.

Now what?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

Good for you, that's what.

Man, not every question asked of you in this thread is sinister. :shk:

My point is that there are very, very few like you in this world and far too many that would look the other way. It is hard to practice what you preach, and far too many people fail at it when the time comes.

The entire point is that, where there may be a handful (comparatively) of people that would step up, the vast majority would not......leaving these women and children to poverty, death, disease, etc. Social services cannot handle what they have now. Taxpayers bear a huge burden now. Orphanages overflow throughout the world.

As many people who scream and yell about abortion and its evil, society is already overburdened with unwanted children. It seems that most only care about the fetus until it is born as a baby.

Is this a valid defense for why abortion exists? Maybe to some, and definitely not to others. Abortion is legal and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Most women use it as the ultimate last choice, not the first choice. It is hard and it stays with the women who have it done. In some instances, it is a necessity for physical health, in others for the survival of mental health. And, very, very rarely, is it done strictly to punish the fetus.

[edit on 3/31/2009 by skeptic1]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

I apologize, as I was not in any way attempting to be snarky.

I did not take your question to be sinister either.

I am only pointing out, that if one were to look at the charity work done by so many, you would see many that agree with my stance, and follow up with backing of these issues.

I don't think that women commit abortions to punish the baby.
Nor do I think it a first option for probably half of the 90% that have abortions for non-medical, non-rape/incest abortions.

Nor am I, believe it or not, saying these things for moral superiority.

None of these arguments change the fact that in this country, millions of healthy babies have been aborted for what comes down to selfish reasons.

Even if only ten % (of the 90%) was done for this reason, could you not see why I would feel the way I do?

That maybe that ten% would be worth so much to some of us?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

I understand the way you feel, and I have no doubt you are sincere.

I wonder, though, how many more there are like you in the world who would back up words with actions if it came to that. If they were successful in making abortion illegal, how many would step up and how many would just say "My work here is done" and go on about their lives without bothering to help the baby since they saved the fetus?

If everyone is so overburdened now, how would it be with millions of more unwanted children every year? Who would take care of them? Who would be responsible for them? Who would pay for them?

How many would step up and how many would walk away?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Clearskies
Birth control is good. Maybe a shot AND a pill?

Totally agree with you there. Birth control should be of the utmost importance and more importantly, made readily available to anybody who is sexually active but is not able to or does not want to raise a child. Abortion should really be much more of a rarity, and hopefully a time will come where another option is available, and there will be no need for it.

Yes this is the nail on the head and the crux of the matter you hit on to a tee. Unfortunately it seems some here argue for the right to do this (abortion) and refuse to face what it is they are doing. We see this entire thing as an industry that has actually PROMOTED it when I think it ought to be discouraged at all costs if possible.

The personal attacks I think are what is making some back down from their arguments NOT for the people in the discussion making them but the alerts to mods resulting in post bans, points lost etc.

The thing is, I don't think people are getting this.

Those who are against abortion see it as someone killing a baby and NOT someone trying to take away anyones rights. To them, I think a persons rights come second and saving a life ought to come first. That is just how they see it and that ain't ever going to change.

When they see someone actually arguing to keep those rights, it looks like they are arguing for the right to kill someone. That is how it looks to me and is why I get infuriated with those who do it.

It is evident of this when most can't stomach watching a video of a typical abortion much less a born alive baby now born deserving all the rights of any other American even beating the odds fighting to survive someones intention to kill them but left in a brrom closet to die alone and hungry sometimes to 11 hours later.

Knowing many children do not get adopted and end up foster children doesn't justify the act of abortion. I have never met a foster child that wasn't happy to be alive no matter what his station in life was no matter how they were brought up, they fight to stay alive like anyone else in spite of their humble beginnings.

Why must someone have to be "qualified" to voice an opinion on this by agreeing to take on personal burdens of raising other peoples babies that made their bed and are now expected to lay in it like everyone else that makes choices with life and death ramifications attached to them such as sex. Sexual needs can be met without the act of intercourse if one uses their imagination but once an unwanted circumstance lke this happens, I think it is too late. I would post evidence of infants born extremely pre mature that you would not think at that point would register pain or even look human but the are.

I have been warned not to as it might be offending some here whose only means to oppose this argument seem to be having a double standard for acts that are TRULY offensive so much so they can't watch a video but they sure can argue to have the right to cast players in what can only be seen as a snuff film when it gets down to it.

The comparisons I have seen going on here where proponents of abortion use ad-hoc policy of their own design in some teflon double standard where we must submit to askiing church's to an audit just to "qualify" as having a right to voice an opinion. The reason you don't find church's listing the amounts they give to orphaned children unless they make that a mission of the church, is because many church's simply are not required to do it but that doesn't mean they don't and it doesn't matter anyway because it is NOT for those who pull this arbitrary rule out of the air to say who can or can't qualify to call an abortion what it is.

Invariably those that ask or insist on such religious criteria are the same ones that complain about religion being shoved down their throats the moment the word "church" is brought up so they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The excuse used where someone brings up how many other animals are killed for research and sport where if we want to argue the rights of children we must argue the rights of these other living creatures too is yet another double standard where proponents of abortion don't have to meet the same alleged requrements of same, hell they don't even have to be pregnant or facing the actual decision of having to get an abortion or not to argue their position on it so why should we?

I was, I guess lucky in that regard because I actually HAVE supported such efforts outside the abortion issue. I have had posts removed that exploit the absloute ridiculous notion that this logic is some sort of defense disqualifying us against abortion from judging it by re-illustrating it in the context of a defense for murder where the murder cannot be judged guilty of killing his victim if the judge doesn't also convict all those who kill animals for research or slaughter cattle for meat on our tables etc.

This of course would be laughed at by a judge for the same reasons it is nonsense when it is used against those judging the abortion proponents.

We have seen counter arguments where the religious are portrayed as hypocrites and war mongering right wing whack jobs who would send all our young people to wars to die so how dare we tell those woman they don't have a right to send their own children to there deaths.

The only difference is, it isn't true.

Men and woman joining the armed forces CHOOSE to go and have to meet age requirments many of them are forster kids who make careers of the military and live decent lives and do not become a statistic Rap can use to justify her stance on abortion. When I see the attitude where woman lke this can talk so easily as if this is not unlike having a wart removed, 27jd, I got to tell you,, honestly, it disturbs me.

I have seen posts by skeptic who has taken pains using compassionate arguments without justifying it but emotional arguments to the "Predicament" facng woman which I can UNDERSTAND that I can feel myself as I am not a woman but have sufferd the loss of a child and not once have I ever felt like "Whew" I was lucky there.

Not once would I have argued that consequence of my inability to protect that child without expressing a deep emotional component to my argument yet am expected to understand the "logic" for those defending their right to have this same consequence their inability to protect a child of their own as if they have already thought it out, experienced the unbelievable excruciating grief, loss etc,. vicariously through others and have decided to argue the rights to take that life before they are even facing such a predicament themselves in most cases. I find that incomprehensible and having been through it myself, find those actually arguing to put themselves through this grief of their own volition using the kind of arguments I have seen here completely void of any emotional component is the kind of rationale we see used by sociopaths such as jeffery dahmer and just saying that might have some of them already to jump on me using the same double standard in yet another ad-hoc argument comparison where they would ask, "Oh so you're saying all people that are pro-life are serial killers like jeffery dahmer blah blah blah" etc. No I am saying that jeffery dahmer was able to BE a serial killer logically in his own mind because he lacked the empathy the emotional component that makes such an act, out of the question for any of us to perpetrate on another much less our own flesh and blood.

I have seen a glimmer of it here and there, I know skeptic1 knows what I mean and you do too If I am not correct.

Then I have seen those here that incite rage among those against this act because some pro life people want to treat us as people only wanting to take rights from them.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

I have no idea, friend.

We have no Idea how many women do this for strictly financial reasons.
I can't imagine how many do it for fear of abandonment.
Ending abortion is not the only solution.
Bringing back COMMUNITIES is by far the BIGGEST part of what I believe will save these children.
This issue is MORE than a little complex, and I GET that, trust me.

Why this has become some sort perceived "attack" thread is beyond me.
I think it is language, and other issues. (not saying you said that)
But if I care so much for unborn babies, I would hope that my feelings towards live ones would be obvious.

I'm sorry, TRULY, that so many of my brothers and sisters have let you, and everyone else, down.
I cannot speak for them, or defend them.
I can only be me, and do what I do.

My OP may have turned SOOOOOOOOO many people off.
It may have driven this point home as well.


And I can't just let their "silent screams" continue.
I believe that I have to answer for that. And I want to be able to answer that I did everything I could.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by jasonjnelson

It is very complex. And, more is needed than endless debate over whether abortion should or should not be legal.

Education is needed.
Compassion is needed.
Family is needed.
Friends are needed.
Logic is needed.
Patience is needed.
Respect is needed.
Empathy is needed.
Knowledge is needed.
Understanding is needed.

These things are needed for and from both sides of the debate. Otherwise, solutions that meet the needs of everyone, pro-lifers, pro-choice advocates, mothers, fathers, and children, will never be found.

They will continue to be drowned out by the screaming on each side.

[edit on 3/31/2009 by skeptic1]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Rapinbatsisalltherage

Continuation from page 32;

With or without the pdf, I am not seeing anything specifically about adoptees
or women who CHOSE NOT TO ABORT and child abuse.
There are many factors, like what if the woman became addicted and started abusing, or if the Dad left and then she became abusive.....
the next point was that teenage mothers have weaker babies, are prone to depression, abuse, and neglect....
Teenagers aren't well known for being responsible, so I don't see that point.
Most abortions aren't done to teenagers. (Even though I was one)

This last study you gave by Bitler and Zavodny
lacks perspective. The use of birth control and newer forms of it(and accessibility) should also have been included.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Clearskies]

new topics

top topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in