Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Those that are against abortion

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


There's no reason to get into a bunch of "what if..." scenarios.

A woman has the right to choose if and when she wishes to breed. That's the end of the story.

if you want to ask these people something, ask them if they support forced breeding. Same thing - paternalist government making decisions for you as to when and if you have a child, determined by a bureaucrat with no involvement in your situation.




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 





Are you also against the woman having an abortion if she gets raped by a family member/complete stranger?


I am against abortion in the third trimester (second is a grey area), and that includes cases of rape, birth defects (anencephaly is a possible exception) and incest.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I answered your question

and please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to keep repeating everything when it's clear that you can't comprehend what the difference is between a fetus in the first trimester and a living human child.


Actually it is you who believes the myth that a foetus isn't a life, and therefore you can allow yourself to justify the killing of a baby. No woman, happily pregnant, calls their baby a foetus. It's their baby, a life in their womb. Does religion make every one of these women believe that it is a life in their womb? Heck no. And that is why your entire thread is a bash against "religion". Just re-read your post. I used to feel like you until I had a child myself - I bought hook, line and sinker the same myth, a foetus is not a baby. Boy was I dead wrong. Look around you - life isn't valued in society and it shows. God isn't valued, and it shows. Society is in a free for all nosedive because of the worship of SELF.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
i have a good idea. make it so atheists cant have abortions until they raise enough atheist children so we have a bigger force to fight for abortion rights!

2 steps forward one step back



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I answered your question

and please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to keep repeating everything when it's clear that you can't comprehend what the difference is between a fetus in the first trimester and a living human child.


It's clear you can't comprehend that a life starts at conception, not when it's doesn't need any more support from another life, because in the case of humans it can take several years for your mind and body to develop to the point you don't need anyone else.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I am personally against abortion, but I would not recommend that it be made illegal because the majority of people are in agreement that it should be legal.
I am against murder and I prefer that it stays illegal. It fits my personal views and the majority's views.

If you and the law of the land say that what you are doing is not murder, and that you are making a medical choice, or it's not murder because only living things can be murdered, etc...than that's between you and the laws of the land, and your belief system.

I'm not here to judge you, but I'd be happy to teach you about or have a dialogue about the details as to what I believe and why I believe it. If you aren't interested in having that dialogue with me, that's fine, we can talk about the weather, sports, science, history or whatever else you want to chat about, or not.

If you want to bring religion/spirituality into the arguement, perhaps there is a country where they have laws of the land are more in alignment with your personal beliefs, and you can go there. If you want to change things at home, you'll have to get busy promoting your case to the populace and government to try and get a majority of support and have things changed.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


key word : Happily

It doesn't matter, your life won't be affected by it. So why are you sticking your nose in somebody else's business? You can believe one thing, but you don't know the situation they are in so you shouldn't be quick to judge.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by muse7
 


im with the OP

i seriously think that people who bother themselves fighting against such topics are just losers who have no life. not just abortion but all decisions are up to the individual and unless that decision directly effects someone else, it should be no one elses business.


Ugh...except it does effect someone else...



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


but not you so keep out of it. its fine if you think its wrong but do just that, think it.

its none of your business what other people do.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


but not you so keep out of it. its fine if you think its wrong but do just that, think it.

its none of your business what other people do.


So it's nobodys buisness if someone goes and kills someone else? Because it wan't them being killed?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Why should dependence on others make you not a person? As has been pointed out, even children are dependent on others for survival.
Your mind makes you a person, in contrast to mindless lump of human cells. And mind cannot exist in the first trimester, because the brain is not developed. Brainwaves appear in 5th month of fetal development, thats when a fetus becomes a person.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


exactly. its only on the ones involved's conscience. who are you to fight for a new organism that for all you know could grow up to kill you. i know thats far fetched but its not like someones murdering your father. its someone consciously taking action to abort a baby that they do not want to have.

its their own choice, its their own business and thats that.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


but not you so keep out of it. its fine if you think its wrong but do just that, think it.

its none of your business what other people do.


Oh, please. I am pro-choice, but this argument is stupid. If someone considers abortion to be like murder, then you cannot tell them it is none of their bussiness any more than legalising murder is.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


so why arent you out there trying to catch murderers?

why fight for fetus's but not for other animals being killed?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Not all people who are opposed to abortion are religious fanatics. It is extremely ignorant of you to assume that one could only be opposed to abortion because of religious beliefs.

My anti-abortion stance is based on the medical facts of fetal development and life experiences.

Most abortions are not performed during the first trimester. Considering the 40 weeks of pregnancy is counted not at the moment of conception but from the first day of the mothers last period. home pregnancy tests usually don't turn up results until the 5th week of pregnancy. Most women who aren't trying to get pregnant usually don't find out until around 9 or 10 weeks. Sometimes later because many women have bleeding during implantation and mistake it for a period and so they don't realize they missed a period. Once they do find out by the time they schedule an appointment which is normally a week or so out, have a follow up appointment a week or so later then finally get an abortion they are already their second trimester.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


so if its not religious, what is it about the medical facts about abortion that make you disagree with it?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I'm sure many of you may be familiar with this photo below and the story behind it. It has been used many times to support the feelings of anti-abortion people. But this is not an accurate photo of a fetus in the first tri-mester.



The Baby hand

Some of us may be familiar with a picture called “The Baby Hand,” taken on Aug. 19, 1999, by photojournalist Michael Clancy for USA Today, which first published the picture. Clancy was assigned to document a spina bifida operation performed in utero on a 21-week unborn baby named Samuel Armas by Dr. Joseph Bruner, a surgeon at Nashville’s Vanderbuilt University Medical Center.

The picture and its story have been circulated on the internet so often that some question whether they are authentic. They are.

Clancy describes the famous picture this way: “Samuel thrusts his tiny hand out of the surgical opening of his mother’s uterus. As the doctor lifts his hand, Samuel reacts to the touch and squeezes the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shakes the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. At that moment, I took this ‘Fetal Hand Grasp’ photo.”

In a story he wrote about the incident, Clancy added,

“As a doctor asked me what speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, ‘What happened?’ ‘The child reached out,’ I said. ‘Oh. They do that all the time,’ she responded.”

Clancy said the experience changed him from pro-choice to pro-life.

Not only did USA Today run the photo, but so did a number of other media sources in the United States, Canada, Ireland, England, France, Norway, Singapore, and South America.
The photo generated controversy at Fox News, where then-talk show host Matt Drudge was prevented by the network from broadcasting the image on his show. That was in the early years of Fox, before the cable giant rose to the top by appealing to conservatives. Drudge–who is strongly pro-life–quit over the dispute in the fall of 1999. Not long afterward, Fox ran the picture, anyway, as part of a story on spina bifida.

Samuel was born on Dec. 2, 1999, weighing 5 pounds 11 ounces–four weeks premature. By all indications, he appeared healthy. Today, he’s a “chattering, brown-eyed 3½-year-old.”



The photo below more accurately depicts what a newly developing fetus's hand in the first tri-mester actually looks like. I apologize for the graphic nature of these photos but. I think it shows that there is a big difference as to the early stages of pregnancy when abortion is legal and a more fully developed fetus.




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


www.foxnews.com...

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by xxblackoctoberxx
 


The fact that after 9 weeks the unborn baby is very much a living human. If it wasn't 2 in the morning I would go to to some the site I posted in the other thread and pastes some of the information here. If this thread is still going tomorrow I will do it then.

As for the picture of the baby in the 1st trimester, do you have any clue how many changes a baby goes through during the 1st trimester? You need to specify what week that is from. every week during the first trimester the baby;s appearance is greatly changed. I am going to guess that is about 5-6 weeks when very few women are even aware they are pregnant.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That information is hard to believe. do you have another source stating that considering the inaccuracy of when it states the 3rd trimester start, which is at 28 weeks not 24.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join