It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lysergic
Eugenics is alive an well
Originally posted by gecrazy
reply to post by Unity_99
I just don't get why people think abortion is wrong. yes i do believe that your killing a living being ,but what if that person became pregnant by someone who raped her? I think everybody should have the right to have an abortion. And be happyedit on 29-2-2012 by gecrazy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by gecrazy
I find our laws in Canada far more balanced. They are "restricted", for the most part at least, to the first trimester, ie body forming. The brain and consciousness takes leaps and bounds from about 12 weeks on, I would say 10-12 weeks, and there is even some indication earlier from some the more recent articles.
So the earlier the better. So basically, 6 weeks is ideal.
Once consciousness is developing then there is two people at stake, not just one, and another in development, but two, with one dependent on the other.
Here in Canada, its paid for, you can go in and get it done early.
I'm not anti abortion nor pro open wide ones, and I don't consider abortions a form of birth control. But that is a very complex issue.edit on 29-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
Now the whole consciousness debate. Exactly when does a fetus develop a consciousness? Some will say "well you don't remember anything from when you were in the womb!"
Well I say I don't remember anything when I was 0-4(rough estimation) was I okay to kill then because I wasn't developing memories? The whole thing is babies our cute, stupid, helpless little creatures who a parrot can outsmart and fetus are not so cute. No their impersonal, not even really there. We think of the developing child(as in fetus) as something that is coming not something that is physically here most of the time.
Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by technical difficulties
That's why I think this article is a plant.
I think it was planted to anger the pro-life side into doing or saying something stupid.
The whole article just felt off while reading it.
Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
I think, as opposed to "getting" a life, he is interested in preserving it
"WAH WAH WAH IT's A WOMAN's BODY"
With the great blessing comes great responsibilities, not just a subjective notion of "rights"
It appears that staunch anti-abortion types have no interest in providing quality of life to unwanted babies that didn't have to be born.