Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

page: 19
41
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
For me it's not a cool thing to deprive life to those babies with disabilities when they grow up. If they can survive it then let them live just like almost a normal kid. I've read lots of human rights essays and killing them is not really an acceptable act.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Put it up for adoption rather than murder it. Really simple.
This is a slippery slope of bad morality, we already advocate the genocide of the unwanted unborn, extending this to born people would further damage our civilization, and where does it stop, old people would be next.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rougeskut
 





if a human being wants to abort their baby because of whatever reasons, what business is it of yours, your community, your county, your state, and even, and much less, your central REPUBLIC government?


How is it anyone's business when someone beats/kills their 3 year old? Isn't it the same principle? This country has many laws against things that don't have any effect on anyone but the person involved, for instance, the seat belt law. How is it your business or the governments business if I want to ride around without my seat belt? Yet, there is a law stating that I can be fined for not wearing it.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EndlessFire
 





How is it anyone's business when someone beats/kills their 3 year old? Isn't it the same principle?


No. A 3 year old is a sentient person. An embryo is not.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You asked why it was someone else's business, not the reason you think it's okay. Society decided that it is wrong to let someone kill their own children, even though legally those children belong to that person. Abortion, just like child abuse, is a social issue. For many years society thought that a man should be able to treat his family however he wanted, because they were his family and women and children were seen as less important than the man who was head of the household. Now society sees unborn children as less important than the women, I refuse to call anyone who kills their unborn child without a valid medical reason a mother, who give them life. It's a matter of social thinking and behavior.

(Why is there not a spellcheck on this thing?)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

In a few cases, if there is a danger, it's during delivery, and then a c-section eliminates the problem.


You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You must never have heard of an ectopic pregnancy and that's just the first on off the top of my head.


Seven pregnancies, five children, two miscarriages....yeah, I think I know what I am talking about. Not to mention TONS of research into the topic, over decades. Yes, decades. Ectopic pregnancies are NOT what causes a typical abortion. Nor can they possibly continue. The excuse of "if the mother's life is in danger" isn't referring to those cases, but to normal pregnancies with some complication. In virtually all cases (according to OB docs with more years of experience than I have been alive), a c-section eliminates the risk. Exceptions to that are extremely rare.


Originally posted by PigraphiaThere are a host of potential things that can go wrong that can kill both mother and child before delivery.


SO I guess you know more than the doctors that deliver the babies.


Originally posted by PigraphiaGood for you willing to die for your child, I'm sure in cases where both the mother and child would die they will be grateful to know you would have done the same thing.

By facts I don't mean obscure data showing an uber rare complication where both mother and baby lived.
Those are practically miracles or at the very least are due to amazing doctors.


Again, RARE cases, of the sort you say I am not supposed to mention. Double standard much? You can bring up rare cases to defend abortion, but a pro-life person can't? I think you should look someplace other than Planned Parenthood for data. Try this source for starters:

This is from actual doctors.....



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

There are almost NO cases like that, and that is according to long-time, experienced OB/GYNs. In a few cases, if there is a danger, it's during delivery, and then a c-section eliminates the problem.

Tests claiming a baby won't make it are also not always reliable. Plus, if that's the case, the pregnancy will fail on its own, so there is no reason to abort.


Although your information looks possibly convincing, the above "facts" are incorrect. There are two well known early pregnancy complications that result in an nonviable fetus, and can result in the death of the mother if not treated promptly. The more commonly occurring one is an Ecoptic Pregnancy, this occurs when the fertilized egg implants within the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. The fallopian tube does not have the ability to expand as the uterus does, nor does it provide a nourishing environment for the fetus to continue growing. This is not a situation where if given time it will eventually move, once it has occurred and is diagnosed the fetal cells must be removed promptly (aborted) to prevent the cells from growing sufficiently to rupture the fallopian tube. An Ecoptic pregnancy occurs on average of 20 out of every 1000 pregnancies.

The less common complication is called a Molar pregnancy in this situation the fertilized egg carries two extra genes which corrupt the development, producing what is more accurately termed a benign cyst, or in some cases a malignant tumor, a grouping of cells that will never develop into any form of viable fetus. When this occurs the mother often will experience vaginal bleeding and recurrent passage of pelvic cysts the size of grapes. The mother must be treated quickly to prevent maternal mortality, in some cases even though treatment was prompt, the occurrence of the molar pregnancy resulted in gestational trophoblastic disease if this becomes persistent treatments available are chemotherapy or a hysterectomy. In some rare cases after the removal of the molar cells the mother develops a cancerous form of gestational trophoblastic disease called choriocarcinoma which develops and spreads to other organs

Regarding situations where carrying the baby full term could cause maternal mortality, I'd like to see those specialists convince one of my high school teachers of that. Would never happen, his wife was very happy with the pregnancy of their first child, I talked to her every day as she was the school secretary and it was a small school. Everything appeared to be going fine, but as she went into labor her blood pressure started rising rapidly and they were not able to control her deteriorating condition, she died of what the doctors diagnosed as Toxemia during labor, they were able to save their infant daughter.


Ectopic pregnancies are NOT the sort that are used as excuses. Those cannot advance, and that isn't something pro-life people complain about, either. Nor is the removal of a "non-viable" - read "dead" unborn child the same thing as aborting a live one. The situation of that woman is something that can happen, but the possibility that you MIGHT die isn't reason to kill another person. That isn't any more reasonable than claiming you were allowed to kill your neighbor because they might one day kill you. In most cases, with good prenatal care, the doctors are aware of BP problems, and can do things to prevent that sort of case. No, nothing is 100%, but does that mean we should abort all babies, just in case a woman develops some rare problem that might, maybe, kill her? Yes, that's a terrible thing, and I feel for the family. I am glad they were able to at least save the child. No, that doesn't make losing her any easier, but does anyone think she would rather have aborted, and killed her daughter, so she could have lived?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I had an entire long rant that used up almost all of the available characters for a post...
I deleted it, why bother it's not worth it.
All you care about is forcing others to make a decision you would make for yourself, and any medical needs be damned.

I will say this, you need to lay off the kool-aid.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they get their facts from planned parenthood.
They are a racist eugenicist organization that actively encourages unnecessary abortions in women who aren't sure what to do.
They are a vile group and I would thank you to not associate me with them.

You can go back to forcing your opinions on others now, I've got better things to do.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I had an entire long rant that used up almost all of the available characters for a post...
I deleted it, why bother it's not worth it.
All you care about is forcing others to make a decision you would make for yourself, and any medical needs be damned.

I will say this, you need to lay off the kool-aid.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they get their facts from planned parenthood.
They are a racist eugenicist organization that actively encourages unnecessary abortions in women who aren't sure what to do.
They are a vile group and I would thank you to not associate me with them.

You can go back to forcing your opinions on others now, I've got better things to do.


I am for preventing people from killing other people. What abortionist considers the needs of the unborn child, pray tell? People on the pro-abortion side want to act as thought the entire issue is abot the rights of women, but that isn't the case. TWO lives are involved, and only one has a say.

And yes, some DO encourage abortions. Planned Parenthood was in opposition to women having an ultrasound before an abortion, so that they could make a fully informed decision. They didn't want women choosing to keep a baby; they only want them choosing to abort. They don't make money off people that keep their children.

Yes, there are also MANY eugenics people involved in the abortion industry, starting with Margaret Sanger. Please, READ about this woman, before you assume I am wrong.

the facts



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I know all about her, what part of


They are a racist eugenicist organization that actively encourages unnecessary abortions in women who aren't sure what to do. They are a vile group and I would thank you to not associate me with them.

makes you think I don't know about her. What part of that makes you think I need to be educated on such a vile person?

You are the one assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, and it's quite ridiculous frankly.

Honestly how do you look at a post where I say I don't like planned parenthood and then tell me I need to learn about one of it's founders?

What part of my previous posts where I state that I think it is necessary for medical conditions leads you to think I support abortion wholly?

I'll say it again, if the abortion is used as a medical procedure to save the mothers life I support it. It's better to end one life than risk both. If you were in charge you would make the mother risk her life. If both end up dying you're okay with that. How is it okay to waste two lives when only one need be lost? How about this, you be the one who has to tell the husband, or the mothers family "There is a xx% risk of Jane_Doe losing her life if she carries the baby to term, and an xx% chance of losing both lives if the baby is carried to term. I'm in charge though so I'm going to make her risk her life for the chance that one of them might live".

You keep saying two lives are evolved, but you're fine with risking both lives. How is that your decision to make? What gives you the right to risk two lives, or even one life over another? It's not your decision, it's not the governments decision. It's life and death for crying out loud, that's a decision between the woman and her family, not mine, not yours and not some politicians.

You talk about there being two lives involved. By saying there are no medical grounds for abortion you violate your own premise. By denying the mother a treatment that can save her life you are saying her life is meaningless. You can't use the argument that there are two lives if you place 0 value on one of the lives.

Honestly I think you just want to yell at people, and feel oh so superior.





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join