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.

 

2nd Trimester Abortions, What Is Your Stance On Them?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
My stance is that abortions until 5th month of pregnancy (when brainwaves appear at the earliest) is not morally wrong and should be allowed without any restrictions.



Primitive brainwaves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks and 2 days.
www.ehd.org...

By the time most women even figure out they are pregnant, the baby is already close to 5-6 weeks old. If at that stage a woman believes it is nothing but a group of cells, she is sadly mistaken. The baby while tiny, already looks like a human. Not a lump of cells. It's heart is beating. It's a human life form.

5weeks and 6days old


Now, back to the topic of second trimester abortions.

A second trimester abortion looks like this:

While a baby born early at the same stage looks like this:


Then there is this:


Take a good look at this picture. It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a fetus reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still be legally aborted.
Full Story

"If you smoke a cigarette on a beach in modern America you are harming the innocent. If you have a baby scraped from your womb, you are protecting your freedom." Peggy Noonan




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Under Water
 


The same argument from future potential can be used against contraception, or even refusing sex. The consequences are exactly the same - no person in the future, where there could be. Argument from future potential is thus fallacious. Only actuality is important when it comes to rights.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I think Dr. Seuss said it best.."a person's a person no matter how small." (From the book "Horton Hears A Who"
edit on 19-3-2012 by Rockstrongo37 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
My stance?
It's murder.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Under Water
 




Primitive brainwaves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks and 2 days.


This is incorrect. It is a very widespread myth. Brainwaves in fact appear in 5th month of fetal development (20 weeks):
Fetal Brainwaves: myths and disinformation

PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS


Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.



Regarding the rest, I dont think that second trimester abortions should be legal, first trimester is enough and a good compromise (thats the legislation here, and I have never heard of any problems with it).



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.

Don't tell other people how to live their life. You'd appreciate and expect the same thing.

I'd rather have a child aborted than having an unwanted child brought into this world.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
The same argument from future potential can be used against contraception, or even refusing sex. The consequences are exactly the same - no person in the future, where there could be. Argument from future potential is thus fallacious. Only actuality is important when it comes to rights.

That makes no sense at all

I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat what was once alive
But I eat eggs

Consequences are NOT exactly the same and for you to use the word "Exactly" is quite the exaggeration

That is like saying existance equates to non-existance



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Maslo
The same argument from future potential can be used against contraception, or even refusing sex. The consequences are exactly the same - no person in the future, where there could be. Argument from future potential is thus fallacious. Only actuality is important when it comes to rights.

That makes no sense at all

I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat what was once alive
But I eat eggs

Consequences are NOT exactly the same and for you to use the word "Exactly" is quite the exaggeration

That is like saying existance equates to non-existance


Future consequences of never conceiving a child (using contraception) vs. having an abortion are exactly the same - no future person where there could be. This is the post I was replying to:


It will one day become someone's mother, or father, or sister or brother, or friend, or husband or wife. If given the right to exist, he or she will likely effect the lives of countless people that he or she comes into contact with during the course of life. He or she may even become a future leader, or famous artist, or maybe a person who will make an important scientific discovery that will carry mankind into a better future.


This potential is similarly prevented with abortion and with contraception (or even refusing sex). The consequences are the same.
edit on 19/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Under Water
 


The same argument from future potential can be used against contraception, or even refusing sex.


No it can't. My argument was about life that is already in motion. Contraception prevents pregnancy. But once it's already in motion, who are we to stop it? At that point, it seems we now have a responsibility to a life form.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RomeByFire
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.

Don't tell other people how to live their life. You'd appreciate and expect the same thing.

I'd rather have a child aborted than having an unwanted child brought into this world.


Adoption is a beautiful thing. Abortion is an embarrassment to our society.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Future consequences of never conceiving a child (using contraception) vs. having an abortion are exactly the same - no future person where there could be.

Again existance is NOT the same as non-existance
That is not a hard concept to grasp


Originally posted by Maslo
This potential is similarly prevented with abortion and with contraception (or even refusing sex). The consequences are the same.

refusing sex equates to abortion?


So refusing sex daily is the same as mass murder?

You are really grasping at straws, that's all that is happening right here



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
For me? Nope.. I dont agree with it.
I am no one to tell others what to do, but dont want to fund it or be forced to participate in it if I disagree with it. Each of us is responsible for our actions. I choose not to react to it after the fact but to prevent it . If others dont choose to, thats their problem to deal with how they think is appropriate. I do not know when life starts. I do not know if brainwaves or reaction to stimulus makes a human. I dont even think thats the real argument to be honest. For me personally, it will be a baby.. and was in the first trimester. Its always a baby when you want it and a ball of cells when you dont. I guess its up to each person what they choose.. just dont involve me in your personal choices. I dont have a religious stance on it.. just what I choose to believe myself.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Under Water

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Under Water
 


The same argument from future potential can be used against contraception, or even refusing sex.


No it can't. My argument was about life that is already in motion. Contraception prevents pregnancy. But once it's already in motion, who are we to stop it? At that point, it seems we now have a responsibility to a life form.


Why should it matter if its already "in motion" or not? Its still only a potential person at best. Life without personhood is not precious as persons.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Normally I don't believe I have the right to tell anybody else what to do with their body but on this issue, absolutely no.

Again, this would not even be a issue if every single girl that hits puberty in America were given birth control education and shots/pills and every single young man be made aware of the legal paternity payments involved.

And yes, young men should be made aware of and instructed heavily to have safe sex. I always told my three sons, "You play you pay"..............and gave them condoms and told them - I don't want you to until you're like 30 but if you do, even if the girl says "I'm on birth control" ....... use the damn thing anyway. I explained it in pure simple English.

Teaching our daughters about safe sex and allowing them to decide about their own bodies. I've even started teaching my grand daughter about her changing body and she is ten (and developing - she is a young woman)


And making sure she is educated by her mother and father about procreation. I've gotten her books on "Making Good Choices".

Educate educate educate along with we have got to begin regulating our children.

As it is now, day care ends when a kid hits what 8-9????

Most young men and women:

1) 50% live in 1 parent house holds and are key latch kids
2) Most (except the upper class that can afford a stay at home mom) kids have moms that work again leaving virtually all kids home alone from 3:30-6:00 PM

Our movies, commercials, and the stuff in magazines - everywhere sex is heavily promoted, and openly now on display.

I'm not a prude for Christ's sake my husband was at Woodstock (I wasn't as I was alittle too young and not allowed to go - if I had even thought about it I would have been shackled to a wall - my husband was 25) so again, I am not a uptight prude but things have really really gotten out of hand, here in America.

While I think the Middle East is crazy with their veils covering everything - America is the complete opposite with navels, bellies, butt cracks, breast hanging out, women today, many dress like Rush Street Whores.

Adult stuff should remain for adults only and children, and yes I think your a kid until you hit 18-19, should not be exposed to adult stuff.

We need really good cheap available after school, daycare for kids up through highschool and all summer - two weeks off in the summer, two weeks off in the winter like they do in some parts of Europe, parents included.

We also need every single kid in school to wear uniforms like they do in Japan - it would cut down on the distraction and allow the kids to really study. Uniforms would also stop the class clique and save the parents money in the long run - they mind as well get use to the work world anyway.

I would stop pooling all our money into the military and begin pooling our money into our children, giving all good teachers a decent salary (2 sister in laws made frap - I made more without a college degree and they both taught schools for 30+ years, one was a highschool Special Ed - girlfriend too (highschool, inner city Special Ed) B has two college degrees and made just about what I did so teachers, (K-12) do not make a lot unless they are in Barrington Hills, IL or Hollywood, CA.

Again, a country puts it's money where it's mouth is...............we allow our leaders to award tens of trillions (and trillions are unaccounted for anyway) to be put into our military and squat is spent on our educational and social programs for our children - our children are our future, our legacy.

Now, flame away - I'm not going to read your irate responses but I'm sick and tired of all the nonsense, insane, adult culture that is ruining our children.

Again, no I don't want my grand daughter wearing a damn Middle Eastern veil but I don't allow her cute little butt cheeks to hang out either - there is such a thing as in the middle.

And while we're on the subject, how about teaching our kids to read, write and do math well too!

The classics, I'm buying them for my grand daughter and she reads 1 hour before bed each night.

Read to your kids. Hell, I even played classical music to mine while they were inside of me. (They all like Classic Rock)


“Love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.

*Love each other in moderation. That is the key to long-lasting love. Too fast is as bad as too slow.*”
― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

One last thing. I just bought my son a tee shirt that says: DADD: Dads Against Daughters Dating. Shoot the first one and word will spread. I have asked the manufacturer to have a GAGD: Grandmas Against Grand daughters Dating. Shoot the first one and word will spread. (I mean this to lighten this horribly sad discussion).

In China they drown millions of baby girls at birth, are we headed that way?

Sure looks like it.

Somebody should be making damn sure our kids and they are kids in my book until they hit 18, should be making damn sure they are courting (getting to know each other first on a personality level) and waiting until they are old enough to handle getting pregnant.

Smart, successful people (my husband's family, I have none) all graduated highschool, went onto college (like Duke and Sorbonne in Paris and then after getting a college degree and good job got married. They have yet to have children because they are smart and waiting to make sure their marriages work out and their kids will have a stable environment.

Dumb or lower IQ children and kids that are not supervised enough get knocked up and have a poopie life usually.

Okay, flame suit on............flame away - I'm not even coming back here.

I love babies and animals because they have no vote, no voice, and no say so and are victims of a really stupid bunch of people that have allowed a small bunch of greedy psychopathic maniacs to rule over us.

Every single baby should be wanted, loved and cherished.
edit on 19-3-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I am pro-choice all the way. I respect the views of pro-life people, but I seriously don't get the over-the-top vehemence of some of their stances (esp. the religious ones) but anyway...like another poster alluded to, women are going to seek abortions and have them regardless of the opposing viewpoints, and they are LEGAL or within reach where they are legal worldwide. I really don't get the sanctimony sometimes, it's not like the women who get abortions are taking your pregnancy away from you. It's their choice. If more women took the time to educate themselves about their personal menstrual cycle, and their period of fertility, action could be taken straight away and not 5 months later. When I say straight away, I mean the very day she begins to ovulate up until her menses are due, there are steps she can take to rid herself of unwanted gestation with cheap, safe and readily available items found in any health food store or supermarket...and no I am not going there, but seriously, ladies, take charge of your own health and keep the fundies out of your undies by getting educated and doing a little research. Google is indeed our friend.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoppedUp
I really don't get the sanctimony sometimes, it's not like the women who get abortions are taking your pregnancy away from you. It's their choice.

So you don't get someone in another state killing a corner store cashier for money because it's not like that cashier was your friend or your family member and that being illegal?

It's his choice
edit on 19-3-2012 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




Again existance is NOT the same as non-existance That is not a hard concept to grasp


Yes. But both in the case of terminating the future potential of a person appearing with contraception or refusing sex, and terminating it with abortion, there is never any existing person. Only potential at best.



refusing sex equates to abortion?


Yes, both are victimless acts - no person is killed.



So refusing sex daily is the same as mass murder?


Nope, because with refusing sex (and abortion), no actual persons are killed, as opposed to mass murder. Only potential for the existence of new persons in the future is terminated.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by HoppedUp
I really don't get the sanctimony sometimes, it's not like the women who get abortions are taking your pregnancy away from you. It's their choice.

So you don't get someone in another state killing a corner store cashier for money because it's not like that cashier was your friend or your family member and that being illegal?

It's his choice
edit on 19-3-2012 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)


I feel that example is non sequitur. Like I said, and now reiterating... a woman who chooses an abortion is not taking away the pregnancy of those who choose to carry one to term. I don't understand what that has to do with someone killing a cashier (and the crime of murder and robbery).



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Well its wrong to kill a unborn child no matter what stage it is at in the womb. By saying its ok at first trimester vs 2nd or even once its born is irrevelant. Its a baby why would you kill it? And those who try to trick you and call it a fetus maybe should look up what the word means, instead of trying to desensitize the subject.

en.wikipedia.org...



The word fetus (plural fetuses) is from the Latin fētus (“offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young”).[3] It has Indo-European roots related to sucking or suckling, from the Aryan prefix bheu-, meaning "To come into being".[4]


The word fetus means offspring, baby, unborn child. So abortionists are still killing a human being. Don't do it for whatever reason. Give it up for adoption, theres a lineup of people waiting, why not give the baby a chance it didnt do anything to deserve death.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   




Nope, because with refusing sex (and abortion), no actual persons are killed

I just posted a picture of a baby who was ripped apart during abortion. How can you look at that and still say no person was killed? That baby was a person and he was killed.

You can't compare that with birth control. An egg is not a human life form. Sperm is not a human life form. Preventing them from creating life and killing a life that already exists are two different things.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join