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.
originally posted by: westcoast
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olddognewtricks
But it isn't human... It has the POTENTIAL to be human, but it isn't human yet. Do you call a seed a tree?
Did you seriously just compare a living, growing baby with a beating heart to a SEED?
*facepalm*
originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, if a living organism is taken out of its natural environment and then dies, then it's ok? It didn't matter anyway, cuz it can't survive on its' own, therefore it's not human.
Why can't I toss my two year old out into the snow and slam the door shut? It's my choice. I don't want the little leech any more. I wonder how long that little bundle of cells will survive out there.
originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You think my example is extreme? I'm using your own definition. By your definition, a 2 yr old is not human. It's your definition of what is human that is the slippery slope.
originally posted by: Ignatian
"A woman and her doctor" I suppose the outcome will depend on who that doctor is then huh? Will she get some of the truth, or all the truth? planned parenthood doctors certainly have a bias, don't ya think?
Another doctor, who's actually concerned about the woman's health would tell her ALL the facts about birth control, morning after pills and how abortion may effect her long term. A doctor who actually cared about a woman would inform her about the fact that the pills are poison, cause cancer, can make her infertile, and are abortifacients themeselves. They kill fertilized eggs. They kill people.
I've got an acquaintance that last I knew was up to six (abortions)
A good doctor would tell her all about the long term ramifications if she has an abortion; An increased chance of many forms of cancer, infertility, suicide, alcoholism, depression, etc. the list is very long.
I'd bet money, a woman who walks into planned parenthood gets NONE of that information. Yet, they want to say they're looking out for women's health...what a joke.
originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Char-Lee
No, really, lead me...explain your position.
Why is someone with a lot of kids with little money "a problem"?
What's this problem, that I am so clueless about?
Case studies of the "professional abortionists" and their practices in the 1930s provide a unique opportunity to analyze the experiences of the tens of thousands of women who went to physician-abortionists. Many women had abortions in a setting nearly identical to the doctors' offices where they received other medical care. These doctors specialized in a single procedure, abortion. They used standard medical procedures to perform safe abortions routinely and ran what may be called abortion clinics. Furthermore, abortion specialists were an integral part of regular medicine, as the network of physicians who referred patients to these physician-abortionists demonstrates. The physician-abortionists represent the expansion of abortion during the Depression decade.
The Depression years make vivid the relationship between economics and reproduction. Women had abortions on a massive scale. Married women with children found it impossible to bear the expense of another, and unmarried women could not afford to marry. As young working-class women and men put off marriage during the Depression to support their families or to save money for a wedding, marriage rates fell drastically. Yet while they waited to wed, couples engaged in sexual relations, and women became pregnant. Many had abortions.
During the Depression, married women were routinely fired on the assumption that jobs belonged to men and that women had husbands who supported them. Discrimination against married women forced single women to delay marriage and have abortions in order to keep their jobs. One such woman was a young teacher whose fiancé was unemployed. As her daughter recalled fifty years later, "She got pregnant. What were her choices? Marry, lose her job, and bring a child into a family with no means of support? Not marry, lose her job and reputation, and put the baby up for adoption or keep it?" As this scenario makes clear, she had no "choice." Furthermore, it points to the limitations of the rhetoric of "choice" in reproduction; social forces condition women's reproductive options. The teacher's boyfriend found a local physician who helped her in his office; then she went to a hotel to miscarry. Two years later she married a different man, who had a job, and eventually bore seven children.
publishing.cdlib.org...
originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: eletheia
Why do you insist on seeing my sources? For just a moment, make the assumption that what I said is true (and it is). If my assumptions are true, would that give you pause to maybe think a little differently about the abortion procedure, and the long term damage it can do to a woman? Don't women matter?
Do you think abortion is "disturbing" in ANY way? Why is that?