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: EverydayInVA
The financial stuff I don't understand, but any doctor doing a procedure that doesn't walk a patient through the procedure and go over the possible effects, should lose their license straight away. If this isn't already done, I'm speechless.
originally posted by: EverydayInVA
The financial stuff I don't understand, but any doctor doing a procedure that doesn't walk a patient through the procedure and go over the possible effects, should lose their license straight away. If this isn't already done, I'm speechless.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The question here is a simple one, despite all attempts to muddy the water:
Should the government require a service provider to reveal personal and private information to potential customers and be excluded from commerce if they refuse?
Simple really.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Tempter
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter
WRONG!
"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control."
so you admit, that sometimes the best advice the doctor can give a women is to terminate the pregnancy???
so where am I wrong????
www.theguardian.com...
there's five cases just in that story where the best option was to bring a quick end to their pregnancy...which since it wasn't done (because catholic hospitals can treat pregnant women as crappy as they like), we can see some of the results of ignoring the need to terminate.
Yes, in .03% od cases it should be allowed to save the mother. Now, can we get rid of the other 98%
I am in favor of allowing an unpleasant medical procedure; you are in favor of mediated murder.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter
why are you looking for more kids to adopt??
just save here life? what about if it poses permanent physical harm, maybe even handicap, should we allow it then?
what if there's a very good chance that it will prevent her from giving adequate care to her very much alive and functioning two year old?
what if carrying a healthy baby to term requires her to remove herself from the workplace that has been the source of a good portion of the money that has depended on to feed that two year old, or buy the needed medicine to keep the child healthy?
over 90% of the abortions are done in the first trimester, long before the fetus can be even remotely considered to be a baby. of the less than 10% that are done in later stages a good portion of those are the problem pregnancies that involved genetic defects, deformities, or risks to the mother. so, let's see, just how many would I see as being qualified as being unjustified murder of a "child".... oh maybe 5% or there about.
meanwhile, in some states, the laws are so cockeyed that I could think of some instances where they probably actually encourage abortion! take for instance if a problem becomes apparent that might cause a premature miscarriage, well, in some states, they have locked up completely innocent women for falling down the stair and miscarrying, or getting in a car crash. do you really think that these laws wouldn't cause at least some of these women to at least have second thoughts as to weather or not to try to carry a child full term if there was more than just the slightest chance that it might result in a miscarriage?
the laws are being passed with no forethought of just how they could have negative consequences or even result in the very thing that you wish to prevent. there is no sanity when women are left laying in a bed dialated with a portion of the embrionic sac hanging out because "life is sacred". obviously life isn't that sacred, or you'd be worrying more about the mother's life and less about the life of a fetus that won't be able to survive outside the womb for more than a few hours!
but I guess this is what you get when you have gone centuries believing that sex is so sinful for women, but a rite of passage for me and pregnancy as a curse from God.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter
You say that, but then you immediately follow it with a pathetic attempt at characterizing an enormous number of women you have never met, will never meet, and whose circumstances you will never understand. I mentioned hypocrisy earlier, and I'm starting to feel vindicated.
"98% of the time."
Huh.
Got a source on that?
No?
Didn't think so.
I'd also suggest looking up what a contraceptive is, by the way.
You're calling them garbage, but I believe like we all know who the real garbage is, here.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter
wall of text
Also, you should try reading the entire thread before you start looking like a fool asking people for sources they've already given.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter
Yes, those women, how dare they have sex ever unless they're ready and willing to bear a child.
Also, you should try reading the entire thread before you start looking like a fool asking people for sources they've already given.
You may have given a source at some point, but it is not on this page. It is not on the previous page. And you have not given it to me. Being the kind soul that I am, however, I went and found it on the seventh page.
Now, let's see, I imagine this is where you're getting your "98%" from?
elective 98.3% (87-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility --? (32 %)
--economic --30% (25-40 %)
--to avoid adjusting life --? (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship --? (12-13 %)
--enough children already --? (4-8 %)
--sex selection --0.1% (0.1-? %)
--selective reduction --0.1% (0.1-0.4 %)
I only see a single category here that might allow you to call someone "garbage", and that's less than 0.1% of cases. (Sex selection and selective reduction are "less than 0.1%" on the left, but ATS formatting doesn't seem to like that sign.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Tempter
I look at that breakdown and see a bunch of young (or older) women forced to make a very cruel decision because they believe the world they could bring a baby into would be an extremely unhappy one.
Abusive potential father?
Living in destitution?
Legalized murder is an oxymoron by the way, since murder by definition must be illegal. A fetus is also not a human.
Still, these are mostly justifications I am trying to make from your viewpoint. From my own, I simply do not care all that much about abortion. It's sad, yes, but I feel sad for the woman who has to make that decision. I do not really view a fetus as a baby. I do not see them as a person, no more than you would see a sperm cell as a person.
I would also much rather focus on making abortion unnecessary to begin with. There are many people out there living in terrible conditions, or being forced to rely on the government or charity just to eat.
"Your life only matters while you're still in the womb."
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tempter
oh, so the mother of three, who is working 40 hours a week at a job just to come home and clean, take care of her kids, cook their meals the rest of her waking day, just to go to bed five hours before she has to get up again. who is doing this maybe just so one of the kids can have the medication that he needs, or the other to have the clothes to wear to school... they are garbage because they refuse to quit their toxic job because of the damage those chemicals will cause and aborts instead. got it.....
so, what do you call a bunch of crazy arse politicians that are constantly clamoring for us to go send to troops into another far away country to kill those evil arabs?
because well, I don't know if you've ever read my comparison between those who support those wars, and the women who choose to terminate pregnancies, I am going to post it again...
more than half this country supported bombing Iraq after 9/11. the republican administration made up lies to justify this war, drummed up the fear, and well, bombs away!!
the evil terrorists were out to kill us we were told.... well some women are told that if they continue a pregnancy it will kill them..
the evil terrorist are out to destroy our lifestyle.... well, babies sure do put a hamper on lifestyles!!
they hurt our economy!!..... yep, and becomming a mother tends to significantly reduce the earning potential of mothers, even when the are teenagers and the mother is far more reliable, works more overtime hours, and learns how to do all the production jobs on the floor...
there is a few differences between the women who are choosing to abort their babies and the warmongers who are beating their wardrums though... whereas 90% of these women are terminating their pregnancies so early that the fetus hasn't even become self aware, the warmongers are killing living, breathing children, men, women, mothers, fathers, and elderly. and whereas the women is only terminating one potential life, or in rarer cased two or maybe three, well, the warmonger is committing mass murder! the fear that is the driving force behind it is very much the same, except for the women it is probably much more real, since the threat isn't halfway around the world but rather inside her. why is it so ra ra, patriotic flag waving time, your either with us or against us, when it means dropping bombs on villages full of people who have done nothing to harm you, but the most evil think in the world when it's a frightened women who could possibly living day by day?
same fears, same reaction of self preservation, but one is an honored tradition, and the other is looked down in scorn.
originally posted by: Tempter
But every day there are mothers who chose NOT to have an abortion who attend clinics and try to convince would-be mothers that is is worth the struggle.
The best way I can explain it is to have you watch a video of a deaf person gaining hearing for the first time. Try to imagine something so amazing as gaining another sense after a life with only 4 or less. It's life-changing and in my opinion nothing brings you closer to nature.