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.
You did know Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with Federal or State ran programs , right ?
originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: windword
No. "Responsible" would be, keeping your knees together. That's a good "choice". And? Just saying, No!
if i had no kidneys, knocked you out, attached my blood stream to yours for a dialysis type system, are you not allowed to say i dont get to live off your body? am i allowed to use your body to live?
even if a fetus was a person, one person does not get special rights to live off another person because its a fetus. you are granting special rights to a fetus that aren't granted to regular adults.
So people abort babies because it's inconvenient, or an accident, or their too young. Hmmm, sounds selfish to me.
originally posted by: vjr1113
so if i hook up my blood stream to my mother because i have no kidneys, is she allowed to say no?
I'm pro-choice, but abortion is morally despicable given the preventability of pregnancy.
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: jimmyx
"52nd trimester" ??...that's 13 years...."national 21 months" ??....that's almost 2 years....to answer your question, it's up to the mother....let me ask you.....what sort of internal surgery would you like, where other people decide if you get it or not, without your permission????
it's the woman's body, she decides....not a mythical god, not a bible, and not another person.
Except it's not just her. There is also the baby to consider.
At what point do you think a baby becomes a being we ought to consider in this equation?
if it's not born, it's not a baby yet....it's still a fetus, it's lungs are filled with liquid, and it's the mother's blood that supplies oxygen, food, water, along with the attached umbilical cord that also safely removes waste products from the fetus..... it's not a separate person.....why is this so hard to understand?
originally posted by: Atsbhct
This is why it's pro "choice". No ones decision to abort, adopt away, or keep their child should be based on other people's opinions of what's okay/not okay.
Personally, I couldn't dream of choosing to abort a fetus that looked like baby, but that's on me. If someone wished to, that should be a private choice. I really don't think many women are choosing a "Cartmans Mom", aborting a fetus at 52 weeks, good reference though.
I think all people, including doctors, should be able to make their own private choice.
originally posted by: MteWamp
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: jimmyx
"52nd trimester" ??...that's 13 years...."national 21 months" ??....that's almost 2 years....to answer your question, it's up to the mother....let me ask you.....what sort of internal surgery would you like, where other people decide if you get it or not, without your permission????
it's the woman's body, she decides....not a mythical god, not a bible, and not another person.
Except it's not just her. There is also the baby to consider.
At what point do you think a baby becomes a being we ought to consider in this equation?
if it's not born, it's not a baby yet....it's still a fetus, it's lungs are filled with liquid, and it's the mother's blood that supplies oxygen, food, water, along with the attached umbilical cord that also safely removes waste products from the fetus..... it's not a separate person.....why is this so hard to understand?
So, using this logic, would you support euthanizing any adult patient that was being kept alive solely by external life support?
originally posted by: superman2012
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: KingKelson
Not sure about when an abortion should be legal but the one time it should not be allowed is if it is being used as birth control.
I'm confused with what you mean by saying that you aren't sure when abortion should be legal then say that it shouldn't be allowed as a means of birth control. So what is the difference between legality and "not allowed"?
I mean I'm not an expert on fetuses. I don't know anything about them. I am not a woman. I should have zero say on when and if an abortion should be legal.
My post was directly about women that get one time and again because they either can't afford the kids, don't want the burden of kids, or were too stupid to use any sort of birth control.
originally posted by: matadoor
Yeah, I actually had the chance to sit and talk with an abortion supporter a couple of years ago. After one statement I changed her mind on the subject.
"The difference between a legal abortion and murder, is TIME."
Abort a baby at 3 months? Legal.
Purposely kill the baby as it emerges from the woman? Life in prison.
That statement can't be argued.
originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: frostie
So if a pregnant woman is murdered, does one or two people die in your opinion?
"Dr. Joan Garey from New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine has also observed these chimps eating leaves from certain Ziziphus (jujub) and Combretum species, which are used by the local women to induce abortions. Consequently, in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Primatologists in 1997, Garey speculated that the chimps may use these plants deliberately for the same purpose, as a means of reducing the size of the local chimp population if it has become too large." (Shuker 2001:214)