Support Abortion? Watch this video and please defend your decisions...

This has probably been said, but I will submit my own opinion on this subject.

I personally DESPISE abortion.

BUT, it exists. It is not illegal. If it were illegal how bad would it be? Because people KNOW that they can get rid of a fetus, and through popular culture how to do so. I think that a woman has the right to make that choice, and on her soul it will be.

Even without outside influences, I can't imagine how guilty a woman would feel after having an abortion. If they don't feel guilt, then I'm kinda glad that that human never made it, if genetics works the way I think it does.

EDIT: a misspell

[edit on 30-3-2009 by dragonking76]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Ah, once again, "I know you are but what am I.", I think a thorough review of the history of this thread will vindicate me of this charge though I don't expect you to actually do such. I have included barbs against you as a response to your barbs it is true, but also have I refuted any so called "evidence" you have posted, though I am still waiting for those statistics from an unbiased source.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Which is funny in a way since the OP was not about the legality of the issue yet it is repeatedly being kicked up by those that support it. Which of course begs the question why people believe that just because the government says something is ok why is it being assumed that it is? Especially on a CT site where questioning the government's actions are common place.

I call any needless killing murder and will continue to. Abortion more so because the methods are brutal and under certain circumstances simply because someone has deemed that life inconvient. You may have a problem with that and throw up any number of semantic argument you wish but it simply won't change anything as I have yet to have seen a viable argument against it.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I had to post this again.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

but also have I refuted any so called "evidence" you have posted

When? What exact evidence are you referring to?


I'm really not trying to get into some long, useless heated argument. I just dislike that we were having this conversation on page ten: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where I asked you to please answer a simple question before I listed information for you. You said you were fine with me listing the information. I produced it here on page 11: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you didn't appear again in this thread until many pages later and you completely ignored the information I listed and continue to ignore the questions I asked.

I just think it is rude for you to have left a discussion and to return, trying to claim I'm using all of these bad tactics. You willingly participated in that discussion with me without claiming before that I was using any such tactic and without being rude other than when you claimed I was "dancing" and said you would review the information If I posted it.

I'm just trying to figure out what happened between that gap of time. Why am I suddenly this evil tactic user because I tried to continue a discussion you disappeared from several pages ago?


[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

"I know you are but what am I.",

Excuse me but I really don't appreciate you trying to belittle me because I point out your own actions. If being reminded that you've been childishly calling me names upsets you then don't do it.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


The criteria was unbiased, you provided biased and a link to a site that had a great deal of statistics without targeting the infromation that proved your point. I naturally disregarded the biased source and did not have the time to dig through to find information that supposedly proved your point.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Yet you feel it is perfectly fine to belittle me and belittle via generalisation a great many others. Funny old world we live in huh?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


And no your a tactics user for the tactic you have used since the get go. Though I do not think that it is allowable I post the entire history of the thread.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


If evidence that large amounts of these kids are struggling with un-imaginable pain, largely not being adopted or fostered into the nurturing environments they need, and are that those already living are actually given a better chance because of abortion doesn't convince you then what will? What could I possibly produce that would ever make you change your mind?


And if you dare claim any of those sources are not legit you better prove it and you better post counter sources that debunk each sites statements.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


A pro-choice website is hardly a unbiased source and I do not have the time to waste nor the inclination to waste my time on them. I asked for unbiased you have yet to produce. The logical answer as to why this is should be obvious.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

And no your a tactics user for the tactic you have used since the get go

Sure.

Yet you feel it is perfectly fine to belittle me and belittle via generalisation a great many others. Funny old world we live in huh?

Now you’re the one playing I know you are but what am I? This is really getting ridiculous.

HERE: I apologize for whatever I may have said to belittle you but I never called you names.

Now do you think you could stop belittling and calling me names so we can move on?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Once again a review of the thread history would refute you. Though a victim mentality despite what you have is said is amusing.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

A pro-choice website is hardly a unbiased source and I do not have the time to waste nor the inclination to waste my time on them. I asked for unbiased you have yet to produce. The logical answer as to why this is should be obvious.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

If EVERY site I posted is biased then PROVE it.

Show how EACH site is.

If EACH site I posted truly is then you should be able to prove it and debunk their statements with other sources.

Edit to add a question I asked that you again ignored:
If evidence that large amounts of these kids are struggling with un-imaginable pain, largely not being adopted or fostered into the nurturing environments they need, and are that those already living are actually given a better chance because of abortion doesn't convince you then what will? What could I possibly produce that would ever make you change your mind?


Please answer it.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


You provided sites with Pro-Choice in the very name of the site on one count.
But I did not say every site you provided was biased, you provide one broad unbiased site with a great deal of information some of which does not pertain to the matter at hand and called it a source completely lacking any targeted information for the purpose of proving your point. I can after all give you the jumbled pages of a set encyclopedia and claim it proves my points on Quantum Physics but that doesn't make it true now does it?

And to answer your question, I do not fail to take into account all aspects and possibilities in this argument. I am after all not on a crusade to convert you to my belief as you are to me. I am simply defending my well thought out stance.

Incidently I apologise for calling you a guy earlier, I was obviously in error.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Rapin, Your 1st evidence on page 11;

No but I can follow the unwanted pregnancy studies.

How many unwanted children are adopted? There's been declines all over the world of adoption. www.abc.net.au...

Did you read that study?
It's referring to LACK of children in Australia AVAILABLE for adoption!
Not that they aren't wanted!
The Australians are having to look at one-child, policy countries like China for adoptees.

What happens to children that don't get adopted? The end up in foster care usually or a form of foster care.
Here is a great site that answers what happens to them in detail with collected data:

Statistics & Research
The Children's Bureau provides State and national data on adoption and foster care, child abuse and neglect, and child welfare. The Children's Bureau also funds research in collaboration with other organizations.
www.acf.hhs.gov...

What are we looking at here?
Is this the chart?;

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/407de3c9d7f9.jpg[/atsimg]
If you look at 'Exits' and adoption, it doesn't look that bad to me. Especially if parents straightened up and got their children back!
The whole chart wouldn't show, so the numbers for adopted are 33,000
51,000
52,000
52,000
51,000
51,000 respectively

This is a really good read as well: www.thenationalcampaign.org...

pdf bogs my computer down. Sorry.

Both unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health, social, and psychological consequences. Health problems include greater chances for illness and death for both mother and child. In addition, such childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. In one study, unwanted children were found less likely to have had a secure family life. As adults they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self-esteem than their intended peers 23 years later.

So, these women will be better off after they kill the baby, rather than mistreat it?
Some wanted children are called names, abused and mistreated.
How many women fall in love with their baby after they hold it?
Their cold heart melts, usually.

to be continued.......



[edit on 30-3-2009 by Clearskies]

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Clearskies]

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

You provided sites with Pro-Choice in the very name of the site on one count.

Please show how the statements on this site are biased, can you debunk them? Can you prove that they are biased? Please produce the link to which site you refer to.

But I did not say every site you provided was biased,

Then why not address their studies?

you provide one broad unbiased site with a great deal of information some of which does not pertain to the matter at hand

Every site I provided does have information on the unwanted children issue. Just because the broader subject of the site does not focus on this issue does not debunk what is stated. Please debunk what is stated or stop deflecting so you don't have to address the topic.

reply to post by seagull

Originally posted by seagull

Why is murder acceptable if there is a rape involved? By your logic surely the kid didn't ask to be a product of rape, why punish the kid?

So you're advocating the punishment of the victim? Is that what you're saying? The victim should have to live with not only the violation of her person in a most vile way, but she get's to see a reminder for the entire time she carries the child? Nice.

No, the child didn't ask to be a product of rape, but it is never the less. The woman carrying the child should have that option. As for ectopic pregnancy? That's a life threatening condition and an abortion is the only remedy for it.

You're absolutely correct and you've misunderstood the post as it was meant. I'm not advocating the punishment of the victim at all. I'm a definite pro-choicer as stated in previous posts i this topic.

What I was trying to do is point out the inconsistencies in the OP's views. He claims that abortion is wrong for all these reasons but allows it under a circumstance which if he was consistent it shouldn't be.

Of course finding flaws in a pro-lifers views is as much sport as finding flaws in Back to the Future but I was curious for a response from the OP nonetheless.

reply to post by Clearskies

It's referring to LACK of children in Australia AVAILABLE for adoption!

If you followed the discussion you would have known I was addressing a decline in unwanted children for another poster (dealing with abortion and birth control). I believe that posters name started with a “V”.

If you look at 'Exits' and adoption, it doesn't look that bad to me. Especially if parents straightened up and got their children back!

I was referring to the research on that site that discusses what happens to those who AREN’T adopted and some of the reprecussions they face. As for parents straightening up, I believe that site also shows how many of these kids get shuffled back and forth, the parents don't straighten up in a lot of cases, they do what is required of them to have the children returned then abuse and neglect continues.

So, these women will be better off after they kill the baby, rather than mistreat it

Many of these children don’t end up with the actual parents. And yes I think being brought into a world with a host of medical issues and dealing with abuse is not the most viable option. I believe in many cases abortion does combat this.


EDIT TO ADD: Not that bad? I completely disagree, me and you must be looking at a different chart or coming to different conclusions about what is bad and what is not.



[edit on 30-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I apologize for one of the links. I believe I was replying to Viral. I forgot that some of the links I posted for Viral were not relevant to our discussion.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


How about proving your case, using unbiased sources? If your biased sources are indeed fact you should be able to point to those unbiased sources, and just in case a unbiased source does not take a stance just provides the information. It is not my job to debunk your information, it is your job to prove your case with unbiased sources. Which you are obviously avoiding doing, should be obvious why of course.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]