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.

 

Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

page: 17
27
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I was staying out for the most part, but I have to address that comment.

You are not a centrist and you have been incredibly illogical in this thread.

I am a centrist and using logic. That's why I am capable of being pro choice and am still able to see why this woman was in the wrong.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

I am a centrist and using logic. That's why I am capable of being pro choice and am still able to see why this woman was in the wrong.


You are entitled to your opinion.

In this thread I chose the position of the need for "access and availability" to LOCAL clinics, that provide ALL necessities for women's health/abortion. I also support over-the-counter medical abortion pills.

I chose the position that this situation should never have happened in the first place. If the resources were there it wouldn't have. (Don't bother telling me driving 74 miles one way multiple times is acceptable. It's not).

Where did I actually discuss whether this woman was right or wrong by law?

How do I see you? Pre 30 idealism.

Been there, done that. Idealism is a nice word that has little to do with reality.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   



"a state law that requires abortions to be performed by physicians."


PERFORMED?????

You mean the difference of who HANDS you the little PILL, determines them going to prison or not?????

Insane.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Actually if you were/are a lawyer you just opened up the case for appeal.
Performed and supervised are two very different things. All law is based on interpretation and it could easily be argued in court that this law no longer applies due to technological advances and is not consistent with modern practices, nullifying all liability.
I hope this woman has something better then a public pretender to argue an appeal. Though it will still be a child endangerment issue, which it should have been from the start.
edit on 9/11/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Thank you. you're response was perfectly stated.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Annee

...That's why I am capable of being pro choice and am still able to see why this woman was in the wrong.


Why was the woman wrong, in your opinion? Perhaps she was a lazy, white trash piece of crap that did it because she didn't care. Perhaps that wasn't the reason and it was the best option?

I'd be keen to hear why you think you know better than her.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

True to the heart response.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Wow! How many opinions there are supporting the mother, and so little attention paid to the daughter. The daughter is 16. There wasn't anything mentioned anywhere on what she wanted. Where is the Pro Choice for the daughter? So much is Pro Choice for the mom, and it isn't her baby. So that leaves questions like, was the daughter coerced or forced to take this abortion pill? Was the daughter compromised at the time and unable to make a choice, so the mother made it for her? I'd like to hear more about what the daughter has to say. If the mom coerced the daughter in anyway into taking that abortion pill, the mom deserves the max sentence.
edit on 11-9-2014 by naftaland because: Spelling Mistake



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: naftaland

Is the daughter going to be looking after the baby? What are the personal circumstances of the family?

I'm not saying the daughter shouldn't have a choice - she chose to get down and dirty and then lump her mother with a screaming little baby.

I'm also not saying that babies are to be considered burdens - but they kind of can be.

Here's hoping the young lady recovers from her trauma to have sex and punch out a baby, another day.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Annee

...That's why I am capable of being pro choice and am still able to see why this woman was in the wrong.


Why was the woman wrong, in your opinion? Perhaps she was a lazy, white trash piece of crap that did it because she didn't care. Perhaps that wasn't the reason and it was the best option?

I'd be keen to hear why you think you know better than her.


She was wrong because this was not the best option and she put her daughters life at risk. The mom was an idiot and unsafe--why do people act like she was Rosa Parks here?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Dunno - why do people act like her daughter is giving birth to Jesus Christ himself?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

I am a centrist and using logic. That's why I am capable of being pro choice and am still able to see why this woman was in the wrong.


You are entitled to your opinion.

In this thread I chose the position of the need for "access and availability" to LOCAL clinics, that provide ALL necessities for women's health/abortion. I also support over-the-counter medical abortion pills.

I chose the position that this situation should never have happened in the first place. If the resources were there it wouldn't have. (Don't bother telling me driving 74 miles one way multiple times is acceptable. It's not).

Where did I actually discuss whether this woman was right or wrong by law?

How do I see you? Pre 30 idealism.

Been there, done that. Idealism is a nice word that has little to do with reality.





No, you choose the unrealistic and idealistic position that all services are available everywhere for free with no cost or travel or second thought to anyone.

Not even the most enlightened European countries can match that irrational standard and you have the temerity to claim "thought" behind your position?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: NavyDoc

Dunno - why do people act like her daughter is giving birth to Jesus Christ himself?


Not following. Who said whom was giving birth to Jesus Christ? Are you for people giving potentially dangerous drugs that thay got over the internet to their minor children ?
Is that your stance?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not at all. My 'stance' is that everyone can get the hell out of everyone else's business.

Are you going to go up and look after this kid's babies personally?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny



"a state law that requires abortions to be performed by physicians."


PERFORMED?????

You mean the difference of who HANDS you the little PILL, determines them going to prison or not?????

Insane.


Not only WHO hands it to you, but what kind of hallways, doorways, parking facilities, etc., the building that you and the person who hands the pill to you to is sitting or standing in!

These are reasons that that the AMA and the ACOG has so actively opposed these restrictions.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

"Is the daughter going to be looking after the baby? What are the personal circumstances of the family?"
she chose to get down and dirty and then lump her mother with a screaming little baby."
If the daughter would have done these things, it is Not A Crime.

"I'm not saying the daughter shouldn't have a choice - she chose to get down and dirty and then lump her mother with a screaming little baby." This is not an established fact, but conjecture. It is not known what the daughter's intentions or circumstances were, nor any burdens after the hypothetical birth.

"Here's hoping the young lady recovers from her trauma to have sex and punch out a baby, another day." This would be a Crime, yet of which the daughter has not committed and cannot be legally judged. This again is conjecture.
However, Forced Abortion is a Crime, especially with illegally obtained drugs for the purpose of coercion. No court, organization nor individual has a right under law to infringe upon the young woman's choice. If so, the daughter's rights have been violated and that is a Crime. The fact of whether the daughter had a Free Choice to consume an illegally obtained drug for the purpose of pregnancy termination must be established.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: naftaland

The article says the 16 years old daughter did NOT want a baby. There is no charge of forced or coerced abortion.




No court, organization nor individual has a right under law to infringe upon the young woman's choice.


I agree!

edit on 11-9-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: naftaland

Yes, this whole thing is conjecture. I'm simply offended by an intrusive government that believes it's a crime to get a pill from one source and not another.

You ca take into account a General Practitioner's expertise, but Gp's aren't really experts on anything and hand over all sorts of interesting and dangerous pills on a daily basis.

It was negligent of the mother to give her kid the pill, yes. But it should not be considered a crime.

I can think of far more negligent things that parents do, which fall by the wayside of government and social busybodying.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

her mom took her to the local hospital because she had bad cramping and the mom wanted to make sure she was okay...she was honest with the docs and now she is going to go to jail



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: 8675309jenny



"a state law that requires abortions to be performed by physicians."


PERFORMED?????

You mean the difference of who HANDS you the little PILL, determines them going to prison or not?????

Insane.


Not only WHO hands it to you, but what kind of hallways, doorways, parking facilities, etc., the building that you and the person who hands the pill to you to is sitting or standing in!

These are reasons that that the AMA and the ACOG has so actively opposed these restrictions.


TRAP Laws. Yes.

Also as requiring abortion doctors to be affiliated with a specific hospital. Then not allowing that hospital to allow the affiliation.

--------------

I gotta tell you, going to dentists and doctors in a Mexico border town is so different. The facilities are spotless, but you're not paying for designer art on the wall.

You go there for what your problem is. They take care of that specific problem. Your records are your responsibility, you carry them with you.

They sell most medicine over counter, including the abortion pill.

It's very refreshing to be responsible for yourself and just how much professional help you want OR don't want.

I'm pretty sure many Mexican moms wouldn't think twice about buying the abortion pill for their 16 year old daughter.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join