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: MrWendal
My only implication is that this women has a RIGHT to make this choice for herself, in her own way.
originally posted by: hutch622
Yes it sets a precedent and where does it finish . IQ tests before you get a licence to have kids . Forced operations for people with known genetic defects .
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
id be interested getting a feminist opinion on this as last time i checked the mantra was HER body HER choice on what happens to it? i guess that only applies to "normals" this could set a very dangerous precedent. probaly pushing boundries for how this will actualy be implemented in reality but still makes me nervious that it could start with those deemed to be in too much of a danger to carry the baby to term.
any woman 50+ is at higher risks of infant death or complications during pregnancy will they too not be allowed to have a baby? should we restrict women over a certain age from breeding?
originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infinityorder
sob's.
My mom was married when i was conceived . A ten month pregnancy is normal . Right .
originally posted by: infinityorder
It is simple logic ....
Penius
These people are dangerous in science for they will if needed corrupt their data to avoid any outcome that would either violate the ruling paradigm, or appear "inhumane". For instance, if a person like this studies handedness and finds that left-handers are ten times more violent than right-handers, the person will corrupt or discard those results to hide this fact, thinking "It would be inhumane to stigmatize the group of left-handers by making this known". These people are so afraid to be "against the grain" or to "hurt" others that they will rather lie. Typical pronouncements for them are "Some truths can better not be told", "The effect of what one says is more important than whether or not is it true", and "Truth does not exist".
originally posted by: eletheia
Considering she has had five children in a little over 5 yrs. What would
you say the chances are of her never again conceiving till she hits
the menopause
When you say she should be given *the choice* you are assuming she
understands the consequences to herself of another pregnancy.
*One needs to understand consequences to have choice?*
Through having an autistic grandson I have a deal of experience
of autistic adults, and they don't always connect one action to
the results that happen months later.
All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.
originally posted by: eletheia
Would you extend that same privilege to a woman 'of intelligence'
with a degenerating disease who wants to be helped to end her own
life (to her a living death) and the 'court' wont allow it
Doesn't she too have a RIGHT?
originally posted by: MrWendal
All six of her children, aged between six months and 12 years, have been taken into care, with five formally adopted.
So what you are saying is basic Math is not really your strong suit?