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.

 

Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't like the idea of abortion, but I also don't think someone should be putting red tape over someones genitals.

That's what these laws do...they harass the providers and put layers of red tape on the bodies of women seeking abortions that are legal.



You sum it up well, MM.


The bottom line here is: abortion is settled law. Done deal. Not going to change.

Morally, it is far from settled. In the "pro-choice" camp you have scores of people like me, who are uncomfortable with abortion, but who still value individual rights. We see the obvious disconnect between these 2 forces within our own thoughts. And you have similar people in the "pro-life" camp, but who have fallen on the other side of the argument.

I would hazard a guess that 80% or more of this nation would rather see the end result of abortion happen differently. But i would bet that we would all agree that we also want a unicorn.


What Alabama is doing here is attempting to enforce a morality through legal means. Whats even more pathetic: they KNOW its unconstitutional, but are doing it anyway. Not because they expect it will be made into lasting law, but because they know it will pander to a demographic who's votes they want.

Spit.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly. Did you hear about this?



A Kentucky state representative believed that a new law requiring women to have a medical consultation 24 hours before having an abortion smacked of sexism.

So the lawmaker, Mary Lou Marzian, proposed a bill in the male-dominated House to drive home the point.

Under the legislation by Ms. Marzian, a Democrat, men would have to navigate a series of obstacles before they could obtain erectile dysfunction drugs, like Viagra. Each man would be required to have two doctor visits, a signed-and-dated letter from his spouse providing consent and a sworn statement — delivered with his hand on a Bible — that he would use the drugs only to have sex with his spouse.

Only married men would be eligible for the drugs.

NY Times

It has no chance in hell of passing, but it was introduced to demonstrate a point. Why is it OK to legislate morality on abortion through laws that harass, but something like this concerning Viagra and men isn't OK?
edit on 24-2-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Because getting an erection has nothing to do with taking an innocent life.

That's the difference.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Because getting an erection has nothing to do with taking an innocent life.

That's the difference.


One precedes the other. You can't have an "innocent life" without an erection.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Because getting an erection has nothing to do with taking an innocent life.

That's the difference.


You are trying to debate morality in a legal discussion. What you say has absolutely no bearing on what is being discussed here, even if you and I agree generally on the abortion issue.

The law of the matter is settled. And legally speaking, they are the same (i.e., its your body, you choose what to do with it).

I am interested in seeing someone put up legislation that points out how utterly stupid it is to have a "its your body" justification for abortion, but not for prostitution. Even more....how having a camera present can turn "prostitution" into "art".



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

One precedes the other. You can't have an "innocent life" without an erection.

If you want to go the causality route we should just outlaw sex, because we wouldn't have innocent lives to worry about without people around in the first place.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: mOjOm

I wouldn't know I have never had one.


Me either but that doesn't stop me from knowing the facts versus the propaganda.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar



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."

a reply to: Tempter


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%



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I watched John Oliver's thing about abortion on his new show last night. It's insane how far these states are going to prevent legal abortions.

And here it is, for those that haven't seen it.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: dawnstar



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."

a reply to: Tempter


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%


So ... in your "0.03%" of cases ... is that "baby" not also "innocent"?

This is the diction that troubles me ... those who believe that abortion is the murder of a human being is okay "under certain circumstances."

No one likes abortion. No one prefers it. It is, at times, a medical necessity however.

To me, and many that are pro-choice, the non-viable fetus while being a potential human life is not. It feels no pain, is not and has never been conscious, and is certainly, by any standard of the meaning of the words ... NOT a human person.

However, to those of you who sincerely believe that a human being is involved zygote onward, when you tacitly throw off the "well, it's okay "under certain circumstances" I simply grow cold.

I am in favor of allowing an unpleasant medical procedure; you are in favor of mediated murder.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I watched John Oliver's thing about abortion on his new show last night. It's insane how far these states are going to prevent legal abortions.

And here it is, for those that haven't seen it.


Thank you!

Brilliant piece, I'm sad that it's on HBO -- as I think more people need to watch his show.

It's kind of sad when being sensible, logical, and straight-forward is now "funny".

"The cost of sanity, in this society, is a certain level of alienation" - Terence McKenna.

And that's sad. It's sad when being sensible is so uncommon, and radical, highly emotionally charged individuals scream the loudest and get their way.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If you are against abortion, then the hurdle that is to be cleared is creating a valid legal argument. Moral arguments and pleas of emotion won't (or, rather, should not....the OP story notwithstanding) create legal change.

Side note: should we outlaw the growing of pennyroyal?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
And that's sad. It's sad when being sensible is so uncommon, and radical, highly emotionally charged individuals scream the loudest and get their way.


Agreed...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

How and why is that a deterrent to someone seeking an abortion? Who cares how much the doctor makes.
Half of what a doctor earns goes to pay for insurance against bogus malpractice suits anyway.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ParasuvO

How and why is that a deterrent to someone seeking an abortion? Who cares how much the doctor makes.
Half of what a doctor earns goes to pay for insurance against bogus malpractice suits anyway.


Seems many people "care" and loudly complain about over paid medical expenses.

But those whiners and chronic complainers are also very very selective in just who determines the cost controls.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
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.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well, I say that all gun sales should be published on a weekly basis in the local newspaper. I should be able to see the names of the people who bought guns and what guns they bought, and for what price. Don't agree to have your purchases made public? No gun for you.

Seems fair to me since we're going to require private information to be revealed?

And guns kill just like abortion kills. Guns are a "right" -- but I'd argue the control over one's body is an even more sacrosanct, and transcendent right.

No to the above? How and why is OK to pick and choose which issues get this "special treatment"? What's good for one all of a sudden isn't good for the other?

They're both wrong in principle people, come now.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

let them carry the policy over to all healthcare providers and we probably could all listen to just how all those catholic providers should be exempt, on religious grounds.

and they are crazy if they think such a policy wouldn't be carried over to other healthcare providers, or even into the business world.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well not without ejaculation anyway. No erection needed. Ask any man who has erectile dysfunction.




top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join