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.

 

Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill that makes performing an abortion a felony.

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You're free to think that, but that doesn't make it correct. The only thing you 'own' in regards to a body, or body parts, are that which has your exact DNA.




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

LOL. Is that in the Bible or something? When did DNA become the Holy Grail?

I suppose my stomach contents, my circular system running on borrowed air and my blood stream that's deriving and distributing life giving nourishment from foreign DNA, isn't mine either.

Did you know that plants also have distinct DNA and that scientists can determine which tree, out of a grove of Oak trees, an acorn can from?

By the way, an acorn isn't an Oak tree.




edit on 7-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420




Chimerism doesn't always involve twins. Even mothers and babies "trade" cells during pregnancy, usually in very tiny amounts. "A baby's DNA can end up in the mother's bloodstream, because they are linked together through the placenta," says Parisi.

The reverse is also true: A baby can acquire some of the mother's DNA, in a condition known as microchimerism.

Because chimerism usually doesn't cause problems, it's rarely diagnosed, making it hard for scientists to say how prevalent the phenomenon truly is. It's probably less rare than was once thought. Perhaps many of us are chimeras and just don't know it.

www.babycenter.com...


gee, the mother and the fetus are so tied together that they can share dna....
making genetic science not as exact as believe it is....
yes, the baby can indeed have the mother's dna within it!



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Before the 1960s, it was believed that the placenta was a perfect barrier between mother and fetus, and no blood or cells could trespass it in either direction. Today we know that there’s actually a two-way exchange of cells between mother and fetus during pregnancy. What’s even more surprising is that these “extraneous” cells outlast the duration of the pregnancy and can in fact be found in the child and/or the mother years after birth. Male DNA has been found in women years after they had given birth to their sons. In fact, fetal cells are released in high quantities during spontaneous abortions, hence can be found even in women who have never delivered, so long as at some point in their lives they became pregnant.

Conversely, maternal cells have been found in the liver, lung, heart, thymus, spleen, adrenal, kidney, pancreas, brain, and gonads of healthy adults. Microchimerism (i.e. the presence of small concentrations of genetically distinct cells) could also originate from siblings’ cells, transferred from the mother during successive pregnancies. Regardless of the direction of transfer, the extraneous cells migrate to a certain tissue, where they differentiate and proliferate, acting as if they were engrafted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


if you have given birth, there is a good possibility that your children's dna have scattered throughour your body, and are present in various organs, ect. if you have older siblings, there's a good chance that their dna can be found within your body also...




You're free to think that, but that doesn't make it correct. The only thing you 'own' in regards to a body, or body parts, are that which has your exact DNA.


so if this is true, then there are probably cell cultures within your own body, maybe in your liver, or lungs, your breasts, whatever, that you don't "own" and thus, should be treated as an individual lifeform that has it's own rights as a person? or maybe your child, or your sibling "owns" them?



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

I saw this today and thought of you, oh sacred life giver. Here are some little bodies you could help. Of course, once the "baby" is about 6yrs they are considered tainted and live a life like this:

"A shortage of foster homes in Texas means dozens of children have been sleeping in state offices, another disturbing trend for a state foster care system that one judge has condemned as "shameful" and another has called so broken it often leaves young people in long-term care worse than when they entered"

amarillo.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3
my brother was assigned once by the navy in a position where he had to work with the welfare dept and servicemen in florida. he said they had a tendency of kind of just losing the kids.
I can't help but wonder why on earth would texas put restrictions on placing them with extended family members? I can see them having to go through the same screening process as any other foster parent, but that should have been happening all along anyways. maybe I am wrong but it sounds like now if they are family members that have to go through a more rigorous screening process of something.
can't help but wonder, if texas gets it way in the supreme court leaving only one abortion clinic in the whole state, maybe they should just surrender their offices over to the foster care system and turn them into orphanages or something. it would be interesting to watch and see how much the abortion laws effect the foster care overload problems that are present in many more states than just texas.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

"I can't help but wonder why on earth would texas put restrictions on placing them with extended family members?"

Money. The people of Texas would see it as another welfare program. As long as it goes to the foster care system, all is good.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Is that the best you can do? Try to shift responsibility to another party? Pathetic. Typical tactic of someone who knows they are loosing the argument at hand. Try to shift the Spotlight. Too bad it wont work. I am not the one who is responsible for those lives, the ones who created them are. Why is it that pro-choice people always do that? Try to shift the spotlight? It's a tactic born of desperation from people with no valid argument to pose.

Your tactics are obvious. That argument fails. I did not create those lives, thus I have no responsibility to ensure their survival. Of course, you'll give the typical "Only cares about them while in the womb", but that isn't even accurate. I don't care about them, only that they should have the same rights as any other Human being; whereas you speculate that one life should have more rights than another.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

" I did not create those lives, thus I have no responsibility to ensure their survival."


"I don't care about them, only that they should have the same rights as any other Human being; whereas you speculate that one life should have more rights than another."

Sure, I get it. After they become human then they have no rights to survival. That must be very confusing.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

No. You don't get it, and that's rather obvious. That's why you can only address one portion of what I said. Nowhere in our Constitution, or Bill or Rights, is Survival one of them. Life, however, is. You assume rights that are not, infact, rights.

Everyone should have a chance to live, in my opinion. That does not equate to me saying everyone has a right to survive. Those who created the life have a responsibility, atleast until the aforementioned life has the capability to survive on it's own, for the survival of said life; not anyone else. Yet again, trying to Shift the Goalpost. Stop. It's not going to work. I'll call you out on it every single time. We aren't talking about Surviving, we are talking about the chance to live. Yet again, nice try, but an utter failure AGAIN.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

well, like it or not, society seems to disagree with you. and well, if the mom and dad cannot or will not take care of the child, more than likely you will at least chip in on the cost of their care...
if society for some reason decide they don't want to anymore, guess what, they will still end up paying.



edit on 10-6-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=20836561]dawnstar[/]
I don't 'chip in' on the cost of their care at all actually. =) Nice assumption though.

*Sigh* More moving the Goal Post. That isn't the topic at hand. If you can't stay on topic, your subsequent posts will go ignored. The topic isn't who should take care of someone after birth, but that everyone should have equal rights, including the right to Life.

I'm only going to state this one more time: If you can't stay on topic, and continue to Move the Goalposts/Shift the Spotlight, I simply will ignore you in this thread. Those tactics will not work.

Do you not think everyone has a Right to Life? (Unless they waive those rights by committing some horrible, atrocious crime)
Do you think one person's rights should Trump (lol) another person's rights?
Do you think that a person shouldn't be accountable for decisions they have made?

I do, on all three.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420




Do you think one person's rights should Trump (lol) another person's rights?
..
I do, on all three.


so, let me guess, you think that the fertilized egg should trump the women's right to health?? am I right?

and her ability to earn the income needed to feed and care for her other kids.

and her ability to be physically able to care for her family??

you can't talk about equal rights unless you consider the rights of all who are affected by a pregnancy.
the right of a parent to stay employed so her living breathing child can have their medication... the right that child has to stay living and breathing through the help of that medication.
the right of a living, breathing child to have a parent available to pick up that child and carry them out of harms way.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Actually, if you really must know:

1. I've already stated that in the case of a tangible medical necessity, i'd be for allowing Abortion.
2. I'm fully behind Women who are pregnant getting paid leave from work, so that they don't loose income, and are fully able to financially support their family.
3. I'm fully behind assisted care (regardless of income) for single parents, and families where both Parents work.

You seem to be making a huge amount of ungrounded assumptions. I have thought about this a great deal actually. It's not cool that, here in the US, mother's don't get NEARLY enough of a medical leave for being Pregnant. It's ridiculous, in my opinion. Can't speak for other countries, because I don't live there, or study their laws, but I can speak about how things are here in the US. I activly fight to change those laws to make them more fair for a Woman, even though I am not a Woman. I fight for income equlity too, because your pay shouldn't depend upon your biological sex. Nice assumptions though.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

The topic is over because abortion is legal. Your feelings don't matter.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

you might be all for it, but that isn't what is happening, is it? there's plenty of women working in occupations that once they know that they are pregnant, they are given a hard choice of continuing working or quitting because of the effects the chemicals have on the child. ya, legally the boss I believe has to try to find them another, less toxic position, but I also know that sometimes it doesn't work out that way. in which case, hopefully they'll be able to get unemployment for a time.
the sad fact is that in many cases, if the women does not continue to work, something major will have to be dropped from the budget, be it less food for the family, or clothing, or medicine. heck some women find themselves having to keep working well into the ninth month, returning quickly after the child is born.

but going back to this oklahoma law, which is the topic,




LONDON — Ireland’s ban on most abortions subjects women to cruel, degrading and discriminatory treatment, and should be lifted in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities, a committee of United Nations human rights experts said on Thursday.

The committee found that Ireland had violated a pregnant woman’s human rights by forcing her to choose between carrying her fetus to term — knowing it would not survive — or traveling abroad for an abortion.

The committee urged Ireland to change its laws — “including, if necessary, its Constitution” — to allow abortions and to let medical providers give information on abortion services “without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions.”

www.nytimes.com...


I kind of think that the UN would consider it a violation of human rights?



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Nice way to bow-out of a debating you are loosing horribly. Also, slavery was once legal, so citing a subject as 'dropped' due to it being legal is intellectually dishonest. To put it in words you'll understand: You loose.

Dawnstar: I did not realize that the UN was the Governing body of the US. They have no bearing over our laws, and can't enforce anything within this country. Since you've made a claim, Burden of Proof. Prove that 'in most cases' something major has to be dropped from the budget. You made the claim, now either back it up, or it remains unsubstantiated.
edit on 11-6-2016 by jjsr420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

Abortion is still legal. Like guns and war, I may not like it but they are legal.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420

I didn't say in most cases, I said in many cases.... and, I am speaking from personal experiences that I chose not to go into so forget it. other readers have their own personal experiences that have emphasized the importance of that second paycheck also... so, at least with them I don't have to substantiate anything.

the US is one of the countries that signed onto that treaty.. and no, we don't pay attention to it obviously since we had no problem torturing prisoners in the bush years!



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

HAHAHA! Your Logical Fallacy is: Anecdotal!
No. Just no. Your claim is Unsubstantiated, and as such, can't be used as a valid argument. Nice try though. =)

From this point on, in atleast -this- thread, i'll be ignoring MomOf3's further replies, since she seems to think something being Legal drops the debate of the issue.




top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join