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.

 

SCOTUS Strikes Down Texas Abortion Ban

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Laws have replaced common sense. Laws have replaced wisdom and intelligence and compassion and caring. We don't define ourselves by our selves, we define ourselves by our "laws".


First off thanks for discussing the topic.


Actually these laws had to be implemented because wisdom, common sense and compassion were lacking for a segment of society. And you're right. Laws DO define a society. America is becoming more accepting AS A WHOLE. These laws prove that.


Laws can never replace wisdom, caring, compassion. They just enforce rules that (to some) mimic caring, compassion, wisdom.


Right. "To some." That is why there is a need for the SCOTUS.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Talorc



She is clearly a very selfish woman for choosing to have children.


So are women who choose careers, apparently.




Well, the point still stands that even in the case of unwanted pregnancies, many parents go through with it out of principle.


How many is many? What principle, guilt? Duty?


Not for any selfish reasons.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think you come from some airy fairy new agey place where "Love is all you need"! Lalalala..


Women who choose careers are just women who choose careers. Nothing wrong with that.

They'd only feel guilty if they felt they made the wrong decision. Guilt would not be a factor if they acted in accordance with their principles. The principle itself is reverence for life and human potential. Or are we reducing morality to mass societal guilt-tripping and nothing more?

I always thought I was as far from "New Age" as it gets. Maybe I've found my new calling. New Age religion.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

SCOTUS is just as human and as biased and as wrong as anyone.

Wearing a black robe doesn't make you infallible.

I'd say, "C'est la vie!" but that would be too ironic.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Pity that you can't see the difference between unplanned and unwanted.



Truly.

I had 2 planned children



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
going back to the actual topic, HB2 and the supreme court ruling...
is there anyone participating in this thread that doesn't think there are times when abortion is the best course of action?
didn't think so...

so, the texan lawmakers thought they would pull a fast one. they created a law trying to portray it as beneficial to women's health. they place regulations on abortion clinics that far exceeded those that are in place when it came to midwives and home deliveries although there are far more complications in childbirth than there are in abortions. they far exceeded the regulations that controlled how colonoscopies are done, although there are far more complications with them than abortions.
and well, since most of the abortion clinics couldn't pass those regulations, the clinics closed. the texas lawmakers said it was all okay, those women, even the ones who you believe abortion would be the best course of action, can travel to new mexico, no problem... thus, the law really didn't protect anyones health, since they were addressing problems that never really existed, but it went further and probably endangered some women's health by making abortions impossible to obtain in a timely manner.

just like some on these forums like to gloss over the fact that abortions do save lives, the lawmakers just ignore that fact and write laws that would remove the option from those who really need one to save their life or preserve their health.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I had one planned, two unplanned. the last one was the biggest pain to carry, but he was the one that brought me the most joy when he finally came.
planned or unplanned, I love them all. but, like I said, I know when I have my hands full and can't deal with more... I wouldn't have had more after that third.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



Women who choose careers are just women who choose careers. Nothing wrong with that.


Women who choose not to have children are just women who choose not to have children. Nothing wrong with that.



The principle itself is reverence for life and human potential.


Every month a woman who chooses not to have children, but still have sex, more than likely chooses to use birth control. In so doing, that woman chooses to throw an egg, a potential human being, fertilized or not, away, every month.

Should that birth control fail, or for some reason may have been neglected in the heat of some spontaneous moment, and she should become pregnant and decide to abort, there is no more imperative for human potential then there was when she was successfully using contraceptives.



I always though I was as far from "New Age" as it gets.


Maybe you're not so far away as you think. There is no magical "life fairy" that spontaneously endows life on a fertilized egg where there once was none. Egg and sperm are both living things, that are alive. A fertilized egg is not more worthy of life because it managed to implant in the uterus instead of being flushed out with the monthly cycle, especially when it's unwanted.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

we probably shouldn't bring up all the little spermies, those little potential humans, that are being wasted, huh???




A fertilized egg is not more worthy of life because it managed to implant in the uterus instead of being flushed out with the monthly cycle, especially when it's unwanted


all the griping about the morning after pill kind of tells me that it doesn't matter if that fertilized egg has implanted or not to many.


edit on 28-6-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Equating sperm and egg cells with fetuses is silly.

Let's go over some of the arguments that pro-abortion folks use:

-The fetus can't survive independent of "the host" (its mother)
-The fetus is not conscious and has no capacity for thought or recollection
-The fetus' brain and nervous system are not fully developed

Well, let's see here. An infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker. An infant is not fully conscious and has no capacity for thought or recollection. An infant's brain and nervous system are not fully developed.

So why is the line drawn at infants, then? Why not just kill unwanted infants for the same reasons stated above?

And this is no strawman, either. I've seen pro-abortion folks make these arguments time and again.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



And infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker.


"Caretake" being the key word there. ANYBODY can take care of a newborn, given the tools. As soon as you find someone that can carry a fetus to term, besides the unwilling woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, then I'll buy into your argument.

Again, an acorn isn't an oak tree.
edit on 28-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Talorc



And infant can't survive independent of its mother or caretaker.


"[b[Caretake" being the key word there. ANYBODY can take care of a newborn, given the tools. As soon as you find someone that can carry a fetus to term, besides the unwilling woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, then I'll buy into your argument.

Again, an acorn isn't an oak tree.


Neither is a sprout or sapling a tree. Neither is an acorn with its first taproot.

We are in murky waters here, folks. The least we can all do is admit to that. We've all fallen into the trap of simplifying something that is just too complex for anyone to understand, at this point.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



We are in murky waters here, folks.


The only reason that we're in murky waters, here, is because you can't trust women to make the choice that you think they should be making. Therefore, you don't think that they should have that choice.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Please. Don't let the rest of us that want to discuss the SCOTUS get in the way of your ongoing off topic BS. Another jacked thread. This is about the SCOTUS. Not your petty, individual, OVERDONE opinions.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Discuss the SCOTUS decision then. Who's getting in your way? If the off topic posts are an eyesore or are breaking forum rules, a moderator should delete them.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Please. Don't let the rest of us that want to discuss the SCOTUS get in the way of your ongoing off topic BS. Another jacked thread. This is about the SCOTUS. Not your petty, individual, OVERDONE opinions.


3 judges voted to keep it.

It shouldn't be anyone's business but, those involved.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

actually, five justices voted to strike the law down, two disagreed because they thought that more information was needed...

www.nbcnews.com...

which probably would have never been given in time to be used in the decision.
and one thought the law was constitutional...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

actually, five justices voted to strike the law down, two disagreed because they thought that more information was needed...

www.nbcnews.com...

which probably would have never been given in time to be used in the decision.
and one thought the law was constitutional...



Thanks.

Ever read up on the 5th circuit?

What a bunch of loons.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Siggghhhh.... All this bickering and all this fighting... and all the money on propaganda spent.
If you dont want an abortion.... then dont have one. Decide for yourself that it is just not for you.... and go home and mind your own business. Go feed a hungry child, go do something..... just leave people alone.

People get feeling all high and mighty, start getting all "Holier than Thou"... disgusting.
Very same people who want to force unwanted pregnancies...... are the very same ones who turn around and start complaining about welfare.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You can imagine how sick I am of restrictions on women.

Being 70 and watching the slow process of women's rights is enough to make you scream.

Then having these backward, holier-then-thou (mostly men) telling women, basically, its for their own good.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

but if they found themselves, their wives, their daughters, their loved ones in the same spot as some of the women opting for abortion are in, they wouldn't want them being restricted, having to travel a 100 or so miles to another state, or laying in a danged catholic hospitals suffering while the doctors sat around waiting for the heartbeat to stop.

I learned a long time ago, don't judge people in tough situations for the actions they take, or you may find yourself in a situation similar finding the action you criticized as being the best option available to you.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join