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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Let us Re-visit Abortion, Here Are Some Proposals

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Not all PP locations administer abortions (in fact MOST don't), and many times the ones that do are the only locations in a given area for women to go get one. However, most of the time PP just refers you to somewhere else to get an abortion.
edit on 14-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

These women were adulterers. Lucky they didn't get stoned.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

those exemptions are in place in section 1, and would not count against any of the limits. So technically, if a woman was raped, she can get termination. And then she gets pregnant willingly, but there is danger to her health, approved again. Then she gets pregnant again the same year, but terminates because the father went to prison. Only the last termination applies to the per annum limit, and she is exempt from the fathers consent due to him being in prison as outlined in section 2.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




I can live with not defunding Planned Parenthood, if these proposals come into play, and planned parenthood does not have their physicians perform any abortions.


There you go again, trying restrict who can have abortions and who can perform them. Why shouldn't a clinic that has a history of performing safe and affordable abortions, be allowed to continue to do so. Why should some one else do them instead?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I only want to limit the tax payer money from even indirectly funding a termination of life. Limit the liability of the tax payer. Its a subsidy. Allow private practices to make money how they wish. If they recommend to a physician that is fine. But nobody under the employ of PP should be performing a termination of life, or such procedures be allowed in their facilities if they receive tax payer money.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

you do realize that just about all of the money that planned parenthood receives from is from the govt is for services rendered??? and of that it's mostly through medicaid. those services have to be listed and confirmed to be covered by the program, which means, they can't be used to pay for abortions.
what you need to be asking yourself is this...
in these areas where planned parenthood is operating in, do they have enough providers in the area willing to take medicaid patients and work under the title x program to be able to handle the clients of planned parenthood....

because, well, planned parenthood isn't gonna take on that many non-paying charity cases and no....
contrary to what the republicans in florida and a few other places...
you can't get birth control pills, pap smears, and the like from your dentist!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I think you have posted a respectful thread World, on a topic that needs respect. With that I respectfully disagree with your assumption below.

Facts are, half that child is from the father. That is not a question, or a theory. It is just fact. Lets work from there and see where we get?


Even though half the 'conception' is from the father, I do not think that any ensuing fetus is. Bottom line for me in this issue is even though conception occurs from intercourse, a pregnancy is what can happen to a female body from that action. For me, it is the woman's responsibility, as it is her body, to make any and all decisions concerning 'her' body. Not the mans.

If intercourse was engaged in for physical desire, for fun, then I see it that if pregnancy ensues that the man has no right to make claims of ownership on any aspect of the woman's body, this includes anything that grows within her as part of her body. Likewise, if a woman becomes pregnant during 'fun' sex and becomes pregnant then she should have no recourse to claim the man as being responsible in any case.

However, if intercourse is done for the purpose of pregnancy then there should be equal responsibility and equal rights. And how can this be determined? By a marriage license. The marriage license should be the legal agreement that intercourse is undertaken with mutual accord that any ensuing pregnancy is now a dual right and responsibility.

edit. These examples above though do not hold for me in regards forced intercourse.


edit on 30America/ChicagoMon, 14 Nov 2016 11:28:42 -0600Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:28:42 -060016112016-11-14T11:28:42-06:001100000028 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler
Here is my issue with abortion.

I do not believe that the constitution in any way sought to inform people about abortion. This was not an issue that the founding fathers had ever heard of, and the constitution is not in any way speaking to it.

Er... You do know that abortion predates the Constitution correct? The Founding Fathers most DEFINITELY had heard of it before.


Yes but it wasn't a political issue.

If abortions were around and it was an issue to the founding fathers, why no mention of it in the constitution?

The constitution did say any thing not expressed mentioned in the constitution was to be left up to the states, and so if they knew of abortions and didn't mention it in the constitution, it seems pretty clear cut to me that they met for the states to deal with it.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




But nobody under the employ of PP should be performing a termination of life, or such procedures be allowed in their facilities if they receive tax payer money.


Should all businesses that receive governments grants/reimbursements for parts of their business also be restricted from separate business transactions that are disagreeable to the moral police? Should we stop government grants for Apple Computers in public schools because they're made in China, and we don't agree with Chinese human right policies, for example.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Actually, if you'd read the source I posted in this thread you'd see that it wasn't an issue because making abortion illegal wasn't an issue. The first abortion laws on the books were for safety reasons (to ban poisons used in abortion tonics). There is no need to argue over whether abortion should be legal or not when the whole of the country believes it should because it is a holdover from English law. This whole abortion issue was invented out of thin air by fundamentalists.
edit on 14-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: flatbush71
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Irrelevant and failure to show merit or purpose.

Abortion in American History

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."

Relevance? Maybe that that entire wall of text that Grambler wrote is a complete fabrication.


Yep, you are right. I fabricated all of the information about the planned parenthood v casey decision and all of the other things in my post.

Haha! Good stuff.

The irony is the more you post about how common place abortions were in the founding fathers days, the more you make my point for me.

If the founding fathers saw these abortions as common place, and still did not mention it in the constitution, then they clearly met for it to be an issue met to be left up to the states.

The idea that well it was always illegal shows that they didn't need to discuss it is absurd. The fathers knew that issues would come up that weren't referenced, and therefore each state had the right to decide how they wanted the law to be written.

For example, the sources you provides that it was accepted for up to 15 to 20 weeks. If your interpretation is correct, that should still be the law to this day, women should not be allowed to abort until after this time.

The fathers were smart enough to know that they could not see what the future held, and so they left it open for the states to write the laws they saw fit that were not expressedly outlined to the federal government.



edit on 14-11-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




If abortions were around and it was an issue to the founding fathers, why no mention of it in the constitution?


Because the US Constitution protects persons "born".



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No, it's more like it wasn't an issue in the same way that discussing if it's legal to sleep on a bed or not isn't an issue. There was no reason to even have the conversation because it wasn't even an "issue" in the first place.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

but, it could also be said that when they wrote that all men were created equal and entitle to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... they really didn't mean for that to extend to women also...
but that's how we tend to interpret it now.

and, it's up to the federal government to ensure that all citizen's rights are preserved. so can a abortion preserve a women's right to life.... yes...
can it preserve a women's right to liberty.... yes....
and can it preserve her right to pursue happiness... yes again!!!

is there any other medical condition that the gov't and society sees itself as having a right to interfere with the right to the person to chose the treatment they wish?? no, not really...
and how often have you seen these gov't lawmakers writing laws that seem to completely neglect the women who's life and health may be severely affected by a pregnancy..... most of them in recent times seem to have done this!!!



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler

but, it could also be said that when they wrote that all men were created equal and entitle to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... they really didn't mean for that to extend to women also...
but that's how we tend to interpret it now.

and, it's up to the federal government to ensure that all citizen's rights are preserved. so can a abortion preserve a women's right to life.... yes...
can it preserve a women's right to liberty.... yes....
and can it preserve her right to pursue happiness... yes again!!!

is there any other medical condition that the gov't and society sees itself as having a right to interfere with the right to the person to chose the treatment they wish?? no, not really...
and how often have you seen these gov't lawmakers writing laws that seem to completely neglect the women who's life and health may be severely affected by a pregnancy..... most of them in recent times seem to have done this!!!



You are right of course. The founding fathers and the constitution were not perfect. For example, women didn't have the right to vote, and so we just had the supreme court rule thaat they could.

Oh wait that not what happened. We had an amendment. The same to end slavery.

It is the smae with abortion. It was not mentioned in the constitution, so it should be up to the states, or an amendment should be passed.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I think that as long as it's still attached, it is a part of the woman's body and the woman should have the right to do whatever she pleases with her body, whether other people agree or not. I'm tired of the government deciding morality.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


The marriage license should be the legal agreement that intercourse is undertaken with mutual accord that any ensuing pregnancy is now a dual right and responsibility.

I do like this idea. Im open to it. I am still of the opinion that the genetic material is 50/50, so consent should be 50/50. One party is not allowed to ignore another's lack of consent for sex, or "no means no!" The same should apply for the termination of life, otherwise we are just stepping on men's rights and telling woman they get to have a different set of rules biased for them.

So, having said that, I see that you are also against Section 2. Section 2 has really struck a nerve. But I feel it is a matter of equality and fairness. A woman, or man absolutely has the right to say no to sex, otherwise it is rape, an exemption from section 1 that one that does not factor into the per annum limit. But to then say, after they both consent to sex, that the man has no say in the life of the child he helped create, well that is biased against the man.

SO I propose section 2 stay.

a reply to: windword

We are specifically discussing the proposed legislation for amendments to abortion laws. These other example you are citing are not related. PP can make 'official' referrals if they wish. But everything must be done off site, and not by one of their employees.

You got me thinking, I need to expand the sections with the subsidies and funding framework as well as their restrictions, and have it all laid out under this same document.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

No, it's more like it wasn't an issue in the same way that discussing if it's legal to sleep on a bed or not isn't an issue. There was no reason to even have the conversation because it wasn't even an "issue" in the first place.


By the way, this is a good discussion I am enjoying it.

I see what you are trying to say, but I think that the constitution is pretty clear. If it is not expressed granted to the federal government, the issues is up to the states.

Just because it was around and accepted doesn't mean that they implied that the federal government had control over it.

Fort example, alcohol consumption was around during the founding fathers and accepted. But the constitution did not give the power to the federal government to regulate alcohol consumption. And so it was up to each individual state.

When the federal government decided it wanted to have a say under alcohol consumption, an amendment needed passed.

Look you and others can give the federal government the right to have the courts decide federal rule over abortion, but I feel you are wrong constitutionally. I also think this move will actually hurt a womans right to abortion in the future.

If Trump would get to appoint say three prolife judges, then what will you say if the rule no abortions are legal? You have conceded that the courts have the right to decide on this, and so if at that points specific stares say they want abortions, they will have no leg to stand on.

If it was left up to the states or an amendment would be passed, it would solidify the law and not leave it up to the whims of the court.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




I do like this idea. Im open to it.


That is the current status of the law. A child conceived during marriage "belongs" to the woman's husband, even if the DNA shows differently.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I've only conceded the court's say on this because I don't see an Amendment passing through Congress anytime soon. Even before this election happened, and predating Obama. This country's partisan divide was already too deep in the 90's for there to ever be an Amendment passed in this country again... At least that's my opinion on that. It's no surprise that legal experts are trying other tactics to get government say on an issue.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join