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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
a reply to: Isurrender73
a reply to: TrueBrit
I will say it again, the legislation proposed does not outlaw abortion, it simply sets a limit, returns parental rights and consent to the father as well, and even provides many exemptions to the per annum limit to cover for most concerns such as rape, medical danger, prison sentence and such.

Most people are against section 2, but are ok with section one. I don't understand why the man who helped create has no right to consent to the future and life or death decision of his baby. Her consent is mandatory for the actions that create the life. His consent should also be mandatory to destroy it, with a plethora of exemptions there as well.

Can anyone give me a valid reason a to why a woman would need more than one abortion a year that are not covered under the exemptions in section 1??? Other than "because its my choice how many times I want to destroy a life that someone else helped me create, whether it be for fun or science." With penalties in place, we can change the mindset of people towards a more responsible one with such legislation. As Grambler has pointed out, most of today's laws are variations of so called "legislating morality" . Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal. These are the cornerstones of most every civilized society on Earth. Any criminal would say its an infringement based on legislating morality.

But the deal is, abortion would still be legal, and many exemptions exist to account for the numerous legitimate reason already cited today for these terminations of life. Now I think the penalty is actually quite light. It is only a misdemeanor for the individual who is guilty of the crime. The physician will be charged with a felony. That alone will prevent most medical offices from going passed the limit.

I am working on the extra sections for funding for prevention (contraceptives and education), as well as how to deal with the pregnancies of a minor seeking abortion (parental rights vs the rights of the pregnant minor child), and how to address the subsidies for medical offices who accept federal dollars as payment of service(Medicaid/Medicare) vs. funding for services. I admit, its certainly going to require some thorough and carefully crafted sub sections, but I believe we can do it! I am taking into account as many of the concerns as I can and trying to reach a balance.

Man, if only more politicians would be as open to input when drafting laws.




posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I am fond of America and its people, so I certainly wish you all good fortune in the days to come.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Placing a limit is the same in this instance as outlawing it entirely, because it still seeks and demands a change in behaviour which you have no right under the law or God to insist upon in the slightest!

How clear can this be? You have no right to decide how many times a woman can become pregnant and decide to abort every year, you have no right to decide whether the sex she has is unprotected or not, you have no right to decide whether it is or is not a part of a long lasting relationship, you have no right to decide that there must be consequences attached to a failure to live by a moral code that you ONLY have the right to apply to YOURSELF.

None. It does not matter how you dress it up, it does not matter how well you lay it out, or whether you manage to get the thing to pass into law, because the thing is that you STILL will not have the RIGHT to make that choice on anyone's behalf but your own.

All you can do is live by your own example, but trying to force others to keep up with those morals you hold, is not something you have permission to do.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

Well, whatever next then? You cannot self stimulate because it violates the right of ones sperm to life and the pursuit of happiness, the fulfilment of biological imperatives? You cannot treat a virus because it is life, and killing it is murder? You cannot eat vegetables because they are living things, and uprooting them from the ground is to kill them? No meat for OBVIOUS reasons?

What nonsense is this? Foetuses are not living things in their own right till certain things are the case. I would say, if the baby could survive outside the womb without outright dying in all cases, it's alive, independent of, merely sustaining itself with aid from the mother, rather than reliant entirely upon her.

However, previous to that point, what you have is nothing more than a tumour putting on airs scientifically speaking, and whether you decide to allow that growth to continue till the stage where it DOES become a life or prevent it from doing so, from a coldly logical stand point, is a matter of no consequence at that stage, save for to the mother, for whom it might be understandably difficult.

Now, that is a VERY cold, bald statement of fact, without icing, sugar, or added preservatives of any kind, and I realise it may be unpleasant to hear, but it is also the only way to look at this without allowing religious or ideological bias into the equation.


I am saying exactly what you are saying here!

Once it is determined that the fetus is a viable life, then it is granted rights, such as the right to live. So it is no lnger a person telling a woman what she can do with her body, it then becomes telling a woman she can't harm another life.

My point is that it is a very difficult problem in determining when life begins. Notice I said that I don't think its conception. However, some people think it isn't a life until it is born, and so they would believe in the right to terminate even during a birth.

The point is it is not as cut and dry as people don't have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. The fact that we are relying on medical knowledge from 1973 to make these determinations is ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I disagree, again. Placing a limit on terminating life is not the same as outlawing it, mainly because, it is still legal to have the procedure. Do you disagree with Section 4, the criminal penalties for repeated termination of life without exemptions?? Or is it the entire thing in general??



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Once it is determined that the fetus is a viable life, then it is granted rights, such as the right to live. So it is no lnger a person telling a woman what she can do with her body, it then becomes telling a woman she can't harm another life.


That's a misstatement of the current law. From the point of viability, it becomes increasingly more measurable for the state to protect the viable fetus over the the convenience of the woman. Women aren't punished for risky behavior like skiing while pregnant, or having a cigarette and a glass wine.



However, some people think it isn't a life until it is born, and so they would believe in the right to terminate even during a birth.


BS! Nobody does that! Who says that?



The fact that we are relying on medical knowledge from 1973 to make these determinations is ridiculous.


Again, not true. Viability is viability.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




Most people are against section 2, but are ok with section one. I don't understand why the man who helped create has no right to consent to the future and life or death decision of his baby. Her consent is mandatory for the actions that create the life. His consent should also be mandatory to destroy it, with a plethora of exemptions there as well.


I gave you the best one in existence.... don't see where you've changed it. someone objected to bringing God into it and so you change that one.

maybe you think that the exceptions listed in section one carries over to section two. I don't think it would be read like that, and I kind of don't think you would mean it that way either, not unless a women could get one abortion a years without the father's consent, but not when it comes to a second abortion that year...
of which, I think women having two abortions in a year would be rather rare, and this is coming from someone who actually got gave birth and got pregnant in the same year. maybe, there's a big number doing this, but I would be surprised if there was.

but, you give those few women an exception to that rule concerning the life and health of the women.

but then when it comes to the father's consent... it is lacking. the supreme court, as it is today, would shoot it down in a heartbeat just because of this.

if you fixed that I have to say that the although alot of pro-choice people wouldn't like it, neither would alot of pro-life people. the prochoice would be saying you have no right to meddle, and you would have the pro-life people saying you didn't go far enough... you'd be fighting both groups.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I disagree with any alteration to the current system as it stands, because I believe that it would be a violation of the rights of women to have a say in the goings on in their body to change it from the way it is. Leave it alone. As it is, women are the masters of their bodies, and no person may tell them what they may and may not do with them, how often they may do it, when they may do it, why they may do it, or any other thing. That is fair. Anything else is not.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

so what is the penalty for the father who doesn't want to believe the doctors when they say the pregnancy is a danger and maybe even bribes them to say something different,
and because he stood between her and the abortion that would have prevented her from being in danger, she dies???



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My apologies!

Well, the issue of viability ought to be easy. There has to be a point which is common to all foetuses after which they could be taken alive from the womb and bought to term externally with a 99.9% chance of survival without significant brain damage, developmental problems with their organs or other prematurity related problems, right?

That should be the cut off. After that, no aborting. That's fair as can be, but there's no reason to put limitations on the number of times in a given period that a woman can have access to the procedure of having a baby aborted.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



BS! Nobody does that! Who says that?



I gotta leave soon or I would post more, but how about gr8scott on page three of this thread.


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.


Oh look, that post got seven stars!



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
it`s all pretty simple to me, if you want to support a bunch of welfare babies go right ahead but don`t tell me that I have to just because you have a religious objection to abortion.
that`s a personal religious issue,that has nothing to do with me, so again I say if you want to stop all the welfare mommas from getting abortions then YOU pay for all the welfare babies out of your wallet and leave my wallet alone.

nobody should be taxed to pay for the enforcement of someone else`s religious beliefs.


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



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
So here is a proposal I am making to really revamp our abortion laws


How about you stop sticking your nose into what other people are doing, and mind your own business? It does not concern you.
edit on 14-11-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So you found someone who doesn't understand the complications of pregnancy saying something ignorant. Still, what you are proposing is misleading nonsense and never legally happens, and is behavior not protected by Roe V Wade.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

So you found someone who doesn't understand the complications of pregnancy saying something ignorant. Still, what you are proposing is misleading nonsense and never legally happens, and is behavior not protected by Roe V Wade.



yet seven people starred it. Probably people we see posting on this very thread.

The real reason abortion is so controversial is that it is a difficult problem. Great minds on both sides have differing opinions on when "life" begins.

So it is absurd when people say its always a life and the woman has no sense, or its always just the womans body and no one else has a say.

Clearly the answer is somewhere in between. Yet we have many people on this thread saying its a simple matter, its the womans choice and no one else has a say. That is why I have been posting that it is a complicated issue.

You said no one thinks that could mean right up until birth, well at least one poster and seven other people just on this thread think so. And many other people take the stance that it is always a woman choice.

I want women and all people to have maximum freedom and choice, but when another life is at stake, there needs to be a serious discussion about how to navigate this, and just shouting its always a womans choice won't solve anything.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




yet seven people starred it.


That means nothing. This is ATS!



The real reason abortion is so controversial is that it is a difficult problem. Great minds on both sides have differing opinions on when "life" begins.


When "life" begins is not a real question. The question is when does it become valuable or "sacred". The timeless consensus has been upon quickening. (When the fetus starts moving/kicking)



You said no one thinks that could mean right up until birth


I said, or I'm saying it now, that no one goes out and has an abortion at 9 months because they lost their job or got into a fight with their baby daddy! If they did, no "legal" doctor would do it! The legal cut off for abortion on demand is viability. The only reason that abortions are done late is because of a dire diagnosis for the fetus and/or the mother. If the fetus is fine, but the mother is in distress, doctors will do a c-section, not an abortion.



I want women and all people to have maximum freedom and choice, but when another life is at stake, there needs to be a serious discussion about how to navigate this, and just shouting its always a woman's choice won't solve anything.


There has been a serious discussion. Roe V wade is the outcome of that discussion, and Roe V Wade isn't broken. If you think it is, where is it broken, please?
edit on 14-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
wtf is up with so many of the people who registered in 2016, seriously wtf



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: wheresthebody

An exciting election year, would be my guess.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join