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.

 

Brett Kavanaugh’s ‘Forced Abortion’

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I am saying when they make their opinions matter they are becoming activist judges. When they do their job right their opinions don't matter.




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

What's twisted?




The case, Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C., concerned three Jane Does with intellectual disabilities who said they were subjected to forcible surgical procedures in the 1970s through 1990swhile they were under the institutional care of D.C.’s then-Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Administration (now known as the Developmental Disabilities Administration).


Except blaming BK for snip he hasn't done.
edit on 30-9-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I am saying when they make their opinions matter they are becoming activist judges. When they do their job right their opinions don't matter.


When and IF they do their jobs right........but whose the arbiter of that?

LoL we cant make them do that.........so yes.......their opinions do matter because its conveyed in their rulings.......



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
As the parent and guardian of a disabled, non-verbal child, his ruling was dead wrong. Disabled people are not animals. Heck, I bet people would scream over their precious Fifi the Poodle having a forced, unsanctioned operation while border at a kennel. I bet there would be a massive lawsuit. I bet there would be screaming and consternation.

But a dog is “property.”

A parent and guardian are there to protect and advocate for children who, even as adults, are not able to do so for themselves. It is THEIR rights, legally speaking, AND the rights of the individual disabled person who were ignored IN FAVOR OF WHO? Who did this original law put over the disabled and their legal guardian ??

The State.

Ugh.

But I’m a little confused ManBehindtheMask, did Kavanugh uphold the former law in place at the time it happened (a terrible law) or apply the newer law? If he simply upheld the previous law then I’m not sure there would be a way to charge the state for what was legal at the time?? It should have been illegal, but that was not back then?

I’m so glad Human Rights for the disabled have vastly improved. Let’s not go back.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




But I’m a little confused ManBehindtheMask, did Kavanugh uphold the former law in place at the time it happened (a terrible law) or apply the newer law? If he simply upheld the previous law then I’m not sure there would be a way to charge the state for what was legal at the time?? It should have been illegal, but that was not back then?


To be honest this was my thought too......and im trying to suss that all out, admitedly I really dont know, I just posted this thread as more of an exercise in critical thinking and really sort of testing if what we think is right or if there is some middle ground or gray area......


Im really taking in what everyone is saying and trying , honestly to find out what i believe on some of the past rulings.....


As i said......this has no bearing to me on whats going on with this guy, I dont think its right at all......Im just trying to figure out who he is by his past rulings.......

(sorry im repetitive and not much sleep forgive me)
edit on 9/30/2018 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

You are so biased it's hilarious. You have a child deemed incompetent and gets pregnant. The pregnancy will likely kill them and they refuse to sign off on an abortion. You're going to let them die?

Disgusting.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

He upheld that the laws of the time were followed and there are additional safeguards already in place.

Exactly as he should.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AboveBoard

You are so biased it's hilarious.


Like s/he's the only one here.



You have a child deemed incompetent and gets pregnant. The pregnancy will likely kill them and they refuse to sign off on an abortion. You're going to let them die?


This is fact where? In your own mind?


Disgusting.


You're right. Attacking someone with experience is definitely that.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I created a hypothetical situation involving her wards to expose the hypocrisy.

Either these people can make decisions which we need to respect or they can't, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too because of your partisan hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

I created a hypothetical situation involving her wards to expose the hypocrisy.


So you want to inject fantasy into this discussion. That's easily dismissed as such.


...stop trying to have your cake and eat it too because of your partisan hypocrisy.


I was going to say that. My words would be true though.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AboveBoard

You are so biased it's hilarious. You have a child deemed incompetent and gets pregnant. The pregnancy will likely kill them and they refuse to sign off on an abortion. You're going to let them die?

Disgusting.


Dude, please read my entire post next time.

I’m questioning whether or not he ruled for a law that was in place during the time of the forced surgeries.

If he did, well then what else could he do? If he applied an older law to a situation that should have had the newer interpretation then it would have been grossly unjust. I don’t think that’s what he did based on the article.

Methinks your own bias prevented you from seeing past my rant about how horrible the original law was.




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

No, I want to expose hypocrisy. Either these people can make a decision about their care or they can't. Choose one.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

No, I want to expose hypocrisy.


Well this is a case where talking to one's self would garner results.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

I created a hypothetical situation involving her wards to expose the hypocrisy.

Either these people can make decisions which we need to respect or they can't, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too because of your partisan hypocrisy.


So is abortion right or wrong???

Theres nothing to indicate that actual pregnancy with said disabilities would be a detrriment so much......so?????

How can we say were anti abortion yet uphold this?

Does this not make us the same as Denmark who was in the news for cutting down syndrome down because they just aborted them?

if were going to make a stand.....lets be consistent or at least admit there are some grey areas and stop being so hateful to each other......



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

No you said his ruling was dead wrong and treated them like animals because of your bias.

It's a lie.

These people had guardians because they were deemed unable to make decisions. If you want to argue the guardians morally should have listened then that's your opinion.

His ruling is based in law, and nothing in his ruling treated anyone like an animal.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




But I’m a little confused ManBehindtheMask, did Kavanugh uphold the former law in place at the time it happened (a terrible law) or apply the newer law? If he simply upheld the previous law then I’m not sure there would be a way to charge the state for what was legal at the time?? It should have been illegal, but that was not back then?


In a nutshell he upheld the previous law because there is no way to charge the state for what was legal back then. I agree it should have been illegal at the time as per the new law which requires a court ruling.

As a side note people in care of the state regardless of which country and laws they have been in have been subjected to awful treatment by that state. Think electric shock therapy for the mentally ill etc... good thing times have changed.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

well said.....



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AboveBoard

No you said his ruling was dead wrong and treated them like animals because of your bias.

It's a lie.

These people had guardians because they were deemed unable to make decisions. If you want to argue the guardians morally should have listened then that's your opinion.

His ruling is based in law, and nothing in his ruling treated anyone like an animal.


So are we pro abortion or anti abortion?

And if this is his standpoint, which is fine its his own......do we support this.....



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I am for abortion. I just believe the criteria should be more limited in scope. Abortion is a valuable medical tool.

Again what we want to be law has no bearing on what the law is. All this does is make those crazy Democrats saying he will take away rights look crazy.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I am for abortion. I just believe the criteria should be more limited in scope. Abortion is a valuable medical tool.

Again what we want to be law has no bearing on what the law is. All this does is make those crazy Democrats saying he will take away rights look crazy.


Maybe, but that law CAN be overturned by the supreme court..............



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join