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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


Again, this was my question. I think you have the right answer.

Please look deeper before you attack.

As to the decision making of disabled people, it differs wildly. I think it’s better to allow them to have some input if they are able, but if not, those that love the person (assuming they have such) are far better judges of what is in their child’s best interest than letting the State make decisions for everyone, including competent family or a legal guardian who loves the disabled individual.

I thought my conservative friends would find this a point of mutual agreement.

Would you agree?
edit on 30-9-2018 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


Again, this was my question. I think you have the right answer.

Please look deeper before you attack.


My attack was on you claiming he treated them like animals. He didn't. All he did was uphold the law as he should.

There is a difference between saying these guardians were not doing their job and Kavanaugh treating them like animals and dead wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:00 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.


Ack! You are right!!!

I edited the post further down after I’d censored my own initial horrified reaction and re-read the article!!

I understand now why you jumped on me.

If you look at the rest of my post, it reflects my reasoned response, and not my initial horror.

My apologies.

I sincerely thought I’d fixed it. I will leave it as it is so everyone can see the development of the discussion.


ETA: the original law treated them not much better than animals. I will stand by that! But that was not his doing or his fault. More the prejudices of the time were at play. People were encouraged to abandon kids to the state if they were disabled.
edit on 30-9-2018 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

As to my personal opinion I believe the guardian should always consult them and try to honor their wishes as much as possible. Kavanaughs ruling had nothing to do with that. It was whether the guardians followed the law of the time.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Ok we are good then. It was that first section that I had a problem with. The rest I didn't.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The people who decide their children need gender reassignment surgery are the same ones who will get upset over this article. In. My. Opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I ain't gonna get into weather or not Kav made the right decision here.
but, i've mention in a few threads throughout the year that I knew a lady that this was done to when I was living in NY.
Believe me, she wasn't so incompetent that she didn't have awareness of exactly what they forced onto her, nor was she so incompetent that she didn't have a strong opinion of what she wanted. I met her years later, and she still expressed a strong feeling of being violated, forced into doing something she didn't want to have done.

now, for the state's side, or what I could gather from what she told me. I don't know how she became pregnant weather she was institutionalized at the time or not. I really didn't ask many questions of her, I just let her talk and listened.. tried to show that I understood how she felt. From what I got out of the conversation was that the drugs they were giving her when she became pregnant had reacted very badly with the fetus. This was the state's justification for forcing the abortion.
I still don't know how I feel about this. having it forced onto her really was something she will carry for her lifetime. But did she understand what effect the drugs had had on the fetus. would she have been better off living with what would have happened if they had let the pregnancy go full term. I don't know, doubt if anyone on these boards knows.

but to whoever said that Roe v. Wade somehow caused this, this crap was going on long before roe v. wade was decided on!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Then she can sue for falsely calling her incompetent.

The question was whether the guardian could decide when someone is incompetent, nothing else.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


WOW! Look at all these Trump supporters defending eugenics! Margaret Sanger would be so proud of you all! /Sarcasm off



edit on 30-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Stop lying. We support a judge following the law and not being an activist judge creating law. That's not their role.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Stop lying.


How is this NOT eugenics? How is this not the same damned thing that you knuckleheads accuse Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood of?


Roe V Wade is setteled law, right? Or, are you and Kananaugh going to call pregnent women who seek abortion "mentally incapable" of making there own decision?

Stop being a lying hypocritte!

edit on 30-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

what we would hope for is what is in the best interest of the women in question...
weather incompetent or competent, to whatever degree, they should do all they can to give the women a voice in the decision and do their best to explain to her in a way she understands all the facts needed to make that decision to the best of her ability. not saying she can't be overridden in extreme circumstances, just that every effort should be made.
the medical profession should also have a voice, since they are the ones capable to assess the different aspects of the medical conditions.
the guardian is the third leg of the stool and you can only assume that that guardian has the women/girls best interest at heart, or that he is more capable of the women/girl really.
all three need to work together, sincerely, to come up with the best decision, preferably a decision that they all can agree with...
if no, well, then the legal system takes over sometimes. hopefully in an impartial, non-bias way.
but, in the case I am talking about the medical profession was saying the baby was badly deformed.
the father of the women, who would probably be considered her guardian when she wasn't institutionalized, was an alcoholic and was rather mean to her making it questionable weather he would have had her best interest as a top priority in him mind.

I guess what I am saying is that there is no cookie cutter answer that will apply to all cases.
in this case, it was the medical profession that the courts went with.
was that the right decision, was that was in the best interest of the women, did the father agree with this decision...
I have no idea.
but if any leg in that stool should have more standing, more of a voice, to me it should be the women herself... and if her voice is dismissed there should be some really good justifications for that..



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your post is so ridiculous it is unworthy of a real response.

I think you are right about Kavanaugh. He will declare all women unfit.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree, but is a completely separate topic than the one addressed here.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Your post is so ridiculous it is unworthy of a real response.


How is this NOT an example of eugenics. It's not a ridiculous question. Why won't you answer it?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

How is it Eugenics? Nobody was sterilised in anything discussed in this thread.
Nobody is calling for Eugenics get real.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

so, just what is the topic??
he referred to a law that didn't exist when these people's rights were stripped of them and I am really not sure if he addressed their complaint in that respect. he only said that well, we corrected the laws, so all is well..
maybe I am wrong, but that is what it sounds like to me.
to me, you would have to be pretty bad off before your desires when it comes the healthcare is laid aside while gov't agencies, with or without medical support, is able to make that decision. I would hope everyone would agree with that statement, since I am sure that I ain't the only one who can see the gov't and healthcare establishments getting together and we end up with a bunch of forced needless medical care that only serves to enrich both the healthcare industry and the polywog's pockets along with maybe some medical experimentations and like some have mentioned... eugenics taking place.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

We should always be on guard with gov and big pharma getting in bed together.

But when a couple who are incapable of raising children get in bed together and make babies and the state has to step in to take care of those kids, are the parents ever sterilised? If the answer is no then what does Eugenics have to do with anything?

Having forced abortions is a sensitive issue but can you not think of an instance where it might be necessary? Otherwise the child would have to be taken away from them regardless if they are incapable of raising it. So it more about how you feel about abortion being right or wrong than anything to do with Eugenics.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul


Forced sterilization/abortion of a population of undesirables is eugenics.

This is a slippery slope, especial since there are states trying to make it illegal to have an abortion based on a down syndrome fetal diagnosis. So, the state can force a woman to give birth to a down syndrome child and then force that child's sterilizatioabortion. Something's wrong there.



edit on 30-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Not sure that I'd even disagree with him here...







 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join